FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr joined House Republicans last week in urging the U.S. to take action against TikTok and its Chinese “brainwashing” of American youth. Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., in a Free Press opinion article Wednesday continued his call for Congress to ban the popular Chinese social media app (see 2303130042). He accused TikTok of brainwashing American youth and inspiring “morally bankrupt” views of the world. Gallagher cited a Harvard/Harris poll showing 51% of Americans ages 18-24 “believe Hamas was justified in its brutal terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli citizens on October 7.” Carr posted on X Thursday, saying Gallagher is “exactly right.” The U.S. “would never allow a foreign adversary to seize control of a vital means of broadcast communication without completing a national security review that neither TikTok nor the [Chinese Communist Party] could ever pass -- the outcome should be no different here,” said Carr. On Friday, Carr reposted comments from House Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., who has called for a TikTok ban in the U.S. Gallagher is “right,” she posted Friday. “TikTok is a tool of the Chinese Communist Party to spy on and manipulate Americans. It's a serious threat to our national security. Congress must act to protect Americans from the CCP’s ‘digital fentanyl.’”

The U.S. shouldn’t implement new cyber regulations until the Office of National Cyber Director has completed its formal process for harmonizing regulations across the government, industry groups told the White House in comments posted last week. The ONCD requested comments to “understand existing challenges with regulatory overlap” and harmonize regulations across agencies. USTelecom urged the administration to halt the issuance of new cyber regulations until the review is completed, except for regulations already subject to statutory deadlines. “This temporary pause prevents the introduction of additional, potentially conflicting regulations,” said USTelecom. CTIA suggested the ONCD coordinate with agencies and hold off on any new regulations until the harmonization work is “mature.” Promulgating new requirements may hinder ONCD’s “efforts to harmonize the already vast cybersecurity regulatory landscape,” said CTIA. BSA | The Software Alliance noted the Biden administration’s national cyber strategy “prioritizes regulatory harmonization,” but agencies continue to add more cyber regulations. “To be clear, this is not a call to end the regulation of cybersecurity but to pause new regulations as the US Government gains a wholistic understanding of the regulatory landscape,” said BSA. NCTA suggested the administration can look to NIST’s cybersecurity framework “to achieve design, implementation, operational, and compliance-related efficiencies.”

Forcing domestic AI companies to share datasets could handicap U.S. companies and encourage AI development abroad, TechNet said in comments to the Copyright Office this week. The Copyright Office is studying policy issues related to AI technology to determine whether legislative or regulatory action is needed. The CO requested comments on the use of copyrighted works in AI training models, “appropriate levels of transparency and disclosure with respect to the use of copyrighted works.” Comments are due Nov. 29. “Forcing AI companies to disclose the contents of these datasets would, in effect, force the publication of valuable and otherwise confidential commercial secrets,” said TechNet. This would help foreign competitors that aren’t subject to the same requirements, said TechNet. The Copyright Alliance, which represents individual creators, called for “appropriate transparency and record keeping” in its own comments. The Alliance said publicly available databases are essential for artists to determine whether their licensed work has been used by AI systems and to getting compensation. “Adequate and appropriate transparency and record-keeping benefit[] both copyright owners and AI developers in resolving questions regarding infringement, fair use, and compliance with licensing terms,” the alliance said.

FTC commissioners and the chair should publicly share written documentation on their reasoning for when they decline to follow agency official recommendations on recusals, industry groups told the agency in comments posted Friday (see 2309250029). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an FTC petition in September raising concerns about Chair Lina Khan’s decision not to recuse herself from proceedings on Meta’s buy of Within Unlimited, despite an FTC ethics official’s recommendation that she do so (see 2309250029). The petition seeks new rules requiring commissioners to request and receive written legal guidance from agency ethics officials and share in writing any decisions not to follow their guidance. CTA and the Software & Information Industry Association backed the petition in filings. CTA commented: “This approach will benefit all stakeholders -- interested parties, the public, and the FTC itself -- by providing transparency, predictability, and accountability in recusal procedures, which have important stakes for the parties involved.” The current rules are “murky,” and at a “minimum the agency should have recusal standards that offer some criteria to guide Commissioners and avoid conflicts of interest,” said SIIA.

The U.S., followed by China, took the top two spots in the inaugural Broadband and Cloud Development Index, the World Broadband Association (WBBA) said Thursday. It said the index looks at broadband coverage and cloud computing items, quantifying and ranking major countries on their performance. The report said the U.S.'s top score in the index's cloud segment is unsurprising due to the early adoption of cloud services by U.S. enterprises and because the world's largest cloud providers are there. WBBA said some other nations outscored the U.S. in broadband because it traditionally has not been a leader in the global broadband market, particularly for availability and adoption. The association said the index was developed with support from member companies and written by Omdia and China Telecom Research Institute.

Evidence of a need for network usage fees is insufficient, the U.K. Office of Communications (Ofcom) said Thursday in a net neutrality review statement. "A charging regime would be a significant step" and it's not clear that approach would support net neutrality objectives. ISPs can't impose fees on over-the-top services under the current net neutrality regime because there's no legal or regulatory obligation on content providers to negotiate with them, Ofcom noted. While charging OTTs could theoretically have benefits because it might give them stronger incentives to make efficient decisions, the extent to which they determine the timing of traffic and the choice of delivery approach (that is, network providers' costs) can be limited. In addition, many content providers, including some of the biggest ones, are already making decisions and investments that tend to improve the efficiency of traffic delivery, the statement said. There's also "material uncertainty" about how a charging system could affect retail broadband prices and content subscription charges, as well as uncertainties about the scale of future network investment. Ultimately, Ofcom noted, any decision to allow content-carrying fees is up to Parliament and the government. The review, which began in 2021, found that the U.K. approach to net neutrality supports consumer choice and allows content providers to deliver content and services to consumers: "However, there are some areas where more clarity will enable ISPs to innovate and manage their networks more efficiently, which will improve consumer outcomes." Under the new guidance, ISPs can offer premium quality retail offers, such as for low latency, as long as they're transparent with consumers about what they can expect from the services. ISPs can develop new specialized services for delivering specific content and applications, such as real-time communications and virtual reality. The guidance updates how network providers can use traffic management for their networks to maintain a good quality of service. It allows most zero-rating offers (where the data used by a particular website or app isn't counted toward a customer's overall data allowance). The updated rules should give ISPs enough flexibility that a charging regime isn't needed, Ofcom added.

The Senate needs to bring a package of kids’ online safety legislation to the floor, advocates said Thursday during an event on Capitol Hill. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called for a vote in late September (see 2309270045). His office declined comment Thursday. Tanya Gould, director of Virginia's Office of the Attorney General Anti-Human Trafficking Office, joined several advocates and former child sex-trafficking victims during Thursday’s event, which was hosted by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. They called for passage of the Strengthening Transparency and Obligation to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment (Stop CSAM) Act (S-1199), the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act (Earn It Act) (S-3398) and the Kids Online Safety Act (S-1409). Advocates said social media platforms are hiding behind Communications Decency Act Section 230 to avoid taking action against harmful content. Tech companies aren’t designing products with “safety in mind,” said NCOSE CEO Dawn Hawkins.

Congress should amend the FTC Act and restore the agency’s consumer redress authority, which a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court eliminated in 2021 (see 2104220068), the agency said Friday. Legislative efforts to restore the authority failed in 2022 (see 2205110069). The Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC “significantly hampered” the agency’s ability to get “harmed consumers their money back and prevent wrongdoers from profiting from their violations of the FTC Act,” the FTC said.

The FTC still believes Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to buy Activision Blizzard is a “threat to competition,” an agency spokesperson said Friday. Microsoft closed the deal Friday after getting approval from the U.K.’s antitrust regulator. The FTC remains “focused on the federal appeal process” despite Microsoft and Activision “closing their deal in advance of a scheduled December appeals court hearing,” the agency said. Microsoft’s concessions to the U.K. are a “whole new facet to the merger that will affect American consumers, which the FTC will assess as part of its ongoing administrative proceeding. The FTC continues to believe this deal is a threat to competition.” The FTC withdrew its administrative complaint against the deal in July, after motions for preliminary injunction were denied by a district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of its agreement with the U.K., Microsoft agreed to sell the streaming rights for Activision's games to Ubisoft for 15 years. It also committed to keeping the newly acquired game Call of Duty on Sony’s PlayStation for a decade and offering the game on Nintendo Switch. The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority in a post Friday called the streaming concession a “gamechanger.” The CMA “made sure Microsoft can’t have a stranglehold over this important and rapidly developing market,” said Chief Executive Sarag Cardell. “As cloud gaming grows, this intervention will ensure people get more competitive prices, better services and more choice.” The U.K. regulator initially blocked the deal in April. “Today is a good day to play,” Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer wrote in an X post Friday. NextGen Competition Executive Director George Rakis urged the FTC to continue scrutinizing and ultimately unwind the deal, citing Microsoft’s 20-year campaign blocking its U.S. workforce from unionizing. “The closing of the largest merger in tech history marks a sad day for competition, worker rights, and consumers,” said Rakis. Microsoft President Brad Smith in a blog post Friday reaffirmed the company’s commitment to its neutrality agreement with the Communication Workers of America, which will apply when the deal goes into effect.

New York officials and legislators introduced two pieces of legislation Wednesday meant to limit “addictive” social media features for children and teens. Attorney General Letitia James (D) announced two bills with Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), Sen. Andrew Gounardes (D) and Assemblymember Nily Rozic (D). The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (Safe) for Kids Act would require platforms to give users under 18 “default chronological” feeds from “users they already follow.” The bill is intended to limit algorithmic feeds that “have been shown to be addictive because they prioritize content that keeps users on the platform longer.” The New York Child Data Protection Act would ban all websites from collecting and sharing personal data of users under 18 for advertising purposes, “unless they receive informed consent or unless doing so is strictly necessary for the purpose of the website.” The legislation “empowers both parents and young users, giving them the assurance that their online experiences will be free from pervasive monitoring and data exploitation,” said Rozic.