Tag: lawsuits

Erin Brockovich Launches Plan to Take on AI Data Centers Around the Country

Erin Brockovich, who secured a historic $333 million settlement against PG&E in 1993 and was immortalized by Julia Roberts on the silver screen, has launched a new battle against the proliferation of AI data centers across the United States and beyond.

The Guardian reports that the environmental activist who became a household name after her work on the Hinkley, California, groundwater contamination case has identified what she describes as a threat on par with that scandal, only larger in scope. After receiving thousands of emails from concerned citizens, Brockovich has turned her attention to the rapid construction of massive AI data centers happening with minimal public input or environmental oversight.

The campaign began when Brockovich noticed an unusual pattern in her inbox. She received 30 emails from people in the same town, all expressing concerns about data centers. In April, she issued a public call on her website asking anyone with concerns about data centers near them to contact her. Within a month, 3,862 people responded. Brockovich characterizes the situation as “Hinkley on steroids.”

Using the information gathered from these emails, Brockovich created an open-source map documenting AI data centers across the United States. As of June 24, the map shows 33 AI data centers that are operational, 68 under construction, and 41 proposed. More than 7,000 reports have been submitted through her online form, revealing a pattern of construction happening largely without public knowledge or consent.

AI data centers are enormous in scale. Some stretch over hundreds of acres, and in May, Utah approved a center twice the size of Manhattan. According to Brockovich, many communities learn about these facilities only after construction has already begun, or in some cases, months after they have been approved by local officials.

A major concern for Brockovich is the secrecy surrounding the approval process. Data center developers often enter into nondisclosure agreements with local officials, making it impossible for residents to understand why projects were approved without environmental impact assessments or public input. Brockovich reports receiving emails from people whose local leaders are changing zoning laws to accommodate these facilities. “If data centers are so great, why are they being built in secret?” reads one headline on her Substack blog.

Keep reading

DOJ Sues States Over Alleged Failure To Turn Over Food Stamp Data

The Trump administration has sued four states, accusing them of withholding crucial data on food stamp applicants.

Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania refused to turn over information to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that would let federal officials identify fraud, Trump administration lawyers said in lawsuits filed on June 26 against the states.

Officials are asking judges to enter injunctions that would force state authorities to hand over the last five years of applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food stamp program known as SNAP.

The USDA requested the SNAP data in 2025, citing an executive order from President Donald Trump that directed agencies to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, and many states complied with the request.

Data from those states showed that states had enrolled some 186,000 people in SNAP despite those people being deceased, among the discrepancies that added up to $3 billion in wasteful spending, the department said in a report.

The government spends nearly $100 billion a year on SNAP.

Keep reading

Lawsuit demands USDA release records on glyphosate executive order

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is violating the law by failing to turn over records related to an executive order issued by President Donald Trump protecting production of the controversial pesticide glyphosate, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, seeks to force the USDA to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request the center submitted on Feb. 26 requesting records related to how and why the order was developed. 

“The main thing we’re hoping to understand is who in particular pushed for this?” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit organization that advocates for environment and health issues.

The order was widely questioned by public health and environmental groups who saw the move by the Trump administration as directly benefitting Germany’s Bayer, which manufactures glyphosate in the US and is a key supplier of glyphosate-based herbicides, such as Roundup. Glyphosate herbicides have been linked to health issues such as cancer, and Bayer is currently fending off tens of thousands of lawsuits brought by people suffering from cancer they blame on exposure to the company’s products.

Bayer has been lobbying for federal and state laws to protect it from further litigation, and has asked the US Supreme Court for a ruling that would preempt key claims in the lawsuits. 

The Supreme Court decision could be issued this week and will determine whether people can bring failure-to-warn legal claims against pesticide companies in the future.

Keep reading

Alibaba Sues Pentagon to Remove ‘Chinese Military Company’ Label

Chinese tech titan Alibaba filed suit against the U.S. Department of War on Wednesday, arguing there was “no basis in fact or law” for the Pentagon to label it as a “Chinese military company” earlier this month.

The Department of War maintains a list of companies that perform services for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China, known as the “1260H List” after the legislation that created it. Since 2021, the list has been updated and refined to paint a full picture of China’s fusion between “private” firms and its military-intelligence complex.

The Pentagon added several big corporate names to the list on June 8, including Alibaba. The listed companies, and the Chinese government, objected to the designations as unfair and arbitrary.

“The U.S. should stop its wrong practice and create a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies,” the Chinese embassy in Washington said, as soon as the updated 1260H list was announced.

Alibaba was particularly aggressive in claiming that it was “not part of any military-civil fusion strategy,” and immediately declared its intention to “take all available legal action against attempts to misrepresent our company.”

Alibaba made good on that threat with a petition to the San Jose division of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. Another Chinese firm, WuXi AppTec, filed its own challenge in the District of Columbia on June 11.

Both Chinese companies claimed they have suffered damages from what they viewed as an unfair designation. Alibaba said it was losing business partners in America, which could severely hinder its U.S. ventures.

A key issue in the lawsuit was Alibaba’s challenge to the Pentagon’s claim that the company is linked to China’s State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).

SASAC is an agency controlled directly by the powerful State Council of China. It manages the “shares” owned by the Chinese Communist government in partly-independent companies, as well as assets that are fully owned by the state.

When Alibaba was added to the 1260H list, the Pentagon said it was “indirectly affiliated” with SASAC, while its ties with MIIT make it a “military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base.”

Alibaba’s suit contents it is merely “regulated” by those agencies, not “affiliated” with them, and it has no choice about complying with their regulations.

“The relationship is no different from Alibaba’s dealings with United States government agencies. A regulator is not an affiliate,” the company contended.

The Chinese company further claimed its designation interferes with its First Amendment rights, because lobbyists that work for companies on the 1260H list can be restricted from doing business with the Department of War.

“The designation thus does not merely impose commercial costs – it strips Alibaba of its ability to speak, to petition the government through its chosen representatives,” the petition said.

On Monday, the Chinese government added ten American firms to its export control list, seemingly in retaliation for Alibaba and other firms being placed on the 1260H list.

Chinese state media said the move was “a response to Washington’s repeated weaponization of unilateral sanctions and entity lists to suppress Chinese enterprises, including its groundless addition of Chinese firms to its so-called military-industrial entity list.”

Keep reading

British Cop Banned from Policing for Having Christian Book in Work Locker Wins Settlement

A former British police officer who was banned from serving after asking questions about Islam has reached a settlement with the police force that banned him.

“I am pleased to have now reached a settlement, I want to move on with my life but believe radical national change is needed in our police force,” former officer Luke Salmons said, according to the BBC.

Salmons ran afoul of the rules when during an October 2024 training session he asked some hard questions about Islam.

“The whole day was pretty much about Islam. At one point the trainers walked up and down the room for several minutes saying ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ over and over again. It was bizarre,” he said.

A Muslim sergeant invited him to a discussion over coffee after a private lunch conversation. To be prepared, Salmons brought a copy of “Answering Jihad — A Better Way Forward” by Nabeel Qureshi, an ex-Muslim turned Christian, to work with him.

Two officers photographed the book, and the next day, the hammer fell when an inspector took him aside.

“She took me in a room, deliberately said to me, ‘I don’t like your beliefs,’ which indicates to me that she was meaning my Christian beliefs, which is discrimination towards me and my faith, which in itself is gross misconduct,” he said, according to Fox News.

Keep reading

MP Materials’ Lawsuit Against USA Rare Earth Highlights Battle For America’s Future In Minerals

USA Rare Earth has dismissed a lawsuit filed by MP Materials, calling the claims “completely without merit” and arguing the case is an attempt to slow its growth. The company said it will deny all allegations that it improperly obtained confidential information from a former MP employee, according to Bloomberg.

The dispute underscores intensifying competition in the U.S. rare-earth sector, where both companies are racing to build domestic mining, processing, and magnet-production capabilities. USA Rare Earth said MP is trying to impede its progress as it develops the Round Top deposit in Texas and a magnet facility in Oklahoma.

Bloomberg writes that MP sued last month, alleging a coordinated effort by USA Rare Earth to recruit MP employees and misuse proprietary information. The lawsuit also questioned the viability of USA Rare Earth’s projects. MP declined to comment on the latest filing.

Keep reading

California-Certified Gay Government Procurement Program Challenged on Legal Grounds

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) runs a procurement preference program for businesses owned by lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individuals, operating under General Order 156. A business qualifies as an LGBT Business Enterprise if it is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by LGBT individuals.

In California, “utilities” are privately owned companies that hold near-monopolies delivering essential services such as electricity, natural gas, water, or internet and phone service, and are therefore regulated by the state through the CPUC. To operate, utilities purchase goods and services from outside vendors, construction, engineering, fuel, IT, and similar services.

Under CPUC’s Supplier Diversity Program, utilities are given goals for directing a share of that vendor spending to certified women-, minority-, disabled-veteran-, and LGBT-owned businesses, giving LGBT-certified firms a procurement advantage in competing for utility contracts.

There are both indirect and procedural incentives for utility compliance with CPUC’s LGBT procurement goals. The CPUC controls matters that are consequential to utilities, including rate approvals, infrastructure proceedings, and merger approvals.

One example is the Verizon-Frontier merger. A CPUC administrative law judge recommended approval of the $20 billion deal only if new diversity conditions were attached. This recommendation came even after Verizon had already committed to the FCC to eliminate its workforce and supplier-diversity goals.

Utilities that resist these procurement goals risk creating friction in these higher-stakes proceedings.

Compliance is also reinforced through reporting requirements. Utilities must file annual plans, collect demographic data on vendors, and explain in writing any shortfall against the stated goals.

Certified firms enter a supplier database administered by the Supplier Clearinghouse and used by participating utilities for procurement decisions, with certification valid for three years. CPUC’s category-specific contracting goals now stand at 15 percent for minority-owned firms, 5 percent for women-owned firms, 1.5 percent for disabled-veteran-owned firms, and 1.5 percent for LGBT-owned firms.

The LGBT category sits within a broader supplier-diversity framework dating to 1986, when Governor George Deukmejian signed Assembly Bill 3678, requiring CPUC-regulated utilities to submit annual plans for purchasing from woman- and minority-owned companies; CPUC created its Supplier Diversity Program two years later to enforce the law and set contracting goals. In September 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring CPUC to recognize LGBT-owned businesses as eligible for supplier-diversity benefits, and the CPUC added LGBT businesses to General Order 156 the following year.

Governor Newsom expanded the program in 2019, encouraging energy-sector companies to award contracts to gay-owned firms. The LGBT procurement target phased in at 0.5 percent in 2022 and 1 percent in 2023, reaching the current 1.5 percent goal by unanimous CPUC vote in April 2022. During the rollout, advocacy groups pushed CPUC toward fuller implementation.

BuildOUT California, an LGBT building-industry organization since rebranded, told the commission that homophobia persisted within utility companies’ ranks, and the state legislature’s LGBTQ caucus wrote in 2021 that lowering gay-procurement targets would insult the LGBTQ+ community.

Keep reading

Florida Sues TikTok Over Age Verification Failures as Digital ID Mandate Takes Effect

Florida wants every social media user in the state to prove how old they are. The method is up to the platforms and the options include government ID uploads, biometric face scans, payment credentials, and behavioral profiling. Now the state is suing TikTok for not doing it fast enough.

Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a 66-page complaint Monday in St. Lucie County Circuit Court, accusing TikTok of letting children under 14 create accounts, skipping parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds, and lying to parents about what their kids actually see on the app.

The lawsuit names TikTok Inc., its parent company ByteDance and several related entities. It’s the first enforcement action under House Bill 3, Florida’s Online Protections for Minors Act, which took effect January 1, 2025 after spending two years tangled in court challenges.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. 

HB 3 bans social media platforms with addictive design features from contracting with children 13 and younger and requires parental consent before 14- and 15-year-olds can open accounts.

Violations carry fines of $50,000 each. But to block minors, platforms first have to figure out who is and isn’t a minor, which means age-checking every user, adults included.

Florida is building an identity verification regime for the internet under the banner of protecting kids and the surveillance costs of that project land on millions of people who have done nothing wrong.

Keep reading

FTC sues transgender health group for ‘misleading’ parents about necessity of transitioning kids

The Federal Trade Commission followed through on its nearly year-old pledge to crack down on allegedly false and misleading statements about so-called gender affirming care, suing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in a Texas federal court known for friendliness to Republican attorneys general.

Texas, Iowa, Alaska and Nebraska joined the FTC in Wednesday’s lawsuit, alleging state-specific harms caused by WPATH, which was notably not cited by Democrats or their witnesses in a recent Senate hearing on pediatric gender medicine.

WPATH developed its Standards of Care 8 “without regard for scientific protocols,” “knows that its recommendations are not supported by scientific evidence or a medical consensus” and yet “misrepresents the risks and benefits of pediatric medical transition” by falsely claiming gender transitions for kids are “lifesaving,” the suit says. 

The Biden administration was caught after the fact successfully pressuring WPATH to remove age minimums in SOC-8, as the suit documents.

The group has an economic interest in pediatric gender transitions, as it advocates expanding insurance coverage to pay for them, “promotes the purchase of its members’ pediatric medical transition services” and financially benefits “by leveraging its position as the de facto authority on transition medicine in the United States,” the suit says.

“WPATH has provided to clinicians the means by which they deceive children and their parents into purchasing pediatric medical transition services,” it says.

The group also hid side effects from gender-affirming treatments, including “mood disturbances,” vaginal and erectile pain and “inability to orgasm” from cross-sex hormones, according to the FTC.

“For decades, the FTC has taken action against entities that make deceptive and unsubstantiated health-related claims,” Chairman Andrew Ferguson said. “The complaint filed today reflects that same long-standing mandate: when an entity makes a claim about a medical treatment, the claim must be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading.”

Keep reading

Gun Shops File Lawsuit Against Colorado’s ‘Warrantless Searches’ and Gun Registry Requirements

A lawsuit brought by firearms dealers in Colorado is challenging a new law which implements “warrantless searches” and requires Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs) to maintain a gun registry.

The Courthouse News Service noted that the plaintiffs in the suit includes “the Centennial Gun Club, five firearms dealers and organizations.”

Defendants are Gov. Jared Polis (D), Attorney General Phil Weiser (D), and Colorado Department of Revenue executive director Heidi Humphreys.

The suit centers on HB26-1126, which Polis signed into law on June 2, 2026. The new law requires an FFL to also have a state firearms permit in order to transfer guns and broadens record-keeping requirements, so as to “apply to all retail transactions.” The record must contain “the name of the person that received the firearm and the recipient’s age and address.” This record-keeping becomes the registry and partial motivator for the current lawsuit.

Under HB26-1126, law enforcement can visit the FFL’s store and check the records and “the dealer shall make the records…available at all times for inspection by a duly authorized peace officer.”

The Courthouse News Service noted that “dealers who refuse to allow their records to be inspected can be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor.”

Moreover, in the lawsuit filed by the Centennial Gun Club and others, plaintiffs claim the searches violate privacy rights: “The Fourth Amendment broadly protects businesses from warrantless searches, including businesses engaged in commerce with customers who exercise no independent constitutional rights.”

Additionally, the lawsuit says: “The regime…injures plaintiffs’ customers, who face the prospect that their lawful firearms purchases will be surveilled without warrant protections, chilling the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.”

Keep reading