Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Media Bureau Seeks Comment on Sports Broadcasting Practices and Marketplace Developments
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (MB Docket No. 26-45) on Feb. 25, 2026:
* * *
For decades, Americans have enjoyed turning on their television sets and quickly finding the games they wanted to watch for free on an over-the-air broadcast. Yet watching your favorite sports team play is not as easy these days. Many games are still available for free over broadcast TV, but there has been a surge in recent years of games going behind the paywalls of various streaming services. While this can increase the number of games
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (MB Docket No. 26-45) on Feb. 25, 2026:
* * *
For decades, Americans have enjoyed turning on their television sets and quickly finding the games they wanted to watch for free on an over-the-air broadcast. Yet watching your favorite sports team play is not as easy these days. Many games are still available for free over broadcast TV, but there has been a surge in recent years of games going behind the paywalls of various streaming services. While this can increase the number of gamesand sports available to fans, many consumers today find it more difficult to find the events they want to watch and are now paying to sign up for one or more video distribution platforms that consumers can find difficult to navigate.
From a historic perspective, live sports and broadcast television have enjoyed a long and mutually beneficial relationship--one that worked well for consumers too. Sports leagues leveraged the wide distribution of broadcast TV to help grow their fan base and expand their revenues. In turn, broadcast television stations used the popularity of live sports and the advertising revenues from the programming to support their own industry and operations, including funding the local news and reporting that are so important to our country.
It is against this backdrop that the Media Bureau issues this Public Notice today. We would like for commenters to address the current and emerging trends in the distribution of live sports programming. How does the present marketplace benefit or harm consumers? How does the recent trends towards fragmentation facilitate or inhibit the ability of local broadcast television stations to meet their public interest obligations, including their production of local news and reporting? In what ways is the marketplace continuing to evolve and how will future changes impact consumer access to free over-theair news and information, including public safety information? A broader range of questions are specified below.
Background. Live sports on television dates back to the 1939 World's Fair, when NBC (then owned by RCA) broadcast a college baseball game between Princeton and Columbia at Baker Field in New York. The picture quality left a lot to be desired back then, with reports indicating that the players looked like flies and the ball itself was rarely visible. It was early days for broadcast television. The signal was delivered through NBC's mobile television van and relayed to a transmitter atop the Empire State Building before being viewed across 400 or so television sets in the New York area. Princeton won 2-1 in ten innings.
Over the ensuing decades, a range of live sports--led by sports like boxing, baseball, hockey, basketball, and football--helped drive the American public's adoption of television. In turn, television led to an increased popularity of professional and collegiate sports, and a new source of revenue for sports leagues and teams through "media rights fees" paid by networks or stations for the right to broadcast sporting events. Since the 1960s, sports media rights fees have exponentially increased. For example, in 1960 the American Football League (AFL) entered into a five-year rights contract with ABC for $8.5 million and in 1961 the National Football League (NFL) entered into a two-year rights agreement with CBS for $9.8 million./1 In comparison, the most recent media rights deals entered into by the NFL amounted to more than $10 billion per year./2
In an era when broadcast TV was the only way for the American public to watch professional sports, short of buying a ticket to attend a game in-person, Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 (SBA), which provided certain antitrust relief to sports leagues to negotiate media rights. In particular, the SBA exempts from antitrust laws joint agreements among individual teams engaged in professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey./3 The SBA permits the professional sports leagues in each of those sports--the NFL, Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), and National Hockey League (NHL)--to pool their individual teams' television rights and sell those rights as a package. The packaging of individual teams' television rights was thought to be necessary to enhance the financial stability of the leagues by assuring equal distribution of revenues among all teams./4
The SBA also permits the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL to "blackout" TV broadcasts "within the home territory of a member club of the league on a day when such club is playing a game at home."/5 TV blackouts were believed by the professional sports leagues to be necessary to protect gate receipts and encourage fans to attend games in-person./6 The SBA does not provide any antitrust exemptions to college sports.
Live sports are no longer on broadcast TV alone. Today, the NFL has media rights agreements with Disney (ESPN/ABC), Paramount (CBS/Paramount+), Fox Corporation (Fox/Fox One), NBCUniversal (NBC/Peacock), NFL Network, Amazon (Amazon Prime Video), Google (YouTube), and Netflix. Over the life of these agreements the NFL stands to bring in over $100 billion in sports rights fees./7 The other major professional sports leagues, the NHL, MLB, and NBA, have also agreed to media rights contracts with a range of national video program distributors that amount to billions of dollars./8
Over the last two decades college athletic conferences have also entered into multi-billion dollar media rights agreements./9 Both professional sports leagues and college athletic conferences have also launched their own networks/10 and direct-to-consumer streaming services./11 As a result, today, NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL games can be found on broadcast, cable, and streaming services. Further, revenue derived from sport rights fees (national and local) is now a vital revenue source in sports, and in some cases is replacing gate receipts and other forms of income as the largest source of revenue./12
At the same time, sports remain inherently local, despite the increasingly national nature and reach of both professional and college sports events. Just as communities turn to their local TV broadcasters for news, weather, and emergency information, they do the same for coverage of their local sports teams. Many sporting events that were previously available through free broadcast and traditional pay-TV packages, are now only available through a myriad of stand-alone subscription streaming services. This shift has led to notable frustration among many consumers and sports fans./13 Sports fans are increasingly left with a fragmented ecosystem that requires them to subscribe to multiple services to watch their favorite teams./14
Request for Comment. Given the nexus between sports programming and the local media marketplace--as well as the FCC's ongoing work to support local news and reporting--we believe it is important for us to evaluate the sports media landscape and understand how changes have impacted consumers and broadcasters. Accordingly, we seek comment on the following questions.
With respect to the sports media marketplace, how have recent developments in the marketplace affected the ability of broadcasters to obtain media rights to sports programming? How have changes in the marketplace affected viewers' ability to watch nationally televised live sports, as well as their local team(s), on broadcast TV? What type of rights (e.g. exclusive, simulcast, replay) are included in agreements between leagues or conferences and national video programming distributors? How prevalent are sports media rights deals between local TV broadcasters and local sports teams and what are their terms and conditions? How have changes in the marketplace impacted costs to consumers?
While streamers have helped expand access to professional and collegiate sports, they also appear to have contributed to the fragmentation of the sports media marketplace. In 2025, NFL games aired on 10 different services, which, according to some estimates, could cost a consumer over $1,500 to watch all games./15 In addition, 20 NFL regular season games and one playoff game were nationally distributed, exclusively, on four different streaming services--Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, Peacock, and Netflix./16 While the NFL requires streamers to syndicate/simulcast games over TV broadcast stations in the local markets of the competing teams, this is a private contractual arrangement between the NFL and its distributors. Do any other professional or collegiate sports also have such a requirement? Are there relevant differences between games being distributed on linear streamlining services versus other streaming platforms? Are there any SBA implications associated with games distributed through nonbroadcast channels? Does it matter if the distribution platforms are subscription-based services or not?/17
To what extent do current sports media rights contracts conflict with or impede TV broadcasters from meeting their public interest obligations? How should these arrangements be considered in the context of broadcasters' public interest obligations and the FCC's duty to ensure licensees meet their statutory requirements?/18 Does it impact consumer access to public safety and other emergency information? What role does the FCC have and what steps could it take to ensure any broadcast licensee responsibilities are fulfilled? Do local broadcast TV stations face challenges in airing other sports programming of interest to their local communities (e.g., local high school sports)? With one or more significant sports rights deals coming up for renewal, how should those negotiations factor into the FCC's analysis?
In addition to these specific questions, we invite comment on any other matters that parties believe would help the Commission understand the current sports media marketplace, its legal authority, and what actions the FCC could take to ensure continued access by viewers to live sports through free over-the-air broadcast TV.
Interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Parties should file all comments and reply comments in MB Docket No. 26-45.
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./19 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 section 1.1206(b)./20 In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f),/21 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.
Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. 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/.
* 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.
o 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.
o Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
o 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.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
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 (voice).
Additional Information. For further information regarding this Public Notice, please contact Chad Guo, Media Bureau, at Chad.Guo@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0652.
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-188A1.pdf
SEC Penalizes 777 Partners Executive in $300 Million Fraud Case
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order instituting public administrative proceedings pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (File No. 3-22596) against Damien Alfalla, a certified public accountant. This action follows a Dec. 16, 2025, final judgment by consent that permanently enjoined Alfalla from future violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.
Alfalla, 49, of Pelham, New York, served as the Chief Financial Officer and a board member of Miami-based
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order instituting public administrative proceedings pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (File No. 3-22596) against Damien Alfalla, a certified public accountant. This action follows a Dec. 16, 2025, final judgment by consent that permanently enjoined Alfalla from future violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.
Alfalla, 49, of Pelham, New York, served as the Chief Financial Officer and a board member of Miami-based777 Partners LLC and 600 Partners LLC until February 2024. The Commission alleged that Alfalla misled investors during a preferred equity offering by claiming the entities had sufficient income to pay promised dividends. However, Alfalla failed to disclose a $300 million overdraw of a credit facility, a fact that would have impacted the ability to pay such dividends.
The administrative action is linked to a broader legal matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a parallel criminal case, Alfalla pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and securities fraud. By entering an offer of settlement, Alfalla admitted to the jurisdiction of the Commission and the findings regarding his conduct.
Effective immediately, the Commission has suspended Alfalla from appearing or practicing before it as an accountant. This sanction reflects the determination that a suspension is in the public interest given the permanent injunction and criminal convictions for misconduct involving federal securities laws.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/34-104879.pdf
SEC Obtains Final Consent Judgments Involving Alleged Insider Trading Case
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:23-cv-06438; S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph C. Lewis, et al., No. 1:23-cv-06438 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2023)
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today the entry of final consent judgments as to Joseph C. Lewis, Carolyn W. Carter, Patrick J. O'Connor, and Bryan L. Waugh in the SEC's civil enforcement action against Lewis, his then-girlfriend Carter, and his private pilots, O'Connor and Waugh.
According to the SEC's complaint,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:23-cv-06438; S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph C. Lewis, et al., No. 1:23-cv-06438 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 2023)
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today the entry of final consent judgments as to Joseph C. Lewis, Carolyn W. Carter, Patrick J. O'Connor, and Bryan L. Waugh in the SEC's civil enforcement action against Lewis, his then-girlfriend Carter, and his private pilots, O'Connor and Waugh.
According to the SEC's complaint,filed in federal district court in the Southern District of New York, Lewis obtained material, nonpublic information about two public companies through his majority ownership and control of a biotechnology investment fund. As alleged, Lewis then violated a duty of trust and confidence by tipping this information to Carter, who realized ill-gotten profits by trading in the stock of both companies on the basis of this information. Separately, the complaint alleged that Lewis tipped information about one of the companies to O'Connor and Waugh, who realized ill-gotten profits by trading in that company's stock on the basis of this information.
The Court entered the final judgments as to Lewis and Carter on November 26, 2024 and February 13, 2025, respectively, and entered the final judgments as to O'Connor and Waugh on February 4, 2026. Carter and Waugh neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the SEC's complaint. The final judgments permanently enjoin the defendants from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and order them to pay penalties, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest in the following amounts:
* * *
Penalty ... Disgorgement ... Prejudgment Interest
Lewis ... $1,636,645.11 ... - ... -
Carter ... $241,154.81 ... $241,154.81 ... $43,589.44
O'Connor ... $24,221.53 ... $171,886.12 ... $29,257.46
Waugh ... $33,126.86 ... $132,507.44 ... $22,554.64
* * *
The SEC's litigation was conducted by Carina Cuellar and Timothy Work and supervised by Jim Carlson and Jim Connor. The SEC's investigation was conducted by Mr. Work, with assistance from Howard Kaplan, Yongping Zheng, and Kevin Gershfeld, under the supervision of Kevin Guerrero and Mark Cave. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the National Securities Commission of Argentina, the Central Bank of Uruguay, the UK Financial Conduct Authority, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, and the Autorite des marches financiers of Quebec.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Joseph C. Lewis (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26489-lewis.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Carolyn W. Carter (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26489-carter.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Bryan L. Waugh (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26489-waugh.pdf)
* Final Judgment - Patrick J. O'Connor (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26489-oconnor.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26489
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Primarily Secondaries: Remarks Before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on Feb. 24, 2025, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee:
* * *
Good morning, and thank you all for attending today's meeting. Welcome to the Committee's new members. I appreciate the work of the Committee and the willingness of experts to share their views as panelists. I also appreciate the work of the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation in supporting the Committee's work.
I commend the Committee for its continued focus
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on Feb. 24, 2025, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce before the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee:
* * *
Good morning, and thank you all for attending today's meeting. Welcome to the Committee's new members. I appreciate the work of the Committee and the willingness of experts to share their views as panelists. I also appreciate the work of the Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation in supporting the Committee's work.
I commend the Committee for its continued focuson finders and look forward to any recommendations the Committee develops. As I mentioned at the last meeting, current activity in this area is shaped by a muddled web of no-action letters that is out of step with practical realities. Last meeting's discussion of status quo finder activity underscored that point. The absence of a finder's framework does not deter bad actors. Good actors may unwittingly act as finders, or, if they are aware of the law's unduly strict limitations, may observe from the sidelines rather than helping to match investors and companies. I appreciated your in-depth discussion of what sensible finders regulation could look like and your focus on how finders can help companies to raise money in amounts too small for brokers to bother with. You covered a lot of other territory as well, from essential disclosures for finder activity to AI agents. I hope today's discussion will be equally interesting and constructive as you devise recommendations.
This afternoon, the committee will discuss an increasingly mainstream area of our capital markets, private secondaries. The growth of these markets, from $162 billion in total volume in 2024 to $240 billion in 2025[1], makes today's conversation timely. I would be interested in hearing what today's panelists think is in store for the remainder of the year. Will the trend continue?
Some of the growth in private secondary markets may stem from an IPO market that, while showing some promising signs of activity, is still not where we would like it to be. Private market investors increasingly are able to turn to secondary markets to exit certain positions and re-allocate capital. While beneficial to investors looking for an exit, the flexibility provided by private market tools such as continuation vehicles diminishes the pressure on companies to IPO.[2] As I expect we will hear from our panelists today, secondary markets are developing to accommodate a wide range of demands that are met by liquidity providers that specialize in a range of transactions. If capital for companies and liquidity for investors and employees are available privately, why take on the burdens associated with being a public company? As this panel discusses the secondary markets, I would appreciate hearing to what degree activity in this space trades off with initial public offerings and what factors investors and issuers consider when deciding which path to pursue.
Though I am happy to see capital formation occur in either the private or public markets, I am aligned with Chairman Atkins' goal of revitalizing IPOs. Our public markets have benefits that simply cannot be recreated privately. The Commission can do more to improve liquidity in our private markets, but public markets facilitate price discovery and retail access in ways that the private secondary markets cannot duplicate perfectly. One long-overdue change that the Commission staff recently made has allowed closed-end funds investing 15% or more of their assets in private funds to sell to non-accredited investors with no minimum investment amount. Has this change been apparent in the marketplace? What else could the Commission do to improve efficiency in and retail access to these markets?
Regardless of what we do to expand retail access to private markets, most retail investor portfolios are likely to be concentrated in the public markets. When companies remain private longer those public investors miss out on the opportunity to fully appreciate the growth of companies that in the past may have occurred after those companies went public. While I am heartened to see markets develop solutions to capital allocation problems, the rapid growth of the private secondary market signals the need for earnest efforts to enhance the palatability of our public markets. Thank you and have a productive meeting.
* * *
[1] Jefferies Global Secondary Market Review (Jan. 2026), pg. 3. Available at: https://go.jefferies.com/l/399542/2026-01-23/5v1tf1/399542/1769183474J7SWeVCW/Jefferies___Global_Secondary_Market_Review___January_2026.pdf?utm_term=6840380660
[2] Goldman Sachs 2026 Global M&A Outlook: Think Big, Build Bigger, pg. 7. Available at: https://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/investment-banking/insights/articles/2026-ma-outlook/goldman-sachs-2026-global-ma-outlook.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-022426-primarily-secondaries-remarks-small-business-capital-formation-advisory-committee
FTC Issues COPPA Policy Statement to Incentivize the Use of Age Verification Technologies to Protect Children Online
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Issues COPPA Policy Statement to Incentivize the Use of Age Verification Technologies to Protect Children Online
*
The Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement today announcing that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule) against certain website and online service operators that collect, use, and disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user's age via age verification technologies.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Issues COPPA Policy Statement to Incentivize the Use of Age Verification Technologies to Protect Children Online
*
The Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement today announcing that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule) against certain website and online service operators that collect, use, and disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user's age via age verification technologies.
TheCOPPA Rule requires operators of commercial websites or online services directed to children under 13, and operators with actual knowledge they are collecting personal information from a child, to provide notice of their information practices to parents and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information collected from a child under 13.
Age verification technologies play a critical role in helping parents as they monitor their children's online activities. Since COPPA was enacted in 1998, there's been an explosion in the use of internet-connected technologies by children. To help parents navigate the challenges associated with their children's online activities, some states have started requiring some websites and online services to use age verification mechanisms to help determine the age of users. But as noted at the FTC's recent workshop on age verification technologies, some age verification technologies may require the collection of personal information from children, prompting questions about whether such activities could violate the COPPA Rule.
"Age verification technologies are some of the most child-protective technologies to emerge in decades," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Our statement incentivizes operators to use these innovative tools, empowering parents to protect their children online."
The policy statement states that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the COPPA Rule against operators of general audience sites and services and mixed audience sites and services that collect, use, or disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user's age without first obtaining verifiable parental consent-if they comply with certain conditions, specifically that they:
* do not use or disclose information collected for age verification purposes for any purpose except to determine a user's age;
* do not retain this information longer than necessary to fulfill the age verification purposes, and delete such information promptly thereafter;
* disclose information collected for age verification purposes only to those third parties the operator has taken reasonable steps to determine are capable of maintaining the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the information, including by obtaining certain written assurances from those third parties;
* provide clear notice to parents and children of the information collected for age verification purposes;
* employ reasonable security safeguards for information collected for age verification purposes; and
* take reasonable steps to determine that any product, service, method, or third party utilized for age verification purposes is likely to provide reasonably accurate results as to the user's age.
The policy statement indicates that the Commission intends to initiate a review of the COPPA Rule to address age verification mechanisms. The policy statement will remain effective until the Commission publishes final rule amendments on this issue in the Federal Register, or until otherwise withdrawn.
The Commission vote to issue the policy statement was 2-0.
The lead staffer on this matter is Manmeet Dhindsa from the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-issues-coppa-policy-statement-incentivize-use-age-verification-technologies-protect-children
USITC Makes Determination in Five-Year (Sunset) Review Concerning Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Makes Determination in Five-Year (Sunset) Review Concerning Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China
*
Bulletin 26-014
Inv. No(s). 731-TA-1153
Contact: Jennifer Andberg, 202-205-1819
The U.S. International Trade Commission has made an affirmative determination in its expedited five-year (sunset) reviews concerning certain tow-behind lawn groomers and parts thereof from China.
Note to Users: This bulletin will be replaced by the news release when the release
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Makes Determination in Five-Year (Sunset) Review Concerning Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China
*
Bulletin 26-014
Inv. No(s). 731-TA-1153
Contact: Jennifer Andberg, 202-205-1819
The U.S. International Trade Commission has made an affirmative determination in its expedited five-year (sunset) reviews concerning certain tow-behind lawn groomers and parts thereof from China.
Note to Users: This bulletin will be replaced by the news release when the releaseis available. News releases are generally issued approximately three hours after a Commission vote.
***
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0225_68190.htm
SEC Reinstates CPA Jennings Following Insider Trading Suspension
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order granting application for reinstatement to appear and practice before the commission as an accountant responsible for the preparation or review of financial statements required to be filed other than as a member of an audit committee (File No. 3-18652). This decision follows a multi-year suspension of Joseph Jennings, a certified public accountant involved in a 2015 insider trading matter.
The original action, issued on August 20, 2018, denied Jennings the privilege of practicing before the Commission. That suspension
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an order granting application for reinstatement to appear and practice before the commission as an accountant responsible for the preparation or review of financial statements required to be filed other than as a member of an audit committee (File No. 3-18652). This decision follows a multi-year suspension of Joseph Jennings, a certified public accountant involved in a 2015 insider trading matter.
The original action, issued on August 20, 2018, denied Jennings the privilege of practicing before the Commission. That suspensionoriginated from findings that Jennings, while serving as a director at a major accounting firm, obtained material nonpublic information regarding a merger between H.J. Heinz Company and Kraft Foods Group, Inc. While in possession of this information, Jennings purchased 100 Kraft call options in a relative's brokerage account. Although the value of these options increased by approximately $150,500 after the merger announcement, Jennings later instructed the brokerage to let the options expire without being exercised.
Under the terms of the 2018 order, Jennings was permitted to apply for reinstatement after two years if he met specific conditions. In his current application, Jennings demonstrated good cause for returning to professional practice. The Commission determined that he has satisfied the necessary requirements to resume work specifically as a preparer or reviewer of financial statements.
As part of the reinstatement, Jennings has agreed to specific oversight measures. He attests that any work he performs for companies filing with the Commission will be reviewed by an independent audit committee or through another manner acceptable to the agency.
Jennings is restricted from serving as a member of an audit committee or acting as an independent accountant at this time. Should he wish to expand his practice into those areas in the future, he must submit a separate application to the Commission proving continued compliance with all regulatory terms. The current order effectively restores his ability to function in a corporate accounting capacity for public issuers.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2026/34-104880.pdf
