Latest news with #TomUmberg
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
California Senators Suggest Paramount-Trump Settlement Would Amount to a Bribe and Harm Independent Press
Two California state senators have called for a hearing on the settlement talks between Paramount Global and President Trump, alleging that such a deal would amount to a bribe in order to obtain regulatory approval for the studio's merger with Skydance Media. In a letter sent Friday, Sens. Tom Umberg and Josh Becker suggest that a settlement could violate state and federal law, as well as have a 'chilling effect' on investigative and political journalism. The senators invited Wendy McMahon and Bill Owens, top CBS News executives who have resigned in recent weeks, to testify. More from Variety PBS Sues Trump, Claims Defunding Order Violates First Amendment Trump Lawyers Claim '60 Minutes' Harris Interview Caused Him 'Mental Anguish,' Argue That the 'First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion' in Motion to Deny Paramount Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit 'Comics Unleashed' Returns to CBS Late-Night Schedule Following 'Midnight' Cancellation The senators said they were at the beginning stage of an inquiry focused on 'ensuring that public-facing media enterprises compete based on content and quality, not influence, capitulation, or political appeasement.' The letter was first reported by Semafor. Trump sued CBS last October for $10 billion, alleging that the network had engaged in consumer fraud by editing out a portion of a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. Though CBS has argued in court that the suit is without merit, Paramount controlling shareholder Shari Redstone has nevertheless reportedly pushed for a settlement, in hopes that doing so will help expedite the pending $8 billion Skydance. Trump later amended the suit to seek $20 billion in damages. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Paramount is willing to pay up to $15 million, though Trump has held out for a higher amount. Three Democratic U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden and Bernie Sanders — raised alarms earlier this month about the discussions, suggesting that a corrupt quid pro quo may violate the federal bribery statute. Umberg is a former federal prosecutor. In their letter, he and Becker, both Democrats, suggest a settlement would also violate California's unfair competition law, and expose board members to shareholder lawsuits. 'Paramount's capitulation would also undermine two essential pillars of a liberal democracy: a free press and an impartial, rule-of-law regulatory system,' the senators wrote. Owens, the executive producer of '60 Minutes,' stepped down in April, citing interference with CBS' corporate overseers at Paramount. McMahon, the president of CBS News who also oversaw local stations, resigned May 19, also citing conflicts with Paramount honchos. The letter invites both to testify as 'friendly witnesses,' suggesting they may be able to offer insight about the talks and pushback from the news division. The Paramount board was copied on the letter. Some ethics experts have indicated it would be difficult to prove a bribery charge in court, given the challenge of demonstrating an explicit quid pro quo. Best of Variety What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025 New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
California lawmakers ask former CBS leaders to testify on proposed settlement with Trump
California state Sens. Tom Umberg and Josh Becker are asking former CBS leaders to testify in a probe into Paramount's offer to settle a legal fight with President Donald Trump for $15 million. The Democrats said in a letter Friday that they are opening an inquiry into whether the CBS parent company violated California anti-competitiveness law or breached ethical boundaries by caving to a 'frivolous' suit. In the letter to former CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and ex-60 Minutes Executive Producer Bill Owens the senators questioned if the company considered settling 'to secure favorable regulatory treatment' and said such behavior would raise 'deeply troubling implications not just for journalism, but for the rule of law and the integrity of corporate governance.' Semafor first reported the development. Key context: Owens left the network in April citing concerns about his show's independence amid the legal battle with Trump, in which the president claimed an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris was deceptively edited. Paramount officials disputed the claim but nevertheless offered Trump a $15 million settlement, according to the Wall Street Journal, but Trump reportedly refused the deal, seeking more money. McMahon abruptly stepped down from her role earlier this month, saying she disagreed with the company on how to proceed. Details: Umberg and Becker, who chair their chamber's judiciary and energy committees, respectively, raised concerns that the settlement could be illegally anticompetitive, putting in-state media outlets that could not afford such a settlement at a disadvantage. They also said they're seeking to find out whether Paramount violated federal anti-bribery laws, breached its duty to shareholders or misused corporate funding by offering it to Trump. 'Your recent resignations from CBS's leadership, amid public reports of internal concern about the editorial and ethical implications of the proposed settlement, suggest that you may possess important, first-hand knowledge relevant to our legislative oversight responsibilities,' they wrote to the former CBS leaders. A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment. What's next: The senators haven't yet set a date for the joint hearing, but said it would be only the beginning of their inquiry and asserted their committees' subpoena power under state law.
Politico
3 days ago
- Business
- Politico
California lawmakers ask former CBS leaders to testify on proposed settlement with Trump
California state Sens. Tom Umberg and Josh Becker are asking former CBS leaders to testify in a probe into Paramount's offer to settle a legal fight with President Donald Trump for $15 million. The Democrats said in a letter Friday that they are opening an inquiry into whether the CBS parent company violated California anti-competitiveness law or breached ethical boundaries by caving to a 'frivolous' suit. In the letter to former CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon and ex-60 Minutes Executive Producer Bill Owens the senators questioned if the company considered settling 'to secure favorable regulatory treatment' and said such behavior would raise 'deeply troubling implications not just for journalism, but for the rule of law and the integrity of corporate governance.' Semafor first reported the development. Key context: Owens left the network in April citing concerns about his show's independence amid the legal battle with Trump, in which the president claimed an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris was deceptively edited. Paramount officials disputed the claim but nevertheless offered Trump a $15 million settlement, according to the Wall Street Journal, but Trump reportedly refused the deal, seeking more money. McMahon abruptly stepped down from her role earlier this month, saying she disagreed with the company on how to proceed. Details: Umberg and Becker, who chair their chamber's judiciary and energy committees, respectively, raised concerns that the settlement could be illegally anticompetitive, putting in-state media outlets that could not afford such a settlement at a disadvantage. They also said they're seeking to find out whether Paramount violated federal anti-bribery laws, breached its duty to shareholders or misused corporate funding by offering it to Trump. 'Your recent resignations from CBS's leadership, amid public reports of internal concern about the editorial and ethical implications of the proposed settlement, suggest that you may possess important, first-hand knowledge relevant to our legislative oversight responsibilities,' they wrote to the former CBS leaders. A Paramount spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. What's next: The senators haven't yet set a date for the joint hearing, but said it would be only the beginning of their inquiry and asserted their committees' subpoena power under state law.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
23andMe collapse raises questions for California's nation-leading privacy laws
SACRAMENTO, California — Mounting concerns about genetic data privacy in the wake of 23andMe's dramatic collapse are stress-testing California's uniquely tough privacy laws, demonstrating the real-world challenges of actually implementing the protections outlined on paper. California has some of the strongest privacy laws in the country — and the only dedicated privacy agency — but 23andMe has revealed the limits of legislation when the worst happens, with even the state attorney general admitting he struggled to delete his own data from the company. 'This is the nightmare scenario,' California state Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, author of California's Genetic Privacy Rights Act, told POLITICO's California Decoded newsletter. Umberg's 2021 law is coming in clutch right now for Californians scrambling to scrub their saliva from 23andMe's database after the South San Francisco-based company filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, leaving the fate of more than 15 million users' data up for grabs. Unlike in states with weaker laws, the company is legally required in California to safeguard genetic privacy and delete people's information upon request as it navigates bankruptcy filings. Those obligations live on — at least on paper — after 23andMe sells, Umberg said. But enforcing the law is a whole different beast, and it's spawning hard-to-answer questions about how California ensures genetic data stays secure when disaster strikes. Here's what we're wondering as the 23andMe fallout continues: It's not as automatic as you might think, even under California's robust privacy regime. According to 23andMe's privacy policy, customers need to provide additional verification in a follow-up email after pressing the 'delete' button to wipe their data. Even then, the company retains some basic information, including email addresses. The office of Democratic state Sen. Josh Becker, who authored California's 2023 Delete Act bolstering data protections, pointed out that someone has to physically destroy the customer saliva samples stored by 23andMe. 'If 23andMe is completely dissolved and there are no more employees because of this bankruptcy request procedure, then there's nobody to press the delete button,' Becker spokesperson Charlie Lawlor told POLITICO. That's assuming the company can handle the swarm of customers accessing the site while it navigates bankruptcy. 23andMe users have already reported issues accessing the platform to delete their data. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had 'urgently' warned customers to delete their data before the bankruptcy filing, told ABC News this week that the website was down when he first attempted to shutter his account. 'We can try to access the protections that the law gives us, but it might or might not work,' Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director for the nonprofit Oakland Privacy, told POLITICO. The short answer: Whatever that buyer wants to do with it. 'There are a lot of buyers for tens of thousands — or hundreds of thousands — of DNA profiles, and [for] most of them, the reasons are probably malignant or pretty close to that,' Rosenberg said. 23andMe is searching for a buyer that 'shares in its commitment to customer data privacy,' the company said Sunday in an open letter to customers. But whoever buys the genetic data could rework 23andMe's privacy policies before trying to sell the information off to data brokers and the lot, making it difficult for customers to track down and delete their information. 'You've got a zombie business that has incredibly important information,' Umberg said. 'If 23andMe becomes something else, how does a consumer know what that something else is?' Becker authored the Delete Act to solve this problem by creating a one-stop shop to wipe your info from all data brokers, but the feature likely won't be available until January 2026. And even then, the Delete Act won't cover genetic data unless the Legislature approves the follow-up bill, SB 361, that Becker is pushing this year. Neither Umberg nor Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, who co-sponsored the Delete Act, said they're mulling new legislation as a result of 23andMe's bankruptcy. Instead, both lawmakers said it's up to Bonta's office to enforce the laws they wrote. They suggested his office should involve itself in the company's bankruptcy proceedings to ensure 23andMe's successor follows the rules, with Umberg telling POLITICO he planned to spell that out in a letter to the attorney general. 'If a company is violating the law by making it difficult for you to get your data deleted,' Wiener told POLITICO, 'they can be sued.' The state Department of Justice declined to say whether it planned to intervene in the company's bankruptcy proceedings, though spokesperson Elissa Perez told POLITICO in a text message that the department 'expect[s] all companies operating in California to follow the law' and is 'paying close attention to this issue.' But California has no shortage of willing enforcers: Bonta already demonstrated his willingness to go after privacy violators after announcing an investigative sweep of the location data industry earlier this month, and California's Privacy Protection Agency said they're ready to step in if the company slips up. 'If businesses don't hold their end of the bargain by honoring Californians' rights, we'll take appropriate action,' Michael Macko, the CPPA's head of enforcement, told POLITICO in a statement. Chase DiFeliciantonio contributed to this report. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Decoded newsletter.
Politico
27-03-2025
- Business
- Politico
23andMe collapse raises questions for California's nation-leading privacy laws
SACRAMENTO, California — Mounting concerns about genetic data privacy in the wake of 23andMe's dramatic collapse are stress-testing California's uniquely tough privacy laws, demonstrating the real-world challenges of actually implementing the protections outlined on paper. California has some of the strongest privacy laws in the country — and the only dedicated privacy agency — but 23andMe has revealed the limits of legislation when the worst happens, with even the state attorney general admitting he struggled to delete his own data from the company. 'This is the nightmare scenario,' California state Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, author of California's Genetic Privacy Rights Act , told POLITICO's California Decoded newsletter . Umberg's 2021 law is coming in clutch right now for Californians scrambling to scrub their saliva from 23andMe's database after the South San Francisco-based company filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, leaving the fate of more than 15 million users' data up for grabs. Unlike in states with weaker laws, the company is legally required in California to safeguard genetic privacy and delete people's information upon request as it navigates bankruptcy filings. Those obligations live on — at least on paper — after 23andMe sells, Umberg said. But enforcing the law is a whole different beast, and it's spawning hard-to-answer questions about how California ensures genetic data stays secure when disaster strikes. Here's what we're wondering as the 23andMe fallout continues: It's not as automatic as you might think, even under California's robust privacy regime. According to 23andMe's privacy policy , customers need to provide additional verification in a follow-up email after pressing the 'delete' button to wipe their data. Even then, the company retains some basic information, including email addresses. The office of Democratic state Sen. Josh Becker, who authored California's 2023 Delete Act bolstering data protections, pointed out that someone has to physically destroy the customer saliva samples stored by 23andMe. 'If 23andMe is completely dissolved and there are no more employees because of this bankruptcy request procedure, then there's nobody to press the delete button,' Becker spokesperson Charlie Lawlor told POLITICO. That's assuming the company can handle the swarm of customers accessing the site while it navigates bankruptcy. 23andMe users have already reported issues accessing the platform to delete their data. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had 'urgently' warned customers to delete their data before the bankruptcy filing, told ABC News this week that the website was down when he first attempted to shutter his account. 'We can try to access the protections that the law gives us, but it might or might not work,' Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director for the nonprofit Oakland Privacy, told POLITICO. The short answer: Whatever that buyer wants to do with it. 'There are a lot of buyers for tens of thousands — or hundreds of thousands — of DNA profiles, and [for] most of them, the reasons are probably malignant or pretty close to that,' Rosenberg said. 23andMe is searching for a buyer that 'shares in its commitment to customer data privacy,' the company said Sunday in an open letter to customers . But whoever buys the genetic data could rework 23andMe's privacy policies before trying to sell the information off to data brokers and the lot, making it difficult for customers to track down and delete their information. 'You've got a zombie business that has incredibly important information,' Umberg said. 'If 23andMe becomes something else, how does a consumer know what that something else is?' Becker authored the Delete Act to solve this problem by creating a one-stop shop to wipe your info from all data brokers, but the feature likely won't be available until January 2026. And even then, the Delete Act won't cover genetic data unless the Legislature approves the follow-up bill, SB 361 , that Becker is pushing this year. Neither Umberg nor Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, who co-sponsored the Delete Act, said they're mulling new legislation as a result of 23andMe's bankruptcy. Instead, both lawmakers said it's up to Bonta's office to enforce the laws they wrote. They suggested his office should involve itself in the company's bankruptcy proceedings to ensure 23andMe's successor follows the rules, with Umberg telling POLITICO he planned to spell that out in a letter to the attorney general. 'If a company is violating the law by making it difficult for you to get your data deleted,' Wiener told POLITICO, 'they can be sued.' The state Department of Justice declined to say whether it planned to intervene in the company's bankruptcy proceedings, though spokesperson Elissa Perez told POLITICO in a text message that the department 'expect[s] all companies operating in California to follow the law' and is 'paying close attention to this issue.' But California has no shortage of willing enforcers: Bonta already demonstrated his willingness to go after privacy violators after announcing an investigative sweep of the location data industry earlier this month, and California's Privacy Protection Agency said they're ready to step in if the company slips up. 'If businesses don't hold their end of the bargain by honoring Californians' rights, we'll take appropriate action,' Michael Macko, the CPPA's head of enforcement, told POLITICO in a statement. Chase DiFeliciantonio contributed to this report. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Decoded newsletter .
