Summary: US Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of FCC FCC fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million Legal dispute over constitutional right to jury trial The U.S. Supreme Court backed the Federal Communications Commission's system for levying fines, ruling on Thursday against wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon in their challenge to the agency and handing a win to President Donald Trump's administration.  The ruling was 8-1. At issue in the legal dispute was whether the agency's in-house proceedings for imposing the penalties deprived the companies of their right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution. Trump's administration defended the FCC's system for assessing financial penalties, known as forfeiture orders.  The FCC fined AT&T $57 million and Verizon nearly $47 million after the agency concluded that the companies had unlawfully sold access to customer location data to third parties without securing the consent of users.  In all, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on carriers that it said failed to safeguard customer data. It fined T-Mobile $80 million and Sprint, which T-Mobile acquired in 2020, $12 million.  Verizon and AT&T paid the fines they were assessed but also filed legal challenges that eventually led to a split among regional U.S. appellate courts over the lawfulness of the FCC's in-house procedure for imposing the penalties.  In Verizon's case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the fine. The Constitution permits the FCC to provide an initial penalty assessment as long as an accused party can challenge the government's collection efforts in court, the 2nd Circuit ruled, prompting Verizon's appeal to the Supreme Court.  In AT&T's case, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC's initial assessment of wrongdoing and a fine deprived the company of its constitutional right to a jury trial. That ruling prompted the FCC to appeal to the Supreme Court.  The legal dispute marked the latest case to test whether a federal agency's internal enforcement arrangement violates the constitutional right to a jury trial after the Supreme Court in 2024 curbed the power of in-house proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In the government's defense of the FCC's in-house system, Justice Department lawyers had argued that the agency's assessments are not binding. If the government were to bring an enforcement action in court, it would allow the companies to make their case before a jury, the lawyers argued.  The companies, for their part, said that the FCC's system impermissibly uses in-house proceedings for a process that belongs in court, depriving them of their right to a jury trial. The FCC's initial assessments, they added, inflict reputational harm before the accused have had their day in court.  The Supreme Court in 2025 also issued an important ruling involving the FCC, endorsing the way the agency funds its multi-billion-dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries.  Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham

Summary: USTR proposes tariffs up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 countries European Union and other partners reject forced labor tariff claims Public comments open until July 6 with hearing on July 7     The Trump administration has proposed new tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports from 60 economies after determining they had failed to curb trade in goods made with forced labor, an assertion that was rejected by its trading partners.  The proposal from the U.S. Trade Representative's office, issued late on Tuesday, comes from a Section 301 unfair trade practices investigation designed to help rebuild U.S. President Donald Trump's emergency tariffs, struck down by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in February.  Despite laws banning them, the products of forced labor are deeply embedded in supply chains across the world. European lawmakers bristle at the accusation that the region is less effective than the U.S. at curbing the trade in such goods, with one describing the U.S. findings as "utterly absurd". Business leaders said the U.S. move created more confusion for companies.  The USTR proposed 10 percent additional duties on imports from Canada, Ecuador, the European Union, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Malaysia, Taiwan and Britain. The USTR said all had plans or partial schemes in place.  The trade agency said it would impose additional duties of 12.5 percent on the remaining 45 countries that it investigated. These include China, India, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.  "The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. "This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field."  The USTR said it would accept public comments on the proposed tariffs and other remedies through July 6, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7.  EUROPE SAYS NEW TARIFFS ARE UNJUSTIFIED  The announcement comes ahead of the July 24 expiration of a 10 percent temporary tariff imposed by the Trump administration on February 20, the day the Supreme Court struck down Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.  The European Commission said the tariffs were unjustified and reiterated its commitment to the trade deal sealed with Washington last year.  Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, which voted on Tuesday to accept that trade deal, said the new tariffs were expected, but said the results of the U.S. investigation were still "utterly absurd" given a 2024 EU law to ban imports of forced labor products.  "The impression is increasingly emerging that a tariff measure is sought first, and only then is a suitable legal justification found," he said. However, he added that the key question would be whether the additional tariffs would exceed those agreed between both sides last July.  The U.S.'s largest trading partner, the EU, agreed last July to accept tariffs of 15 percent on a broad range of its exports. In its report, the USTR said the EU anti-forced labor measures only came into force in December 2027 and lacked key elements.  "We know there are ups and downs in what people say," French Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters after a cabinet meeting. "But the goal is to ratify the (trade) accord and stick to that."  However it was unclear whether the proposed tariffs — which the U.S. release described as "additional duties" — would come on top of levies agreed in bilateral deals signed with the U.S.  Britain said it was in regular talks with the United States and was taking action to tackle forced labor. It added that the preferential access to U.S. markets that it had negotiated for UK businesses remained in place.  Taiwan said it was "hopeful and confident" that the final results would reflect agreements already reached, securing relatively preferential treatment.  Beijing, facing 12.5 percent tariffs, said that it opposed all forms of unilateral tariffs and that there was no forced labor in China. India, confronted with the same rate, said it was engaged with Washington on the Section 301 proceedings, noting the proposed tariffs were not final.  "There will be deep concerns in the international business community that the US (forced labor law could) become a global template," said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce.  "Anyone can make a claim, get a shipment impounded and the company has to prove no forced labor in supply chain."  The USTR moreover said it would exempt from tariffs products including energy, rare earths and some other metals, beef, coffee, certain fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals and aircraft parts.  It also said it was proposing a textile mechanism that would allow for a certain volume of apparel and textile imports to enter the U.S. at a reduced tariff rate, without giving details.  The ICC's Wilson said the list of exemptions over 76 pages suggested sensitivities over the potential cost-of-living hit to food and other goods with known forced labor risks.  "It doesn't make sense if the object of this is to enhance controls on modern slavery," he said.  Reporting by Anusha Shah in Bengaluru, Philip Blenkinsop in Brussels; Elizabeth Pineau in Paris; Josephine Mason in London; Editing by Jacqueline Wong, Thomas Derpinghaus and Hugh Lawson

Summary: Elon Musk settled with SEC for $1.5 million penalty Judge Sparkle Sooknanan questioned settlement fairness SEC cited largest penalty of its type in settlement Elon Musk and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission defended their settlement over his purchase of Twitter shares, saying it reflected compromises and was not tainted by collusion, after the judge overseeing the case said the accord raised "red flags." Musk called the settlement a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution where "each side gave something up and each side gained something," according to a June 1 filing in the Washington, D.C., federal court. In a separate filing on the same day, the SEC added that the accord would let Musk publicly deny its accusations, reflecting a recent policy change governing defendants who settle enforcement actions. The settlement requires a trust in Musk's name to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty to resolve SEC claims the world's richest person took 11 days too long in March and April 2022 to disclose his purchase of Twitter shares, letting him buy at low prices before investors caught on. Musk maintained that the delay was inadvertent. He ultimately paid $44 billion for Twitter in October 2022 and renamed it X. Musk's businesses also include Tesla and SpaceX. At a May 13 hearing, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said she could not "rubber stamp" the settlement, questioning why the SEC fined the trust instead of Musk and was content to recoup just 1 percent of his $150 million of alleged ill-gotten gains. She also said she must consider whether the settlement served the public interest and was not tainted by collusion or corruption. SEC SAYS THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS THE PUBLIC Musk and the SEC said the settlement did not reflect "improper collusion," and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations. According to the SEC, the $1.5 million penalty is the largest of its type, topping the previous $950,000 high, and settling with the trust mirrored the regulator's practice in recent cases. "The public benefits from an injunction that has the practical effect of binding Musk whenever he acts through the Revocable Trust, an investment vehicle that he appears to use to manage much of his wealth," the SEC said. Musk, meanwhile, said he could have won at trial, including over whether a politically motivated SEC singled him out for enforcement and targeted his free speech. He contrasted the penalty with the $500,000 penalty imposed in 2024 against billionaire investor Carl Icahn for "far more serious" conduct, waiting more than three years to reveal he pledged a majority of stock in his Icahn Enterprises to obtain billions of dollars in personal margin loans. Icahn Enterprises paid a separate $1.5 million penalty. "Accepting a certain, immediate, record civil penalty in exchange for releasing a legally doubtful claim is paradigmatic bilateral compromise," Musk said. Musk is a former adviser to Republican President Donald Trump. The SEC sued Musk six days before Democratic President Joe Biden left the White House. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has refocused the regulator's priorities, as the Trump administration curtails corporate enforcement activity. Former SEC enforcement chief Margaret Ryan left abruptly in March after just six months on the job, following clashes with SEC leaders over enforcement.  Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Stephen Coates and Chizu Nomiyama