Regulation

The House voted against a procedural step to advance a slate of three President Donald Trump-endorsed crypto bills that would regulate stablecoins, determine who can regulate cryptocurrency, and prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency. Thirteen Republicans defied Trump’s encouragement to advance the legislation amid disputes about whether the bills should be combined in a vote. It’s not clear what happens next, but Crypto Week might not be done just yet.

As part of an initiative to purge its own regulations, the FCC says it’s removed rules (that hadn’t taken effect) to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers. They were already struck down by a federal appeals court, but advocates can still appeal to the Supreme Court. Free Press General Counsel Matt Wood says the deletion, which came without advanced notice, is “a premature housekeeping step,” that helps “score points with broadband monopolies and their lobbyists.”

The Justice Department released an unsealed indictment against Oak View Group CEO Timothy Leiweke, alleging he conspired with competitor Legends Hospitality to rig the bids for an arena project. Leiweke allegedly convinced Legends not to bid on the project in exchange for subcontracts he later reneged on. The DOJ says Oak View and Legends cooperated and entered non-prosecution agreements, including penalties of $15 million and $1.5 million, respectively.

This expected development follows App Store changes being introduced in June to avoid being slapped with additional fines for violating anti-steering rules under the EU’s DMA. Apple spokesperson Peter Ajemian sent the following statement to The Verge:

A complaint filed by a group of independent publishers alleges that Google abuses its market power by not allowing them to withhold their content from AI Overviews without losing the ability to appear in Search results — a choice that Google believes may impact AI monetization.

The Environmental Protection Agency placed 144 employees on administrative leave, the New York Times reports. The move comes after hundreds of EPA employees signed a letter accusing the Trump administration of “ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters.”

Congress can still vote to effectively bar states from enforcing their own AI laws after what Politico calls the Senate’s “rules referee” decided it meets the criteria to be included in the bill. That slashes opponents’ hope it would be excluded through the Byrd Rule, which restricts the kind of provisions that can be included in reconciliation bills. The Senate version ties the enforcement ban to states’ ability to receive broadband infrastructure funds.

The Supreme Court sent a fax spam case back to a lower court after determining it erred in deferring to the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation. After the FCC said the law didn’t cover online fax services, a lower court decertified a class of fax recipients seeking damages for receiving unsolicited ads. SCOTUS says the court should have made its own interpretation, which could be meaningful for medical professionals who still use faxes.

The Trump administration is thinking about scrapping a ban on white asbestos, a material used in roofing, chlorine manufacturing, and more. White asbestos is banned in many countries; exposure to it has been linked to lung cancer and other serious health risks.

The Trump administration is apparently trying to shut down the board that investigates chemical explosions in the US. What could go wrong?

That’s what UK regulator Ofcom is investigating under Online Safety Act rules, alongside complaints about “the potential for illegal content and activity” on the platform. Anyone familiar with the controversial web forum could have this probe wrapped up by lunch, but let’s see how long it takes them.

Democrat Alvaro Bedoya will formally step down, while continuing the legal battle against President Donald Trump’s attempted firings of him and fellow Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. Trump’s dismissals broke with Supreme Court precedent saying presidents can’t fire independent agency members without cause. Bedoya says while serving as a commissioner has been his “dream job,” he has to take care of his family by seeking a source of income, without breaking federal ethics rules.

We’re at the end of a day-long set of closing arguments, concluding with one final request to the judge from DOJ attorney David Dahlquist to “please seize this moment in time” and order Google to change how it runs search. Judge Mehta thanks everyone for dealing with a “challenging schedule” for the trial and says, “we’ll get back to you as soon as we can,” and with that, the remedies trial portion of US v. Google is officially done.

Its attorney notes that an appeal in the liability case is ongoing, and Google wants that to be able to proceed. The DOJ, in a response, asks Judge Mehta to disregard the request, saying the appeal and remedies can proceed in parallel.

Mehta briefly asks how Google would recommend forming a committee that could handle all the specifics of whatever remedy is proposed, as suggested by the DOJ. Google’s attorney complains any committee could end up simply letting the DOJ — and the executive branch in general — control how the deal gets interpreted. “That delegation of authority, I submit, is a violation of due process.” Schmidtlein also brings up how broad the remit of the committee would be, covering everything from privacy to identifying competitors.

We’re wrapping up final discussions about some of the more obscure remedies, and Google briefly references the issue of advertisers gaming the system if they’re provided search data. “There’s lots of problems with this,” Google’s attorney says, including significant privacy problems.

Judge Mehta has been triaging some non-Google cases to continue past 5, and we’re now back, with Mehta questioning Google’s attorney.

Mehta’s going through a final round of remedies and asking for explanations. First up: a proposed ban on self-preferencing. Government attorney explains it’s focused on search in relation to the Play Store, on-device AI, and a few other products. “Does this mean that, say, let’s say tomorrow Google launches a new product that is... Gemini... Super-Gemini. Do you mean to say if Google launched Super-Gemini, they couldn’t use Google Search to ground it?” Attorney seems to suggest banning something like that might be reasonable, though he equivocates. He says if there’s “a better way to draft” the statute, “we’re all ears.”

Mehta is, again, asking for specifics about a plan to offer incentives to try alternatives to Google. “How does Google deliver that option?” he asks. The attorney’s answer, again: a committee will decide.

Moving on from Chrome acquisitions, we’re in the final section, starting with the state attorney. Michael Schwartz is arguing for an education campaign fund that would address “habit, inertia, and brand recognition” barriers that prevent rivals from attracting users and competing with Google. Mehta asks some practical questions: how much money should be put into the fund, and who decides what the campaign to make people aware of alternatives looks like? The attorney says at a high level, it would be Mehta — who doesn’t seem thrilled about that. “I assure you, I am not qualified to tell you what is a good marketing campaign and what is not,” he says.

We’re back to the DOJ, whose attorney is saying Google’s claim only it can steward Chrome is wrong — and that separating Google from Chrome will, conversely, let it evolve. He struggles to cite a specific legal case that would explicitly justify an order like a Chrome divestiture, but he says looking to the body of law on mergers could be useful, and while the judge can’t require Chromium employees to stick around, he could order financial incentives or other measures that would make Google fill any empty roles.

Google’s lawyer is making a long case against the Chrome sale — essentially arguing that nobody else has the pragmatic incentives to keep developing Chromium or the ability to maintain Chrome as competently. Any divested version of Chrome will be “a shadow of the current Chrome,” he says. “I don’t see how anybody would be better off.” Also, he says, 80 percent of Chrome users are outside the US, and they’d be affected by the divestiture as well.

Schmidtlein says not only is it not justified by the law, the tangible harms outweigh “speculative benefits” to the competitive landscape. There’s “voluminous evidence” Chrome succeeded through innovation.

We’re currently hearing from a lawyer for the state lawsuit against Google, and Mehta is drilling down on a fairly salient issue: will Chromium employees actually move from Google to whoever buys it? The attorney says it’s common industry practice for workers to come with a company. That might be a reasonable claim, but it’s not a hard rule — and if it turns out not to apply here, that’s a potentially big temporary hit to Chromium’s maintenance and all the browser makers that rely on it.