Tag: Regulation & Policy

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), joined by California and Utah, has filed a lawsuit against telehealth provider Hims & Hers Inc., alleging the company shared sensitive consumer health data with advertising platforms without clear consent and engaged in deceptive subscription practices. The complaint was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The FTC alleges that Hims & Hers, despite promising consumers a “100% online, private, and secure” healthcare experience, disclosed sensitive health information to third-party advertising platforms like Meta and Snap. According to the complaint, the company utilized tracking technologies such as Meta Pixel and Meta Conversions API, along with tools from Google, Microsoft, Reddit, TikTok, Pinterest, and X, to transmit user activity data, including health information, to these advertising partners. This alleged data sharing occurred without consumers’ explicit consent, contrary to the company’s privacy assurances.

Regulators also accuse Hims & Hers of deceptive subscription practices. The lawsuit claims that many consumers were automatically enrolled in recurring prescription subscriptions immediately after a provider reviewed their intake form, without an opportunity to review or approve the treatment. The company allegedly failed to clearly disclose refill dates and made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions by hiding cancellation options within multiple menus and retention screens.

The FTC’s complaint asserts violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, and Utah’s Consumer Sales Practices Act. The agency, along with its state partners, is seeking a permanent injunction, monetary relief, and civil penalties.

This lawsuit highlights ongoing scrutiny of the digital health sector regarding consumer privacy and data protection. It follows a pattern of FTC enforcement actions targeting companies over privacy and deceptive marketing. For instance, in 2022, Epic Games paid $520 million to settle allegations of violating children’s privacy laws. More recently, in May, the FTC reached a nearly $1 million settlement with Cox Media Group and two marketing firms over claims they falsely advertised an AI-powered service. The FTC has also expressed concerns that artificial intelligence could “turbocharge” scams and deceptive practices.

The outcome of the lawsuit against Hims & Hers remains uncertain, as the case will be decided by the court. It is also unclear whether Hims & Hers has responded to requests for comment.

Why This Matters

The materials describe a narrow update: The FTC, along with California and Utah, filed a lawsuit against Hims & Hers, alleging the company shared consumers’ sensitive health information with advertising platforms like Meta and Snap without clear consent, despite promising a private healthcare experience. The outcome of the lawsuit filed by the FTC and state partners against Hims & Hers.

Broader Context

Source materials place the factual news in this context: The lawsuit is the latest in a series of FTC actions targeting companies over privacy, deceptive marketing, and consumer protection.

Australian Regulator Sues Telegram Over Extremist Content

Australia’s online safety watchdog has initiated legal action against messaging app Telegram, seeking substantial penalties and raising the prospect of a court-ordered shutdown of the service within the country. The eSafety Commissioner filed civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court on Thursday, culminating a year-long investigation into the platform’s handling of extremist material.

The regulator alleges that Telegram failed to adequately detect and remove “pro-terror material,” citing instances such as the live-streamed 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting and the 2022 Buffalo supermarket attack. These incidents, the Commissioner claims, remained accessible on the platform for nearly three months. Furthermore, the investigation found that Telegram’s terms of service did not explicitly prohibit pro-terror material across all facets of the application.

Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, told BBC News that Telegram has fostered a “permissive environment” where extremist content is “very easy to find.” She warned that such content “only serves to desensitise, to normalise and to sometimes radicalise” users, and that the platform has been “sometimes used to plan attacks.”

While Australia does not license online platforms, Inman Grant indicated that the eSafety Commissioner “could apply to the federal court and ask that the service be ceased.” She noted that these powers have not been previously exercised, adding, “We’ll see how this all plays out.”

This legal challenge follows a previous action where the regulator issued Telegram an infringement notice of nearly A$1 million last February. This penalty was for a five-month delay in responding to inquiries about terrorist and child sexual exploitation material. Telegram at the time labelled the penalty “unfair and disproportionate” and stated its intention to appeal.

The filing comes just a day after Russia’s FSB charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with aiding terrorism and placed him on an international wanted list. The FSB alleges the platform was used by Ukrainian intelligence and extremist groups, with Durov facing a potential life sentence if convicted in Russia.

Durov also faces separate charges in France, where in 2024 he was indicted over drug trafficking, organised fraud, and child sexual abuse material allegedly disseminated on Telegram. He was released under judicial supervision and has denied all wrongdoing, calling the case “legally and logically absurd.”

A spokesperson for Telegram told the BBC that the company’s “extensive” anti-terrorism efforts are “well documented.” The spokesperson added, “We reject these allegations and will contest them in court.”

The current legal action represents a significant test of Australia’s 2021 law that mandates platforms to remove pro-terror material from their networks. It also follows Australia’s recent ban on social media access for individuals under 16, a measure spearheaded by Commissioner Inman Grant.

xAI has filed a federal lawsuit against Minnesota, seeking to block a new state law, HF 1606, that targets AI-generated images. The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, contends that the law constitutes an overbroad restriction on free speech and visual expression, extending beyond its stated purpose of prohibiting nonconsensual nude images of real individuals.

The law, scheduled to take effect on Saturday, imposes strict liability on platforms for the generation of realistic AI images depicting real people with body parts they have not exposed. Each violation carries a potential fine of up to $500,000. xAI argues that the law’s definition of “intimate part” is excessively broad and holds platforms strictly liable even for consensual or private image generation, irrespective of whether the image is ever shared.

According to xAI’s assertions, the statute adopts its definition of “intimate part” from a criminal sexual contact statute, which was originally intended for nonconsensual physical contact rather than image generation. The company claims this expansive definition could lead to liability for generating images such as a shirtless politician or a woman in a swimsuit, even if intended for political satire or other protected forms of expression.

xAI acknowledges Minnesota’s interest in preventing the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without consent. However, the company maintains that HF 1606 exceeds this objective and exposes a wide range of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions. The lawsuit also asserts that the law lacks a scienter requirement, meaning companies could be held liable even if users circumvent filters designed to prevent the generation of harmful content.

Minnesota’s HF 1606 was passed with significant bipartisan support, receiving a 132-1 vote in the House and a 65-0 vote in the Senate. Senator Erin Maye Quade has indicated that the law’s prohibition on consensual images was intentional. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has stated that AI-generated “nudification” “robs targets of dignity and can cause immense harm.”

This legal challenge underscores the increasing friction between AI developers and regulatory bodies concerning the creation and distribution of synthetic media. xAI is requesting a federal judge to halt the law’s implementation. This action follows similar legal challenges by xAI, including a lawsuit against Colorado’s AI law on First Amendment grounds in April. Furthermore, xAI’s image generation tools have faced scrutiny and legal actions in other jurisdictions, with entities like the city of Baltimore and private individuals filing lawsuits against the company over deepfake outputs.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, enacted in May 2025, addresses nonconsensual intimate deepfakes but includes different stipulations, such as requiring proof of nonconsent and actual distribution, employing a narrower definition of body parts, and providing exceptions for educational and medical content. xAI suggests this federal legislation offers a more suitable framework.

It remains uncertain whether a federal judge will grant xAI’s request to block HF 1606 before its effective date. The resolution of this lawsuit could have substantial implications for the future of AI regulation in Minnesota and potentially establish precedents for other states confronting comparable issues.

Broader Context

Source materials place the factual news in this context: Grok’s image tools ran into trouble almost immediately after their late July 2025 launch, generating deepfakes with simple text prompts, prompting regulatory probes across Europe, Australia, and multiple US states.

GrapheneOS has asserted that its operating system is “completely legal” and constitutionally protected, a stance that comes as Samuel Tunick faces federal charges for allegedly using the system’s duress PIN feature, which reportedly wiped his phone during a border search. The prosecution, under 18 U.S.C. § 2232, raises significant questions about digital privacy rights, the legality of data-wiping security features, and the potential for such cases to set legal precedents.

Tunick was arrested in January 2025 and is charged under a statute related to the destruction or concealment of records. His federal public defender, Matthew Dodge, stated that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers had allegedly called ahead to the airport, requesting Tunick be stopped and his phone searched. Agents reportedly searched his bags and person over his objections, finding nothing. Dodge indicated that agents could have sought a warrant for the search.

Tunick has pleaded not guilty to the charges and faces a maximum of five years in federal prison. He told 404 Media that the charges are “meant to intimidate people against protecting their data” and that the government “hopes to set a precedent that no one has the right to privacy.” Dodge described the charge as “extraordinarily rare,” noting he found only one other prosecution under the same statute, which was in a drug trafficking investigation.

GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused mobile operating system, added the duress PIN feature in June 2024. The company stated on July 27, 2026, that its operating system is “completely legal” and constitutionally protected. GrapheneOS maintains it has “no obligation to weaken any of the security protections it provides” and that any laws attempting to compel such weakening would be unconstitutional. The company also noted that once data is wiped, “there’s nothing we can do to assist with it,” and that bypassing encryption is “not possible” by design.

Tunick described a year of alleged surveillance prior to his indictment, including a tracker on his car and subpoenas for his phone records and Gmail account. His federal public defender, Matthew Dodge, suggested that the government could have sought a warrant but did not.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stated that all travelers are subject to inspection, and that searches of electronic devices are rare and decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as travel history and law enforcement alerts.

A judge is expected to rule on Tunick’s motion to suppress evidence no earlier than the end of October. The outcome of this motion and the broader case could have significant implications for the legal standing of data protection features in operating systems and the scope of digital privacy rights at borders.

Broader Context

The statement came in a thread about the prosecution, after a user asked whether the project was refusing to cooperate with Homeland Security.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is prepared to establish its own cryptocurrency market regulations if Congress does not pass the Clarity Act, SEC Chair Paul Atkins indicated this week. This statement comes as the Clarity Act faces significant legislative hurdles in the Senate, raising questions about the future regulatory path for digital assets.

Atkins told CNBC on Monday that the agency is ready to develop its own rules, emphasizing the market’s need for statutory certainty. He expressed optimism about the Clarity Act’s potential passage, noting the SEC’s provision of technical assistance to lawmakers. However, the bill, which aims to define regulatory jurisdiction over digital assets by granting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over spot markets for digital commodities, has encountered obstacles.

According to reports, Senate Democrats have raised objections to the current version of the bill, particularly concerning ethics provisions related to officials’ cryptocurrency dealings and unsettled questions about stablecoin yields. The bill’s prospects in the Senate appear dim, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaling that it is unlikely to clear the chamber before the August recess. The Clarity Act previously passed the House with a 294-134 vote in July of last year and cleared the Senate Banking Committee by a 15-9 margin in May.

In light of the legislative challenges, Atkins highlighted the SEC’s existing initiatives as a potential alternative framework. The agency’s “Project Crypto,” announced in November, has produced a “Regulation Crypto” rulemaking package, which is on the agency’s 2026 agenda. This package includes provisions for token registration exemptions, a safe harbor for decentralizing projects, and rules for broker-dealer custody and trading venues. Atkins described these efforts as a bridge to the Clarity Act.

However, the SEC and CFTC’s March guidance classifying 16 tokens, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, as digital commodities is administrative. Unlike statutory law, such administrative rules can be withdrawn by a future administration without a congressional vote, underscoring the durability concerns Atkins raised. The market, he suggested, requires the certainty of a statute that would not shift with each administration.

The situation leaves the cryptocurrency market in a state of regulatory uncertainty. While the Clarity Act aims to provide a clear legislative framework, its path forward is unclear. Should it fail to pass, the SEC’s willingness to step in with its own regulations, albeit administrative in nature, presents another potential, though less durable, regulatory landscape. The specific content and implications of any SEC-generated rules remain to be seen, adding another layer of uncertainty for industry participants and policymakers alike.

Why This Matters

The materials describe a narrow update: SEC Chair Paul Atkins indicated that the SEC is ready to develop its own cryptocurrency market regulations if the Clarity Act, which aims to define regulatory jurisdiction over digital assets, does not pass Congress. Whether the Clarity Act will pass Congress.

Broader Context

Source materials place the factual news in this context: The Clarity Act passed the House 294-134 in July last year and cleared the Senate Banking Committee 15-9 in May, with nine Democrats against.