Latest news with #KenPaxton
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Out Of Touch Or On A Mission? Patrick's Anti-THC Rant
In a press conference held this week, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick continued to staunchly defend Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), legislation aimed at banning all consumable THC products in the state. Patrick spoke to a room full of reporters about the bill's intent to protect the overall health of Texans, particularly for minors in the Lone Star State, by cutting all access to THC products that have continued to grow in popularity since the state-wide legalization of hemp in 2019. On a city-wide level, as previously covered by The Dallas Express, Dallas voters passed Proposition R in November of last year, making possession of under 4 ounces of marijuana the 'lowest priority' for local law enforcement. However, both efforts have continued to receive pushback from Patrick and other leaders like Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton's office has even sued a handful of municipalities for approving the relaxed laws on marijuana enforcement. 'This unconstitutional action by municipalities demonstrates why Texas must have a law to 'follow the law.' It's quite simple: the legislature passes every law after a full debate on the issues, and we don't allow cities the ability to create anarchy by picking and choosing the laws they enforce,' Paxton said in a press release published last year. SB 3, which has passed both legislative chambers, now seeks to ban all forms of THC, including Delta-8 and Delta-9 variants, currently sold regularly in gas stations and 'smoke shops,' while exempting 'non-intoxicating' cannabinoids like CBD and CBG. However, some details surrounding the bill seem to remain a bit cloudy. The bill will also allegedly allow for the state to maintain and continue running its Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Program, allowing limited medical use of low-THC cannabis products. However, Patrick has not yet clarified if the bill will impact the application process for the program. Critics argue that the ban could have significant economic repercussions, as previously reported by The Dallas Express, potentially dismantling Texas's $8 billion hemp industry and cutting off nearly 50,000 jobs. 'If this ban is passed, it would criminalize both consumers as well as sellers/distributors. Businesses in Texas would have to stop selling these products altogether, which would likely result in a lot of businesses closing up shop altogether,' Ben Michael, an attorney at Michael & Associates, previously told DX. 'This would also likely mean that larger companies based in other states would be limited with where or who they could sell to, leading to potential legal battles. Consumers in Texas could also face fines or charges for buying these products, even if they are for medical purposes, because it seems as though the ban essentially has no exceptions,' Michael added. Yet, Patrick seems deadset on pushing the ban forward. 'We cannot in good conscience leave Austin without banning THC, which is harming our children, and destroying Texans' lives and families,' The Texas Lieutenant General declared via X. Governor Greg Abbott has yet to say whether he will sign SB 3 into law. If enacted, the ban will take effect in September of this year.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock
The Trump administration has waded into a politically charged Texas-led legal fight to dilute US financial giants' alleged influence over corporate America. Last week, the US Justice Department and the US Federal Trade Commission filed a joint "statement of interest" siding with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 10 other Republican-led states in an antitrust case against trillion-dollar asset managers BlackRock (BLK) and its rivals State Street (STT) and Vanguard. The charge: Using their substantial stock holdings, BlackRock and its rival financial firms coordinated a "left-wing ideological" attack on US coal companies, pressuring coal producers Arch Coal, Black Hills, and Peabody to cut coal production in the South Powder River Basin and thermal coal markets, the DOJ and FTC said in the court filing. The decreased output, they said, harmed US consumers by artificially inflating energy prices. "Carbon reduction is no more a defense to the conduct alleged here than it would be to price fixing among airlines that reduced the number of carbon-emitting flights," the DOJ and FTC said in the statement supporting the states' claims. The states allege that the financial firms agreed to reduce output through commitments to carbon-reduction organizations Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+. They also say disclosures from the defendants and public statements show that they engaged directly with coal company executives in efforts to influence production levels, and they used their voting power when engagement fell short of meeting those goals. As large yet minority shareholders, the complaint claims, the defendants have more influence than their formal equity share. The actions extend beyond shareholder advocacy and passive investing by furthering their own "green energy" or net-zero goals, rather than the goals of the coal corporations, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the challengers claim. The agencies' effort to have the administration's perspective considered in the case, despite not being a party to the dispute, has drawn criticism from the defendants and others. On Wednesday, Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog organization, accused the administration of targeting the money managers for political rather than law enforcement reasons. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the agencies to disclose communications underlying their decision to weigh in on the case. CfA was co-founded in 2015 by Anne Weismann, former head counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "This case isn't about antitrust law, but about conservative opposition to even recognizing the risks of climate change," CfA executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said. "Americans deserve to know who is influencing the FTC to use its antitrust authority to attack political opponents." Meanwhile, Derek Mountford, an antitrust partner at Gunster, said the lawsuit's rhetoric also signals political motivation. But, he added, it could ultimately answer an unsettled antitrust question over how competition law applies to the actions of asset managers with significant ownership interests in competing companies. Should asset managers and index fund providers, for example, be treated differently under the law than individuals and businesses that offer products and services and control multiple firms within a singular market? "If one individual owns a significant interest in three competing companies, alarm bells start going off in your head that there could be some anticompetitive conduct going on," Mountford said. Although the BlackRock scenario isn't as cut and dried, he said, concerns have been bubbling about the competitive role that institutional shareholders are allowed to play, compared to companies and suppliers that can more directly influence market competition. "This case is going to represent a much clearer answer to that question than I think we've gotten in any other case of its kind," Mountford said. BlackRock asked for a judge to dismiss the case and accused the administration of trying to "re-write" antitrust law under an "absurd" theory that the coal companies conspired with them to reduce production outputs. "Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and invest in their businesses and employees, likely leading to higher energy prices," the company said in a statement. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made a series of disengagements from the company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives as bipartisan concerns spread over the financial giant's power to sway US markets. Fink publicly stated in June 2023 that he would cease using the politically sensitive acronym "ESG" because it had been "weaponized" by both the ideological right and the left. In January, before President Trump took office, the financial giant cut ties with UN-backed Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), an environmental advocacy group that pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The administration's legal filing came roughly six months after a GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing the three money managers of using their financial clout to force US coal companies to "decarbonize" and reach net zero. According to the report, the money managers forced coal companies to disclose and reduce carbon emissions through negotiations, stockholder proxy resolutions, and the replacement of directors at "recalcitrant companies." Democrats have also criticized the financial firms' outsized influence over US markets, but for different reasons. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a vocal critic of the megamanagers' influence, described the group's stock ownership in 95% of S&P 500 (^GSPC) companies an "oligarchy." Sanders, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also criticized BlackRock for declining to use its weight to intervene in a coal mining labor dispute. Gunster's Mountford said the federal government's decision to weigh in on a state AG-initiated case is unusual but becoming increasingly more prevalent. "It's not something that courts have had to wrestle with, where you have the DOJ weighing in on these types of cases," he said. "It's a pretty new phenomenon, and it's one that Trump sort of pioneered ... and continued during the Biden administration." "I think," he added, "it's here to stay." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Lone Star State — and Trump — versus BlackRock
The Trump administration has waded into a politically charged Texas-led legal fight to dilute US financial giants' alleged influence over corporate America. Last week, the US Justice Department and the US Federal Trade Commission filed a joint "statement of interest" siding with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 10 other Republican-led states in an antitrust case against trillion-dollar asset managers BlackRock (BLK) and its rivals State Street (STT) and Vanguard. The charge: Using their substantial stock holdings, BlackRock and its rival financial firms coordinated a "left-wing ideological" attack on US coal companies, pressuring coal producers Arch Coal, Black Hills, and Peabody to cut coal production in the South Powder River Basin and thermal coal markets, the DOJ and FTC said in the court filing. The decreased output, they said, harmed US consumers by artificially inflating energy prices. "Carbon reduction is no more a defense to the conduct alleged here than it would be to price fixing among airlines that reduced the number of carbon-emitting flights," the DOJ and FTC said in the statement supporting the states' claims. The states allege that the financial firms agreed to reduce output through commitments to carbon-reduction organizations Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+. They also say disclosures from the defendants and public statements show that they engaged directly with coal company executives in efforts to influence production levels, and they used their voting power when engagement fell short of meeting those goals. As large yet minority shareholders, the complaint claims, the defendants have more influence than their formal equity share. The actions extend beyond shareholder advocacy and passive investing by furthering their own "green energy" or net-zero goals, rather than the goals of the coal corporations, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the challengers claim. The agencies' effort to have the administration's perspective considered in the case, despite not being a party to the dispute, has drawn criticism from the defendants and others. On Wednesday, Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog organization, accused the administration of targeting the money managers for political rather than law enforcement reasons. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act Request asking the agencies to disclose communications underlying their decision to weigh in on the case. CfA was co-founded in 2015 by Anne Weismann, former head counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "This case isn't about antitrust law, but about conservative opposition to even recognizing the risks of climate change," CfA executive director Michelle Kuppersmith said. "Americans deserve to know who is influencing the FTC to use its antitrust authority to attack political opponents." Meanwhile, Derek Mountford, an antitrust partner at Gunster, said the lawsuit's rhetoric also signals political motivation. But, he added, it could ultimately answer an unsettled antitrust question over how competition law applies to the actions of asset managers with significant ownership interests in competing companies. Should asset managers and index fund providers, for example, be treated differently under the law than individuals and businesses that offer products and services and control multiple firms within a singular market? "If one individual owns a significant interest in three competing companies, alarm bells start going off in your head that there could be some anticompetitive conduct going on," Mountford said. Although the BlackRock scenario isn't as cut and dried, he said, concerns have been bubbling about the competitive role that institutional shareholders are allowed to play, compared to companies and suppliers that can more directly influence market competition. "This case is going to represent a much clearer answer to that question than I think we've gotten in any other case of its kind," Mountford said. BlackRock asked for a judge to dismiss the case and accused the administration of trying to "re-write" antitrust law under an "absurd" theory that the coal companies conspired with them to reduce production outputs. "Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and invest in their businesses and employees, likely leading to higher energy prices," the company said in a statement. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink made a series of disengagements from the company's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives as bipartisan concerns spread over the financial giant's power to sway US markets. Fink publicly stated in June 2023 that he would cease using the politically sensitive acronym "ESG" because it had been "weaponized" by both the ideological right and the left. In January, before President Trump took office, the financial giant cut ties with UN-backed Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), an environmental advocacy group that pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The administration's legal filing came roughly six months after a GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing the three money managers of using their financial clout to force US coal companies to "decarbonize" and reach net zero. According to the report, the money managers forced coal companies to disclose and reduce carbon emissions through negotiations, stockholder proxy resolutions, and the replacement of directors at "recalcitrant companies." Democrats have also criticized the financial firms' outsized influence over US markets, but for different reasons. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a vocal critic of the megamanagers' influence, described the group's stock ownership in 95% of S&P 500 (^GSPC) companies an "oligarchy." Sanders, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also criticized BlackRock for declining to use its weight to intervene in a coal mining labor dispute. Gunster's Mountford said the federal government's decision to weigh in on a state AG-initiated case is unusual but becoming increasingly more prevalent. "It's not something that courts have had to wrestle with, where you have the DOJ weighing in on these types of cases," he said. "It's a pretty new phenomenon, and it's one that Trump sort of pioneered ... and continued during the Biden administration." "I think," he added, "it's here to stay." Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
AI's Unchecked Ascent: How Big Tech is outpacing the regulatory rulebook
Artificial intelligence is experiencing a period of meteoric acceleration. Scarcely a week passes without fresh demonstrations of its expanding capabilities, as giants like OpenAI, Meta, Google, Anthropic and Microsoft unveil deeper integrations of their AI models, each flaunting ever more advanced capabilities. These firms' fortunes were built on data, both scraped from the internet and personal user details. This digital information now serves as the lifeblood for all the AI tools they deploy to the general public as tiered products. Some of these tech titans have faced scrutiny over their data practices, resulting in fines in certain instances and changes in their behavior in others. They have been questioned by regulators, courts, and the general public in several major economies. To understand the kind of data these firms collect and the methods they use, consider a 2020 class action lawsuit brought against Google. In Brown et al vs Google LLC, users alleged that the tech giant was tracking them even when they were browsing privately, using Google's 'incognito' mode. The users alleged that the tech giant was tracking their data, including shopping habits and other online hunts, despite them choosing to browse privately. The search giant reached a settlement in April, and lawyers of the plaintiffs valued the accord as high as $7.8 billion. While users will have to individually file for damages, the company agreed to delete troves of data from their records following the settlement. In another case, Google agreed to settle a case brought against it by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over deceptive location tracking. The Silicon Valley company agreed to pay $1.4 billion for illegally tracking location and biometric details of users without consent. Google is not alone. Llama AI owner Meta is another data guzzler. The social media giant was accused of using biometric data of users illegally. The company agreed to pay $1.4 billion and sought to deepen its business in the state of Texas. The settlement route Both Google and Meta have denied any wrongdoing. This method of making out of court settlement coupled with denying wrongdoing only emboldens the tech giants. By settling, these companies avoid creating legal precedents that could be used against them or the broader tech industry in future cases. A definitive court ruling against their data practices could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits. If Google and Meta's legal woes are largely concerned with user data, OpenAI, the standard-bearer of AI's rapid advance, finds itself contesting lawsuits that probe the very foundations of its training methodologies. Multiple class-action suits accuse the company of illicitly scraping vast quantities of personal data from the internet without consent to train its large language models. High-profile authors and media organisations, including The New York Times, have joined this legal fray, alleging copyright infringement and claiming their intellectual property was unlawfully used to construct the OpenAIs' ChatGPT. The copyright battles aren't limited to the U.S. Indian book publishers and their international counterparts filed a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI earlier this year, while publisher Ziff Davis sued OpenAI for copyright infringement in April, adding to the web of high-stakes copyright cases. These cases starkly illuminate the conflict between the AI industry's perceived hunger for limitless data and established protections for personal information and intellectual property. Even as litigation mounts, OpenAI, Google and Meta's AI development and deployment continue, seemingly undeterred. Oblivious to these legal and regulatory threats, tech giants appear to operate in a realm where conventional constraints are less binding. They not only continue to enhance their AI models but deploy them with ever-greater velocity even as legal frameworks struggle to catch up or even define the parameters of a race that is already decisively underway. The EU gold-standard tested Perhaps, an answer could lie in someplace across the Atlantic, where Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) represents a robust attempt to tether data use to individual rights. Penalties under GDPR can be formidable, and the EU has been moving beyond GDPR violations to broader digital market competition issues. Just this year, the EU fined Meta over the company's user consent policy, which violated the bloc's Digital Markets Act. The EU's scrutiny is not confined to American firms. Complaints have also targeted Chinese tech companies like TikTok and SHEIN, with allegations of unlawful data exports. While GDPR has undeniably compelled companies to adjust certain practices, the broader AI industry, particularly builders of foundational models, has continued its global expansion with little apparent deceleration. Moreover, the ultimate efficacy of Europe's direct AI regulation remains an open question, with the EU's AI Act not slated for full implementation until August 2025. This dynamic is mirrored in other significant economies. India, with its Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is navigating this regulatory maze, formalising a data protection regime. The Act aims for a comprehensive framework, balancing consent requirements with provisions for future flexibility, thus attempting a delicate calibration between control and encouragement. India aims to be both a regulator and an important AI player. China, too, has implemented stringent data privacy rules that make it difficult for foreign firms to transfer 'significant data'. While China is strict about data transfers from its soil, the country has given AI development paramount strategic importance by support local firms to harness latest advances in emerging technologies. And as in the U.S., the firms investing most heavily in AI are often those with the largest data troves. Thus, while courtrooms bustle and regulators issue stern pronouncements, AI giants forge ahead, relentlessly refining models and deploying them at remarkable speeds. Legal challenges, however significant, often resemble the wake behind a rapidly advancing ship rather than a rudder steering its course. It is abundantly clear that privacy laws and regulatory frameworks are struggling to keep pace. The fundamental truth is that Big Tech's AI innovation cycle currently far outstrips the slower, more deliberative cadence of legal and ethical calibration. In this race, user privacy and broader societal guardrails risk becoming afterthoughts—issues to be managed or litigated post hoc, rather than foundational principles guiding AI's unchecked and transformative ascent.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Texas Supreme Court gives initial win to Paxton in migrant shelter case
(The Texas Tribune) — Attorney General Ken Paxton can proceed with his investigation of an El Paso migrant shelter network he has accused of violating state law by helping undocumented migrants, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday. The ruling does not weigh in on the merits of the case, but says the district court erred in blocking Paxton from obtaining documents and getting an injunction to close the shelter. The case began in February 2024 when the attorney general's office demanded documents from the shelter, Annunciation House, related to its work with immigrants. Annunciation House, which opened its first shelter at a Catholic church nearly 50 years ago, primarily serves people who have been processed and released into the U.S. by federal immigration officials. The shelter's director, Ruben Garcia, communicates regularly with Border Patrol and other federal officials to help find shelter for immigrants who have nowhere else to go while their cases are processed. Here's what you need to know: Officials from the attorney general's Consumer Protection Division arrived at the migrant shelter's door on Feb. 7 and demanded a trove of documents within a day. Annunciation House sued the attorney general's office to delay the release of the records, asking a judge to determine which documents shelter officials were legally allowed to release. Paxton's office filed a countersuit to shutter the shelter network. The attorney general's office claimed the shelter was violating state law by helping people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. The investigation was one of more than 12 instances identified last year by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica in which Paxton's office used the state's consumer protection laws to investigate organizations whose work conflicts in some way with his political views or the views of his conservative base. At least four other organizations that work with immigrants have been targeted. An El Paso judge in July denied Paxton's effort to shut down Annunciation House. State District Judge Francisco Dominguez ruled that the state's claim, 'even if accepted as true, does not establish a violation of those provisions.' He also ruled that the state laws are preempted by federal law and therefore 'unenforceable.' Paxton's office appealed the decision directly to the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court. The appeal drew five letters to the court from outside parties. Among them were two in support of Annunciation House filed by El Paso County and First Liberty Institute, a Texas nonprofit that champions religious freedom. America First Legal Foundation, an organization started by a former Trump administration official to advocate for conservative causes, filed a letter in support of Paxton's office. Paxton's office, which has argued that the shelter network should be closed for violating state laws against human smuggling and operating a stash house, told the court that Annunciation House should be shuttered to send a message to other similar organizations. Ryan Baasch of the attorney general's office argued that Annunciation House 'knowingly and purposely' shelters undocumented persons. 'If all the state is allowed to do is obtain an injunction that says, 'Don't do this unlawful act again,' there's absolutely no deterrent effect,' Baasch said in response to a question from a justice about why an injunction would be insufficient. When one of the justices asked whether the state wanted to deter organizations from exercising their religious activity, Baasch responded: 'Not all, your honor. We want to deter organizations from knowingly and deliberately sheltering illegally present aliens.' Annunciation House's lawyers have characterized the state's arguments as 'utter nonsense,' arguing that Paxton's efforts violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech, association and religion, and the Fourth Amendment, which offers protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Annunciation House lawyer Amy Warr argued that most of the people who the shelter helps have been processed and released by federal immigration authorities while their cases are pending. She said other federal authorities, like the FBI, sometimes bring undocumented people to the shelter who they need as witnesses in criminal cases. 'Law enforcement knows we are there, knows that we house undocumented people,' Warr said. 'If they want to pick somebody up, they come with a warrant and they get the person — or they wait outside until the person comes out. They have full means to do this.' Annunciation House gave five minutes of its oral arguments to First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom organization. Elizabeth Kiernan argued on behalf of the group that Annunciation House's work is motivated by the group's Catholic faith. 'The Catholic church has claimed Annunciation House as one of its own,' Kiernan said. 'If the (Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act) protects anything, it protects this religious charity against outright closure.' In a unanimous opinion, with one justice recused, the Texas Supreme Court found that the district court had erred in granting Annunciation House a permanent inunction against records requests from the Attorney General, and in denying the state's request for a permanent injunction. Should Paxton's office ask for another injunction, 'the trial court must assess it in light of our holdings,' the justices wrote. But they made clear that they were not weighing in on the strength of Paxton's arguments or his chances of winning this case outright. 'It is too early for us, or for any court, to express a view about the merits of the underlying issues,' the unanimous opinion reads. 'Perhaps the case will terminate quickly based on evidentiary or legal grounds; perhaps it will go to trial… We resolve only what we must to dispose of today's appeal.' The case will return now to the district 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
