T-Mobile canceled some longtime subscribers' free-line promotions as part of a forced migration to new rate plans, spurring complaints from customers yesterday. T-Mobile admitted the problem and blamed it on technical errors that it is trying to fix.

The forced plan changes were controversial to begin with, particularly as many longtime users are being hit with price hikes of $6 per line. The unexpected loss of free lines for some of those users could raise prices by a much higher amount if the change isn't reversed.

There is good news, though. T-Mobile told Ars today that it was a mistake and that the company is working to fix the problem. Of course, it's not always easy for telecom customers to get the proper resolution even after a company admits to an error publicly. But given T-Mobile's statement today, we hope the firm will fix the problem for all impacted customers with as little hassle as possible.

Read full article

Comments

The Federal Communications Commission will vote to repeal the National Television Ownership Rule that is supposed to prevent a single broadcast station owner from reaching more than 39 percent of all TV households in the US. The proposed change sets up a likely court battle over the FCC claim that it has authority to repeal a limit set by Congress.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has already treated the rule as more of a suggestion. In March, the Carr FCC granted a waiver allowing Nexstar Media Group to buy Tegna in a deal that let it reach over half of TV households. The Carr FCC argued that Congress gave it authority to modify or waive the rule.

Carr now plans to repeal the 39 percent limit and replace it with a "case-by-case review" of each proposed merger, the chairman announced today in an op-ed published on Breitbart. The change would make it easier for the FCC to pick and choose which station groups get to surpass the limit. Under Carr, this would likely benefit news companies that provide favorable coverage for President Trump.

Read full article

Comments

Meta's AI-fueled layoffs of 8,000 employees targeted workers with disabilities and those who took protected medical or family leaves, alleged a lawsuit filed by 26 employees who were selected for termination. Meta used internal AI tools to select employees for layoffs, according to the complaint filed yesterday by 26 "Doe" plaintiffs in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

"Meta did not assemble the termination list through the considered judgment of managers who knew the work. Instead, Meta used a constellation of internal artificial-intelligence systems—including a system referred to internally as 'Metamate,' employee-trained 'second-brain' agents, keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration—to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion on the list," the lawsuit said.

Employees were allegedly graded, among other things, on how much they used Meta's AI tools. "Meta’s internal dashboards classified employees by their stage of adoption of its artificial-intelligence tools, using categories such as 'AI Native,' 'AI First,' and 'AI Enabled,'" the lawsuit said.

Read full article

Comments

A group of 12 states led by California sued Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery today in an attempt to block a $111 billion merger that was greenlit by the Trump administration last month.

"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," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

The merger would combine two of the largest movie studios and merge streaming service Paramount+ with HBO Max. Netflix previously had a deal to buy WBD's streaming and movie studios businesses, but Paramount succeeded in a hostile takeover bid helped along by support from the Trump administration.

Read full article

Comments

A former ransomware negotiator was sentenced to 70 months in prison yesterday after colluding with BlackCat scammers to extort the victims he was hired to protect.

As a ransomware negotiator for the company DigitalMint, Florida resident Angelo Martino's job was "to negotiate with cybercriminals to mitigate the ransoms paid by [DigitalMint's] clients," the US government said in a sentencing memorandum on Tuesday. "Instead, Martino provided the cybercriminals with confidential negotiation information to maximize the ransoms in exchange for a portion of the ransom payments. Five of the victims whom Martino was supposed to help paid over $75 million to ransomware affiliates, including likely millions of dollars in ransom demands inflated as a result of the confidential information provided by Martino."

Martino, 41, pleaded guilty and asked for a 24-month sentence, noting that he "provided substantial assistance that contributed to the indictment and conviction of two co-defendants." As described in this November 2025 article, the co-defendants were Texas resident Kevin Martin, a ransomware negotiator for DigitalMint, and Georgia resident Ryan Goldberg, an incident manager at security firm Sygnia.

Read full article

Comments

A federal judge reluctantly approved a $1.5 million settlement between Elon Musk and the Trump administration despite raising numerous concerns about a deal that lets Musk get off lightly for a rule violation that allegedly harmed Twitter investors.

In an order approving the deal, US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said she "has significant misgivings about the settlement" between Musk and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and described "red flags" in the SEC's decision-making. This isn't surprising given that she previously questioned whether the deal is tainted by corruption. But there is a high legal bar for rejecting the settlement, and the circumstances do not meet "that high threshold," she wrote yesterday.

"That means that this Court must accept the Parties’ consent judgment," Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, wrote. "Whether the Executive Branch (through the SEC) has done enough to hold Mr. Musk to account for his alleged violation is, like many other issues, for our citizenry to decide at the ballot box."

Read full article

Comments

Kalshi lost an attempt to override New York's state gambling laws yesterday, with a federal judge rejecting the prediction market operator's request to prevent enforcement of the rules.

Kalshi is appealing the decision to a higher court. This is one of numerous cases in which judges must decide whether state laws are preempted by federal regulation of prediction markets.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James issued a joint statement on the ruling today. “New York’s gambling laws are designed to protect consumers," they said. "Kalshi tried to ignore them. Yesterday, they lost in court. We will continue to hold all gambling platforms accountable to the law—and that includes prediction markets.”

Read full article

Comments

The Supreme Court yesterday decided not to intervene in challenges to a Texas app store law, allowing the state to enforce age-verification rules while a lawsuit continues.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Texas App Store Accountability Act in December 2025, finding that it likely violates the First Amendment. US District Judge Robert Pitman's ruling prevented Texas from enforcing the law when it was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026.

But the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stayed the injunction on June 4, deciding that there is "no legitimate justification for enjoining enforcement of the entire Act." A lobby group representing Big Tech companies and an advocacy group for students then asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the injunction.

Read full article

Comments

The Federal Communications Commission will vote to eliminate a rule that requires Internet service providers to list all of their so-called "passthrough" fees on an easily accessible broadband price label. The FCC vote could also make the price labels themselves a bit harder for consumers to find.

ISPs routinely advertise prices much lower than those actually charged to consumers on their monthly bills. One method of raising monthly bill prices above advertised rates is to tack on fees that, ISPs claim, are used to offset charges imposed by local governments.

ISPs would be well within their rights to advertise accurate monthly prices and charge those exact prices on monthly bills. But because ISPs rarely do that, the FCC has required them to make specific price disclosures to consumers for the past decade.

Read full article

Comments