The Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Visa, alleging that the financial services firm has an illegal monopoly over debit network markets and has attempted to unlawfully crush competitors, including fintech companies like PayPal and Square. From a report: The lawsuit follows a multiyear investigation of Visa which the company disclosed in 2021. "We allege that Visa has unlawfully amassed the power to extract fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive market," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "Merchants and banks pass along those costs to consumers, either by raising prices or reducing quality or service. As a result, Visa's unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing -- but the price of nearly everything."

Visa makes more than $7 billion a year in payment processing fees alone, and more than 60 percent of debit transactions in the United States run on Visa's network, the complaint claims. The government alleges that Visa's market dominance is partly due to the "web of exclusionary agreements" it imposes on businesses and banks. Visa has also attempted to "smother" competitors -- including smaller debit networks and newer fintech companies -- the complaint alleges. Visa executives allegedly feel particularly threatened by Apple, which the company has described as an "existential threat," the DOJ claims.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The alleged Iranian hack of Donald Trump's orbit continued at least until mid-September and may be ongoing, a document the hackers shared with a progressive publication reveals. Iranian authorities have denied any involvement in the efforts to leak internal documents from Trump's campaign, which have reportedly been sent to major US publications including Politico and The New York Times, and to the Biden campaign. But the campaign and outside analysts have blamed the hack on the Iranians, who have ample reasons for hostility to the former president and also allegedly plotted his assassination.

The publisher of the newsletter Popular Information, Judd Legum, writes this morning that a source under the name "Robert" shared a set of documents with him. Those included a research dossier on JD Vance matching other publications' descriptions of the hacked material. But the leak also included a legal letter to The New York Times complaining about an article that raised questions about the validity of Trump's image as a successful businessman.

Speaking of California, its governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a a bill that requires schools to limit or ban the use of smartphones, amid a growing consensus that excess usage can increase the risk of mental illness and impair learning. From a report: Thirteen other states this year have banned or restricted cellphones in school or recommended local educators do so, after Florida led the way by banning phones in class in 2023, according to Education Week. California, with nearly 5.9 million public school students, has followed the lead of its own Los Angeles County, whose school board banned smartphones for its 429,000 students in June.

That same month U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for a warning label on social media platforms, akin to those on cigarette packages, likening the problem to a mental health emergency. Murthy cited a study in the medical journal JAMA showing adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media may be at heightened risk of mental illness, while referring to a Gallup poll showing the average teen spends 4.8 hours per day on social media. California's bill, which passed 76-0 in the state assembly and 38-1 in the senate, requires school boards or other governing bodies to develop a policy to limit or prohibit student use of smartphones on campus by July 1, 2026, and update the policy every five years.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Paper or paper? In California, shoppers will have only one bag option at the checkout line starting in 2026. A decade ago, California became the first U.S. state to ban single-use plastic bags, the flimsy sacks that regularly blew into waterways, littered streets and collected in landfills. The prohibition, in the nation's most populous state, was considered a turning point in the effort to reduce plastic waste. But the move backfired in a way that few supporters expected. Californians in 2021 actually tossed nearly 50 percent more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed in 2014, according to data from CalRecycle, California's recycling agency. A loophole in the initial ban allowed retailers to provide thick-walled plastic bags and charge 10 cents a piece for them. Though technically reusable and recyclable, the heavier-duty sacks still ended up in many trash cans after a shopping trip.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Sunday banning the sale at grocery checkouts of all plastic bags (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), regardless of thickness. The only option for customers who lack their own reusable shopping bags will be buying paper bags for 10 cents each. "We deserve a cleaner future for our communities, our children and our earth," said Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, a Democratic assemblywoman and co-author of the bill, in a statement. "It's time for us to get rid of these plastic bags and continue to move forward with a more pollution-free environment." Plastic bags are typically used for 12 minutes before being discarded, according to the California Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group. But those bags live in oceans and landfills for hundreds of years, and can contaminate drinking water and food in the form of microplastics. SB 1053 will go into effect on January 1st, 2026. It also changes the definition of a "recycled paper bag," requiring all bags with that label to be made of at least 50% post-consumer recycled materials starting January 1st, 2028.

Amazon, Meta, and Tesla were named by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) as some of the worst corporate underminers of democracy . These companies were accused of union busting, monopolizing media and technology, violating human rights, contributing to climate change, and fostering political movements that threaten democratic institutions. The full list of "corporate underminers of democracy for 2024" is Amazon, Blackstone Group, ExxonMobil, Glencore, Meta, Tesla and the Vanguard Group. The Register reports: The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) today published a list of seven companies it said were "emblematic" of the ways large international corporations have begun tossing their weight around to influence global affairs. Those businesses, ITUC noted, violate trade union and alleged human rights, monopolize media and technology, exacerbate the climate catastrophe and try to privatize public services in a way that "protects and expands [their] own profits by undermining democracy." "These companies deploy complex lobbying operations to undermine popular will and disrupt existing or nascent global policy that could hold them accountable," ITUC wrote. The desire for greater corporate power, the Confederation added, invariably puts corporate interests in bed with anti-democratic political movements like the modern far-right. Right-wing politicians, ITUC noted, tend to lower taxes, undercut higher wages for workers, crack down on trade unions, and the like - all things sure to please the likes of corporations like Amazon, Tesla, and Meta as evidenced by plenty of prior reporting and research. For Amazon, the ITUC criticized the company for becoming "notorious for its union busting and low wages, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS [datacenters], corporate tax evasion and lobbying."

Meta was accused of exploiting user data, undermining privacy laws, manipulating global information, and failing to regulate harmful content on its platforms. "Meta's algorithms can quite literally alter humanity's perceptions of reality," ITUC said. "Its revenue model exploits trillions of personalized data points to deliver highly effective advertising." Some have referred to the company as "a foreign state, populated by people without sovereignty, ruled by a leader with absolute power."

As for Tesla, it was condemned for poor labor practices, anti-union politics, unsafe working conditions, human rights violations, and environmental damage in its supply chain. "The world's most highly-valued automaker has quickly become known as one of its most belligerent employers. Tesla's rapid market success has been outpaced only by the descent of its corporate leaders into anti-democratic, anti-union politics."

The US Commerce Department on Monday will propose a ban on the sale or import of smart vehicles that use specific Chinese or Russian technology because of national security concerns, according to US officials. From a report: A US government investigation that began in February found a range of national security risks from embedded software and hardware from China and Russia in US vehicles, including the possibility of remote sabotage by hacking and the collection of personal data on drivers, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo told reporters Sunday in a conference call.

"In extreme situations, a foreign adversary could shut down or take control of all their vehicles operating in the United States, all at the same time, causing crashes (or) blocking roads," she said. The rule would not apply to cars already on the road in the US that already have Chinese software installed, a senior administration official told CNN. The software ban would take effect for vehicles for "model year" 2027 and the hardware ban for "model year" 2030, according to the Commerce Department. The proposed regulatory action is part of a much broader struggle between the United States and China, the world's two biggest economies, to secure the supply chains of the key computing technology of the future, from semiconductors to AI software. China, in particular, has invested heavily in the connected car market, and inroads made by Chinese manufacturers in Europe have worried US officials.

Salon looks closer at a new $51,744-per-violation AI regulation officially approved one month ago by America's FTC — calling it a financial blow "If you're a digital media company whose revenue comes from publishing AI-generated articles and fake product reviews.

But they point out the rules also ban "product review suppression." Per the ruling, that means it's a violation for "anyone to use an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation in response to a consumer review... to (1) prevent a review or any portion thereof from being written or created, or (2) cause a review or any portion thereof to be removed, whether or not that review or a portion thereof is replaced with other content."

Finally... The rule makes it a violation for a business to "provide compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned expressly or by implication on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative, regarding the product, service or business...." [T]he new rule also prevents secretly advertising for yourself while pretending to be an independent outlet or company. It bars "the creation or operation of websites, organizations or entities that purportedly provide independent reviews or opinions of products or services but are, in fact, created and controlled by the companies offering the products or services."

In an earlier statement, FTC Consumer Protection Bureau head Sam Levine, said the new rule "should help level the playing field for honest companies. We're using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age," he said.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.

Friday America's Federal Trade Commission brought action against three companies for "anticompetitive and unfair" practices "that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin."

For years, many of the millions of Americans who need insulin to survive "have been forced to pay exorbitant prices for a product that's inexpensive to make," writes NPR. "Now, the federal government is targeting one part of the system behind high insulin prices." While out-of-pocket costs have gone down for many people to $35 a month, questions remain on how the drug became so expensive in the first place. In a new lawsuit filed Friday, the Federal Trade Commission said it's going after one link in the chain: pharmacy benefit managers. The FTC brought action against the top pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — CVS Health's Caremark Rx, Cigna's Express Scripts, and United Health Group's OptumRx — saying the companies created a "perverse drug rebate system" that artificially inflates the cost of insulin. If the suit is successful, it could further drive down costs for patients at the pharmacy counter.

PBMs are essentially the middlemen between drug manufacturers and insurance providers. Their job is to reduce drug prices. But the process is complex and opaque, and critics say they're actually driving prices up for patients. The FTC said a big issue is that PBMs' revenue is tied to rebates and fees — which are based on a percentage of a drug's list price. Essentially, in the case of insulin, when the drug costed more, it generated higher rebates and fees for PBMs. "Even when lower list price insulins became available that could have been more affordable for vulnerable patients, the PBMs systemically excluded them in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products," the FTC said in a press release on Friday.

The three PBMs named in the FTC lawsuit make up about 80% of the market. According to the suit, the PBMs collected billions of dollars in rebates and fees while insulin became increasingly unaffordable. Over the last two decades, the cost of the lifesaving drug shot up 600% — forcing many Americans with diabetes to ration their medication and jeopardize their health. In 2019, one 1 of 4 insulin patients was unable to afford their medication, according to the FTC. Some people have died.
The FTC's statement says the companies "have abused their economic power by rigging pharmaceutical supply chain competition in their favor, forcing patients to pay more for life-saving medication... While PBM respondents collected billions in rebates and associated fees according to the complaint, by 2019 one out of every four insulin patients was unable to afford their medication..."

"[A]ll drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns, and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions."

American Battery Technology and lithium-producer Albemarle are among 25 companies getting more than $3 billion in funding from the Biden administration to boost domestic production of advanced batteries and components. From a report: The funding -- part of a broader White House goal of creating an American battery supply chain -- is going to projects that are building, expanding or retrofitting facilities to process critical minerals, build components and batteries and recycle materials, the Energy Department said Friday.

American Battery Technology received $150 million to build a commercial-scale lithium-ion battery recycling facility in South Carolina. Albemarle is getting $67 million to retrofit a facility to manufacture commercial anode material for next-generation lithium-ion batteries around Charlotte, North Carolina. Other projects included $50 million for Cabot and $225 million for SWA Lithium, a joint venture of Standard Lithium and Equinor. Batteries -- which are used for electric vehicles as well as storing renewable energy for use on the electric grid -- are considered critical to reaching the administration's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and for boosting electric vehicles to half of all new light-duty vehicle sales by 2030.

Joe_Dragon shares a report: Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn't be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks. While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy "would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access."

The legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet," they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday. The amici curiae brief was filed by Altice USA (operator of the Optimum brand), Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon. The brief supports cable firm Cox Communications' attempt to overturn its loss in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. Cox petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case last month.

Sony and other music copyright holders sued Cox in 2018, claiming it didn't adequately fight piracy on its network and failed to terminate repeat infringers. A US District Court jury in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in December 2019 that Cox must pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels. Cox won a partial victory when the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion verdict, finding that Cox wasn't guilty of vicarious infringement because it did not profit directly from infringement committed by users of its cable broadband network. But the appeals court affirmed the jury's finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The State Department announced Wednesday that its online renewal system is now fully operational, after testing in pilot programs, and available to adult passport holders whose passport has expired within the past five years or will expire in the coming year. It is not available for the renewal of children's passports, for first-time passport applicants for renewal applicants who live outside the United States or for expedited applications. "By offering this online alternative to the traditional paper application process, the Department is embracing digital transformation to offer the most efficient and convenient passport renewal experience possible," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. The department said it estimated that about 5 million Americans would be able to use this service a year. In 2023, it processed 24 million passports, about 40% of which were renewals.

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Rena Bitter, whose bureau oversees passport processing said the department hoped to expand the program in the coming years to possibly include Americans living abroad, those seeking to renew a second passport and children's passports. "This is not going to be the last thing that we do," she told reporters. "We want to see how this goes and then we'll start looking at ways to continue to make this service available to more American citizens in the coming months and years." You can renew your passport at www.Travel.State.Gov/renewonline.

The Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday it found that several social media and streaming services engaged in a "vast surveillance" of consumers, including minors, collecting and sharing more personal information than most users realized. From a report: The findings come from a study of how nine companies -- including Meta, YouTube and TikTok -- collected and used consumer data. The sites, which mostly offer free services, profited off the data by feeding it into advertising that targets specific users by demographics, according to the report. The companies also failed to protect users, especially children and teens.

The F.T.C. said it began its study nearly four years ago to offer the first holistic look into the opaque business practices of some of the biggest online platforms that have created multibillion-dollar ad businesses using consumer data. The agency said the report showed the need for federal privacy legislation and restrictions on how companies collect and use data. "Surveillance practices can endanger people's privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking," said Lina Kahn, the F.T.C.'s chair, in a statement.

Kenya signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the U.S. on nuclear technology cooperation during the 2024 IAEA General Conference in Vienna, with the aim of safely integrating nuclear power into Kenya's energy mix by 2035. The agreement focuses on collaboration in nuclear safety, regulatory experience, and research. The Standard reports: The historic pact came a day after Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi addressed the general session of the conference. Mudavadi had outlined Kenya's ambitious plans to integrate nuclear power into the country's energy mix by 2035, as part of a broader strategy to meet its growing energy demand. Kenya's current installed energy capacity, as of 2023, totals 3,321 MW, with significant contributions from geothermal (863 MW), hydroelectric power (838 MW), wind (436 MW), solar (173 MW), biomass (2 MW), and thermal energy (678 MW). However, despite these sources, the country still faces a shortfall in its energy supply. Experts say nuclear energy will be crucial in addressing this deficit and supporting Kenya's long-term industrialization goals.

The MoU was signed by the Kenya Nuclear Regulatory Authority (KNRA) and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), with both parties expressing optimism about the future of nuclear cooperation between the two nations. [...] Areas of cooperation will include sharing of operating experience and regulatory experience, cooperation in joint programs of nuclear safety research and trainings. Kenya, along with several other developing nations, is exploring the potential use of nuclear energy beyond electricity generation, including its applications in health and agriculture. As the country moves forward with its nuclear aspirations, experts highlight the importance of robust regulatory frameworks and international cooperation to ensure the safe and effective deployment.

"Apple has begun manufacturing its A16 SoC at the newly-opened TSCM Fab 21 in Arizona," writes Slashdot reader NoMoreACs. AppleInsider reports: According to sources of Tim Culpan, Phase 1 of TSMC's Fab 21 in Arizona is making the A16 SoC of the iPhone 14 Pro in "small, but significant, numbers. The production is largely a test for the facility at this stage, but more production is expected in the coming months. The volume will ramp up massively once the second stage of the Phase 1 fab actually concludes. If everything stays on schedule, the Arizona plant will hit a target for production sometime in the first half of 2025.

Sources say TSMC is achieving yields that are marginally behind those of Taiwan-based factories. Yield parity is expected to happen within months. TSMC has also raised its investment and moved to build additional plants in Arizona, with three set to be constructed in total. The U.S. Commerce Department previously claimed this will create 6,000 direct manufacturing jobs, on top of an estimated 20,000 construction jobs.

The Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate by half a percentage point [non-paywalled source] on Wednesday and signalled more reductions would follow, launching its first easing cycle since the onset of the pandemic. Financial Times: The US central bank's first cut in more than four years leaves the federal funds rate at a range of 4.75 per cent. Michelle Bowman, a governor on the Federal Open Market Committee, voted against the decision, favouring a quarter-point reduction. The half-point cut is larger than the Fed's more customary quarter-point pace and suggests the US central bank is concerned about the prospects of a weakening economy after more than a year of holding rates at a 23-year high.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Last week, the FBI took control of a botnet made up of hundreds of thousands of internet-connected devices, such as cameras, video recorders, storage devices, and routers, which was run by a Chinese government hacking group, FBI director Christopher Wray and U.S. government agencies revealed Wednesday. The hacking group, dubbed Flax Typhoon, was "targeting critical infrastructure across the U.S. and overseas, everyone from corporations and media organizations to universities and government agencies," Wray said at the Aspen Cyber Summit cybersecurity conference on Wednesday.

"But working in collaboration with our partners, we executed court-authorized operations to take control of the botnet's infrastructure," Wray said, explaining that once the authorities did that, the FBI also removed the malware from the compromised devices. "Now, when the bad guys realized what was happening, they tried to migrate their bots to new servers and even conducted a [Distributed Denial of Service] attack against us."

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on Tuesday proposed a new rule forcing banks to keep detailed records for customers of fintech apps after the failure of tech firm Synapse resulted in thousands of Americans being locked out of their accounts. From a report: The rule, aimed at accounts opened by fintech firms that partner with banks, would make the institution maintain records of who owns it and the daily balances attributed to the owner, according to an FDIC memo. Fintech apps often lean on a practice where many customers' funds are pooled into a single large account at a bank, which relies on either the fintech or a third party to maintain ledgers of transactions and ownership.

That situation exposed customers to the risk that the nonbanks involved would keep shoddy or incomplete records, making it hard to determine who to pay out in the event of a failure. That's what happened in the Synapse collapse, which impacted more than 100,000 users of fintech apps including Yotta and Juno. Customers with funds in these "for benefit of" accounts have been unable to access their money since May.

The U.S. government said Monday that it has issued fresh financial sanctions against five individuals and a corporate entity associated with spyware-making consortium Intellexa, months after the government sanctioned its founder. From a report: In its latest statement, the U.S. Treasury said it sanctioned the five people, including senior Intellexa executives and associates, who are alleged to be involved in the sale of Intellexa's phone spyware, dubbed Predator, to authoritarian governments. Predator can be used to hack into fully patched phones nearly invisibly, allowing the organization that deployed the spyware to obtain complete access to the target's device, including their private messages and real-time location. The Treasury said the spyware has been used to target U.S. government officials, journalists, and opposition politicians.

The sanctions include Felix Bitzios, who owns an Intellexa consortium company that the Treasury says was used to supply Predator spyware to an unnamed foreign government; Merom Harpaz and Panagiota Karaoli, who hold senior positions in Intellexa's corporate structure, according to the Treasury; and Andrea Nicola Constantino Hermes Gambazzi, who the Treasury says was involved in processing transactions for companies within Intellexa's consortium. The Treasury added that the Aliada Group, a company based in the British Virgin Islands and a member of the Intellexa group of companies, was also sanctioned for enabling tens of millions of dollars in transactions for the spyware-making consortium. A senior U.S. government official told reporters during a background call on Monday that the latest round of sanctions were part of the government's ongoing effort to target the commercial spyware industry. The U.S. official said the government was tracking money flows and movements to determine what entities might be trying to avoid or circumvent the sanctions.

With online dating apps, "Americans have increasingly been marrying someone more like themselves," reports Bloomberg, citing new research that says this accounts for roughly half of the rise in household income inequality between 1980 and 2020: Using data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey from 2008 to 2021, when online dating quickly became prevalent, the economists found that women became slightly more selective when choosing partners based on age, while men became slightly more selective based on education. But when the researchers compared that with data on married couples from 1960 and 1980, they found that people in the recent period increasingly went for partners with the same wage and education levels...

Overall, the predominance of online apps to find a future partner has led to a 3-percentage-point increase in the Gini coefficient — a widely used measure of income inequality, the research shows.
The reseachers were from the Federal Reserve Banks of Dallas and St. Louis, and from Haverford College, according to the article — which also includes this quote from their paper.

"We find that the increase in income inequality over the past half a century is explained to a large extent by sorting on vertical characteristics, such as income and skill, and their interaction with education."

The Washingon Post reports that a regulatory dispute in Ohio may help answer a big question about America's power grid: who will pay for the huge upgrades needed to meet soaring energy demand "from the data centers powering the modern internet and artificial intelligence revolution?" Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta are fighting a proposal by an Ohio power company to significantly increase the upfront energy costs they'll pay for their data centers, a move the companies dubbed "unfair" and "discriminatory" in documents filed with Ohio's Public Utility Commission last month. American Electric Power Ohio said in filings that the tariff increase was needed to prevent new infrastructure costs from being passed on to other customers such as households and businesses if the tech industry should fail to follow through on its ambitious, energy-intensive plans. The case could set a national precedent that helps determine whether and how other states force tech firms to be accountable for the costs of their growing energy consumption... The energy demands of data centers have created similar concerns in other hot spots such as Northern Virginia, Atlanta and Maricopa County, Arizona, leaving experts concerned that the U.S. power grid may not be capable of dealing with the combined needs of the green energy transition and the computing boom that artificial intelligence companies say is coming...

Energy customers must sometimes make a monthly payment to a utility that is a percentage of the maximum amount of electricity they predict that they could need. In Ohio, data center companies had agreed to pay 60 percent of the projected amount. But in May, the power company proposed a new, 10-year fee structure raising the charges to 90 percent of the expected load, even if they don't end up using that much. The major tech companies — all of whom are increasing spending on data center infrastructure to compete in AI — strenuously opposed the proposed contract in documents filed last month... According to testimony from AEP Ohio Vice President Lisa Kelso, there are 50 pending requests from data center customers seeking electric service at more than 90 sites, a potential 30,000 megawatts of additional load — enough to power more than 20 million households. That additional demand would more than triple the utility's previous peak load in 2023, she said. Between 2020 and 2024, the data center energy load in central Ohio increased sixfold, from 100 to 600 megawatts, her testimony reads. By 2030, that amount will reach 5,000 megawatts, according to the utility's signed agreements, she testified...

Meeting that demand will require AEP Ohio to build new transmission lines, an expensive and time-consuming process... Chief among the power company's concerns, according to the documents, is what will happen if it invests billions of dollars into new grid infrastructure only for the data centers to leave for greener pastures, or for the AI bubble to burst and the facilities to need much less power than initially projected. If the power company spends big on new infrastructure but the power demand it was built to serve doesn't materialize, other customers — including business and residential payers — will be stuck with the bill, the utility said... AEP Ohio's testimony in the case also questions whether data centers bring as much to local communities as factories or other high-energy-load businesses. Since 2019, non-data center businesses have created approximately 25 jobs for every megawatt of power requested, while data centers have created less than one job per megawatt, according to Kelso's testimony.

The tech companies rejected this criticism, saying the number of jobs they create is not relevant to how much power they have a right to purchase, and highlighted their other contributions to local economies... Amazon said in filings that it pays fees as high as 75 percent of projected demand in some states but that Ohio's proposal to bill it 90 percent goes too far.
"Should the Ohio tariff be approved, Microsoft and Google both threatened in their testimony to leave Ohio." (Although at the same time, "pressure on the electric grid is mounting all over the country...")

And the article points out that on Thursday, "the White House announced measures intended to speed up data center construction for AI projects, including by accelerating permitting."