SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
american economic liberties project
'No One Is Above the Law': 12 States Sue to Block Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
"With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. "America has no kings in government or our economy.”
Jul 13, 2026
In filing an antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance over its proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, 12 state attorneys general on Monday deployed a legal tactic successfully used in 2022 to block another megamerger pushed by book publisher Simon & Schuster.
States including California, New York, Colorado, and Washington argued in the lawsuit that should the merger be approved, just one massive corporation would control more than 30% of anticipated top-grossing blockbuster films with large budgets and audiences, while just four distributors—Paramount, Disney, Universal, and Sony—would control more than 90% of those films.
In 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) argued successfully that Simon & Schuster's proposed acquisition of Penguin Random House would harm competition among book publishers as they vied for the rights to books anticipated to be bestsellers.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition of states in the biggest legal challenge against the merger thus far, said that "the unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the US."
The lawsuit also argues that after the proposed merger, just three distribution companies would control 75% of wide-release theatrical films and 27% of the market in licensing for basic cable television channels.
The merger, said the attorneys general in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which bars business mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly.
"In this country, no one is above the law," said Bonta. "With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy.”
New York Mayor Zohran Mamadani expressed pride that his state was fighting the deal, which he said "is not a merger that serves the public."
The media advocacy group Free Press emphasized that along with reducing competition among film distribution companies, the merger would create a "media colossus" that would also include control over CBS—taken over by Skydance Media CEO David Ellison last year after his company merged with Paramount—and CNN.
The merger would give tech mogul Larry Ellison and his family—allies of President Donald Trump's administration—"the power to shape public discourse at the president’s direction in exchange for the administration’s regulatory approval," said Free Press. "That’s why administration officials like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have openly rooted for the Ellisons to obtain CNN, based on their documented promises to make 'sweeping changes' to the network to please Trump."
Following the Ellisons' takeover of CBS, the leadership of newly appointed right-wing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss has been condemned by First Amendment advocates as Weiss has sought to remake CBS News—spiking a "60 Minutes" segment on Trump's mass deportations and firing the leadership of the flagship investigative news show.
“President Trump and his cronies want to rush this anti-competitive deal through because David Ellison has demonstrated time and again that he will leverage his control of his media empire to silence Trump’s critics and amplify MAGA propaganda," said Free Press co-CEO Jessica González, thanking the state attorneys general for their legal challenge. "That’s corruption, plain and simple. Any merger of this scale would diminish creativity and diversity in entertainment, weaken journalists’ ability to hold those in power accountable, and further endanger our democracy."
"This is especially true when the Ellisons are in charge," said González. "To win approval for their takeover of CBS News, the Ellisons promised to gut hard-hitting reporting across the network—and have gleefully followed through. And they’ll do the same to undermine editorial independence at CNN if they gain control of the global news network."
Although Paramount's proposed merger has already been approved by 20 countries and regions globally, and Trump's DOJ claimed the creation of an even larger media empire was "not likely to harm competition or American consumer,” regulators in the United Kingdom and the European Union have leaned toward looking more closely at the deal. The lawsuit, said González, "means that this corrupt merger is far from a done deal."
"While the administration won’t take a stand against the president’s billionaire cronies, we can still stop the Ellisons’ power grab," said González. "While Paramount is flaunting its corruption and toasting Trump officials, we’re standing with the workers and artists at the heart of the news and entertainment industries—and with the American people, who deserve a diverse and independent media system that works on their behalf, and against the self-interest of greedy billionaires and unethical politicians.”
The lawsuit also followed a series of town halls held in Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta by the American Economic Liberties Project, titled "Main Street vs. the Merger." Anti-monopoly advocates heard from entertainment workers, small business owners, and others who would be impacted by the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal.
Comedian Adam Conover warned at one town hall that the merger would lead to higher streaming prices, and writers and other media workers shared fears that the deal would lead to mass layoffs.
"I spent the last month meeting with the workers and business owners who’d be hit with this deal,” said Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at American Economic Liberties Project, on Monday. “The rich guys who run Paramount can say what they want, but the people who actually work for them know that this will kill jobs and screw over the small businesses that are the lifeblood of this industry. I hope the states win and win fast, because these people need it.”
Lawsuits challenging mergers typically take at least several months and up to a year to be decided by a judge, and the states are asking the companies to freeze the proposed merger deal—which was set to close in the third quarter of 2026—which the case is being adjudicated. California also said it would seek a temporary restraining order if the companies did not agree to pause the deal.
Paramount has agreed to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders $650 million for each quarter the deal isn't finalized, starting in October.
“This illegal merger would mean layoffs for artists and workers, higher prices for consumers, and the death of Hollywood,” said Matt Stoller, research director at American Economic Liberties Project. “State enforcers have done the right thing in seeking to block it. It is time to stop oligarchs from strip-mining our culture and selling America off for parts. Blocking this megamerger is the first step in doing so.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Country Is Not Trump's to Liquidate': New Report Details Depths of Presidential Corruption and Grift
"Americans know they’re being ripped off and are demanding accountability."
Jun 03, 2026
The American Economic Liberties Project and Groundwork Collaborative on Wednesday released a joint report detailing how President Donald Trump's unprecedented corruption is padding his own pockets at the expense of US taxpayers.
The report—titled "The Price of Corruption: How Trump's Pay-to-Play Administration is Driving Up Costs for Working Families"—explains how Trump isn't just using the presidency to enrich himself, but leaving ordinary Americans to foot the bill for his corrupt dealings.
The report notes that the TrumpRx website, which purports to offer Americans deep discounts on drugs, is actually a scheme for funneling even more money to large pharmaceutical companies.
"When Trump rolled out TrumpRX earlier this year, the administration claimed it was a way for Americans to access more affordable prescription drugs," the report states. "Instead, the platform fails to disclose information about less expensive generic alternatives and, in some instances, charges consumers more for products that are available for less elsewhere."
Rather than providing real relief, the report charges, TrumpRx "serves as free advertisement for Big Pharma and may be lining the pockets of the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., who is on the board of prescription drug platform BlinkRX, which stands to benefit from the administration’s promotion of direct-to-patient medicine sales."
The report also highlights the way that Trump has used his tariffs, which raise the cost of imported goods for US consumers, as a personal self-enrichment tool, such as when he slashed tariffs on Switzerland "just a few days after Swiss business leaders presented him with a personalized gold bar worth more than $130,000 and a Rolex desk clock."
Trump levied tariffs against Brazil last year in retaliation for that country convicting a political ally, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, of plotting a coup to illegally stay in power after he lost an election to current President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva.
"Americans paid the price for Trump’s international allies breaking the law," states the report, "as coffee imported from Brazil surged to a 40% increase in price."
One particularly egregious instance of Trump's corruption, the report explains, comes from the president's unprecedented number of pardons of political allies, including hundreds of rioters who violently stormed the US Capitol on his behalf on January 6, 2021.
Beyond the high-profile rioter cases, the report shines a spotlight on a number of white-collar criminals who have received presidential clemency, including Paul Walczak, "a nursing home executive convicted of tax evasion" who was pardoned "three weeks after his mother donated $1 million to Trump at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser," and cryptocurrency mogul Changpeng Zhao, who received a pardon months after helping boost the Trump family's crypto venture.
The report notes that the Trump administration has also stacked regulatory agencies in ways that directly benefit the business interests of the president's family members, most prominently in the realm of online prediction markets tied to Donald Trump Jr.
"Over the past year, Donald Trump Jr. has served as a strategic advisor to Kalshi and a large investor in Polymarket, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—the agency overseeing these firms—has acted as their ally, rather than their watchdog," the report says. "Both firms had actively lobbied Trump’s CFTC to block states from regulating prediction markets in the same way they regulate gambling companies."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the report on Trump's corruption "a reminder that we cannot afford to look away or pretend that any of this is normal."
"The country," Harper added, "is not Trump’s to liquidate."
Molly Claflin, senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, made the case that Trump's corruption and the economic pain being felt by Americans are inseparable.
“As working families buckle under the weight of Trump’s high prices, the president is further driving up costs by abusing his position to direct taxpayer-funded kickbacks to his family and political allies," said Claflin. "His erratic policymaking is making daily life more expensive. Americans know they’re being ripped off and are demanding accountability."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Decades in the Making': Antitrust Advocates Celebrate as Jury Rules Against Live Nation-Ticketmaster
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive."
Apr 15, 2026
Antitrust advocates celebrated on Wednesday after a jury found that Live Nation and is subsidiary Ticketmaster were illegal monopolies who for decades systematically overcharged customers for concert tickets.
As reported by The Associated Press, the verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster could cost the two entities "hundreds of millions of dollars, just for the $1.72 per ticket that the jury found Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers in 22 states," and they could be forced to sell off some of the venues they own.
The case against Live Nation, which was brought by 33 states and the District of Columbia, was initially led by the US Department of Justice. However, under President Donald Trump, the DOJ last month reached a last-minute settlement with the company that would not require it to be broken up.
The state attorneys general, however, vowed to see the case through and were rewarded with a big verdict in their favor.
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the verdict, describing it as "a landmark victory to protect New Yorkers from harmful monopolies."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive," and declared himself "proud to have brought this lawsuit."
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb noted Live Nation "has raked in billions in profits from an illegal monopoly that coerces venues, restricts artists, and exploits fans," and called the verdict "a massive win in the fight for fairness for local venues, artists, and fans."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, hailed the verdict, but said it was just "a key first step towards ending Live Nation’s monopolistic control and securing real relief for those it harmed."
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said the verdict was "decades in the making," and he cited iconic Seattle band Pearl Jam's fight against Ticketmaster in the 1990s to illustrate just how long it's taken to hold the company accountable.
"Pour one out for Pearl Jam, who testified before Congress in 1993 about Ticketmaster's abuse of the live concert industry," he commented.
The Roosevelt Institute took a shot at the Trump DOJ for bailing on the case, and noted the verdict against Live Nation "only happened because state AGs kept pushing after a federal settlement that let the companies off the hook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump AI Framework Would Deliver 'Big Tech's Top Policy Priority': A Ban on State Regulations
"Written by Big Tech, for Big Tech," said Rep. Yvette Clarke of the Trump administration proposal.
Mar 20, 2026
The Trump administration on Friday released its national policy framework for regulating artificial intelligence, and critics said it gave Silicon Valley a massive gift by coming out in favor of barring state regulation of the technology.
Specifically, Big Tech critics pointed to the framework's recommendation that the federal government preempt state laws regulating AI that could otherwise "act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance."
"States should not be permitted to regulate AI development," the framework stated, "because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications."
The Trump administration's paper also argued that states "should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI" and "should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, slammed the AI policy framework, which he said appeared designed "to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans."
"Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI," said Weissman. "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place—and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence."
Weissman added that while states' actions to regulate AI are inadequate, they are at least "trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment," which "is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts."
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, called the White House's preemption of state AI laws a mistake, predicting that it would lead to even worse problems than the ones created by unregulated social media over the past two decades.
"I think it's like this: if you think the current state of play in social media guardrails are A-OK, then you'll be fine with the framework," he wrote. "If—like most—you believe we made catastrophic mistakes re social media, then you should fervently oppose this vacuous 'framework.'"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) singled out the proposed ban on state AI regulations as a particularly troubling aspect of the framework.
"The White House National AI Policy Framework reinforces the Trump administration’s commitment to preempting state-level AI laws without the establishment of clear, enforceable federal guardrails to address the urgent risks posed by AI systems," he wrote. "It even seeks to limit congressional regulatory action. But until federal action ensures safe and responsible AI development, deployment, and use, states must retain the ability to implement policies to protect the American public."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, argued that the Trump AI framework should be one of the first things a future Democratic president throws in the garbage after taking office.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) delivered a pithy analysis of the White House framework, describing it as being "written by Big Tech, for Big Tech."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Lax Approach to Antitrust Helps Spur Banner Year for Corporate Mergers
"Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements," said the American Economic Liberties Project.
Dec 26, 2025
Global corporate mergers surged to near-record highs in 2025, driven in part by US President Donald Trump's lax approach to antitrust enforcement.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that global dealmaking in 2025 topped $4 trillion, including 68 mergers worth $10 billion or more, highlighted by Netflix's $72 billion bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery and a proposed $85 billion mega-merger between railway giants Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.
The US alone accounted for $2.3 trillion worth of mergers and acquisitions, which the Financial Times said highlighted the Trump administration's role in green-lighting corporate consolidation.
"Top dealmakers said that the Trump administration’s push to loosen regulation had encouraged companies to explore tie-ups that they might otherwise have been hesitant to pursue," the Financial Times explained.
Andrew Nussbaum, co-chair of the executive committee at law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, told the Financial Times that corporate leaders "see a willingness of the regulators to engage in constructive dialogue" under the second Trump administration, which has given them "a willingness to take on regulatory risk for transactions that are strategic."
The American Economic Liberties Project has also taken note of the Trump administration's role in shepherding through big mergers, and created a Trump Merger Boom tracker earlier this year to document the massive wave of corporate consolidation.
In its analysis of the administration's lax approach to antitrust enforcement, the American Economic Liberties Project said that "Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements."
"Despite pro-enforcement rhetoric early on from Trump’s heads of the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division," the American Economic Liberties Project added, "it’s becoming increasingly clear that agency leadership is having trouble making their decisions in a vacuum—with a quiet tide of deals granted to companies that have been friendly to the White House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's North American Trade Deal 'Created More Problems Than It Fixed': Analysis
The trade deficit has grown and the US has lost manufacturing jobs during the first nine months of Trump's second term.
Dec 11, 2025
A new analysis from the Economic Policy Institute claims that the signature trade deal from President Donald Trump's first term has actually "created more problems than it fixed."
The report, published Thursday, notes that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), signed into law by Trump in 2020, has completely failed to fulfill Trump's stated goal of lowering the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, which has grown from a combined $125 billion in 2020 to $263 billion in 2025.
This increased trade deficit was particularly notable when it comes to the auto industry, says the report, written by EPI senior economist Adam S. Hersh.
"In the critical automotive industry that Trump said he wanted to reshore, imports of motor vehicles and parts from Mexico nearly doubled following USMCA, rising to $274 billion in 2024, up from $196 billion in 2019," the report explains. "Light-duty vehicles imports from Mexico rose 36% while imports of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles increased a whopping 256%."
The report also finds that the trade deal "left a gaping loophole for Chinese manufacturers to exploit duty-free access to North American markets without reciprocal market access for US manufacturers," the result of which was "Chinese firms expanded their direct investment footprint in Mexico by as much as 288% through 2023."
The bottom line, says the report, is "Trump’s USMCA created more problems than it fixed," and that "today the pressure on manufacturing jobs and deterioration in the trade balance with Mexico are worse than before USMCA."
However, the report also says that the US, Canada, and Mexico have an opportunity to significantly improve on USMCA given that the deal is up for review next year.
Among other things, the report recommends closing the loopholes that have allowed Chinese manufacturers to rapidly expand their footprint in Mexico; expanding the the Rapid Response Labor Mechanism that "has helped improve wages and working conditions in a number of specific workplaces"; and slashing intellectual property rights provisions that "currently allow companies to preempt local laws addressing negative externalities from digital service provision."
The EPI report came on the same day that American Economic Liberties Project's Rethink Trade program released an analysis showing that Trump so far has failed to live up to his pledge to reduce the US trade deficit and revive domestic manufacturing.
In all, Rethink Trade found that the US trade deficit increased more during the first nine months of 2025 than it did during the first nine months of 2024. Additionally, the group found that the US has actually lost 49,000 manufacturing jobs since the start of Trump's second term.
Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program, said that "the nine-month data show outcomes that are the opposite of President Trump’s promises to cut the trade deficit and create more American manufacturing jobs."
She noted that Trump's trade deals so far "seem to prioritize the demands of Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and other usual beneficiaries of decades of failed US trade policy instead of fixing the root causes of our huge trade deficit to help American manufacturing workers and firms as he promised."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Denounces Trump AI Order Seen as Giveaway to Big Tech Billionaire Buddies Like David Sacks
"David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them."
Dec 08, 2025
President Donald Trump is drawing swift criticism after announcing he would be signing an executive order aimed at clamping down on state governments' powers to regulate the artificial intelligence industry.
In a Monday morning Truth Social post, Trump said that the order was needed to prevent a fragmented regulatory landscape for AI companies.
"We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS," the president wrote. "THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something."
Although specifics on the Trump AI executive order are not yet known, a draft order that has been circulating in recent weeks would instruct the US Department of Justice to file lawsuits against states that pass AI-related regulations with the ultimate goal of overturning them.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at watchdog Demand Progress, slammed Trump over the looming AI order, which she said was a giveaway to big tech industry billionaire backers such as David Sacks, a major Trump donor who currently serves as the administration's czar on AI and cryptocurrency.
"David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them," she said. "Right now, state laws are our best defense against AI chatbots that have sexual conversations with kids and even encourage them to harm themselves, deepfake revenge porn, and half-baked algorithms that make decisions about our employment and health care."
Peterson-Cassin went on to say that blocking state-level regulations of AI "only makes sense if the president’s goal is to please the Big Tech elites who helped pay for his campaign, his inauguration and his ballroom."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also accused Trump of selling out Americans to do the bidding of Silicon Valley oligarchs.
"This is a direct ask from Big Tech lobbyists (who also donated millions to Trump’s campaign and ballroom) who only care about their own profits, not our safety," Jayapal wrote in a social media post. "States must be able to regulate AI to protect Americans."
Some critics of the Trump AI order questioned whether it had any legal weight behind it. Travis Hall, the director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the New York Times that Trump's order should not hinder state governments from passing and enforcing AI industry regulations going forward.
“The president cannot pre-empt state laws through an executive order, full stop,” Hall argued. “Pre-emption is a question for Congress, which they have considered and rejected, and should continue to reject.”
Matthew Stoller, an antitrust advocate and researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, also expressed doubt that Trump's order would be effective at blocking state AI regulations.
"Trump can issue an executive order mandating it rain today, it doesn't really matter though," said Stoller.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) predicted the Trump order would be repeatedly struck down in courts.
"Trump’s one rule executive order on AI will fail," Lieu posted on social media. "Executive orders cannot create law. Only Congress can do so. That’s why Trump tried twice (and failed) to put AI preemption into law. Courts will rule against the EO because it will largely be based on a bill that failed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Colossally Wrong Decision' as Facebook Parent Company Wins Instagram-WhatsApp Antitrust Case
"This court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Nov 19, 2025
Anti-monopoly advocates are warning that a federal judge's ruling in favor of Facebook parent company Meta in a major antitrust case will have negative repercussions for US consumers by allowing Facebook to continue wielding monopoly power in the social media marketplace.
Judge James Boasberg in the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Tuesday that the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp did not violate US antitrust policy.
Boasberg found that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had not proven Meta holds monopoly power in the personal social networking market, "largely because he folded TikTok and YouTube into the same market and concluded that their popularity reduces Meta’s share below illegal levels," said the American Economic Liberties Project (ALEP).
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, argued that Boasberg's ruling demonstrates a basic misunderstanding about the economics of the social media market.
"The court's opinion reflects a view of the market that is at odds with how digital-platform power operates today," he said. "Meta systematically acquired emerging competitors precisely because direct, head-to-head competition threatened its dominance. Meta’s consolidation strategy deprived consumers of innovative services and prevented the development of a truly competitive social-networking ecosystem."
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of ALEP, described the ruling as a "colossally wrong decision" that "turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it."
"These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family," she said. "By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side."
Hegde added that it should now fall upon US Congress to "step in and break up Big Tech, prohibit addictive surveillance algorithms, and create the conditions for building a better future."
Open Markets Institute policy counsel Tara Pincock said Boasberg's ruling was "profoundly misguided," and accused the judge of blocking the FTC from reversing a mistake it made last decade when it signed off on Meta's purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp.
"Judge Boasberg erred in concluding that Facebook competes with TikTok and YouTube," said Pincock, a former state assistant attorney general in Utah. "I was part of the bipartisan coalition of states that brought this case alongside the FTC in December 2020, and the court’s framing misrepresents what is at stake. This case has never been about generic 'time and attention.' It is about how people connect, communicate, and build communities—and about how a powerful company abused its dominance to protect itself from competition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Drop in the Bucket': Lina Khan Rips Trump FTC for Giving Amazon a Wrist-Slap Settlement
The Federal Trade Commission's decision to settle with Amazon would be "a big relief for the executives who knowingly harmed their customers," added Khan.
Sep 25, 2025
The Federal Trade Commission announced on Thursday it had reached a settlement with Amazon over allegations that the online retailer had tricked consumers into subscribing to its Prime service—but the woman who led the FTC under former President Joe Biden was not impressed.
According to the FTC, Amazon has agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle claims that it deceived customers into subscribing to Prime and then deliberately made it difficult for them to cancel. In all, Amazon will pay a $1 billion civil penalty, as well as $1.5 billion in refunds to consumers who unwittingly subscribed to Prime.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson framed the settlement as a victory for the Trump administration and touted the deal as "a record-breaking, monumental win for the millions of Americans who are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to cancel." Ferguson also said the settlement would ensure "Amazon never does this again."
Amazon, for its part, said in a statement that it didn't break any laws despite agreeing to pay out billions.
"Amazon and our executives have always followed the law and this settlement allows us to move forward and focus on innovating for customers," the company said. "We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership, and to offer substantial value for our many millions of loyal Prime members around the world."
However, former FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan accused the agency of letting Amazon off easy, while describing the $2.5 billion settlement as a "drop in the bucket" for the tech giant.
"In 2023, we sued Amazon and several top executives for tricking people into Prime subscriptions and then making it absurdly difficult to cancel," she explained in a post on X. "This week marked the start of a historic jury trial, where American citizens would hear details of Amazon’s business practices and determine if it had broken the law. A couple of days into trial, FTC announces it has settled all charges, rescuing Amazon from likely being found liable for having violated the law and allowing it to pay its way out."
Khan added that the settlement was "no doubt, a big relief for the executives who knowingly harmed their customers."
Amazon currently has a market cap of over $2.3 trillion, meaning the $2.5 billion settlement represents a little more than one-tenth of 1% of its total worth. Its billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, is among the richest people on Earth, with an estimated net worth of nearly $240 billion.
Matthew Stoller, an antitrust advocate and researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, faulted the FTC for letting Amazon settle without any admission of wrongdoing.
"A judge already ruled in summary judgment they violated the law," Stoller observed.
Amazon may not be completely out of the woods legally, however.
As NPR noted on Thursday, Amazon "still faces another, bigger federal lawsuit, in which the FTC has accused the company of functioning as a monopoly." That trial is currently projected to begin in early 2027, NPR added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge's Ruling on Google Search Monopoly Decried as 'Slap on the Wrist' for Tech Giant
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said one critic.
Sep 03, 2025
A federal judge's Tuesday ruling on tech giant Google has drawn criticism from anti-monopoly advocates who say that it let the company walk away without having to give up its economic stranglehold over online searches and advertising.
As reported by The New York Times, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had to share some of its data with competing search platforms, while also placing restrictions on the company's ability to pay to ensure its search engine receives preferential treatment on web browsers and phones.
However, these remedies fell far short of measures requested by the US Department of Justice, which had asked that Google be forced to share more of its data with competitors and to sell off its Chrome web browser.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a scathing assessment of Mehta's ruling, and she urged the government to appeal and push for harsher penalties against Google.
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," she said. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."
She went on to describe Mehta's decision as "bizarre" given that he had "found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era."
Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, accused Mehta of letting Google get away with a "slap on the wrist" given the scale of the damage it has caused.
"Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation, and rob Americans of their right to read, watch, and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history," he said. "Judge Mehta's order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs."
Like Hegde, Lynn also urged the government to appeal the ruling.
Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the freedom of expression advocacy group Public Knowledge, took aim at Mehta for letting Google maintain control of both Chrome and the Android mobile operating system, even though he concluded that Google had abused its market power to stifle competition.
Phillips also suggested that elected officials needed to pick up the slack when it comes to holding giant corporations accountable for their actions.
"Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," she said. "Google's anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice."
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of human rights organization Amnesty International, also weighed in to express disappointment with Mehta's decision.
"This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google's power," said Callamard. "Google's toxic business model is built on pervasive surveillance. By tracking people across the web and monetizing their personal data through targeted advertising, the company has severely undermined our right to privacy."
Google was first sued for antitrust violations by the DOJ in 2020 under the first Trump administration, and then again in 2023 under the Biden administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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