Newly proposed Congressional legislation would require the US to conduct security reviews for connected vehicles built by automakers from China and “other countries of concern.” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official who has championed the issue, introduced the bill on Wednesday.

If passed by Congress (a tall order these days), the Connected Vehicle National Security Review Act would establish a formal review process for connected autos from Chinese companies. It would also allow the Department of Commerce to limit or ban these cars and other vehicles before they reach US consumers.

“Today’s vehicles are more sophisticated than ever, carrying cameras, radars and other sophisticated sensors, plus the ability to process, transmit and store the data they gather from the United States,” said Slotkin. “If allowed into our markets, Chinese connected vehicles offer the Chinese government a treasure trove of valuable intelligence on the United States, including the potential to collect information on our military bases, critical infrastructure like the power grid and traffic systems, and even locate specific U.S leaders should they so choose.”

Rep. Elissa Slotkin

In a speech on the House floor earlier this month, Slotkin noted that Chinese EVs, often sold much cheaper than their US and European counterparts, could quickly gain a significant share of the American market. She cited how Chinese vehicles, first sold in Europe in 2019, now make up almost a quarter of its market. The representative also recently pushed Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on the security gap.

Alternatively (and perhaps ideally), legislators could pass a comprehensive data privacy law rather than dealing with these issues piecemeal.

The bill’s introduction follows the Biden Administration’s quadrupling of import tariffs on Chinese EVs. The White House’s new EV levies grew from 25 percent to 100 percent, following China’s EV exports rising 70 percent between 2022 and 2023.

In February, the White House also ordered the Department of Commerce to investigate the risks of connected vehicles from China and other adversaries. However, that action was conducted through an executive order and could be undone by future administrations. Slotkin’s legislation would close those loopholes if it makes it through Congress — rarely a safe bet in today’s highly obstructed and contentious political environment.

TikTok will face off with the Justice Department this fall in its bid to stop a law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set a September date for oral arguments in two cases challenging a law that requires ByteDance to sell the app or face a ban.

TikTok filed a lawsuit claiming that the law was unconstitutional earlier this month. The company has said that divesting from ByteDance is “simply not possible” and that it had already negotiated with the US government to address national security concerns. Separately, a group of TikTok creators are also challenging the law. They claim that the law violates their First Amendment rights because they would lose their ability to communicate on the platform. TikTok is reportedly paying the creators’ legal fees in the case.

In September, the appeals court will hear challenges in both cases, which have been consolidated. As Reuters notes, the September date lines up with TikTok’s desire for a “fast-track” schedule in the case, which could eventually end up before the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that could provide at least some accountability for Ticketmaster and other live event vendors. NBC News reports the TICKET Act (not to be confused with the Senate’s separate bill with the same try-hard acronym) would mandate that ticket sellers list upfront the total cost of admission — including all fees — to buyers.

In addition to the full pricing breakdown, the bill would require sellers to indicate whether the tickets are currently in their possession. It would also ban deceptive websites from secondary vendors and force sellers to refund tickets to canceled events. The bill doesn’t appear to address price gouging or extravagant fees.

It now moves to the Senate, which is floating two separate event-reform bills: the other TICKET Act and a bipartisan Fans First Act. The latter was introduced in December to strengthen the 2016 BOTS Act that bars the use of bots to buy tickets, a practice that Taylor Swift fans (among others) can attest is still all too common.

Reforming the ticketing industry became a political point-scoring item in late 2022 after Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift fiasco. The Live Nation-owned service, which has a stronghold on the industry, melted down as millions of fans battled “a staggering number” of bots. Ticketmaster said presale codes reached 1.5 million fans, but 14 million (including those pesky bots) tried to buy tickets.

Live Nation President and CFO Joe Berchtold testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2023, where he largely passed the buck to Congress to fix the mess. He suggested the government strengthen the BOTS Act, which one of the Senate’s bills would try to do. During the hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) needled the executive for dodging blame, accusing the company of pointing the finger at everyone but itself.

Representatives Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) issued a joint statement on Wednesday about the House’s TICKET Act. “This consensus legislation will end deceptive ticketing practices that frustrate consumers who simply want to enjoy a concert, show, or sporting event by restoring fairness and transparency to the ticket marketplace,” the group wrote. “After years of bipartisan work, we will now be able to enhance the customer experience of buying event tickets online. We look forward to continuing to work together to urge quick Senate passage so that we can send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law.”

Artists publicly supporting legislation to combat the ticketing industry’s failures include (among others) Billie Eilish, Lorde, Green Day, Cyndi Lauper, Jason Mraz and Dave Matthews. “We are joining together to say that the current system is broken: predatory resellers and secondary platforms engage in deceptive ticketing practices to inflate ticket prices and deprive fans of the chance to see their favorite artists at a fair price,” a joint letter from over 250 musicians reads.

On Monday, the US Supreme Court dismissed Elon Musk’s appeal about a 2018 SEC settlement regarding his infamous “funding secured” tweet. Ars Technica reports that the conservative-majority court took a break from weighing whether US Presidents should be above the law to pass on Musk’s attempt to throw out the agreement, which required him to pay fines, step down from Tesla’s board and have his tweets pre-screened by a lawyer.

The justices denied Musk’s petition without commenting. Their unwillingness to take up the billionaire’s appeal leaves intact an appeals court ruling from a year ago that smacked down the Tesla founder’s claims of victimhood.

The saga began in 2018 when Musk tweeted, “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” He also posted, “Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.” Tesla’s stock rose by more than six percent.

There was only one tiny problem: The funding wasn’t secured, and the SEC takes false statements that affect investors very seriously. The SEC said, “Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source” and that he “knew that he had not satisfied numerous additional contingencies.” The government agency claimed the post caused “significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla’s stock.”

The SEC settlement hit his wallet hard, requiring Musk and Tesla to each pay $20 million in penalties. He also had to step down from his board chairman role at the automaker and have a Tesla attorney screen any investor-related tweets before posting. Of course, Musk later bought Twitter and changed its name to X. But at least that’s going splendidly!

His appeal said the settlement forced him to “waive his First Amendment rights to speak on matters ranging far beyond the charged violations.” Musk, who currently has an estimated net worth of $185 billion, claimed he was a victim of “economic duress” when agreeing to the settlement, which he described as a tactic to “muzzle and harass” him and his company.

The 2nd Circuit appeals court, whose ruling will now be the final word on the matter, shot down Musk’s arguments. “Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights,” they said. The appeals court saw “no evidence to support Musk’s contention that the SEC has used the consent decree to conduct bad-faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech.”

The bill that will force a sale or ban of TikTok in the United States is now law. President Joe Biden signed a package of foreign aid bills that included the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” one day after the legislation was approved by the Senate.

In a statement, TikTok said it would challenge the law in court, which could delay an eventual sale or ban. “This unconstitutional law is a TikTok ban, and we will challenge it in court,” the company said. “We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail. The fact is, we have invested billions of dollars to keep U.S. data safe and our platform free from outside influence and manipulation. This ban would devastate seven million businesses and silence 170 million Americans.”

The law gives TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, which is based in China, up to a year to sell the app to a new owner. If the company fails to divest, then TikTok will be banned from US app stores and web hosting services.

Unlike previous attempts to force a sale or ban of the app, the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” had overwhelming bipartisan support and was able to move through Congress with remarkable speed. The original version of the bill, which called for a six-month window to divest, passed the House in March, just days after it was introduced. An updated version, which allows up to 12 months for a divestment, passed over the weekend.

In a video shared on TikTok, CEO Shou Chew called it a “disappointing moment” for the company. “Make no mistake, this is a ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” he said. “It's actually ironic because the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.”

Developing...

A bill that could ban TikTok is now all but certain to become law. The Senate approved a measure that requires ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban, in a vote of 79 - 18. The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” will next head to President Joe Biden, who has said he would sign the bill into law.

While it’s far from the first effort to force a ban or divestment of the social media app, the bill managed to draw far more support than previous attempts. The bill was introduced in March and sailed through the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan agreement. A slightly revised version was approved as part of a package of foreign aid legislation on Saturday.

Under the updated terms, TikTok would have up to 12 months to divest from parent company ByteDance or face a ban in US app stores and web hosting services. The company has called the bill unconstitutional and indicated it would mount a legal challenge to such a law, which could further delay an eventual sale or ban.

The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

TikTok has long been viewed with suspicion by lawmakers and the intelligence community. Ahead of votes in the House and Senate, members of Congress were briefed by intelligence officials on the alleged national security threat posed by the app. The exact nature of those concerns is still unclear, though some members of Congress have asked for details from the briefings to be declassified.

At the same time, some lawmakers have expressed skepticism, saying that the alleged threat posed by TikTok is largely hypothetical. Free speech and digital rights groups also oppose the bill, noting that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way of protecting Americans’ personal data. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has made a similar argument, telling Congress last year that a forced sale wouldn’t resolve data concerns about the app.

But TikTok’s recent efforts to muster opposition to the bill may have backfired. Lawmakers rebuked the company for sending in-app notifications to users about the bill after the alerts resulted in a flood of calls to Congressional offices. And the app may have drawn even more suspicion when Politico reported last week that Chinese diplomats were lobbying Congressional staffers to oppose the bill. Officials in China have condemned the measure. A Chinese law, passed in 2020, could prevent ByteDance from including TikTok’s recommendation algorithm in a sale of the app.

President Biden this weekend signed into law a bill that reauthorizes a controversial spying program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Section 702 of FISA, which has now been extended for two more years, allows for warrantless intelligence gathering on foreign targets. While its focus is on the communications of targets located outside the US, that includes any exchanges with people stateside, meaning Americans’ records can get swept up in these collections too.

The Senate vote on reauthorizing Section 702 came down to the wire. It was set to expire on Friday at midnight, but was recently given an extension until April 2025, according to The New York Times, lest it lapse while disagreements over proposed amendments dragged on. Section 702’s extension period was also shortened, cutting it down to two years instead of the previous five. Congress did ultimately miss the deadline on Friday, but it passed with a 60-34 vote, CBS News reported. The White House issued a statement not long after saying the president “will swiftly sign the bill into law.”

Section 702 was first signed into law in 2008 and has been renewed twice already, allowing US intelligence agencies to use data from internet and cell phone providers without a warrant to keep tabs on foreign targets’ communications.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday that could either see TikTok banned in the country or force its sale. A revised version of the bill, which previously passed the House in March but later stalled in Senate, was roped in with a foreign aid package this time around, likely meaning it will now be treated as a higher priority item. The bill originally gave TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, six months to sell the app or it would be banned from US app stores. Under the revised version, ByteDance would have up to a year to divest.

The bill passed with a vote of 360-58 in the House, according to AP. It’ll now move on to the Senate, which could vote on it as soon as days from now. President Joe Biden has previously said he would support the bill if Congress passes it.

The bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States appears to be much closer to becoming law. The legislation sailed through the House of Representatives last month, but faced an uncertain future in the Senate due to opposition from a few prominent lawmakers.

But momentum for the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” seems to once again be growing. The House is set to vote on a package of bills this weekend, which includes a slightly revised version of the TikTok bill. In the latest version of the bill, ByteDance would have up to 12 months to divest TikTok, instead of the six-month period stipulated in the original measure.

That change, as NBC News notes, was apparently key to winning over support from some skeptical members of the Senate, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. So with the House expected to pass the revised bill Saturday — it’s part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel — its path forward is starting to look much more certain, with a Senate vote coming “as early as next week,” according to NBC. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it’s passed by Congress.

If passed into law, TikTok (and potentially other apps "controlled by a foreign adversary" and deemed to be a national security threat) would face a ban in US app stores if it declined to sell to a new owner. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has suggested the company would likely mount a legal challenge to the law.

“It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually,” TikTok said in a statement.

The News/Media Alliance, formerly the Newspaper Association of America, asked US federal agencies to investigate Google’s removal of links to California news media outlets. Google’s tactic is in response to the proposed California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA), which would require it and other tech companies to pay for links to California-based publishers’ news content.

The News/Media Alliance, which represents over 2,200 publishers, sent letters to the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and California State Attorney General on Tuesday. It says the removal “appears to be either coercive or retaliatory, driven by Google’s opposition to a pending legislative measure in Sacramento.”

The CJPA would require Google and other tech platforms to pay California media outlets in exchange for links. The proposed bill passed the state Assembly last year.

In a blog post last week announcing the removal, Google VP of Global News Partnerships Jaffer Zaidi warned that the CJPA is “the wrong approach to supporting journalism” (because Google’s current approach totally hasn’t left the industry in smoldering ruins!). Zaidi said the CJPA “would also put small publishers at a disadvantage and limit consumers’ access to a diverse local media ecosystem.” Nothing to see here, folks: just your friendly neighborhood multi-trillion-dollar company looking out for the little guy!

Google described its link removal as a test to see how the bill would impact its platform:

“To prepare for possible CJPA implications, we are beginning a short-term test for a small percentage of California users,” Zaidi wrote. “The testing process involves removing links to California news websites, potentially covered by CJPA, to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience. Until there’s clarity on California’s regulatory environment, we’re also pausing further investments in the California news ecosystem, including new partnerships through Google News Showcase, our product and licensing program for news organizations, and planned expansions of the Google News Initiative.”

In its letters, The News/Media Alliance lists several laws it believes Google may be breaking with the “short-term” removal. Potential federal violations include the Lanham Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The letter to California’s AG cites the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, regulations against false advertising and misrepresentation, the California Consumer Privacy Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

“Importantly, Google released no further details on how many Californians will be affected, how the Californians who will be denied news access were chosen, what publications will be affected, how long the compelled news blackouts will persist, and whether access will be blocked entirely or just to content Google particularly disfavors,” News/Media Alliance President / CEO Danielle Coffey wrote in the letter to the DOJ and FTC. “Because of these unknowns, there are many ways Google’s unilateral decision to turn off access to news websites for Californians could violate laws.”

Google has a mixed track record in dealing with similar legislation. It pulled Google News from Spain for seven years in response to local copyright laws that would have required licensing fees to publishers. However, it signed deals worth around $150 million to pay Australian publishers and retreated from threats to pull news from search results in Canada, instead spending the $74 million required by the Online News Act.

Google made more than $73 billion in profits in 2023. The company currently has a $1.94 trillion market cap.