DOJ paves the way for a legal war on fact-checking
President Donald Trump's DOJ Antitrust Division filed a statement of interest Friday in an existing lawsuit, Children's Health Defense et al. v. Washington Post et al., to weigh in with its interpretation of how antitrust law can apply to what it describes as 'viewpoint competition.' The government doesn't take a stance on the merits of the facts in this particular case, but says it's important for the court to recognize that the 'the Sherman Act protects all forms of competition, including competition in information quality.'
Children's Health Defense is an anti-vaccine advocacy firm founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services. CHD filed suit in 2023 against The Washington Post, British Broadcast Corporation (BBC), Associated Press (AP), and Reuters. The issue was a collaboration between news outlets and tech platforms called the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), which works to flag 'high risk disinformation' and share best practices about how to address it. CHD and several online publishers allege they 'lost millions of dollars in revenue' by being demonetized, downranked, or otherwise restricted on 'platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn.'
While web platforms have a First Amendment right to not publish speech they wish to avoid, CHD claims the TNI amounts to a coordinated effort to violate antitrust laws in 'the US online market for COVID news and the U.S. online market for political news' by disadvantaging the organization and its co-plaintiffs. The antitrust lawsuit is filed solely against the initiative's news publishers, which CHD complains flagged covid-related posts (including widely discounted claims that ivermectin is an effective covid treatment and that covid vaccines are 'toxic or harmful'), as well as posts about the Hunter Biden laptop story, as misinformation and caused platforms to moderate them.
The publishers named in the lawsuit argue they've been 'wrongly targeted' for decisions actually made by tech platforms, and that its accusation of 'suppressing competition in the marketplace of ideas' falls 'outside of the purview of antitrust laws.'
'Exempting viewpoint collusion' from antitrust law 'would free major news organizations and dominant digital platforms to block competitive threats'
The DOJ's interest in the case suggests it believes courts should be open to concluding otherwise. It argues that 'exempting viewpoint collusion' from antitrust law 'would free major news organizations and dominant digital platforms to block competitive threats that offer alternative, competing viewpoints,' thus reducing 'the quality of news and of competition in online news markets.'
The assertion draws on a populist, bipartisan antitrust movement that's gained steam in recent years, arguing that the conventional, price-focused standard of harmful monopolies is too limited, and that courts should take measures like a service's quality into account as well. But it also amounts to asking courts to wade into constitutionally protected editorial decisions by the press and online platforms. It does so as part of a larger Trump administration war on fact-checking, which has drawn the ire of figures like FCC chair Brendan Carr, who helped pressure Meta into ending its fact-checking program when Trump took office.
The government acknowledges that some 'cooperative standard-setting by trade associations have been found lawful', but it says that shouldn't apply if 'they involve efforts by some competitors to exclude rivals from the process.' That means, according to the government, that TNI participants should be scrutinized even if they worked together only to define standards for identifying misinformation and flagging misinformation to each other.
'This Antitrust Division will always defend the principle that the antitrust laws protect free markets, including the marketplace of ideas,' DOJ antitrust chief Abigail Slater said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jon Stewart Slams Right-Wingers For Trying To 'Create Rules That They Would Never Follow'
Jon Stewart on Thursday dismissed questions over whether the Federal Communications Commission — chaired by Project 2025 contributor Brendan Carr — would 'go after' shows with a 'conservative bias.' The comments from Stewart arrived on the latest episode of his 'Weekly Show' podcast after producer Brittany Mehmedovic referred to Fox News' coverage of allegedleft-wingbias on television. 'This is them trying to police and create rules that they would never follow,' Stewart said. 'The idea that by having what may be a more left-leaning or progressive bent or just bringing in — that's how Fox is popular!' Stewart turned his attention to Fox News' Greg Gutfeld, who — while benefiting from an earlier 10 p.m. EST slot compared to other late-night hosts — has continued to dominate in the ratings department. 'He's not popular because he's a both-sides guy... He's relentless, and after a day of watching Fox News and being bathed in their very purposeful propaganda, it's a great way to top off the night,' Stewart said. He proceeded to mock former 'Tonight Show' host Jay Leno, who recently criticized comics for getting too political. 'The whole thing is fucking ridiculous,' he said. Stewart's remarks arrive just weeks after CBS announced its decision to cancel 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.' While CBS claimed the move was 'purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' critics questioned if the network did so for political reasons, as its parent company Paramount Global looked for FCC approval on a multibillion-dollar merger with SkyDance Media. Earlier in the month, Paramount agreed to a $16 million settlement with Trump over his widely criticized '60 Minutes' lawsuit. Carr, who has notably sought to use the agency to punish broadcasters deemed unfair to the president and conservatives, recently mocked Democrats 'wailing' over the 'Late Show' cancellation. He's gone on to dodge questions over whether Trump had 'anything to do' with the move. Stewart slammed Carr's 'shitposting' and predicted that he won't be going after conservative-leaning programs. 'He is probably right now on a search for more right-wing billionaires that can buy up some more of these properties because there's going to be an acquisition and merger spree for these kinds of things,' he said. Related... Jon Stewart Reveals What His Jewish Upbringing Teaches Him About Israel's War On Gaza Kamala Harris Stuns Colbert With Candid Admission: 'To Hear You Say That… Is Harrowing' 'Brilliant!': Stephen Colbert Mocks Trump Over His Most Bizarre Distraction Yet
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Old Trump speech falsely linked to South Korea trade deal
Social media posts have recirculated an old video of US President Donald Trump and falsely presented it as depicting him calling South Korean leader Lee Jae Myung a "bad negotiator" after their countries agreed a trade deal. The clip in fact shows Trump criticising then president Barack Obama as he launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. "Trump mocks Lee Jae Myung as a bad negotiator," reads a Korean-language post featuring the clip on Naver Band, a South Korean forum, on July 31, 2025. "[Trump] mocked Lee as soon as the tariff negotiations finished. [Lee] has become a total pushover," it continues. The video shows Trump saying, "The people negotiating don't have a clue. Our president doesn't have a clue. He's a bad negotiator." But its Korean subtitles mistranslate "our president" as "their president". The clip was also shared in similar posts on multiple right-wing South Korean circles on Facebook, as well as on YouTube. "The way that fool Lee acted as he did, no wonder he is being mocked," read a comment on one of the posts. Another said: "An international embarrassment to be used like that, then mocked by the US president." Under the trade deal, the United States will impose a 15 percent tariff on South Korean imports -- down from the previously threatened 25 percent -- in exchange for $350 billion in South Korean investments in US industries and $100 billion in energy purchases (archived link). A keyword search on Google found the clip corresponds to a part of a speech Trump gave on June 16, 2015, when he announced his bid for the presidency (archived link). At around the 18:50 mark of the speech posted in full by CSPAN, Trump makes the comment: "The people negotiating don't have a clue. Our president doesn't have a clue. He's a bad negotiator." This was part of a broader tirade against the Obama administration's trade and foreign policies. Trump then references a prisoner swap involving US soldier Bowe Bergdahl to illustrate his criticism of Obama's negotiating skills. Bergdahl was a US Army sergeant who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after walking off his post in Afghanistan and was released in 2014 in exchange for five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay (archived link). "We get Bergdahl. We get a traitor. We get a no-good traitor, and they get the five people that they wanted for years, and those people are now back on the battlefield trying to kill us. That's the negotiator we have," Trump said. A full transcript of the speech published by Time magazine also shows Trump was referring to Obama (archived link). Nowhere in the video or transcript does Trump mention South Korea or Lee Jae Myung. AFP has previously debunked similar instances of Trump remarks and social media posts being misrepresented as references to South Korea.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nvidia's China Nightmare? H20 Chip Faces Backdoor Allegations in High-Stakes Trade Showdown
China's been turning up the heat on Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA), and not in a good way. This week, the country's top internet watchdog summoned Nvidia reps over what it calls serious security risks tied to the H20 chipa product Nvidia designed specifically to meet U.S. export rules. State media pulled no punches either. In a commentary published Friday, the People's Daily warned of potential chip backdoors triggering a nightmare, saying it couldn't allow infected semiconductors into its digital infrastructure. Nvidia responded firmly: Cybersecurity is critically important to us, adding that its chips don't contain any remote access pathways. Still, in today's geopolitical climate, that reassurance may not be enough. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with NVDA. Here's where things get messier. Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. agreed to lift restrictions on H20 sales to China as part of a broader deal involving rare-earth magnetsmaterials critical for everything from smartphones to fighter jets. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had framed the H20 resumption as a meaningful breakthrough after bilateral talks in London, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the magnet issue was solved. But with Beijing now putting the H20 back under the microscope, it's unclear whether Nvidia has actually received the licenses it needs to ship the chips. And if China decides the H20 isn't up to pareither technically or politicallythose sales may stall before they even start. Meanwhile, CEO Jensen Huang has been walking a tightrope. Fresh off a high-profile visit to Beijing, Huang praised China's AI momentum and national champions like DeepSeek, all while pushing back on the idea that Nvidia would ever install surveillance backdoors into its products. He called the suggestion not only false, but bad business. Still, the reality is this: Nvidia's H20, already weaker than its flagship GPUs, now faces a political test that could matter more than its specs. Investors watching the tech standoff might want to pay close attention to what happens nextbecause this chip is turning into a geopolitical bargaining chip. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
