Mark Cuban: Kamala Harris Opposes 'Regulation Through Litigation'
This is double-edged. The criticism here is of SEC Chairman Gary Gensler for enforcement as a way of established precedents, including rules.
Imagine someone does something that the SEC thinks they shouldn’t have done. He puts in place an enforcement action against that thing. The individual then has to fight it (litigation) or take the pain.
You could read this statement as “opposes regulation” and ignore the last part, or you could read it as saying that there will be a raft of explicit rules put in place. I’m not sure how that latter scenario is better.
‘Cuban stated that he had spoken with Vice President Kamala Harris’ team, who made their stance on government policy clear, stating:
‘I talked to the Harris team today who told me in no uncertain terms that they are against ‘regulation through litigation.’’
The EPA Sues When It Can’t Regulate
Speaking of regulation-by-litigation, Cuban might want to talk to the EPA.
The first player to settle with the EPA gets off relatively lightly in consideration for setting a precedent that might be a little light in its legal loafers. The EPA then uses this precedent as a cudgel to hammer everyone else.
Talk about a race to the courthouse.
‘So, why did Marathon go along? The court proceedings give a clue. The agreement compels Marathon to take various actions to atone for its past emissions. Marathon must now route a significant amount of oil through its new low-emissions technology instead of “traditional facilities.” But Marathon had already said it was committed to doing so.
‘The law doesn’t allow this: Consent decrees can’t rely on mitigation projects a company was already planning to pursue. The EPA claims that its settlement follows that law because Marathon’s commitment remained “aspirational” until it was embodied in a consent decree.
‘This fudge appears to be the price the EPA pays for getting novel climate-focused relief that it can then use to bully others in settlement negotiations. The EPA has a long and dubious history of using such regulation-by-litigation tactics to accomplish what it can’t do through rulemaking. As one scholar has noted, the EPA will often “offer more favorable terms to the first industry members who settle” to get the ball rolling. Then the EPA goes to the next target and asks, in the words of one EPA bureaucrat, “What’s your exposure” under the first consent decree? You’re free to object to this, of course, much as one is free to decline the services of a mafia protection racket.’
EPA data make it hard to know the extent of the contamination from last year’s Ohio derailment
Of course, you can’t sue the EPA so easily now, can you?
All of this controversy is hanging in the balance while the court is reviewing a $600 million class-action settlement.
Who benefits? Well, the story goes away and the railroad gets closure. Just in time for the election.
‘The way the Environmental Protection Agency has reported its test results since a Norfolk Southern train derailed and officials released and burned chemicals that spewed a toxic cloud over East Palestine, Ohio, makes it hard for residents to know the full extent of contamination and potential risks to their health.
‘Data analyzed by The Associated Press show the EPA doesn’t provide a specific measurement for chemicals that fall below a reporting limit, making it harder to know how much is there.
‘The EPA has said that residents shouldn’t worry about contamination from chemicals that are below the human health screening level that indicates danger and is usually higher than that reporting limit. But some health experts say that when mixed together, as they are in East Palestine, even levels of chemicals below that standard could raise the risk for cancer or other serious health problems. Extended exposure to low levels of chemicals might also cause problems.’
FTC Disputes Whether States Can Effectively Displace Hospital Competition with COPA Regulation
Subsidiarity is the principle that regulation should be decentralized to the most local feasible level of government.
The federal government isn’t terribly keen on it.
Competition is great. I’m all in favor of competition. The irony here is that structural federal changes to the American healthcare landscape may be forcing consolidation as hospitals seek the scale necessary to cope with the new economics.
It’s as if someone came to your home, lit it on fire, and then criticized you and your neighbors for trying to put it out because you “lack the ability.”
To quote the Jerky Boys, “sue everybody.”
‘As many as 19 states maintain the ability to exercise local control over hospital competition by offering industry participants wishing to merge a certificate of public advantage (COPA).
‘Hospitals that look to consolidate pursuant to these regulatory regimes typically agree to meet specified quality improvement measurements and adhere to rate-related restrictions in exchange for antitrust immunity.
‘However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been openly hostile to COPAs, arguing that states are not equipped to regulate the delivery of health care and urging competition as the only effective solution to health care-related issues in every community. The FTC’s opposition to a recent COPA application in Indiana is an example. After describing a litany of potential anticompetitive effects from a proposed hospital merger, including the loss of tax revenues to the state from the for-profit target entity, the FTC asserted that the “Parties’ COPA application does not include sufficient evidence that the statutory framework would ameliorate [anticompetitive concerns], and the FTC staff is unaware of additional terms and conditions that the [Indiana Department of Health] may impose pursuant to the COPA approval that would mitigate any anticompetitive effects of the merger.”’
FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes
Now this is an FTC action I can get behind. Going after people who use AI to commit fraud is all right by me.
‘The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against multiple companies that have relied on artificial intelligence as a way to supercharge deceptive or unfair conduct that harms consumers, as part of its new law enforcement sweep called Operation AI Comply.
‘The cases being announced today include actions against a company promoting an AI tool that enabled its customers to create fake reviews, a company claiming to sell “AI Lawyer” services, and multiple companies claiming that they could use AI to help consumers make money through online storefronts.
‘“Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected.”’
Less bureaucracy: Bundestag enables fully digital employment contracts
Germany continues to chip away at its bureaucratic requirements, here the requirement for written, paper employment contracts. This is the low-hanging fruit. Let’s see how it goes when things start to get tough.
‘The Bundestag has passed the 4th Bureaucracy Relief Act with a large majority. According to estimates by the German government, this will save citizens, administration and companies 3.5 billion euros a year. With this initiative, parliament is paving the way for the digital conclusion of employment contracts, among other things: In future, employers will also be able to provide information on the key terms of their employment contracts in text form, for example by email, as well as agreements on age limits. The previous requirement for written form in the Evidence Act will no longer apply. The traffic light coalition agreed on this approach back in March.’
AI progress is now not available to Europe.
Make silly rules, win silly prizes.
“Meta-llama has disallowed access to this model in the EU. Downloads of this model are not accessible from the European Union (EU). Please see the Llama Acceptable Use Policy and License FAQ page for more information.”