• The Fight Over Copyrighting Klingon Heats Up, And Gets More Ridiculous
• Judge Says Copyright Case Against Star Trek Fan Film Can ‘Live Long’ And Possibly ‘Prosper’
• David Patraeus, Who Leaked Classified Info To His Mistress, Says Snowden Should Be Prosecuted
• ‘The Revolution Will Be Digitized’: Panama Papers Leaker Speaks Out
• HBO Abuses The DMCA Process In The Name Of Game Of Thrones Spoilers
• Stakes Are High In Oracle v. Google, But The Public Has Already Lost Big

This Week in 2011

• AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs
• AP Apparently Less Concerned About Others’ Copyrights; Sued For Infringing By Courtroom Artist
• BMI Says A Single Person Listening To His Own Music Via The Cloud Is A Public Performance
• Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders
• Senator Schumer Wants To Censor Google & Apple; Displays Ignorance Of Law
• Could BitTorrent Be The Distributed Social Network People Have Been Clamoring For?

This Week in 2006

• What Should Be Allowed When It Comes To Mobile Phone Snooping?
• Utility Computing Still The Next Next Big Thing
• Network Neutrality Actually Benefits Telcos
• Hollywood’s DRM Obsession Continues To Hold It Back
• Doctors Addicted To Publishing Reports About Internet Addiction
• Law Introduced To Ban Social Networks And IM From Schools And Libraries

It’s with that in mind that I found it so refreshing that the developer behind one online game that didn’t perform so well, Blindfire, has committed to keeping the servers up and running for “years” because they actually take pride in their work.

Blindfire was released back in October 2024 with a unique hook: It was an online first-person shooter set in the dark and was built around finding your enemies or remaining out of their sight. Sadly for developer Double Eleven, it never found much of an audience. Now, a year after its last patch, Blindfire will get one last big update and will go free, with devs promising to keep the servers on because they are “proud of it” and want to preserve it for others.

“We are doing this because we believe games are art and they deserve to be preserved,” said Double Eleven.  “We refuse to bury what we built just because things didn’t go perfectly. We are keeping it alive because we are proud of it. You won’t see adverts or marketing campaigns trying to drag you back in. This is just a gift to those who want to see what we created.”

When you read the comments from Double Eleven, you immediately wonder why the hell this isn’t the posture of every developer of online games out there. This is their work, after all. Why in the world would they want it scattered to the ether?

Now, this also cannot be the end state, if we’re truly looking at this from a preservation standpoint. A commitment directly from the developer to keep the game around for several years is a good thing. But it’s perpetuity we’re after here, after all. And there’s no guarantee that Double Eleven will live on long enough to keep the game available for whatever passes as “forever” these days. Coupling this with the eventual release of source code, so that fans and preservationists can scatter the game to the wide ranging corners of the internet, is what will end any danger of this art and culture ever disappearing. That hasn’t been done yet, but hopefully Double Eleven is thinking along these same lines.

But if you can find a more human, kind, and engaging message for a situation like this than the following, I’ll be surprised.

“We loved making [Blindfire],” said the studio on Steam. “Watching playtesters get to grips with our twist on the FPS was a massive highlight for us and seeing some big streamers jump into our world was a proper thrill. Blindfire was a flash in the dark. It was weird, loud, and ours. It is staying online for anyone who wants to play it today, tomorrow or years from now. Thanks for being part of the journey.”

Bravo on step 1 in the preservation process, folks. Now let’s take this further.

In April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that his forces had, for the first time in the history of warfare, seized an enemy position using only unmanned systems. No infantry. No human soldiers entering the contested ground. Drones and ground robots identified the target, suppressed defensive fire, and captured the position without a single Ukrainian casualty. The claim has not been independently verified in detail, and Ukraine’s military has declined to provide specifics.

The TNW article goes on to give some details about the company that apparently played a major role in that unmanned assault:

a Ukrainian-British defence technology startup called UFORCE, has conducted more than 150,000 combat missions since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, achieved unicorn status with a valuation exceeding one billion dollars, and is now scaling production from a discreet London headquarters designed, the company says, to protect it from Russian sabotage. The age of unmanned warfare is no longer a conference-circuit prediction. It is a line item on a defence contractor’s balance sheet.

Politico interviewed the Ukrainian commander in charge of the Third Assault Brigade’s ground robotic systems unit, the one which carried out the attack. Mykola Zinkevych provided some interesting indications of what robotic systems were already doing today, and what Ukraine’s future plans were for unmanned warfare systems. For example, Zinkevych said:

Delivery of important cargo, evacuation of the wounded, conducting surveillance in open areas, destruction of enemy fortifications, sabotage operations behind enemy lines, laying minefields — all this is now performed by ground robotic systems

In the short term:

Infantrymen can and should be taken out of direct fire. Our goal for 2026 is to replace up to 30 percent of personnel in the most difficult areas of the front with technology

In a post on Facebook (in Ukrainian), Zinkevych gave details of the ambitious longer-term goals (via Google Translate), which will involve the wider deployment of unmanned ground vehicles (UGV):

In March alone, 9,000+ missions were completed by the military. Our goal is for 100% of front-line logistics to be performed by robotic systems.

In the first half of 2026, due to increased demand, we will contract 25,000 UGVs, which will be gradually delivered to the front. This is twice as much as in the entire year 2025.

A new paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, written by the former defense minister of Ukraine, Andriy Zagorodnyuk, explores what he calls “The New Revolution in Military Affairs”, which is being brought about by “rapid innovation and adaptation, introducing new types of unmanned systems, countermeasures, and operating methods at unprecedented speed.” A key element of this is “affordable precise mass” — the highly effective deployment of cheap, long-range drones on a massive scale. He calls this transformation:

a structural shift in warfare in which new technologies drive the development of novel operational concepts and doctrines, fundamentally altering how military power is generated and employed, and forcing enduring changes in military organizations. These trends include the emergence of affordable precise mass, the fragmentation of the air domain, the growing difficulty of maneuver, the centrality of networked warfare, and the elevation of rapid adaptation as a core military capability. This transformation is still in its early stages, but countries that fail to recognize and adapt to it risk preparing for a form of war that has lost its decisiveness.

One important aspect of this shift touches on an area that will be familiar to Techdirt readers. As noted in the quotation above, Zagorodnyuk underlines the importance of rapid adaptation for this new kind of warfare:

The decisive advantage lies with those who can shorten the loop between combat experience, technical adaptation, and redeployment. As a result, ultra-fast adaptation becomes a paramount requirement for survival—and directly shapes force organization.

In Ukraine, this has led to drone operators being deeply involved in the technology’s evolution:

Units maintain their own repair facilities, component stocks, and small-scale production capabilities. Some operate informal research-and-development cells. Successful adaptations spread laterally through personal networks, messaging platforms, and volunteer communities rather than through centralized bureaucratic channels.

But Zagorodnyuk points out a key reason why the important lessons emerging from the wars in Ukraine and Iran are unlikely to be learned in many Western countries, including the US:

legal, contractual, and technical restrictions often prevent units from modifying or repairing their own equipment. In the United States, for example, defense contractors frequently retain control over maintenance data, software, and diagnostics, limiting what military personnel can do independently. The debate around the “right to repair” reflects this tension. While intended to protect intellectual property and safety standards, such restrictions can slow adaptation cycles and reduce operational flexibility—precisely the opposite of what high-intensity, technology-driven warfare now demands.

In other words, today’s obsession with protecting intellectual monopolies above all else could one day prove a major obstacle to fighting — and winning — future wars.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. 

The legal theory behind these cases tries to work around Section 230 by shifting the focus from user content to product design. Plaintiffs argue that features like infinite scroll or “like” buttons create harm independent of users’ personal content. It is a creative argument. It is also a slippery slope with no clear limiting principle.  

Once product design becomes the hook for liability, any widely used product becomes a target. Newspapers, magazines and even packaged goods design headlines with catchy taglines to capture attention. Platforms do the same with feeds, to deliver value to their users. Labeling these as “addictive” design shouldn’t be seen as a viable path to sidestepping Section 230. 

This shift also has broader economic consequences. 

Trial lawyer lawsuits do not stay in the courtroom, they are priced into everything. Companies pay more for insurance, more for compliance, and more for legal defense. Those costs flow through to consumers in the form of higher prices and fewer options. At a moment when affordability dominates national conversations, this is a factor we cannot ignore. 

These cases are shaped by a litigation system that rewards scale and escalation. They are enormously expensive and often backed by third-party funders, which drives plaintiffs’ lawyers to seek the highest possible damages. In last month’s Los Angeles trial, plaintiffs asked for billions but secured just $6 million, about 0.5% of what was requested. Even that figure is diminished when measured against the cost of bringing the case. And when outcomes fall short, the incentive is to pursue more cases or larger awards to justify the investment. 

This burden is uniquely American. U.S. companies face a level of litigation exposure that most global competitors simply do not. That gap acts as an innovation tax on American firms, particularly small and early-stage companies that drive job creation and new ideas. We should be asking how to reduce that burden, not expand it. 

Roughly 80% of CTA’s members are small or early-stage companies. They do not have the budgets or legal teams to absorb years of litigation risk. For them, the threat of open-ended lawsuits is not theoretical. It shapes what they build, how they build it, and whether they can exist it at all.  

This is how an innovation economy slows without a single vote in Congress. Startups pull back, new features go unbuilt, and investment shifts away from risk. Over time, innovation slows, and momentum shifts from startups to incumbents. 

None of this means concerns about children’s online experiences should be dismissed. They should be taken seriously. But lawsuits are blunt instruments that do little to address the underlying issues. 

There are better and more effective paths. 

Platforms have already invested heavily in tools that give parents real control over how their children use technology. Supervised accounts, screen time limits, content filters, and transparency into usage patterns are improving quickly and becoming easier to use. Industry efforts like NetChoice’s Digital Safety Shield build on that progress by putting parents in charge rather than outsourcing decisions to courts. 

Congress also has a clear role. A national privacy law that protects personal data, including children’s information, would provide real safeguards while giving companies a consistent set of rules. What Congress should avoid is layering on vague obligations that invite more litigation. It’s delayed action for years. It should not delay further. 

And parents remain central. Technology has changed, but the need for engagement has not. Knowing what children are doing online, setting boundaries and staying involved matters more than any verdict. 

Social media is a powerful tool with real benefits and real risks. The right response is to manage those tradeoffs in a practical way that protects children without undermining innovation. 

Recent verdicts move us in the opposite direction. They reward litigation, raise costs and make it harder for the next generation of companies to succeed. 

We should focus on solutions that help children, not expand a system that is already very good at benefiting trial lawyers.

Michael Petricone is the Senior VP of Government Affairs at the Consumer Technology Association.

Not that they were wrong to do so. The history of ICE detention is extremely ugly, with detainees regularly treated like the subhumans ICE (and their subcontractors) seem to believe these human beings are. But with ICE and the DHS making all the wrong kinds of headlines as the administration carried out its racial cleansing programs, DHS started to pretend congressional members were no longer allowed to perform inspections of ICE detention facilities.

In some cases, this refusal to comply with the law resulted in the arrest of politicians trying to engage in their legally ordained oversight duties. When that intimidation failed to stem the flow of congressional reps to ICE facilities, DHS started issuing its own limitations on inspections — exactly zero of which were supported by current law.

Kristi Noem issued “guidance” last year pretending that Trump’s budget bill freed ICE from having to open their facilities to congressional inspection. Noem’s theory was that while normally DHS couldn’t make congressional reps give ICE 72 hours to seven days advance notice of inspections, the “Big Beautiful Bill” concocted by the GOP created pathways for pretending existing law didn’t exist.

That guidance specifically noted the DC Appeals Court had already ruled against the DHS by stating its current demands for advance notice were “inconsistent” with existing law. No doubt we’ll see similar misleading “guidance” issued by the DHS again in the near future as the DC Appeals Court has (again) rejected the government’s attempts to violate the law while litigation over these new policies continues.

A federal appeals court on Friday required the Trump administration to continue allowing lawmakers to inspect immigration detention facilities without advance notice, ruling unanimously that the impromptu visits posed minimal problems for the government.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit preserved, for now, the ability of Democrats in Congress to make unannounced visits to detention centers and check on the conditions inside.

The one-page order [PDF] (and its 10-page explanation by Judge Rao) is inexplicably absent from the New York Times reporting. But it’s embedded below (and linked above).

Judge Rao says the government does have some interest in controlling access to its facilities for several, mostly credible reasons. But its belief that these concerns override existing law allowing congressional inspections is misplaced.

The government is entitled to deference on how it maintains the security of detention facilities, but the current record does not substantiate the government’s claim that oversight visits without advance notice impose harms beyond administrative inconvenience. While a close call, particularly because of the strong likelihood of success on the merits, I concur in denying a stay.

As Noem pointed out in her memo, the Big Beautiful Act created a flow of funding that was (theoretically) outside of the purview of existing appropriations laws governing ICE facility inspection. This order points out that this is no longer the case as that particular rider attached to the Act lapsed along with the rest of the DHS’s funding during the shutdown. The dead rider has not been re-attached, so the DHS’s insistence this means this particular funding can be used to thwart congressional oversight isn’t exactly a foregone conclusion.

That’s not to say this decision will ultimately lead to the DHS abandoning its demands for advance notice before inspections. While the government has failed to show it will suffer irreparable harm if congressional reps are allowed on-demand access to detention facilities, the plaintiffs here are legislators — people who aren’t generally allowed to sue the same government that employs them to obtain relief.

Judge Rao says the administration is likely to emerge victorious because the Democratic congressional reps don’t have standing. But that doesn’t mean the government has presented solid arguments about its own interests in denying access to detention facilities.

The government has credibly alleged inconvenience and disruption caused by congressional visits. But the government has not shown that these harms arise from congressional visits undertaken without seven days’ advance notice, as opposed to congressional visits generally. The government cites a single security incident involving the unauthorized presence of the Mayor of Newark in the secured area of an ICE facility and the alleged obstruction of the Mayor’s arrest by Representative McIver. But the government does not explain how this incident resulted from a lack of prior notice of the Representative’s oversight visit.

To be sure, the mayor of Newark is not allowed to access ICE facilities without advance notice or explicit permission. But that doesn’t extend to everyone else ICE wishes to keep out of its facilities — a list that seems to include every congressional rep that actually might want to perform an inspection.

In addition, this never used to be a problem. The Appeals Court isn’t convinced that it’s suddenly a problem now, just because this version of the DHS wants to pretend it is.

By contrast, the Members have provided numerous declarations attesting to congressional visits made with less than seven days’ notice that were conducted without incident since 2019. The government does not meaningfully dispute these accounts and responds only that the pending litigation incentivizes the Members to conduct their visits in a nondisruptive manner. Even if that is true, this pending appeal will continue to provide the same incentives for good behavior.

For now, congressional reps don’t need to give ICE a heads up before engaging in an inspection. That may change (at least temporarily) if the administration can show these congressional reps don’t have standing to pursue this litigation. But we can hope that any final dispensation of this case only grants the administration its argument about standing. The law is still the law, no matter how the DHS might feel about the law. When this all wraps up, the status should be reset to quo: Congressional reps have a legal right to inspect facilities without advance notice. Everything else is just mud in the water.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

As you’ll recall, Trump sued his own IRS over something that a contractor (who has already been convicted and is currently serving in prison) did: leaking some tax returns Trump had promised to release, but never did. He asked for $10 billion, in a situation where he, himself, would decide if he got paid or not. When his own DOJ told the court that it was negotiating a settlement, the judge pointed out that she was concerned that it looked an awful lot like a single party negotiating with itself over how much of the Treasury it should receive.

The judge — Kathleen Williams — asked for further briefing from “both” parties on this, and the deadline is coming up quickly, which is why various purported “settlements” are leaking to the press. A few days ago it was going to be that Trump and all of his family and all of his related businesses would magically have all IRS audits dropped, which would be an astoundingly brazen level of corruption.

But now ABC is reporting about another potential “settlement” (again, “settlement” is the wrong word — it’s Trump’s legal team negotiating with Trump’s DOJ, which is run by his former legal team. It’s one team negotiating with itself) which is just as egregious and corrupt: Trump would apparently agree to drop his case against the IRS in exchange for… a $1.7 billion slush fund of taxpayer money that he could dole out to his friends who whine to the government that they were “targeted” for retribution by a “weaponized” Biden administration.

President Donald Trump is expected to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

The commission overseeing the compensation fund would have the total authority to hand out approximately $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration’s “weaponization” of the legal system, including the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol attack as well as potentially entities associated with President Trump himself.

So, yeah, a $1.7 billion slush fund for Trump supporters who (in some cases) literally engaged in insurrection to overturn the results of a free and fair election, or for various hangers-on who play the victim every chance they get and pretend the Biden administration “weaponized” the government against them.

It’s not worth getting into the possibility of using this slush fund to pay off the ~1,600 Trump supporters who were duly convicted in a court of law for various crimes, all of whom were later pardoned by Trump (even as dozens of them have been re-arrested for other crimes, which should put to rest any remaining notion that Trump is the “law and order” president — but of course it won’t).

But we can talk about the various claims of “weaponization” because we covered many of them. Remember, Jim Jordan got himself appointed as the anti-weaponization czar in Congress, and used that to actually weaponize the government to investigate and attack individuals and organizations who were not the government, but who Jordan felt unfairly pointed out disinformation and lies from those MAGA supported.

The supposed investigations into the “weaponization” of the government to suppress speech served only to suppress the First Amendment protected speech of academic researchers and organizations. And now all those who falsely insisted that the Biden administration “censored” them, even as all the evidence showed that social media companies removed content because they found that the content violated their own rules, will get to line up at the trough to get free money from American taxpayers.

This is Donald Trump handing out American taxpayer money that has never been appropriated by Congress for this purpose — shoveling it to anyone who claims victimhood under his banner, whether convicted insurrectionists, Trump allies who want their legal bills paid, or propagandists who got called out for spreading disinformation. We’re already seeing this play out. This week, Trump’s DOJ “settled” with the pandemic’s wrongest man, Alex Berenson, who got suspended from Twitter not because of any government action, but because Twitter felt that he violated their rules against spreading health misinformation.

Berenson has been suing over this for years (and mostly losing), but this week Trump agreed to pay him $150,000 and “admit” that the Biden administration tried to censor him. While some are trying to present this as some sort of big victory, getting Donald Trump to blame Joe Biden for something that didn’t happen — while shoveling taxpayer money to a man who publicly supports Trump — is not exactly a landmark legal victory. It’s almost expected in the Trump era.

The Berenson payout is a preview. Once the $1.7 billion fund is running, expect a line out the door of Trump’s groveling fans making false claims about Biden “weaponizing” the government — all of it paid for by taxpayers, none of it appropriated by Congress.

And there’s this part where he likens himself to Churchill and makes some strange comments about Hitler:

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: They implant themselves among civilians, you know, so that they have civilian casualties and they can put it on the tube or in your cell phone. So, yes, I mean, I don’t know how to fight it. I mean, Churchill, without cell phones and without digital campaigns and farm bots was labeled a warmonger in the 1930s because he said, “You have to stand up to Hitler.”

MAJOR GARRETT: Hitler, right.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: And they accused him of being a warmonger. And Hitler didn’t even say “death to America, death to Britain,” you know. I– I think he might have planned it, but he didn’t say it. And still they accused him of that.

The interviewer, Major Garrett, spends absolutely no serious time pushing back against the claims Netanyahu makes. Or meaningfully addressing indisputable evidence that the Israeli government has engaged in widespread genocidal war crimes on the U.S. taxpayer dime. When Netanyahu tries to dismiss the massive civilian casualties in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon as minor and innocent mistakes, Garrett has no response.

Garrett doesn’t normally work for 60 Minutes. He was brought on board from elsewhere within CBS because Netanyahu specifically asked for him. According to Oliver Darcy’s excellent media newsletter Status, 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl was trying to land the interview with Netanyahu when Weiss intervened and shuffled the interview over to Garrett, causing (more) internal anger:

“But behind the scenes, Status has learned that famed “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl had also been gunning for the interview but was upstaged by CBS News boss Bari Weiss, who booked Netanyahu herself and handed the interview to Garrett, who is notably not a “60 Minutes” correspondent. The move sparked hostility and amplified the already strained relationship between Weissand the reporting team at the iconic newsmagazine.”

Not so iconic anymore.

The New York Post (for what it’s worth) also indicates that Netanyahu got to select his interviewer as a condition of CBS landing the interview. Weiss, a self-described “Zionist fanatic,” was hired by right wing billionaire Larry Ellison specifically for this sort of softball treatment of global autocrats, and had already been under fire for censoring stories that displeased the Trump administration.

There’s been a mass exodus at CBS for months as actual journalists bristle at the obvious shift toward soggy corporatist agitprop under Weiss. While Weiss was hired on to modernize CBS and make autocratic billionaire ass kissing exciting, viral, and good for ratings; the whole experiment has been a monumental failure so far, with CBS News recently seeing its lowest ratings in a quarter century.

Weiss rose to prominence at her weird little troll blog Free Press, which obviously hasn’t translated well to running a television network. Case in point: Weiss’ preferred new CBS News anchor, Tony Dokoupil, is having to broadcast the network’s coverage on Trump’s China visit from Taiwan because Weiss and friends failed to secure his visa on time for the trip. This mirrors other similar competency issues like Weiss making last-minute unapproved changes to teleprompter text that screws up broadcasts.

Beyond the clownish nature of it all, it remains an open question who this sort of stuff is actually for (beyond the extremely rich people endlessly trying to control information flow). Despite having a massive fortune, Ellison seems incapable of creating propaganda people actually want to watch, and even their target audience — center-right bigots with impaired critical thinking faculties — aren’t tuning in because they have a universe of other terrible (but far more entertaining) choices.

Like Jeff Bezos’ sad and desperate effort to repurpose the Washington Post into what now feels like a satirical billionaire-coddling rag, all the money in the world can’t seem to produce class warfare agitprop actual human beings want to consume. Almost as if the behaviors of the global authoritarian extraction class are starting to reach a point where they’re simply too heinous and ham-handed to spin.

But there has also been an insane amount of chaos at HHS and its child agencies under Kennedy. And that chaos isn’t slowing down, it seems, with the announcement that FDA chief Marty Makary will be resigning his post. And, because this is the dumbest of timelines in which we live, the reason behind it appears to be Trump’s push to allow for flavored e-cigarettes to entice the nation’s youth.

Makary’s insiders said the former Johns Hopkins University cancer surgeon resigned after Trump forced his hand on authorizing fruit-flavored e-cigarettes. Makary had reportedly been resisting the sign-offs out of concern that the kid-friendly flavors could again entice youth use and addiction—something public health officials and experts have for years worked to combat. But Makary’s stance was in conflict with Trump’s “save vaping” campaign promise—and with the tobacco industry’s interests.

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had called Makary over a weekend to scold him for not moving fast enough to authorize flavored vapes, particularly menthol, mango, and blueberry flavors from the Los Angeles manufacturer Glas. The FDA authorized those flavored products days later and issued a new policy that would make it easier to market flavored vapes.

The ArsTechnica post goes on to note that Makary had pissed off a bunch of lobbyists for tobacco, pharma, and biotech firms, all while health professionals have been complaining about his participation in Kennedy’s anti-vaxxer nonsense at the FDA as well. He essentially managed to piss off everyone, courting zero allies, which is a remarkable achievement itself.

But the larger story here is that HHS is suffering from a rather damning lack of leadership. Not by performance, but through vacancies of Senate-confirmed people to actually run things.

The firing or resignation of Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary is more intra-MAHA chaos at a beleaguered and battered Department of Health and Human Services. 

When you don’t have a CDC Director, an FDA Commissioner, or a Surgeon General, the obvious question is: Why do you have this HHS Secretary? Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is the cause of much of the chaos that has resulted in these job vacancies. HHS is rotting from the head. 

It really is incredible to realize that those three positions, important as they are, are currently being helmed by acting leadership members at best. There’s a reason those positions exist. They’re not unimportant. But currently, we have essentially temp employees filling them.

Does anyone really believe that American health is a ship that can be successfully steered without a rudder? That’s what’s happening right now, because Trump and Kennedy can’t seem to get anyone across the finish line in the Senate for these roles. And if the ship crashes, we’re all going to pay for it.

That change does address some of the broadest concerns raised about the original proposal, though some questions about the bill’s reach remain. Bottom line: the revised bill still creates serious problems for privacy, online speech, and parental choice.

The new GUARD Act still requires companies offering AI companions to implement burdensome age-verification systems tied to users’ real-world identities. Even parents who specifically want their teenagers to use these systems would still face significant hurdles. A family might decide that a conversational AI tool helps an isolated teenager practice social interaction, or engage in harmless creative roleplay. A parent deployed in the military might set up a persistent AI storyteller for a younger child. Under the revised bill, those users could still face mandatory age checks tied to sensitive personal or financial information before they or their children can use these services.

The revised bill also leaves important definitions unclear while sharply increasing penalties for developers and companies that get those judgments wrong. Congress narrowed the GUARD Act. But it is still trying to solve a complicated social problem with vague legal standards, heavy liability, and privacy-invasive verification systems.

Intrusive Age-Verification Remains In The Bill

The revised GUARD Act still requires companies offering AI companions to verify that users are adults through a “reasonable age verification” system. The bill allows a broader set of verification methods than the earlier version, but they are still tied to a user’s real-world identity—such as financial records, or age-verified accounts for a mobile operating system or app store. 

That approach still raises serious privacy and access concerns. Millions of Americans do not have current government ID, accounts at major banks, or stable access to the kinds of digital identity systems the bill contemplates. Even for those who do, requiring identity-linked verification to access online speech tools creates real risks for privacy, anonymity, and data security. Many people are rightly creeped out by age-verification systems, and may simply forgo using these services rather than compromise their privacy and security.

The revised definition of “AI companion” is also narrower than before, but it’s unclear at the margins. The bill now focuses on systems that “engage in interactions involving emotional disclosures” from the user, or present a “persistent identity, persona or character.” 

EFF appreciates that the authors recognized that the prior definition could reach a variety of AI systems that are not chatbots, including internet search engines. But the narrowed definition could be read to also apply to a variety of chat tools that are not AI companions. For example, many modern online conversational systems increasingly recognize and respond to users’ emotions. Customer service systems, including completely human-powered ones that existed long before AI chatbots, have long been designed to recognize frustration and respond empathetically. As conversational AI becomes more emotionally responsive, a customer service chatbot’s efforts to empathize may sweep it within the bill’s definition. 

Bigger Penalties, Bigger Incentives To Restrict Access

The revised bill also sharply increases penalties. Instead of $100,000 per violation, companies—including small developers—can face fines of up to $250,000 per violation, enforced by both federal and state officials.

That kind of liability creates incentives to over-restrict access, especially for minors. Smaller developers, in particular, may decide it is safer to block younger users entirely, disable conversational features, or avoid developing certain tools at all, rather than risk severe penalties under vague standards.

The concerns driving this bill are real. Some AI systems have engaged in troubling interactions with vulnerable users, including minors. But the right answer to that is targeted enforcement against bad actors, and privacy laws that protect us all. The revised GUARD Act instead responds with a privacy-invasive system that burdens the right to speak, read, and interact online.

Congress did improve this bill, but EFF’s core speech, privacy, and security issues remain.

Reposted from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.