America
Critical case in the US: Big tech companies vs government intervention
On Monday, the US Supreme Court heard a significant case that challenges some of the fundamental ideas that have guided the American economic order for the last fifty years.
The case, known as ‘NetChoice v. Paxton’, raises the question of whether the First Amendment prohibits economic regulation of technology platforms such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and TikTok under the guise of ‘free speech’.
NetChoice functions as a trade association for online businesses. NetChoice’s members include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, Nextdoor, PayPal, Snap, TikTok, Verisign, Waymo, and X. The list of members comprises some of the biggest names in the tech industry.
NetChoice and its financial resources
NetChoice is a lobbying group funded by Google, Facebook, Amazon and TikTok. It primarily sues against public rules designed to restrict such companies.
Its budget is huge, accounting for about 15% of the entire Anti-Monopoly department of the federal government.
NetChoice immediately sued to block the law, as well as a similar law in Florida. Initially, the big tech firms attempted to frame the case as a ‘partisan fight’ by claiming that Texas was defending political conservatives against them.
However, this argument failed as there are other laws, such as California’s ‘California Age Appropriate Design Code Act’, which NetChoice sued to block.
Summary of cases
In 2021, Florida and Texas passed laws mandating that social media platforms with over 50 million American users cannot discriminate against users based on their viewpoint. These laws were a clear reaction to Donald Trump’s expulsion from Twitter and Facebook.
In 2021, the two technology groups challenged the Florida law in federal court. The district court blocked enforcement of the injunction and determined that it likely violated the First Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with the trade groups after Florida appealed the decision.
The outcome of the case will have a direct impact on the multi-trillion dollar market, with potential political and social consequences in the US. Big Tech firms face claims related to anti-monopoly, privacy rights, civil rights, and free speech issues. Congress and state legislatures are taking action to address ‘surveillance advertising’ and the exploitation of children by these companies.
This case may disrupt counter-political moves as Big Tech companies’ lawyers claim that the US Constitution does not allow elected officials to interfere with private technology platforms, even when their decisions have significant societal consequences.The case has raised interesting and bizarre questions as arguments unfolded. For instance, Facebook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, argues that the company has the First Amendment right to discriminate racially or religiously in its services or to create services that addict children.
Similarly, Google’s lawyer confirms that the company can delete Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow’s Gmail account due to political disagreement.
During a discussion, Judge Neil Gorsuch inquired about the ability of technology companies, such as Gmail, to delete emails and private direct messages that contain sensitive topics like race, politics, and religion. Clement responded that the decision would depend on the application of the ‘equal protection’ clause, but also noted that this issue involves editorial judgments.
Big Tech received support from a variety of third parties, including the ACLU, privacy law professors, companies like Etsy, historians, civil rights groups, the US Chamber of Commerce, and national security experts such as General Stanley McChrystal.
The judges are uncertain
It is yet to be determined how the Supreme Court judges, who are hearing the case, will address the issue of ‘freedom of expression’.
Judge Gorsuch, for instance, inquired whether ‘algorithms specifically designed to lure young people into addiction or suicide, depression and that sort of thing’ are covered by freedom of expression and can, therefore, be regulated by the state.
Counsel Clement responded that the state could not regulate them.During the hearing, Judge Barrett inquired about the possibility of big tech companies banning users based on their religion.The response was affirmative, indicating that if Google wished to restrict its platform to only Catholics, it would have the right under the First Amendment to exclude Protestants from a Catholic gathering.
Jim Crow in anti-regulation
The argument that technology companies should not be regulated because the government cannot interfere can be traced back to the Civil Rights movement in the US and the conservative reaction to it.
This is reminiscent of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the views of Robert Bork, the Yale University law professor who opposed it. The new case has brought these issues to the forefront once again. Bork judged that racial discrimination could be defended as long as it was ‘privatised’ in relation to the civil rights movement’s struggle against it.His article in The New Republic defending racial segregation was highly controversial. The descendants of Southern slave owners expressed their satisfaction, with a South Carolina banker even writing to Bork that it was ‘very encouraging for them to have a Goldwater man at Yale’.Barry Goldwater was a conservative senator from Arizona.
The editors of The New Republic argued against Bork’s legal opinions. Private property owners have always been able to conduct their affairs within certain public impositions. For example, under English common law, an innkeeper was obliged to admit all customers, provided they were sober and regular. Southern businesses in the US and Bork were abusing private property law and demanding exemption from public obligations. The vocabulary is accessible, and the grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct.
Bork did not defend racism in his article; he found it ‘abhorrent’. However, he believed that the state should not dictate the terms on which businessmen use their private property. The text is now structured logically, with short and simple sentences in the active voice. No changes in content were made.
Southern property rights combined with neoliberal financialisation
In effect, the Yale professor was echoing the arguments of slavery advocates on both sides of the Atlantic during the American Civil War. Southern slave owners and their supporters argued that their slaves were their private property and that state interference in private property was contrary to the fundamental principle of liberalism.
Although the abolitionist Northern republicans won the American Civil War, a compromise was made with the South immediately after the war, giving white landowners there the right to practice racial segregation. These laws, known as the ‘Jim Crow laws’, reinforced racial segregation in the South, with blacks, for example, no longer allowed to enter buses or hotels with whites.
The origin of the term ‘Jim Crow’ is attributed to ‘Jump Jim Crow’, a black-faced song and dance character first created in 1828 by white actor Thomas D. Rice. As a result of Rice’s fame, Jim Crow had become a pejorative expression meaning ‘Negro’ by 1838. When Southern legislatures passed racial discrimination laws against African Americans at the end of the 19th century, these laws became known as the ‘Jim Crow laws’.
Although racial segregation was ended at the federal level in 1964, these arguments continued to have a strong political impact. The South had always favoured civil service rules and anti-monopoly rules because Southerners saw these legal instruments as checks on the overwhelming power of Northern capital.
In the 1960s, Bork opposed anti-monopoly laws that protected small firms against large corporations. He argued that these laws were ‘inefficient’ and harmful to consumers. Large corporations cherished Bork after his article in Fortune magazine, and he gained access to ‘research’ funds with attractive fees.
During the neoliberal era, the trend towards deregulation led to the politicisation of small anti-monopoly corporations and white Southern property owners on an ‘anti-state interventionist’ platform. These groups aligned with the deregulatory aspirations of the era’s hyper-financialisation.
Interestingly, Bork’s theses also influenced the liberal left. Bork believed in economic specialisation and concentration of capital, but he was against populism and small businesses. He viewed monopolies’ price controls as their property rights and a matter of consumer rights.
As a result, he supported all forms of price controls except those based on gender and racial discrimination. The case before the Supreme Court may clarify whether there are any obstacles to this. Bork’s anti-Civil Rights and pro-monopoly reasoning in Big Tech’s defence is easily traceable.
America
US wealthy demolish multimillion-dollar mansions for land
Wealthy buyers in the US are tearing down multimillion-dollar homes shortly after purchasing them for hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, the trend is driven by a shortage of land in prestigious locations, particularly along coastlines.
For ultra-wealthy buyers, the prime factor has become the land’s location rather than the structure standing on it. After the acquired properties are flattened, newer, more modern homes are built on the cleared lots.
Drawing attention to the shift in the luxury real estate market, the report noted:
“The home itself, formerly the primary driver of an expensive real estate purchase, is now almost beside the point. Buyers are competing first and foremost for well-located land, situated on the ocean or a mountaintop.”
The newspaper cited moves by US billionaire William Lauder as an example. Lauder purchased the oceanfront estate of radio host Rush Limbaugh, who died in March 2023, for $155 million and had it completely demolished in July.
Lauder had previously torn down two homes situated on roughly 1.2 hectares of land along the Palm Beach coast. Having initially planned to construct his own residence on the parcel, Lauder subsequently sold the cleared plot for approximately $200 million.
Jonathan Miller, a real estate appraiser, stated that such transactions are becoming increasingly common as land prices rise.
Amid this momentum, estate agents have also begun marketing luxury homes directly as teardown lots.
Listings use artificial intelligence-generated imagery to showcase how the land would look without the structures on it.
Marketers avoid using the word “demolition” directly, resorting instead to terms such as “adaptive reuse”.
Teardown listings rise across luxury housing market
The trend is not confined to the coast and is spreading to other regions across the US.
Data from property brokerage Redfin reveals that references to demolishing buildings are becoming more frequent in sales listings.
The share of such listings exceeds 15% in the Bunker Hill Village area of Houston, while standing at 6.67% in Pimmit Hills, Virginia.
Dina Goldenteyer, a real estate agent working in Miami, remarked that serial demolitions have become more frequent because buyers no longer appreciate homes older than a decade.
Former retail executives Jamie Dooley and Christine Scott spent $3.7 million in 2020 to demolish a seaside home near Destin, Florida.
Although the couple spent five years building a modern home on the cleared site, they listed the resulting new structure with a demolition condition, citing the fact that no one wanted to buy the property as it stood.
William Paddock, an employee at the environmental consultancy WAP Sustainability, pointed to the environmental damage caused by this construction cycle.
Paddock emphasized that tearing down a home of roughly 1,000 square metres and replacing it with a new building of approximately 2,700 square metres generates a carbon footprint equivalent to the annual emissions of an average 250 American households.
America
US inflation reaches 3.7% as midterm election campaign intensifies
An uptick in September inflation as the US midterm elections approach has pushed the cost-of-living debate back to the centre of the agenda for Democrats seeking to regain control of Congress from Republicans.
Annual inflation stood at 3.7% in September, according to the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labour Statistics, with energy, petrol, and electricity costs rising on a monthly basis.
Food prices remained flat from August to September, recording a 2.5% increase compared with the same period last year.
Democrats are anchoring their election campaigns to pledges of easing the cost of living, blaming the price increases on President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the war with Iran.
Trump and Republicans, pointing to the numerous left-wing candidates who won primary elections this year, contend that the opposition has become captive to “communists” within the party.
When annual inflation stood at 2.4% in February, the US and Israel launched the Iran war on the final day of that month, and prices continued to climb throughout the conflict.
The recent acceleration has not entirely reversed the retreat from the 40-year peak of 9.1% recorded in June 2022; however, the rate has remained above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for over five years.
Fed policymakers raised the benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point last month, citing the battle against stubborn inflation. Officials will convene again next week to consider whether to raise rates or hold them within the 3.75% to 4% target range.
Energy and fuel record sharpest increase since first month of war
In September, energy prices posted their largest monthly jump since March, the first full month of the war with Iran, climbing 20.4% year-on-year. Energy costs had risen 2.1% from July to August, after falling 1.5% from June to July and 5.7% from May to June.
Recent escalations in Iranian attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, alongside more frequent strikes by Ukrainian forces against Russian refineries, have strained global crude oil and refined product markets, driving up US petrol and diesel prices.
Petrol prices also recorded their sharpest monthly increase since the first month of the war, climbing 9.1% from August to September, bringing the annual increase to 35.3%.
American Automobile Association (AAA) data shows the average price of regular petrol across the US stands at $4.26 per gallon; while below the level of roughly $4.48 recorded a month ago, it remains more than $1.20 higher than a year earlier. Average gallon prices exceed $6 in California and $5 in both Washington state and Nevada.
Electricity prices rose 0.2% from August to September, offsetting the 0.2% decline between July and August, and were up 4.4% year-on-year.
Heavy power demand from new data centres is feeding through into local household electricity bills. Trump argued that companies must cover the cost of the electricity required by their data centres themselves.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that he was requiring large data centres to generate their own power and feed the surplus back into the local grid, suggesting this could bring about “a major drop” in electricity prices.
Used vehicle market posts monthly rise as food costs stabilise
The cost of food at home fell 0.1% month-on-month in September, while dining out increased 0.2%.
Egg prices dropped to $2.27 a dozen, falling roughly 35% compared with September 2025 and remaining well below the 20-year peak of $6.23 recorded in March 2025.
Ground beef prices rose roughly 2.4% compared with September 2025, but at $6.48 a pound, they remained below the 20-year high of $6.98 reached in June.
Chicken held steady at its year-earlier level of $2.06 per pound last month, having fluctuated between $2.01 and $2.09 since November 2024.
Used car and truck prices fell 1.5% compared with September 2025, but rose 0.7% month-on-month in September following 0.4% increases in both July and August.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that the sector faces severe pressure stemming from a combination of expensive replacement parts and a shortage of skilled labour.
Speaking to The Hill, Long emphasised that every cost pressure across the market is being felt directly at local auto repair shops.
America
Anthropic posts $80.7bn loss ahead of IPO as computing costs soar
Anthropic, developer of the artificial intelligence model Claude, reported a net loss of $80.7 billion for the first six months of 2026 ending 30 June.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing the company’s draft initial public offering prospectus, this recorded loss nearly doubled the $42 billion loss incurred across the entirety of 2025.
The vast majority of that enormous figure, accounting for $72 billion, stemmed from accounting-driven book-value write-downs.
In contrast, the company saw a sharp surge in revenue, with turnover in the first half of the year climbing to $16.3 billion from $1.1 billion in the same period of the prior year.
During this period, Anthropic spent approximately $9 billion on computing power and infrastructure needs, surpassing in just six months the $7.3 billion spent across the whole of 2025.
The company has commitments to pay roughly $450 billion over the next seven to 10 years under cloud service contracts.
Under these obligations, contracts are planned for $111 billion with Google Cloud, $110 billion with Amazon Web Services, and $31 billion with Microsoft.
Anthropic will also spend up to $86 billion by 2033 and 2034, respectively, to lease Nvidia chips through smaller AI-focused cloud providers Nscale and Lambda.
The company could spend an additional $750 billion in the coming years to expand its computing capacity.
Roughly a third of the draft IPO prospectus was dedicated directly to risk factors.
The document highlighted the possibility that models could cause tangible real-world harm, noting that artificial intelligence could exhibit a “self-preservation” tendency and produce responses resembling “blackmail”.
Anthropic warned that the scale of damage caused by an AI-driven “catastrophic event” could render insuring against such risks impossible.
According to market expectations, Anthropic’s IPO could rank among the largest transactions in history, potentially surpassing SpaceX’s record.
Following the market debut, the company’s market valuation is projected to reach up to $2 trillion.
-
Europe2 weeks agoBerlin Left Party backs Israel’s right to exist for coalition pact
-
America2 weeks agoHow will Brazil’s presidential runoff work?
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoThe West is preparing for war not with Russia, but with its own people, French analyst Georges Kuzmanovic insists
-
Russia2 weeks ago71 EU lawmakers demand closure of Russian Houses in 15 member states
-
Europe2 weeks agoMI6 investigates potential leaks after former BND chief is detained
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russian figures discuss American stake in Nord Stream lines
-
Russia2 weeks agoDrone strike shuts down Yandex data centre in Russia’s Ryazan region
-
America1 week agoTrump weighs presidential memorandum to cut surging US diesel prices
