Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
NRC Releases Partial Holtec Application for Small Modular Reactor Construction Permit at Palisades
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Releases Partial Holtec Application for Small Modular Reactor Construction Permit at Palisades
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the first part of a two-part construction permit application from SMR, LLC, a Holtec International subsidiary, related to the proposed Pioneer dual-unit SMR-300 plant that would be co-located with the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert, Michigan. The submission is now available for public inspection on the NRC website.
The company submitted the application
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Releases Partial Holtec Application for Small Modular Reactor Construction Permit at Palisades
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the first part of a two-part construction permit application from SMR, LLC, a Holtec International subsidiary, related to the proposed Pioneer dual-unit SMR-300 plant that would be co-located with the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert, Michigan. The submission is now available for public inspection on the NRC website.
The company submitted the applicationon Dec. 31, seeking a Limited Work Authorization for certain construction activities for two potential SMR-300 units, each of which would produce approximately 340 megawatts electric. The application covers activities such as soil compaction, backfilling, and installing foundations. The NRC anticipates the company will submit the construction permit application's second part by mid-2027. If the NRC issues that permit, the company would still be required to achieve additional safety milestones to obtain a license to operate the facility.
The NRC staff is reviewing the application to determine if it is complete and acceptable for processing. If the application is determined to be sufficient, the staff will docket it and notify SMR, LLC of the staff's planned resources and schedule, not to exceed 18 months, for the detailed technical review. The NRC will then publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing on the application before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Information about the NRC's interactions regarding the SMR-300 project is available on the NRC website (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/pre-application-activities/holtec/smr300).
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The global gold standard for nuclear regulation, the NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-008.pdf
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Comments Invited on CenturyLink's Section 214 Application to Discontinue Domestic Legacy Voice Service as Part of Technology Transition
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-8) on Jan. 13, 2026:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 26-8) on Jan. 13, 2026:
* * *
Unless otherwise specified, the following procedures and dates apply to the application(s) (the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s)) listed in the Appendix.
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), upon initial review, has found the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed herein to be acceptable for filing and subject to the procedures set forth in Section 63.71 of the Commission's rules./1 The application(s)request authority, under section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,/2 and section 63.71 of the Commission's rules,/3 to discontinue, reduce, or impair certain domestic telecommunications service(s) (Affected Service(s)) in specified geographic areas (Service Area(s)) as applicable and as fully described in each application.
In accordance with section 63.71(f) of the Commission's rules, the Section 214 Discontinuance Application(s) listed in the Appendix will be deemed granted automatically on February 13, 2026, the 31st day after the release date of this public notice, unless the Commission notifies any applicant(s) that their grant will not be automatically effective./4 We note that the date on which an application for Commission authorization is deemed granted may be different from the date on which applicants are authorized to discontinue service ("Authorized Date"). Any applicant whose application has been deemed granted may discontinue their Affected Service(s) in their Service Area(s) on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) specified in the Appendix, in accordance with their filed representations. Accordingly, pursuant to section 63.71(f), and the terms outlined in each application, absent further Commission action, each applicant may discontinue the Affected Service(s) in the Service Area(s) described in their application on or after the authorized discontinuance date(s) listed in the Appendix for that application. For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision(s), the date of "public notice" shall be the later of the auto grant date stated above in this Public Notice, or the release date(s) of any further public notice(s) or order(s) announcing final Commission action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding(s) listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket(s) will be closed.
Comments objecting to the application listed in the Appendix must be filed with the Commission on or before January 28, 2026. Comments should refer to the specific WC Docket No. and Comp. Pol. File No. listed in the Appendix for the Section 214 Discontinuance Application. Comments should include specific information about the impact of the proposed discontinuance on the commenter, including any inability to acquire reasonable substitute service. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./5 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
For further information, please see the contact(s) for the specific discontinuance proceeding you are interested in as listed in the Appendix. For further information on procedures regarding section 214 please visit https://www.fcc.gov/general/domestic-section-214-discontinuance-service.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 214.
3/ 47 CFR Sec. 63.71.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(1) (stating, in relevant part, that an application filed by a non-dominant carrier "shall be automatically granted on the 31st day... unless the Commission has notified the applicant that the grant will not be automatically effective"); see also 47 CFR Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(i) (stating that "[a]n application to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition, as defined in Sec. 63.60(i), may be automatically granted... if: The applicant provides affected customers with the notice required under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and the application contains the showing or certification described in Sec. 63.602(b)"); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Order, DA 25248, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (waiving the Adequate Replacement Test's "single replacement service" requirement for a period of two years when a carrier seeks to discontinue a legacy voice service pursuant to section 214(a), thereby allowing carriers to satisfy all three prongs of the Adequate Replacement Test with a bundled service); Technology Transitions, GN Docket No. 13-5, Order on Clarification, DA 25-250, para. 6 (WCB Mar. 20, 2025) (clarifying the applicability of the testing methodology and parameters required for meeting the streamlining criteria when a carrier submits a technology transition discontinuance application relying on the "totality of the circumstances" under the Adequate Replacement Test)).
5/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-46A1.pdf
NCUA Announces Third Round of Deregulation Proposals
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 13 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release:
* * *
NCUA Announces Third Round of Deregulation Proposals
*
Stakeholders Are Encouraged to Review Notice of Proposed Rulemakings and Submit Comments
Alexandria, VA (January 13, 2026) - The National Credit Union Administration today announced the third round of proposed regulatory changes associated with NCUA's Deregulation Project. The project is an ongoing review of NCUA's regulations to ensure regulations are focused on credit unions' safety, soundness, and resilience. The agency
... Show Full Article
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 13 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release:
* * *
NCUA Announces Third Round of Deregulation Proposals
*
Stakeholders Are Encouraged to Review Notice of Proposed Rulemakings and Submit Comments
Alexandria, VA (January 13, 2026) - The National Credit Union Administration today announced the third round of proposed regulatory changes associated with NCUA's Deregulation Project. The project is an ongoing review of NCUA's regulations to ensure regulations are focused on credit unions' safety, soundness, and resilience. The agencyis focused on removing or revising regulations that are: obsolete; overly burdensome; duplicative of other requirements; or guidance.
With today's announcement, NCUA is requesting comments on four proposals that would clarify agency guidance or eliminate unduly burdensome or obsolete requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The four proposals include:
Changes for Nondiscrimination Requirements - 12 CFR 701.31
* The Board proposes to remove This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. 12 CFR 701.31 (Opens new window). NCUA will no longer attempt to summarize requirements more appropriately issued by other agencies.
* Impact on Credit Unions: This does not change credit unions' compliance obligations regarding the FHA and ECOA, but it should lessen any confusion caused by 701.31 which has not kept pace with current law.
* For more information on this proposal, please see: This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2026-00591/nondiscrimination-requirements (Opens new window)
Changes for Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 08-2 Service to Underserved Areas
* The Board proposes to eliminate Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 08-2 (Opens new window).
* Impact on Credit Unions: This change would eliminate a redundant standard currently listed in more than one area. This would ease the compliance burden on FCUs by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must check to ensure compliance with applicable chartering and FOM requirements.
* For more information on this proposal, please see: This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-00592.pdf (Opens new window)
Changes for Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 10-1 Community Chartering Policies
* The Board proposes to eliminate its Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 10-1 (Opens new window).
* Impact on Credit Unions: This change would eliminate a redundant standard currently listed in more than one area. This would ease the compliance burden on FCUs by limiting the number of sources that FCUs must check to ensure compliance with applicable community chartering and FOM requirements.
* For more information on this proposal, please see: This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-00594.pdf (Opens new window)
Changes for Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 11-2 Federal Corporate Credit Union Chartering
* The Board proposes rescinding This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 11-02 (Opens new window).
* Impact on Credit Unions: This proposed rescission would remove guidance regarding procedures and timelines for chartering federal corporate credit unions. This would reduce the regulatory burden by limiting the sources that FCUs must check when chartering a new corporate credit union ensuring all they would need to comply with is the guidance and procedures in the Federal Corporate Credit Union Chartering Manual.
* For more information on this proposal, please see: This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-00595.pdf (Opens new window)
Proposed Regulation Change
Obsolete Regulations
Overly Burdensome Requirements
Duplicative
Guidance
Proposed Regulation Change
12 CFR 701.31 Nondiscrimination Requirements
Obsolete Regulations
Yes
Overly Burdensome Requirements
Yes
Duplicative
Yes
Guidance
Yes
Proposed Regulation Change
IRPS 08-2 Services to Underserved Areas
Obsolete Regulations
Yes
Overly Burdensome Requirements
Duplicative
Yes
Guidance
Proposed Regulation Change
IRPS 10-1 Community Chartering Policies
Obsolete Regulations
Yes
Overly Burdensome Requirements
Duplicative
Yes
Guidance
Proposed Regulation Change
IRPS 11-2 Federal Corporate Credit Union Chartering
Obsolete Regulations
Yes
Overly Burdensome Requirements
Duplicative
Yes
Guidance
To submit comments, type or paste the docket numbers into the search on the This is an external link to a website belonging to another federal agency, private organization, or commercial entity. Federal Rulemaking Portal (Opens new window).
For more information about the NCUA Deregulation Project, visit: https://ncua.gov/news/deregulation-project
***
Original text here: https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2026/ncua-announces-third-round-deregulation-proposals
Motel 6 to Pay $50,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Charge
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Motel 6 to Pay $50,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Charge
*
Charge claimed that Lakeland, Florida facility fired employee because of a disability
TAMPA - Hare Krishna Lakeland, LLC, operating as a Motel 6 in Lakeland, Florida, resolved a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the charge filed with the agency, the Lakeland Motel 6 discriminated against an employee of the basis
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Motel 6 to Pay $50,000 to Resolve EEOC Disability Discrimination Charge
*
Charge claimed that Lakeland, Florida facility fired employee because of a disability
TAMPA - Hare Krishna Lakeland, LLC, operating as a Motel 6 in Lakeland, Florida, resolved a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the charge filed with the agency, the Lakeland Motel 6 discriminated against an employee of the basisof disability, ultimately forcing her to quit her job in approximately July 2023.
"The hotel industry often faces persistent labor shortages," said EEOC Miami District Director Evangeline Hawthorne. "Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities can effectively fill needed jobs with or without reasonable accommodations."
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, unless doing so would present an undue hardship.
As part of the three-year conciliation agreement resolving the charge, Motel 6 agreed to pay the employee $50,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. The company also agreed to implement policies to comply with the ADA, including specific provisions requiring the company to respond to requests for reasonable accommodations in a timely manner. In addition, the employer will provide annual ADA training to all management and non-management staff and report to the EEOC on accommodation requests for three years. Further, Motel 6 will post a notice about equal employment opportunity rights, which encourages employees to report allegations of discrimination.
Tamra Schweiberger, director of the EEOC's Tampa Field Office, said, "We commend Motel 6 for reaching an early resolution of this matter. The policy changes and reporting that the company agreed to are important steps in ensuring a workplace free of discrimination."
For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination. For more information about the ADA, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/ada-your-employment-rights-individual-disability.
The EEOC's Miami District Office's jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges against state and local government employers before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/motel-6-pay-50000-resolve-eeoc-disability-discrimination-charge
FTC Sues JustAnswer for Deceiving Consumers into Enrolling in a Costly Recurring Monthly Subscription
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Sues JustAnswer for Deceiving Consumers into Enrolling in a Costly Recurring Monthly Subscription
*
The Federal Trade Commission today sued JustAnswer LLC and its CEO, alleging the online question-and-answer service deceives people seeking expert advice into enrolling in a monthly recurring subscription without obtaining consumers' affirmative consent. JustAnswer operates JustAnswer.com as well as specialized advice sites like AskALawyerOnCall.com, AskAVeterinarianOnline.com, and AskWomensHealth.com.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Sues JustAnswer for Deceiving Consumers into Enrolling in a Costly Recurring Monthly Subscription
*
The Federal Trade Commission today sued JustAnswer LLC and its CEO, alleging the online question-and-answer service deceives people seeking expert advice into enrolling in a monthly recurring subscription without obtaining consumers' affirmative consent. JustAnswer operates JustAnswer.com as well as specialized advice sites like AskALawyerOnCall.com, AskAVeterinarianOnline.com, and AskWomensHealth.com.
The FTC alleges that JustAnswer and its founder and CEO Andrew Kurtzig falsely claim that consumers can "join" JustAnswer and get access to expert advice for as little as $1 or $5. But when consumers sign up to use the service, JustAnswer actually enrolls them in a recurring monthly subscription costing anywhere from $28 to $125 and immediately charges them this fee, as well as the $1 or $5 join fee. The complaint notes that JustAnswer continues to charge the subscription fee every month until the consumer cancels their subscription.
"JustAnswer's misleading pricing tactics obscured the true price of its services, preventing consumers from making an informed choice on whether JustAnswer's services were worth it to them," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC is focused on ensuring that online sellers transparently price their services."
While JustAnswer provides limited information about the required monthly subscription on its website, it does not disclose the terms clearly and conspicuously as required by the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), according to the complaint. As a result, consumers have provided their credit card information to the company without affirmatively consenting to enroll in an ongoing monthly subscription and pay the monthly fee, the FTC alleged.
The complaint alleges that JustAnswer's and Kurtzig's deceptive conduct violates ROSCA and the FTC Act. The complaint seeks a court order prohibiting the allegedly violative conduct, money back for consumers harmed by the deceptive billing practices, and civil penalties against JustAnswer and Kurtzig.
The Commission voted 2-0 to file the complaint. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.
The FTC staff attorneys on this matter are Samantha Bennett, Evan Rose, and Alyssa Wu of the agency's Western Region San Francisco.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-sues-justanswer-deceiving-consumers-enrolling-costly-recurring-monthly-subscription
FTC Asks Court to Hold Payment Processors in Contempt for Systematically Violating 2015 Order
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Asks Court to Hold Payment Processors in Contempt for Systematically Violating 2015 Order
*
The Federal Trade Commission has asked a federal court to hold the operators of a payment processing operation in contempt for systematically violating their 2015 order with the agency over allegations they illegally processed credit card payments.
In a motion filed in federal court, the FTC alleged that Cliq, Inc., formerly Cardflex, Inc., along with its operators, CEO Andrew Phillips and Chief Technology
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Asks Court to Hold Payment Processors in Contempt for Systematically Violating 2015 Order
*
The Federal Trade Commission has asked a federal court to hold the operators of a payment processing operation in contempt for systematically violating their 2015 order with the agency over allegations they illegally processed credit card payments.
In a motion filed in federal court, the FTC alleged that Cliq, Inc., formerly Cardflex, Inc., along with its operators, CEO Andrew Phillips and Chief Technologyand Security Officer John Blaugrund, have flouted their obligations under the 2015 order. The FTC asked the court to impose at least $52.9 million in compensatory relief for consumers, modify the 2015 order to permanently ban Phillips and Blaugrund from the payment processing business, and appoint a receiver to ensure Cliq and its operators comply with the 2015 order's requirements.
"Cliq and its operators flagrantly violated an FTC order requiring reasonable steps to prevent and detect fraud," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "We will not hesitate to hold accountable companies that ignore red flags and distort the honest functioning of the U.S. payment system."
The FTC alleged that Cliq violated numerous provisions of the 2015 order while processing for companies expressly prohibited by the order. This includes a group of merchants that have separately been indicted for crimes related to this processing. Cliq and its operators alleged violations include:
* Processing hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for at least three clients on Mastercard's Member Alert To Control High (MATCH) list, which includes merchants terminated for violating card brand rules such as having high chargeback rates. Chargebacks occur when a consumer challenges a credit card transaction because the product or service received is not as described.
* Assisting and facilitating clients' tactics to avoid bank and credit card network fraud and risk monitoring programs.
* Processing transactions for high-risk clients without engaging in a reasonable effort to screen those clients' business practices to determine if they are, or are likely to be, deceptive.
* Failing to monitor high-risk clients' sales and transactional activity to determine whether their businesses are engaged in practices that are deceptive, including ceasing all processing for clients with high chargebacks without establishing those clients were not engaged in deception.
Given their repeated violations of the 2015 order, Cliq, Phillips and Blaugrund should be held in contempt and the court should award compensatory relief for injured consumers as well as ordering actions to force Cliq into compliance, according to the FTC.
The motion was filed in the U.S. District Court for Nevada.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-asks-court-hold-payment-processors-contempt-systematically-violating-2015-order
FCC Acts to Bring More Uniform Approach to Handset Unlocking Rules
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 12, 2026:
* * *
FCC Acts to Bring More Uniform Approach to Handset Unlocking Rules
FCC Waives 2007 Rule that Incentivized Handset Theft and Fraud
*
The Federal Communications Commission today took action to bring a more uniform approach to its handset unlocking rules that will benefit consumers. The action also closes a loophole that sophisticated criminal networks and everyday lawbreakers alike have exploited to engage in illicit activity. Specifically, the FCC waived a 2007 rule that required
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on Jan. 12, 2026:
* * *
FCC Acts to Bring More Uniform Approach to Handset Unlocking Rules
FCC Waives 2007 Rule that Incentivized Handset Theft and Fraud
*
The Federal Communications Commission today took action to bring a more uniform approach to its handset unlocking rules that will benefit consumers. The action also closes a loophole that sophisticated criminal networks and everyday lawbreakers alike have exploited to engage in illicit activity. Specifically, the FCC waived a 2007 rule that requiredone wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.
Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement:
"Sophisticated criminal networks have exploited the FCC's handset unlocking policies to carry out criminal acts--including transnational handset trafficking schemes and facilitating broader criminal enterprises like drug running and human smuggling. By waiving a regulation that incentivized bad actors to target one particular carrier's handsets for theft, we now have a uniform industry standard that can help stem the flow of handsets into the black market."
Additional Background Information:
Under the FCC's 2007 unlocking requirements, Verizon is the only major provider that the FCC requires to unlock its handsets 60 days after activation, which is earlier than standard industry practice. The FCC extended this unique requirement in 2021 as a condition of Verizon's acquisition of Tracfone. Verizon has stated that it "saw a spike in fraud of approximately 55% after TracFone moved from its earlier policy of a one-year lock to Verizon's 60-day lock."
Under today's waiver order from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Verizon will, like its competitors, provide unlocking services in alignment with the CTIA Consumer Code for Wireless Service, established in 2013. These voluntary unlocking standards cover disclosure, postpaid and prepaid unlocking policies, notice, response time, and unlocking policy for deployed military personnel.
Due to its unique unlocking responsibility, Verizon's unlocked handsets have too often been effectively stolen and resold on the black market, commanding premium prices on the dark web, particularly in countries like Russia, China, and Cuba. The record demonstrates that the 60-day device locking period is insufficient for the company to effectively detect fraud before unlocking takes place. As a result, Verizon phones have been targeted. Time and again, federal and state law enforcement has investigated and prosecuted transnational handset trafficking schemes, finding they facilitate broader criminal enterprises like drug and human smuggling.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-417932A1.pdf
