Policy

how-strong-is-new-york’s-“illegal-gambling”-case-against-valve’s-loot-boxes?

How strong is New York’s “illegal gambling” case against Valve’s loot boxes?

“Calling it gambling because a user could, through several indirect steps, convert an item into cash risks stretching gambling law beyond its traditional limits,” Loiterman said. “If New York’s theory wins, it raises uncomfortable questions about things like Pokémon cards or promotional games (e.g. McDonald’s Monopoly). Courts will be cautious about going that far.”

New York also argues that Valve tacitly endorses third-party services that allow players to easily “cash out” their Steam inventories for real money. Whether Valve is culpable for the existence of those services is still an unsettled question in the law, Methenitis said, as it has been at least since he wrote about the legal implications of World of Warcraft‘s third-party gold resellers nearly two decades ago.

“I think companies have a pretty strong [legal] argument if they make some attempts to police [third-party resellers]—they obviously can’t fully control what people do outside their platform,” Methenitis said. “But if they turn a blind eye to it and allow it, I think they could be found liable.” Loiterman agreed that Valve “providing the tools that enable those [third-party] markets and tolerating them creates some degree of responsibility.”

“Judges tend to be cautious…”

In the end, the lawyers Ars spoke to were generally skeptical that courts would determine that Valve’s loot box system constitutes illegal gambling. Cases making similar arguments about other loot box systems have failed in other jurisdictions, “in part because gambling laws were drafted with casinos and lotteries in mind,” Loiterman said. “Judges tend to be cautious about breaking from an emerging consensus.”

Hoeg agreed that “the entire question [in this case] is novel, and… the courts are (small-‘c’) conservative institutions, not generally wanting to adopt novel arguments without direction from the legislative branches.” Even if Valve’s loot box system “may start to smell a bit like gambling,” Hoeg said he would “honestly be surprised if the courts went along with the characterization without a new law aimed at it.”

“I view it as a weak case offered primarily for political grandstanding/coverage over real legal effect,” Hoeg concluded. “We shall see, though.”

How strong is New York’s “illegal gambling” case against Valve’s loot boxes? Read More »

netflix-cedes-warner-bros.-discovery-to-paramount:-“no-longer-financially-attractive”

Netflix cedes Warner Bros. Discovery to Paramount: “No longer financially attractive”

On Thursday, WBD’s board deemed Paramount’s revamped offer “superior,” giving Netflix four business days to match it. But that same day, Netflix, which had recently emphasized its willingness to walk away from mergers it deems overly expensive, said it would no longer pursue the acquisition.

A statement from Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters issued last night said:

The transaction we negotiated would have created shareholder value with a clear path to regulatory approval. However, we’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid.

The CEOs added that the WBD merger “was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price.”

Netflix and Paramount’s stock have continuously declined since Netflix announced its planned merger. Following yesterday’s announcement, Netflix shares rose by more than 10 percent in after-hours trading, and Paramount shares increased by 5 percent.

In a statement quoted by The Hollywood Reporter yesterday, WBD President and CEO David Zaslav said, “Once our board votes to adopt the Paramount merger agreement, it will create tremendous value for our shareholders. We are excited about the potential of a combined Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery and can’t wait to get started working together telling the stories that move the world.”

The article was edited to correct ticking fee information. 

Netflix cedes Warner Bros. Discovery to Paramount: “No longer financially attractive” Read More »

xai-spent-$7m-building-wall-that-barely-muffles-annoying-power-plant-noise

xAI spent $7M building wall that barely muffles annoying power plant noise


“Temu sound wall” not enough to quell fury over xAI’s power plant.

For miles around xAI’s makeshift power plant in Southaven, Mississippi, neighbors have endured months of constant roaring, erupting pops, and bursts of high-pitched whining from 27 temporary gas turbines installed without consulting the community.

In a report on Thursday, NBC News interviewed residents fighting to shut down xAI’s turbines. They confirmed that xAI operates the turbines day and night, allegedly tormenting residents in order to power xAI founder Elon Musk’s unbridled AI ambitions.

Eventually, 41 permanent gas turbines—that supposedly won’t be as noisy—will be installed, if xAI can secure the permitting. In the meantime, xAI has erected a $7 million “sound barrier” that’s supposed to mitigate some of the noise.

However, residents told NBC News that the wall that xAI built does little to quiet the din.

Taylor Logsdon, who lives near the power plant, said that neighbors nearby jokingly call it the “Temu sound wall,” referencing the Chinese e-commerce site known for peddling cheap, rather than high-quality goods. For Logsdon, the wall has not helped to calm her dogs, which have been unsettled by sudden booms and squeals that videos show can frequently be heard amid the turbines’ continual jet engine-like hum. Some residents are just as unsettled as the dogs, describing the noises from the plant as “scary.”

A nonprofit environmental advocacy group, the Safe and Sound Coalition, has been collecting evidence, hoping to raise awareness in the community to block xAI from obtaining permits for its permanent turbines. The group’s website links to videos documenting the noise, noise analysis reports, and public records showing how challenging it’s been to track xAI’s communications with public officials.

Safe and Sound Coalition video documents constant roars after a “loud bang” signaled “something popped off.”

For example, public records requests to the city of Southaven seeking information on xAI exemptions to noise ordinances or communications about the sound wall turned up nothing. A director overseeing the city’s planning and development claimed that the office was not “involved with the noise barrier wall” and could provide no details. Similarly, a permit clerk for the city’s building department confirmed there were no documents to share.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for the coalition told Ars that the “absence of documentation raises transparency concerns.”

“When decisions with community impact are made without accessible records, it creates an accountability gap and limits the public’s ability to understand how those decisions were evaluated or authorized,” the spokesperson said.

An IT worker who co-founded the coalition, Jason Haley, told NBC News that xAI’s wall showed that the city could have required the company to do more to prevent noise pollution before upsetting community members.

“If you knew the noise was going to be an issue, put in a sound wall first,” Haley said. “Do some other stuff first before you torture us. That’s not that hard of an ask.”

xAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment. According to NBC News, the company has yet to make public a noise analysis that it conducted.

xAI’s turbines spark other concerns

xAI has maintained that it follows the law when rushing at breakneck speeds to build infrastructure to support its AI innovations. In Southaven, xAI was approved to operate the temporary gas turbines at the power plant for 12 months, without any additional permitting required.

Now it’s seeking permits for the permanent turbines, which residents worry could be nearly as loud, while possibly introducing more smog into an area that’s mostly homes, churches, parks, and schools, the Safe and Sound Coalition’s website said.

Pollutants could increase risks of asthma, heart attacks, stroke, and cancer, a community flyer the coalition distributed warned, urging attendance at a public meeting where residents could finally air their complaints (a meeting which NBC News’ report thoroughly documented). The flyer also suggested that the city’s main drinking water supply could be affected and perhaps tainted if the power plant’s wastewater contains toxic chemicals, since there isn’t a graywater recycling plant nearby. For residents, it’s hard to tell if things will ever get better. One noise analysis the coalition shared found that the daily sound of the turbines was higher on an “annoyance scale” than when entire neighborhoods set off New Year’s Eve fireworks.

“Our water, air, power grid, utility bills, property values, and health are all at risk,” the Safe and Sound Coalition’s website said. “We’re already facing toxic pollution and relentless industrial noise. There is no clear oversight, no transparency, and no plan to protect the people living nearby.”

The coalition expects that if enough community members protest the plant, the permitting agency will deny xAI’s permits and order any potentially dangerous turbines to be shut down. But other groups are taking a different approach, considering suing xAI if it continues operating the unpermitted gas turbines in Southaven.

Earlier this month, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) joined the NAACP in sending xAI a notice of intent to sue. In that letter, groups warned that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently changed a rule that they argued now requires permits for the temporary turbines. They gave xAI 60 days to respond.

The same groups previously sent a legal threat to xAI, opposing alleged data center pollution in Memphis, Tenn. xAI eventually secured permits for some of the gas turbines sparking scrutiny there, which many locals found “devastating.” Further concerning, residents relying on drone imagery—with no other way to keep track of how many turbines xAI was running—warned that the permits only covered 15 of 24 turbines on site.

EPA shrugs off xAI permitting concerns

It’s unclear whether the SELC can win if it takes xAI to court, or whether the EPA would ever intervene if that action could be construed as delaying Trump’s order to rush permitting and build as many data centers as fast as possible to power AI.

The SELC declined Ars’ request to comment, but the EPA’s administrator, Lee Zeldin, seemed to negate that argument in an interview with Fox Business in January. Asked directly about xAI’s gas turbines, Zeldin confirmed that the EPA was working closely on permitting with local officials in Southaven and Shelby County—where xAI built a massive data center sparking protests.

Rather than suggesting that the EPA might be preparing to review xAI’s unpermitted gas turbines, Zeldin emphasized that for Donald Trump, it “is about getting permits done faster.”

“EPA has the power to slow things down; EPA also has the power to speed things up, and that’s where the Trump EPA is,” Zeldin said.

Permitting for the Southaven project’s permanent gas turbines may be approved as soon as next month, NBC News reported.

Residents skeptical second sound barrier will be better

For Southaven, xAI’s power plant—along with a planned data center, which Musk has dubbed “MACROHARDRR” to mock Microsoft—represents a chance to surge the local economy. That prospect seemingly swayed government support for the projects, which has apparently not waned in the face of mounting protests.

When Musk bought the dormant power plant, “it was the largest private investment in state history,” Tate Reeves, Mississippi’s Republican governor, claimed. Additionally, xAI’s affiliated company that’s behind the projects, MZX Tech, donated $1.38 million to the city’s police department, NBC News reported. Both the plant and the data center “are expected to bring in millions of dollars and new jobs,” Reeves said.

For Southaven residents, the only hope they have that the noise may die down any time soon is that construction on another sound barrier will be finished in the next two months, NBC News reported. Supposedly, engineers were taking time to study “what type of sound barrier would be most effective” amid complaints about the current sound barrier.

A spokesperson for the Safe and Sound Coalition told Ars that the group remains “skeptical” that the new wall will be any better than the first sound barrier.

“To our understanding, sound barriers can reduce certain frequencies under controlled conditions, but turbine noise involves low-frequency sounds and tonal components that often reach beyond barriers,” the coalition’s spokesperson said. “The most effective method for reducing industrial noise exposure is typically distance from residential areas, which is not a mitigation option in this scenario given the facility’s proximity to homes.”

The coalition urged xAI to be transparent and to share data backing mitigation claims if it wants the community to believe that the second sound barrier will make any difference.

“Without transparent modeling, validated field measurements, and independent verification, it is difficult to assess whether the barrier will meaningfully address the ongoing nuisance experienced by nearby residents,” the coalition’s spokesperson said. “Mitigation claims are only meaningful if they are supported by transparent data.”

Mayor labels protestors Musk haters

At least one city official, Mayor Darren Musselwhite, has suggested that community backlash is “political.” Although he acknowledged that the noise was a “legitimate concern,” he also claimed on Facebook that some people protesting xAI’s facility were simply Elon Musk haters, NBC News reported.

“Southaven is now under attack by all who choose to oppose Elon Musk because of his high-profile political stances,” Musselwhite wrote.

However, residents told NBC News that “their concerns have nothing to do with politics.” One person interviewed even praised Musk’s work with the Department of Government Efficiency.

Instead, they’re worried that local officials seeing dollar signs have potentially let xAI exploit loopholes to pollute communities without any warning. The community flyer from the Safe and Sound Coalition criticized what they viewed as shady behavior from local officials:

“This project was started behind our backs, with zero community input. Local officials have repeatedly downplayed concerns, spun the facts, and misled residents about the true impacts and the deals made with xAI. Many people only found out after the turbines were up and running.”

The coalition’s spokesperson told Ars that a health impact analysis published on behalf of the SELC provides “meaningful insight” into the biggest health risks. That concluded that using the EPA’s COBRA health impact model, emissions from running 41 permanent turbines at the Southaven plant “are estimated to result in $30–$44 million per year in health-related damages, including costs from premature deaths, hospital visits, and lost productivity. Over a typical 30-year operating life, these impacts would amount to approximately $588–$862 million in cumulative discounted public-health costs, borne largely by residents of Tennessee and Mississippi.”

Additionally, the largest amount of harmful pollutants increases are expected to be “concentrated in communities that are disproportionately Black, highly socially vulnerable, and have elevated baseline asthma prevalence,” the report said.

If the permits are issued, the Coalition’s spokesperson told Ars that the group expects to continue gathering reports of “firsthand experiences” from nearby residents, which will “continue to provide valuable information regarding ongoing impacts.” The group plans to continue engaging with officials and pushing for greater accountability and transparent monitoring, as well as documenting noise conditions, reviewing emissions reports, and collecting independent data where feasible.

“The Coalition’s focus is long-term community protection, which means tracking compliance, advocating for corrective action if standards are not met, and ensuring residents have access to accurate information about environmental and health impacts,” the spokesperson said. “Permit approval would not resolve community concerns; it would shift our focus toward ongoing oversight and enforcement.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

xAI spent $7M building wall that barely muffles annoying power plant noise Read More »

new-york-sues-valve-for-enabling-“illegal-gambling”-with-loot-boxes

New York sues Valve for enabling “illegal gambling” with loot boxes

Opening a valuable skin like this in a loot box is akin to winning a lottery, New York alleges in a new lawsuit.

Opening a valuable skin like this in a loot box is akin to winning a lottery, New York alleges in a new lawsuit. Credit: Twitter / Luksusbums

The lawsuit also takes Valve to task for allowing third-party sites that facilitate the resale of in-game skins for cash. While the suit notes that Valve has “sporadically enforced” rules against so-called skin gambling sites—which use Steam inventories as virtual chips for gambling games—it alleges that Valve “has not acted against sites that permit the sale of Valve’s virtual items.” The suit cites “internal communications” from numerous Valve employees suggesting that the company was OK with such “cash-out services” for Steam items as long as off-platform gambling wasn’t explicitly involved.

We’ll see you in court

In a press release announcing the suit, state Attorney General Letitia James said the gambling Valve’s system enables can “lead to serious addiction problems, especially for our young people. … These features are addictive, harmful, and illegal, and my office is suing to stop Valve’s illegal conduct and protect New Yorkers.”

In 2016, Valve faced a pair of civil lawsuits from parents concerned about Valve’s connection to skin gambling sites—those suits were eventually dismissed. Around the same time, Valve received a letter from Washington state threatening “civil or criminal action” if Valve didn’t crack down on skin gambling, but the state stopped short of filing a lawsuit in that matter.

In addition to asking Valve to modify or eliminate its loot box system, the New York suit asks for Valve to make “full restitution to consumers” for the disgorgement of “all monies” received from its gambling system, and for fines of “three times the amount of its gain.” Ars Technica has reached out to Valve for comment.

New York sues Valve for enabling “illegal gambling” with loot boxes Read More »

musk-has-no-proof-openai-stole-xai-trade-secrets,-judge-rules,-tossing-lawsuit

Musk has no proof OpenAI stole xAI trade secrets, judge rules, tossing lawsuit


Hostility is not proof of theft

Even twisting an ex-employee’s text to favor xAI’s reading fails to sway judge.

Elon Musk appears to be grasping at straws in a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of poaching eight xAI employees in an allegedly unlawful bid to access xAI trade secrets connected to its data centers and chatbot, Grok.

In a Tuesday order granting OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, US District Judge Rita F. Lin said that xAI failed to provide evidence of any misconduct from OpenAI.

Instead, xAI seemed fixated on a range of alleged conduct of former employees. But in assessing xAI’s claims, Lin said that xAI failed to show proof that OpenAI induced any of these employees to steal trade secrets “or that these former xAI employees used any stolen trade secrets once employed by OpenAI.”

Two employees admitted to stealing confidential information, with both downloading xAI’s source code and one improperly grabbing a supposedly sensitive recording from a Musk “All Hands” meeting. But the rest were either accused of retaining seemingly less consequential data, like retaining work chats on their devices, or didn’t seem to hold any confidential information at all. Lin called out particularly weak arguments that xAI’s complaint acknowledged that one employee who OpenAI poached never received access to confidential information allegedly sought after exiting xAI, and two employees were lumped into the complaint who “simply left xAI for OpenAI,” Lin noted.

From the limited evidence, Lin concluded that “while xAI may state misappropriation claims against a couple of its former employees, it does not state a plausible misappropriation claim against OpenAI.”

Lin’s order will likely not be the end of the litigation, as she is allowing xAI to amend its complaint to address the current deficiencies.

Ars could not immediately reach xAI for comment, so it’s unclear what steps xAI may take next.

However, xAI seems unlikely to give up the fight, which OpenAI has alleged is part of a “harassment campaign” that Musk is waging through multiple lawsuits attacking his biggest competitor’s business practices.

Unsurprisingly, OpenAI celebrated the order on X, alleging that “this baseless lawsuit was never anything more than yet another front in Mr. Musk’s ongoing campaign of harassment.”

Other tech companies poaching talent for AI projects will likely be relieved while reading Lin’s order. Commercial litigator Sarah Tishler told Ars that the order “boils down to a fundamental concept in trade secret law: hiring from a competitor is not the same as stealing trade secrets from one.”

“Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, xAI has to show that OpenAI actually received and used the alleged trade secrets, not just that it hired employees who may have taken them,” Tishler said. “Suspicious timing, aggressive recruiting, and even downloaded files are not enough on their own.”

Tishler suggested that the ruling will likely be welcomed by AI firms eager to secure the best talent without incurring legal risks from their hiring practices.

“In the AI industry, where talent moves fast and the competitive stakes are enormous, this ruling reaffirms that suspicion is not enough,” Tishler said. “You have to show the stolen information actually made it into the competitor’s hands and was put to use.”

OpenAI not liable for engineers swiping source code

Through the lawsuit, Musk has alleged that OpenAI is violating California’s unfair competition law. He claims that OpenAI is attempting “to destroy legitimate competition in the AI industry by neutralizing xAI’s innovations” and forcing xAI “to unfairly compete against its own trade secrets.”

But this claim hinges entirely upon xAI proving that OpenAI poached its employees to steal its trade secrets. So, for xAI’s lawsuit to proceed, xAI will need to beef up the evidence base for its other claim, that OpenAI has violated the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, Lin said. To succeed on that, xAI must prove that OpenAI unlawfully acquired, disclosed, or used a trade secret with xAI’s consent.

That will likely be challenging because xAI, at this point, has not offered “any nonconclusory allegations that OpenAI itself acquired, disclosed, or used xAI’s trade secrets,” Lin wrote.

All xAI has claimed is that OpenAI induced former employees to share secrets, and so far, nothing backs that claim, Lin said. Tishler noted that the court also rejected an xAI theory that “OpenAI should be responsible for what its new hires did before they arrived” for “the same reason: without evidence that OpenAI directed the theft or actually put the stolen information to use, you cannot hold the company liable.”

The strongest evidence that xAI had of employee misconduct, allegedly allowing OpenAI to misappropriate xAI trade secrets, revolves around the departure of one of xAI’s earliest engineers, Xuechen Li.

That evidence wasn’t enough, Lin said. xAI alleged that Li gave a presentation to OpenAI that supposedly included confidential information. Li also uploaded “the entire xAI source code base to a personal cloud account,” which he had connected to ChatGPT, Lin noted, after a recruiter sent a message on Signal sharing a link with Li to another unrelated cloud storage location.

xAI hoped the Signal messages would shock the court, expecting it to read through the lines the way xAI did. As proof that OpenAI allegedly got access to xAI’s source code, xAI pointed to a Signal message that an OpenAI recruiter sent to Li “four hours after” Li downloaded the source code, saying “nw!” xAI has alleged this message is short-hand for “no way!”—suggesting the OpenAI recruiter was geeked to get access to xAI’s source code. But in a footnote, Lin said that “OpenAI insists that ‘nw’ means ‘no worries,’” and thus is unconnected to Li’s decision to upload the source code to a ChatGPT-linked cloud account.

Even interpreting the text using xAI’s reading, however, xAI did not show enough to prove the recruiter or OpenAI accessed or requested the files, Lin said.

It also didn’t help xAI’s case that a temporary injunction that xAI secured in a separate lawsuit targeting the engineer blocked Li from accepting a job at OpenAI.

That injunction led OpenAI to withdraw its job offer to Li. And that’s a problem for xAI, because since Li never worked at OpenAI, it’s clear that he never used xAI’s trade secrets while working for OpenAI.

Further weakening xAI’s arguments, if Li indeed shared confidential information during his presentation while interviewing for OpenAI, xAI has alleged no facts suggesting that OpenAI was aware Li was sharing xAI trade secrets, Lin wrote.

This “makes it very hard to argue OpenAI ever used anything he allegedly took,” Tishler told Ars.

Another former xAI engineer, Jimmy Fraiture, was accused of copying xAI trade secrets, but Fraiture has said he deleted the information he improperly downloaded before starting his job at OpenAI. Importantly, Lin said, since he joined OpenAI, there’s no evidence that he used xAI trade secrets to benefit xAI’s rival.

“Other than the bare fact that Fraiture had been recruited” by the same OpenAI employee “who had also recruited Li, xAI does not allege any facts indicating that OpenAI had encouraged Fraiture to take xAI’s confidential information in the first place,” Lin wrote.

Since “none of the other former employees allegedly shared with or disclosed to OpenAI any xAI trade secrets,” xAI could not advance its claim that OpenAI misappropriated trade secrets based only on allegations tied to Li and Fraiture’s supposed misconduct, Lin said.

xAI may be able to amend its complaint to maintain these arguments, but the company has thus far presented scant, purely circumstantial evidence.

It’s possible that xAI will secure more evidence to support its misappropriation claims against OpenAI in its ongoing lawsuit against Li. Ars could not immediately reach Li’s lawyer to find out if today’s ruling may impact that case.

Ex-executive’s “hostility” is not proof of theft

Among the least convincing arguments that xAI raised was a claim that an unnamed finance executive left xAI to take a “lesser role” at OpenAI after learning everything he knew about data centers from xAI.

That executive slighted xAI when Musk’s company later attempted to inquire about “confidentiality concerns.”

“Suck my dick,” the former xAI executive allegedly said, refusing to explain how his OpenAI work might overlap with his xAI position. “Leave me the fuck alone.”

xAI tried to argue that the executive’s hostility was proof of misconduct. But Lin wrote that xAI only alleged that the executive “merely possessed xAI trade secrets about data centers” and did not allege that he ever used trade secrets to benefit OpenAI.

Had xAI found evidence that OpenAI’s data center strategy suddenly mirrored xAI’s after the executive joined xAI’s rival, that may have helped xAI’s case. But there are plenty of reasons a former employee might reject an ex-employer’s outreach following an exit, Lin suggested.

“His hostility when xAI reached out about its confidentiality concerns also does not support a plausible inference of use,” Lin wrote. “Hostility toward one’s former employer during departure does not, without more, indicate use of trade secrets in a subsequent job. Nor does the executive’s lack of experience with AI data centers before his time at xAI, without more, support a plausible inference that he used xAI’s trade secrets at OpenAI.”

xAI has until March 17 to amend its complaint to keep up this particular fight against OpenAI. But the company won’t be able to add any new claims or parties, Lin noted, “or otherwise change the allegations except to correct the identified deficiencies.”

Criminal probe likely leaves OpenAI on pins

For Li, the engineer accused of disclosing xAI trade secrets with OpenAI, the litigation could eliminate one front of discovery as he navigates two other legal fights over xAI’s trade secrets claims.

Tishler has been closely monitoring xAI’s trade secret legal battles. In October, she noted that Li is in a particularly prickly position, facing pressure in civil litigation from Musk to turn over data that could be used against him in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s criminal investigation into Musk’s allegations. As Tishler explained:

“The practical reality is stark: Li faces a choice between protecting himself in the criminal action with his silence, and the civil consequences of doing so. Refuse to answer, and xAI could argue adverse inferences; answer, and the responses could feed the criminal case.”

Ultimately, the FBI is trying to prove that Li stole information that qualified as a trade secret and intended to use it for OpenAI’s benefit, while knowing that it would harm xAI. If they succeed, “xAI would suddenly have a government-backed record that its trade secrets were stolen,” Tishler wrote.

If xAI were so armed and able to keep the OpenAI lawsuit alive, the central question in the lawsuit that Lin dismissed today would shift, Tishler suggested, from “was there a theft?” to “what did OpenAI know, and when did it know it?”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Musk has no proof OpenAI stole xAI trade secrets, judge rules, tossing lawsuit Read More »

judge-doesn’t-trust-doj-with-search-of-devices-seized-from-wash.-post-reporter

Judge doesn’t trust DOJ with search of devices seized from Wash. Post reporter


Let me search that for you

Court to search devices itself instead of letting government have full access.

The Washington Post building on August 6, 2013 in Washington, DC, Credit: Getty Images | Saul Loeb

A federal court will conduct a search of devices seized from a Washington Post reporter after a magistrate judge decided yesterday that the Department of Justice cannot be trusted to perform the search on its own.

US Magistrate Judge William Porter criticized government prosecutors for not including key information in a search warrant application. The court wasn’t aware of a 1980 law that limits searches and seizures of journalists’ work materials when it approved the warrant, Porter acknowledged.

The decision came six weeks after the FBI executed the search warrant at the Virginia home of reporter Hannah Natanson. Porter declined the Post and Natanson’s request to return the devices immediately but decided on a court-led process to ensure that the search is limited to materials that may aid a criminal case against an alleged leaker who was in contact with Natanson. He also rescinded the portion of the search warrant that authorized the government to open, access, review, or otherwise examine the seized data.

“The government acknowledges that it established probable cause to obtain only a small fraction of the material it seized,” Porter wrote in yesterday’s order. “Allowing the government to search through the entirety of a reporter’s work product—when probable cause exists for only a narrow subset—would authorize an unlawful general warrant.”

Porter’s ruling said the government’s proposed search would also violate the Department of Justice’s own guidelines that search warrants directed at the press must be narrowly drawn and that searches of materials must be designed to minimize intrusion into newsgathering activities and materials that are unrelated to the investigation. Keyword searches can be used to limit the intrusion, but Porter rejected the government’s request to use its own “filter team” to conduct the search.

“Given the documented reporting on government leak investigations and the government’s well-chronicled efforts to stop them, allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product—most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources—is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” Porter wrote.

Rejecting what he called an “unsupervised, wholesale search of all Movants’ seized data,” Porter said the court will develop a process for the search in consultation with the parties involved in the case.

US prosecuting alleged leaker

The US is seeking information for its prosecution of Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor accused of leaking classified information to Natanson. Porter wrote that the court will conduct the search to “gather the information the government needs to prosecute its criminal case without authorizing an unrestrained search and violating Movants’ First Amendment and attorney-client privileges.”

Porter, who presides in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, said that a 4th Circuit appeals court precedent mandates this result. The US could appeal Porter’s ruling to that court.

On January 21, Porter ordered the government to stop its search of Natanson’s devices until further decisions from the court. That standstill order will remain in effect while the court conducts its review of the seized materials. Porter denied the Post and Natanson’s motion to return seized materials without prejudice and said that issue will be taken up in future proceedings.

The government started searching devices before the standstill order and was able to access Natanson’s work MacBook Pro by compelling her to unlock it with her fingerprint. But the government said it was unable to access data from the iPhone because it was protected by Apple’s Lockdown Mode. Natanson has said she uses encrypted Signal chats to communicate with sources and that her list of contacts exceeds 1,100 current and former government employees.

Porter’s ruling recounted the events leading to the government search of Natanson’s home. He said the government’s search warrant application should have discussed limitations imposed by the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) of 1980.

Porter said magistrate judges give the government some leeway in their role “as probable cause gatekeepers for search warrants,” given the “fast-paced environment” in which the requests are processed. The Natanson search warrant was one of 46 requested by the government that week.

Court admits “gap” in its analysis

Porter admitted that he was unaware of the PPA’s existence at the time he approved the warrant application:

As the judge who found probable cause and approved the search warrant, the Court acknowledges that it did not independently identify the PPA when reviewing the warrant application. As far as this Court knows, courts have approved search warrants directed at members of the press in only a handful of instances. This Court had never received such an application and, at the time it approved the warrant, was unaware of the PPA. This Court’s review was limited to probable cause, and the Court accepts that gap in its own analysis.

Porter went on to say that “the government’s failure to identify the PPA as applicable to a request for a search warrant on a member of the press—and to analyze it in its warrant application… has seriously undermined the Court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding.”

The PPA, he wrote, generally prohibits government officers “from searching for or seizing ‘work product materials’ or ‘documentary materials’ possessed by a person ‘reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication.’” There are exceptions allowing search warrants when a reporter is suspected of a crime, when a seizure is needed to prevent death or serious injury, or when there is reason to believe that issuing a subpoena would result in the destruction of documents.

A Washington Post article said that Porter “scolded prosecutors about this omission at a hearing on the search warrant in an Alexandria courthouse Friday.” Prosecutor Gordon Kromberg reportedly responded that he didn’t mention the law in the application because he didn’t believe it applied to the case.

Porter’s ruling said that if the government had mentioned the law in its application, “the Court may well have rejected the search warrant application and directed the government to proceed by subpoena instead. At the very least, it would have asked more questions. The government deprived the Court of the opportunity to make those real-time decisions.”

Judge should have gone further, press group says

Even without being aware of the PPA, the court did not approve the Natanson warrant right away. Porter’s order said the court rejected the government’s first two requests for a search warrant because they were too broad. The court was “concerned about both the scope of the proposed search warrant and the government’s apparent attempt to collect information about Ms. Natanson’s confidential sources,” he wrote.

The search warrant ultimately approved by the court was limited to information that Natanson received from Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones and information related to Perez-Lugones that could be evidence in the case against him.

“The government expressly alleged that Ms. Natanson received classified information from Mr. Perez-Lugones,” but its search warrant application did not say whether Natanson herself was a target of the criminal investigation, Porter wrote. “The Court learned that Ms. Natanson was not a focus of the investigation only through press reports published the day the warrant was executed,” he wrote.

Porter said the court has to take seriously the government’s claim that the case “involves top secret national security information,” even though the court doesn’t know whether disclosure of the information would cause harm. “The Court takes the government at its word, while acknowledging the well-documented concern that the government has at times overclassified information to avoid embarrassing disclosures rather than to protect genuine secrets,” he wrote.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation said that “Judge Porter was right to treat the seizure as a prior restraint and to limit the government from fishing through the irrelevant data it seized to snoop on reporters,” and right to reprimand prosecutors for the omission in their search warrant application. But the order didn’t go far enough, the foundation said.

“Judge Porter should have required all of Natanson’s materials seized pursuant to the deceptive warrant application to be returned to her,” the group said. “And he should not have credited the administration’s claims that any of the seized materials posed a national security threat without strict proof—as Judge Porter acknowledged, this administration, even more so than others, has a long track record of falsely claiming national security threats to protect itself from embarrassment and further its political agenda. It has earned zero deference from the judiciary on claims of national security threats, particularly when press freedom is at stake.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Judge doesn’t trust DOJ with search of devices seized from Wash. Post reporter Read More »

dji-sues-the-fcc-for-“carelessly”-restricting-its-drones

DJI sues the FCC for “carelessly” restricting its drones

DJI, the most popular consumer drone maker, is suing over the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s import ban against new, foreign-made drones, which has been in effect since December 23, 2025.

On Tuesday, the Shenzhen-headquartered company filed a petition [PDF] with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that seeks to overturn the FCC’s decision to list DJI on its Covered List. The Covered List includes communications equipment and services that are “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons,” per the FCC.

In its petition dated February 20, 2026, DJI said:

Petitioners seek review of the Ruling on the ground that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to observe statutorily required procedures, and violated the Fifth Amendment when it purported to add DJI’s products to the Covered List. Petitioners respectfully request his Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Ruling and grant any other relief that the Court finds proper.

In January, the FCC exempted a limited number of foreign-made drones, including some coming from Europe, until the end of this year. The FCC also provided exemptions for some foreign-made critical drone components, including those from Japanese companies Sony and Panasonic, and South Korean company Samsung. The FCC hasn’t exempted any drones or drone parts made in China.

In a December 22 statement, the FCC said that “criminals, hostile foreign actors, and terrorists can use [drones] to present new and serious threats to our homeland.” The FCC said at the time that it made its decision about the ban after a review by an Executive Branch interagency body review that it said had “appropriate national security expertise” and “was convened by the White House.”

DJI reportedly requested that the US government audit its devices multiple times before the US issued the import ban.

In a company statement shared with Bloomberg today, DJI said:

Despite repeated efforts to engage with the government, DJI has never been given the chance to provide information to address or refute any concerns. These procedural and substantive deficiencies violate the Constitution and federal law.

In a statement to Reuters today, DJI also said that the FCC’s decision “carelessly restricts DJI’s business in the US and summarily denies U.S. customers access to its latest technology.”

DJI sues the FCC for “carelessly” restricting its drones Read More »

uk-fines-reddit-for-not-checking-user-ages-aggressively-enough

UK fines Reddit for not checking user ages aggressively enough

A UK regulator today fined Reddit £14.5 million ($19.6 million) for not verifying the ages of users. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) alleged that the failure to check ages resulted in Reddit illegally using children’s personal information.

“Our investigation found that Reddit failed to apply any robust age assurance mechanism and therefore did not have a lawful basis for processing the personal information of children under the age of 13… These failures meant Reddit was using children’s data unlawfully, potentially exposing them to inappropriate and harmful content,” an ICO press release said.

The ICO findings are based on Reddit’s actions prior to its July 2025 rollout of a system that verifies UK users’ ages before letting them view adult content. But the ICO said it is still concerned about Reddit’s post-July 2025 system because the company relies on users to declare their ages when opening an account.

Reddit today said it will appeal the fine and criticized the ICO for demanding more collection of private information. “Reddit doesn’t require users to share information about their identities, regardless of age, because we are deeply committed to their privacy and safety,” Reddit said in a statement provided to Ars. “The ICO’s insistence that we collect more private information on every UK user is counterintuitive and at odds with our strong belief in our users’ online privacy and safety. We intend to appeal the ICO’s decision.”

Reddit pointed to its privacy policy, which says, “We collect minimal information that can be used to identify you by default. If you want to just browse, you don’t need an account. If you want to create an account to participate in a subreddit, we don’t require you to give us your real name. We don’t track your precise location. You can even browse anonymously. You can share as much or as little about yourself as you want when using Reddit.”

UK fines Reddit for not checking user ages aggressively enough Read More »

in-a-replay-of-2019,-apple-says-a-single-desktop-mac-will-be-manufactured-in-the-us

In a replay of 2019, Apple says a single desktop Mac will be manufactured in the US

The bulk of the supply chain for phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and most other tech is still overwhelmingly reliant on overseas manufacturers. Most of Apple’s A- and M-series chips are still made in TSMC’s factories in Taiwan, and while TSMC is making some of its chips in the US, it has resisted efforts to bring more of its capacity to the US. Facilities for manufacturing memory, storage, and displays are also mostly located overseas. And that’s before you even start thinking about the facilities where all of these components are assembled into finished products.

There are signs that more chip manufacturing, at least, is coming to the US. Apple itself says that it will buy roughly 100 million chips manufactured at TSMC’s facilities in Arizona; these 4nm factories can’t make the newest A- and M-series chips, but they can make the older Apple A16 (still used in the low-end iPad) and the Apple S10 chip used in Apple Watches. Intel, itself the beneficiary of multiple sources of external investment, is still working on new factories in Ohio and elsewhere; memory manufacturer Micron is using some of its AI-fueled profits to build domestic factories as well.

But Apple’s Mac Pro announcement in 2019 wasn’t the first step toward domestic manufacturing for the company’s biggest-selling hardware, and it’s hard to see today’s announcement ushering in a major change to Apple’s manufacturing strategy, either. The Mac mini is almost certainly more popular than the Mac Pro, but it’s not nearly as big a deal as domestic iPhone, iPad, or MacBook manufacturing would be.

In a replay of 2019, Apple says a single desktop Mac will be manufactured in the US Read More »

data-center-builders-thought-farmers-would-willingly-sell-land,-learn-otherwise

Data center builders thought farmers would willingly sell land, learn otherwise

Notably, one resident in Huddleston’s county who received an offer, 75-year-old Timothy Grosser, even declined a proposal to “name your price” when a tech company sought to buy his 250-acre farm, The Guardian reported.

“There is none,” Grosser said.

The farm is where he “lives, hunts, and raises cattle” and where his grandson hunts a turkey every Christmas for the family feast.

“The money’s not worth giving up your lifestyle,” Grosser said.

Another farmer in Wisconsin, Anthony Barta, reportedly fretted about what would happen to his neighbors if he took a deal he was offered—showing the deep bonds of people whose farms have bordered each other for years. In his community, another farmer was offered between $70 million and $80 million for 6,000 acres.

“Me and my family, we own the farm and run close to 1,000 animals,” Barta said. “What would that do if that’s next to it? Can they even be there? You know, that’s our livelihood—the farm. We’re just concerned what, if it would go through, what would happen to us and our neighbors and farms and our community? What would happen to that?”

Some tech companies are apparently not taking “no” for an answer. At least one farmer who spent 51 years milking cows in Pennsylvania prior to the AI boom described tech companies as “relentless.”

Eighty-six-year-old Mervin Raudabaugh, Jr., found a creative solution to end the pressure to sell two contiguous farms. He reportedly staved off developers by turning to “a farmland preservation program dedicating taxpayer dollars toward protecting agricultural resources.”

By working with the program, Raudabaugh will only receive about one-eighth of what the developers were offering. But he said it’s worth it to know his land would be preserved for farming purposes and out of reach of persistent tech companies.

“These people have hounded the living daylights out of me,” Raudabaugh said.

Data center deals come amid fragile farm economy

For people in rural communities, data center fights go beyond concerns about water and electricity consumption—although those are concerns, too. Communities are defending the character of the land, which they don’t want to see suddenly disrupted by extensive construction, data center noise pollution, or untold environmental impacts from massive operations.

Data center builders thought farmers would willingly sell land, learn otherwise Read More »

ais-can-generate-near-verbatim-copies-of-novels-from-training-data

AIs can generate near-verbatim copies of novels from training data

A US court last year found that Anthropic’s training of LLMs on some copyrighted content could be considered fair use as it was deemed “transformative.”

But it determined that storing pirated works was “inherently, irredeemably infringing,” which then led the AI group to pay $1.5 billion to settle the lawsuit.

In Germany, a ruling from November last year found that OpenAI had infringed on copyright because its model had memorized song lyrics. The case, brought by GEMA, an association representing composers, lyricists, and publishers, was considered a landmark ruling in the EU.

Rudy Telscher, a partner at law firm Husch Blackwell, said reproducing an entire book without jailbreaking is “clearly a copyright violation.” But “it’s a matter of whether this is happening enough that [AI models] could be vicariously liable for the infringement,” he added.

Anthropic said the jailbreaking technique used in the Stanford and Yale research was impractical for normal users and would require more effort to extract the text than just purchasing the content.

The company also added that its model does not store copies of specific datasets but learns from patterns and relationships between words and strings in its training data.

xAI, OpenAI, and Google did not respond to requests for comment.

The fact that AI labs have put safeguards in place to prevent training data from being extracted means they are aware of the problem, said Imperial’s de Montjoye.

Ben Zhao, a computer science professor at the University of Chicago, questioned whether AI labs really needed to use copyrighted content in training data to create cutting-edge models in the first place.

“Whether the technical result can be done or not, it’s still a question of should we be doing this?” Zhao said. “The legal side should eventually hold their ground and really be the arbiter in this whole process.”

© 2026 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

AIs can generate near-verbatim copies of novels from training data Read More »

supreme-court-blocks-trump’s-emergency-tariffs,-billions-in-refunds-may-be-owed

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s emergency tariffs, billions in refunds may be owed


Economists estimated more than $175 billion may need to be refunded.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Donald Trump was not authorized to implement emergency tariffs to ostensibly block illegal drug flows and offset trade deficits.

It’s not immediately clear what the ruling may mean for businesses that paid various “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump changed frequently, raising and lowering rates at will during tense negotiations with the United States’ biggest trade partners.

Divided 6-3, Supreme Court justices remanded the cases to lower courts, concluding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give Trump power to impose tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They concluded that Trump could not exclusively rely on IEEPA to impose tariffs “of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country” during peacetime.

Only Congress has the power of the purse, Roberts wrote, and the few exceptions to that are bound by “explicit terms and subject to strict limits.”

“Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will,” Roberts wrote. “That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half century of existence, no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. That ‘lack of historical precedent,’ coupled with ‘the breadth of authority’ that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s ‘legitimate reach.’”

Back in November, analysts suggested that the Supreme Court ruling against Trump could force the government to issue refunds of up to $1 trillion. This morning, a new estimate from economists reduced that number, Reuters reported, estimating that more than $175 billion could be “at risk of having to be refunded.”

Ruling disrupts Trump plan to collect $900 billion

Trump lost primarily because IEEPA does not explicitly reference “tariffs” or “duties,” instead only giving Trump power to “regulate” “importation”—the two words in the statute that Trump tried to argue showed that Congress clearly authorized his power to impose tariffs.

But the court did not agree that Congress intended to give the president “the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight,” particularly in peacetime. “The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”

Specifically, Trump failed to “identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax,” Roberts wrote. And the majority of justices remained “skeptical” that in “IEEPA alone,” Congress intended to hide “a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to ‘regulate.’”

“A contrary reading would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional,” Roberts wrote.

According to the majority, siding with Trump would free the president to “issue a dizzying array of modifications” to tariffs at will, “unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes.” The only check to that unprecedented power grab, the court suggested, would be a “veto-proof majority in Congress.”

Trump has yet to comment on the ruling. Ahead of it, he claimed the tariffs were “common sense,” NBC News reported. Speaking at a steel manufacturing factory in northwest Georgia, Trump claimed that IEEPA tariffs were projected to bring in $900 billion “next year.” Not only could he now be forced to refund tariffs, but the Supreme Court ruling could also undo trade deals in which Trump used so-called reciprocal tariffs as leverage. Undoing tariffs will likely be a “mess,” Barrett said last year.

“Until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power,” Roberts wrote, while noting that the court claims “no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs.”

Gorsuch seems to troll Trump

In a concurring opinion, Gorsuch slammed Trump as trying to expand the president’s authority in a way that would make it hard for Congress to ever retrieve lost powers. He claimed that Trump was seeking to secure a path forward where any president could declare a national emergency—a decision that would be “unreviewable”—to justify imposing “tariffs on nearly any goods he wishes, in any amount he wishes, based on emergencies he himself has declared.”

“Just ask yourself: What President would willingly give up that kind of power?” Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch further questioned if Trump was “seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.” And he warned that accepting the dissenting view would allow Trump to randomly impose tariffs as low as 1 percent or as high as 1,000,000 percent on any product or country he wanted at any time.

Gorsuch criticized justices with dissenting views, who disagreed that Congress’ intent in the statute was unclear and defended Trump’s claim that “IEEPA provides the clear statement needed to sustain the President’s tariffs.” Those justices argued that presidents have long been granted authority to impose tariffs and accused the majority of putting a “thumb on the scale” by requiring a strict reading of the statute. Instead, they argued for a special exception requiring a more general interpretation of statutes whenever presidents seek to regulate matters of foreign affairs.

If that view was accepted, Gorsuch warned, presidents could seize even more power from Congress. Many other legislative powers “could be passed wholesale to the executive branch in a few loose statutory terms, no matter what domestic ramifications might follow. And, as we have seen, Congress would often find these powers nearly impossible to retrieve.”

As a final note, Gorsuch took some time to sympathize with Trump supporters:

For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.

Kavanaugh questions other Trump tariff authority

Under IEEPA, the majority ruled, Trump has the power to “impose penalties, restrictions, or controls on foreign commerce,” Barrett wrote. But he does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs, unless Congress updates laws to explicitly grant such authority.

In his dissent, justice Brett Kavanaugh insisted that it should not be up to courts to settle these “policy debates.” He defended Trump’s view that IEEPA granting power to “regulate” “importation” generally included tariffs, while arguing that Trump wasn’t seeking to expand his presidential authority at all. Many feared that the more conservative Supreme Court would side with Trump, and Kavanaugh’s opinion offered a peek at what that alternate reality could have looked like.

“Importantly, IEEPA’s authorization for the President to impose tariffs did not grant the President any new substantive power,” Kavanaugh wrote. Instead, “IEEPA merely allows the President to impose tariffs somewhat more efficiently to deal with foreign threats during national emergencies.” He further claimed it was an “odd distinction” that the majority would interpret IEEPA as giving Trump authority to “block all imports from China” but not to “order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China.”

Downplaying the ruling’s significance, Kavanaugh echoed the Trump administration’s claims that the Supreme Court ruling won’t really affect Trump’s key policy of imposing tariffs to renegotiate trade deals or address other concerns.

“The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” Kavanugh wrote, pointing to “numerous other federal statutes” that “authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

However, a footnote in the majority’s opinion emphasized that all of the options that Kavanaugh cited “contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize.” It was precisely constraints like those that Trump’s broad reading of IEEPA lacked, the majority found.

Kavanaugh acknowledged that the ruling would stop Trump from imposing tariffs at will, writing that other statutes require “a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.”

Winding down his arguments, Kavanaugh joined Trump administration officials in groaning that the “United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

Kavanaugh makes a frequently overlooked point there in this argument, which is that IEEPA tariffs may have harmed consumers without any immediate remedy. It seems unlikely that consumers will get any relief in the short-term, no matter what remedies the Supreme Court’s ruling triggers. For businesses, the primary relief will likely not be from refunds but from the small amount of certainty they will have going forward that tariffs won’t be suddenly changed or imposed overnight.

Kavanaugh conceded that Trump’s tariffs “may or may not be wise policy.” But he fretted that Trump’s trade deals “worth trillions of dollars” could be undone by the ruling, while claiming the ruling has only generated more uncertainty on a global scale, including with America’s biggest rival, China.

Interestingly, Kavanaugh also suggested that the ruling may put at legal risk the reading of another statute that Trump will likely rely on more heavily moving forward to impose tariffs.

“One might think that the Court’s opinion would also mean that tariffs cannot be imposed under Section 232, which authorizes the President to ‘adjust the imports,’” Kavanaugh suggested.

This story was updated to include views from Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s emergency tariffs, billions in refunds may be owed Read More »