5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
Citing 'Civilizational Extinction Risk,' Khanna to Intro Bill to Ban Recursive AI
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse. They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood," said US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Sep 29, 2026
US Rep. Ro Khanna announced plans on Monday to introduce what he described as "the most comprehensive... legislation to date" regulating the artificial intelligence industry.
In an interview with CNBC, Khanna (D-Calif.) said that he wanted to enact at least a temporary ban on recursive AI that is capable of improving itself and modifying its objectives without human input.
Such a ban would be in effect until the federal government had created proper guardrails on the technology, CNBC reported.
“There’s actually a civilizational extinction risk,” Khanna told CNBC, referring to the dangers of recursive AI. "There's a safety risk of loss of control, and then there’s a misuse risk, and we need to take both seriously."
Khanna's bill would also create a new federal agency tasked with crafting and enforcing safety measures on AI models, with independent auditors embedded in every frontier lab that would report directly to the agency.
The legislation wouldn't just create regulations for the AI industry, but also criminal penalties for AI developers who "disable safeguards, kill switches, logging or containment systems, or who knowingly deploy an unauthorized system," CNBC reported.
Promoting the coming bill in a Tuesday social media post, Khanna argued that Big Tech could not be trusted to regulate itself.
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse," Khanna wrote. "They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood. They know they can’t gaslight me."
While multiple polls have shown that putting guardrails on the AI industry is politically popular, Republican Party leaders have said that no regulations for the industry are coming so long as they control the White House and the US Congress.
In a Tuesday interview with CNBC, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he hoped that any guardrails put on AI are "voluntary" on the part of Big Tech companies.
Two weeks ago, Johnson said in an interview on CNN that federal regulations of the industry made little sense because "Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed a similar sentiment, telling reporters outside the White House that Big Tech could be trusted to be responsible with the powerful technology it is creating.
"They're outstanding people," Trump said of the tech executives. "They don't want anything to go wrong. I mean, their companies are at stake, if something goes wrong, their companies are at stake. They're not going to let that happen. This is going to be all for the good... they're really going to be policing each other."
Trump on big tech: "They don't want anything to go wrong. Their companies are at stake. They're not gonna let that happen. They're really gonna be policing each other." pic.twitter.com/wP6vfPcavz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 29, 2026
Earlier this month, Trump suggested in a social media post that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
"The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!"
Trump's hands-off approach to regulating AI isn't just being challenged by Democrats such as Khanna.
According to a Monday report from The Associated Press, Pope Leo XIV reiterated his call for placing safeguards on AI to ensure that it benefits humanity.
Specifically, the US-born pope pointed to recent "concerns raised by many of the experts, specialists in AI," which he said "should be taken seriously."
Pope Leo said warnings that AI could threaten humanity should be taken seriously, rejecting the claims that concerns are 'fake news' and urging leaders to work together on safeguards https://t.co/7qVpNAXYKM pic.twitter.com/Cds6gf5vef
— Reuters (@Reuters) September 29, 2026
"I don’t think that that is ‘fake news’ as some have said," the pope added, in a veiled reference to Trump, "to try and cause whether financial or other some other kind of benefit."
Keep Reading
Show Less
As Affordability Crisis Grows Under Trump, Workers Are Losing Half Their Income Gains to Debt Payments
"Families are going further into the red just to cover basic essentials, all while the Trump administration touts hollow talking points about a booming economy."
Sep 29, 2026
Research published Tuesday shows that more than half of the income gains seen by the typical American worker since 2022 has been swallowed by debt payments, as high and still-rising costs of housing, groceries, utilities, and other essentials force families to turn to credit cards and other sources of borrowing to stay afloat.
The new report released by The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers estimates that take-home income for a typical US household rose by approximately $109 per month while the average worker's debt payments rose by $57. In households with a single earner, the groups noted, "52 cents of every dollar a worker gained went to paying down their debt before they could actually spend it on other things."
In two-income households in which both earners faced the average debt payment increase, "the household’s entire real income gain was lost to debt, and then some."
Credit cards and auto loans—which often come with extremely high interest rates—account for most of the debt burden carried by typical US households, which have seen their debt payments grow more than eight times as fast as their income over the past four years, according to The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers.
"The economy is rigged against working families, and this report shows one big reason why," US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement. "For the typical worker, more than half of every dollar of income growth is going right back out the door in debt payments. Instead of letting lenders rip off families, [President] Donald Trump and congressional Republicans should act today to protect families from getting trapped in cycles of debt, including a cap on credit card interest rates.”
Trump repeatedly vowed during his 2024 presidential campaign to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, but he has since done nothing substantive to fulfill that promise as the nation's credit card debt crisis continues to spiral amid deteriorating economic conditions, with sluggish hiring and inflation—fueled by the president's illegal war on Iran—outpacing wage growth.
"Families are going further into the red just to cover basic essentials, all while the Trump administration touts hollow talking points about a booming economy and fails to deliver on promises to lower costs,” said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for Protect Borrowers. “Today’s report shows just how dire the affordability crisis is for working people who are being forced to surrender their hard-earned income gains to paying off debt and padding the pockets of credit card executives and debt collectors."
"Growing household debt is burying America’s workers," she added, "and policymakers must take action to get them real relief."
The new research warns that, in the absence of ambitious policy action, the debt emergency facing working-class US households "is about to get worse," with many student-loan borrowers about to be forced into expensive repayment plans due to the Trump administration's assault on Biden-era relief efforts.
"Cancelling student and medical debt, capping interest rates, and restraining employer debt traps are all examples of solutions available to provide help to struggling households," the new report states. "We should also address the ways workers end up in debt in the first place through stagnant wages, eroded bargaining power, and lack of public provisioning. Together these interventions represent a coherent alternative to the status quo so that economic growth is measured by what workers actually keep and not just by what employers pay."
Keep Reading
Show Less
US Food Banks Under Strain as Trump Policies Drive Up Costs
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger."
Sep 28, 2026
Two of President Donald Trump's signature policies—the illegal war with Iran and cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—are putting pressure on food banks throughout the country in the form of higher demand from clients and increased shipping costs.
In a Sunday report from Meidas News, reporter Scott MacFarlane published interviews with several food bank officials who said the increased cost of energy caused by Trump's Iran War has strained their ability to serve their communities.
From a demand side, more families have been relying on food banks because the increased cost of gasoline has left them with less money to spend at the grocery store.
And from a supply perspective, record-high diesel prices have hurt food banks' budgets by increasing transportation costs for staple items.
Craig Rice, chief executive officer at the Manna Food Center in Maryland, told MacFarlane that his organization is "seeing so many people come to us, who’ve never come to [the food bank] before."
"It used to be people who were working hourly-wage jobs," Rice added. "Now we see people who are salary employees. They may have been stable at one price, but suddenly they’re impacted by gas prices."
Amy Beros, president of the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, similarly told MacFarlane that organizations in her region have seen demand for food services increase by between "20% to 60%" over the last year.
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger," Beros said, "because it doesn’t look like it looks on TV."
The strain on food banks isn't just limited to one state or region.
Greta Faworski, associate director of Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes, said in an interview published Monday with Michigan advance that she's seen a 56% increase in people who are reaching out to her organization for help.
Faworski said the recent surge in demand was akin to what she saw last year during a nationwide delay in SNAP benefits in the wake of a federal government shutdown.
"On an average day, we serve about 800 people a day," explained Faworski. "When there was notification because of the government shutdown that November SNAP benefits would not be released on time, in one week, we saw an increase to where we were serving 1,200 people a day."
The problem is expected to grow more acute because state governments starting next month will have to pay for a largest share of SNAP administrative costs due to provisions in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
A report published last week by Spectrum News 13 put a spotlight on how surging diesel costs are squeezing food banks in central Florida.
Greg Higgerson, chief development officer for Second Harvest Food Bank, told Spectrum News 13 that his organization's fuel bill is "somwhere around $15,00 per month," which he said was "up significantly from this time last year."
And like food banks elsewhere in the US, Higgerson said, the Second Harvest Food Bank is being forced to pay higher costs as demand for its services is going up.
“It’s going to be harder to make ends meet in the next few months,” Higgerson said. “There’s going to be more people. We know that, we see it already, and it’s going to cost more to help those folks.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
12-Point 'Shopper's Bill of Rights' Proposed to Guard Against Corporate Greed in the Digital Age
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal."
Sep 28, 2026
Groundwork Collaborative on Monday unveiled a proposal for a "Shopper's Bill of Rights," which it said would shield US consumers from rampant corporate greed.
Noting the long history of consumer protection legislation, Groundwork Collaborative makes the case that new rules are desperately needed in an era where companies can use artificial intelligence to construct elaborate pricing schemes aimed at extracting every last dollar from shoppers.
The group cites its own past work documenting Instacart's use of AI to target specific shoppers with higher prices to argue that corporate America badly needs stronger oversight to stop them from gouging consumers.
"Instacart is hardly a lone actor," the group writes. "Unchecked pricing shenanigans are spreading to every corner of our economy, and consumers are rightfully angry."
With this in mind, Groundwork Collaborative proposes 12 regulations aimed at protecting consumers from getting relentlessly nickel-and-dimed by big corporations.
The first proposal is giving consumers the right to an all-in price, meaning companies must let shoppers buy a good or service for its advertised price without tacking on assorted fees.
"The takeout order that looked like a quick fix for a hectic night can double in price once delivery fees pile up," the group explains, "while a few clicks to buy concert tickets can leave a fan staring at a final box office bill that is more than 25% higher than the base price that lured them in. This deception is lucrative, as hidden fees get shoppers to spend 20% more than they would if they saw the full price upfront."
Another proposal takes on the kind of surveillance pricing documented in Groundwork Collective's Instacart report, where companies use consumers' personal data to individually increase prices based on a number of factors in their personal browsing and shopping histories.
"Rapid advances in cloud computing, data collection, surveillance technologies, and artificial intelligence now equip companies to purchase, track, store, and analyze consumers’ personal data at an unimaginable scale," the group writes. "Armed with troves of personal data, companies can increasingly determine your particular pain point: how much you, specifically, can be pushed to pay."
Groundwork Collaborative recommends banning surveillance pricing altogether, while also cracking down on companies' powers to collect and sell consumers' personal browsing data.
The group also says that lawmakers should look into stopping dynamic pricing schemes, which don't target consumers on an individual basis but nonetheless make unpredictable prices changes depending on a wide number of factors.
While dynamic pricing was originally designed for industries to handle scarcities, Groundwork Collaborative notes that it has since spread to businesses that are in no danger of facing product shortages.
"Grocery stores are not rationing cans of beans and Wendy’s is not running out of fries," the group explains. "Still, shoppers have no way to tell the difference. Pricing algorithms are a black box, so when the price spikes, you have little way to know whether supply actually tightened, demand really surged, or the company simply spotted an opportunity to squeeze you."
Here is a full list of policies Groundwork Collaborative is proposing:
- Right to an All-In Price: The Price You See Is The Price You Pay
- Right to a Fair Price: Pricing Products, Not People
- Right to a Predictable Price: Reining In The Dynamic Pricing Rollercoaster
- Right to Cancellation: Cancel With a Click
- Right to Repair: If You Own It, You Can Fix It
- Right to Your Own Agent: AI That Works For You, Not The Corporate Bottom Line
- Right to Resale: What You Buy Is Yours to Sell
- Right to a Level Playing Field: Giving Small Businesses a Chance to Compete
- Right to Comparison Shop: Taking the Guesswork Out of Comparison Shopping With Unit Pricing
- Right to a Refund: Ending The Runaround on Refunds
- Right to Proper Billing: Know What You Owe and Why
- Right to a Competitive Price: Bring Antitrust Into the 21st Century
Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork Collaborative, accused corporate America of "deploying a dizzying array of tricks and tactics to reinvent the ripoff and squeeze American consumers," and said it's well past time for the government to step in.
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal," Owens said. "Policymakers should put simple guardrails in place to protect consumers from the high-tech ways corporations are gouging us—the Shoppers’ Bill of Rights is a good place to start."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Maybe Trump’s Neighbors Know Something He Doesn’t': Palm Beach County, Home to Mar-a-Lago, Passes Data Center Moratorium
Trump has said that communities that don't want data centers "want to end up being backwards and poor."
Sep 25, 2026
President Donald Trump has said every American should want a data center in their town. But his home county in Florida just voted to block them.
In a 6-0 vote, commissioners in Palm Beach County—home to the president's luxurious private club and second residence, Mar-a-Lago—voted to enact a one-year moratorium on the construction of new "large-scale" data centers that use at least 50 megawatts of power.
The moratorium, approved on Thursday, came after Palm Beach residents expressed concerns shared by Americans around the country who’ve seen data centers move into their communities. Palm Beach already has some smaller data centers. But in July, it rejected a proposal for the 600MW Project Tango, following warnings about its potential effects on local wetlands and on families’ pocketbooks.
"Many communities want the economic benefits that data centers bring, but we all fear the higher power bills, the negative environmental impact, disruptive noise, and the depletion of water resources," explained one supporter of the moratorium at a county commission meeting on Thursday, according to the local ABC affiliate.
A poll conducted last month by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro found that 75% of Americans now oppose the building of AI data centers in their area, including 61% who registered strong opposition. Aversion to data centers crosses party lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents viewing them negatively.
As AI companies spend tens of millions bankrolling Trump and Republican candidates, members of the president's Cabinet, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have scoffed at Americans' concerns about the tremendous water and energy use of data centers, which have been well documented as jacking up utility prices.
In a social media post last month, Trump himself said the only reason communities would not want a data center nearby is if they "want to end up being backwards and poor." Before that, he said that "smart communities" were "begging for them."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has become one of Capitol Hill's leading critics of data centers and the artificial intelligence models they power, has said that if Trump truly finds data centers so desirable, he should “lead by example” by having his friend and megadonor, tech billionaire Elon Musk, build one at Mar-a-Lago.
"Trump says communities that oppose data centers will end up 'backwards' and 'poor,'" Sanders remarked Friday on social media. "Yesterday, Mar-a-Lago’s own Palm Beach County passed a year-long ban on these facilities."
"Maybe," the senator said, "Trump’s neighbors know something he doesn’t."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Is the President Telling the Truth?' Sanders Corners Trump FDA Nominee on His Bogus Drug Price Claims
"Wow! The American people are so excited to know now that!" US Sen. Bernie Sanders sarcastically said of Trump's false prescription drugs claim.
Sep 24, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday grilled President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Food and Drug Administration about the president's false claims about the price of prescription drugs in the US.
During a Senate confirmation hearing, Sanders (I-Vt.) asked Dr. Heidi Overton about Trump's boast at this year's State of the Union address about giving Americans the cheapest medications of any country in the world.
“President Trump has claimed... that he took prescription drugs from the highest price in the entire world to the lowest,” Sanders said in an incredulous tone.
“Wow!" he continued sarcastically. "The American people are so excited to know now that we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”
BERNIE SANDERS: Trump claims we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Wow! Is the president telling the truth?
FDA NOMINEE HEIDI OVERTON: There has been immense progress--
SANDERS: Do we pay the lowest prices like the president said? You just told us you… pic.twitter.com/X7gWNbSmik
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 24, 2026
"What do you think?" Sanders asked Overton. "Are we paying the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs?"
"Senator... there has been immense progress, especially on individual products," Overton replied. "Right now, 89% of branded drugs have signed agreements to lower their prices and make that available..."
Sanders at this point interjected.
"Do we pay the lowest prices?" he asked. "The president said it. He's your boss... He just said we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It's true or it's not true. Is it true?"
"Senator, we have seen..." Overton began.
"Is it true that we pay the lowest prices in the world for prescription drugs, as President Trump has said?" Sanders persisted.
"So, senator, the results that we have seen for the American people... have dropped prices," she replied. "And right now [the Consumer Price Index] says that, for the first time in 60 years, prescription drug prices have gone down by 3%."
"Which may have something to do with the legislation that we passed several years ago," said Sanders, in reference to provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that granted Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices for certain prescription drugs.
Even if Trump's policies were solely responsible for a 3% drop in drug prices, that would not make them the lowest in the world by any stretch of the imagination.
A 2024 study from the RAND Corporation found that Americans pay nearly three times as much for prescription drugs compared to the rest of the world.
Sanders' office last year released a report showing that, during the first year of Trump's second term, drug companies raised prices on 688 medications, with a median increase of 5.5%.
Trump has a long history of making false claims about reducing prescription drug costs, and has even said that he has slashed them by as much as 600%, which would mean that pharmaceutical companies are paying consumers to take their medications.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': Paramount Merger Opponents File Emergency Motion to Fight Settlement Deal
"We believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger."
Sep 24, 2026
Update (1:40 pm ET):
A coalition of advocacy groups fighting the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger said Thursday that the judge overseeing the case granted their emergency motion to allow opponents of the combination to file briefs against a settlement reached earlier this week by Paramount and a dozen state attorneys general.
“The consent decree the state AGs agreed to in a backroom deal is weak, unenforceable, and leaves workers, journalists, and consumers in the dust," members of the anti-merger coalition said in a statement. "The settlement fails to address the grave dangers this merger poses—and no amount of spin can change that. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s ruling will allow the public to weigh in on this important issue and ensure the interests of those who will actually pay the price for the Ellisons’ sweetheart deal that the AGs failed to adequately represent are heard. We look forward to explaining that in further detail in our brief due at midnight tonight."
Earlier:
Opponents of Paramount's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery filed an emergency motion in federal court on Thursday asking the judge overseeing the merger proceedings to grant them an opportunity to formally oppose a settlement deal that Paramount reached earlier this week with a coalition of state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta.
The merger opponents' filing asks Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the US District Court for the Northern District of California to give them "an opportunity to be heard" before she rules on the proposed consent decree between Paramount and the 12 state attorneys general—a deal that drew widespread outrage. The anti-merger coalition—which includes Free Press, the Committee for the First Amendment, the Future Film Coalition, and other groups—described the tentative deal as "dangerous for democracy."
The coalition's filing was submitted shortly before a court hearing that's scheduled to begin at 2:00 pm ET. Martínez-Olguín set the hearing to "address certain outstanding questions regarding the factual and legal underpinnings of the parties’ proposed consent decree."
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a constitutional rights litigator who serves on the steering panel for the Committee for the First Amendment, said in a statement that "we believe the consent decree fails to meaningfully address or mitigate the harms that will be caused by this monopoly merger to the entertainment industry, diverse storytelling, independent filmmaking, consumer interests, a free press, First Amendment rights, and fundamentally, democracy."
“It does not serve to benefit anyone except the owner family of Paramount and those holding political power, who will use this corporate consolidation as a proxy force for First Amendment suppression of disfavored expression and viewpoints," Verheyden-Hilliard added.
Paramount is headed by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the richest people in the world and a megadonor to President Donald Trump.
If Martínez-Olguín approves the proposed consent decree and the merger is finalized, Paramount would control both CBS and CNN, as well as other major media properties such as HBO.
As part of the consent decree, Paramount committed to "News Editorial Independence Boards" for CBS and CNN comprised of five "established journalists." Critics, including the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), have characterized the proposed editorial independence boards as "worthless" and a potential "First Amendment nightmare."
“The solution for the Ellisons letting Donald Trump and [Federal Communications Commission Chair] Brendan Carr police journalism is not to let attorneys general and judges police journalism too,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at FPF, part of the anti-merger coalition.
“It’s to keep the government out of the newsroom, period," Stern added. "No one seriously believes the Ellisons (or their rumored new investor Elon Musk) will do that, with or without a self-appointed sham editorial board, which is why this merger cannot proceed.”
The League of United Latin American Citizens and a group of religious leaders filed a separate motion on Thursday asking Martínez-Olguín to "defer entry of the decree" to "ensure this court has sufficient opportunity to consider the important issues raised" in the case.
"The proposed consent decree raises grave doubts whether the parties' settlement adequately addresses the harms alleged in the plaintiff states' complaint," the filing reads.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Historic': Seattle Passes First City Ban on AI-Enabled Surveillance Pricing
"The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics," one advocate said.
Sep 23, 2026
Seattle became the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing on Tuesday afternoon after the City Council voted 7-2 to approve a measure co-sponsored and championed by progressive Mayor Katie Wilson.
The Fair Pricing and Transparency policy bans big retail outlets—both online and brick-and-mortar—from using customer data such as race, gender, employment status, internet or social media history, and conversations with chatbots to charge different shoppers different prices for the same products.
“Food is an essential good that’s getting more expensive all the time,” Wilson said in a statement celebrating the win. “People have been clear: They don’t want their data fed into algorithms that decide how much they pay at the grocery store. Everyone deserves transparent pricing and equal treatment, not hidden systems that charge some shoppers more than others.”
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in."
Surveillance pricing is the practice of feeding shopper data to artificial intelligence, which then sets distinct prices for different customers based on what the AI thinks they can afford. A 2025 investigation from Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union found that the practice could add $1,200 a year to the average Seattle family’s grocery bill.
“This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on social media in response to the news.
Seattle just became the first city in America to ban grocery stores from engaging in surveillance pricing.
This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off.
Watch former FTC Chair Lina Khan explain. pic.twitter.com/TxAJGFy7H2
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 23, 2026
Grace Gedye, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, said in a statement: “Nobody should pay more for basic necessities because a data broker is quietly collecting information about what they’re searching for online, what they hover over, what their income is, or where they go. The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics with this bill. We commend this work.”
The Seattle ordinance comes amid an ongoing affordability crisis as grocery prices spike while President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have slashed the budget of crucial federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the same time, there is a growing national backlash against AI and Big Tech, with 78% of Americans favoring mandatory regulation of the technology. The ban on surveillance pricing follows a data center moratorium passed by the Seattle City Council in June.
Maya Morales, the founder of WA People’s Privacy and one of the organizers mobilizing grassroots support for the measure, told Common Dreams that harder day-to-day living conditions were leading to a "national shift” in awareness of how Big Tech and Big Retail make life even more difficult, likely enabling a major tech city like Seattle to take a stand against surveillance pricing.
“People are feeling the heat very intensely all over the nation, so in many ways it doesn't surprise me that this would be the moment that we could get this done, because the harms are so obvious,” she said.
Progressive City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, another co-sponsor of and key advocate for the bill, also emphasized the importance of food security.
“Groceries are getting more expensive for everyday Seattleites, while the buying, selling, and leveraging our private information to manipulate prices is making big national grocery corporations millions in profit,” Rinck said in a statement. “This legislation is intended to put some guardrails on what big businesses can do with our personal information. At a time when SNAP reductions have rocked our community and people have less to spend on food, this is an important step we can take to prevent AI-assisted price gouging and ensure fair discounts for everyone.”
The measure was also co-sponsored by Councilmembers Dionne Foster and Rob Saka and backed by labor and community groups including WA People’s Privacy, Washington Working Families Party, Transit Riders Union, Lavender Rights Project, Queer Power Alliance, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, The Nexus of Privacy, MLK Labor, Consumer Reports, and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 3000.
Grocery workers supported the measure in part because they would be likely to take the brunt of customer complaints if a shopper sees that they are being charged differently than the person next to them at the self checkout. They were also concerned about their own food bills remaining affordable.
“Passing the strongest ban on AI-powered price gouging on groceries feels historic,” Seattle grocery store worker Kristen Wilder said in a statement. “My coworkers and the customers we serve proudly stood together to stop the grocery industry from imposing this scheme here in Seattle. Today that worked paid off for families who just want to know they’re paying a fair price and for workers who want to focus on customer service instead of defending some algorithm making decisions in a black box.”
In addition to fighting food insecurity, Morales emphasized that the measure “takes a little bit of a crack” at the privacy violations enabled by AI and embraced at the federal level as a way of targeting people of color, immigrants, sex workers, low-income and LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups.
“AI harms are generally privacy and surveillance harms,” Morales said, because “AI needs data in order to work. Mass commercial data surveillance is the reason we have AI and vice versa, and that is an infinite loop.”
However, from a privacy standpoint Morales said there was one disappointing aspect of the bill: an amendment passed to specify that nothing in the law prohibited “technology used solely for security, loss prevention, safety, fraud prevention, fraud detection, or compliance with law.” Morales said this provision was unnecessary because the bill’s language had been very clear that it was focused on pricing. She was also concerned it could open up loopholes, as it is difficult to prove a given technology is only being used for one purpose, and a grocery store might then be able to introduce an invasive surveillance technology—such as shopping baskets that track customers—under the guise of fighting shoplifting.
Because of that amendment, Morales told Common Dreams, “we managed to get a privacy win on pricing but not a privacy win at the grocery store.”
That said, five other corporate “bill-gutting” amendments were voted down, which Morales called a “spectacular win,” and the overall bill was itself an important victory.
Both Morales, and Jon of The Nexus of Privacy, credited the bill’s strength and ability to resist watering down in part to Wilson, who worked with stakeholders including smaller grocery outlets, labor, and community groups to build a coalition and write a strong ordinance from the get-go. Morales noted that Wilson came to office from an organizing background, and that she and Rinck did a good job of bringing grassroots organizations into the process to secure a victory, allowing Seattle policymakers to counter powerful local technology and retail interests.
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in,” Morales said.
There is now hope that the bill would have statewide and even national implications. A surveillance pricing ban was introduced into the Washington Legislature in 2026 but failed to advance.
Morales said a legislative win at the local level can show state lawmakers: "This can be done. You don’t have to cave to the Big Retail and Tech lobby, and you can protect people.”
On a national level, Jon of The Nexus of Privacy wrote:
This huge win will help organizers in other cities and states... across the country. Industry had killed a surveillance pricing bill in California just a couple of weeks ago, and they've stalled New York's surveillance pricing bill for months... but guess what, they're not invincible! And as well as the strong legislation providing... a model of what's possible, the Seattle coalition's very successful tactics can hopefully be adapted by organizers elsewhere to reflect the dynamics wherever they are.
As Morales told Common Dreams, “I hope every city will pass something like this.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Critics Warn Trump-Backed Diesel Export Ban Could Further Drive US Economy Into the Ground
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create."
Sep 23, 2026
In an effort to blunt price hikes from his war with Iran, President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing a 90-day ban on diesel exports from the United States.
The cost of diesel—which is used to power semitrucks, trains, construction and farm equipment, and other large machines—has soared since Trump launched the war at the end of February, prompting Iran to restrict oil shipments through the critical Strait of Hormuz.
As of Wednesday, according to the American Automobile Association, average US diesel prices have jumped to $6.52 per gallon, a 77% increase from last year. Over the past month, as Trump has ramped up hostilities with Iran, prices have risen by 91 cents a gallon, a 16.2% increase.
Heightened diesel prices increase the cost of everything else—including food, transportation, and other energy sources. And while Trump claimed earlier this month to be bringing prices "way down, way, way down,” the latest federal data show consumer prices rising 0.4% in August—four times July’s monthly increase—and 3.4% over the past year.
With the midterms less than two months away and many voters blaming Trump for the strain on their pocketbooks, several GOP members of Congress, including some facing tough Senate races, such as Sen. Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (Iowa), have cheered the idea.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump told reporters: "I’ve said let’s not send out the diesel. We make a lot of diesel. It could have a little bit of an effect on regular automobile gasoline because when you do that, you know, it’s a sort of a flow. It’s a balance. But no, I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people. I’ve been talking about it.”
But while the plan may help to keep diesel prices down for long enough to help Republicans stop the bleeding before November, some economists are warning that it could make things much worse in the long term.
“The US Gulf Coast would get a temporary pump price dip, at the cost of likely higher coastal prices [elsewhere] and eventually, higher prices for everyone as investment gets scared away," explained Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group and a former White House energy adviser under the administration of former President George W. Bush.
"You would get a short-term, abrupt collapse in pump prices” in some regions, McNally said, but “the US would shatter its reputation as a safe place to invest for a generation.”
Energy economist Philip Verleger said that a ban, even if temporary, "would have the same long-term effect as President [Richard] Nixon’s soybean embargo: the world would no longer view the United States as a dependable source.”
Speaking to Reuters, Verleger warned that in an already undersupplied market, removing US barrels could potentially double global prices.
But the short term seems to be all Trump and those around him pushing the ban are considering. An oil industry executive who discussed the proposed ban with White House officials told Politico that Trump viewed any fallout as “a December problem.”
He said that "cooler heads" in the White House have been "overpowered" by the "political camp" that has a "sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump."
Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International, argued that there was a much simpler solution: ending the war that has caused oil prices to spike in the first place.
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create," Stockman said. "The US exports about 5% of global diesel, and a ban risks turning a severe shortage into a global economic disaster."
"It could send international prices soaring, drive up the cost of food, fertilizer, and essential goods, deepen hunger, and push already-struggling economies toward recession," he continued. "At the same time, it would likely do nothing for people in the US, as refineries would cut production and gasoline prices would rise even further."
He said, "Congress should use its constitutional powers to stop Trump’s war, tax the oil industry’s soaring windfall profits, and support farmers and other hard-hit sectors, and accelerate renewable energy and electrification, not hoard fuel and force the rest of the world to pay the price.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
How Greedy Corporations Are Weaponizing AI to 'Squeeze' Consumers and Working Class Families
"It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
Sep 23, 2026
A report released on Wednesday by Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech details how corporate America and assorted nefarious actors are using artificial intelligence to gouge US consumers.
The report begins by noting that while AI is "often promoted as a technology that will boost productivity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency," the reality so far is that it is "enabling new forms of fraud, expanding surveillance-based pricing, and increasing costs for essential services such as health insurance, transportation, and electricity."
As one example of how AI is hurting consumers, the report highlights AI's role in helping health insurers more rapidly deny claims, even as many physicians have expressed concerns about the technology's accuracy.
"AI adjudication tools like UnitedHealth’s nH Predict have been accused of often erroneously denying needed care, hoping that patients and providers don’t take the time to appeal," the report notes. "A recent lawsuit alleges that the 0.2% of patients who do appeal win about nine times out of ten, reversing the AI-powered tool’s denial."
On the other side of the coin, AI-powered medical scribes used by healthcare providers have been found to bill insurers for procedures more complex or expensive than the services that were actually delivered. The report points to a recent analysis conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which found that AI-powered tools are now one of the top drivers of medical inflation in the US.
Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech also document how AI allows companies to implement surveillance pricing systems, which use customers' personal data to determine how much they should be charged for a given product or service to maximize the amount of revenue generated per sale.
According to the report, data brokers collect and analyze data taken from internet users and then sell their findings to corporations who can use that knowledge to create detailed profiles of individual consumers.
One area where this kind of pricing is increasingly being used is in the car insurance industry, which thanks to modern technology has vastly more information about drivers' habits than ever before.
"This information—known as telematics—includes speed, braking patterns, acceleration, and location tracking," the report explains. "Insurers analyze this information with AI to assess risk and set personalized premiums. While this may reward some safe drivers, it can also lead to higher premiums and be used to deny coverage entirely."
The report finds that airlines have also been using customers' information to create a dynamic pricing system that charges different fares based on "demand, search activity, booking patterns, and other consumer data."
Rishi Bharwani, US director of Reset Tech and co-author of the report, said that elected officials need to wake up to how cutting-edge technology is being used to gouge consumers with what he described as "a hidden tax on households."
"Families feel it every day, even if they can’t see it," Bharwani explained. "Lawmakers need to act now to stop greedy corporations from using AI to squeeze consumers."
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative and report co-author, noted that AI pricing is becoming more popular even as families across the US are struggling to afford basics such as food and energy.
"As working people face an affordability crisis, higher prices caused by AI are the last thing they need," Jones said. "It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Paltry Concessions Given to Secure Paramount-Warner Merger Deal Decried as 'Meaningless Bullshit'
"Billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top," said one critic.
Sep 22, 2026
"A settlement that promises less than nothing."
That's how one critic of Paramount Skydance's planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday described the paltry concessions extracted by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials to enable the proposed $111 billion media megamerger.
Critics argue that the proposed settlement agreement lacks meaningful antitrust enforcement and hands control of major news and entertainment properties to a billionaire family closely aligned with President Donald Trump.
“Every! single! one! of these concessions is meaningless bullshit,” writer Cory Doctorow said Tuesday on Medium. “Bonta just handed the American movie and TV sector to two of the most odious creeps to draw breath, surrendering without firing a shot."
The settlement, which was announced Monday, clears a major roadblock to Paramount CEO David Ellison's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN, HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, and numerous cable networks. The combined company would control nearly 30% of both US theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing.
The agreement contains a pledge to distribute at least 30 films annually for the first two years, then 32 movies each year after, invest hundreds of millions of dollars in US film production, maintain existing theater rental terms for three years, not sell Paramount and Warner Bros. studio lots for five years, and create an editorial independence board for CBS News and CNN.
In a Monday Substack post, American Economic Liberties Project research director Matt Stoller pointed out an apparent loophole in the settlement's film distribution requirement.
“They only have to distribute that many films,” he wrote. “They can make half as many. And those can be co-produced. So in fact, if you add up the numbers, Ellison promised to make fewer films going forward than Paramount and Warner are putting out today."
The settlement's editorial oversight board for CBS News and CNN have also come under fire. The five-member board overseeing the two entities will be appointed and paid by the combined company. Reuters reported Tuesday that the board would have no explicit investigative authority and that the company would be empowered to fill vacancies.
“As we learned from the failed and widely panned Facebook oversight board, a fake bipartisan oversight committee won’t save CNN,” Jessica González, the co-chief executive of the advocacy organization Free Press, said Monday. “We have all the evidence we need from the Ellisons’ destruction of CBS about what they do to warp journalism at Donald Trump’s request.”
David Ellison's father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Republican megadonor.
Seth Stern, a media attorney and chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said that "it's unclear how the attorneys general or courts can constitutionally hold Paramount accountable for the board's actions or inaction without themselves interfering in content."
Stoller noted that the agreement's force-majeure clause, which would reportedly allow Paramount-Warner to dodge its commitments in the event of economic recessions, strikes, and other labor disruptions.
Other opponents of the proposed deal bristle at the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Saudi and Emirati investment in the new company that would be created if the merger is approved.
Alvaro Bedoya, a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project, lamented that “today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
“Layoffs will follow. People from [Los Angeles] to Atlanta will lose their jobs, small businesses will lose their contracts, your cable bill and movie ticket will be even more expensive,” he continued. “Dissent against money and power will be even harder to find.”
“This did not have to happen," Bedoya stressed. "Thanks to an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots anger against the merger, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block it. They beat Paramount in court, winning a court-ordered pause on the merger, and beat them again at the negotiating table, getting the conglomerate to agree to pause the merger until as late as next June.”
“But the Ellison family does not care about the law. Instead, they loudly threatened to leave California if their merger did not go through immediately," he added. "[Gov.] Gavin Newsom caved to that pressure. So did [former state Attorney General] Xavier Becerra. And eventually, so did Attorney General Rob Bonta, agreeing to a weak settlement that will be exceedingly difficult to enforce.”
Stoller said that "there are a bunch of reasons they cleared the deal, such as threats to move the studio out of California, corruption, and general incompetence."
"I personally think CNN is terrible, and I’m glad it’s going to be discredited," Stoller wrote. "I also find it embarrassing that the Democratic AGs used antitrust law in an attempt to shade news coverage. But it’s downright comical they demanded that David Ellison not corrupt CNN by having David Ellison appoint a board ensuring that David Ellison not do that."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy