FEED Validator

for Atom and RSS and KML

Congratulations!

This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

line 30, column 0: Use of unknown namespace: com-wordpress:feed-additions:1 (11 occurrences) [help]
```
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site>	<item>
```
line 82, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-type attribute (12 occurrences) [help]
```
Is this how we&#8217;re leaking things to the press now? Seems careless,  ...
```
line 82, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-id attribute (12 occurrences) [help]
```
Is this how we&#8217;re leaking things to the press now? Seems careless,  ...
```
line 96, column 0: content:encoded should not contain data-recalc-dims attribute (2 occurrences) [help]
```
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img data-recalc-dims="1" fetchpriorit ...
```
line 96, column 0: content:encoded should not contain fetchpriority attribute [help]
```
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img data-recalc-dims="1" fetchpriorit ...
```
line 96, column 0: content:encoded should not contain decoding attribute (2 occurrences) [help]
```
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img data-recalc-dims="1" fetchpriorit ...
```

line 96, column 0: content:encoded should not contain sizes attribute [help]

<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img data-recalc-dims="1" fetchpriorit ...

Source: http://feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
>
<channel>
<title>Techdirt</title>
<atom:link href="https://www.techdirt.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<link>https://www.techdirt.com</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 20:21:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-US</language>
<sy:updatePeriod>
hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>
1 </sy:updateFrequency>

<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">169489720</site> <item>
<title>Policy Building Blocks: Preliminary Injunctive Relief</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/policy-building-blocks-preliminary-injunctive-relief/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/policy-building-blocks-preliminary-injunctive-relief/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cathy Gellis]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 20:25:25 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[policy building blocks]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[preliminary injunctions]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[temporary restraining order]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514266</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Few areas of law have lately been as relevant, and the focus of so much dispute, as preliminary injunctive relief. Because the subject has come up so many times already, and is inevitably bound to come up again in the near future, this post takes a moment to discuss what is meant by preliminary injunctive […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Few areas of law have lately been as relevant, and the focus of so much dispute, as preliminary injunctive relief. Because the subject has come up <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/31/an-unfortunate-update-doge-dodges-an-injunction/">so many times</a> <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/good-news-scotus-may-sometimes-still-think-the-first-amendment-makes-censoring-the-internet-illegal-but-good-luck-getting-them-to-do-anything-about-it/">already</a>, and is inevitably bound to come up again in the near future, this post takes a moment to discuss what is meant by preliminary injunctive relief, how it works, and why it’s important.
An injunction is an order by a court to cause something to stop happening (or start happening, when it was already supposed to be happening). When they result at the end of a case, after a court has found that what was being sued over was indeed illegal, they are about remediating the problem that has now been found. But injunctions can also happen at earlier, or preliminary, stages of litigation, to restrain an action that might be wrongful, but that the court has not yet finally determined definitely is, in order to preserve the status quo until the court has had time to figure out what the law indeed requires. Because if what was happening (or not happening) turns out to have been illegal, that violation will likely have caused some harm that needs to be remediated. But the point of a preliminary injunction is to try to ensure that harm doesn’t occur in the first place (or at least not any more than it already has).
This preliminary injunctive relief can take several forms, depending on where they arise in the course of the litigation. One form is as a preliminary injunction itself, as an injunction issued by a court at some point before it has finally ruled on the merits of the case, but there is also another form, a “temporary restraining order,” which can also happen even earlier, including right after the case is filed. Because they happen so early, before a record is developed, and maybe even before a defense can be properly mustered, they tend to be regarded as especially extraordinary relief seldom granted, and if granted they are limited in their duration before needing to be converted into preliminary injunctions after further proceedings, or expiring. A PI may also be awarded where no TRO had been and where, after additional proceedings, the court has found it necessary to pump the brakes on something while the case continues to be litigated.
And as <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/21/rip-john-robertss-summer-vacation/">recent events</a> have suggested, it is also worth considering a “stay” as a form of preliminary injunctive relief. Unlike regular PIs or TROs, which bind the defendant, a “stay” essentially binds a court so that it can’t enforce its orders, including injunctive ones, until there is further review of whether those orders were proper. The stay effectively presses pause on them. Sometimes the court that issued the order will then stay it itself, in order to give more time for something to happen, like an appeal to be filed, but sometimes (as we’ve often seen of late) an appeals court might order a lower court’s order stayed. Sometimes these are “administrative stays,” where the pause button is pressed almost as a matter of routine, but only for a very short time, like to buy an appeals court a chance to just catch its jurisprudential breath and recognize that the matter is now on its docket for it to do something with. But stays can also be longer, to buy a lot more time for the litigation to continue before any injunction is effected. Stays are important to include when reflecting on preliminary injunctive relief because ultimately all of these instruments are about maintaining a status quo while the litigation forges on. A TRO or preliminary injunction is granted when it is needed to keep something from changing while the litigation continues, and a stay is issued when a court determines that, actually, the status quo is best preserved, during the pendency of the litigation, without it.
The analysis used to decide whether the status quo is best served by something being preliminarily enjoined with any of these instruments is also generally the same for all of them, although specific details about whether and how to grant them may differ. But the essential issue pertinent to them all is that, when they are on the table, the case hasn’t been decided yet, and so its possible that whatever the court does at this early stage, enjoin or not enjoin, will eventually be found to be the wrong call, either leaving a victim to unduly suffer some unlawful injury if no injunction is issued, or unduly punished someone by restraining them from doing something they were lawfully entitled to do if one is. To try to minimize the risk of either injustice, courts therefore consider four things. (In the federal courts these are sometimes called the Nken factors, from the Supreme Court decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/418/">Nken v. Holder</a>, which also discussed the overlap between stays and injunctions, or the Winter factors, from <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/7/">Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, which spoke to the standard for a preliminary injunction. State courts have their own tests, but they generally look a lot like the federal one because these are tests that originated in the common law English jurisprudence America inherited.)
The first consideration is whether there is a risk of “irreparable harm” if the preliminary injunctive relief is not granted. This question basically assesses the stakes. Because it would be bad to enjoin someone later exonerated, the courts only want to do it when the consequences of not enjoining them are irreparable, meaning that nothing will be able to compensate the harmed plaintiff for the harm they experienced while the case was litigated. If ultimately the plaintiff could be made whole later just by getting some money the harm is generally not considered irreparable. But in many cases no amount of money will ever be able to undo the damage, and in those cases that harm is thought to be “irreparable.”
But because the courts want to be cautious and not inadvertently enjoin something that is actually lawful, the next consideration is whether the plaintiff also has a likelihood of succeeding on their claims. Because even when the consequences of something are irreparable, if there is a reasonable chance that the plaintiffs won’t ultimately win and get the courts to deem it unlawful, then it would be wrong to enjoin the defendant and keep them from acting in a way that will actually be lawful. At the early stages a court cannot definitively know whether the plaintiff will win—the full litigation is what will determine it—but with the “likelihood of success” factor courts take the facts on the record so far, and whatever early briefing on the law that has been done, and make their best guess.
Rounding out the inquiry, courts then consider two more things: what is often referred to as the “balance of the equities,” and the public interest, although in cases where the government is the defendant the two factors “merge” into one because there is a particular form of harm that results to the public interest when the government is allowed to act unlawfully and unchecked. But when the dispute is between private parties courts separately consider both how awarding (or not awarding) preliminary injunctive relief will bear on the parties, which is the balance of the equities, as well as whether there is any externality that may bear on the public interest if the injunction is or is not granted at this stage. For example, imagine two garbage haulers are in dispute, with one claiming the other is illegally encroaching on their turf. Balance of the equities would consider how well either firm could weather an injunction being awarded or withheld as they wait for the dispute to be resolved, while the public interest inquiry would care about whether the public, while not an official party to the dispute, would still get their garbage picked up.
The guiding principle is always to “preserve the status quo” while the case is adjudicated, but that notion really presupposes preserving the status quo before the potential unlawful injury occurred, not preserving the injurious state itself. Still, it’s often easier said than done to make this distinction because courts will always have to navigate the inevitable tension between potentially letting a bad thing continue to happen versus potentially stopping a good (or at least lawful) one.
But the analysis described above is the basic roadmap courts will use to figure out which injustice to risk. And being aware of it will help one observe how courts navigate this tension and assess whether their analysis seems adequate, especially given the particular stakes raised by each case.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/policy-building-blocks-preliminary-injunctive-relief/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514266</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Leaking By Leaving: Guest Finds Trump-Putin Summit Docs In Alaskan Hotel Room</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/leaking-by-leaving-guest-finds-trump-putin-summit-docs-in-alaskan-hotel-room/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/leaking-by-leaving-guest-finds-trump-putin-summit-docs-in-alaskan-hotel-room/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[alaska]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[leaks]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[opsec]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[russia]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[state department]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[trump administration]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[vladimir putin]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514224&preview=true&preview_id=514224</guid>
<description><![CDATA[While this latest bit of low-key embarrassment may not be a black eye for the administration, it certainly isn’t putting any more lipstick on this pig. Whatever you may think about the recent summit meeting between these two international besties, you can be assured that some of the attendees thought even less of it than […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[While this latest bit of low-key embarrassment may not be a black eye for the administration, it certainly isn’t putting any more lipstick on this pig. Whatever you may think about the recent summit meeting between these two international besties, you can be assured that some of the attendees thought even less of it than you did. 
Is this how we’re leaking things to the press now? Seems careless, since there are multiple ways of identifying who left these documents behind. That being said, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5504196/trump-putin-summit-documents-left-behind" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5504196/trump-putin-summit-documents-left-behind">no one is named in the NPR reporting</a>, which covers what was uncovered by hotel guests who happened to find these documents just sitting in a tray of one of the hotel’s public printers.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Papers with U.S. State Department markings, found Friday morning in the business center of an Alaskan hotel, revealed previously undisclosed and potentially sensitive details about the Aug. 15 meetings between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in Anchorage.
<a href="https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/26052867-trump-putin-summit-documents/?embed=1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Eight pages</a>, that appear to have been produced by U.S. staff and left behind accidentally, shared precise locations and meeting times of the summit and phone numbers of U.S. government employees.
</blockquote>
The <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26053324-summit/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26053324-summit/">documents</a> [PDF] are embedded below. What’s exposed in them is indeed sensitive information, but the sensitivity is directly proportionate to a specific time frame, which means a discovery that happened after the summit was over isn’t nearly as problematic as anything discovered before or during. The dates, times, and specific rooms used for meetings don’t mean nearly as much as they might have while this summit was still ongoing.
Still, it’s yet another lapse in judgment from people you might have assumed would know better, but have been disabused of that notion pretty much incessantly since the installation of Trump’s cabinet member picks. At this point, the administration has <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/25/but-their-signal-chats-trump-officials-share-war-plans-with-journalist/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/25/but-their-signal-chats-trump-officials-share-war-plans-with-journalist/">already invited journalists to Signal chats</a> discussing military operations as they unfold and <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kristi-noem-press-campaign-dhs-deportation-conflict_n_67fea195e4b02eab6a33d921" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kristi-noem-press-campaign-dhs-deportation-conflict_n_67fea195e4b02eab6a33d921">exposed ICE operations with ill-advised social media posts</a> because <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/kristi-noem/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/kristi-noem/">the person</a> heading that part of the administration <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kristi-noem-el-salvador-prison-photo-op-new-low" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kristi-noem-el-salvador-prison-photo-op-new-low">loves a photo op</a> more than <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/538/kristi-noem-blamed-shooting-dog-realities-rural-life/story?id=110027836" data-type="link" data-id="https://abcnews.go.com/538/kristi-noem-blamed-shooting-dog-realities-rural-life/story?id=110027836">she loves shooting pets</a> that make her angry.
One of things that immediately stands out as having Trump’s tiny fingerprints all over it is the menu for the luncheon that never happened.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
During the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/08/15/nx-s1-5502460/trump-putin-alaska-summit-ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">summit</a> Friday, lunch was apparently cancelled. But it was intended to be a simple, three-course meal, the documents showed. After a green salad, the world leaders would dine on filet mignon and halibut olympia. Crème brûlée would be served for dessert.
</blockquote>
Not just any green salad, mind you, but one served with “champagne vinaigrette.” I’m sure it’s the word “champagne” that earned Trump’s approval, not that he probably cares one way or another what’s served on a salad he isn’t going to eat. 
Here’s the menu as it was printed (and left on a public printer):
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img data-recalc-dims="1" fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="743" height="785" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screenshot-2025-08-17-11.54.56-AM.png?resize=743%2C785&ssl=1" alt="" class="wp-image-514228" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screenshot-2025-08-17-11.54.56-AM.png?w=743&ssl=1 743w, https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screenshot-2025-08-17-11.54.56-AM.png?resize=284%2C300&ssl=1 284w, https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Screenshot-2025-08-17-11.54.56-AM.png?resize=600%2C634&ssl=1 600w" sizes="(max-width: 743px) 100vw, 743px" /></figure>
</div>
Between the font selection and the menu options, this looks like something being offered by Waldorf Astoria in 1925, rather than by the most powerful nation in the world in 2025. And one assumes the filet mignon would have been <a href="https://www.eater.com/2017/2/27/14748346/donald-trump-ketchup-steak" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.eater.com/2017/2/27/14748346/donald-trump-ketchup-steak">served a la Trump</a> (charred into submission; walloped with ketchup). Fortunately for Putin, the lunch was cancelled, preventing him from a.) having to witness Trump “enjoy” a steak, and b.) having to experience <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/16/dining/trump-putin-alaska-halibut.html" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/16/dining/trump-putin-alaska-halibut.html">a fish swimming in mayonnaise</a>. (Your mileage may vary.)
Low-hanging mockery aside, it’s still a problem. And since it is actually a problem, the White House is, of course, pretending it’s not a problem, calling the eight pages of information nothing more than a “multi-page lunch menu.” Even if you ignore all the information specifying who will be in which rooms at what particular times, there’s plenty of other information that generally doesn’t appear in lunch menus, no matter how many pages they run.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Pages 2 through 5 of the documents listed the names and phone numbers of three U.S. staff members as well as the names of 13 U.S. and Russian state leaders. The list provided phonetic pronouncers for all the Russian men expected at the summit, including “Mr. President POO-tihn.”
</blockquote>
Even if this (perhaps intentional!) leak didn’t threaten national security, it’s emblematic of an administration that tends to operate with all the finesse of a bludgeon wielded by a bull in the china shop that is the world we live in. To expect better than this is human. To expect to see better than this, from this administration, is self-delusion. 
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/leaking-by-leaving-guest-finds-trump-putin-summit-docs-in-alaskan-hotel-room/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514224</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Federal Judge Delivers Judicial Smackdown To FTC’s Politically Motivated Attack On Media Matters</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/federal-judge-delivers-judicial-smackdown-to-ftcs-politically-motivated-attack-on-media-matters/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/federal-judge-delivers-judicial-smackdown-to-ftcs-politically-motivated-attack-on-media-matters/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Masnick]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 17:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[media matters]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[x]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[1st amendment]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[andrew ferguson]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[elon musk]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ftc]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[mike davis]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[sparkle sooknanan]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[stephen miller]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514198</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A federal judge has delivered an extraordinary rebuke to the FTC’s Andrew Ferguson, finding that his investigation into Media Matters was motivated by “retaliatory animus” rather than legitimate antitrust concerns. In a scathing ruling, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan granted Media Matters’ motion for a preliminary injunction, calling out not just the investigation’s pretextual nature, but […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A federal judge has delivered an extraordinary rebuke to the FTC’s Andrew Ferguson, finding that his investigation into Media Matters was motivated by “retaliatory animus” rather than legitimate antitrust concerns. In <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.281859/gov.uscourts.dcd.281859.34.0.pdf">a scathing ruling</a>, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan granted Media Matters’ motion for a preliminary injunction, calling out not just the investigation’s pretextual nature, but the systematic pattern of harassment the organization has faced for accurate reporting.
Courts almost never find that federal agencies act with improper retaliatory motives. That Judge Sooknanan felt compelled to make such a finding—explicitly stating that “retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the FTC’s CID”—signals just how egregious Ferguson’s conduct has been.
For those keeping score at home, this is now the third time federal courts have had to block frivolous, retaliatory government investigations targeting Media Matters for the heinous crime of… <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/20/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-promises-to-sue-media-matters-to-silence-their-speech/">accurately reporting</a> that ads appeared next to Nazi content on X. Because apparently, in Trump’s America, doing your job as a journalist is grounds for federal investigation.
Let’s recap this absolutely ridiculous saga. In November 2023, Media Matters published <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle">an article</a> showing that major brand advertisements were appearing next to literal neo-Nazi content on Elon’s platform. This happened right after Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory with his now-infamous “You have said the actual truth” response.
The report was factually accurate. Even Musk’s own lawsuit admits this. But rather than fix the problem or take responsibility, Musk decided to shoot the messenger. He promised a “thermonuclear lawsuit” and then followed through, filing <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/21/congrats-to-elon-musk-i-didnt-think-you-had-it-in-you-to-file-a-lawsuit-this-stupid-but-you-crazy-bastard-you-did-it/">ridiculously frivolous litigation</a> against Media Matters in multiple countries.
But that wasn’t enough. Trump advisor Stephen Miller then essentially put out a public call (on Twitter, of course) for state prosecutors to pile on, leading to “investigations” by Texas AG Ken Paxton and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey. Both of those got <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/15/judge-slams-ken-paxtons-attack-on-media-matters-free-speech-rights/">smacked down by federal courts</a> for the obvious First Amendment violations they were.
And now we have Andrew Ferguson’s FTC taking up the cause with an equally bogus “antitrust” investigation, in the form of a “civil investigatory demand” (effectively a subpoena).
Judge Sooknanan’s ruling is a masterclass in judicial restraint while still absolutely eviscerating the government’s case. She starts by noting just how extraordinary it is for a court to find that a federal agency acted with improper retaliatory motives:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Speech on matters of public concern is the heartland of the First Amendment. The principle that public issues should be debated freely has long been woven into the very fabric of who we are as a Nation. Without it, our democracy stands on shaky ground. It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.
</blockquote>
The judge then details the pattern of harassment that Media Matters has faced, noting how Ferguson basically auditioned for his FTC role by promising to go after the organization:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Before President Trump selected him to head the FTC, Mr. Ferguson appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast, where he said that it is “really important that the FTC take investigative steps in the new administration under President Trump” because “progressives” and others who are “fighting “disinformation” were “not going to give up just because of the election.” One of his supporters, Mike Davis, who urged President Trump to nominate him to the role, made several public comments about Media Matters, including that Mr. Musk should “nuke” the media company. And after taking the reins, Chairman Ferguson brought on several senior staffers at the FTC who previously made public comments about Media Matters.
</blockquote>
But it gets better. The judge highlights how Ferguson’s supporters and appointees have made their motivations crystal clear. Mike Davis, mentioned above, has been quite explicit about his goals:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
One of Mr. Ferguson’s supporters was Mike Davis, who wrote on X that “Donald Trump should nominate digital freedom fighter Andrew Ferguson to chair FTC.” Id. ¶ 63 (Mike Davis (@mrddmia), X (Dec. 7, 2024, 2:09 pm), <a href="https://perma.cc/V9XL-J7UX">https://perma.cc/V9XL-J7UX</a>). Mr. Davis has made many comments about Media Matters throughout this controversy. On December 1, 2022, Mr. Davis posted on X that Mr. Musk “should nuke @MMFA [Media Matters’ account] and all staff accounts” because “[t]hey’re a cancer to free speech.” Id. ¶ 64 (quoting Mike Davis (@mrddmia), X (Dec. 1, 2022, 11:54am), <a href="https://perma.cc/VVD5-">https://perma.cc/VVD5-</a> NAR5). Later, on November 10, 2023, he solicited money to help push back against Media Matters: “If you want to help @Article3Project build our (growing) list of leftists to throw in the DC gulag with @MMFA’s @ehananoki and @MattGertz, please donate here.” Id. (quoting Mike Davis (@mrddmia), X (Nov. 10, 2023, 1:53 pm), <a href="https://perma.cc/L8E8-ZSJF">https://perma.cc/L8E8-ZSJF</a>). And he cheered on Mr. Musk’s eventual lawsuits against Media Matters, writing that “[a]dvertiser boycotts are highly effective tactics leftists use to cow media executives to destroy free speech—and control the political narrative. @MMFA is the driving force behind conservative media getting crushed— and conservative voices silenced. Cheers to @ElonMusk.” Id. (quoting Mike Davis (@mrddmia), X (Nov. 29, 2023, 5:42 pm), <a href="https://perma.cc/G88S-YC3U">https://perma.cc/G88S-YC3U</a>). Mr. Davis “is now an outside adviser to the Trump administration.”
</blockquote>
The supposed “free speech warrior” wants to literally destroy an organization for exercising its free speech rights and bragged about it publicly online. Great job.
Judge Sooknanan also calls out how Ferguson stacked his team with people who had publicly expressed hatred for Media Matters:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
When Mr. Ferguson became Chairman of the FTC, he brought in several senior staffers who had previously made comments about Media Matters. Joe Simonson, the FTC’s Director of Public Affairs, had posted on X in May 2024 that Media Matters employed “a number of stupid and resentful Democrats who went to like American University and didn’t have the emotional stability to work as an assistant press aide for a House member.” Jon Schweppe, a Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman Ferguson, had said in June 2023 that Media Matters “wants to weaponize powerful institutions to censor conservatives,” before celebrating one of Mr. Musk’s lawsuits against Media Matters, which he called “the scum of the earth.”… And Jake Denton, the FTC’s Chief Technology Officer, had stated in June 2023 that Media Matters was “an organization devoted to pressuring companies into silencing conservative voices.”
</blockquote>
This isn’t even subtle. Ferguson hired a bunch of people who spent years calling for Media Matters to be destroyed for its speech and cheering on every earlier attempt to punish the company for its speech. They can’t really act shocked when people question the investigation’s legitimacy.
Of course, it also doesn’t help that the FTC’s theory for this “investigation” is utterly absurd. They’re arguing that accurate reporting about a platform’s content problems somehow constitutes illegal “collusion” because it might cause advertisers to make informed business decisions.
This is not how antitrust law works. At all. It’s not how anything works.
The judge notes the obvious problems with this theory, particularly the complete lack of evidence that Media Matters has any actual information about the “brand safety lists” that supposedly form the basis of this investigation:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The FTC claims that it believes Media Matters has information about the use of brand suitable or brand safe lists to coordinate ad placement… But they never explain why they have reason to believe that Media Matters has information relating to the use of… lists to coordinate ad placement. So the record is utterly devoid of evidence to support such a claim.
</blockquote>
The judge also points out how the scope of the FTC’s demands goes far beyond any legitimate antitrust investigation:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Nor does the sweeping scope of the FTC’s CID square with the proffered reason. The FTC claims that it believes Media Matters has information about the use of “brand suitable” or “brand safe” lists to “coordinate ad placement.”… it also includes other demands that go well beyond the investigation’s purported scope. See, e.g., id. at 5 (“Provide each financial statement, budget, profit and loss statement, cost center report, profitability report, and any other financial report regularly prepared by or for Media Matters on any periodic basis. For each such statement, budget, or report, state how often it is prepared, and identify the employees responsible for its preparation.”); id. at 3 (“Provide all documents that Media Matters either produced or received in discovery in any litigation between Media Matters and X Corp. related to advertiser boycotts since 2023). As a whole, then, the scope of the CID suggests pretext on the part of the FTC, which is fatal to the Defendants’ causation arguments.
</blockquote>
That “pretext” finding is the ballgame on causation. Agencies almost always get deference on subpoenas; courts almost never call pretext. She did.
One of the most important aspects of this ruling is how it documents the actual harm that this coordinated campaign of harassment has inflicted on Media Matters’ ability to do journalism. The chilling effects of this kind of lawfare are not just real, but they’re a significant drag on any organization. The judge quotes extensively from Media Matters staff about how the investigation has chilled their reporting:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
And Media Matters has demonstrated that the FTC’s CID chilled its activity. One declarant has sworn that “the prospect of relaxing Media Matters’ posture on research and reporting about government entities” after winning legal victories against the state CIDs “was stymied by the FTC’s CID.” Dimiero Decl. ¶ 19; see also Padera Decl. ¶ 17 (similar). “For example, without the investigation, Media Matters would likely have looked into reporting about Andrew Ferguson’s merger requirements for Omnicom and IPG, which placed unprecedented limitations on their speech in a transparent attempt to aid media platforms, like X, with limited content moderation efforts.” Dimiero Decl. ¶ 20. The declarant even identified particular stories that Media Matters would have pursued but for the FTC CID:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Furthermore, because of the FTC CID, we have refrained from reporting on the FTC’s relationship with right-wing media or Musk’s relationship with the FTC, as we would have in the past. We have also refrained from publishing research related to right-wing media’s long-running list of companies that they have boycotted or celebrated damaging financially in light of Ferguson’s claims about advertising boycotts. We have even refrained from reporting on our own story of the FTC’s investigation into Media Matters out of fear of retaliation, also turning down a number of media requests for information and appearances on various shows and outlets about a wide range of topics related to the investigation. We also turned down a high-profile interview that was unrelated to the FTC but was about right-wing content creators, deciding that the risk of engaging with the subject matter was too high in the wake of the FTC’s CID. In the past, we likely would have written about a federal agency pressuring companies to adopt policies favored by the Administration or about Media Matters’ experience of being subject to a government investigation because of our speech. Such fears about FTC reporting did not exist in the past. For example, during the first Trump Administration, Mr. Hananoki repeatedly wrote about subjects that were within the scope of the FTC’s work. Now, any reference to the FTC or commissioners must be approved by senior staff and the legal team, burdening an already cumbersome editing process.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
This is the point. The process is the punishment. Even when these investigations ultimately fail in court, they succeed in their real goal: making it too expensive and risky for organizations to criticize powerful people.
The New York Times recently reported on <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/25/us/politics/media-matters-musk-crisis.html">just how devastating</a> this campaign has been for Media Matters:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
[Media Matters] has racked up about $15 million in legal fees over the past 20 months to defend itself against lawsuits by Elon Musk, in addition to investigations by Mr. Trump’s Federal Trade Commission and Republican state attorneys general.
The group has <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/under-legal-assault-elon-musk-others-media-matters-cuts-staff-1904305">slashed the size of its staff</a> and scrambled to raise more cash from skittish donors, according to documents and interviews with 11 people familiar with the organization’s fight to survive.
That might not be enough. Media Matters tried to settle with Mr. Musk by offering concessions, but the sides were far apart and talks fizzled. Even when the group has triumphed in court, Mr. Musk has appealed or filed new cases elsewhere.
</blockquote>
This is what success looks like for Musk and his political allies. They don’t need to win these cases. They just need to make criticism so expensive that organizations like Media Matters either shut up or shut down.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this ruling is how explicitly Judge Sooknanan calls out the government’s bad faith. Courts are generally very deferential to government investigations, operating under a presumption that prosecutors act in good faith.
But this case was so egregious that the judge felt compelled to state the obvious:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Finally, given the comments by Chairman Ferguson and his colleagues about Media Matters, the timing of the CID, and evidence of pretext, Media Matters is likely to show that retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the FTC’s CID.
</blockquote>
This ruling matters far beyond Media Matters. What we’re seeing is a systematic attempt to weaponize government power against critics and journalists who challenge those in power or their allies. It’s a form of censorial lawfare, and it’s particularly ridiculous coming from those who claim to be free speech supporters.
This is authoritarianism 101. And it’s happening here, right now, in broad daylight.
The good news is that at least some federal courts are still functioning as a check on government overreach. Three different rulings have now recognized these investigations for what they are: politically motivated attacks on free speech.
But the damage has already been done. As the Times reports, Media Matters is struggling to survive financially.
Even worse, the organization has been “removed from coalition communications about FTC actions” and has had to turn down media appearances for fear of further retaliation. This is actually an important point, and I’m glad the judge called it out. The fact that others have removed Media Matters from communications out of fear that it will end up in the hands of a vindictive FTC following a vexatious investigation is really harmful.
This is the chilling effect in action. Even when the First Amendment ultimately wins in court, the process of getting there can be devastating to the organizations trying to exercise their constitutional rights.
The real question is whether other news organizations and advocacy groups will learn the wrong lesson from this. Will they decide it’s too risky to hold powerful people accountable? Will they self-censor rather than face years of expensive litigation and government harassment?
If so, then Musk and Ferguson will have achieved their real goal, even while losing in court. The First Amendment only works if people are willing to exercise their rights under it. And making those rights impossibly expensive to exercise is just another form of censorship.
At least for now, we can celebrate that the courts are still willing to call out government retaliation for what it is. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves about the broader threat to press freedom that this case represents.
When the world’s richest man and his political allies can spur multiple investigations targeting a nonprofit for accurate reporting—and when those investigations can nearly destroy that organization even when they ultimately fail—then we have a serious problem with the state of free speech in America.
Judge Sooknanan’s ruling is a victory. But it’s a victory in a war that shouldn’t have to be fought in the first place.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/federal-judge-delivers-judicial-smackdown-to-ftcs-politically-motivated-attack-on-media-matters/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514198</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Daily Deal: Adobe Acrobat Classic + Microsoft Office Professional License Bundle</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/daily-deal-adobe-acrobat-classic-microsoft-office-professional-license-bundle/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/daily-deal-adobe-acrobat-classic-microsoft-office-professional-license-bundle/#respond</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daily Deal]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 17:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[daily deal]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514316&preview=true&preview_id=514316</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Get Adobe Acrobat Classic 3-Year and Microsoft Office Pro 2021 licenses: your all-in-one bundle for editing PDFs, creating docs, and working smarter on Windows. With Adobe Acrobat Classic, you can easily create, edit, convert, and protect your documents on Windows and Mac without connecting to the cloud. Microsoft Office 2021 Professional is the perfect choice […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Get <a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-award-winning-adobe-acrobat-classic-microsoft-office-professional-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown">Adobe Acrobat Classic 3-Year and Microsoft Office Pro 2021</a> licenses: your all-in-one bundle for editing PDFs, creating docs, and working smarter on Windows. With Adobe Acrobat Classic, you can easily create, edit, convert, and protect your documents on Windows and Mac without connecting to the cloud. Microsoft Office 2021 Professional is the perfect choice for any professional who needs to handle data and documents. It comes with many new features that will make you more productive in every stage of development, whether it’s processing paperwork or creating presentations from scratch. The bundle is on sale for $90.
<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-large"><a href="https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-award-winning-adobe-acrobat-classic-microsoft-office-professional-bundle?utm_campaign=affiliaterundown"><img data-recalc-dims="1" decoding="async" src="https://i0.wp.com/cdnp1.stackassets.com/228acea1b9bc83c017a4c072bcdf1ddb0b511d86/store/1af22e8cdf3b1d2a19185f4eb5c50142376f1d11aee6e2227b0fe60e7f15/sale_328523_primary_image2.jpg?ssl=1" alt=""/></a></figure>
</div>
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/daily-deal-adobe-acrobat-classic-microsoft-office-professional-license-bundle/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514316</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Data Shows ICE Deportation Efforts Are Way More Aggressive In ‘Blue’ States</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/data-shows-ice-deportation-efforts-are-way-more-aggressive-in-blue-states/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/data-shows-ice-deportation-efforts-are-way-more-aggressive-in-blue-states/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Cushing]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[abolish ice]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[dhs]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ice]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[mass deportation]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[partisan bullshit]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[trump administration]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=513381&preview=true&preview_id=513381</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Trump and his GOP enablers wouldn’t know subtlety if it held them down and punched them in the face repeatedly. Being a little bit crafty is never an option for an administration that prides itself on its performances. A little subtlety tends to go a long way, especially when you’re already fighting dozens of federal […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Trump and his GOP enablers wouldn’t know subtlety if it held them down and punched them in the face repeatedly. Being a little bit crafty is never an option for an administration that prides itself on its performances. A little subtlety tends to go a long way, especially when you’re already fighting dozens of federal lawsuits. But I guess Trump and his buddies prefer the path far less traveled — a path that’s nearly completely devoid of plausible deniability.
Oh, there will be denials. That much is assured. But no one believes them, except for those inclined to believe anything that dribbles from the mouths of Trump and his cabinet. 
The justice system has always had at least a few tiers. With ICE just out there grabbing any Latino-looking person they can in hopes of getting a thumbs up from ghouls like Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, it would make sense to be a bit more equitable when engaging in mass deportation efforts.
Instead, we’re getting the other thing: ICE raiding neighborhoods and businesses where Trump can’t win the popular vote, but hanging back to pick up people on detainers from local jails in areas where Trump is considered king. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/us/immigration-arrests-community-ice-invs" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/us/immigration-arrests-community-ice-invs">CNN has the receipts, which ironically enough were produced by ICE itself</a>.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
The ICE data shows that overall, more immigrants are being arrested in red states than blue states – both in the community and, especially, in prisons and jails. But there is a clear divide in where ICE is apprehending people: 59% of arrests in red states took place in prisons and jails, while 70% of arrests in blue states took place in the community. That partisan gap between red and blue states existed before Trump’s second term began – but it has widened since last year.
</blockquote>
Sure, there have been a few high-profile raids of businesses in red states, but for the most part, it’s just another attack option for Trump to get back at his political opponents. While raiding Home Depots and random neighborhoods won’t really encourage entire states to go Red, it’s just another unfriendly reminder that the other party controls the White House and isn’t afraid to abuse its power. There’s no “winning hearts and minds” going on here — just the vindictive behavior of an administration that absolutely hates anyone who hasn’t gone full MAGA.
As CNN correctly notes, some of this disparity in enforcement can be traced back to sanctuary polices enacted by several states and cities during Trump’s first term and/or following his unexpected second election win. That means ICE just hanging around waiting for phone calls from local law enforcement isn’t an option, even though that would do the sort of thing ICE and its officials keep claiming it’s doing: removing dangerous criminals from this country permanently.
Here’s acting ICE director Todd Lyons… well, lying:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Boston’s my hometown and it really shocks me that officials all over Massachusetts would rather release sex offenders, fentanyl dealers, drug dealers, human traffickers, and child rapists back into the neighborhoods,” he told reporters this summer – without addressing the fact that a large majority of immigrants arrested in the state this year had no criminal convictions.
</blockquote>
While that last sentence is true everywhere in the country, it’s especially true in “blue” states where ICE is spending more time raiding workplaces, neighborhoods, and hanging around courts handling immigration cases. 
Some of the most aggressive actions targeting places criminals aren’t likely to be found (and carried out by people who always seem to have masks, but never anything approaching probable cause, much less a judicial warrant) happened in Todd Lyon’s previous jurisdiction, which covers five New England states, all of whose electoral votes went to Kamala Harris in the last election. 
But even if there weren’t this stark — and obviously partisan — disparity in tactics, ICE would still be deporting people who don’t fit the parade of migrant horrors Todd Lyons concocted to defend his agency’s untargeted mass arrest efforts. As has already been shown by ICE’s own data, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/26/more-than-90-percent-of-ice-detainees-have-never-been-convicted-of-violent-crimes/" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/26/more-than-90-percent-of-ice-detainees-have-never-been-convicted-of-violent-crimes/">nearly 90% of deportees</a> have never been convicted of a serious crime. More recent data shows that <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-order" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-order">nearly one in five ICE arrests</a> are nothing more than crimes of opportunity (violating civil rights is a crime, yo), produced by agents roaming areas with large minority populations and harassing anyone they think doesn’t look white enough to actually live here.
This administration keeps adding tiers to the justice system. The rich vs. the poor. Law enforcement vs. everyone else. White criminals who support Trump are more equal than federal criminals whose crimes didn’t clearly demonstrate their love of Trump. And now there’s the population of entire states, which are now being deprived of justice because their Electoral College votes were cast for the “wrong” candidate.
The only positive aspect of this is that people keep pushing back against Trump and his MAGA counterparts. The worst thing you can do when dealing with a bully is roll over. Every protest and policy protecting people from his worst impulses cuts him a little. And the more there are, the more likely it is there will be an overreaction even the nation’s top court won’t be willing to condone. Any and all resistance matters. And every bit of data showing unequal enforcement of the law will add to arsenals of plaintiffs engaged in lawsuits against this rogue Republic.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/data-shows-ice-deportation-efforts-are-way-more-aggressive-in-blue-states/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">513381</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Net Neutrality Advocates Won’t Appeal Trump Destruction, Say U.S. Courts Are Broken</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/net-neutrality-advocates-wont-appeal-trump-destruction-say-u-s-courts-are-broken/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/net-neutrality-advocates-wont-appeal-trump-destruction-say-u-s-courts-are-broken/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl Bode]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 12:35:26 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[appeals courts]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[broadband]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[net neutrality]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[regulators]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[telecom]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=513729&preview=true&preview_id=513729</guid>
<description><![CDATA[A fusion of authoritarianism and corporatism is destroying what’s left of already soggy U.S. federal consumer protection and corporate oversight. You might not know this because the U.S. press and many policymakers genuinely don’t appear to care, but it’s happening all the same. Whether by dodgy Supreme Court ruling, executive order, or captured regulators, the U.S. authoritarians, often […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[A fusion of authoritarianism and corporatism is destroying what’s left of already soggy U.S. federal consumer protection and corporate oversight. You might not know this because the U.S. press and many policymakers genuinely don’t appear to care, but it’s happening all the same. 
Whether by <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/03/trumplican-6th-circuit-just-killed-net-neutrality-and-whatever-was-left-of-pathetic-u-s-broadband-consumer-protection/">dodgy Supreme Court ruling</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/02/21/trump-eo-tries-to-destroy-whatever-corporate-regulatory-oversight-hasnt-been-already-killed-by-doge-and-the-supreme-court/">executive order</a>, or <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/20/trump-fcc-boss-to-destroy-whatevers-left-of-u-s-broadband-consumer-protection/">captured regulators</a>, the U.S. authoritarians, often in lockstep with consolidated corporate power, are making massive, historic, and likely irreversible inroads in destroying federal corporate oversight, labor protections, public safety provisions, environmental standards, and regulatory autonomy.
And generally the corporate press doesn’t seem to care because most corporate media ownership likes the tax cuts, mindless deregulation, and rubber stamped mergers and consolidation. 
While dismissed as a niche issue, the right wing’s decade-long attack on net neutrality rules <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/07/federal-consumer-protection-is-dead-the-fate-of-net-neutrality-warned-you-it-was-coming/">clearly predicted this was all coming</a>. This extremely popular effort by our communications regulators to hold shitty regional telecom monopolies accountable was summarily executed: first <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/01/03/trumplican-6th-circuit-just-killed-net-neutrality-and-whatever-was-left-of-pathetic-u-s-broadband-consumer-protection/">by a Trump-loaded 6th Circuit</a>, then inevitably by Trump’s hand-picked earlobe nibbler at the FCC, Brendan Carr.
Recently, consumer groups announced they <a href="https://www.freepress.net/news/public-interest-groups-decline-seek-supreme-court-review-fcc-open-internet-rules">weren’t going to appeal the 6th Circuit’s ruling because they know the Supreme Court will never let the rules live</a>. And even if by some chance they did, the broken, captured Trump FCC would simply disintegrate the rules again:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Federal rules safeguarding internet openness, reliability and affordability are just as vital today as always, despite what cable lobbyists and their paid pundits claim. Yet Trump’s election flipped the FCC majority back to ideologues who’ve always taken the broadband industry’s side on this crucial issue. And the justices making up the current Supreme Court majority have shown hostility toward sound legal reasoning on this precise question and a host of other topics too.”
</blockquote>
This is, in case you’re new to this sort of thing, the opposite of democracy and a functional court system. Corporate power and authoritarians have taken control of the courts and ensured that it’s technically impossible to protect U.S. consumers. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about net neutrality, environmental protections, consumer privacy, or public safety rules.
Legal precedent means nothing. Authoritarian and corporate power desires now predict most legal outcomes. It’s still dressed up as competent law in polite conversation, but it’s the legal policy equivalent of a dilapidated Hollywood wild west set lousy with termites. 
After the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright ruling, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/30/supreme-court-cripples-fcc-further-making-robocall-enforcement-likely-impossible/">effectively impossible to get any reforms</a> — no matter how democratically supported — past our corrupt court system. Regulators are now effectively forbidden from crafting new rules or enforcing most existing ones. Case after case, you’re going to see the Trump courts cripple regulatory autonomy on every issue that impacts your family’s lives, declaring, over and over again, that regulators have “exceeded their regulatory authority,” no matter how modest — or popular — or essential — the effort.
This is going to cause mass death and disability at scale, but, again, the press (and even a lot of policy people) don’t appear to have figured this out yet, or don’t care because they like tax cuts and “deregulation.” For some, normalization bias has blinded them to what’s coming. 
The attack on net neutrality didn’t just kill “net neutrality.” It eviscerated the FCC’s authority to protect broadband consumers from giant, shitty telecom monopolies. A smattering of states <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/28/courts-again-shoot-down-telecom-lobbys-attempt-to-kill-state-level-net-neutrality-rules/">tried to fill the void with their own state net neutrality laws</a>, but generally haven’t bothered to enforce them. Terrible, shitty corporate giants like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon increasingly see zero accountability… for anything.
This is the future of consumer protection across industries. Feds abdicate their responsibility to protect workers and consumers, regulatory agencies are steadily hollowed out like pumpkins, and a rotating suite of states (with varying degrees of competence) try to fill the void. The companies that lobbied to dismantle stable federal oversight then complain about the “discordant nature of fractured state law.”
With authoritarians taking the dismantling of federal consumer protection to an entirely new level, you’re going to see more and more states trying to fill the void with their own consumer protection laws. But as the fusion of corporatism and authoritarianism finishes irreversibly defanging federal governance, it’s going to increasingly set its sights on state autotomy.
States, facing unprecedented legal assault on everything from immigration law to healthcare, aren’t going to have the time, resources, or staff to meaningfully pick up the feds’ dropped ball on consumer protection and corporate accountability (see: <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/21/will-the-right-to-repair-movement-survive-trumpism-2-0/">popular right to repair reforms</a>). That’s going to result in untold millions of Americans getting ripped off, neglected, or, in many instances, killed.
When these deadly real world impacts come, the right wingers, “free market Libertarians,” and corporate lobbyists who spent decades paving this path will either mysteriously be silent or busy pointing the finger elsewhere. And our consolidated corporate press will, as has been tradition, have its head so squarely lodged up its own ass they’ll never connect the dots for a befuddled, brutalized, and broadly propagandized electorate.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/18/net-neutrality-advocates-wont-appeal-trump-destruction-say-u-s-courts-are-broken/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">513729</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/17/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-172/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/17/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-172/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Aug 2025 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514231&preview=true&preview_id=514231</guid>
<description><![CDATA[This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Strawb with a reply to a couple parts of a comment on our post about “Trump derangement syndrome” turning out to be pretty damn correct: In second place, it’s Rocky with a comment about the FCC installing a babysitter at CBS: And here it […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/strawb/">Strawb</a> with a reply to a couple parts of a comment on our post about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/12/is-it-still-trump-derangement-syndrome-if-all-the-predictions-were-accurate/#comment-4707316">“Trump derangement syndrome” turning out to be pretty damn correct</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Why? Is your contention that non-democratic or abnormally-democratic government inherently represents an “existential threat”?“
</blockquote>
That seems an odd question. If a democratically elected leader chooses to shit on democratic principles and enforce fascistic ones, it seems pretty clear that that’s an existential threat to democracy.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Okay, but that’s putting a lot of blame on “ordinary” people, whereas I’m kind of baffled about how U.S. leadership apparently did nothing for 4 years“
</blockquote>
That’s whataboutery. A lot of “ordinary” people are complicit in that they voted for him despite his obvious character flaws and tendency to distort reality. That doesn’t mean politicians don’t also carry part of the blame.
</blockquote>
In second place, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/derocky/">Rocky</a> with a comment about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/12/trump-fcc-installs-babysitter-at-cbs-to-ensure-the-network-kisses-king-donalds-ass/#comment-4705731">the FCC installing a babysitter at CBS</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
And here it is, the Ministry of Truth, something that “conservatives” claimed the Democrats wanted to create. Lets see the excuses flow defending this abomination claiming this is just a way to fix anti-conservative bias in the media.
</blockquote>
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/regularstone/">Stephen T. Stone</a> about Trump’s DOJ <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/11/trump-doj-cant-score-ice-protest-convictions-because-federal-officers-keep-lying/#comment-4704056">failing to convict ICE protestors due to the constant lies of federal officers</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Liars get lazier with time because they fool themselves into a false confidence. Just look at Donald Trump: He doesn’t even bother trying to justify his lies any more because the GOP buys into him wholesale, his biggest supporters don’t care that he lies, and most of the people in power who supposedly oppose him just accept his framing without bothering to push back on both the lies and the context behind them.
</blockquote>
Next, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/n00bdragon/">n00bdragon</a> with a comment about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/13/federal-judges-have-absolutely-had-it-with-the-trump-administration-doj/#comment-4708404">judges running out of patience with the administration and the DOJ, but not fast enough</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
They’ve “had it” with them so much that they still aren’t disbarring people or ordering arrests for willful violations of court orders.
Contempt of court means jail time for little people. Wake me up when it means jail time for big people too.
</blockquote>
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous comment about <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/11/ny-appeals-court-lol-no-of-course-you-cant-sue-social-media-for-the-buffalo-mass-shooting/#comment-4704149">the attempt to sue social media companies for the Buffalo mass shooting</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Why didn’t they sue phone and computer manufacturers too? If it wasn’t for them, people wouldn’t have been able to post on social media sites.
Next sue the power company for providing electricity that enabled the internet site to exist.
Then sue Comcast, not because they provided the telecommunications medium to get to the site, but because they are a terrible company and deserve to go bankrupt.
</blockquote>
In second place, it’s <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/">MrWilson</a> answering a question about where another commenter got the idea that <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/08/doges-efficiency-theater-wasted-21-7-billion-while-destroying-life-saving-programs-based-on-conspiracy-theories/#comment-4702745">ExTwitter is “doing pretty great right now”</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Grok told them so after it searched for Musk’s perspective on the topic.
</blockquote>
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with another comment from <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/derocky/">Rocky</a>, who continued the riffing that occurred after the second place winning comment above, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/11/ny-appeals-court-lol-no-of-course-you-cant-sue-social-media-for-the-buffalo-mass-shooting/#comment-4704500">about who else people could sue</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Ultimately it’s the Big Bangs fault.
</blockquote>
Finally, it’s one more comment from <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/user/mrwilson/">MrWilson</a>, breaking out a string of acronyms in <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/good-news-scotus-may-sometimes-still-think-the-first-amendment-makes-censoring-the-internet-illegal-but-good-luck-getting-them-to-do-anything-about-it/#comment-4712680">pushing for SCOTUS to cut it out with the shadow docket rulings</a>:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
After all, subverting and weaponizing rules for your own benefit is the GOP MO and SOP, those POS SOBs.
</blockquote>
That’s all for this week, folks!
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/17/funniest-most-insightful-comments-of-the-week-at-techdirt-172/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514231</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>This Week In Techdirt History: August 10th – 16th</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/16/this-week-in-techdirt-history-august-10th-16th/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/16/this-week-in-techdirt-history-august-10th-16th/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leigh Beadon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2025 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[look back]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514170&preview=true&preview_id=514170</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Five Years Ago This week in 2020, we wrote about how the idea that banning TikTok thwarts Chinese intelligence was ridiculous, and how any real threat probably comes from America’s feebly secured infrastructure. As for failed security, we looked at the incredible waste of Baltimore’s aerial surveillance program, and as for worrying “security”, we looked […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Five Years Ago
This week in 2020, we wrote about how <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/12/idea-that-banning-tiktok-thwarts-chinese-intelligence-any-way-is-ridiculous/">the idea that banning TikTok thwarts Chinese intelligence was ridiculous</a>, and how any real threat <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/11/forget-tiktok-feebly-secured-infrastructure-is-our-real-problem/">probably comes from America’s feebly secured infrastructure</a>. As for failed security, we looked at <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/10/baltimores-aerial-surveillance-program-has-logged-700-flight-hours-one-1-arrest/">the incredible waste of Baltimore’s aerial surveillance program</a>, and as for worrying “security”, we looked at how San Diego cops were <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/10/san-diego-police-officers-are-using-old-sedition-law-to-punish-people-swearing-around-cops/">using an old sedition law to punish people for swearing at them</a> and how CBP was pulling all sorts of <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/13/cbp-privacy-impact-assessment-says-it-can-pull-all-sorts-data-communications-peoples-devices-border/">data and communications from people’s devices at the border</a>. This was also the week that we learned more about how, contrary to the popular narrative, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/11/yes-facebook-treats-trump-fans-differently-it-has-relaxed-rules-to-give-them-more-leeway/">Facebook was favoring pro-Trump pages</a>.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2015, Google <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/10/failure-google-plus-should-be-reminder-that-big-companies-very-rarely-successfully-copy-startups/">finally admitted that Google Plus was a failure</a>, and then surprised everyone by <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/10/google-surprises-everyone-breaking-itself-up-kinda/">unveiling its new structure and the holding company Alphabet</a> (which quickly led to some <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/12/bmw-apparently-concerned-that-new-google-holding-company-alphabet-infringes-trademark/">opportunistic trademark concerns from others</a>). We looked at how <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/10/why-tpp-threatens-to-undermine-one-fundamental-principles-science/">the TPP threatened to undermine science</a>, while the US and EU were disagreeing over <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/11/us-says-no-to-eu-plan-new-corporate-sovereignty-courts-so-what-happens-now-with-taftattip/">new corporate sovereignty courts in TAFTA/TTIP</a>. Team Prenda got smacked around again with <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/11/team-prenda-smacked-around-again-ordered-to-pay-another-94000/">another order to pay up some sanctions</a>, Rightscorp engaged a law firm to <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/12/rightscorp-worried-not-perceived-as-trollish-enough-engages-law-firm-to-enter-copyright-lawsuit-business/">enter the copyright lawsuit business</a>, and Techdirt was hit with <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2015/08/12/convicted-fraudster-follows-bogus-dmca-takedowns-with-bogus-dmca-takedown-targeting-techdirt-post-about-his-bogus-takedowns/">a bogus DMCA takedown for our reporting on bogus DMCA takedowns</a>.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2010, an ISP was finally able to admit that it had been <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/10/isp-owner-finally-able-to-admit-that-he-stood-up-to-the-fbi-over-questionable-data-request/">standing up to the FBI for six years but gagged from talking about it</a>, while we looked at how the FBI was <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/10/fbi-prioritizes-copyright-issues-not-so-concerned-about-missing-persons/">prioritizing copyright issues over things like missing persons</a>. We pointed folks to a great overview of how copyright had <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/the-cycle-of-copyright-originally-a-tool-for-censorship-attempted-as-a-tool-for-incentives-back-to-a-tool-for-censorship/">evolved from and then back into a tool for censorship</a>, and asked how many times content industries could <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/12/how-many-times-will-content-industries-claim-the-sky-is-falling-before-people-stop-believing-them/">claim the sky was falling before people stop believing them</a> (but at least more and more people were noticing how <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/13/more-and-more-people-seeing-how-collection-societies-have-distorted-copyright/">collection societies distorted copyright law</a>). We were also deeply unsurprised when <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2010/08/11/sun-rises-in-the-morning-sets-at-night-and-viacom-appeals-youtube-ruling/">Viacom appealed the ruling in its case against YouTube</a>.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/16/this-week-in-techdirt-history-august-10th-16th/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514170</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>As The Nintendo, Palworld Lawsuit Continues, Switch 2 Store Hosts Blatant Palworld Clone</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/as-the-nintendo-palworld-lawsuit-continues-switch-2-store-hosts-blatant-palworld-clone/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/as-the-nintendo-palworld-lawsuit-continues-switch-2-store-hosts-blatant-palworld-clone/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Timothy Geigner]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2025 02:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[boggysoftware]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[nintendo]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[pokcetpair]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[palland]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[palworld]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[pokemon]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[switch 2]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514024&preview=true&preview_id=514024</guid>
<description><![CDATA[We’ve talked a bunch about the lawsuit drama between Nintendo and the Pokémon Co. against PocketPair, the makers of the hit game Palworld. The short version goes something like this. Palworld is clearly inspired by the Pokémon world and games, but does not directly copy anything from those properties. Nintendo in particular seems very annoyed […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[We’ve talked a bunch about the lawsuit drama between Nintendo and the Pokémon Co. against PocketPair, the makers of the hit game <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/palworld/">Palworld</a>. The short version goes something like this. Palworld is clearly inspired by the Pokémon world and games, but does not directly copy anything from those properties. Nintendo in particular seems very annoyed by this game even existing, but, again, no actual direct copying is occurring here. Instead, Nintendo has sued PocketPair for patent infringement over patents it holds for Pokémon video game mechanics that are, to put it mildly, quite generic and for which prior art/use already exists. That lawsuit is still ongoing, but PocketPair proactively removed several supposedly offending features from Palworld to protect itself as much as possible.
If you take anything away from all of that, it should be that Nintendo cares deeply about its IP and protecting its rights in any way imaginable. At least for itself, that is, because as this lawsuit is still active Nintendo is also <a href="https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/nintendo-switch-2-terrible-palworld-rip-off-palland-3884832">offering up a clear Palworld clone</a> on its Switch 2 eShop.
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
Published by BoggySoftware, Palland has been available since July 31 and is available to buy for £9.99. A handful of images from the game show Pokemon-inspired monsters being shot at with a gun. “I watched a few minutes of gameplay and holy shit it looks so bad,” one fan <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Palworld/comments/1mod875/comment/n8bm3hu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">wrote</a> on Reddit. “This is so absurdly bad looking I am not surprised they let it onto the Switch. They don’t have to worry about anyone actually wanting to play it,” <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Palworld/comments/1mod875/comment/n8cs7nw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">added</a> another.
Dataminers have also found <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Palworld/comments/1mpj7jg/the_palworld_bootleg_palland_on_the_switch_uses/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">evidence</a> that Palland developers were calling the game “Palworld” during development. “I really fucking hope this gets thrown in Nintendo’s face during court,” <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Palworld/comments/1mpj7jg/comment/n8jxzix/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">said</a> one fan.
</blockquote>
Now, let’s stipulate a couple of things. First, Techdirt has historically taken the position on video game clones that is something like: We totally understand why this annoys the original creator, but if your game is first and good and the “clone” doesn’t do a bunch of direct copying, we don’t really think it’s a threat to the original creator making money. Second, PocketPair specifically has come right out and has said that it has <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/18/palworld-creator-loves-that-others-are-trying-to-clone-the-game/">zero problem</a> with others trying to clone its game.
But PocketPair also obviously doesn’t see any issue with Palworld being inspired by Pokémon and Nintendo just as obviously disagrees. That’s how moral stances work. If Nintendo has a problem with PocketPair’s bankshot of inspiration over properties it owns, it should have just as big a problem with selling more clear clones of others’ games. It appears it does not have that problem, however, and is happy to collect money for a Palworld clone even as it sues the company behind the game for patent infringement.
It’s hypocrisy of a kind, at the very least. Sadly, that isn’t terribly surprising for Nintendo.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/as-the-nintendo-palworld-lawsuit-continues-switch-2-store-hosts-blatant-palworld-clone/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514024</post-id> </item>
<item>
<title>When Copyright Enters the AI Conversation</title>
<link>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/when-copyright-enters-the-ai-conversation/</link>
<comments>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/when-copyright-enters-the-ai-conversation/#comments</comments>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline De Cock]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2025 22:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
<category><![CDATA[1]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[access to data]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[ai]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[creativity]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[creativity and ai]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[incentives]]></category>
<category><![CDATA[right to read]]></category>
<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.techdirt.com/?p=514070</guid>
<description><![CDATA[This series of posts explores how we can rethink the intersection of AI, creativity, and policy. From examining outdated regulatory metaphors to questioning copyright norms and highlighting the risks of stifling innovation, each post addresses a different piece of the AI puzzle. Together, they advocate for a more balanced, forward-thinking approach that acknowledges the potential of technological […]]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[This <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/tag/creativity-and-ai/">series of posts</a> explores how we can rethink the intersection of AI, creativity, and policy. From examining outdated regulatory metaphors to questioning copyright norms and highlighting the risks of stifling innovation, each post addresses a different piece of the AI puzzle. Together, they advocate for a more balanced, forward-thinking approach that acknowledges the potential of technological evolution while safeguarding the rights of creators and ensuring AI’s development serves the broader interests of society. You can read the <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/20/the-way-forward-for-ai-learning-from-the-elephant-the-blind-men/">first</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/06/27/creativity-technological-evolution/">second</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/18/creative-industries-creators-creatives/">third</a>, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/07/25/creativity-freedom-of-speech-freedom-of-thought/">fourth</a>, and <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/01/creativity-the-fifth-freedom-access-to-knowledge/">fifth posts</a> in the series.
Whenever content is involved, copyright enters the conversation. And when we talk about AI, we’re talking about systems that absorb petabytes of content to meet their training needs. So naturally, copyright issues are at the forefront of the debate.
Interestingly, copyright usually only becomes an issue when there’s the perception that someone or something is successful—and that copyright holders are missing out on potential control or revenues. For decades, “reading by robots” has been a part of our digital lives. Just think of search engines crawling billions of pages to index them. These robots read far more content than any human ever could. But it wasn’t until AI began learning from this content—and, more crucially, producing content that appeared successful—that the rules inspired by the Queen Anne Statute of 1710 come into play.
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The Input Side: Potential Innovation and the Garbage In, Garbage Out Principle</h2>
On the input side, generative AI relies heavily on the data it consumes, but under EU law, its access is carefully regulated. The 2019 EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DCDSM) sets the <a href="https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/08/22/arts-3-and-4-of-the-cdsm-directive-as-regulatory-interfaces-shaping-contractual-practices-in-the-commercial-scientific-publishing-and-stock-images-sectors/#:~:text=While%20art.,an%20appropriate%20manner%E2%80%9D%20(art.">framework</a> for text and data mining (TDM). Article 3 of the Directive permits TDM for scientific research only, while Article 4 allows it more broadly—provided the rightsholder hasn’t expressly reserved their rights.
With the AI Act adopted in 2024 <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4912701">referring</a> to these provisions, we’re left with a raft of questions about the future of AI models. One of the key concerns is the potential for a data winter—a scenario where AI models face limited access to the data they need to evolve and improve.
This brings us to a fundamental concept in AI—Garbage In, Garbage Out. AI models are only as good as the data they are trained on. If access to high-quality, diverse datasets is restricted by rigid copyright rules, AI systems will end up training on lower-quality data. Poor-quality data leads to unreliable, biassed, or outright inaccurate AI outputs. Just as a chef can only make a great dish with fresh ingredients, AI needs high-quality input to deliver reliable, innovative, and useful results. Restricting access due to copyright concerns risks leading AI into a “data winter” where innovation freezes, limited by the garbage fed into the system.
A data winter not only stifles technological advancement but also risks widening the gap between regions that enforce stricter copyright policies and those that embrace more flexible rules. Ultimately, Europe’s global competitiveness in AI hinges on whether it can provide an environment where AI can access the data it needs without unnecessary restrictions.
But access to diverse data is also important from a cultural perspective: if AI is trained predominantly on Anglo-Saxon or non-European content, it naturally reflects those cultures in its outputs. This could mean that European creativity becomes increasingly marginalised, with AI-generated content lacking in cultural relevance and failing to reflect the diversity of Europe. AI should be a tool that amplifies the diversity of human expression, not one that homogenises it.
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Challenges on the Output Side: Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Content</h2>
Now let’s look at the output side of generative AI. The assumption that creative works, like movies, video games, or books, are automatically protected by copyright may not apply to AI-generated content. The traditional protection of creative expression hinges on human authorship, and while creative elements like prompt choices could be considered for copyright, the level of protection will likely be much lower than expected. This could mean that parts of a work—such as AI-generated backgrounds in video games or movies—could be freely copied by others.
This uncertainty could lead to increased pressure from creative industries to modify copyright law, pushing for more familiar levels of protection that might extend copyright to currently unprotected AI-generated content. If such changes happen, we could end up in a spiral where access to knowledge becomes more restricted, stifling creativity and innovation. We’ve seen similar debates before—most notably during the advent of photography, when early courts struggled to determine whether machine-created works could be protected.
The path forward requires a careful balancing act: we need copyright laws that protect human creativity and labour without hampering access to the data that AI—and society—need to innovate and grow. By avoiding a data winter and ensuring AI systems have access to diverse, quality inputs, we can harness AI’s potential to drive the creative industries forward, rather than allow outdated copyright rules to drag progress backward.
Caroline De Cock is a communications and policy expert, author, and entrepreneur. She serves as Managing Director of N-square Consulting and Square-up Agency, and Head of Research at Information Labs. Caroline specializes in digital rights, policy advocacy, and strategic innovation, driven by her commitment to fostering global connectivity and positive change.
]]></content:encoded>
<wfw:commentRss>https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/15/when-copyright-enters-the-ai-conversation/comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">514070</post-id> </item>
</channel>
</rss>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

<a href="http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed"><img src="valid-rss-rogers.png" alt="[Valid RSS]" title="Validate my RSS feed" /></a>

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.techdirt.com/techdirt/feed

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms