verge-rss

Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty Images

Since the New Deal era, the bulk of the functioning US government is the administrative state — think the acronym soup of agencies like the EPA, FCC, FTC, FDA, and so on. Even when Capitol Hill is not mired in deep dysfunction, the speed at which Congress and the courts operate no longer seems suitable for modern life. Both industry and ordinary people look to the administrative state, rather than legislators, for an immediate answer to their problems. And since 1984, the administrative state largely ran on one Supreme Court precedent: Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
That decision has now been overturned. Admin law is not always interesting, but the simple fact is when it comes to the day-to-day, agencies are the most impactful part of the federal government. No single policy writer at The Verge can fully articulate the impact of Friday’s Supreme Court decision and how profound its effects will be. The administrative state touches everything around us: net neutrality, climate change, clean air and water, and what scant consumer protections we have.
The true scope of this ruling will not be immediately felt, and what replaces Chevron deference is still unclear. The regulatory state has been under steady attack from an increasingly conservative judiciary for a long time. Some of the agencies we follow most closely were kneecapped even before this decision — one expert we talked to said that Chevron had been a “dead letter for quite some time.”
Still, this is a formal turning point. The biggest policy stories at The Verge have centered around federal agencies. And for a long time, the kind of regulation that actually kept up with the pace of technology was mostly coming out of agencies. It is in the years to come that we will wonder, “Why isn’t anyone doing anything?” or “How can a court just unilaterally do that?” about issues that range from trivial to life-threatening.
We’ll look back on this moment as a pivotal part of how we got there.
What is Chevron deference?
It is a longstanding doctrine in which courts defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. The underlying reasoning is that subject matter experts within the agency are probably able to make more informed decisions than a judge recently assigned to the case. Chevron deference is strong deference — and the low bar for deferring to agencies means that regulations tend not to get tied up in court.
“The key point of Chevron was that laws like these are policy decisions, and those policy decisions should be made by the political branches responsive to the voters, Congress and the president, not by unaccountable judges with no constituents,” David Doniger, an attorney and senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund, said in a press briefing earlier this month. Doniger happened to litigate and lose the case that gave Chevron deference its name.
While the practice had been in place for decades before, it came to be known as Chevron deference after a 1984 case: Chevron v. NRDC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chevron, allowing the Ronald Reagan administration’s industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency to stick with a lax interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
Over the years, Chevron deference has enabled federal agencies to tackle all sorts of issues that legislators have yet to cover — from addressing greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change to regulating broadband access. As the conservative legal movement to disempower the administrative state grew, Chevron deference became — in certain circles — shorthand for government overreach.
Before its decision to overturn Chevron, the Supreme Court had already dealt a blow to federal agencies’ regulatory authority by strengthening the “major questions” doctrine in its 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA. According to the major questions doctrine, a federal agency shouldn’t have the leeway to craft regulation on an issue of major national significance if Congress hasn’t explicitly allowed it to do so in legislation.
When two cases calling for an end to Chevron deference worked their way up to SCOTUS, the writing was on the wall
The same bloc of six conservative justices that formed the majority in West Virginia v. EPA also overturned the longstanding precedent of Roe v. Wade — an even older case than Chevron — in the same month. When two cases calling for an end to Chevron deference worked their way up to the Supreme Court this year, the writing was on the wall — and once again, those same six justices overturned Chevron.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce were factually about an agency rule on fishing boats, but everyone more or less knew that Chevron was on the line. The cases garnered support from a broad swath of industry interests, including Gun Owners of America and e-cigarette companies.
Legal commentator Matt Ford wrote earlier this year that this interplay between the judiciary and industry was hardly an open secret, quoting Don McGahn — who would eventually become Trump’s White House counsel — at CPAC 2018 saying outright that “the judicial selection and the deregulatory effort are really the flip side of the same coin.”
It’s not yet certain what has replaced Chevron, though some of the wording in the decision suggests we may fall back on a doctrine known as Skidmore deference — a weaker deference, meaning that judges have more power to block agency rules. “The idea that Skidmore is going to be a backup once you get rid of Chevron, that Skidmore means anything other than nothing, Skidmore has always meant nothing,” Justice Elena Kagan said during oral arguments in January.
The new threat to net neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission has famously interpreted Title II of the Communications Act to regulate internet service providers as common carriers in a policy known as net neutrality. Reclassifying ISPs as telecommunications services, rather than information services, would let the FCC impose more regulations on the industry, including mandating that they can’t unfairly block or throttle internet traffic. The idea is to keep ISPs from controlling what information users do or don’t see on the internet. In its latest move to restore the rules, the FCC said reclassifying ISPs as common carriers would also give the agency more oversight over internet outages and help it better secure internet infrastructure.
That interpretation could come under threat, even as the FCC just recently voted to reinstate net neutrality after it was repealed during the Trump administration. “Overruling Chevron has the potential to change the tenor of the impending judicial challenge to the new net neutrality rules dramatically,” University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Christopher Yoo wrote in an article published prior to the Supreme Court ruling. That’s in part because prior judicial review relevant to net neutrality has taken Chevron deference into consideration.

For example, even when the FCC previously chose to classify ISPs in a way that would lead to lighter-touch regulation, the Supreme Court ruled in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services that Chevron deference should be applied to the FCC’s interpretation of the Communications Act. “Brand X’s conclusion that the statute at issue is ambiguous made it highly likely that reviewing courts applying Chevron would uphold the net neutrality rules under review regardless of whether they were regulatory or deregulatory,” Yoo wrote.
The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.
There’s still some hope at the appeals level that the FCC could successfully argue that its interpretation of its authority to regulate broadband is the best way to read the law. But Schettenhelm told The Verge it will be a “tough sell” to a conservative and business-friendly Supreme Court, which could make the final call on net neutrality.
After the opinion came out, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a think tank that receives funding from ISPs including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, cheered the decision and said it makes it “even less likely that the FCC’s recent regulatory overreaches on Digital Discrimination and Title II for the Internet will survive judicial review.” ITIF said the FCC’s November 2023 digital discrimination order — which allows the agency to fine telecom companies when they fail to provide equal connectivity to different groups without a good reason — could also be in danger. “Now, the Commission will no longer have the refuge of statutory ambiguity to shield this overreach from judicial scrutiny,” ITIF director of broadband and spectrum policy Joe Kane said in a statement.
— Lauren Feiner
What will happen to the environment and efforts to fight climate change
“It’s no coincidence that Chevron itself was an environmental case … especially for an agency like the Environmental Protection Agency that makes these highly technical, highly scientifically based decisions under very, very complicated statutes. Chevron was very important,” Lisa Heinzerling, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, said in a call with The Verge prior to today’s opinion.
Overruling Chevron is essentially a big power grab, experts tell The Verge. It pushes the agency’s technical experts to the side when it comes to crafting environmental protections. In recent years, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court had already whittled down the agency’s regulatory authority — notably, by strengthening the major questions doctrine that Heinzerling describes as “the anti-Chevron.”

As a result, the EPA has already pivoted away from relying on Chevron deference, according to NRDC Action Fund’s Doniger. A rule the EPA finalized in April for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants is a prime example. The Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA not only strengthened the major questions doctrine, it also said that the EPA’s rules shouldn’t determine whether utilities use fossil fuels or renewable energy. That effectively pushed the EPA to turn to controversial technologies that capture carbon dioxide from power plants in its policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The EPA wrote the rule in a way that anticipated the fall of Chevron so that it can withstand legal challenges, Doniger said in a call with The Verge. But even with the EPA’s preemptively defensive crouch, its power plant rule “is incredibly legally vulnerable” to a rollback of Chevron deference, former Trump administration EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a May episode of the Politico Energy podcast.
“The overall pattern here is clear — it’s not just in this decision — the court majority is on a rampage designed to make it harder for the government to protect us,” Doniger said.
— Justine Calma
What happens to the push to regulate Big Tech
Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”
Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

But the FTC has already had to contend with trends cutting away at agency deference for quite some time. For example, the noncompete rulemaking is already facing scrutiny under the Major Questions Doctrine, which is cited in the US Chamber of Commerce’s challenge. It’s a principle that’s shown up in Supreme Court cases that basically says Congress must grant clear authority for questions of great political or economic significance. The chamber argues in its lawsuit to block the FTC noncompete rule that the Supreme Court has invoked the Major Questions Doctrine “to reject similar attempts by administrative agencies to take unprecedented actions with vast economic and political significance based on nothing more than ambiguous and ancillary statutory text—particularly where the agency has never before pointed to that text as a font of regulatory power.”
“The Supreme Court has taken most of the wind out of the sails of Chevron with the Major Questions Doctrine, in the sense that when an agency enters into a regulatory area that it hasn’t been in before, the Supreme Court has created a strong presumption the agency does not have the authority to regulate,” said Jack Beermann, an administrative law expert and professor at Boston University School of Law. “And so Chevron doesn’t enter into the picture in cases like that.”
David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law who led the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection from 2009 to 2012, said that “courts started to back off of Chevron” during the Obama administration, decreasing the utility of citing it as a defense. “As a result, lawyers like myself who were representing agencies would not rely on Chevron, and generally wouldn’t cite it because it wasn’t going to change the balance of the case. But it may signal that you need this deference in order to prevail.” Because of that, the overruling of Chevron could have a more muted impact on an agency like the FTC because “by and large, Chevron has been a dead letter for quite some time,” Vladeck said.
Still, there are some areas where it could come into play or exacerbate existing trends. For example, Khan has sought to enforce Section 5 of the FTC Act, governing “unfair methods of competition,” more expansively than in the past. It’s often cited in antitrust cases alongside other federal statutes like the Sherman Act. But in 2022, the FTC released a policy statement saying it could bring enforcement matters under Section 5 on a standalone basis and that authority under the statute goes beyond that of the other federal antitrust laws. Under Chevron, “the agency could rely on deference to their interpretation in order to say what constitutes an unfair method of competition,” said Ryan Quillian, a partner at Covington who served as deputy director of the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division from 2020 to 2022. But with Friday’s decision, Quillian said, that effort “could be in jeopardy.”
— Lauren Feiner
Tech workers on visas and immigration law
With regards to immigration, Chevron deference has given the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies broad latitude. For example, under Chevron, decisions made by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — the federal agency that, among other things, issues non-immigrant, work-based visas like H-1Bs — were more difficult to challenge because of the requirement that courts defer to federal agencies. Tech companies rely heavily on H-1B workers. Nine of the 10 companies that filed the most H-1B petitions during the 2022 fiscal year —including Amazon, Google, and Meta — were in the tech sector, according to federal data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.
“In the past, employers have had a hard time overturning narrow interpretations of H-1B issues because of Chevron deference,” Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School, told The Verge. “Now, however, people who feel that the agency is too stingy in its interpretation of various visa categories may be more likely to seek court review.”

The desire to seek court review, however, will likely depend on an applicant’s location. Jonathan Wasden, a former government attorney whose firm, Wasden Banias, specializes in visa cases, said the overturning of Chevron will likely create a patchwork system. “I was hoping for them to create a framework, but right now it’s really in the eye of the particular judge that’s reviewing your case — which is great if you’re a litigant and an agency is acting silly, but for the government, it’s going to be a big problem,” Wasden told The Verge. “You’re looking at 96 federal courts with all different views of how the statute is supposed to work.”
Going forward, instead of relying on a single framework across the country, USCIS will likely pay more attention to where an applicant is located to determine how statutes will apply to them. “For an agency that already is challenged, it’s going to be tough, because they’re just not that nimble,” Wasden said.
In other words, the amount of recourse available to a person whose H-1B petition is denied by USCIS will depend largely on their location. predicts that the biggest challenge for the government will be in “as applied” cases, or those that argue that the application of a particular statute or policy — and not the statute or policy itself — is unconstitutional. “There’s going to be a lot of individual litigants with compelling facts across the country on the exact same issue, and we’re going to see a variety of ways to resolve and interpret the law in those cases,” Wasden said.
The effects of this patchwork system will not be felt immediately, nor will they be felt evenly. “A lot needs to be worked out,” said Yale-Loehr, “and it will be confusing and complicated for several years.“
— Gaby Del Valle
Labor and workers’ rights
The overturning of Chevron may make it easier to challenge policies implemented by labor agencies going forward, including efforts to enact workplace safety regulations. The Biden administration has implemented a number of regulations related to workplace safety and worker treatment. This year alone, the Department of Labor extended overtime pay to workers making below $58,656, announced a regulation allowing third parties on worksite inspections, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued new guidance on workplace harassment for the first time since 1999. The regulation raising the salary threshold for overtime pay, slated to go into effect on July 1st, faces multiple legal challenges from industry groups.
In an email to The Verge, Charlotte Garden, a professor of labor law at the University of Minnesota, said the decision to overturn Chevron will likely be “disruptive for workers’ rights.”
“The DOL’s long-standing approach to whether an employee is ‘exempt’ from overtime under the ‘white-collar’ exemption involves looking at both the amount of the employee’s salary, and their duties — so employees are entitled to overtime pay unless they earn more than the salary threshold and perform qualifying duties,” Garden said. Business groups have argued that the DOL “isn’t allowed to set a salary threshold at all” — an argument Garden said is more likely to win now that Chevron is overturned.

“Under Chevron, if a judge thought the [Fair Labor Standards Act] was ambiguous, it would then defer to the DOL’s reasonable interpretation of that statute,” Garden said. “But now, judges are free to decide what they think the best reading is.” As is the case with immigration, different judges will reach different decisions about how to interpret regulations, which could lead to different regulatory schemes across the country.
Under Biden, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been working on heat stress regulations intended to protect workers from increasingly high temperatures on the job — a proposal that has already faced pushback.
“It’s much harder for an agency to take big swings when it’s regulatory authority when it’s not going to get a layup when it goes into defendant,” Alexander MacDonald, a shareholder at Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, told The Verge.
Michael Rubin, a partner with the public interest firm Altshuler Berzon, said the success of these challenges remains to be seen. “They still have to go through the same procedures for challenging it: a challenge goes to court, and it simply means that the courts will take a de novo — fresh look — at the statute,” said Rubin, whose firm has represented gig worker drivers and Apple employees who recently filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the company. More consequential, Rubin adds, is the fact that the Supreme Court is divided on how to construe statutes and constitutional provisions. “There’s likely to be far more litigation, without the benefit of Chevron deference, resulting in greater uncertainties, greater delays, and more inefficient practices throughout the country,” Rubin said. “It’s going to put an enormous burden on Congress and the courts, as well as the agencies, and it will certainly take months — if not years — to determine the actual impact.”
— Gaby Del Valle
The right to repair, copyright, patent law, and the Apple Watch ban
Intellectual property issues will probably see the least impact and almost certainly the lowest body count, but the fact that Chevron deference is applicable to any of these issues at all may be illustrative of the sheer scope of the administrative state.
In 2015, an appeals court applied Chevron to the US International Trade Commission. The ITC does many things, but you likely last heard about it in 2023 when it ruled that the Apple Watch infringed on patents for pulse oximetry, resulting in a temporary ban for imports of the Apple Watch. “I do think the demise of Chevron will affect patent law, though I agree most folks will have bigger fish to fry,” Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, wrote in an email to The Verge. “The ITC would presumably not be entitled to deference in its interpretation of patent law.”
In 2017, an appeals court — controversially — applied Chevron to the Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of patent law. “The PTO makes few substantive rules,” Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in an email. The less agency rulemaking, the less impact overturning Chevron will have.

But there is one notable part of intellectual property law where agency rulemaking matters quite a lot and happens in bulk: every three years, the Copyright Office issues exemptions for DMCA Section 1201. These cover the right to repair, unlocking cellphones, ripping DVDs for archival or educational purposes, taking apart electronic voting machines to test for security issues, and more. The Copyright Office falls under the legislative branch, rather than the executive, where admin law traditionally applies. But earlier in June, an appeals court ruled these DMCA rulemakings were subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, the 1946 statute from which Chevron, Loper Bright, and the entire administrative state stems. These DMCA rulemakings are already contentious, even when enclosed in the usually boring notice-and-comment process — but the combination of this ruling and the death of Chevron may have the recurring triennial conflict sprawling into the courts as well.
To be clear, none of these are necessarily bad outcomes — and as Lemley notes, most people “have bigger fish to fry.” No one is going to think, Well, on the one hand climate change will kill us all, but on the other hand, I have my Apple Watch.
Beyond that, the disempowering of federal agencies means the empowerment of another entity — and in this case, it is the increasingly conservative judiciary. Article III courts do not always make the best decisions, even when it comes to relatively apolitical issues like software copyright. This shift in the balance of power will touch on issues both big and small, dire and inane in the years to come.
— Sarah Jeong

Cath Virginia / The Verge | Photos via Getty Images

Since the New Deal era, the bulk of the functioning US government is the administrative state — think the acronym soup of agencies like the EPA, FCC, FTC, FDA, and so on. Even when Capitol Hill is not mired in deep dysfunction, the speed at which Congress and the courts operate no longer seems suitable for modern life. Both industry and ordinary people look to the administrative state, rather than legislators, for an immediate answer to their problems. And since 1984, the administrative state largely ran on one Supreme Court precedent: Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

That decision has now been overturned. Admin law is not always interesting, but the simple fact is when it comes to the day-to-day, agencies are the most impactful part of the federal government. No single policy writer at The Verge can fully articulate the impact of Friday’s Supreme Court decision and how profound its effects will be. The administrative state touches everything around us: net neutrality, climate change, clean air and water, and what scant consumer protections we have.

The true scope of this ruling will not be immediately felt, and what replaces Chevron deference is still unclear. The regulatory state has been under steady attack from an increasingly conservative judiciary for a long time. Some of the agencies we follow most closely were kneecapped even before this decision — one expert we talked to said that Chevron had been a “dead letter for quite some time.”

Still, this is a formal turning point. The biggest policy stories at The Verge have centered around federal agencies. And for a long time, the kind of regulation that actually kept up with the pace of technology was mostly coming out of agencies. It is in the years to come that we will wonder, “Why isn’t anyone doing anything?” or “How can a court just unilaterally do that?” about issues that range from trivial to life-threatening.

We’ll look back on this moment as a pivotal part of how we got there.

What is Chevron deference?

It is a longstanding doctrine in which courts defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. The underlying reasoning is that subject matter experts within the agency are probably able to make more informed decisions than a judge recently assigned to the case. Chevron deference is strong deference — and the low bar for deferring to agencies means that regulations tend not to get tied up in court.

“The key point of Chevron was that laws like these are policy decisions, and those policy decisions should be made by the political branches responsive to the voters, Congress and the president, not by unaccountable judges with no constituents,” David Doniger, an attorney and senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund, said in a press briefing earlier this month. Doniger happened to litigate and lose the case that gave Chevron deference its name.

While the practice had been in place for decades before, it came to be known as Chevron deference after a 1984 case: Chevron v. NRDC. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chevron, allowing the Ronald Reagan administration’s industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency to stick with a lax interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

Over the years, Chevron deference has enabled federal agencies to tackle all sorts of issues that legislators have yet to cover — from addressing greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change to regulating broadband access. As the conservative legal movement to disempower the administrative state grew, Chevron deference became — in certain circles — shorthand for government overreach.

Before its decision to overturn Chevron, the Supreme Court had already dealt a blow to federal agencies’ regulatory authority by strengthening the “major questions” doctrine in its 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA. According to the major questions doctrine, a federal agency shouldn’t have the leeway to craft regulation on an issue of major national significance if Congress hasn’t explicitly allowed it to do so in legislation.

The same bloc of six conservative justices that formed the majority in West Virginia v. EPA also overturned the longstanding precedent of Roe v. Wade — an even older case than Chevron — in the same month. When two cases calling for an end to Chevron deference worked their way up to the Supreme Court this year, the writing was on the wall — and once again, those same six justices overturned Chevron.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce were factually about an agency rule on fishing boats, but everyone more or less knew that Chevron was on the line. The cases garnered support from a broad swath of industry interests, including Gun Owners of America and e-cigarette companies.

Legal commentator Matt Ford wrote earlier this year that this interplay between the judiciary and industry was hardly an open secret, quoting Don McGahn — who would eventually become Trump’s White House counsel — at CPAC 2018 saying outright that “the judicial selection and the deregulatory effort are really the flip side of the same coin.”

It’s not yet certain what has replaced Chevron, though some of the wording in the decision suggests we may fall back on a doctrine known as Skidmore deference — a weaker deference, meaning that judges have more power to block agency rules. “The idea that Skidmore is going to be a backup once you get rid of Chevron, that Skidmore means anything other than nothing, Skidmore has always meant nothing,” Justice Elena Kagan said during oral arguments in January.

The new threat to net neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission has famously interpreted Title II of the Communications Act to regulate internet service providers as common carriers in a policy known as net neutrality. Reclassifying ISPs as telecommunications services, rather than information services, would let the FCC impose more regulations on the industry, including mandating that they can’t unfairly block or throttle internet traffic. The idea is to keep ISPs from controlling what information users do or don’t see on the internet. In its latest move to restore the rules, the FCC said reclassifying ISPs as common carriers would also give the agency more oversight over internet outages and help it better secure internet infrastructure.

That interpretation could come under threat, even as the FCC just recently voted to reinstate net neutrality after it was repealed during the Trump administration. “Overruling Chevron has the potential to change the tenor of the impending judicial challenge to the new net neutrality rules dramatically,” University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Christopher Yoo wrote in an article published prior to the Supreme Court ruling. That’s in part because prior judicial review relevant to net neutrality has taken Chevron deference into consideration.

For example, even when the FCC previously chose to classify ISPs in a way that would lead to lighter-touch regulation, the Supreme Court ruled in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services that Chevron deference should be applied to the FCC’s interpretation of the Communications Act. “Brand X’s conclusion that the statute at issue is ambiguous made it highly likely that reviewing courts applying Chevron would uphold the net neutrality rules under review regardless of whether they were regulatory or deregulatory,” Yoo wrote.

The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

There’s still some hope at the appeals level that the FCC could successfully argue that its interpretation of its authority to regulate broadband is the best way to read the law. But Schettenhelm told The Verge it will be a “tough sell” to a conservative and business-friendly Supreme Court, which could make the final call on net neutrality.

After the opinion came out, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a think tank that receives funding from ISPs including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, cheered the decision and said it makes it “even less likely that the FCC’s recent regulatory overreaches on Digital Discrimination and Title II for the Internet will survive judicial review.” ITIF said the FCC’s November 2023 digital discrimination order — which allows the agency to fine telecom companies when they fail to provide equal connectivity to different groups without a good reason — could also be in danger. “Now, the Commission will no longer have the refuge of statutory ambiguity to shield this overreach from judicial scrutiny,” ITIF director of broadband and spectrum policy Joe Kane said in a statement.

— Lauren Feiner

What will happen to the environment and efforts to fight climate change

“It’s no coincidence that Chevron itself was an environmental case … especially for an agency like the Environmental Protection Agency that makes these highly technical, highly scientifically based decisions under very, very complicated statutes. Chevron was very important,” Lisa Heinzerling, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, said in a call with The Verge prior to today’s opinion.

Overruling Chevron is essentially a big power grab, experts tell The Verge. It pushes the agency’s technical experts to the side when it comes to crafting environmental protections. In recent years, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court had already whittled down the agency’s regulatory authority — notably, by strengthening the major questions doctrine that Heinzerling describes as “the anti-Chevron.”

As a result, the EPA has already pivoted away from relying on Chevron deference, according to NRDC Action Fund’s Doniger. A rule the EPA finalized in April for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants is a prime example. The Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA not only strengthened the major questions doctrine, it also said that the EPA’s rules shouldn’t determine whether utilities use fossil fuels or renewable energy. That effectively pushed the EPA to turn to controversial technologies that capture carbon dioxide from power plants in its policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA wrote the rule in a way that anticipated the fall of Chevron so that it can withstand legal challenges, Doniger said in a call with The Verge. But even with the EPA’s preemptively defensive crouch, its power plant rule “is incredibly legally vulnerable” to a rollback of Chevron deference, former Trump administration EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a May episode of the Politico Energy podcast.

“The overall pattern here is clear — it’s not just in this decision — the court majority is on a rampage designed to make it harder for the government to protect us,” Doniger said.

— Justine Calma

What happens to the push to regulate Big Tech

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

But the FTC has already had to contend with trends cutting away at agency deference for quite some time. For example, the noncompete rulemaking is already facing scrutiny under the Major Questions Doctrine, which is cited in the US Chamber of Commerce’s challenge. It’s a principle that’s shown up in Supreme Court cases that basically says Congress must grant clear authority for questions of great political or economic significance. The chamber argues in its lawsuit to block the FTC noncompete rule that the Supreme Court has invoked the Major Questions Doctrine “to reject similar attempts by administrative agencies to take unprecedented actions with vast economic and political significance based on nothing more than ambiguous and ancillary statutory text—particularly where the agency has never before pointed to that text as a font of regulatory power.”

“The Supreme Court has taken most of the wind out of the sails of Chevron with the Major Questions Doctrine, in the sense that when an agency enters into a regulatory area that it hasn’t been in before, the Supreme Court has created a strong presumption the agency does not have the authority to regulate,” said Jack Beermann, an administrative law expert and professor at Boston University School of Law. “And so Chevron doesn’t enter into the picture in cases like that.”

David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law who led the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection from 2009 to 2012, said that “courts started to back off of Chevron” during the Obama administration, decreasing the utility of citing it as a defense. “As a result, lawyers like myself who were representing agencies would not rely on Chevron, and generally wouldn’t cite it because it wasn’t going to change the balance of the case. But it may signal that you need this deference in order to prevail.” Because of that, the overruling of Chevron could have a more muted impact on an agency like the FTC because “by and large, Chevron has been a dead letter for quite some time,” Vladeck said.

Still, there are some areas where it could come into play or exacerbate existing trends. For example, Khan has sought to enforce Section 5 of the FTC Act, governing “unfair methods of competition,” more expansively than in the past. It’s often cited in antitrust cases alongside other federal statutes like the Sherman Act. But in 2022, the FTC released a policy statement saying it could bring enforcement matters under Section 5 on a standalone basis and that authority under the statute goes beyond that of the other federal antitrust laws. Under Chevron, “the agency could rely on deference to their interpretation in order to say what constitutes an unfair method of competition,” said Ryan Quillian, a partner at Covington who served as deputy director of the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division from 2020 to 2022. But with Friday’s decision, Quillian said, that effort “could be in jeopardy.”

— Lauren Feiner

Tech workers on visas and immigration law

With regards to immigration, Chevron deference has given the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies broad latitude. For example, under Chevron, decisions made by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — the federal agency that, among other things, issues non-immigrant, work-based visas like H-1Bs — were more difficult to challenge because of the requirement that courts defer to federal agencies. Tech companies rely heavily on H-1B workers. Nine of the 10 companies that filed the most H-1B petitions during the 2022 fiscal year —including Amazon, Google, and Meta — were in the tech sector, according to federal data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.

“In the past, employers have had a hard time overturning narrow interpretations of H-1B issues because of Chevron deference,” Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School, told The Verge. “Now, however, people who feel that the agency is too stingy in its interpretation of various visa categories may be more likely to seek court review.”

The desire to seek court review, however, will likely depend on an applicant’s location. Jonathan Wasden, a former government attorney whose firm, Wasden Banias, specializes in visa cases, said the overturning of Chevron will likely create a patchwork system. “I was hoping for them to create a framework, but right now it’s really in the eye of the particular judge that’s reviewing your case — which is great if you’re a litigant and an agency is acting silly, but for the government, it’s going to be a big problem,” Wasden told The Verge. “You’re looking at 96 federal courts with all different views of how the statute is supposed to work.”

Going forward, instead of relying on a single framework across the country, USCIS will likely pay more attention to where an applicant is located to determine how statutes will apply to them. “For an agency that already is challenged, it’s going to be tough, because they’re just not that nimble,” Wasden said.

In other words, the amount of recourse available to a person whose H-1B petition is denied by USCIS will depend largely on their location. predicts that the biggest challenge for the government will be in “as applied” cases, or those that argue that the application of a particular statute or policy — and not the statute or policy itself — is unconstitutional. “There’s going to be a lot of individual litigants with compelling facts across the country on the exact same issue, and we’re going to see a variety of ways to resolve and interpret the law in those cases,” Wasden said.

The effects of this patchwork system will not be felt immediately, nor will they be felt evenly. “A lot needs to be worked out,” said Yale-Loehr, “and it will be confusing and complicated for several years.“

— Gaby Del Valle

Labor and workers’ rights

The overturning of Chevron may make it easier to challenge policies implemented by labor agencies going forward, including efforts to enact workplace safety regulations. The Biden administration has implemented a number of regulations related to workplace safety and worker treatment. This year alone, the Department of Labor extended overtime pay to workers making below $58,656, announced a regulation allowing third parties on worksite inspections, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued new guidance on workplace harassment for the first time since 1999. The regulation raising the salary threshold for overtime pay, slated to go into effect on July 1st, faces multiple legal challenges from industry groups.

In an email to The Verge, Charlotte Garden, a professor of labor law at the University of Minnesota, said the decision to overturn Chevron will likely be “disruptive for workers’ rights.”

“The DOL’s long-standing approach to whether an employee is ‘exempt’ from overtime under the ‘white-collar’ exemption involves looking at both the amount of the employee’s salary, and their duties — so employees are entitled to overtime pay unless they earn more than the salary threshold and perform qualifying duties,” Garden said. Business groups have argued that the DOL “isn’t allowed to set a salary threshold at all” — an argument Garden said is more likely to win now that Chevron is overturned.

“Under Chevron, if a judge thought the [Fair Labor Standards Act] was ambiguous, it would then defer to the DOL’s reasonable interpretation of that statute,” Garden said. “But now, judges are free to decide what they think the best reading is.” As is the case with immigration, different judges will reach different decisions about how to interpret regulations, which could lead to different regulatory schemes across the country.

Under Biden, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been working on heat stress regulations intended to protect workers from increasingly high temperatures on the job — a proposal that has already faced pushback.

“It’s much harder for an agency to take big swings when it’s regulatory authority when it’s not going to get a layup when it goes into defendant,” Alexander MacDonald, a shareholder at Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, told The Verge.

Michael Rubin, a partner with the public interest firm Altshuler Berzon, said the success of these challenges remains to be seen. “They still have to go through the same procedures for challenging it: a challenge goes to court, and it simply means that the courts will take a de novo — fresh look — at the statute,” said Rubin, whose firm has represented gig worker drivers and Apple employees who recently filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against the company. More consequential, Rubin adds, is the fact that the Supreme Court is divided on how to construe statutes and constitutional provisions. “There’s likely to be far more litigation, without the benefit of Chevron deference, resulting in greater uncertainties, greater delays, and more inefficient practices throughout the country,” Rubin said. “It’s going to put an enormous burden on Congress and the courts, as well as the agencies, and it will certainly take months — if not years — to determine the actual impact.”

— Gaby Del Valle

The right to repair, copyright, patent law, and the Apple Watch ban

Intellectual property issues will probably see the least impact and almost certainly the lowest body count, but the fact that Chevron deference is applicable to any of these issues at all may be illustrative of the sheer scope of the administrative state.

In 2015, an appeals court applied Chevron to the US International Trade Commission. The ITC does many things, but you likely last heard about it in 2023 when it ruled that the Apple Watch infringed on patents for pulse oximetry, resulting in a temporary ban for imports of the Apple Watch. “I do think the demise of Chevron will affect patent law, though I agree most folks will have bigger fish to fry,” Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, wrote in an email to The Verge. “The ITC would presumably not be entitled to deference in its interpretation of patent law.”

In 2017, an appeals court — controversially — applied Chevron to the Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of patent law. “The PTO makes few substantive rules,” Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in an email. The less agency rulemaking, the less impact overturning Chevron will have.

But there is one notable part of intellectual property law where agency rulemaking matters quite a lot and happens in bulk: every three years, the Copyright Office issues exemptions for DMCA Section 1201. These cover the right to repair, unlocking cellphones, ripping DVDs for archival or educational purposes, taking apart electronic voting machines to test for security issues, and more. The Copyright Office falls under the legislative branch, rather than the executive, where admin law traditionally applies. But earlier in June, an appeals court ruled these DMCA rulemakings were subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, the 1946 statute from which Chevron, Loper Bright, and the entire administrative state stems. These DMCA rulemakings are already contentious, even when enclosed in the usually boring notice-and-comment process — but the combination of this ruling and the death of Chevron may have the recurring triennial conflict sprawling into the courts as well.

To be clear, none of these are necessarily bad outcomes — and as Lemley notes, most people “have bigger fish to fry.” No one is going to think, Well, on the one hand climate change will kill us all, but on the other hand, I have my Apple Watch.

Beyond that, the disempowering of federal agencies means the empowerment of another entity — and in this case, it is the increasingly conservative judiciary. Article III courts do not always make the best decisions, even when it comes to relatively apolitical issues like software copyright. This shift in the balance of power will touch on issues both big and small, dire and inane in the years to come.

— Sarah Jeong

Read More 

Illustration: The Verge

The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), the nonprofit that produces Mother Jones and Reveal, announced on Thursday that it’s suing Microsoft and OpenAI over alleged copyright infringement, following similar actions by The New York Times and several other media outlets.
“OpenAI and Microsoft started vacuuming up our stories to make their product more powerful, but they never asked for permission or offered compensation, unlike other organizations that license our material,” Monika Bauerlein, CEO of the Center for Investigative Reporting, said in a statement. “This free rider behavior is not only unfair, it is a violation of copyright. The work of journalists, at CIR and everywhere, is valuable, and OpenAI and Microsoft know it.”
CIR’s lawyers argue in the lawsuit that OpenAI and Microsoft copied its content, undermined relationships with readers and partners, and deprived it of revenue.
CIR joins many others in pursuing legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft. The New York Times has already spent $1 million on its lawsuit against the two companies. A group of eight publications owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital, including the New York Daily News and Chicago Tribune, is also suing, along with The Intercept, Raw Story, AlterNet, and The Denver Post.
Groups of authors have also sued OpenAI, though the lawsuit brought by a group that includes comedian Sarah Silverman was partially dismissed.
Some media organizations have signed licensing deals with OpenAI, including The Associated Press, Axel Springer, the Financial Times, Dotdash Meredith, News Corp, Vox Media (The Verge’s parent company), The Atlantic, and Time.
“We are working collaboratively with the news industry and partnering with global news publishers to display their content in our products like ChatGPT, including summaries, quotes, and attribution, to drive traffic back to the original articles,” an OpenAI spokesperson said to CNBC about CIR’s lawsuit.
OpenAI and Microsoft didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from The Verge.
Disclosure: Vox Media, The Verge’s parent company, has a technology and content deal with OpenAI.

Illustration: The Verge

The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), the nonprofit that produces Mother Jones and Reveal, announced on Thursday that it’s suing Microsoft and OpenAI over alleged copyright infringement, following similar actions by The New York Times and several other media outlets.

“OpenAI and Microsoft started vacuuming up our stories to make their product more powerful, but they never asked for permission or offered compensation, unlike other organizations that license our material,” Monika Bauerlein, CEO of the Center for Investigative Reporting, said in a statement. “This free rider behavior is not only unfair, it is a violation of copyright. The work of journalists, at CIR and everywhere, is valuable, and OpenAI and Microsoft know it.”

CIR’s lawyers argue in the lawsuit that OpenAI and Microsoft copied its content, undermined relationships with readers and partners, and deprived it of revenue.

CIR joins many others in pursuing legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft. The New York Times has already spent $1 million on its lawsuit against the two companies. A group of eight publications owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital, including the New York Daily News and Chicago Tribune, is also suing, along with The Intercept, Raw Story, AlterNet, and The Denver Post.

Groups of authors have also sued OpenAI, though the lawsuit brought by a group that includes comedian Sarah Silverman was partially dismissed.

Some media organizations have signed licensing deals with OpenAI, including The Associated Press, Axel Springer, the Financial Times, Dotdash Meredith, News Corp, Vox Media (The Verge’s parent company), The Atlantic, and Time.

“We are working collaboratively with the news industry and partnering with global news publishers to display their content in our products like ChatGPT, including summaries, quotes, and attribution, to drive traffic back to the original articles,” an OpenAI spokesperson said to CNBC about CIR’s lawsuit.

OpenAI and Microsoft didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from The Verge.

Disclosure: Vox Media, The Verge’s parent company, has a technology and content deal with OpenAI.

Read More 

Deadpool & Wolverine may be the cinematic debut for Charles Xavier’s psychopathic twin sister, but the film’s latest trailer is a reminder that it’s also going to be a trip down memory lane filled with X-Men villains from films of franchises past.
While most of Deadpool & Wolverine’s ad spots so far have put more focus on the titular mutant heroes than the villains they’ll be fighting, the movie’s latest teaser is really just a big reveal that Tyler Mane — who first portrayed Sabretooth in Fox’s X-Men back in 2000 — will reprise his role. Previous trailers featured very brief shots of Kelly Hu’s Lady Deathstrike, Jason Flemyng’s Azazel, Ray Park’s Toad, and Aaron Stanford’s Pyro. With Sabretooth now in the mix, it all makes Deadpool & Wolverine seem poised to work a big chunk of the X-Men’s rogues gallery into the MCU long term.
Or, this could all just be part of Marvel’s plan to send the old X-franchise off with an F-bomb-filled bang before a somewhat different, somewhat new gaggle of mutants become the new stars of the franchise after Deadpool & Wolverine’s debut on July 26th.

Deadpool & Wolverine may be the cinematic debut for Charles Xavier’s psychopathic twin sister, but the film’s latest trailer is a reminder that it’s also going to be a trip down memory lane filled with X-Men villains from films of franchises past.

While most of Deadpool & Wolverine’s ad spots so far have put more focus on the titular mutant heroes than the villains they’ll be fighting, the movie’s latest teaser is really just a big reveal that Tyler Mane — who first portrayed Sabretooth in Fox’s X-Men back in 2000 — will reprise his role. Previous trailers featured very brief shots of Kelly Hu’s Lady Deathstrike, Jason Flemyng’s Azazel, Ray Park’s Toad, and Aaron Stanford’s Pyro. With Sabretooth now in the mix, it all makes Deadpool & Wolverine seem poised to work a big chunk of the X-Men’s rogues gallery into the MCU long term.

Or, this could all just be part of Marvel’s plan to send the old X-franchise off with an F-bomb-filled bang before a somewhat different, somewhat new gaggle of mutants become the new stars of the franchise after Deadpool & Wolverine’s debut on July 26th.

Read More 

Image: Nomad

Nomad is running an overstock sale of various accessories on its site, and an especially notable one is its original Base One Max 3-in-1 MagSafe Charger — offered in black or silver for $95 ($55 off) or in an extra-fancy gold “limited edition” for $120 ($30 off).
This is the original, first-gen model from last year that simultaneously charges a MagSafe iPhone, Apple Watch, and compatible AirPods (or other wireless charging-capable earbuds). It’s got a weighty heft to it, being made of a mix of aluminum and glass, and it’s nearly identical to the revised model that Nomad released soon after, which added Apple Watch fast charging. Faster charging for Apple Watch Series 7 and newer models is a nice feature, but that updated Base One Max runs a much costlier $170. Ouch.

Even at the first-gen Base One Max’s discounted price you can definitely spend less to get a simple 3-in-1 wireless charger, though many of them out there are only “MagSafe Compatible,” meaning they top out at 7.5W on even the latest iPhones. The MagSafe pad portion of the Base One Max charges an iPhone at up to 15W speeds, and it’s Qi-compatible, so you can rest non-magnetic iPhones and even Android phones on it for a slower trickle charge. Also, the Base One Max is one of the nicer-looking designs out there, if you value a simplistic aesthetic and premium materials.

Image: Nomad

Nomad is running an overstock sale of various accessories on its site, and an especially notable one is its original Base One Max 3-in-1 MagSafe Charger — offered in black or silver for $95 ($55 off) or in an extra-fancy gold “limited edition” for $120 ($30 off).

This is the original, first-gen model from last year that simultaneously charges a MagSafe iPhone, Apple Watch, and compatible AirPods (or other wireless charging-capable earbuds). It’s got a weighty heft to it, being made of a mix of aluminum and glass, and it’s nearly identical to the revised model that Nomad released soon after, which added Apple Watch fast charging. Faster charging for Apple Watch Series 7 and newer models is a nice feature, but that updated Base One Max runs a much costlier $170. Ouch.

Even at the first-gen Base One Max’s discounted price you can definitely spend less to get a simple 3-in-1 wireless charger, though many of them out there are only “MagSafe Compatible,” meaning they top out at 7.5W on even the latest iPhones. The MagSafe pad portion of the Base One Max charges an iPhone at up to 15W speeds, and it’s Qi-compatible, so you can rest non-magnetic iPhones and even Android phones on it for a slower trickle charge. Also, the Base One Max is one of the nicer-looking designs out there, if you value a simplistic aesthetic and premium materials.

Read More 

Photo by David Becker / Getty Images

Dr Disrespect’s YouTube channel has been demonetized. In a statement to The Verge, YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell wrote, “We have suspended monetization on DrDisrespect’s channel for violating our Creator Responsibility policy.” Bell also wrote that Dr Disrespect has been suspended from YouTube’s partner program “following serious allegations against the creator.”
The allegations refer to multiple reports that the streamer, whose real name is Guy Beahm, was banned from Twitch in 2020 due to inappropriate messages sent to a minor through Whispers, a Twitch communication app. When Beahm was banned, neither he nor Twitch explained the reason, leaving it a mystery for four years. Late last week, however, Cody Conners, a former Twitch employee, posted on X the alleged reason for Beahm’s ban. “He got banned because got caught sexting a minor in the then existing Twitch whispers product,” Conners wrote. “He was trying to meet up with her at TwitchCon.”
The Verge was able to corroborate Conners’ post with information from a second ex-Twitch employee who was on the trust and safety team at the time of the incident. In a Bloomberg report, two more Twitch employees also came forward to corroborate the allegations.
After Conners’ tweet, Beahm denied the accusations, posting on X, “This has been settled, no wrongdoing was acknowledged and they paid out the whole contract,” referring to a financial dispute Beahm settled against Twitch back in 2021. However, as multiple brands including Turtle Beach and Midnight Society — a game studio Beahm co-founded — began to distance themselves from the creator, Beahm took to social media again to defend himself.
“Were there Twitch whisper messages with an individual minor back in 2017? The answer is yes,” Beahm wrote on X, saying that those messages, “sometimes leaned too much in the direction of being inappropriate.”
Beahm closed the statement by saying he planned to take an extended vacation but would eventually return to streaming. After getting banned from Twitch, Beahm started a YouTube channel in August 2020 that currently boasts over 4 million subscribers. In a report for Rolling Stone, Ryan Wyatt, former head of YouTube’s gaming partnerships, said that YouTube declined to give Beahm a partnership deal when he joined the platform because of the rumors surrounding his exit from Twitch. Partnership deals, like the kind enjoyed by other YouTube creators like Valkyrae and DrLupo, would have granted Beahm access to special YouTube resources and monetization features as well as ad revenue sharing.
“Because of those rumors, there was no reason to entertain doing any deal with [Beahm],” Wyatt said to Rolling Stone.

Photo by David Becker / Getty Images

Dr Disrespect’s YouTube channel has been demonetized. In a statement to The Verge, YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell wrote, “We have suspended monetization on DrDisrespect’s channel for violating our Creator Responsibility policy.” Bell also wrote that Dr Disrespect has been suspended from YouTube’s partner program “following serious allegations against the creator.”

The allegations refer to multiple reports that the streamer, whose real name is Guy Beahm, was banned from Twitch in 2020 due to inappropriate messages sent to a minor through Whispers, a Twitch communication app. When Beahm was banned, neither he nor Twitch explained the reason, leaving it a mystery for four years. Late last week, however, Cody Conners, a former Twitch employee, posted on X the alleged reason for Beahm’s ban. “He got banned because got caught sexting a minor in the then existing Twitch whispers product,” Conners wrote. “He was trying to meet up with her at TwitchCon.”

The Verge was able to corroborate Conners’ post with information from a second ex-Twitch employee who was on the trust and safety team at the time of the incident. In a Bloomberg report, two more Twitch employees also came forward to corroborate the allegations.

After Conners’ tweet, Beahm denied the accusations, posting on X, “This has been settled, no wrongdoing was acknowledged and they paid out the whole contract,” referring to a financial dispute Beahm settled against Twitch back in 2021. However, as multiple brands including Turtle Beach and Midnight Society — a game studio Beahm co-founded — began to distance themselves from the creator, Beahm took to social media again to defend himself.

“Were there Twitch whisper messages with an individual minor back in 2017? The answer is yes,” Beahm wrote on X, saying that those messages, “sometimes leaned too much in the direction of being inappropriate.”

Beahm closed the statement by saying he planned to take an extended vacation but would eventually return to streaming. After getting banned from Twitch, Beahm started a YouTube channel in August 2020 that currently boasts over 4 million subscribers. In a report for Rolling Stone, Ryan Wyatt, former head of YouTube’s gaming partnerships, said that YouTube declined to give Beahm a partnership deal when he joined the platform because of the rumors surrounding his exit from Twitch. Partnership deals, like the kind enjoyed by other YouTube creators like Valkyrae and DrLupo, would have granted Beahm access to special YouTube resources and monetization features as well as ad revenue sharing.

“Because of those rumors, there was no reason to entertain doing any deal with [Beahm],” Wyatt said to Rolling Stone.

Read More 

Illustration: The Verge

AT&T announced Next Up Anytime, a new early upgrade program for customers on an AT&T installment plan, which will be available starting July 16th. At $10 per month, it’s more expensive than AT&T’s existing $6 per month Next Up add-on but gives subscribers the option of upgrading their smartphone as soon as just one installment payment has been made, up to three times per year.
With AT&T’s older $6 monthly Next Up add-on, customers are eligible to trade in and upgrade their devices as soon as they pay off half of it, either through monthly installment payments or sooner with a lump sum payment.
The new Next Up Anytime add-on now allows customers to trade in and upgrade a device after just 33 percent of it is paid off. For AT&T’s 36-month installment plans, that means customers can upgrade after the first year while still being able to take advantage of discounts through upgrade promotions.
For those who want a new smartphone more frequently than that, Next Up Anytime also allows customers to upgrade “as soon as one installment payment and the first Next Up Anytime payment is made.” However, customers choosing that approach won’t be eligible for upgrade promotions — they’ll be paying the full price for a new device — and are limited to three upgrades per year.

When AT&T launched its Next monthly fees for annual upgrades in 2013, we did the math and figured out that they could become a huge ripoff with their sliding scale of installment fees. This plan’s flat rate makes things easier, but it’s still going to be a pricey way to live for people who want to swap out their on-contract phones regularly.
An AT&T customer unhappy with the lack of a telephoto lens on the Google Pixel 8A they bought in May could upgrade in August to the Galaxy Z Fold 6 that we expect Samsung will announce next month. At that point, they could switch to AT&T’s new Next Up Anytime add-on, which would allow them to upgrade to the Google Pixel 9 (assuming an earlier release date this year), followed by the iPhone 16 in September and then Samsung Galaxy S25 in February — if anyone actually does this, please contact us.

Illustration: The Verge

AT&T announced Next Up Anytime, a new early upgrade program for customers on an AT&T installment plan, which will be available starting July 16th. At $10 per month, it’s more expensive than AT&T’s existing $6 per month Next Up add-on but gives subscribers the option of upgrading their smartphone as soon as just one installment payment has been made, up to three times per year.

With AT&T’s older $6 monthly Next Up add-on, customers are eligible to trade in and upgrade their devices as soon as they pay off half of it, either through monthly installment payments or sooner with a lump sum payment.

The new Next Up Anytime add-on now allows customers to trade in and upgrade a device after just 33 percent of it is paid off. For AT&T’s 36-month installment plans, that means customers can upgrade after the first year while still being able to take advantage of discounts through upgrade promotions.

For those who want a new smartphone more frequently than that, Next Up Anytime also allows customers to upgrade “as soon as one installment payment and the first Next Up Anytime payment is made.” However, customers choosing that approach won’t be eligible for upgrade promotions — they’ll be paying the full price for a new device — and are limited to three upgrades per year.

When AT&T launched its Next monthly fees for annual upgrades in 2013, we did the math and figured out that they could become a huge ripoff with their sliding scale of installment fees. This plan’s flat rate makes things easier, but it’s still going to be a pricey way to live for people who want to swap out their on-contract phones regularly.

An AT&T customer unhappy with the lack of a telephoto lens on the Google Pixel 8A they bought in May could upgrade in August to the Galaxy Z Fold 6 that we expect Samsung will announce next month. At that point, they could switch to AT&T’s new Next Up Anytime add-on, which would allow them to upgrade to the Google Pixel 9 (assuming an earlier release date this year), followed by the iPhone 16 in September and then Samsung Galaxy S25 in February — if anyone actually does this, please contact us.

Read More 

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

Just having fun while we make this website. At the time of this writing, the latest “war” being waged over what’s cool and what’s not is about how tall your socks are. Ankle socks: OUT. Old. Uncool and millennial, apparently. Crew socks: IN. Evolved. Rebellious (???). The preferred sock for Gen Z, some are saying. Does it matter if any of this is empirically true? No! But manufactured generational warfare is probably selling a lot of crew socks right now.
The lifecycle of trends has never been shorter — current fads disappear as quickly as they bubble up. When anyone can prompt a discourse or viral feud, no trend ends up mattering much in the long run. So here’s The Verge staff taking a temperature on what’s hot and what’s not. Maybe some of this will catch on. And I’m sorry if any of it hurts your feelings.

Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images

Just having fun while we make this website.

At the time of this writing, the latest “war” being waged over what’s cool and what’s not is about how tall your socks are. Ankle socks: OUT. Old. Uncool and millennial, apparently. Crew socks: IN. Evolved. Rebellious (???). The preferred sock for Gen Z, some are saying. Does it matter if any of this is empirically true? No! But manufactured generational warfare is probably selling a lot of crew socks right now.

The lifecycle of trends has never been shorter — current fads disappear as quickly as they bubble up. When anyone can prompt a discourse or viral feud, no trend ends up mattering much in the long run. So here’s The Verge staff taking a temperature on what’s hot and what’s not. Maybe some of this will catch on. And I’m sorry if any of it hurts your feelings.

Read More 

Baldur’s Game 3 admittedly doesn’t look this sharp on the Steam Deck, but it plays really well. | Image: Larian

For many of us, summer can get just too hot to go outside and have fun. Thankfully, though, this season brings more than just heatwaves — there are also sales like Steam’s, so you can enjoy gaming while keeping cool inside. Along with discounting the Steam Deck as we highlighted earlier this week, Valve is also now discounting a ton of games through July 11th as a part of the Steam Summer Sale.

There are hundreds of discounted games with some, like Celeste, going for just $1.99 ($18 off) — and there are other well-known titles on sale. One of my favorites, for instance, is Steam’s 2023 Game of the Year, Baldur’s Gate 3, which I found particularly enjoyable to play on the Steam Deck, even if the graphics weren’t the best. It’s now down to its all-time low of $47.99 ($12 off).
Other newer games are also on sale, like Dragon’s Dogma 2, with its endearing NPC pawns that make the game a true delight. Normally $69.99, you can buy the fantasy action RPG game for just $55.99. Even the odd yet strangely engrossing Animal Well is on sale for $22.49, which is a small $2.50 discount but also the best price we’ve seen since its release in May.

A couple more deals to wrap up the week

If you’re looking for a way to keep mosquitoes at bay without using a spray, right now, the Thermacell E55 Rechargeable Mosquito Repeller is down to its all-time low of about $29.89 ($10 off) at REI, Amazon and Best Buy. When turned on, the gadget creates a 20-foot zone of protection that repels mosquitoes. It can last up to 12 hours when you use the included scent-free refill and then can quickly recharge via USB-C.
Belkin is currently taking 50 percent off various refurbished chargers and other accessories, including the Belkin BoostCharge Pro 3-in-1 Wireless Charger with MagSafe from 2021. Regularly selling for $149.99 when purchased in new condition, you can buy it refurbished for just $52.49 from Belkin when you apply promo code REFURB50 at checkout. The stand is a MagSafe charger that can deliver 15 watts of power to compatible iPhones and can also charge your Apple Watch and AirPods simultaneously.
Now through July 14th, you can buy a digital copy of Dave the Diver for Nintendo Switch directly from Nintendo for $13.99 ($6 off), which is one of its better prices to date. My colleague Jay Peters called the game one of his favorites from last year, thanks to its charming characters and deep main campaign, as well as stunning pixel art. Read Jay’s hands-on impressions of Dave the Diver.

Baldur’s Game 3 admittedly doesn’t look this sharp on the Steam Deck, but it plays really well. | Image: Larian

For many of us, summer can get just too hot to go outside and have fun. Thankfully, though, this season brings more than just heatwaves — there are also sales like Steam’s, so you can enjoy gaming while keeping cool inside. Along with discounting the Steam Deck as we highlighted earlier this week, Valve is also now discounting a ton of games through July 11th as a part of the Steam Summer Sale.

There are hundreds of discounted games with some, like Celeste, going for just $1.99 ($18 off) — and there are other well-known titles on sale. One of my favorites, for instance, is Steam’s 2023 Game of the Year, Baldur’s Gate 3, which I found particularly enjoyable to play on the Steam Deck, even if the graphics weren’t the best. It’s now down to its all-time low of $47.99 ($12 off).

Other newer games are also on sale, like Dragon’s Dogma 2, with its endearing NPC pawns that make the game a true delight. Normally $69.99, you can buy the fantasy action RPG game for just $55.99. Even the odd yet strangely engrossing Animal Well is on sale for $22.49, which is a small $2.50 discount but also the best price we’ve seen since its release in May.

A couple more deals to wrap up the week

If you’re looking for a way to keep mosquitoes at bay without using a spray, right now, the Thermacell E55 Rechargeable Mosquito Repeller is down to its all-time low of about $29.89 ($10 off) at REI, Amazon and Best Buy. When turned on, the gadget creates a 20-foot zone of protection that repels mosquitoes. It can last up to 12 hours when you use the included scent-free refill and then can quickly recharge via USB-C.
Belkin is currently taking 50 percent off various refurbished chargers and other accessories, including the Belkin BoostCharge Pro 3-in-1 Wireless Charger with MagSafe from 2021. Regularly selling for $149.99 when purchased in new condition, you can buy it refurbished for just $52.49 from Belkin when you apply promo code REFURB50 at checkout. The stand is a MagSafe charger that can deliver 15 watts of power to compatible iPhones and can also charge your Apple Watch and AirPods simultaneously.
Now through July 14th, you can buy a digital copy of Dave the Diver for Nintendo Switch directly from Nintendo for $13.99 ($6 off), which is one of its better prices to date. My colleague Jay Peters called the game one of his favorites from last year, thanks to its charming characters and deep main campaign, as well as stunning pixel art. Read Jay’s hands-on impressions of Dave the Diver.

Read More 

ASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 11: Exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court building. | Photo: Getty Images

On Friday the Supreme Court overturned a longstanding legal doctrine in the US, making a transformative ruling that could hamper federal agencies’ ability to regulate all kinds of industry. Six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn the doctrine, called Chevron deference, which could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections in the US.
Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. That’s supposed to lead to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts.
“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his opinion.
The decision effectively strips federal agencies of a tool they’ve been able to use to take action on pressing issues while Congress tries to catch up with new laws. Chevron deference has come up, for instance, in efforts to use the 1970 Clean Air Act to prevent greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. Overturning it is a big win for lobbyists and anyone else who might want to make it harder to crack down on industry through federal regulation.
“It would really unleash a kind of chaotic period of time where federal courts are deciding what they think all these laws mean. And that can lead to a lot of inconsistency and confusion for agencies and for regulated parties.” Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard, previously told The Verge when SCOTUS heard oral arguments over Chevron deference in January.
It’s called Chevron deference because of a 1984 lawsuit, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In that case, the Supreme Court sided with Chevron rather than the environmental group NRDC — allowing the then industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency under Ronald Reagan to stick with a more lax interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It shows how Chevron deference has been sort of politically agnostic in the past, even though the more recent push to overrule it has aligned with a deregulatory agenda.
“If they toss Chevron out, the Court would be inviting unaccountable judges to freely impose their policy preferences over those of the political branches — exactly what Chevron sought to stop,” David Doniger, a senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund and an attorney who litigated the 1984 case, said in a press briefing earlier this month.
SCOTUS took up Chevron deference this year because of two cases brought by the fishing industry: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The plaintiffs challenged a federal rule that makes fishing companies pay for the cost of observers on vessels to monitor their operations, saying the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) doesn’t actually have the authority to force them to pay because it’s not explicitly written into the fishery conservation statute. Lower courts upheld the mandate, applying Chevron deference.
But there’s a lot more at stake with these cases than fishing boats. Trade groups representing a broad swath of interests from Gun Owners of America to e-cigarette companies have all pushed to overturn or limit Chevron deference.
The fate of net neutrality in the US, for instance, has been tied to Chevron deference. Courts have previously deferred to the FCC on how to define broadband. Is it considered a telecommunications or information service? If it’s telecommunications, then it’s subject to common-carrier regulations and restrictions placed on public utilities to ensure fair access. The FCC has flip-flopped on the issue between the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations — with the FCC deciding in April to restore net neutrality rules.
The Supreme Court’s decision risks bogging down courts with all these nitty gritty questions. They used to be able to punt much of that over to federal agencies, a move that’s out of the playbook now.
Developing…

ASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 11: Exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court building. | Photo: Getty Images

On Friday the Supreme Court overturned a longstanding legal doctrine in the US, making a transformative ruling that could hamper federal agencies’ ability to regulate all kinds of industry. Six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn the doctrine, called Chevron deference, which could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections in the US.

Chevron deference allows courts to defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. That’s supposed to lead to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the conservative-dominated SCOTUS decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts.

“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his opinion.

The decision effectively strips federal agencies of a tool they’ve been able to use to take action on pressing issues while Congress tries to catch up with new laws. Chevron deference has come up, for instance, in efforts to use the 1970 Clean Air Act to prevent greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. Overturning it is a big win for lobbyists and anyone else who might want to make it harder to crack down on industry through federal regulation.

“It would really unleash a kind of chaotic period of time where federal courts are deciding what they think all these laws mean. And that can lead to a lot of inconsistency and confusion for agencies and for regulated parties.” Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard, previously told The Verge when SCOTUS heard oral arguments over Chevron deference in January.

It’s called Chevron deference because of a 1984 lawsuit, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In that case, the Supreme Court sided with Chevron rather than the environmental group NRDC — allowing the then industry-friendly Environmental Protection Agency under Ronald Reagan to stick with a more lax interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It shows how Chevron deference has been sort of politically agnostic in the past, even though the more recent push to overrule it has aligned with a deregulatory agenda.

“If they toss Chevron out, the Court would be inviting unaccountable judges to freely impose their policy preferences over those of the political branches — exactly what Chevron sought to stop,” David Doniger, a senior advisor to the NRDC Action Fund and an attorney who litigated the 1984 case, said in a press briefing earlier this month.

SCOTUS took up Chevron deference this year because of two cases brought by the fishing industry: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The plaintiffs challenged a federal rule that makes fishing companies pay for the cost of observers on vessels to monitor their operations, saying the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) doesn’t actually have the authority to force them to pay because it’s not explicitly written into the fishery conservation statute. Lower courts upheld the mandate, applying Chevron deference.

But there’s a lot more at stake with these cases than fishing boats. Trade groups representing a broad swath of interests from Gun Owners of America to e-cigarette companies have all pushed to overturn or limit Chevron deference.

The fate of net neutrality in the US, for instance, has been tied to Chevron deference. Courts have previously deferred to the FCC on how to define broadband. Is it considered a telecommunications or information service? If it’s telecommunications, then it’s subject to common-carrier regulations and restrictions placed on public utilities to ensure fair access. The FCC has flip-flopped on the issue between the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations — with the FCC deciding in April to restore net neutrality rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision risks bogging down courts with all these nitty gritty questions. They used to be able to punt much of that over to federal agencies, a move that’s out of the playbook now.

Developing…

Read More 

Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge

Surely, you’ve heard Mariah Carey’s holiday smash hit, “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” But have you heard about this other song? It’s also called “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” and uh, it sounds a lot like Mariah Carey. We’re about to spend a long time litigating how that happened.
On this episode of The Vergecast, with the help of Switched on Pop’s Charlie Harding, we dig deep into the new lawsuit filed by the RIAA against two AI companies, Udio and Suno. Those two companies are alleged to have violated music industry copyrights by ingesting vast quantities of recorded songs in order to train their AI models. Copyright law is complicated, these fights against AI companies are everywhere, and there’s really no telling how this is all going to go. But there’s really no way to hear the AI sing “Jay-son De-RULO” and not know exactly where it came from.

After that, we talk about the upcoming phone releases from Samsung, Google, and Motorola and try to figure out if any of the AI features we’ll hear about will actually convince us to buy a new phone. We also talk about some big-deal speaker news, because this is the summer of the party speaker.
Finally, we do a lightning round. We talk about Verizon’s extremely goth new logo, Meta’s latest foray into the fediverse, this week’s Supreme Court decision about social media, and of course, some very important Cybertruck wiper news.

If you want to know more about everything we discuss in this episode, here are some links to get you started, beginning with the RIAA lawsuit:

What the RIAA lawsuits against Udio and Suno mean for AI and copyright
Major record labels sue AI company behind ‘BBL Drizzy’
From 404 Media: Listen to the AI-Generated Ripoff Songs That Got Udio and Suno Sued

Good 4 who? How music copyright has gone too far
From Rolling Stone: A ChatGPT for Music Is Here. Inside Suno, the Startup Changing Everything

Charlie’s excellent podcast: Switched on Pop

And in gadget news:

Samsung just announced a date for its next Unpacked
Google announces surprise Pixel 9 hardware event in August
Motorola’s 2024 Razr phones are ready to make a splash
Beats Pill review: much easier to swallow this time
Ultimate Ears announces new Everboom speaker, Boom 4 with USB-C, and more

Ludacris Performs Free Concert With JBL Speaker: Here’s Where You Can Buy One for Summer

And in the lightning round:

Nilay Patel’s pick: Verizon’s new V logo arrives as the lines blur between 5G, Fios, and streaming

Nilay’s other pick: Supreme Court rules Biden administration’s communications with social media companies were not illegal coercion

Nilay’s other other pick: Tesla Cybertruck recalled again, this time over faulty wiper and trim

David Pierce’s pick: Meta is connecting Threads more deeply with the fediverse

David’s other pick: ChatGPT’s Mac app is here, but its flirty advanced voice mode has been delayed

Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge

Surely, you’ve heard Mariah Carey’s holiday smash hit, “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” But have you heard about this other song? It’s also called “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” and uh, it sounds a lot like Mariah Carey. We’re about to spend a long time litigating how that happened.

On this episode of The Vergecast, with the help of Switched on Pop’s Charlie Harding, we dig deep into the new lawsuit filed by the RIAA against two AI companies, Udio and Suno. Those two companies are alleged to have violated music industry copyrights by ingesting vast quantities of recorded songs in order to train their AI models. Copyright law is complicated, these fights against AI companies are everywhere, and there’s really no telling how this is all going to go. But there’s really no way to hear the AI sing “Jay-son De-RULO” and not know exactly where it came from.

After that, we talk about the upcoming phone releases from Samsung, Google, and Motorola and try to figure out if any of the AI features we’ll hear about will actually convince us to buy a new phone. We also talk about some big-deal speaker news, because this is the summer of the party speaker.

Finally, we do a lightning round. We talk about Verizon’s extremely goth new logo, Meta’s latest foray into the fediverse, this week’s Supreme Court decision about social media, and of course, some very important Cybertruck wiper news.

If you want to know more about everything we discuss in this episode, here are some links to get you started, beginning with the RIAA lawsuit:

What the RIAA lawsuits against Udio and Suno mean for AI and copyright
Major record labels sue AI company behind ‘BBL Drizzy’
From 404 Media: Listen to the AI-Generated Ripoff Songs That Got Udio and Suno Sued

Good 4 who? How music copyright has gone too far
From Rolling Stone: A ChatGPT for Music Is Here. Inside Suno, the Startup Changing Everything

Charlie’s excellent podcast: Switched on Pop

And in gadget news:

Samsung just announced a date for its next Unpacked
Google announces surprise Pixel 9 hardware event in August
Motorola’s 2024 Razr phones are ready to make a splash
Beats Pill review: much easier to swallow this time
Ultimate Ears announces new Everboom speaker, Boom 4 with USB-C, and more

Ludacris Performs Free Concert With JBL Speaker: Here’s Where You Can Buy One for Summer

And in the lightning round:

Nilay Patel’s pick: Verizon’s new V logo arrives as the lines blur between 5G, Fios, and streaming

Nilay’s other pick: Supreme Court rules Biden administration’s communications with social media companies were not illegal coercion

Nilay’s other other pick: Tesla Cybertruck recalled again, this time over faulty wiper and trim

David Pierce’s pick: Meta is connecting Threads more deeply with the fediverse

David’s other pick: ChatGPT’s Mac app is here, but its flirty advanced voice mode has been delayed

Read More