The European Commission is investigating whether X breached the Digital Services Act, it said Monday. X didn't immediately comment. It is the first time the EC has opened proceedings under the DSA. X is one of 19 companies the DSA classifies as "very large online platforms" (VLOPs). The VLOPs are required to analyze systemic risks they create from dissemination of illegal content or the harmful effects such content has on fundamental rights (see 2311100001). On the basis of a preliminary investigation, including X's first risk report, transparency report and replies to a formal request for information, the EC said the company may have violated the DSA "in areas linked to risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency and data access for researchers." It launched formal infringement proceedings that will focus on: (1) Compliance with DSA obligations related to countering dissemination of illegal content in the EU. (2) The effectiveness of measures taken to combat information manipulation on the platform, particularly X's "so-called 'Community Notes' system" in the EU. (3) The measures X took to increase its platform's transparency. (4) A suspected deceptive design of the user interface particularly related to checkmarks linked to certain subscription products (the Blue checks). The EC sent an "important signal today" to show that it wants the DSA to change the business models of VLOPs, an EC official said at a briefing. The launch of the inquiry doesn't mean X has breached the DSA, just that the EC has significant grounds to investigate, the official said. Illegal content in the EU is a key area of concern, the official said: X's notification system might not comply with the DSA, and some of its risk assessments for the EU aren't sufficiently detailed, especially in the area of languages monitored for illegal content. Some of the company's mitigation techniques are very broadly defined and may not be effective in combating illegal content such as graphic violence in connection with the Israel-Hamas conflict, the official added. In addition, the way X deals with disinformation relies on a combination of different systems, including blue checks, which may mislead users into believing the checks indicate more trustworthy content, she said. The EC has had strong engagement from all the VLOPs, but it's a "glass half full" because it's unclear whether the serious engagement is enough to mitigate risks, the official said. Asked for a definition of what the EC considers illegal content, the official said the DSA isn't a content moderation rule but an approach to deal with systemic risks and to assess what VLOPs do when they're notified of such content on their sites. The same goes for disinformation, the official said. The EC received examples of material national media authorities flagged, which were sent to X; however, the company did not address them, a second official noted: These include depictions of violent crimes and visible wounds. X's policies forbid publication of this content, but they appear to be available on its site. The EC will continue gathering evidence and, if it finds noncompliance, could impose interim measures, accept commitments from X to remedy the problems or make an infringement decision.
The Commerce Department has released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on glycine from Japan (A-588-878). These final results will be used to set final assessments of AD duties on importers for subject merchandise entered June 1, 2021, through May 31, 2022.
A review of the administrative record behind the addition of Ninestar to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List shows the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force (FLETF) had no basis for the listing, Ninestar argued in a Dec. 15 brief in support of its bid for a preliminary injunction (Ninestar Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00182).
Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register Dec. 18 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department has released a correction to the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on polyethylene film, sheet and strip from India (A-533-824) covering subject merchandise entered July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, published in the March 16, 2020, Federal Register.
The Commerce Department is setting new countervailing duty cash deposit requirements for imports of pea protein from China (C-570-155) after finding illegal subsidization of Chinese producers in the preliminary determination of its CVD investigation. Suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements take retroactive effect as of Sept. 19, 2023, due to Commerce's finding of critical circumstances for all Chinese companies.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Dec. 18 on AD/CVD proceedings:
Days after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motion to intervene in Missouri v. Biden (see 2312110052), U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe said in a signed order Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01213) that he’s now “inclined” to issue a ruling on Kennedy’s April 12 motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Biden administration officials from conversing with social media companies about censoring Kennedy’s protected speech. Doughty, who issued the July 4 injunction against administration officials that’s now before SCOTUS, previously stayed Kennedy’s injunction motion until after SCOTUS resolves Missouri v. Biden. In light of Doughty's consolidating Kennedy’s case with Missouri v. Biden July 24, it’s “unclear” whether that consolidation “interferes with the court’s jurisdiction” over Kennedy’s injunction motion, said the order. Doughty ordered the parties to submit briefs on whether he can issue a ruling on the injunction, despite the related case being before SCOTUS. The government’s brief will be due Dec. 20. The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, including the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, will respond seven days later, said the order. Justice Samuel Alito, in dissenting from the SCOTUS decision denying Kennedy's motion to intervene, specifically cited as grounds for his dissent that Kennedy's motion for an injunction was "stuck" in the district court and likely won't be decided until June. Denying Kennedy's motion to intervene in Missouri v. Biden will cause Kennedy "irreparable harm" because censorship of his protected speech on social media would prevent him for months from communicating with voters during his independent run for president, said Alito.
Pencil importer Royal Brush Manufacturing was required to file protests before it could challenge CBP's allegedly improper liquidations under an Enforce and Protect Act antidumping duty evasion investigation, the Court of International Trade ruled on Dec. 15. Dismissing the company's case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Mark Barnett echoed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in Juice Farms v. U.S. in ruling that "all liquidations, whether legal or not, are subject to the timely protest requirement."