Subsidies Promote Adoption of Low-Emission Technologies like Electric Vehicles
Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
To achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by 2050, implementing green subsidies is essential, complemented by a potential carbon tax, both of which may face opposition under President Donald Trump.
Introducing a price or tax on carbon emissions stands out as the most effective strategy to curb carbon output. However, the U.S. government has continually struggled to enact cap-and-trade laws that would limit emissions and require companies surpassing these limits to buy allowances.
Subsidies are straightforward to deploy and could lower the cost of adopting low-emission technologies, including electric vehicles, thus alleviating the financial impact of carbon pricing.
Wei Peng at Princeton University analyzed the implications of subsidies and carbon taxes to find the most effective policy sequence for emissions reduction in the U.S.
The results indicate that subsidies could lead to a 32% reduction in energy system emissions by 2030; however, this impact may decrease over time as fossil fuels like natural gas remain economically viable.
Conversely, implementing a carbon tax in 2035 could result in the phase-out of most fossil fuels, reducing overall emissions by more than 80% by 2050.
“Subsidies will help cultivate green industries, but we will still require regulatory enforcement to meet decarbonization objectives,” states Penn. “The key question is how to navigate that transition.”
Following President Joe Biden’s 2050 net-zero aim, recent legislation has introduced tax incentives for investments in green infrastructure, ranging from electric vehicle charging stations to carbon sequestration technologies. In contrast, President Trump dismissed these subsidies as “the new green scam” and rescinded many of them.
This unpredictable policy landscape is “the worst-case scenario,” according to Peng. “This inconsistency will either slow down decarbonization or inflate costs.”
If subsidies are reinstated post-Trump’s presidency in 2029, along with introducing a carbon tax by 2045, researchers conclude that the carbon tax would need to be 67% higher than current rates to achieve net-zero emissions. This is primarily due to the necessity of employing costly technology to extract vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Yet, researchers suggest that “accelerated innovation” through unforeseen technological breakthroughs could lessen the need for stringent regulations.
The findings advocate strongly for a carbon pricing model, yet extending this analysis globally would yield richer insights into effective carrot-and-stick combinations, notes Gregory Nemet at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Countries like China and those in the European Union have adopted extensive subsidies and carbon pricing initiatives, leading to advancements such as affordable solar panels, which empower other nations to cut emissions.
“Progress is ongoing in these regions, along with robust policy frameworks,” remarks Nemet. “This fosters accelerated innovation, and the U.S. stands to benefit significantly from this evolution.”
Tesla has notified the UK government that loosening electric vehicle regulations could negatively impact battery car sales and hinder the achievement of carbon targets, as highlighted in recently disclosed documents.
Elon Musk’s electric vehicle manufacturer also requested “support for the used car market,” as per a government consultation submission acquired earlier this year. fast charging, a newsletter focused on electric vehicles.
In April, the Labor government raised concerns among some electric car manufacturers by relaxing rules known as the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. Previously, this mandate aimed to increase EV sales annually, but the new loophole allowed manufacturers to sell more gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Critics argue that a new tax on electric vehicles introduced in last week’s budget may further dampen demand.
Automakers such as BMW, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, and Toyota, all operating factories in the UK, expressed in their submissions during the spring consultation that the mandate was discouraging investment, as they were selling electric vehicles at a loss. In contrast, environmentalists and brands focusing primarily on electric vehicles assert that the rules are serving their intended purpose, with no manufacturers expected to be penalized for 2024 sales.
Tesla emphasized that avoiding new loopholes referred to as “flexibilities” was “essential” for the success of electric vehicle sales.
According to Tesla, these changes could “diminish the availability of battery electric vehicles (BEVs), significantly impact emissions, and jeopardize the UK’s carbon budget.”
Prime Minister Rachel Reeves has committed to imposing a “pay-per-mile” charge on electric vehicles from 2028, warning manufacturers of even stricter budgets to come. This could make electric vehicles less appealing compared to more polluting petrol and diesel options. Simultaneously, she announced an extension of subsidies for new electric vehicles, which was positively received by the industry.
Tom Reilly, author of Fast Charge, remarked: “Just as the shift to EVs seemed stable, the Budget has pulled it in two different directions, effectively taking from Peter to pay Paul. If car manufacturers seek mitigation obligations again, Labor will only be held accountable when climate targets are not met.”
Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, and Ford expressed concern about their responses being made public and were only permitted to reply through appeals under the Freedom of Information Act. Several documents were extensively redacted, yet the headline still indicated Tesla’s call for “support for the used car market.” Tesla opted not to comment on whether this assistance would involve subsidies.
Conversely, U.S. manufacturer Ford and Germany’s Mercedes-Benz are advocating against stricter regulations after 2030, which would require them to further lower average carbon dioxide emissions, allowing them to continue selling polluting vehicles longer.
Ford has strongly criticized European governments for retracting support for electric vehicle sales, stating, “Policymakers in various European regions are not adhering to the agreement.” Ford had previously backed stronger goals but has since changed its position.
U.S. automakers also highlighted the risk of being overshadowed by Chinese manufacturers, which “lack a foothold in the UK and benefit from lower costs.”
Mercedes-Benz contends that the UK should lower the value-added tax on public charging, which is equivalent to household electricity, from 20% to 5%, and suggests that a price cap on public charging fees should be considered.
Additionally, Tesla advocated for banning the sale of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a battery-only range of less than 160 miles starting in 2030, a rule that would exclude many of the best-selling models in this category.
Ford, Mercedes-Benz, and Tesla chose not to provide further comments.
Greetings! Welcome to TechScape. I’m Blake Montgomery, your host. I bring you insights from an American grocer preparing for Thanksgiving pie.
In the realm of technology, the European Union is easing restrictions on artificial intelligence, while the United States has made more progress. The AI bubble remains intact, bolstered by Nvidia’s staggering quarterly profits, although worries continue. Additionally, Meta has managed to avoid disbanding for reasons analogous to those of Google.
Rollback of Regulations
The billions invested in AI far exceed Europe’s commitment to digital privacy and rigorous tech regulation. The EU’s AI legislation and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) have both faced delays and weakenings. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi had previously alerted that Europe was trailing behind the United States and China regarding innovation in critical technologies like AI. This sentiment was echoed by other stakeholders, including the EU’s Economic Commissioner.
My colleague Jennifer Rankin reported on Brussels’ pursuit for growth:
This initiative is part of the commission’s “digital omnibus” aimed at simplifying technical regulations, encompassing the GDPR, the AI Act, the ePrivacy Directive, and the Data Act.
Proposed modifications to the GDPR would facilitate tech firms in utilizing personal data for training AI models without needing consent. Furthermore, it aims to mitigate “cookie banner fatigue” by restricting how often users must consent to online tracking.
The committee also confirmed plans to postpone the implementation of key components of the AI Act, scheduled to be enforced in August 2024 and not yet fully applicable to enterprises.
Read more: European Commission faces ‘major setbacks’ in digital protection
Meanwhile, the United States is intensifying efforts to uphold its position in the AI sector by attempting to lift restrictions on the industry’s future expansion. Legislators have included provisions in the annual National Defense Authorization Act directing the federal government to obstruct state-level AI regulations. AI in the U.S. is less regulated compared to Europe or China, but this may soon change. Proposals within the NDAA could also prevent DJI, the leading Chinese drone manufacturer, from launching new products in America.
Last week, Donald Trump introduced a similar executive order, and earlier this year, Congressional Republicans suggested a 10-year halt on state regulations governing AI, which was overwhelmingly opposed with a 99-1 vote in the Senate. Future amendments may face similar resistance. Over 200 state legislative representatives and senators attended on Monday, and published a letter opposing the measure (pdf).
Under the proposed regulation, the Justice Department would take legal action against states trying to restrict AI, particularly targeting California and Colorado. If passed, the U.S. would advance further in regulating emerging technologies, refraining from imposing nationwide constraints on the companies that develop them while punishing state laws attempting to do so. Critics contend such actions could allow the risks associated with AI to proliferate unchecked and infringe on national sovereignty. Proponents from Silicon Valley argue that reducing legal impediments accelerates growth and profits, benefiting both the industry and the nation.
President Trump’s assertion of needing to simplify AI regulation in the U.S. has drawn skepticism. “It can’t go through 50 states. You need one standard. Fifty is chaos. Just one state can trigger a domino effect,” he stated during last week’s US-Saudi Investment Forum. “There will be some Waystars, but they resist this. They want to end AI.”
Which Technologies to Invest In
A Week in AI
Bubble Burst? Not Yet, Claims Nvidia
Comment from Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang: Photo: Anne Wang/Reuters
Nvidia released its quarterly results last week, showcasing strong performance, reflecting several consecutive years of impressive profits. The headline in August read: “NVIDIA Sets New Sales Record Amid Concerns of AI Bubble and Trump’s Trade War.” Fresh updates announced: “‘We excel at every AI stage’: NVIDIA CEO assuages Wall Street’s anxieties about an AI bubble amid market downturns.”
My colleague Johana Bhuiyan reported on the findings:
The company has outperformed Wall Street expectations across several metrics consecutively, demonstrating that the substantial economic AI boom shows no signs of slowing down. Nvidia posted diluted earnings per share of $1.30 on total revenue of $57.01 billion, exceeding investor anticipations of $1.26 per share with revenues of $54.9 billion. Year-over-year sales surged 62%. Data center sales reached $51.2 billion, outpacing the expected $49 billion. The company also predicts sales for the fourth quarter to be around $65 billion, while analysts anticipated $61 billion.
CEO Jensen Huang remarked, “There’s considerable talk regarding an AI bubble. From our perspective, it appears quite different. For clarity, Nvidia’s trajectory is distinct from other accelerators. We thrive at every phase of AI, from pre-training to post-training to inference.”
Stock prices globally surged due to Nvidia’s impact, and markets celebrated. The chip manufacturer’s success is robust; however, apprehensions about an impending decline linger. Despite a strong financial report, Nvidia’s stock dipped the following day. My colleague Callum Jones covered market fluctuations as follows:
Major U.S. stock indexes saw declines less than 24 hours after Nvidia’s impressive results initially propelled gains.
Wall Street experienced a surge when Nvidia, the largest publicly traded company, assured investors of a strong demand for its advanced data center chips. However, this relief diminished, with technology stocks central to the AI boom facing pressure.
In New York, the benchmark S&P 500 index closed down 1.6%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 0.8%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index ended 2.2% lower.
“Watching semiconductor companies selling to power AI doesn’t alleviate concerns that some of these hyperscalers may be overspending on AI infrastructure,” stated Robert Pavlik, senior portfolio manager at Dakota Wealth. “Your enterprise might benefit from it, but other firms are still heavily investing.”
Metastore in Burlingame, California Photo: Bloomberg/Getty Images
Recently, Meta lost a significant antitrust case filed by the U.S. government. The reasoning for the victory aligns with the rationale expressed by judges in another tech giant monopoly case, the United States v. Google. Both judges indicated that the technology sector had dramatically evolved since the inception of the case.
In recent years, notable competition has emerged in the tech sector, particularly in search and social media, challenging both Google and Meta. For Google, rival competitors include ChatGPT and broader generative AI. The tech titan has admitted that it faces an existential competition with smaller adversary OpenAI. In 2022, Google executives referred to ChatGPT as a “code red” for the search business. However, this David may not be equipped to overpower Goliath. Sam Altman noted that advancements in Google’s AI could present “temporary economic headwinds” and create a “challenging environment” for the company.
Meta’s competing force is TikTok. Mark Zuckerberg has used similar terms as Pichai, describing the rapid rise of apps as a “very urgent” threat to his social media platform. Shortly thereafter, Meta launched Reels, a short-form video feed on Instagram.
Judge James Boasberg pointed to the surge of popular Chinese social media platforms as evidence of increased competition in the social networking space. “The landscape that existed just five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission filed this antitrust case has changed dramatically.” He criticized the FTC for not considering YouTube as a relevant competitor. “Even excluding YouTube, the entry of TikTok alone could nullify the FTC’s lawsuit,” he opined.
Judge Boasberg determined that new competition would not compel Meta to divest Instagram, acquired in 2012 for only $1 billion, or WhatsApp, purchased in 2014 for $19 billion.
Read more: Meta prevails in significant U.S. antitrust case, removing the necessity to divest WhatsApp and Instagram
In September, the U.S. judge overseeing the U.S. v. Google case issued an opinion akin to Boasberg’s, with the exception being Google’s loss. The government had charged tech giants with unlawfully monopolizing the online search domain. According to the University of Pennsylvania, Google commands roughly 90% of the global search market. Wharton Business School. Google.com is the leading website globally. The judge concurred with the government’s stance but disagreed that the solution required Google to sell Chrome.
Google will not be compelled to divest Chrome, the world’s leading web browser, likely valued more than Instagram and WhatsApp combined. The judge acknowledged that generative AI has transformed the market forever, introducing types of competition that Google hasn’t encountered in decades. Companies such as OpenAI are positioned more favorably compared to any earlier challengers against Google.
Read more: How Google evaded a major breakup – and why OpenAI is grateful for it
The Broader TechScape
Quick Guide
Contact Us About This Story
Show
The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand reporting from those in the know.
If you have something to share regarding this matter, please contact us confidentially using the methods below.
Secure Messaging in the Guardian App
The Guardian app has a tool to submit story tips. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and hidden within the daily activities performed by all Guardian mobile apps. This prevents observers from knowing that you are communicating with us, much less what you are saying.
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, please download it (iOS/Android), then access ‘Secure Messaging’ from the menu.
SecureDrop, Instant Messenger, Email, Phone, Mail
If you can securely access the Tor network without being observed or monitored, you can send messages and documents to the Guardian through our SecureDrop platform.
Finally, our guide at theguardian.com/tips lists various ways to contact us safely and explains the associated pros and cons.
France’s equality regulator has determined that Facebook’s job advertising algorithm is discriminatory towards women, following an investigation that revealed a bias in job ads for mechanics favoring men, while ads for kindergarten teaching positions were predominantly shown to women.
The watchdog group, Défenseur des Droits, contended that Facebook’s targeted job ad system discriminates based on gender, which constitutes indirect discrimination. The regulator advised Facebook and its parent company, Meta, to implement measures to eliminate discriminatory practices in advertising and granted the company three months to inform French authorities of its actions.
According to the regulator’s ruling, “The system implemented for distributing job listings treats Facebook users differently based on their gender, thereby resulting in indirect gender discrimination.”
This ruling followed an initiative from Global Witness, a campaign organization focused on examining the influence of major tech firms on human rights, which posted advertisements on Facebook that included links to various job opportunities across countries like France, the UK, Ireland, and South Africa.
The findings revealed that, notably in France, 90% of individuals seeing ads for mechanic positions were men, whereas the same percentage of those encountering kindergarten teacher ads were women. Additionally, 80% of viewers for psychologist job ads were women, while 70% of those seeing pilot job ads were men.
Global Witness, along with French women’s rights organizations La Fondation des Femmes and Femme Ingénue, which had reached out to the rights group, praised the ruling.
In a joint statement, they remarked, “This seems to be the first instance where a European regulator has ruled that a social media platform’s algorithms exhibit gender discrimination, marking significant progress in holding these platforms accountable under existing legislation.”
“This decision conveys a powerful message to all digital platforms that they will be held responsible for such biases,” stated attorney Josephine Sheffet, representing the plaintiffs. “This legal principle establishes a crucial precedent for future legal actions.”
Mr. Mehta disputed the ruling, with a spokesperson stating: “We disagree with this decision and are exploring our options.”
Meta had agreed to modify Facebook’s algorithms in 2022 after allegations from the U.S. Department of Justice suggested that the platform’s housing advertising system discriminated against users based on criteria like race, religion, and gender.
In light of rising apprehensions regarding the effects of artificial intelligence on performers, actress Olivia Williams emphasized that actors should handle data obtained from body scans similarly to how they approach nude scenes.
The star of Dune: Prophecy and The Crown stated that she and fellow actors often face mandatory body scans by on-set cameras, with scant assurances on the usage and destination of that data.
“It would be reasonable to adhere to the ‘Nude Rider’ standard,” she noted. “This footage should only be used within that specific scene; it must not be repurposed elsewhere. Furthermore, any edited scenes must be removed across all formats.”
Williams drew attention to a vague provision in contracts that seems to grant studios extensive rights to use images of performers “on every platform currently existing or created in the future worldwide, indefinitely.”
A renewed conversation about AI’s impact on actors has been ignited by widespread criticism of the development of an AI performer named Tilly Norwood. Actors fear their likenesses and poses will be utilized to train AI systems, potentially threatening their employment.
Actors, stunt performers, dancers, and supporting actors relayed to the Guardian that they felt “ambushed” and compelled to participate in body scans on set. Many reported there was little time to discuss how the generated data would be handled or whether it could be used for AI training purposes.
Ms. Williams recounted her unsuccessful attempts to eliminate the ambiguous clause from her contract. She explored options for obtaining a limited license to control her body scan data, but her lawyer advised her that the legal framework was too uncertain. The costs of trying to reclaim the data were prohibitively high.
“I’m not necessarily looking for financial compensation for the use of my likeness,” she remarked. “What concerns me is being depicted in places I’ve never been, engaging in activities I’ve never done, or expressing views I haven’t shared.”
“Laws are being enacted, and no one is intervening. They’re establishing a precedent and solidifying it. I sign these contracts because not doing so could cost me my career.”
Williams expressed that she is advocating for younger actors who have scant options but to undergo scans without clear information regarding the fate of their data. “I know a 17-year-old girl who was encouraged to undergo the scan and complied, similar to the scene from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Being a minor, a chaperone was required to consent, but her chaperone was a grandmother unfamiliar with the legal implications.”
The matter is currently under discussion between Equity, the UK performing arts union, and Pact, the trade body of the UK film industry. “We are urging for AI safeguards to be integrated into major film and television contracts to prioritize consent and transparency for on-set scanning,” stated Equity Executive Director Paul W. Fleming.
“It is achievable for the industry to implement essential minimum standards that could significantly transform conditions for performers and artists in British TV and film.”
Pact issued a statement saying: “Producers are fully aware of their responsibilities under data protection legislation, and these concerns are being addressed during collective negotiations with Equity. Due to the ongoing talks, we are unable to provide further details.”
TThe Ofcom regulators, equipped with clipboards, navigated the exhibition space during the International Adult Industry Conference in Prague over the weekend, aiming to motivate 1,700 attendees to adhere to the UK’s newly implemented online safety regulations.
“Be truthful,” a regulator addressed a crowd of porn site operators and staff during a midday seminar discussing the age verification requirements that were set in motion in July as part of the legislative framework for accessing adult content. “Be transparent. If your efforts fall short, include them in the risk assessment.”
Attendees enjoying complimentary champagne offered by conference sponsors posed some uneasy inquiries. What steps should a company take if it lacks the funds for age verification? How hefty are the penalties? Can a site circumvent regulations by blocking traffic from the UK? Were Ofcom officials aware that some site owners might be trying to undermine their competitors by reporting them for non-compliance?
Presentation by Ofcom at the Wyndham Diplomat Hotel in Prague, Czech Republic. Photographer: Bjoern Steinz/Björn Steinz/Panos Pictures
“We are here to assist you,” another Ofcom regulator explained to an audience of around 50 men and seven women. “It’s a challenge. There’s a wealth of information to absorb, but we exist to assist members of the adult industry in achieving compliance.”
Seven weeks following the activation of the online safety law, Ofcom officials seek to portray the adult industry’s response to this legislation in a positive light. They noted that most of the leading 10 and top 100 adult websites have either implemented age verification checks or restricted access within the UK. Platforms like X and Reddit, which feature pornographic content, also provide age verification guarantees. In August, views surged to 7.5 million on the top five age verification websites, up from 1 million in June.
Regulators intend to frame the introduction of age verification on July 27 as a pivotal moment for the industry, dubbing it “AV Day,” when children’s access to British porn would be unequivocally obstructed. The situation, however, is more nuanced.
Ofcom screen at the Prague conference. Photographer: Bjoern Steinz/Björn Steinz/Panos Pictures
In the days following the law’s enactment, there was a notable spike in VPN downloads, enabling users to disguise their locations and bypass age verification prompts.
“This development was quite unfortunate,” commented Mike Stabile, director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, representing American adult entertainment. He mentioned moving to a location that did not comply and opted for a non-compliant site. “VPN usage has surged. People are not compliant. Traffic is redirecting to piracy sites. I don’t think Ofcom will regard this outcome as what they intended.”
Corey Silverstein, an American attorney representing several companies in the adult industry and who has encountered numerous failed attempts at enforcing age verification laws in the U.S., noted a significant skepticism towards regulators. “While people maintain professionalism and politeness, this is not the most agreeable audience. Some display overt disdain. You can sense the discomfort in participating in an event like this.”
Despite this, he delivered a presentation for site owners, advising them to confront their aversion to regulators and collaborate with Ofcom to implement new guidelines.
“Their intent is not to harm your business. They are quite friendly. They aren’t out to eliminate you,” he stated. “As I understand it, they do not even impose financial fines. Their goal is to guide you towards compliance.”
Ofcom officials were dressed in neatly pressed white shirts, working amid the ambient sounds of steel drums, distributing A4 printed questionnaires while sponsors served cocktails and a troupe of feather-clad dancers entertained attendees.
The paper form, which allowed for anonymous responses, requested representatives to indicate whether they had adopted age verification in the UK and to discuss reasons for inaction regarding non-compliant businesses. By Saturday evening, Ofcom officials noted that an insufficient number of representatives had completed the form but remained hopeful for better participation on Sunday.
Though no fines have yet been issued under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has initiated 12 investigations into over 60 porn services, including websites and applications.
Updates from these investigations have fueled discontent among adult site proprietors, who are also advocating for stricter regulations in the U.S. and France. Yet, there was some begrudging acknowledgment of Ofcom’s effort to engage with the industry in events and dialogues.
“In the U.S., regulatory bodies often shy away from engaging with us,” remarked Alex Kekeshi, vice president of PornHub’s brand and community. “I appreciate Ofcom’s invitation to the table. Such engagement is often overlooked in discussions on industry regulations.”
Before July 27, Ofcom established a specialized porn portfolio team consisting of six compliance officers to encourage businesses to meet regulatory standards. These team members requested anonymity due to conservative reasons but participated in similar discussions in Berlin, Amsterdam, and LA. Additionally, a larger team of over 40 staff members is focused on investigating organizations that fail to comply.
“We are acutely aware of the industry’s scale and the ease of establishing services for distributing pornographic content indiscriminately,” one regulator remarked. “We are not claiming to lead every service towards compliance; our strategy is to allocate resources where children face the highest risk of harm.” When penalties are applied, they are designed with a deterrent effect, potentially reaching up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue.
“Companies can opt not to risk being pursued by us or facing penalties. We aim to shift the incentive balance so that compliance is deemed less risky.”
Another Ofcom representative avoided commenting on the increase in VPN downloads, asserting that the law’s purpose is to prevent children from inadvertently encountering pornographic content (rather than going after those who deliberately seek it).
In their bid to comply with the new age verification requirements, site owners are also addressing the challenges posed by AI-generated content, urging users to engage of Ofcom’s attention and seeking to prevent companies like Visa and MasterCard from processing payments linked to violent and illegal content. Sites and applications featuring AI-generated pornography also fall under the scope of this legislation.
“How can we distinguish between a 15-year-old AI model and one that represents an 18- or 19-year-old within compliance frameworks?” one attendee questioned, expressing concerns about the potential for AI to inadvertently generate child sexual abuse material.
Steve Jones, who operates an AI porn site, stressed that AI systems need to be programmed to acknowledge what is deemed inappropriate. “We must ensure that depictions are not too youthful or flat. We will disallow pigtails, braces, and toys typically associated with children,” he stated. “AI lacks the ability to differentiate between youthful-looking adults and minors. It’s crucial to teach these distinctions.”
TikTok is jeopardizing the roles of hundreds of UK content moderators, despite the implementation of stricter regulations aimed at curbing the dissemination of harmful materials online.
The popular video-sharing platform announced that hundreds of positions within its trust and safety teams could be impacted in the UK, as well as South and Southeast Asia, as part of a global reorganization effort.
Their responsibilities have been shifted to other European locations and third-party contractors, with some trust and safety roles still remaining in the UK, the company clarified.
This move aligns with TikTok’s broader strategy to utilize artificial intelligence for content moderation. The company stated that over 85% of materials removed for violating community guidelines have been identified and deleted through automation.
The reduction poses challenges for companies, necessitating age verification checks for users accessing potentially harmful content, even with new UK online safety laws now in effect. Organizations risk fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue for non-compliance.
John Chadfield from the Communication Workers Union expressed concerns that replacing human moderators with AI could endanger the safety of millions of TikTok users.
“TikTok employees have consistently highlighted the real-world implications of minimizing human moderation teams in favor of hastily developed AI solutions,” he remarked.
TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese tech firm ByteDance, has a workforce of over 2,500 in the UK.
In the past year, TikTok has decreased its trust and safety personnel globally, often substituting automated systems for human workers. In September, the company laid off an entire team of 300 content moderators in the Netherlands, and in October, it disclosed plans to replace approximately 500 content moderation staff in Malaysia as part of its shift towards AI.
Recently, TikTok employees in Germany conducted a strike against the layoffs in its trust and safety team.
Meanwhile, TikTok’s business is thriving. Accounts filed with Companies House reveal that combined operations in the UK and Europe reached $6.3 billion (£4.7 billion) in 2024, representing a 38% increase from the year before. The operating loss decreased from $1.4 billion in 2023 to $485 million.
A TikTok spokesperson stated that the company is “continuing the reorganization initiated last year to enhance its global operational model for reliability and safety.” This involves a focus on fewer global locations to increase efficiency and speed in the evolution of this essential function for technological progress.
Social media platforms continue to disseminate content related to depression, suicide, and self-harm among teenagers, despite the introduction of new online safety regulations designed to safeguard children.
The Molly Rose Foundation created a fake account pretending to be a 15-year-old girl and interacted with posts concerning suicide, self-harm, and depression. This led to the algorithm promoting accounts filled with a “tsunami of harmful content on Instagram reels and TikTok pages,” as detailed in the charity’s analysis.
An alarming 97% of recommended videos viewed on Instagram reels and 96% on TikTok were found to be harmful. Furthermore, over half (55%) of TikTok’s harmful recommended posts included references to suicide and self-harm, while 16% contained protective references to users.
These harmful posts garnered substantial viewership. One particularly damaging video was liked over 1 million times on TikTok’s For You Page, and on Instagram reels, one in five harmful recommended videos received over 250,000 likes.
Andy Burrows, CEO of The Molly Rose Foundation, stated: “Persistent algorithms continue to bombard teenagers with dangerous levels of harmful content. This is occurring on a massive scale on the most popular platforms among young users.”
“In the two years since our last study, it is shocking that the magnitude of harm has not been adequately addressed, and that risks have been actively exacerbated on TikTok.
“The measures instituted by Ofcom to mitigate algorithmic harms are, at best, temporary solutions and are insufficient to prevent preventable damage. It is crucial for governments and regulators to take decisive action to implement stronger regulations that platforms cannot overlook.”
Researchers examining platform content from November 2024 to March 2025 discovered that while both platforms permitted teenagers to provide negative feedback on content, as required by Ofcom under the online safety law, this function also allowed for positive feedback on the same material.
The Foundation’s Report, developed in conjunction with Bright Data, indicates that while the platform has made strides to complicate the use of hashtags for searching hazardous content, it still amplifies harmful material through personalized AI recommendation systems once monitored. The report further observed that platforms often utilize overly broad definitions of harm.
This study provided evidence linking exposure to harmful online content with increased risks of suicide and self-harm.
Additionally, it was found that social media platforms profited from advertisements placed next to numerous harmful posts, including those from fashion and fast food brands popular among teenagers as well as UK universities.
Ofcom has initiated the implementation of child safety codes in accordance with online safety laws aimed at “taming toxic algorithms.” The Molly Rose Foundation, which receives funding from META, expresses concern that regulators propose a mere £80,000 for these improvements.
A spokesperson for Ofcom stated, “Changes are underway. Since this study was conducted, new measures have been introduced to enhance online safety for children. These will make a significant difference, helping to prevent exposure to the most harmful content, including materials related to suicide and self-harm.”
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle mentioned that 45 sites have been under investigation since the enactment of the online safety law. “Ofcom is also exploring ways to strengthen existing measures, such as employing proactive technologies to protect children from self-harm and recommending that platforms enhance their algorithmic safety,” he added.
A TikTok spokesperson commented: “TikTok accounts for teenagers come equipped with over 50 safety features and settings that allow for self-expression, discovery, and learning while ensuring safety. Parents can further customize content and privacy settings for their teens through family pairing.”
A Meta spokesperson stated: “I dispute the claims made in this report, citing its limited methodology.
“Millions of teenagers currently use Instagram’s teenage accounts, which offer built-in protections that limit who can contact them, the content they can see, and their time spent on Instagram. Our efforts to utilize automated technology continue in order to remove content that promotes suicide and self-harm.”
Wikimedia operators have received approval from a High Court judge to contest the online safety legislation when deemed a high-risk platform, which imposes the most stringent requirements.
The Wikimedia Foundation warns that if OFCOM classifies it as a Category 1 provider later this summer, it will be compelled to limit access to the site in order to meet regulatory standards.
As a nonprofit entity, the organization stated it “faces significant challenges in addressing the substantial technical and staffing demands” required to adhere to its obligations, which include user verification, stringent user protection measures, and regular reporting responsibilities to mitigate the spread of harmful content.
The Wikimedia Foundation estimates that to avoid being categorized as a Category 1 service, the number of UK users accessing Wikipedia would need to decrease by approximately three-quarters.
Wikipedia asserts it is unlike other platforms expected to be classified as Category 1 providers, such as Facebook and Instagram, due to its charitable nature and the fact that users typically interact only with content that interests them.
Judge Johnson declined to challenge Wikipedia’s status in court for various reasons but emphasized that the site “offers tremendous value for freedom of speech and expression,” noting that the verdict would not provide Ofcom or the government a mandate to impose regulations that would severely limit Wikipedia’s operations.
He stated that the classification of Wikipedia as a Category 1 provider “must be justified as proportionate if it does not infringe upon the right to freedom of expression,” but added that it was “premature” to enforce such a classification as Ofcom had not yet determined it to be a Category 1 service.
Should Ofcom deem Wikipedia a Category 1 service, which would jeopardize its current operations, Johnson suggested that technology secretary Peter Kyle “should consider altering the regulations or exempting this category of services from the law,” highlighting that Wikipedia could confront further challenges if this were not addressed.
“We are pleased to report that we are actively engaging with the Wikimedia Foundation,” said Phil Brad Leishmieg, lead attorney for the organization. “While the ruling does not provide immediate legal protection for Wikipedia as we had sought, it accentuates the responsibilities facing Ofcom and the UK government regarding the implementation of the Online Safety Act.”
“The judge has recognized the issues caused by the misalignment of OSA classifications and obligations concerning Wikipedia’s ‘significant value, user safety, and the human rights of Wikipedia volunteer contributors.’
Government KC Cecilia Aibimee stated that the minister has taken OFCOM’s guidance into account, specifically considering whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations, but ultimately decided against it. She remarked that Wikipedia was deemed “in principle an appropriate service necessitating Category 1 obligations,” and that the reasoning behind this decision was “neither unreasonable nor without justification.”
A government representative commented:“We are pleased with today’s High Court ruling. This will assist us in our ongoing efforts to implement online safety laws and foster a safer online environment for all.”
The importance of online safety for children in the UK is reaching a pivotal moment. Starting this Friday, social media and other internet platforms must take action to safeguard children or face substantial fines for non-compliance.
This marks a critical evaluation of the online safety law, a revolutionary regulation that encompasses platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Google, and more. Here’s an overview of the new regulations.
What will happen on July 25th?
Companies subject to the law are required to implement safety measures that shield children from harmful content. Specifically, all pornography sites must establish stringent age verification protocols. According to Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, 8% of children aged 8 to 14 accessed online pornographic sites or apps within a month.
Furthermore, social media platforms and major search engines must block access for children to pornography and content that promotes or encourages suicide, self-harm, and eating disorders. This may involve completely removing certain feeds for younger users. Hundreds of businesses will be impacted by these regulations.
Platforms must also minimize the distribution of other potentially harmful content, such as promoting dangerous challenges, substance abuse, or instances of bullying.
What are the suggested safety measures?
Recommended measures include: Algorithms that suggest content to users must exclude harmful materials. All sites and applications must implement procedures to rapidly eliminate dangerous content. Additionally, children should have a straightforward method to report concerns. Compliance is flexible if businesses believe they have effective alternatives to meet their child safety responsibilities.
Services deemed “high risk”, like major social media platforms, must utilize “highly effective” age verification methods to identify users under 18. If a social media platform is found hosting harmful content without age checks, it is responsible for ensuring a “positive” user experience.
X states that if it cannot determine a user’s age as 18 or older, it defaults to sensitive content settings, thereby restricting adult material. They are also integrating age estimation technology and ID verification to ensure users are not underage. Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, claims to have a comprehensive approach to age verification that includes a teen account feature set by default for users under 18.
“We collaborate with the law firm Payne Hicks Beach,” noted Mark Jones, a partner at the firm. “[Online Safety Act] If not, we strive to clarify it for the company.”
The Molly Rose Foundation, set up by the family of British teenager Molly Russell, who tragically lost her life in 2017 due to harmful online content, is advocating for further changes, including the prohibition of perilous online challenges and requiring platforms to proactively mitigate depressive and body image-related content.
How will age verification be implemented?
Some age verification methods for pornographic providers supported by OFCOM include: assessing a person’s age through live photos and videos (face age estimation), verifying age via credit card, bank, or mobile network operator, matching photo ID, and utilizing a “digital identity wallet” that contains proof of age.
Ria Moody, a lawyer at Linklaters, commented, “Age verification measures must be highly accurate. OFCOM indicates these measures are ineffective unless they ensure the user is over 18, so platforms should not rely solely on them.”
What does this mean in practice?
Pornhub, the UK’s most frequented online porn site, has stated it will implement a “regulatory approved age verification method” by Friday, though specific methods have yet to be disclosed. Another adult site, OnlyFans, is already using facial age verification software, which estimates users’ ages without saving their facial images, relying instead on data from millions of other images. A company called Yoti provides this software and has also made it available on Instagram.
Last week, Reddit began verifying the age of forums and threads containing adult content. The platform utilizes technology from a company named Persona, which verifies age using uploaded selfies or government-issued ID photos. Reddit does not retain the photos, instead storing validation statuses to streamline the process for users.
How accurate is facial age verification?
The software allows websites or apps to set a “challenge” age (e.g., 20 or 25) to minimize the number of underage users accidentally accessing content. When Yoti set a challenge age of 20, less than 1% of 13-17-year-olds were mistakenly verified.
What other methods are available?
Another direct approach entails requiring users to present formal identification, like a passport or driver’s license. Importantly, the ID details need not be stored and can be used solely to verify access.
Will all pornographic sites conduct age checks?
They are expected to, but many smaller sites might try to circumvent the regulations, fearing it will deter demand for their services. Industry representatives suggest that those who disregard the rules may await Ofcom’s response to violations before determining their course of action.
How will child protection measures be enforced?
Ofcom has a broad spectrum of penalties it can impose under the law. Companies can face fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their global revenue for violations—potentially amounting to $16 billion for Meta. Additionally, sites or apps can receive formal warnings. For severe violations, Ofcom may seek a court order to restrict the availability of the site or app in the UK.
Moreover, senior managers at technology firms could face up to two years in prison if they are found criminally liable for repeated breaches of their obligations to protect children and for ignoring enforcement notices from Ofcom.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed on Wednesday its intention to lift current limitations on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin stated at a press conference that the carbon pollution standards established during the Biden administration “stifle” economic growth in the name of environmental protection. Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in January, emphasized that this announcement marks significant progress in US energy management and reassured that the agency would not allow power plants to generate more electricity than they currently do. Presently, the electricity sector represents a quarter of total US emissions. Latest EPA Emissions Data.
Zeldin also indicated that the EPA plans to roll back regulations related to mercury emissions from power plants set by the Biden administration.
Environmental advocates argue that the EPA’s proposal intensifies the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to reshape climate initiatives across various federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, and the National Weather Service. In 2024, the Biden administration confirmed its commitment to address the climate crisis with the most stringent carbon pollution standards for power plants to date, which now face an uncertain future.
Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA administrator under President Joe Biden, described Zeldin’s announcement as a “political maneuver” in a statement on Wednesday that dismissed a “decade of scientific research and policy evaluation.”
“By allowing increased pollution, his legacy will be defined by those who cater to the fossil fuel industry at the cost of public health,” McCarthy stated.
On January 25th, Jeffrey Energy Center’s coal-fired power plant near Emmett, Kansas. Charlie Riedel / AP file
“Science and daily observations tell us that removing pollution standards on the largest industrial gas polluters in the United States is a mistake,” stated Jill Tauber, vice president of climate and energy litigation at Earthjustice, a nonprofit currently involved in litigation against the Trump administration over various environmental rollbacks.
US power plants are significant sources of global carbon emissions. A report from the Institute of Policy Integrity at New York University indicates that if the US electricity sector were treated as a separate nation, it would rank as the sixth largest emitter worldwide.
During the first Trump administration, the EPA loosened several Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations for power plants, but this latest announcement marks a shift towards completely eliminating such standards. Zeldin is following through on his commitment made in March to challenge the “religion of climate change” by revisiting or rescinding 31 regulations related to tailpipe emissions, coal ash, and wastewater management from oil and gas.
The proposed regulations, which are now open for public commentary, are facing scrutiny from legal advocates and environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council. They contend that the EPA has a legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.Legal precedent mandates that greenhouse gases be controlled by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.
“We are closely monitoring whether the EPA will remove these crucial standards based on legal reasoning that is likely to be unviable,” remarked Meredith Hawkins, Federal Climate Law Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The NRDC is prepared to take legal action to ensure our right to breathe clean air is upheld.”
Reducing historic limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants could significantly influence global climate change, as well as have adverse effects on human health and the economy.
Harvey Writer, a lawyer and law professor at George Washington University, expressed hope that if the EPA pursues its planned deregulation, energy companies and utilities committed to renewable energy investments will challenge the Trump administration in court.
“The primary consequence of the proposed regulations is uncertainty and instability,” he stated. “It leaves stakeholders unsure about the next steps ahead. This complicates investment choices and affects job-related decisions, generating widespread market uncertainty.”
Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants extend beyond climate concerns. The combustion of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and various air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and particulate matter. These pollutants are linked to higher instances of respiratory ailments and cardiovascular disease. Regulating carbon emissions from power plants can lead to a broader reduction in air pollution for communities near these facilities, according to Laura Kate Bender, vice president of national advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association.
“This is a dual-edged sword. On the one hand, fossil fuel-fired power plants exacerbate climate change while simultaneously causing health issues,” Bender noted. “Climate change is a public health crisis, and mitigating carbon emissions in the electricity sector is crucial to addressing this emergency.”
On Friday, President Donald Trump enacted four executive orders designed to ease and broaden regulations surrounding nuclear production.
The orders focus on overhauling the Department of Energy’s nuclear energy research, facilitating the construction of reactors on federally owned land, reforming the Nuclear Regulation Authority, and accelerating U.S. uranium mining and enrichment efforts.
Alongside Trump, CEOs from various nuclear energy firms—such as Joseph Dominguez of Constellation Energy, Jacob DeWitt of Oklo, and Scott Nolan of General Substances—joined President Pete Hegses and Secretary of Interior Doug Burgham during the signing of the orders.
President Donald Trump displays an executive order he signed on May 23, 2025, in the Oval Office at the White House. Get McNamee/Getty Images
Before the signing, Burgham remarked that this initiative “reverses over 50 years of excessive regulation on the industry,” and he added that “each of these will address another challenge that has hindered progress.”
Trump referred to the nuclear energy sector as “dynamic,” asserting to reporters, “It’s a dynamic industry. It’s a tremendous industry. It needs to be handled correctly.”
A senior administrator briefing reporters prior to the signing indicated that one executive order aimed at permitting nuclear reactors on federal land is designed to meet rising electricity demands linked to AI technology. They emphasized that “safe and reliable nuclear energy will provide power to vital defense installations and AI data centers.”
The executive order also seeks to expedite the review and regulatory processes for nuclear reactor construction and operation. The fourth order stipulates that the Nuclear Regulation Authority must make licensing decisions for new reactors within an 18-month timeframe, according to officials.
This new timeline aims to “reduce regulatory obstacles and shorten licensing periods” for nuclear reactors.
Dominguez commended the president’s initiative to streamline the nuclear regulation framework, noting, “Historically, regulatory delays have plagued our industry.”
“We often spend too long seeking approval and addressing irrelevant questions instead of the crucial ones,” he added.
Nuclear energy is viewed as a means to transition away from fossil fuels and lower greenhouse gas emissions since it generates electricity without the combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas.
Despite the tripling of solar and wind energy production in the U.S. over the last decade, there remain concerns that current energy sources will struggle to meet soaring energy demands.
Just before the president signed the executive order in his elliptical office, Heggs informed reporters, “We are integrating artificial intelligence across the board. If not, we cannot keep pace. We cannot afford to fall behind. Nuclear energy is essential to powering this.”
Recent reports have projected a 25% increase in U.S. electricity demand by 2030 (compared to 2023), with a staggering 78% rise by 2050, largely due to the surge in AI technology.
Even with the regulatory framework advancing, it may take years to complete the construction and enhancement of nuclear infrastructure. Furthermore, nuclear energy involves significant risks when compared to other green energy alternatives, requiring long-term plans for managing and disposing of hazardous waste, and risks related to potential core meltdowns or terrorist attacks that could release radioactive materials into the environment.
Additionally, Trump signed a fifth executive order on Friday aimed at “restoring trusted scientific rigor as the cornerstone of federal research,” according to officials.
Michael Krazios, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology, informed reporters that this executive order “ensures continued American strength and global leadership in the fields of science and technology.”
On Monday, the Energy Bureau announced it is set to revoke energy and water conservation standards impacting a range of appliances and gas devices, totaling 47 regulations. In this context “It was raising costs for Americans and diminishing quality of life.”
The initiative follows a Presidential Order in which President Trump directed the energy sector to “remove constraints on water pressure and efficiency regulations that make household products more costly and effective.”
However, energy efficiency specialists and climate advocates argue that this move will increase operational costs for household appliances like dehumidifiers and portable air conditioners, as well as industrial machines like air compressors.
“If this consumer assault is successful, President Trump will significantly raise expenses for families when manufacturers flood the market with energy and water-draining products,” stated Andrew Delaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a consortium of environmental, consumer groups, utilities, and governmental agencies.
Delaski further asserted that this initiative breaches anti-backsliding provisions established decades ago.
“It’s evidently illegal, so please exercise caution,” he remarked in a statement.
Similar to many nations, the US has been implementing standards for years that regulate the energy and water usage of appliances, including light bulbs, dishwashers, water heaters, and washing machines.
According to government scientists’ reports, the efficiency standards saved the average American household roughly $576 on water and gas bills in 2024, leading to a 6.5% reduction in national energy consumption and a 12% decrease in public water use. These measures have prevented the total energy and water usage by American households from rising faster than population growth.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration has characterized these standards as an example of government overreach. Trump frequently criticized weak water pressure from shower heads or toilets that do not flush effectively, denouncing the efficiency standards associated with these devices. Conservative factions, too, argue that efficiency standards compromise appliance performance, especially for dishwashers.
The list of energy sector appliance regulations targets various devices, including air cleaners, battery chargers, compressors, cooking tops, dehumidifiers, external power supplies, microwaves, dishwashers, and faucets.
The department indicated that the rescinded standards would “eliminate over 125,000 words from federal regulations.” However, rolling back the standards necessitates a new rule-making process that may take several months. Additionally, these rollbacks could encounter legal opposition.
The department has not yet responded to requests for comments.
Simultaneously, the Environmental Protection Agency is planning to eliminate the Energy Star program, a universal energy efficiency certification for appliances like dishwashers, refrigerators, and dryers.
Historically, manufacturers have backed government efficiency standards, but they are now attempting to leverage Trump’s inclination to deregulate.
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, representing 150 manufacturers responsible for 95% of household appliances sold in the US, is still assessing Monday’s announcement.
However, Jill A. Notini, a public relations officer for the association, highlighted in a statement that the standards “have facilitated decades of successful advancements in appliance efficiency.” The association further noted, “With most appliances operating at near peak efficiency, substantial savings in some products are unlikely.”
In addition to rolling back efficiency standards, the energy sector intends to abolish several clean energy and climate change initiatives. This includes rescinding reporting requirements for voluntary programs that allow businesses to report greenhouse gas emissions and terminating programs that provide compensation for electricity generated from renewable sources.
The energy sector is also discarding what it terms “unscientific” diversity, equity, and inclusion prerequisites for grant recipients, proposing to eliminate regulations that prevent subsidies from discriminating based on gender, race, or age.
Certain proposals appear to be unrelated to the department’s core focus. One suggested repeal involves “termination requirements for a single sex member to compete on sports teams of the opposite sex.”
African farmers who produce some of the world’s most respected coffee are scrambling to comply with the new European Union environmental regulations, which require that the origins of any shipping of beans be documented.
The new measures, which will come into effect at the end of this year, are designed to prevent deforestation driven by agriculture expansion. To comply, farmers need to provide geographical data to show that no coffee is being grown on land where forests have recently been cut down.
Producers are unable to lose access to the vast European markets since December 31st.
Europe consumes more coffee than any other country in the world, and experts say the new regulations, officially known as the EU deforestation regulations, are potentially powerful tools to promote sustainable agriculture and prevent deforestation.
But it also represents what we call the “green squeeze,” which places a heavy burden on millions of small farmers in developing countries that are least contributing to climate change, testing the ability of policymakers to balance people’s needs with natural needs.
“Of course, data is very important to us, but what we’re saying is that we need support,” said Degen Daddy, head of the Oromia Coffee Farmers Co-op. “It’s very challenging and expensive and there’s no help for us.”
Dadi said his group, Ethiopia’s largest cooperative of coffee growers, has more than half a million members based in the central part of the country and could not prepare all the farms by the deadline, possibly without additional support.
Trainers have been crossing the Oromia region for over a year, collecting map coordinates and assisting farmers with new technology. As of March, they were mapping 24,000 farms. European officials validate shipments by cross-checking current geographical allocation data against baseline satellite images and forest cover maps.
Daddy said the cost of mapping one farm is about $4.50. The cost of training is partially covered by grants from the International Trade Centre, a joint organisation of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, established to help poor countries expand their trade.
Ethiopia is the top coffee producer in Africa, with crops accounting for around 35% of the country’s revenue. The Arabica variety is smooth and gentle with fruity, nutty notes, and comes from the country’s southwest highlands. Over a third of Ethiopian coffee is sent to Europe.
Last year’s French government report says EU consumption is liable 44% of coffee-related deforestation all over the world. Another report by the Environmental Group, World Resources Research Institute, found that there was about 2 million hectares of forest cover Replaced with a coffee farm Between 2001 and 2025. Indonesia, Brazil and Peru recorded some of the highest deforestation rates in that period.
The global leader pledged in 2021 at Glasgow Climate Summit to end deforestation by 20303. The agreement highlighted a growing awareness of nature’s role in tackling the climate crisis. The intact forests are natural reservoirs of carbon that warm the planets, keeping them away from the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide, trapping the heat of the sun increases global warming. Once the forest is cleared, these areas will switch to greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, by destroying habitats, it harms the biodiversity of forests and its diversity.
The new EU regulations also cover cattle, cocoa, palm oil, rubber and other crops. Shipment of coffee without proper mapping data can be denied or confiscated and can be fined on the importer.
However, some experts say the measure is being implemented without the necessary support for farmers.
Jodie Keane, an economist at ODI Global, a London-based research organization, said the European Union and major coffee chains should do more to help smallholder farmers.
“We all want to prevent deforestation,” Keene said. “But when applying that standard to rural producers, you need to provide a lot of outreach, sensitization. You need to invest in learning how to do things differently so that they don’t drop them out of the supply chain.”
This was reflected by Etelle Higonet, founder of the watch group Coffee Watch. “These are some of the richest companies in the world,” she said of the European coffee chain. “Of course they could afford to do this.”
In an email, Johannes Dengler, managing partner of Alois Dallmayr, one of Germany’s most well-known coffee brands, confirmed that the new rules are a “big challenge” for Ethiopia. He said Dallmayr is developing a system to ensure compliance and is “working closely with his partners to find viable solutions.”
The Director-General of the European Union’s Trade and Economic Security did not respond to a request for comment. in News Release on April 15th Based on feedback from partner countries, the bloc said it allocated 86 million euros, or about $97 million, to support compliance efforts.
Ethiopian coffee farmers take pride in their high quality beans, as a result of exceptional heirloom varieties, highlands and traditional agricultural practices.
In southwestern Zinma Highlands, farmers like Zinabu Abadura say most growers follow long-standing unwritten rules for cutting trees.
Abadura, who sells directly to informal intermediaries, said his farm has not yet been mapped. Most farmers in his area generate coffee revenue and cannot afford to pay any confusion or additional costs. “Life will be difficult,” he said, as new European rules will be implemented.
However, the new EU standards can sort Ethiopia’s coffee sector, but analysts say they probably won’t stop selling.
Countries like China offer alternative, less isolated markets. And Ethiopia itself is a big coffee drinker. Hospitality is incomplete without a coffee ceremony hosting roasts, grinds and brews in front of guests. About half of the country’s annual coffee production stays at home.
But Tsegaye Anebo, who heads the Sidama Coffee Union, which represents 70,000 farmers, said the pivot to the new market would be disruptive in the short term. He said that the species of ferns in his area are distinctive in its fruity tone and are a favorite in wealthy Europe. And that means premium prices.
Giving up the EU market is not an option, he said.
“We need the EU,” Anebo said. “But they need us too, because they can’t find our coffee anywhere.”
As of July, social media and other online platforms must block harmful content for children or face severe fines. Online Safety Law requires tech companies to implement these measures by July 25th or risk closure in extreme cases.
The Communications Watchdog has issued over 40 measures covering various websites and apps used by children, from social media to games. Services deemed “high-risk” must implement effective age checks and algorithms to protect users under 18 from harmful content. Platforms also need to promptly remove dangerous content and provide children with an easy way to report inappropriate material.
Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes described these changes as a “reset” for children online, warning that businesses failing to comply risk consequences. The new Ofcom code aims to create a safer online environment, with stricter controls on harmful content and age verification measures.
Additionally, there is discussion about implementing a social media curfew for children, following concerns about the impact of online platforms on young users. Efforts are being made to safeguard children from exposure to harmful content, including violence, hate speech, and online bullying.
Online safety advocate Ian Russell, who tragically lost his daughter to online harm, believes that the new code places too much emphasis on tech companies’ interests rather than safeguarding children. His charity, the Molly Rose Foundation, argues that more needs to be done to protect young people from harmful online content and challenges.
In the UK’s new regulatory regime, drones are expected to be used for remote NHS-related missions and to inspect offshore wind turbines and supply oil rigs by 2026.
David Willett, head of the government forces overseeing the deployment of new technology in the UK, highlighted the potential of drones in various missions as changes progress in the coming year.
The Minister recently announced plans to allow drone operators to fly long distances without requiring visual gaze, a significant shift from current regulations that restrict drones from flying beyond visual range.
Speaking to the Guardian, Lord Willett mentioned the potential for drones to serve the NHS and other sectors, citing examples of delivering supplies, drugs, and blood samples to remote locations.
He also discussed the potential benefits of using drones in the Scottish Highlands and islands, as well as in agriculture, under the government’s Safer Streets Fund.
Willett emphasized the need for technology and standards to allow drones to operate in busy airspaces and comply with regulations.
By 2026, drones could also be used for tasks like delivering supplies to oil rigs and inspecting offshore wind turbines, although current regulations require maintaining a visual gaze.
The government has allocated £16.5 million to civil aviation authorities to establish a regulatory framework for the use of drones in various missions, addressing the limitations of current regulations.
The NHS has already conducted trials involving the use of drones to deliver emergency pathological items in central London, demonstrating the potential for drones in healthcare and other sectors.
UK Technology Secretary Peter Kyle expressed confidence that changes in regulations will position the UK as a leader in adopting new technologies.
“These regulatory innovations pave the way for safer and more efficient drone operations in various sectors, ensuring compliance with regulations and enhancing capabilities,” Willett concluded.
This week, President Trump oversaw 10 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Agency and the Nuclear Regulation Authority. Implement a new procedure Discarding a wide array of years of energy and environmental regulations.
He told the agency that oversees everything from gas pipelines to power plants and oversees everything that inserts “sunset” provisions, which automatically expire by October 2026. If an agency wanted to maintain the rules, it could only extend it for up to five years at a time.
Experts say the directive faces major legal hurdles. But it was one of three executive orders from Trump on Wednesday, and he declared that he was pursuing new shortcuts to weaken or eliminate restrictions.
in Another orderhe directed a rollback of federal regulations that restrict the water flow of shower heads with a very unusual legal justification.
“No notices and comments are required as I’m ordering it to be abolished,” Trump’s order said.
Legal experts called the sentence a surprising, violating decades of federal law. 1946 Management Procedures Federal agencies require that they go through a lengthy “notice and comment” process when issuing, amending or repealing key rules, and in general, agencies that do not follow these procedures often find actions blocked by the court.
“In that respect, this is all completely illegal,” said Jody Freeman, director of the Harvard Law School Environment and Energy Law Program.A former White House official under President Barack Obama. “They don’t care if the real lawyers have left the building, they want to hug all of these cases and see if the court bites or not.”
The regulatory process has often been criticized as troubling and time-consuming, and the idea of periodically expiring all government regulations has been promoted in conservative circles for many years. It is known as Zero-based regulatory budgets, A twist on a zero-based financial budget. This is a system in which budgets are built from scratch each year, instead of taking over historic spending amounts.
The idea may have received recent boost from Elon Musk, the billionaire adviser to Trump. “Essentially, regulations should have no default,” Musk said. Public Call His social media site X in February. “The default is gone, not the default. And if it turns out that the restrictions have missed the mark, you can always add it again.”
“We have to clean up the wholesale prostitution of regulations and we have to keep government away from the backs of everyday Americans so that people can get things done,” Musk added.
It is unclear how much the order of the sunset will affect it. Legal experts said the executive order “does not apply to a regulatory permit system that allows regulations approved by the law.”
“We’re excited to see the importance of our efforts to help people change,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Climate Change Law Center at Columbia University. “Most environmental laws appear to fall into that category.”
“The president is right to assure that he doesn’t see Americans mentioning that they are unconstitutional or that they are restraining American energy and competitiveness that is inconsistent with federal law,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement.
In another order called “title”Instructing the abolition of illegal regulationsTrump gave 60 days to ministers 60 days to identify federal rules they deemed illegal and to plan to abolish them. The order said that agency managers can bypass the notification and comment process by taking advantage of the exceptions that experts say are usually booked for emergencies.
However, legal experts said the laws written by Congress, which govern the way federal agencies remove regulations, are extremely strict.
Typically, if a federal agency, such as the EPA, issues or changes regulations, it will first publish the proposed rules and make the time to comment. Agency officials then read and respond to the comments, providing detailed evidence in support of the changes they want to make, indicating that they have addressed public concerns. The agency then publishes the final rules.
“The Management Procedure Act is a boring, sounding law that no one cares about, but we treat it as a basis in our legal profession,” Freeman said. “It tells the federal government that it needs to purposefully do things, take public opinions and rationally adhere to their actions. It’s a promise that the government is not arbitrary.”
There is Specific conditions If the agent can bypass certain steps. For example, if emergency regulations regarding plane safety need to be issued.
However, the Trump administration appears to be using this so-called legitimate cause exception to push for revoking much broader federal rules.
In the past, courts have had little patience when federal agencies tried to circumvent the regulatory process. During Trump’s first term, officials sometimes announced that they had taken important measures and that they had wiped the restrictions out just to be reversed by the court. According to a database held by New York University, the administration lost 76% of cases where environmental policy was challenged, losing a much higher loss rate than previous administrations. Research Institute for Policy Integrity.
This time, Trump administration officials may want the court to be more sympathetic. With three Supreme Court judges appointed by Trump, the court now has a conservative vast majority who have expressed deep skepticism about environmental regulations.
In some cases, administration actions may be legally defensible. For example, when moving to abolish shower water flow restrictions, Trump called for a redefine “shower heads.” In that case, the White House can try to argue that it is abolishing what is called interpretive rules rather than a major regulation, and does not need to go through the same legal process. But experts said that just because Trump said that, the agency couldn’t argue that it was allowed to skip those steps.
“No notifications and comments may be necessary,” said Jonathan Adler, a conservative legal scholar at Case Western Reserve University. “Not because Trump orders it to be abolished, but because there’s a question of whether the only thing that’s been abolished is a definition, then whether it’s an interpretive rule.”
Some say Trump’s plan, which allows regulations to expire every five years, could make it difficult for businesses to plan for the future.
For example, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission has everything from power lines to utility accounting, said Aripescoe, director of Harvard Law School’s Electrical Law Initiative. In theory, new orders should expire regularly.
“The first section of that order talks about how businesses are sure they need,” says Lisa Heinzerling, a law professor at Georgetown University. “But the whole order is a recipe for eternal uncertainty.”
According to Tony Blair’s ThinkTank, the UK should consider relaxing copyright laws to allow artificial intelligence companies to create innovative products.
The Tony Blair Institute, with ties to the US, is set to introduce copyright measures that could lead to tariffs on UK goods. Despite geopolitical concerns, TBI states that caution is necessary.
The ThinkTank warns that requiring licenses for UK content used in AI models may drive development to regions with less stringent copyright laws. Implementing strict licensing models could also involve restricting access to models trained with such content, including US-owned AI systems.
In a newly released report, TBI expresses support for the government’s proposal to allow AI companies to train models with copyrighted materials, unless creatives choose to opt out. TBI suggests that overly strict AI regulations, as suggested by the Trump administration, could hinder economic and national security interests in the AI race.
The report emphasizes the need for collaboration between rights holders, policymakers, and AI developers to balance creativity and innovation in the AI space.
A more stringent copyright approach than that of the EU, Singapore, or Japan could drive AI developers away from the UK, according to TBI.
The report also advocates for the establishment of an AI and creative industries center to foster collaboration between technology and creative sectors.
Beeban Kidron, a vocal opponent of the government’s AI proposal, criticizes the notion that the UK should become an AI hub for Silicon Valley, calling it a bleak vision for Britain.
Kidron raises concerns about potential conflict of interest due to TBI receiving donations from US tech billionaire Larry Ellison. TBI asserts its intellectual independence over policy work despite the funding.
The Biden administration has urged coal and oil-fired power plants to cut back on toxic chemical emissions, including mercury.
Today, the Trump administration is offering a special opportunity for businesses. By sending an email, you could receive permission from President Trump to bypass new restrictions and other major clean air regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that a vague section of the Clean Air Act allows the president to temporarily exempt industrial facilities from new regulations if the necessary technology is unavailable and if it is for national security reasons.
In notifications to businesses, the agency provided templates for seeking approval, including what to include in the subject line of an email. “The president will make a decision on merit,” stated a notice issued by the EPA on Monday.
Joseph Goffman, former executive director of the Harvard Law School Environment and Energy Law Program, expressed concern that President Trump is establishing a process that lacks scrutiny.
Goffman noted that government agencies typically set more specific standards for exemptions from regulations. He argued that Congress intended to include conditions in the Clean Air Act that would ensure some level of pollution control.
He stated, “It’s strongly indicated that decisions will be made on an ad hoc basis at best, as the provision doesn’t currently exist. This contradicts Congress’ intent, disregards the public health needs of affected communities, and goes against the EPA’s historical practices.”
EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou disagreed with this perspective, asserting that there is no explicit requirement for such conditions in the law. “This type of legal analysis seems in line with the responsibilities given,” she stated in an email addressing the interpretation of the law.
Under the latest policy, businesses can apply for up to two years of exemptions from various new restrictions on the emission of toxic substances like mercury and arsenic. This includes ethylene oxide, a carcinogen used in sterilizing medical devices.
Former New York Congressman Zeldin also mentioned that coal-fired power plants could seek exemptions from new regulations requiring them to address the health risks associated with coal ash, a toxic byproduct of electricity production through burning.
The EPA plans to eventually revise many of these same regulations, a complex process that will take time. While this process unfolds, companies are able to avoid complying with certain rules.
Critics like Pugh find it difficult to justify these exemptions, especially since the Biden administration had already identified feasible alternatives for the new rules. They also question the notion that contamination is in the national interest.
As of Thursday, it remained unclear whether companies had begun applying for exemptions, if any were granted, or if they would be made public. The deadline for applying for exemptions is by the end of the month, according to the EPA.
Alexa Lopez, spokesperson for the National Association of Manufacturers, expressed gratitude for the EPA’s consideration of exemptions for affected manufacturers. “NAM is prepared to collaborate with the administration to find a sustainable solution that protects the environment and supports manufacturers in global competition,” Lopez stated.
Technology leaders in the artificial intelligence sector have been pushing for regulations for over two years. They have expressed concerns about the potential risks of generative AI and its impact on national security, elections, and jobs.
Openai CEO Sam Altman testified before Congress in May 2023 that AI is “very wrong.”
However, following Trump’s election, these technology leaders have shifted their stance and are now focused on advancing their products without government interference.
Recently, companies like Meta, Google, and Openai have urged the Trump administration to block state AI laws and allow the use of copyrighted material to train AI models. They have also sought incentives such as tax cuts and grants to support their AI development.
This change in approach was influenced by Trump declaring AI as a strategic asset for the country.
Laura Karoli, a senior fellow at the Wadwani AI Center, noted that concerns about safety and responsible AI have diminished due to the encouragement from the Trump administration.
AI policy experts are concerned about the potential negative consequences of unchecked AI growth, including the spread of disinformation and discrimination in various sectors.
Tech leaders took a different stance in September 2023, supporting AI regulations proposed by Senator Chuck Schumer. Afterward, the Biden administration collaborated with major AI companies to enhance safety standards and security.
(The New York Times sued Openai and Microsoft over copyright infringement claims related to AI content. Openai and Microsoft denied the allegations.)
Following Trump’s election victory, tech companies intensified lobbying efforts. Google, Meta, and Microsoft donated to Trump’s inauguration, and leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk engaged with the president.
Trump embraced AI advancements, welcoming investments from companies like Openai, Oracle, and SoftBank. The administration emphasized the importance of AI leadership for the country.
Vice President JD Vance advocated for optimistic AI policies at various summits, highlighting the need for US leadership in AI.
Tech companies are responding to the President’s executive orders on AI, submitting comments and proposals for future AI policies within 180 days.
Openai and other companies are advocating for the use of copyrighted materials in AI training, arguing for legal access to such content.
Companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft support the legal use of copyrighted data for AI development. Some are pushing for open-source AI to accelerate technological progress.
Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz is advocating for open-source models in AI development.
Andreessen Horowitz and other tech firms are engaged in debates over AI regulations, emphasizing the need for safety and consumer protection measures.
Civil rights groups are calling for audits to prevent discrimination in AI applications, while artists and publishers demand transparency in the use of copyrighted materials.
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday Requirements are delayed by 30 months Its food companies and grocery stores quickly track and pull contaminated food through their supply chains and pull them off the shelf.
The rule, which aimed to “limit food-borne illness and death,” required businesses and individuals to maintain a better record to identify where food was cultivated, packed, processed and produced. It is expected to come into effect in January 2026 as part of the groundbreaking food safety law passed in 2011, and progressed during President Trump’s first term.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has shown interest in food chemical safety, moving to ban food dyes and making public debuts that people can move to ban food dyes. Track toxins in food. However, other actions in the Trump administration’s first months have undermined efforts to tackle the bacteria and other contaminants of diseased food. The administration cut its way through the company closed down jobs for major food safety commissions, frozen scientists’ credit card spending, and routine testing was conducted to detect food pathogens.
In recent years, there have been several well-known outbreaks, including cases related to last year’s fatal listeria of wild boar headmeat and E. coli in the onion of MacDonald’s quarter pounders.
The postponement issued an alarm among several advocacy groups on Thursday.
“The decision is extremely disappointing and consumers are at risk of getting sick with unsafe foods as small segments of the industry are seeking delays despite their 15 years of preparation,” said Brian Ronholm, Food Policy Director for the Advocacy Group’s Consumer Report.
Many retailers have already taken steps to adhere to the rules. Still, food industry trade groups lobbyed to delay the implementation of the December regulations. To the Los Angeles Times.
In a letter to President Trump in December, food manufacturers and other corporate trade groups cited many regulations that they said were “strangled our economy.” They asked Food traceability rules stored and delayed.
“This is a huge step towards food safety,” said Sarah Sosher, director of regulatory affairs at the advocacy group, Science Center for the Public Interest. “The surprising thing about that is that this was a bipartisan rule.”
Sosher said there is widespread support for the measure to protect consumers and businesses.
Tesla has urged the UK government to tighten regulations on carbon emissions from cars and trucks according to documents. The electric car maker also pushed for higher taxes on fossil fuel vehicles.
In a letter to Labor’s Lilian Greenwood, Tesla, led by Elon Musk, proposed strengthening zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements for cars and imposing restrictions on heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). The company called for the introduction of similar rules by the UK government’s Minister of Roads.
Despite a public feud with the Labor Party, Tesla’s vice president praised Labor’s commitment to decarbonizing the energy system and achieving net zero by 2030 in a letter published under the Freedom of Information Act and shared with the Guardian through the fast charging newsletter.
Tesla’s stance contrasts with other automakers lobbying for deregulation. The company believes that advancing and enhancing ZEV mandates is crucial as sales of new electric vehicles increase, prompting growth in the used electric vehicle market.
For trucks, Tesla’s proposed mandate could boost the market for heavy-duty electric vehicles, coinciding with the company’s plans to launch the Tesla Semi. The company called for immediate action to address truck emissions and highlighted the UK lagging behind the EU in regulating such emissions.
A ZEV truck mandate could benefit Tesla by creating a new market for selling credits to rival manufacturers. The company has long advocated for stricter rules on clean transportation and higher taxes on gasoline and diesel cars.
Elon Musk waves near a Tesla semi-electric truck during a 2022 livestream event. Photo: TESLA/Reuters
Despite disagreements with environmentally conscious buyers over his support for Donald Trump, Tesla continues to profit from selling credits to competitors. The company’s revenue from credits reached $2.1bn (£1.65bn) in the first nine months of 2024.
Tesla faces challenges in the US as subsidies for electric cars are cut, potentially impacting sales. However, the company may benefit indirectly if Chinese automakers face tariffs preventing sales in the US without similar assistance to rivals.
Elon Musk is expected to leverage his relationship with Trump to advocate for deregulation in the self-driving car industry. Tesla’s upcoming self-driving taxi, the CyberCab, is key to the company’s future earnings growth. The company also sees an opportunity for the UK to lead in self-driving technology development.
Tesla declined to provide further comments on the matter.
The United States announced new export restrictions targeting China’s advanced semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, drawing immediate criticism from the Chinese government.
The U.S. government is expanding efforts to curb exports to China of cutting-edge chips that can be used in advanced weapons systems and artificial intelligence.
Monday’s announcement comes weeks before Donald Trump returns as president, where he is expected to strengthen Washington’s hawkish stance on China. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said Monday that President Joe Biden’s term has been particularly challenging in “strategically addressing China’s military modernization through export controls.”
Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said: “The United States has taken significant steps to ensure that our technology is not used by adversaries in ways that threaten our national security.” . The U.S. government continues to work with allies and partners to “actively and aggressively protect our world-leading technology and know-how from being used to undermine our national security.”
The Chinese government pledged on Monday to protect its interests, with a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce saying the United States was “abusing export control measures” and “impeding normal economic and trade exchanges.”
The latest U.S. rules include restrictions on sales to 140 companies, including Chinese semiconductor companies Pyotek and SiCarrier, without additional permits. The Commerce Department said they also affect Nowra Technology Group, which makes chip manufacturing equipment. Others include entities in Japan, South Korea and Singapore.
The new U.S. rules also include regulations for 20 types of chip manufacturing equipment and three types of software tools for semiconductor development or production. “We are in constant dialogue with our allies and partners to reevaluate and update our controls,” said Alan Estevez, Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
Netherlands-based computer chip equipment maker ASML, the only manufacturer of cutting-edge chip-making machinery, said it does not expect new U.S. regulations to impact its latest financial metrics. Ta.
ASML said the latest U.S. regulations, if implemented by the Dutch government, will impact exports of deep ultraviolet lithography (DUV) systems to some chip manufacturing plants in China. ASML is the only manufacturer of extreme ultraviolet lithography equipment (EUV) that produces cutting-edge chips. The company already cannot sell EUV equipment to China because of existing government restrictions on the use of US technology.
Separately, the Dutch government said on Monday that it shares the United States’ security concerns regarding exports of advanced semiconductor manufacturing tools and is considering the latest U.S. rules.
The US Department of Commerce said the new regulations are aimed at slowing China’s development of advanced AI that could “change the future of warfare” and undermining the development of China’s own semiconductor ecosystem.
The agency said this was in line with Washington’s “small garden, high fence” policy of strategic restrictions, an approach that Chinese President Xi Jinping criticized last month.
Since the launch of ChatGPT raised global awareness of the power of AI, calls for further shutdowns of the semiconductor supply chain have been growing.
Thibault Denamiel, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP that the move confirms “the trajectory of U.S. policy rather than a significant increase in regulatory efforts.”
“The additions become less important in light of the incoming Trump administration’s proposals,” he added, noting that the president-elect has vowed drastic action to trivialize these latest restrictions on chip technology.
A leading scientist who has worked closely with wealthy individuals to address the dangers of AI suggests that Elon Musk’s influence over Donald Trump’s administration could result in stricter safety standards for artificial intelligence. Concerns about AI were not a prominent feature of Trump’s campaign, but Musk’s support for AI regulation in California demonstrates his ongoing worries about the issue.
Musk has repeatedly cautioned against the uncontrolled advancement of AI, warning of potentially disastrous consequences for humanity. He has advocated for a moratorium on research into powerful AI technologies, emphasizing the need for safety standards to prevent the development of artificial general intelligence that surpasses human intelligence levels.
Max Tegmark, a professor specializing in AI at MIT, believes that Musk could influence Trump to introduce regulations that hinder the advancement of artificial general intelligence. Tegmark sees Musk’s backing of AI safety measures in California as a positive step, even though the bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
Musk’s early support for AI safety initiatives aligns with the efforts of Tegmark’s Future of Life Institute, which advocates for responsible technology use. Musk’s increasing wealth post-Trump’s presidency victory could further bolster his influence in shaping AI regulations.
While Musk has warned of a dystopian future controlled by AI, other experts argue that focusing on catastrophic scenarios may divert attention from immediate concerns like AI manipulation. President Trump’s administration aims to overturn AI safety measures introduced by the Biden administration, citing them as politically biased restrictions on AI development.
These measures include mandatory safety testing for high-risk AI systems that could jeopardize national security, economic stability, or public health and safety.
Apple has been found to be in violation of new EU laws designed to promote competition among smaller companies and help consumers find more affordable alternative apps in tech companies’ app stores.
The European Commission, acting as both the EU’s antitrust and technology regulator, has informed Apple of preliminary findings after launching an investigation in March.
The Commission’s preliminary findings, which Apple can appeal, state that Apple’s conduct rules do not comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) as they restrict app developers from freely directing consumers to other platforms for offers and content.
The Commission has also initiated new non-compliance proceedings against Apple over concerns that its new contract terms for third-party app developers do not meet DMA requirements.
This marks the third non-compliance investigation launched by the Commission since the DMA took effect last year.
As part of the investigation, the committee is examining the “core technology fee,” a charge that Apple imposes on developers each time their app is installed on a phone.
The allegations against Apple for violating EU law represent the first case against a tech company under the DMA, significant legislation introduced last August to ensure fair competition among six designated “very large online platforms,” including Google, Amazon, Meta, and ByteDance (TikTok).
The investigation comes after the committee’s initial inquiry into Apple’s treatment of mobile app suppliers three months ago.
Previous findings from an earlier investigation reiterated that Apple must allow developers to inform customers about alternative, cheaper purchasing methods, guide them to these options, and enable them to make purchases free of charge, as required by new digital laws.
The investigation found that Apple’s terms of business did not allow developers to direct customers to more affordable alternatives or provide pricing information within the app.
Moreover, Apple made it challenging for customers to access pricing information and required links to external web pages for contract details.
Ultimately, the Commission determined that the fees charged by the App Store were excessive and not strictly necessary.
The Commission stated that if Apple’s alleged violations are confirmed, all three of its terms and conditions would violate Article 5(4) of the DMA, mandating gatekeepers to allow developers to direct consumers to external offers free of charge. A non-compliance decision will be issued within 12 months of the proceedings’ start on March 25, 2024.
Apple has responded by making several changes in recent months to comply with the DMA based on feedback from developers and the European Commission.
The company believes its adjustments align with the law and estimates that under the new terms, over 99% of developers will pay the same or lower fees to Apple.
All EU-based developers on the App Store now have access to features like directing app users to the web for purchases at competitive prices, reflecting Apple’s commitment to address the European Commission’s concerns.
The Biden administration revealed updated vehicle emissions standards on Wednesday, described as the most ambitious effort yet to reduce global warming emissions from passenger vehicles.
While the new regulations relax the original tailpipe limits proposed last year, they will ultimately align more closely with the stringent standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency.
These standards will be enforced in conjunction with the sale of electric vehicles, which must meet the requirements. The auto industry had opposed the EPA’s initial standards, announced in April last year, citing a slowdown in sales growth. The administration, however, remains committed to its ambitious plans to decrease emissions from passenger cars contributing to global warming.
Under the finalized rule, the EPA will mandate that by 2032, 56% of new vehicle sales should be electric vehicles, with at least 13% being plug-in hybrids or partially electric vehicles, along with more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars that get higher mileage.
The EPA estimates that these new standards will result in annual savings of $100 billion, over 7 billion tons of avoided global warming carbon emissions over the next three decades, reduced healthcare costs, fewer deaths, and more than $60 billion in healthcare savings, ultimately leading to overall cost savings in fuel, maintenance, and repairs.
On January 2, 2008, exhaust gas blows out of a car’s tailpipe in San Francisco. David Paul Morris/Getty Images File
The EPA rule pertains to model years between 2027 and 2032, covering new emissions from new passenger cars, light trucks, pickup trucks, as well as greenhouse gas emissions like nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that contribute to global warming. It will also significantly reduce other forms of air pollution. The EPA asserts that the rule will help combat the climate crisis by substantially decreasing air pollution while promoting the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies. The finalization of the rules follows a record increase in sales of clean vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles, last year.
The revised rules will push back the strict pollution standards’ implementation from 2027 to 2029 after the auto industry argued against the feasibility of the proposed benchmarks. By 2032, the rules will be bolstered to nearly meet the EPA’s recommended thresholds.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan affirmed to reporters that the final rule will yield pollution reductions equal to or greater than those outlined in the proposal. In addition to addressing carbon pollution, Regan emphasized that the ultimate standard will also lessen other severe air pollutants contributing to heart attacks, respiratory issues, exacerbating asthma, and diminishing lung function.
Regan stressed the critical nature of these new standards for public health, American jobs, the economy, and the planet. The standard is designed to be technology-neutral and performance-based, granting auto and truck manufacturers the flexibility to choose pollution control technology that aligns with their customer needs while meeting environmental and public health objectives.
The adjustments in the regulations seem aimed at addressing the strong industry resistance to the accelerated adoption of electric vehicles and the public’s hesitation to fully embrace new technology. Legal challenges in conservative courts also pose a legitimate threat.
With a conservative majority, the Supreme Court has increasingly restricted the power of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The court has limited the EPA’s ability to combat air and water pollution, further hindering their capability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.
President Joe Biden has made fighting climate change a central feature of his presidency, with a focus on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
To achieve these goals, a Democratic president needs cooperation from the auto industry and political backing from auto workers, a crucial voting bloc. The United Auto Workers union, supporting Biden, endorses the transition to electric vehicles but aims to safeguard jobs and ensure that industry pays competitive wages to workers involved in producing EVs and batteries.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre expressed confidence in the EPA’s final rule, stating that the administration understands that achieving such goals takes time and remains committed to climate action.
The Florida Senate has passed a bill that would prevent cities and counties from enforcing mandatory water breaks or other workplace safety measures for extreme heat.
With a 28-11 vote along party lines, the Republican-controlled Senate approved Senate Bill 1492, which would prohibit local governments from setting workplace heat standards higher than federal requirements. This means that cities and counties would no longer have the authority to mandate water breaks or shade breaks for workers during the day.
The legislation was introduced in response to the record-breaking heat in 2023, which resulted in prolonged heat waves and high temperatures in the southern United States. Climate experts attributed the extreme heat to global warming.
Proponents of Senate Bill 1492 argue that uniform regulations are necessary to avoid inconsistent rules across the state.
However, labor organizations argue that workplace heat standards are vital for protecting workers, particularly those in industries like construction and agriculture that require outdoor work.
Similar to a law in Texas, the bill in Florida would prevent local governments from implementing ordinances that mandate outdoor workers to take breaks for water or shade.
According to the National Weather Service, heat-related incidents cause more deaths in the U.S. than any other weather event, with outdoor workers at higher risk. The bill would also prohibit local heat protection measures such as training programs and record-keeping related to heat exposure.
While companies must adhere to OSHA’s general workplace safety regulations, there are currently no specific federal guidelines addressing extreme heat hazards.
The bill is pending final approval in the House of Representatives before reaching Governor Ron DeSantis. If signed, it will take effect on July 1st.
Age verification technology could be heading to adult content sites after these three sites were added to the list of platforms subject to the most stringent level of regulation under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA).
Back in April, the EU announced an initial list of 17 so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and two Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) designated under the DSA. The initial list did not include adult content sites. The addition of the three platforms specified today changes that.
According to Wikipedia — which, ironically, was already named VLOP in the first wave or commission designation — XVideos and Pornhub are the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 most-visited adult content sites. Stripchat, on the other hand, is an adult webcam platform that live streams nude performers.
None of the three services currently require visitors to undergo a strict age check (i.e. age verification rather than self-declaration) before accessing their content, but all three services As a result, this area is subject to change.
As the EU points out in its report, pan-EU regulations require designated (large) platforms with an average monthly user base of more than 45 million people in the region to have a number of restrictions, including obligations to protect minors. It imposes additional obligations. press release Today — writing [emphasis ours]: “VLOPs must design services, including interfaces, recommendation systems, and terms of use, to address and prevent risks to child welfare. Relax measures to protect children’s rights and prevent minors from accessing pornographic content online (such as age verification tools)”
The European Commission, which is responsible for overseeing VLOPs’ compliance with the DSA, today reiterated that creating a safer online environment for children is an enforcement priority.
Today we are naming three more very large online platforms.
Pornhub, Stripchat, and XVideos meet stricter user standards #DSA Duty.
At DSA, creating a safer online environment for children is a priority. https://t.co/bq2XhnUqUh
Other DSA obligations for VLOPs include:They are required to produce a risk assessment report on the “specific systemic risks” that their services may pose in relation to the dissemination of illegal content and content that threatens fundamental rights. It must first be shared with the committee and then published.
and to address the risks associated with the online dissemination of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and content that affects fundamental rights, such as human dignity and the right to private life in the absence of consent. , mitigation measures must also be applied. Sharing intimate content or deepfake pornography online.
“These measures may include, among other things, adaptations to terms of use, interfaces, moderation processes, algorithms, etc.,” the Commission notes.
The three adult platforms designated as VLOPs have four months to bring their services into compliance with additional DSA requirements. That means we need time until late April to make the necessary changes, such as rolling out age verification technology.
“The European Commission’s services will closely monitor compliance with the DSA obligations by these platforms, in particular with regard to measures to protect minors from harmful content and to combat the spread of illegal content,” the EU said. , further added: Please work closely with your newly designated platforms to ensure these are addressed appropriately. ”
The DSA also contains a set of more broadly applicable general obligations that apply not only to small-scale digital services but also to VLOPs. For example, ensuring that systems are designed to ensure high levels of privacy, safety and child protection. Promptly notify law enforcement authorities if they become aware of information that gives rise to suspicion of a criminal offense involving a threat to the life or safety of a person, including in cases of child sexual abuse, and compliance with these requirements; Notice deadline will start slightly earlier on February 17, 2024.
The DSA applies across the EU and EEA (European Economic Area), but post-Brexit this region will not include the UK. However, this autumn the UK government passed its own Online Safety Act (OSA), establishing communications regulator Ofcom as the country’s internet content watchdog and introducing a system of harsher penalties for breaches than the EU’s (OSA fines). (can amount to up to 10%) of global annual sales versus up to 6% based on the EU DSA).
UK law also focuses on child protection. And recent Ofcom guidance for porn sites, aimed at helping them comply with new legal obligations to prevent minors from encountering adult content online, says they are “highly effective”. It states that age checks must be conducted, and further specifies that such checks cannot include age gates that simply ask users to self-declarate that they are 18 years of age or older. .
Ofcom’s list of age verification technologies approved in the UK includes provisions such as asking porn site users to upload a copy of their passport to verify their age. Show your face to the webcam to receive an AI age assessment. Alternatively, there are methods that regulators deem acceptable, such as signing into Open Banking and proving that you are not a minor.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
