ReportWire

Tag: regulation

  • The FCC’s Involvement in Canceling Jimmy Kimmel Was ‘Unbelievably Dangerous,’ Ted Cruz Says

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) is happy that ABC decided to indefinitely suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show. But like Fox News political analyst Brit Hume, Cruz is not happy about the role that Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), played in that decision. By threatening TV stations that carried Jimmy Kimmel Live! with fines and license revocation, Cruz warned in his podcast on Friday, Carr set a dangerous precedent that could invite similar treatment of conservative speech under a future administration.

    “I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said,” Cruz declared, referring to the September 15 monologue in which the late-night comedian erroneously suggested that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah five days earlier, was part of the MAGA movement. “I am thrilled that he was fired. But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”

    In an interview with right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday, Carr warned that there are “actions we can take on licensed broadcasters” that dared to air Kimmel’s show, including “fines or license revocations.” He added that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Either “these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel,” he said, “or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    Hours later, Nexstar, which owns 32 ABC affiliate stations, announced that it would preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! “for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight’s show.” Sinclair, which owns 38 ABC affiliates, likewise said it would “indefinitely preempt” Jimmy Kimmel Live! beginning that night. ABC, which produces the programming aired by those affiliates and owns eight of the network’s stations, fell in line the same night, saying it would “indefinitely” suspend the show.

    Cruz likened Carr to a mafioso. “He says, ‘We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way,’” the senator noted. “And I got to say, that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar [and] going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.’”

    In fact, Carr’s threat was more explicit than that. “This sort of status quo is obviously not acceptable,” he declared, saying it was “past time” for “these licensed broadcasters” to say, “Listen, we are going to preempt, we are not going to run, Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out, because we licensed broadcaster[s] are running the possibility of fines or license revocations from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.”

    That rationale for punishing stations that carried Kimmel’s show was absurd on its face. The policy to which Carr alluded applies to a “broadcast news report” that was “deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners” about “a significant event.” While Kimmel’s remarks were certainly misinformed, it is doubtful that he intended to “mislead viewers.” It seems more plausible that he committed to a partisan narrative without bothering to ask whether it was supported by the facts, an example of carelessness rather than deliberate deceit. But whatever you think of Kimmel’s intent, a comedian’s monologue is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a “broadcast news report.”

    By abusing his power to exert pressure on ABC and its affiliates, Cruz said, Carr was setting an example that Democrats are apt to copy. “Going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat…wins the White House,” the senator said, and “they will silence us. They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous.”

    Although “it might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel,” Cruz said, “when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it….It is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, ‘We’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.’”

    Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) agreed that Carr’s involvement in kiboshing Kimmel was “absolutely inappropriate.” The FCC’s chairman “has got no business weighing in on this,” Paul said on Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press. “If you’re losing money, you can be fired. But the government’s got no business in it. And the FCC was wrong to weigh in. And I’ll fight any attempt by the government to get involved with speech.”

    Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson perceives a similar danger in Attorney General Pam Bondi’s response to online commentary that celebrated Kirk’s murder or justified violence against conservatives more generally. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” Bondi said last week, erroneously asserting a constitutional distinction between “free speech” and “hate speech.” She later claimed she had in mind “threats of violence that individuals incite against others.” But the speech that offended Bondi generally would not meet the First Amendment test that the Supreme Court established in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which requires advocacy that is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to have that effect.

    “This is the attorney general of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, telling you that there is this other category…called hate speech,” Carlson remarked on his show last Wednesday. “And of course, the implication is that’s a crime. There’s no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that.”

    With good reason, Carlson said: “You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country. And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever. And there never will be. Because if they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think.”

    It is encouraging that at least some of President Donald Trump’s allies recognize that freedom of speech is unreliable unless it protects their political opponents. But Trump himself seems oblivious to that point. When asked about Cruz’s criticism of Carr on Friday, Trump described the FCC chairman as “a great American patriot,” adding, “I disagree with Ted Cruz on that.”

    Of course he does. For years, Trump has been eager to wield the FCC’s powers against broadcasters who air programming that offends him. During Trump’s first administration, he averred that “network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai rejected that suggestion in no uncertain terms. “I believe in the First Amendment,” he said. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment, and under the law the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

    Trump’s views on the subject have not changed. Last week, he cheered Kimmel’s suspension as “Great News for America” and urged NBC to fire Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, two other late-night comedians who are often critical of him. “Do it NBC!!!” he demanded. In case there was any doubt that Trump was not merely offering advice as a businessman or TV critic, he signed that Truth Social missive “President DJT” and later clarified the underlying threat. “You have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump,” he complained to reporters. “It’s all they do….They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.” When network newscasts “take a great story” and “make it bad,” he averred, “that’s really illegal.”

    The difference this time around is that the FCC’s Trump-appointed chairman, an avowed free speech champion, has no constitutional compunction about using his powers to bully broadcasters into submission. “They give me only bad publicity or press,” Trump said on Thursday. “I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr.”

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Sullum

    Source link

  • UKGC to Close Advisory Board for Safer Gambling

    [ad_1]

    The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) announced the imminent closure of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (ABSG). The regulator emphasized that this follows the completion of the board’s original remit.

    UKGC to Move to New Arrangements

    For context, the ABSG was created to oversee the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms and provide constructive criticism. With the conclusion of the strategy and the achievement of multiple key milestones, the UKGC decided that the ABSG’s services are no longer needed. As a result, the regulator will put an end to the board.

    The Gambling Commission used the opportunity to highlight some of the ABSG’s most important contributions, which include contributing to the recognition of gambling harms as a public health issue, supporting the inclusion of lived experience individuals in policymaking and regulation via the creation of the Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), and backing the introduction of the new statutory levy to fund gambling harm research, education, and treatment (RET) without relying on the gaming industry.  

    The Gambling Commission added that it will turn its attention to “new arrangements better aligned to the next phase of research and regulation.” Among other things, the regulatory body explained that it will begin work on establishing a new research-focused expert group to support the expanded RET initiatives.

    UKGC Leaders Thanked ABSG Members for Their Contributions

    Andrew Rhodes, the UKGC’s chief executive officer, commented on the disbandment of the ABSG, acknowledging its incredible contributions in shaping how the UK perceives problem gambling. He thanked all current and former members for their hard work in making sure that problem gambling is being taken seriously.

    As we move into a new phase with the implementation of research programmes funded by the statutory levy, our priority is to ensure we have the right expert input to help inform our work. This is the right time to close ABSG and establish new arrangements that reflect the future needs of our gambling regulation and research.

    Andrew Rhodes, CEO, UKGC

    In the meantime, Helen Child, the body’s head of governance, thanked the ABSG for its “huge contribution to gambling regulation” and the UKGC as a whole.

    GambleAware to Close Too

    As Britain moves toward a new dawn where RET initiatives are funded by a statutory levy rather than voluntary contributions, the country is also preparing to disband GambleAware, its leading problem gambling charity.

    The organization’s managed closure should wrap up by March 31, 2026, marking the end of an era.

    In addition to dismantling GambleAware, the UK government said that it will appoint three new national commissioners for gambling harm RET initiatives, while shifting GambleAware’s responsibilities to public bodies across the country.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link

  • White House Discussing New CFTC Candidates, Report Says

    [ad_1]

    According to a Bloomberg report, the White House is exploring alternative candidates to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as Brian Quintenz’s confirmation remains stalled.

    White House Weighs Alternatives for CFTC Head

    The report states that the Trump administration has been actively engaged in discussions on the matter in recent weeks. It also notes that candidates under consideration include officials with experience in cryptocurrency regulation. 

    The CFTC is currently operating with just one commissioner, Caroline Pham, who is serving as acting chair, even though the agency is mandated to have five commissioners. Pham has previously stated that she plans to step down once President Trump’s nominee for CFTC chair, Brian Quintenz, is confirmed. However, Quintenz’s confirmation has encountered obstacles since his nomination in February.

    Quintenz’s nomination has also faced opposition from within the crypto industry, including from Gemini co-founders Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. In July, the two crypto billionaires (both of whom were prominent supporters and financial backers of the Trump administration) stated that Quintenz does not align with the administration’s goals and policy direction.

    Who Might the New Candidates Be?

    The report indicates that the Trump administration has been actively debating the issue in recent weeks, with potential candidates including officials who have experience in cryptocurrency regulation. As the US continues to shape its approach to crypto regulation, the CFTC is expected to play a key role in overseeing the sector. Congress is currently working on legislation aimed at expanding the agency’s authority over digital assets. As such, the new candidates are highly likely to have extensive experience in the crypto world.

    One such is Michael Selig, chief counsel to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s crypto task force, and Bloomberg states that he is one of the people currently being considered for the post. He previously served as a partner in Willkie Farr & Gallagher’s asset management practice.

    According to sources cited by the newspaper, Tyler Williams, who is the counselor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on digital asset policy, is also being considered for the role. Williams joined the Treasury after working at Galaxy Digital, a digital asset investment firm.

    Despite what Bloomberg is saying, a White House official declined to comment on the story, noting only that the process remains in its early stages. Additionally, the Trump administration has not officially indicated any move away from backing Quintenz.

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • ASA Under Fire over Failure to Act on Gambling Content Marketing

    [ad_1]

    The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) faces renewed scrutiny from Peers for Gambling Reform (PGR), which has accused the watchdog of failing to tackle gambling advertising on social media. In a scathing letter sent to ministers and regulators on 11 September, the group accused the ASA of repeatedly delaying action on “content marketing.” This online promotional activity aims to engage a broader audience without appearing as traditional advertising.

    Content Marketing Skirts Current Advertising Regulations

    The PGR, a cross-party group with more than 150 members of the House of Lords under its umbrella, noted that gambling operators were increasingly promoting their brands via shareable memes, jokes, and viral video clips, often visible to young people. According to research from the University of Bristol, content marketing appeals to under-18s four times more than to adults. 

    A weekend snapshot last year showed the ten largest operators generated over 20 million views through content marketing. According to Lord Foster of Bath, chair of PGR, the ASA has continuously failed to act despite researchers and campaigners raising alarms since 2019. Lord Foster also drew attention to studies revealing how early exposure to gambling can lead to long-term harm.

    Children and young people remain exposed to forms of gambling advertising that… are especially harmful, and that the regulator has consistently failed to address.

    PGR letter

    The letter also highlighted the ASA’s admission that, until recently, it considered much of this material to be outside its remit because operators posting the content were registered overseas. While the authority reversed its position in 2022, the PGR says the regulator’s approach has remained inconsistent, with many posts still escaping scrutiny.

    The ASA Pledged to Expand Its Enforcement

    PGR is calling for all gambling-related social media posts to carry a prominent “Advertising” label, allowing users to identify promotional materials more clearly. The group has also called on ministers to consider a complete ban on gambling content marketing, arguing that it normalizes betting culture among children and could undermine existing protection efforts.

    In response, the ASA stated that it considers child protection a core facet of its operations. A watchdog spokesperson drew attention to the extension of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, expanding its scope to cover even more online content. According to the ASA, this move would give it greater room to tackle potentially irresponsible gambling ads.

    Critics, however, argue that this update has come too late, after years of exposure of young audiences to unlabelled and potentially harmful material. With the government white paper promising to toughen standards throughout the industry, campaigners argue that urgent action is now required to close what they see as one of the most glaring loopholes in advertising regulation.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • Trump wants to end a half-century-old mandate on how companies report earnings | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump wants corporations to “no longer be forced” to report earnings every quarter.

    In a Truth Social post on Monday, he said companies should instead only be required to post earnings every six months, pending the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval. This change would break a quarterly reporting mandate that’s been in place since 1970. 

    “This will save money, and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies,” Trump wrote.

    Trump added that China has a “50 to 100 year view on management of a company,” as opposed to U.S. companies required to report four times in a fiscal year. China’s Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) allows companies to submit voluntary quarterly financial disclosures, but only requires them to report their financial results twice a year.

    During his first term, Trump publicly asked the SEC on X, then still known as Twitter, to study shifting company disclosures from a quarterly to semiannual basis, stating business leaders felt less frequent reporting would allow for greater flexibility and long-term planning. 

    He told reporters at the time that he got the idea from CEOs.

    “It made sense to me because, you know, we are not thinking far enough out,” Trump said in 2018. “We’ve been accused of that for a long time, this country. So we’re looking at that very, very seriously.”

    No change came from the SEC.

    A revived debate

    “President Trump has revived an old idea emphasizing the costs of quarterly filings, the distraction from long-term goals, and how they reinforce Wall Street’s obsession with beating short-term expectations,” Usha Haley, a professor at the Barton School of Business at Wichita State University, told Fortune.

    For his part, SEC Chair Paul Atkins has explicitly called for more transparency as he’s taken control of the regulatory body this year.

    But companies keep pushing back. Last week, the San Francisco-based Long Term Stock Exchange said it planned to petition the SEC to end its quarterly reporting requirement. The exchange lists companies focused on long-term goals.

    Critics of the move argue that it might reduce transparency for investors.

    Chad Cummings, a CPA and attorney at Cummings & Cummings Law, told Fortune semiannual reporting enables companies to hide “red flags” like deteriorating cash flows or abrupt changes in auditor language, which can lead to unsavory practices like concealment of liquidity crises, accounting fraud, and whistleblower retaliation.

    “Removal of quarterly earnings sabotages valuation models and tilts power to insiders,” Cummings, who has active bar admissions in the U.S. Tax and Bankruptcy courts, added.

    SEC approval would face internal resistance, statutory barriers, and potential litigation, as the SEC’s investor protection mandate requires “reasonably current” disclosure, Cummings said.

    If regulators stopped requiring companies to report earnings every quarter without having clear legal authority, the decision could be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how U.S. administrative agencies create regulations, he warned.

    Meanwhile, Haley also said Trump’s nod to China’s financial disclosure mandates misses the point.

    “The United States is not China,” she said. “Our markets derive their strength and global dominance through transparency, investor protections, and a long tradition of disclosures… Weakening those guardrails, while invoking efficiency risks, undermines investors’ confidence, the foundation of U.S. capital markets, which China does not have.”

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Nino Paoli

    Source link

  • Finland’s Floorball League Rocked by Wagering Scandal

    [ad_1]

    A brewing integrity crisis in Finland’s top floorball league threatens to undermine the sport’s reputation after an extensive investigation uncovered widespread betting violations among players and officials. The Finnish Center for Integrity in Sports (SUEK) confirmed that around 100 individuals are under investigation for allegedly placing bets on F-League matches by abusing inside information.

    Investigators Remain Tight-Lipped

    The probe began around December after integrity bodies flagged suspicious betting patterns following a Finland–Norway World Championship match. The investigation swiftly uncovered gambling violations on an unprecedented scale, involving players, coaches, and other team personnel across the league. It is yet unclear whether the suspects were part of an organized ring.

    Veikkaus, the state-run gambling monopoly of Finland, has suspended all betting activities surrounding men’s floorball competitions, including those of the F-League, Finnish Cup, international match betting, and Inssi-divari. Mikko Lahti, Veikkaus’s VP of security and risk management, was stunned by the scope of the violations, which only grew as the investigation progressed. 

    We systematically went through all teams, players, and officials. When we compiled all the information, the situation and the extent of the mess became clear.

    Mikko Lahti, Veikkaus VP of security and risk management 

    Lahti confirmed that Veikkaus has already frozen several betting accounts linked to the investigation. However, he refused to disclose the total amount of suspicious wagers or the size of the largest single payout. Lahti noted that some secrecy remained necessary due to the ongoing investigation and added that additional information would become public when appropriate.

    The Scandal Could Have Significant Repercussions

    SUEK reports its investigation is roughly three-quarters complete, with new leads still emerging. Direct evidence of match-fixing has proven elusive in early data, so investigators continue to examine whether suspects tampered with game outcomes. While Lahti admitted the probe has not yet uncovered evidence of match fixing, the use of insider information for betting remains a serious breach.

    The Finnish Floorball Federation and the F-League have confirmed that they will open disciplinary proceedings against implicated individuals once SUEK delivers its findings. Sanctions may range from suspensions to fines or even life bans, depending on the seriousness of the offense. Criminal complaints for particularly egregious cases are also a possibility.

    Investigative work is still ongoing. We want to be certain before we make any decisions about possible betting options.

    Mikko Lahti, Veikkaus VP of security and risk management 

    The scandal comes just before the new season of the men’s F-League launches September 10, casting a shadow over the sport. Players and clubs will seek to regain the trust of their fans and sponsors. With wagering suspended indefinitely, it remains uncertain how SUEK’s revelations will affect what many regard as one of Finland’s most popular community-oriented sports.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • NCAA Bans Three College Athletes for Betting on Their Own Games

    [ad_1]

    The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has issued permanent bans to three men’s basketball players after uncovering that the athletes wagered on their games and manipulated their performances to cash in on prop bets. This development aligns with the NCAA’s ongoing efforts to reduce the negative impacts of sports wagering on players.

    The Players Deliberately Altered Their Performance Lines

    Findings released this week by the NCAA Committee on Infractions involve former Fresno State teammates, Mykell Robinson and Jalen Weaver. Steven Vasquez, a guard from San Jose State, also drew the organization’s ire. According to the NCAA, the three athletes shared betting information and placed bets on games in which they were playing.

    In January 2025, Robinson and Vasquez conspired to profit from Robinson underperforming on purpose in a regular-season game. Text messages obtained during the investigation revealed that Robinson contacted Vasquez, saying that he intended to miss the stat minimums for several categories. The two men, along with a third individual, pooled $2,200 on bets on Robinson’s “under” lines and collected nearly $16,000 in winnings.

    Investigators found that Robinson had also placed approximately 13 daily fantasy sports prop bets over the course of the season, some of which included his own performance lines. Before a December 2024 matchup, Robinson placed multiple bets on Weaver after exchanging betting line information. Weaver, in turn, placed parlay bets for $50 on himself, Robinson, and a third player that paid out $260.

    Integrity Mechanisms Detected Potential Match-Fixing

    The NCAA learned of these violations after Fresno State and a sports-betting integrity monitor flagged suspicious betting activity tied to Robinson’s individual performance props. The organization’s enforcement team initiated an investigation and uncovered text records, betting slips, and financial transactions related to the scheme involving the players.

    While Robinson and Vasquez refused to cooperate with investigators, Weaver accepted responsibility for his involvement in the scheme. However, all three players were declared permanently ineligible under NCAA rules that consider betting on one’s own games to be among the gravest infractions. With the US betting scene continuing to expand, this case will serve as a warning to other athletes tempted by easy riches.

    The NCAA’s ruling comes amid rising apprehension about the impact of legal sports betting on college athletics. The association has implored state regulators to outlaw player-specific prop bets for college events, stating that this type of wagering presents incentives for match-fixing and creates risks of harassment to student-athletes. Prediction markets, with their murky legal status and lax regulations, present another rising issue.

    [ad_2]

    Deyan Dimitrov

    Source link

  • PAGCOR Voids PHP 200M in Casino Winnings Claimed by Gov Officials

    [ad_1]

    The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) has nullified over PHP 200 million (about $3.52 million) in casino winnings claimed by government officials and employees between January and July this year. The action could be seen as another step in the regulator’s attempts to stamp out illegal gambling.

    PAGCOR Voids Illegal Winnings from Gambling

    PAGCOR chairman and CEO Alejandro Tengco stated that the winnings were withheld following a secondary verification process, which identified the claimants as individuals prohibited from entering casinos due to their roles in public service. This restriction covers all government personnel, including elected local officials and civil servants.

    The enforcement follows public backlash after it was revealed that suspended Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineer Henry Alcantara had been frequently gambling in casinos. Alcantara admitted that he and fellow employees from the DPWH Bulacan office used fake names and IDs, and may have even been granted VIP access. PAGCOR has launched an investigation into these claims.

    Meanwhile, the Civil Service Commission has reminded government employees that gambling during work hours, whether in person or online, can be grounds for charges of conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. Such actions may lead to disciplinary measures under existing civil service regulations.

    PAGCOR Wants Stricter Regulations But Not Total Ban

    The latest moves from PAGCOR could be seen as part of the broader vow to stop illegal gambling that Tengco reaffirmed last week. He also maintained this idea during the Light & Wonder Symposium at Newport World Resorts in Pasay City a couple of days ago. Tengco cautioned against a total iGaming ban in the Philippines, saying that PAGCOR supports stricter regulations but also that the organization is against a total ban of online gambling.

    The speech comes at a time when the country is still dealing with the effects of iGaming in the wake of the ban on Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs). Financial institutions have begun to scale back their involvement with online gaming, while the Senate, under the leadership of committee chair Sen. Erwin Tulfo, is preparing to launch an investigation into the sector. A late August report revealed that online gaming activity in the Philippines may have dropped by as much as 50%, largely due to the recent withdrawal of several e-wallet providers from the industry.

    Tengco emphasized that, through responsible growth, strict compliance, and greater transparency, the Philippines has the potential to build a safer, more robust, and globally competitive iGaming industry. He also highlighted PAGCOR’s ongoing efforts to enhance gaming standards, which include the implementation of stricter advertising regulations, among other initiatives.

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • Romanian Municipalities Seek More Local Control over Gambling

    [ad_1]

    In Romania, a proposed draft bill supported by city mayors seeks to transfer regulatory control over gambling to local authorities, including the introduction of new licensing taxes. This would diminish the National Gambling Office’s (ONJN) role in overseeing the sector.

    Municipalities Support Bill to Give Them More Control Over Gambling

    Presented by the Ministry of Development, if the bill passes, it would give municipalities the right to license or ban gambling establishments based on local development priorities, urban planning, public order, and public health. Currently, gambling operators are licensed at the national level, while local councils have only an advisory role in the approval process for physical gambling venues within their jurisdictions.

    The push for more regional authority over the gambling industry comes at a time when Romania is increasing its oversight of the sector. So far, 2025 has proven to be quite an active time for lawmakers and authorities on that front, as the country has also worked with international companies to impose more control over the industry. For example, in June, Romania asked Meta and Google to block illegal gambling ads and to aid the state’s efforts to curb unauthorized gambling operations.

    The initiative for giving more local authority to municipalities is being led by Nelu Popa, the mayor of Reșița. He has called on the government to give more authority to local administrations, citing the ONJN’s inability to effectively enforce regulations. Popa further explained that this failure has resulted in a surge of betting shops and gaming halls where operators seemingly disregard the rules.

    This is already a problem that the country has been dealing with when it comes to the online space, as there are many companies targeting the local market and operating without a license. For this reason, the ONJN added 30 gambling websites to its blacklist just last week.

    More Taxes Could Come If the Bill Passes

    The bill also proposes additional taxation, with local councils aiming to introduce a direct levy to help mitigate the social impact of gambling.

    According to the Ministry of Development, the reform would create the conditions for genuine public control over an economic activity with significant social risks, which is supposed to be tailored to each community’s specific context. The ministry also highlighted the importance of securing funding for social assistance, public safety, and local services.

    This push for local-level taxation comes alongside recent national changes to the tax structure for online gambling, including differentiated rates based on gambling types and player winnings. The new government is working to reduce a budget deficit estimated at 30 billion lei (approximately $7.1 billion).

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • The Black Market for Oil Blunts Trump’s India Tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Based on what’s happening in the black market for oil, the White House’s new import levy on India is backfiring.

    President Trump last week doubled India’s tariff rate to 50% to punish it for buying sanctioned Russian oil. Indian refineries have become major buyers of Moscow’s crude since the war in Ukraine began.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Carol Ryan

    Source link

  • Celebrate American workers — not union bosses — on Labor Day

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    As we say goodbye to the summer season by celebrating Labor Day, most Americans are eager to recognize the ingenuity and determination of rank-and-file workers.

    But not union bosses, who hijack the holiday every year to argue for more government-granted coercive powers. Instead of focusing on the workers they claim to represent, union officials wield political clout to protect and expand their privileged positions.

    This is because today’s unions are built on the government-authorized ability to compel workers into their ranks. In the 24 states without right-to-work laws, union chiefs can legally extort private sector workers to “pay up or be fired.” Even when union membership is voluntary, workers must accept the union bargaining collectively for their wages and working conditions.

    NATION’S 2 LARGEST TEACHERS UNIONS FUNNELED NEARLY $50M TO LEFT-WING GROUPS, WATCHDOG REPORT SAYS

    It doesn’t matter that you, as an individual employee, may not want the union’s so-called representation or a one-size-fits-all contract; union bureaucrats can forcibly take your dues money, then use it to buy political influence or advocate causes you oppose.

    Workers do still have some limited rights guaranteed under federal law, such as the right to have union dues not pay for political activities (CWA v. Beck, 1988) or the right of public employees not to be forced to pay any money to a government union (Janus v. AFSCME, 2018). But, union political operatives are using their influence — bought with workers’ dues money collected under duress — to try to push through a legislative agenda that upends these rights.

    For example, the Protecting the Right to Work Act (PRO Act), Big Labor’s top legislative priority in Congress, would repeal all current 26 state Right to Work laws by federal fiat. Even though Right to Work laws don’t stop a single worker from joining a union or paying dues voluntarily, they’ve made it their signature move to end this protection for good.

    Why? Because union bosses want to strip rank-and-file workers of their choice. This becomes all the more obvious as you examine the PRO Act’s other provisions, which codify several suspect or downright illegal tactics union enforcers already use to get around workers’ rights.

    One such tactic is the controversial “card check” method of organizing a union, which avoids the traditional secret ballot that lets workers have the final say. Instead, this process lets organizers submit union cards collected in person from workers, often using pressure or intimidation tactics. The AFL-CIO even admitted in its own organizing handbook that such cards don’t reflect workers’ actual wishes.

    To protect existing unions from decertification (secret-ballot votes to remove an incumbent union), the PRO Act codifies another common Big Labor tactic. Through union-filed blocking charges — unproven allegations against the company of unfair practices — union officials can unilaterally block decertification votes for months or more.

    In multiple cases, such tactics were used to block decertification votes from occurring even though 100% of workers signed the decertification petition. Workers can literally be unanimously opposed to the union, yet union officials can manipulate their special legal powers to trap workers against their will.

    It’s the latest sign that today’s union officials have fully rejected the warnings of some early union officials who wanted to build their organizations without coercing workers into their ranks. 

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

    Take Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor (now the AFL-CIO). In a 1924 speech to union delegates he forcefully rejected the coercion today’s union bosses rely on: “I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty — the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion.” 

    Gompers understood, as do the 8 in 10 Americans who oppose forced union dues and affiliation, that when union affiliation and financial support are voluntary, union officials must prove their worth to individual workers. But today, union bosses increasingly reject this ideal, and undermine the liberty of those they claim to “represent.”

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    So this Labor Day, remember that truly being “pro-worker” means rejecting the propaganda from union bosses and respecting a worker’s right to choose whether they want to join a union.

    After all, it’s Labor Day, not Union Day.

    Mark Mix is the president of the National Right to Work Committee and National Right to Work Foundation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Big Tech Companies in the US Have Been Told Not to Apply the Digital Services Act

    [ad_1]

    Trouble is brewing for the Digital Services Act (DSA), the landmark European law governing big tech platforms. On August 21, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sent a scathing letter to a number of tech giants, including Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple. The letter’s subject: the European Digital Services Act cannot be applied if it jeopardizes freedom of expression and, above all, the safety of US citizens.

    The opening of the letter—signed by FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson—features a prominent reference to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, namely freedom of speech: “Online platforms have become central to public debate, and the pervasive online censorship in recent years has outraged the American people. Not only have Americans been censored and banned from platforms for expressing opinions and beliefs not shared by a small Silicon Valley elite, but the previous administration actively worked to encourage such censorship.”

    The Trump Administration’s Lunge

    The Trump administration intends to reverse course, and it is in this direction that the attack on “foreign powers,” the European Union and in the United Kingdom, and in particular on the Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act, begins. The letter also indirectly references GDPR, the European regulation on the protection of personal data, whose measures are “aimed at imposing censorship and weakening end-to-end encryption” with the result of a weakening of Americans’ freedoms, according to the letter.

    Privacy and End-to-End Encryption: The Issues on the Table

    In the letter, the US Antitrust Authority specifically asked the 13 companies to report “how they intend to comply with incorrect international regulatory requirements” (the deadline for scheduling a meeting was set for August 28) and recalled their “obligations towards American consumers under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices” that could distort the market or compromise safety.

    And it is precisely on the security front, and especially on the adoption of end-to-end encryption, that the FTC calls big tech companies to order: “Companies that promise that their service is secure or encrypted, but fail to use end-to-end encryption where appropriate, may deceive consumers who reasonably expect this level of privacy.” Furthermore, “certain circumstances may require the use of end-to-end encryption, and failure to implement such measures may constitute an unfair practice.” The weakening of encryption or other security measures to comply with laws or requests from a foreign government may therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the document states.

    What Happens in Case of Disputes and Interference

    In a tweet on X, Ferguson wrote flatly that “if companies censor Americans or weaken privacy and communications security at the request of a foreign power, I will not hesitate to enforce the law.”

    “In a global society like the one we live in, overlaps and interferences between different legal systems are natural. Just think of those, in the opposite direction, between European privacy legislation and the famous American Cloud Act,” Guido Scorza, a member of the Italian Data Protection Authority, told WIRED. Scorza believes that in the event of significant discrepancies, “it will be up to the US government and the European Commission to identify corrective measures capable of guaranteeing the sovereignty, including digital, of each country.”

    This article originally appeared on Wired Italy and has been translated from Italian.

    [ad_2]

    Mila Fiordalisi

    Source link

  • Raw milk debates are turning sour in Florida

    [ad_1]

    In the fall of 2024, I predicted that America might be on the brink of having its “raw milk moment” given now Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s political elevation. Since then, hardly a week has passed without unpasteurized milk making headlines across the country. A recent bacterial outbreak in Florida has now heightened the controversy and further solidified raw milk’s central role in America’s broiling culture wars.

    The Florida Department of Health (DOH) issued a press release in early August detailing a campylobacter and E. coli outbreak in the Sunshine State. Officials alerted that “there have been 21 cases since January 24, 2025, including six children under the age of 10, and seven hospitalizations linked to consumption of raw milk.” The DOH explicitly identified Keely Farms Dairy, a small family farm, as the source of the outbreak.

    Weeks later, a Florida woman, represented by a self-described “national food poisoning law firm,” filed suit against Keely Farms, alleging that its raw milk caused her two-year-old son to contract a bacterial infection and fall ill. The woman further alleges that she fell ill herself and developed sepsis, which eventually led to the loss of her pregnancy.

    The details from the lawsuit are heartbreaking, but the more we learn about the situation surrounding Keely Farms, the more bizarre the story becomes. Despite DOH’s definitive declaration that Keely Farms was the source of the bacterial outbreak, it was later found that the agency had reached this conclusion despite not conducting a single test at the farm, nor alerting the farm that it was under investigation. In a Facebook post, Keely Farms said that the department’s press release “blindsided” them. (The DOH’s press release stated that it would “continue working with Keely Farms Dairy,” insinuating that the relevant parties had been working together throughout.)

    Confusing things further, Keely Farms was recently inspected by the Florida Department of Agriculture. “We passed, as always,” Keely Farms posted.

    Selling raw milk for human consumption is illegal in Florida. As a result, milk that has not been pasteurized—the process of heating the liquid to a specific temperature for five to 30 seconds to kill harmful bacteria—can only be sold for livestock feed. Keely Farms’ raw milk was appropriately labeled as “not for human consumption,” meaning that the 21 Floridians who allegedly drank the farm’s milk (and those who also gave it to their children) chose to do so despite this warning.

    It’s unclear how the current litigation involving Keely Farms will ultimately play out, although it’s likely that more follow-on suits will be filed, using the DOH’s press release as evidentiary fodder. 

    Politico recently noted that raw milk has gone from “the darling of the organic liberals, deserving of sympathetic coverage…to the conservative culture war signal that is a sweetheart of deep-red state legislatures.” This is on display in Florida. Despite the DOH targeting Keely Farms for its raw milk, Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo—an appointee of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the head of the DOH—recently expressed support for human consumption of raw milk in a social media post. 

    On the other hand, Florida’s agriculture commissioner, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, has encouraged Floridians to only drink pasteurized milk, citing the dangers of raw milk. This means that the head of the Florida agency that targeted Keely Farms’ raw milk products is unexpectedly pro-raw milk, while the head of the state agency that inspected and greenlighted Keely Farms’ operations is against raw milk.

    This confusion highlights how raw milk has become a political flashpoint. The state health agency blamed Keely Farms while skipping basic investigative steps, the agriculture department cleared the farm, and their leaders publicly contradicted their own agencies.

    When policy decisions are filtered through the lens of culture wars, the result is not clarity or safety but a muddle of mixed signals. Floridians are left unsure whether raw milk is a health risk, a personal freedom, or just another pawn in America’s endless red vs. blue standoff.

    [ad_2]

    C. Jarrett Dieterle

    Source link

  • The glories of Mexican dentistry

    [ad_1]

    This is part of Reason‘s 2025 summer travel issue. Click here to read the rest of the issue.

    I crossed the U.S./Mexico border six times in a month in 2018, an economic refugee in my own way.

    While the consumer price index indicates an overall U.S. inflation rate of around 85 percent since 2000, over that same period inflation in dental costs was more like 133 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    I needed some extensive and expensive dental work, and so I crossed borders seeking my own version of a better (in my case, more affordable) life, sometimes under the piercing gaze of the federales. I occasionally drove through U.S. border inspection, many dozens of miles from the border on Interstate 8, being ordered via signs to come to a stop while an agent glanced at my car without actually engaging me in any conversation or even making me turn off the vehicle.

    Mexico could not have cared less about this border crossing back then; no one asked for your papers, por favor, as you strolled unimpeded from the parking lot on the U.S. side and entered Algodones from Winterhaven, California, at the Andrade border crossing. According to my Mexican dentist, nearly 13,000 tourists enter there on an average winter day. Algodones is a dental and optical retail paradise; the three blocks I walked to my dental destination were all storefronts selling those services, along with some pharmacies.

    Reentering the U.S., however, required standing in a line that was always 45–60 minutes long. At the end you had to show a bored customs officer a passport and answer questions about what you had bought in Mexico. Such answers, at least from a white dude then in his late 40s, were casually believed. If you were driving a car back, you were likely to have a black-suited police officer walk a big menacing looking grey-black dog by your car as it waited in the long line to return to the land of high dental prices.

    I was a day tourist in Algodones to replace a three-unit dental bridge first installed about 10 years earlier by a Los Angeles dentist. It had become uncemented about four years prior. I had paid American dentists to recement it three times, and finally it just broke and could no longer be reattached.

    Anywhere near where I live in California, getting a new one made and installed would have cost around $5,000 then; I got out for $1,300 in Algodones, a fee (paid in U.S. dollars cash) that covered three visits, a deep cleaning, and a root canal in addition to making and installing the bridge.

    In terms of bedside manner and the general attitude toward patient-doctor relations, I had an experience unlike any I’d had with an American dentist. I was treated in Mexico as a customer, not a ward. If they suggested work more elaborate or pricey than I felt like spending—and they did—the conversation ended with my demurral.

    I’ve had American dentists straight up refuse to do any ameliorative work short of the more thorough and expensive suggestion they repeated to me incessantly to try to break down my resistance while I was sitting prone in their chair. Now, my desires don’t match those of all American patients, who according to some trend watchers in dentistry want more preventative, holistic, and membership-based work. I’m usually looking to solve an immediate issue that I physically perceive as a problem, and to do it with as little rigamarole and cost as I can. It’s great for me, and people like me, that the Algodones option is there. (Even prior to post-COVID inflation, 15 percent of Americans already said that cost kept them from dental care.)

    There was one aspect of the experience I didn’t love. I’m a bit of a radiation hypochondriac, and they were very casual about shielding you with lead bibs when X-raying you; unless you insisted, they would not do it. While I cannot judge on a professional regulatory level, their general hygiene practices otherwise seemed to match those of a typical American dentist, and I certainly never felt any ill effects.

    As far as my needs went, the work seems to be of long-term quality equal to the American work that cost more than four times as much. While I will never know if this is a fault of the Mexican work or an inevitability in any case, the teeth beneath the bridge six years down the line reached a state of rot that led to a gum and sinus infection, or so an American physician believed. So though the bridge was still solidly in place, I had it pulled to extract the husks of teeth underneath it. Nothing is forever. The very fact I had to have this work done in Mexico was because of the lack of permanence of the more than $4,000 bridge I had put in about a decade prior.

    Over all fields, Americans are spending around $4 billion a year on foreign medical care, and that’s likely to grow by about 13 percent a year over the rest of the decade. Dentists themselves are complaining these days that their costs are outgrowing their revenue, and profits and access to hygienists are both being strained. The range of conditions that make dentistry so much more affordable in Mexico include some elements that an American of any income level might not want to be completely enveloped in, such as far lower wages for professionals and their associates, and cheaper overhead from an atmosphere of less prosperity and demand.

    But that’s why it’s good to be able to take advantage of the elements that are better on either side of the border.

    [ad_2]

    Brian Doherty

    Source link

  • Why do so many jobs require a license?

    [ad_1]

    Around 20 percent of American workers must hold a professional license to do their job. Why? 

    Andrew Heaton has an answer. And it’s infuriating.

    The post Why Do So Many Jobs Require a License? appeared first on Reason.com.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Heaton

    Source link

  • Spelinspektionen Slams Two Unlicensed Gaming Providers with Bans

    [ad_1]

    The Swedish gambling regulator, Spelinspektionen, has issued bans against two offshore providers of gambling content. According to the authority, the two companies’ products were available in Sweden despite neither possessing a license.

    Two Providers Were Banned for Offering Gaming Illegally

    On August 18, the Spelinspektionen announced that Rabocse SRL has been banned from targeting Sweden with its products. The authority elaborated that the supplier in question lacked the license necessary to offer its products in the country and has therefore been explicitly banned from doing so.

    On the same day, the Spelinspektionen also issued a ban on Solid Software Solutions SRL, another unlicensed provider of gaming software that was found guilty of operating in Sweden without a license. The company was likewise ordered to stop offering its products locally.

    The Spelinspektionen emphasized that it remains committed to tackling illegal operators and suppliers in order to protect the licensed gaming sector.

    BGaming Secured Entry into Sweden

    Speaking of legal gaming, the Spelinspektionen just issued a license to BGaming, a leading provider of iGaming content.

    Thanks to that, BGaming will be able to launch its cutting-edge games in Sweden, allowing local players to experience the best it has to offer. As a result, local operators will be able to incorporate fan favorite games such as Merge Up and Aztec Clusters into their platforms.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link

  • British Horseracing Protests Tax Hike, Cancels Sep. 10 Meetings

    [ad_1]

    The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has continued its fight against Britain’s proposed tax hike by cancelling all meetings on September 10. All races will be rescheduled for another date, the authority confirmed.

    BHA Reasserts Its Opposition to the Tax Harmonization

    In its announcement, the BHA reasserted that it is standing firmly behind its Axe the Racing Tax campaign. The initiative comes in response to the Treasury’s recent proposal to align all online betting duties during the Autumn Budget. This would effectively raise the tax on horse bets from 15% to 21%.

    The BHA, which has previously expressed firm discontentment with the proposal, warning that it could hurt the industry and lead to job cuts, has now taken things a step further by vowing to cancel all meetings set to take place on September 10.

    The BHA emphasized that this is the first time in the sport’s modern history that it has voluntarily refused to race.

    September 10 is no random day, as the day precedes the historic four-day St Leger festival at Doncaster Racecourse. With the BHA refusing to race on that date, the meetings at Lingfield Park, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton Park will be rescheduled.

    In addition to that, the BHA said that September 10 will be the day of a major campaign event in Westminster where senior industry leaders, horse owners, trainers and jockeys will join forces to protest the tax hike proposal.

    Horseracing Is a Valuable Economic Driver

    The BHA emphasized that horseracing is the UK’s second-largest spectator sport. It added that the sport supports 85,000 jobs and is attended by some 5 million people a year, contributing GBP 4.1 billion to the economy.

    Should the tax proposal move forward, the industry forecasts a destructive GBP 330 million revenue hit in the first five years. To make matters worse, the measure could lead to the loss of as many as 2,752 jobs in the first year alone.

    The BHA noted that this impact would be exacerbated by operators’ response to the tax rises, which could include increased prices, bonus cuts, fewer ads, and lower marketing expenses.

    Industry Leaders Ask the Government to Reflect

    Industry leaders commented on the sport’s unprecedented decision to voluntarily cancel a race day, saying that it highlights the industry’s opposition to the tax hike.

    Brant Dunshea, CEO of the BHA, elaborated:

    British Racing is already in a precarious financial position and research has shown that a tax rise on racing could be catastrophic for the sport and the thousands of jobs that rely on it in towns and communities across the country.

    Brant Dunshea, CEO, BHA

    Dunshea added that the industry’s message is clear: “axe the racing tax and back British Racing.”

    Jim Mullen, CEO of The Jockey Club, echoed Dunshea’s hope that this unprecedented decision would make the government consider the damage it could cause by raising the tax.

    After this period of reflection, we hope the full implications will be understood, and we can prevent the irreparable damage that threatens a sport the nation is, and should be, proud of.

    Jim Mullen, CEO, The Jockey Club

    Martin Cruddace, CEO of Arena Racing Company, noted that unlike online gambling, British horse racing makes “enormous contributions.” He emphasized the differences in how gambling and horse racing are regulated, suggesting that this tax harmonization doesn’t really make sense.

    If the Government wants Britain to be a world leader in online casino and a world pauper in a sport at the heart of its culture, then tax harmonization will achieve that aim.

    Martin Cruddace, CEO, Arena Racing Company

    Finally, Paul Johnson, CEO of the National Trainers Federation, warned that the tax hike would have a profound effect on the British economy as a whole, hurting not only the industry but its employees and fans too.

    He concluded: “British Racing cannot survive on reputation alone and we call on the Government to set an enlightened tax regime that will allow the sport to thrive before we reach the point of no return.”

    [ad_2]

    Angel Hristov

    Source link

  • Embedded finance changing along with CFPB

    [ad_1]

    Embedded finance and automated lending services are under threat as policy and regulatory changes continue under the Donald Trump administration.  After nearly seven months, effects from the changes at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) surfacing, specifically a pullback on funding and a reevaluation of open banking. “There’s a reduction in the operating expenses for […]

    [ad_2]

    Vaidik Trivedi

    Source link

  • Supreme Court turns down claim from L.A. landlords over COVID evictions ban

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a property-rights claim from Los Angeles landlords who say they lost millions from unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

    Without comment, the justices said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition of apartment owners who said they rent “over 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” to “predominantly high-income tenants.”

    They sued the city seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who did not pay their rent during the pandemic emergency.

    They contended that the city’s strict limits on evictions during that time had the effect of taking their private property in violation of the Constitution.

    In the past, the court has repeatedly turned down claims that rent control laws are unconstitutional, even though they limit how much landlords can collect in rent.

    But the L.A. landlords said their claim was different because the city had in effect taken use of their property, at least for a time. They cited the 5th Amendment’s clause that says “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.”

    “In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners … of their right to exclude nonpaying tenants,” they told the court in GHP Management Corporation vs. City of Los Angeles. “The city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.”

    “By August 2021, when [they] sued the City seeking just compensation for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had ballooned to over $20 million,” they wrote.

    A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-0 decision dismissed the landlords’ suit. Those judges cited the decades of precedent that allowed the regulation of property.

    The court had considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case.

    “I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent effects a physical taking under the Taking Clause,” Thomas said. “This case meets all of our usual criteria. … The Court nevertheless denies certiorari, leaving in place confusion on a significant issue, and leaving petitioners without a chance to obtain the relief to which they are likely entitled.”

    The Los Angeles landlords asked the court to decide “whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.”

    In February, the city attorney’s office urged the court to turn down the appeal.

    “As a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction,” they wrote. The measure protected only those who could “prove COVID-19 related economic hardship,” and it “did not excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued.”

    The city argued that the landlords are seeking a “radical departure from precedent” in the area of property regulation.

    “If a government takes property, it must pay for it,” the city attorneys said. “For more than a century, though, this court has recognized that governments do not appropriate property rights solely by virtue of regulating them.”

    The city said the COVID emergency and the restriction on evictions ended in January 2023.

    In reply, lawyers for the landlords said bans on evictions are becoming the “new normal.” They cited a Los Angeles County measure they said would “preclude evictions for non-paying tenants purportedly affected by the recent wildfires.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • ACMA Warns Offshore Companies over Regulatory Violations

    ACMA Warns Offshore Companies over Regulatory Violations

    [ad_1]

    The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) announced that it has issued warnings to three gambling service providers because of regulatory violations. The three companies were accused of contraventions of subsections 15(2A) and 15AA(3)of the IGA.

    The official warnings have been sent to the owners of Rooli, Lucky Block and SlotCatalog, which the ACMA believes have violated the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA).

    The three companies, the ACMA understood, had offered unlicensed gambling to players in Australia using an Australian customer link. This constituted a serious violation of the local regulations which prohibit illegal offshore operators from targeting local customers.  

    The Companies Were Sent Warnings

    The ACMA issued formal warnings to Dama N.V. and Strukin Limited, the owners of Rooli, which provided unlicensed gambling content to customers in Australia. The Australian regulator clarified that the company had operated despite lacking authorization to do so. This constituted a violation of subsection 15(2A) of the IGA.

    Lucky Block had likewise offered online gambling services to Australian consumers and had an Australian customer link despite lacking a license. The ACMA therefore issued a similar warning to its owner, Igloo Ventures, notifying it that it had violated subsections 15(2A) and 15AA(3)of the IGA.

    Finally, the ACMA warned Fedir Havlovskyi who represents SlotCatalog, that the company had violated subsections 15(2A) and 15AA(3)of the IGA by facilitating access to unlicensed online casino platforms.

    ACMA’s BetStop Receives Award

    In other news, the ACMA recently received an international award for BetStop, its national self-exclusion program. According to the earlier announcement, the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) handed the Regulatory Excellence Award to the ACMA, praising the authority’s efforts in creating the first centralized self-exclusion register in Australia.

    “The IAGR award for regulatory excellence is a recognition of the dedication and collaboration of ACMA staff in delivering this important safeguard, which has supported the more than 30,000 Australians registered to date,” Nerida O’Loughlin, chair of the ACMA, said.

    This announcement came a week after Australia launched its first-ever review of the self-exclusion program.

    [ad_2]

    Fiona Simmons

    Source link