This edition is brought to you by FCC chairman Brendan Carr’s remarks at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference:
Policy Archive
Archives for March 2026


In a class action lawsuit, an unnamed plaintiff who says she’s a survivor of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein says the Trump administration and Google have wrongfully disclosed survivors’ personal data. “Google has failed and refuses to remove, de-index, or block access to the offending materials,“ the complaint says.
An Iran-linked group claimed responsibility for the breach and posted documents stolen from Patel’s inbox online, according to Reuters.
The DOJ has reportedly confirmed the breach, with a preliminary review by CNN finding emails from around 2011 to 2022 that “appear to include personal, business and travel correspondence that Patel had with various contacts.”

CBP agents at Miami International Airport briefly detained 20 activists, 18 of whom had their phones taken.


The formal investigation opened by the European Commission will focus on five areas: age assurance, default account settings, reporting of illegal content, dissemination of prohibited products, and the grooming and recruitment of children for criminal activities. These DSA probes can take a while, and no timeline has been provided.
[European Commission - European Commission]
Duh. The quasi-independent board says that expanding Community Notes outside the US — where it launched in lieu of fact checkers in early 2025 — could “pose significant human rights risks and contribute to tangible harms that Meta has a responsibility to avoid or remedy,” according to Niemen Lab.
Elon Musk said it was “war” in 2024, as X filed its antitrust lawsuit against World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) members over their Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative.
Now a judge has dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it can’t be brought again:
…if facts existed that GARM operated at an X competitor’s behest to put X out of business or that GARM advertisers sought to unfairly exclude competing advertisers from doing business, X would have pleaded those facts. The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the Court
therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.
The statement doesn’t begin to address whether Asus will stop selling future routers in the US, sue, or apply for the FCC’s “conditional approval.” The FCC isn’t asking about security or integrity; it asks for a detailed plan to manufacture routers in the US.
ASUS has proudly served U.S. customers since 1991, with a long-standing commitment to trusted innovation and strong product security. We are confident in the integrity of our supply chain and the security of our networking products. This FCC action has no impact on existing ASUS router users, software updates, and customer support.
The United States router ban, explained

The Justice Department’s surprise Live Nation settlement raises big questions about the future of federal antitrust.








