Thursday the White House "moved to halt a $5 billion initiative to build electric vehicle charging stations," reports Politico, "by instructing states not to spend federal funds previously allocated to them..." NPR described the move as "putting in limbo billions of dollars allocated to states with current and future projects..."

Politico notes the move "appears to upend years of precedent in which federal promises of funds for highway projects had given states an all-but-guaranteed assurance that they were free to spend them. It also raises legal questions... Funding experts had told POLITICO last year that decades of legal precedent would largely insulate the charging money... Andrew Rogers [deputy administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, or FHWA, in the Biden administration] said in a text message that the new letter "appears to ignore both the law and multiple restraining orders that have been issued by federal courts." Rogers, who is now a senior vice president at Boundary Stone Partners, said the move appears to be "in direct violation" of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a Watergate-era law that prohibits presidents from unilaterally canceling congressionally approved spending. Trump has contended that the law is unconstitutional.
Politico also got a quote from the chief analyst at analytics firm Paren, who predicts lawsuits from affected states and that the final impact of the move will be "just causing havoc and slowing things down for awhile." [A letter to state transportation directors from the Federal Highway Administration] clarifies that states will be able to receive reimbursements for "existing obligations" to design and build stations "in order to not disrupt current financial commitments." According to the letter, FHWA plans to publish new draft guidance on the NEVI program in the spring, followed by a comment period, before issuing new final guidance. Only then will states be able to resubmit their annual implementation plans for all fiscal years of the program.
"But that doesn't mean that the program is going to be sunset or the funds are not going to be made available again to the states," Nick Nigro, the founder of Atlas Public Policy consultancy told NPR: Several experts tell NPR that as a result of its overwhelming bipartisan support at the time, attempts to overturn it within the executive branch are likely to be challenged in court. Nigro believes the funding will resume eventually...

So far, 56 stations [with multiple chargers] are up and running as a result of the program, while more than 900 sites in total have been "awarded" to date, according to Loren McDonald, chief analyst at Paren, another research analytics firm. McDonald said several hundred of the awarded sites are currently under construction and expected to open this year. He does not believe the FHWA has the authority to pause or rescind any aspect of the NEVI program... "I assume lawsuits from states will start soon, and this will go to court and Congress," McDonald said in a statement.
The move has "confounded states, which had been allocated billions of dollars by Congress for the program," the New York Times reported Friday. "[S]ome state officials said that as a result of the memo from the Trump administration, they had stopped work on the charging stations. Others said they intended to keep going."

The Washington Post reports that a Texas Department of Transportation official "said it would continue to deploy federal funds for EV chargers until it receives further guidance," and that Ryan Gallentine, managing director at the national business association Advanced Energy United, said that states "are under no obligation to stop these projects based solely on this announcement." Politico adds: Also on Thursday, FHWA took down several internet pages providing information on NEVI and its sister program, the $2.5 billion Charging and Fueling Infrastructure grant program... Amid the confusion, at least six states — Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Rhode Island, Ohio and Nebraska — have put their NEVI programs on hold, according to McDonald. Rhode Island and Ohio had been considered leading states in implementing the program.

Maine's overwhelmingly popular right-to-repair law is under attack by automakers through lawsuits and lobbying efforts aimed at weakening or delaying enforcement. While the law remains in limbo due to industry influence and legal challenges, broader enforcement issues persist across multiple states, with corporations often ignoring right-to-repair laws despite their legal passage. Techdirt reports: A little over a year ago, Maine residents voted overwhelmingly (83 percent) to pass a new state right to repair law designed to make auto repairs easier and more affordable. More specifically, the law requires that automakers standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to consumers and third-party independent repair shops. But as we've seen with other states that have passed right to reform laws (most notably New York), passing the law isn't the end of the story. Corporate lobbyists have had great success not just watering these laws down before passage, but after voters approve them. They've also been swarmed by coordinated industry lawsuits and falsehood-spewing attacks.

Maine's popular right to repair law just took effect after a year of hashing out the fine details, but the bill's still being changed as the state tries to sort out enforcement. Large automakers have been looming over that process to try and weaken the law. But the Alliance For Automotive Innovation also just filed a new lawsuit saying the law isn't fully cooked and therefore violates the law: "This is an example of putting the cart before the horse. Before automakers can comply, the law requires the attorney general to first establish an 'independent entity' to securely administer access to vehicle data. The independent entity hasn't been established. That's not in dispute. Compliance with the law right now is not possible."

A German court has ruled that Amazon's Prime Video service violates a Nokia-owned patent, ordering Amazon to stop streaming in its current form or face fines of 250,000 euros per violation. However, Amazon assured customers in a statement on Friday that there is no risk of losing access to Prime Video because the decision affects only a limited functionality related to casting videos between devices.

"Prime Video will comply with this local judgement and is currently considering next steps. However, there is absolutely no risk at all for customers losing access to Prime Video," Amazon's Prime Video spokesperson told Reuters. Meanwhile, Nokia's chief licensing officer, Arvin Patel, said: "...the innovation ecosystem breaks down if patent holders are not fairly compensated for the use of their technologies, as it becomes much harder for innovators to fund the development of next generation technologies."

An anonymous reader shares a report: Newly unsealed emails allegedly provide the "most damning evidence" yet against Meta in a copyright case raised by book authors alleging that Meta illegally trained its AI models on pirated books.

Last month, Meta admitted to torrenting a controversial large dataset known as LibGen, which includes tens of millions of pirated books. But details around the torrenting were murky until yesterday, when Meta's unredacted emails were made public for the first time. The new evidence showed that Meta torrented "at least 81.7 terabytes of data across multiple shadow libraries through the site Anna's Archive, including at least 35.7 terabytes of data from Z-Library and LibGen," the authors' court filing said. And "Meta also previously torrented 80.6 terabytes of data from LibGen."

"The magnitude of Meta's unlawful torrenting scheme is astonishing," the authors' filing alleged, insisting that "vastly smaller acts of data piracy -- just .008 percent of the amount of copyrighted works Meta pirated -- have resulted in Judges referring the conduct to the US Attorneys' office for criminal investigation."

Joseph Firmage, a former Silicon Valley prodigy who built a $2.5 billion web services company in the 1990s, is now being sued by investors who claim he defrauded them through an alleged antigravity machine scheme. In 1998, at the height of his success as CEO of USWeb, Firmage claimed an alien appeared in his bedroom, derailing his corporate career. He then spent decades pursuing UFO research and attempting to develop antigravity propulsion technology, raising millions from investors.

Court documents allege Firmage and associates are responsible for roughly $25 million in losses through various companies and schemes. Some investors say he used elaborate ruses, including people impersonating government officials, to solicit funds. Firmage, currently in jail on elder abuse charges, maintains he was actually the victim of international scammers who exploited his access to investors.

The Register's Thomas Claburn reports: Oracle this week asked the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to partially dismiss a challenge to its JavaScript trademark. The move has been criticized as an attempt to either stall or water down legal action against the database goliath over the programming language's name. Deno Land, the outfit behind the Deno JavaScript runtime, filed a petition with the USPTO back in November in an effort to make the trademarked term available to the JavaScript community. This legal effort is led by Node.js creator and Deno Land CEO Ryan Dahl, summarized on the JavaScript.tm website, and supported by more than 16,000 members of the JavaScript community. It aims to remove the fear of an Oracle lawsuit for using the term "JavaScript" in a conference title or business venture.

"Programmers working with JavaScript have formed innumerable community organizations," the website explains. "These organizations, like the standards bodies, have been forced to painstakingly avoid naming the programming language they are built around -- for example, JSConf. Sadly, without risking a legal trademark challenge against Oracle, there can be no 'JavaScript Conference' nor a 'JavaScript Specification.' The world's most popular programming language cannot even have a conference in its name." [...] In the initial trademark complaint, Deno Land makes three arguments to invalidate Oracle's ownership of "JavaScript." The biz claims that JavaScript has become a generic term; that Oracle committed fraud in 2019 when it applied to renew its trademark; and that Oracle has abandoned its trademark because it does not offer JavaScript products or services.

Oracle's motion on Monday focuses on the dismissal of the fraud claim, while arguing that it expects to prevail on the other two claims, citing corporate use of the trademarked term "in connection with a variety of offerings, including its JavaScript Extension Toolkit as well as developer's guides and educational resources, and also that relevant consumers do not perceive JavaScript as a generic term." The fraud claim follows from Deno Land's assertion that the material Oracle submitted in support of its trademark renewal application has nothing to do with any Oracle product. "Oracle, through its attorney, submitted specimens showing screen captures of the Node.js website, a project created by Ryan Dahl, Petitioner's Chief Executive Officer," the trademark cancellation petition says. "Node.js is not affiliated with Oracle, and the use of screen captures of the 'nodejs.org' website as a specimen did not show any use of the mark by Oracle or on behalf of Oracle."

Oracle contends that in fact it submitted two specimens to the USPTO -- a screenshot from the Node.js website and another from its own Oracle JavaScript Extension Toolkit. And this, among other reasons, invalidates the fraud claim, Big Red's attorneys contend. "Where, as here, Registrant 'provided the USPTO with [two specimens]' at least one of which shows use of the mark in commerce, Petitioner cannot plausibly allege that the inclusion of a second, purportedly defective specimen, was material," Oracle's motion argues, adding that no evidence of fraudulent intent has been presented. Beyond asking the court to toss the fraud claim, Oracle has requested an additional thirty days to respond to the other two claims.

A US District Court judge denied Apple's emergency request to halt the Google Search monopoly trial, ruling that Apple failed to show sufficient grounds for a stay. The Verge reports: Apple said last week that it needs to be involved in the Google trial because it does not want to lose "the ability to defend its right to reach other arrangements with Google that could benefit millions of users and Apple's entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users." The remedies phase of the trial is set for April, and lawyers for the Department of Justice have argued that Google should be forced to sell Chrome, with a possibility of spinning off Android if necessary. While Google will still appeal the decision, the company's proposed remedies focus on undoing its licensing deals that bundle apps and services together.

"Because Apple has not satisfied the 'stringent requirements' for obtaining the 'extraordinary relief' of a stay pending appeal, its motion is denied," states Judge Mehta's order. Mehta explains that Apple "has not established a likelihood of success on the merits" for the stay. That includes a lack of clear evidence on how Apple will suffer "certain and great" harm.

NetChoice has filed (PDF) its 10th lawsuit challenging state internet regulations, this time opposing Maryland's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. The Verge's Lauren Feiner reports: NetChoice has become one of the fiercest -- and most successful -- opponents of age verification, moderation, and design code laws, all of which would put new obligations on tech platforms and change how users experience the internet. [...] NetChoice's latest suit opposes the Maryland Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, a rule that echoes a California law of a similar name. In the California litigation, NetChoice notched a partial win in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court's decision to block a part of the law requiring platforms to file reports about their services' impact on kids. (It sent another part of the law back to the lower court for further review.)

A similar provision in Maryland's law is at the center of NetChoice's complaint. The group says that Maryland's reporting requirement lets regulators subjectively determine the "best interests of children," inviting "discriminatory enforcement." The reporting requirement on tech companies essentially mandates them "to disparage their services and opine on far-ranging and ill-defined harms that could purportedly arise from their services' 'design' and use of information," NetChoice alleges. NetChoice points out that both California and Maryland have passed separate online privacy laws, which NetChoice Litigation Center director Chris Marchese says shows that "lawmakers know how to write laws to protect online privacy when what they want to do is protect online privacy."

Supporters of the Maryland law say legislators learned from California's challenges and "optimized" their law to avoid questions about speech, according to Tech Policy Press. In a blog analyzing Maryland's approach, Future of Privacy Forum points out that the state made some significant changes from California's version -- such as avoiding an "express obligationâ to determine users' ages and defining the "best interests of children." The NetChoice challenge will test how well those changes can hold up to First Amendment scrutiny. NetChoice has consistently maintained that even well-intentioned attempts to protect kids online are likely to backfire. Though the Maryland law does not explicitly require the use of specific age verification tools, Marchese says it essentially leaves tech platforms with a no-win decision: collect more data on users to determine their ages and create varied user experiences or cater to the lowest common denominator and self-censor lawful content that might be considered inappropriate for its youngest users. And similar to its arguments in other cases, Marchese worries that collecting more data to identify users as minors could create a "honey pot" of kids' information, creating a different problem in attempting to solve another.

U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren has introduced a bill that would allow courts to block access to foreign websites primarily engaged in copyright infringement. The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act would enable rightsholders to obtain injunctions requiring large Internet service providers and DNS resolvers to block access to pirate sites.

The bill marks a shift from previous site-blocking proposals, notably including DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare with annual revenues above $100 million. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin backed the measure, while consumer group Public Knowledge criticized it as "censorious." The legislation requires court review and due process before any blocking orders can be issued. Sites would have 30 days to contest preliminary orders.

"A jury may never see the gun that authorities say was used to kill Blake Story last year," reports Cleveland.com.

"That's because Cleveland police used a facial recognition program — one that explicitly says its results are not admissible in court — to obtain a search warrant, according to court documents." The search turned up what police say is the murder weapon in the suspect's home. But a Cuyahoga County judge tossed that evidence after siding with defense attorneys who argued that the search warrant affidavit was misleading and relied on inadmissible evidence. If an appeals court upholds the judge's ruling to suppress the evidence, prosecutors acknowledge their case is likely lost...

The company that produced the facial recognition report, Clearview AI, has been used in hundreds of law enforcement investigations throughout Ohio and has faced lawsuits over privacy violations.

Not only does Cleveland lack a policy governing the use of artificial intelligence, Ohio lawmakers also have failed to set standards for how police use the tool to investigate crimes. "It's the wild, wild west in Ohio," said Gary Daniels, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union. The lack of state regulation of how law enforcement uses advanced technologies — no laws similarly govern the use of drones or license plate readers — means it is essentially up to agencies how they use the tools.
The affidavit for the search warrant was signed by a 28-year police force veteran, according to the article — but it didn't disclose the use of Clearview's technology.

Clearview's report acknowledged their results were not admissible in court — but then provided the suspect's name, arrest record, Social Security number, according to the article, and "noted he was the most likely match for the person in the convenience store."

Thanks to tlhIngan (Slashdot reader #30,335) for sharing the news.

Apple has filed an emergency motion [PDF] for a stay in the Google antitrust trial, warning that it faces "clear and substantial irreparable harm" if barred from participating in the case's remedies phase. The motion, filed on January 30, 2025, comes after Judge Amit Mehta denied Apple's request for limited intervention earlier in the week.

Apple -- which makes more than $20 billion a year from Google to use the Android-maker's search engine on Safari -- argues that the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) proposed remedy -- which includes a prohibition on "any contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value" --would prevent it from negotiating agreements that benefit millions of users. Without the ability to fully participate, Apple contends it will be left as a "mere spectator" while the government pursues restrictions that directly impact its business interests.

The company asserts that intervention is necessary to develop evidence, participate in discovery, and cross-examine witnesses regarding its market role and incentives. Apple also seeks access to trial records while its appeal is pending, including witness lists, depositions, and discovery materials, to ensure it can respond effectively if granted party status.

Italy's data protection agency has blocked the Chinese AI chatbot DeekSeek after its developers failed to disclose how it collects user data or whether it is stored on Chinese servers. Reuters reports: DeepSeek could not be accessed on Wednesday in Apple or Google app stores in Italy, the day after the authority, known also as the Garante, requested information on its use of personal data. In particular, it wanted to know what personal data is collected, from which sources, for what purposes, on what legal basis and whether it is stored in China. The authority's decision -- aimed at protecting Italian users' data -- came after the Chinese companies that supply chatbot service to DeepSeek provided information that "was considered to totally insufficient," the authority said in a note on its website. The Garante added that the decision had "immediate effect" and that it had also opened an investigation. Thanks to new submitter axettone for sharing the news.

A proposed class-action lawsuit accuses Amazon of secretly tracking consumers' movements through their cellphones via its Amazon Ads SDK embedded in third-party apps, allegedly collecting sensitive geolocation data without consent. The complaint, filed by a California resident in a San Francisco federal court, claims Amazon violated state laws on unauthorized computer access in the process. Reuters reports: This allegedly enabled Amazon to collect an enormous amount of timestamped geolocation data about where consumers live, work, shop and visit, revealing sensitive information such as religious affiliations, sexual orientations and health concerns. "Amazon has effectively fingerprinted consumers and has correlated a vast amount of personal information about them entirely without consumers' knowledge and consent," the complaint said.

The complaint was filed by Felix Kolotinsky of San Mateo, California, who said Amazon collected his personal information through the "Speedtest by Ookla" app on his phone. He said Amazon's conduct violated California's penal law and a state law against unauthorized computer access, and seeks unspecified damages for millions of Californians.

Longtime Slashdot reader nunya_bizns shares a report from Reuters: The U.S. Department of Justice has sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion deal to acquire networking gear maker Juniper Networks, arguing that it would stifle competition, according to a complaint filed on Thursday. The DOJ argued that the acquisition would eliminate competition and would lead to only two companies -- Cisco Systems and HPE -- controlling more than 70% of the U.S. market for networking equipment. More than a year ago, the server maker said that it would buy Juniper Networks for $14 billion in an all-cash deal, as it looks to spruce up its artificial intelligence offerings.

"Juniper has also introduced innovative tools that have materially decreased the cost of operating a wireless network for many customers. This competitive pressure has forced HPE to discount its offerings and invest in its own innovation," the DOJ said in its complaint. Stiff competition from Juniper forced HPE to sell its products at a discount and spend to introduce new features under the "Beat Mist" campaign, named after the networking gear company's rival product, the DOJ wrote. "Having failed to beat Mist on the merits, HPE changed tactics and in January 2024 opted to try to buy Juniper instead," the agency added.

The company that Jeff Bezos founded has gone to court to keep the newspaper he owns from finding out too much about the inner workings of its business. From a report: Amazon is suing Washington state to limit the release of public records to The Washington Post from a series of state Department of Labor and Industries investigations of an Amazon Project Kuiper satellite facility in the Seattle area.

The lawsuit, filed this week in King County Superior Court in Seattle, says the newspaper on Nov. 26 requested "copies of inspection records, investigation notes, interview notes, complaints," and other documents related to four investigations at the Redmond, Wash., facility between August and October 2024. It's not an unusual move by the company, and in some ways it's a legal technicality.

Amazon says it's not seeking to block the records release entirely, but rather seeking to protect from public disclosure certain records that contain proprietary information and trade secrets about the company's satellite internet operations. The lawsuit cites a prior situation in which Amazon and the Department of Labor and Industries similarly worked through the court to respond to a Seattle Times public records request without disclosing proprietary information.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: While most of our conversations about Nintendo recently have focused on the somewhat bizarre patent lawsuit the company filed against Pocketpair over the hit game Palworld, traditionally our coverage of the company has focused more on the very wide net of IP bullying it engages in. This is a company absolutely notorious for behaving in as protectionist a fashion as possible with anything even remotely related to its IP. That reputation is so well known, in fact, that it serves the company's bullying purposes. When smaller entities get threat letters or oppositions to applied-for trademarks and the like, some simply back down without a fight.

But not the Super Mario shop in Costa Rica, it seems. The supermarket store owned by a man named Mario (hence the name), has had a trademark on its name since 2013. But when Mario's son, Charlito, went to renew the registration, Nintendo's lawyers suddenly came calling. Last year it was time to renew the registration, Charlito stated, which prompted Nintendo to get involved. While Nintendo has trademarked the use of Super Mario worldwide under numerous categories, including video games, clothing and toys, it appears the company did not specifically state anything about the names of supermarkets. This, Charlito says, was the key factor in the decision by Costa Rica's trademark authority, the National Register, to side with the supermarket. "As you will see from the picture [here], it is extremely clear, based on the rest of the store's signage and branding, that there is absolutely no attempt in any of this to draw any kind of association with Nintendo's iconic character," writes Techdirt's Timothy Geigner. "The shop already had the name for over a decade, and had a trademark on the name for over a decade, all apparently without any noticeable effect on Nintendo's enormous business. For a renewal of that mark to trigger this kind of conflict is absurd."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: US Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) today proposed a law that would let copyright owners obtain court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to foreign piracy websites. The bill would also force DNS providers to block sites. Lofgren said in a press release that she "work[ed] for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries" on "a proposal that has a remedy for copyright infringers located overseas that does not disrupt the free Internet except for the infringers." Lofgren said she plans to work with Republican leaders to enact the bill. [...]

Lofgren's bill (PDF) would impose site-blocking requirements on broadband providers with at least 100,000 subscribers and providers of public domain name resolution services with annual revenue of over $100 million. The bill has exemptions for VPN services and "similar services that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers"; DNS providers that offer service "exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols"; and operators of premises that provide Internet access, like coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and universities. Lofgren released a summary of the bill explaining how copyright owners can obtain blocking orders. "A copyright owner or exclusive licensee may file a petition in US District Court to obtain a preliminary order against a foreign website or online service engaging in copyright infringement," the summary said.

For non-live content, the petition must show that "transmission of a work through a foreign website likely infringes exclusive rights under Section 106 [of US law] and is causing irreparable harm." For live events, a petition must show that "an imminent or ongoing unauthorized transmission of a live event is likely to infringe, and will cause irreparable harm." The proposed law says that after a preliminary order is issued, copyright owners would be able to obtain orders directing service providers "to take reasonable and technically feasible measures to prevent users of the service provided by the service provider from accessing the foreign website or online service identified in the order." Judges would not be permitted to "prescribe any specific technical measures" for blocking and may not require any action that would prevent Internet users from using virtual private networks.Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge described the bill as a "censorious site-blocking" measure "that turns broadband providers into copyright police at Americans' expense."

"Rather than attacking the problem at its source -- bringing the people running overseas piracy websites to court -- Congress and its allies in the entertainment industry has decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship," Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Meredith Rose said. "Site-blocking orders force any service provider, from residential broadband providers to global DNS resolvers, to disrupt traffic from targeted websites accused of copyright infringement. More importantly, applying blocking orders to global DNS resolvers results in global blocks. This means that one court can cut off access to a website globally, based on one individual's filing and an expedited procedure. Blocking orders are incredibly powerful weapons, ripe for abuse, and we've seen the messy consequences of them being implemented in other countries."

Google has appealed a record $4.5 billion EU antitrust fine to the European Court of Justice, arguing that the European Commission's decision punished its innovation and imposed unfair penalties for agreements requiring pre-installation of its apps on Android devices. Reuters reports: Google's appeal to the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union comes two years after a lower tribunal sided with the European Commission which said the company used its Android mobile operating system to quash rivals. The lower court trimmed the fine to 4.1 billion euros.

"Google does not contest or shy away from its responsibility under the law, but the Commission also has a responsibility when it runs investigations, when it seeks to reshape markets and second-guess pro-competitive business models, and when it imposes multi-billion-euro fines," Google lawyer Alfonso Lamadrid told the court. "In this case, the Commission failed to discharge its burden and its responsibility and, relying on multiple errors of law, punished Google for its superior merits, attractiveness and innovation," he said. The final ruling is expected in the coming months and cannot be appealed.

A plan to keep TikTok available in the U.S. "involves tapping software company Oracle and a group of outside investors," reports NPR, "to effectively take control of the app's global operations, according to two people with direct knowledge of the talks..."

"[P]otential investors who are engaged in the talks include Microsoft." Under the deal now being negotiated by the White House, TikTok's China-based owner ByteDance would retain a minority stake in the company, but the app's algorithm, data collection and software updates will be overseen by Oracle, which already provides the foundation of TikTok's web infrastructure... "The goal is for Oracle to effectively monitor and provide oversight with what is going on with TikTok," said the person directly involved in the talks, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the deliberations. "ByteDance wouldn't completely go away, but it would minimize Chinese ownership...." Officials from Oracle and the White House held a meeting on Friday about a potential deal, and another meeting has been scheduled for next week, according to the source involved in the discussions, who said Oracle is interested in a TikTok stake "in the tens of billions," but the rest of the deal is in flux...

Under a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, TikTok must execute what is known as "qualified divestiture" from ByteDance in order to stay in business in the U.S... A congressional staffer involved in talks about TikTok's future, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said binding legal agreements from the White House ensuring ByteDance cannot covertly manipulate the app will prove critical in winning lawmakers' approval. "A key part is showing there is no operational relationship with ByteDance, that they do not have control," the Congressional staffer said. "There needs to be no backdoors where China can potentially gain access...."

Chinese regulators, who have for years opposed the selling of TikTok, recently signaled that they would not stand in the way of a TikTok ownership change, saying acquisitions "should be independently decided by the enterprises and based on market principles." The statement, at first, does not seem to say much, but negotiators in the White House believe it indicates that Beijing is not planning to block a deal that gives American investors a majority-stake position in the company.
"Meanwhile, Apple and Google still have not returned TikTok to app stores..."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A U.S. auto safety agency said on Friday it is reconsidering a landmark rule from the administration of former President Joe Biden requiring nearly all new cars and trucks by 2029 to have advanced automatic emergency braking systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it would delay the effective date to March 20 to give the new Trump administration time to further review the regulation.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota Motor, Volkswagen and other automakers, last week filed suit to block the rule, saying the regulation is "practically impossible with available technology." The group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn the rule, saying the requirement that cars and trucks must be able to stop and avoid striking vehicles in front of them at up to 62 miles per hour (100 kph) is unrealistic. It unsuccessfully asked NHTSA last year to reconsider the rule. Come 2029, all cars sold in the U.S. "must be able to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them at speeds up to 62 mph," reports Car and Driver."

"Additionally, the system must be able to detect pedestrians in both daylight and darkness. As a final parameter, the federal standard will require the system to apply the brakes automatically up to 90 mph when a collision is imminent, and up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected."

According to the NHTSA, the rule will save at least 360 lives annually and prevent more than 24,000 injuries.