Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
With Excessive Screen Time Linked to Poor Educational Outcomes, Chairman Carr Opens Review of FCC's E-Rate Program to Ensure It Fulfills Congress's Vision for Great Educational Outcomes
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on June 3, 2026, by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
With Excessive Screen Time Linked to Poor Educational Outcomes, Chairman Carr Opens Review of FCC's E-Rate Program to Ensure it Fulfills Congress's Vision for Great Educational Outcomes
-
Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr launched a proceeding that aims to empower parents and better protect children when using networks and services subsidized by the FCC's multi-billion-dollar E-Rate program. The Notice, if adopted by the Commission at its June 25 Open Meeting,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement on June 3, 2026, by Chairman Brendan Carr:
* * *
With Excessive Screen Time Linked to Poor Educational Outcomes, Chairman Carr Opens Review of FCC's E-Rate Program to Ensure it Fulfills Congress's Vision for Great Educational Outcomes
-
Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr launched a proceeding that aims to empower parents and better protect children when using networks and services subsidized by the FCC's multi-billion-dollar E-Rate program. The Notice, if adopted by the Commission at its June 25 Open Meeting,would seek to ensure that E-Rate-funded networks and services are being used for educational purposes, while also strengthening E-Rate program integrity and streamlining program administration to support learning opportunities.
Chairman Carr issued the following statement:
"Over the last several years--and especially during COVID--many schools dramatically increased screen time for kids, with many students now swiping for hours every day. Research has now been pouring in that America's experiment with heightened screen time in schools may be related to the negative educational outcomes we are now seeing in classrooms across the country--from declining academic performance to diminished reading comprehension skills. Indeed, a 2026 Advisory from the Trump Administration's HHS and U.S. Surgeon General catalogs the links between excessive screen time and poor educational outcomes. The important role that technology plays in schools should support learning, not distractions or declining performance.
"For its part, the FCC has been subsidizing connectivity to and within schools for almost 30 years now--spending roughly $3 billion annually at this point. So, today, I shared with my FCC colleagues a proposal aimed at empowering parents and ensuring that our E-Rate program produces the great educational outcomes stakeholders have intended. We will do so through a smart review of the FCC's E-Rate program. While parents have the ability to supervise screen use and monitor Internet access at home, that parental control does not extend the same way into their kids' classrooms and libraries.
"This FCC review is also informed by the actions being taken in states across the country. We are now seeing a movement to address excessive screen time in schools, with some school districts removing devices and reducing screen time, particularly for younger children. Additionally, a number of bills have been introduced in Congress that are aimed at reducing excessive screen time for children, including for E-Rate supported ones. So, with graduation season upon us and many parents now looking ahead to the new school year to come, the time is ripe to have these conversations at the FCC."
Additional Background Information:
Under the FCC's E-Rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries, may apply for discounted eligible telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections services.
The Notice shared today seeks comment on actions to ensure the E-Rate program advances student learning outcomes and to better protect the online safety of children when using E-Rate-funded networks and services, given the number of hours children of all ages spend online. Recognizing the increased use of the Internet and connected devices by children in educational settings, the Notice seeks comment on measures the Commission can take to ensure that E-Rate program funds are being spent consistently with the universal service principles established by Congress.
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's current interpretation of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is the best reading of that statute and whether existing CIPA requirements sufficiently protect children from inappropriate and harmful content when using school and library computers to access E-Rate-funded networks and services. Lastly, the Notice seeks comment on potential legal and policy considerations for assessing children's screen time and protecting children and empowering parents, guardians, and teachers in decision-making involving children's access to E-Rate-funded networks and services.
The Notice also seeks comment on ways the Commission can ensure the E-Rate program complies with the statutory goals established by Congress and directs limited federal funding where it is needed most.
A Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, also shared today, proposes further actions to strengthen E-Rate program integrity by increasing oversight, streamlining administrative processes, including establishing a June 30th deadline for the submission of the FCC Form 473, as well as further modifications to submission requirements.
Under Chairman Carr, the FCC's E-Rate program is undergoing a "top-to-bottom" evaluation. During his tenure, Chairman Carr has rolled back unlawful COVID-era expansions, such as E-Rate funding for off-campus Wi-Fi hotspots and school bus Wi-Fi, as those programs exceeded the FCC's congressional authority and wasted federal funds. These continuing efforts are part of a larger effort to implement tougher oversight of all USF programs to combat waste, fraud and abuse, and ensure strict program integrity.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-422148A1.pdf
SEC Obtains Final Judgment in Fraudulent Offering
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:21-cv-04211-HDV-MAR; C.D. Cal. filed May 20, 2021) involving Ross Gregory Erskine:
* * *
On May 20, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to Ross Gregory Erskine in connection with the SEC's civil enforcement action against him.
On May 20, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint alleging that, between approximately May 29, 2018, and May 29, 2019, LFS Funding Limited Partnership raised more than $618,000 from investors through a fraudulent
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:21-cv-04211-HDV-MAR; C.D. Cal. filed May 20, 2021) involving Ross Gregory Erskine:
* * *
On May 20, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment as to Ross Gregory Erskine in connection with the SEC's civil enforcement action against him.
On May 20, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint alleging that, between approximately May 29, 2018, and May 29, 2019, LFS Funding Limited Partnership raised more than $618,000 from investors through a fraudulentsecurities offering of limited partnership interests. The complaint further alleged that Erskine, who was not registered as a broker or dealer, solicited prospective investors to purchase interests in the partnership, including by providing them private placement memorandums that contained materially misleading statements, and received commissions upon successfully soliciting an investor to purchase interests in the partnership.
On August 25, 2023, the Court granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment, finding that Erskine violated Sections 15(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. The final judgment permanently enjoins Erskine from violating the above-stated provisions of the federal securities laws and from soliciting any person or entity to purchase or sell any security. The Court also ordered Erskine to pay, jointly and severally with his business entities, disgorgement of $60,625 with prejudgment interest of $15,450.03 and a civil penalty of $100,000.
The litigation was handled by Charles Canter and supervised by Stephen Kam of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Ross Gregory Erskine (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26559.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26559
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Remarks at IC3 Blockchain Camp
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on June 2, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the IC3 Blockchain Camp:
* * *
Base Case
Thank you, Jim, and thanks to the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts. Before I begin, I must remind you that my views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.
I am happy to be here at Princeton University, the place where my parents' romance began. My mother, hoping that I too would meet a wonderful husband here, urged me to apply to Princeton for
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 4 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on June 2, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the IC3 Blockchain Camp:
* * *
Base Case
Thank you, Jim, and thanks to the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts. Before I begin, I must remind you that my views are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.
I am happy to be here at Princeton University, the place where my parents' romance began. My mother, hoping that I too would meet a wonderful husband here, urged me to apply to Princeton forgraduate school in economics. Economics was my first love, and Princeton would have been a good place to pursue it and perhaps also to find my second love. Though I knew that I did not have the math scores to get into Princeton's excellent PhD program, applying was the least I could do for my long-suffering mother. The admissions committee--cruelly indifferent to the maternal plan--agreed with my self-assessment. Reviewing the agenda for this Blockchain Camp, which includes topics such as cryptography, privacy, and distributed systems, resurrected that thirty-year-old rejection letter. Reminded once again that I do not belong here on the Princeton campus, I am grateful that you admitted me despite my obvious deficits.
The fresh reminder of my own limitations only makes me more keenly grateful for the talent that those of you in this room possess. I delight to see others excel in areas in which I do not. You have the raw intelligence and the training to design and build things that make it easier, safer, and cheaper for humans to communicate, interact, and transact. Events like this one, which bring together so many smart people, enable you to critique, refine, and build upon one another's work and, importantly, to encourage one another to create good things that solve real problems. Thank you for the work that you are doing to improve the lives of other people and contribute to human flourishing.
What can I--a regulator--do to enable you to use your talents for good? I already have made clear that I will not be of any use on the technical side. My job is to work with Congress and other regulators to establish a sensible legal framework within which you can work on solving technical and commercial problems. The regulatory boundary lines need to be clear enough that you do not have to spend precious time and money working with lawyers to discern where those lines are, but not so prescriptive that they cannot accommodate technological change. Laws and regulations have a role to play, but they should be designed to encourage, not dissuade, you to invest your time and talent to build useful things.
Before I share my thoughts on what the SEC ought to do with respect to crypto, a reminder is in order. Law should not be the first place you look to solve problems. Statutes and rules take a long time to draft and, once they are on the books, they are hard to change. Moreover, governments do not have access to the expertise that is available to industry. Industry-devised solutions can be more effective and more responsive to technological changes. Tackle problems that you see instead of waiting for regulatory fixes. You can take common-sense steps to prevent future hacks of DeFi protocols, for example.[1] Fight AI hackers with AI. Consider whether you should build delays into your protocols to impede bad actors' attempts to steal assets. Plan for human failure by incorporating safeguards in your protocols. Establish industry standards for key management. Test and audit code before deploying it for customers to use. Make tools available that empower your users to see what is happening onchain and offchain. Figure out what the right balance of centralization and decentralization is for your project and be transparent with the public about the trade-offs you have made and the resulting risks to users. And, more generally, be honest.
The challenge permeating many of the issues under consideration by the SEC's Crypto Task Force is deciding where should regulation apply. In a 2024 article, Professor Reyes chided regulators and the law itself for their "overreliance on intermediaries [which] results in a lack of workable rules and undermines law's legitimacy."[2] The law's focus on intermediaries, Reyes explains, has led regulators confronted with decentralization in the crypto world to "pretend that an intermediary existed" when one did not.[3]
Regulators tend to look at everything through the eyes of their particular hobbyhorse. The SEC's rulebook is full of intermediaries: brokers, dealers, exchanges, clearinghouses, transfer agents, investment advisers, and investment companies. As a result, we see the crypto world teaming with brokers, dealers, exchanges, clearinghouses, transfer agents, investment advisers, and investment companies. In some cases, the blockchain is used to perform functions similar to those performed by these intermediaries, but it is not clear that our rules should apply to the blockchain itself, given that blockchains are used to do many things other than transact in securities.
Even where a tool has been designed to replicate the functions performed by a regulated intermediary, however, applying our traditional categories to the activities and actors we see is difficult. Accordingly, we are proceeding carefully (and more slowly than many people would like). We are trying to watch and learn as we go. Recently, for example, the Commission staff issued a staff statement on user interfaces that enable people to engage in crypto asset securities transactions.[4] The statement is a temporary measure as the Commission considers whether and how to regulate in this area. Similarly, the planned innovation exemption to permit onchain trading of NMS stock will enable us to consider how such trading should be regulated. More generally, Chairman Atkins and I have called on the Commission to reconsider key definitions, including exchange and broker definitions, to appropriately capture activity that should be regulated while carving out of those definitions activity that should not be subject to regulation.[5]
Some basic principles guide my thinking as I seek to apply securities regulation where it belongs and keep it away from activities that are not properly within our mandate:
* Publishing code is speech, which the First Amendment protects. People who do nothing more than write open-source code for other people to use should not have to register with the SEC.[6] As Coin Center has explained, software, including software that can be used "to facilitate activities that were historically intermediated" is protected speech, as is "publishing new versions of software, recommending updates, [and] attempting to persuade users to adopt improved or modified tools."[7]
* Blockchains are a general-purpose technology. Just as the internet is used for lots of purposes, blockchains are too. We need to limit our regulation to activities that are within our remit. The SEC is not a general-purpose infrastructure regulator. We should not require the people that operate the infrastructure to register with us simply because someone else uses that infrastructure to engage in activity that the SEC regulates.
* Blockchains work as intended when legal systems respect base-layer neutrality. Dr. Barczentewicz explained that "[b]lockchain networks derive much of their utility from their ability to process transactions without prejudice" and, he continued, "[r]ecognizing legally credible neutrality, therefore, is not just about avoiding overregulation. It's about preserving the core characteristics that make these services valuable in the first place."[8]
* If infrastructure providers do nothing more than impartially process data in accordance with verifiable, open, non-discretionary execution logic, the SEC should not treat them as securities market participants. Regulatory frameworks should govern conduct, not proximity to the conduct. Neutral conduits for the processing of data lack the foundational rationale for regulatory intervention. An infrastructure provider that processes securities-related data is no more a securities market participant than a telephone company that carries a conversation about stock tips is a broker-dealer. The subject matter of the data cannot determine regulatory status of the entity processing it.
* Technology can sometimes stand in for regulation. The power of a decentralized blockchain is that "every participant follows the same programmed rules, with no exceptions for powerful actors or special circumstances, including for the developers of these protocols."[9] Decentralization of technology and governance means that "no single party can change the rules arbitrarily or discriminate against users."[10]
* When centralized actors in crypto markets have discretion over or otherwise take custody of other people's securities and funds, securities regulation may be appropriate. Onchain CeFi, in contrast to true DeFi, is fair game for securities regulation, but that regulation may not be identical to regulation of traditional centralized finance.[11]
* People should be free to transact without intermediaries. Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act recognizes the value of investors being able to execute their orders "without the participation of a dealer",[12] and we should welcome decentralizing technologies that make this possible. Intermediaries can rest assured that most investors will prefer the intermediated route, but the DIY option is important. The securities laws should not reach "transparent, non-custodial software tools that enable users to interact with autonomous blockchain networks and smart contract protocols to engage in transactions on their own."[13]
* The fact that multiple people use the same software code to transact in securities does not by itself mean somebody has to register as an exchange. If nobody is in control of the system, who would register?
These basic principles are meant to be a conversation starter or, more accurately, a conversation continuer. Am I on the right track? Should the Commission engage in an interpretive rulemaking to expressly adopt any of these principles, or should they simply be reflected in our approach to rulemaking and enforcement? Professor Reyes has pointed out "[e]merging technology is law's magic mirror" in that it can "reflect various flaws or gaps in existing legal regimes."[14] Crypto offers us the opportunity to think carefully about when, why, and how the securities laws should apply, and I welcome your participation in that undertaking--one that, even after all these years, I find to be fascinating. Thank you for listening. I look forward to the discussion ahead.
* * *
[1] For helpful discussion of such common-sense steps, see Unchained Podcast, Is All of DeFi Unsafe? What You Need to Know About Holding Assets Onchain? (May 29, 2026), https://unchainedcrypto.com/is-all-of-defi-unsafe-what-you-need-to-know-about-holding-assets-onchain/; see also The Defiant Podcast, DeFi Hacks Happening Every Day: Institutions Are Still Coming (June 1, 2026), https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/defi-hacks-happening-every-day-institutions-are-still/id1512654905?i=1000770617450
[2] Carla L. Reyes, Law's Detrimental Reliance on Intermediaries, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 92, 1343, 1384 (2024).
[3] Id. at 1379.
[4] Staff Statement Regarding Broker-Dealer Registration of Certain User Interfaces Utilized to Prepare Transactions in Crypto Asset Securities (Apr. 13, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/staff-statement-regarding-broker-dealer-registration-certain-user-interfaces-utilized-prepare-staff-statement-regarding-broker-dealer-registration-certain-user-interfaces-utilized.
[5] See, e.g. Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Remarks at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo (May 8, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-scsp-ai-expo-050826; Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, Interfacing with our Inner Demons: Comments on the Division of Trading and Markets' Statement on Certain User Interfaces (Apr. 13, 2026), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-041326-interfacing-our-inner-demons-comments-division-trading-markets-statement-certain-user-interfaces.
[6] See Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, DeFining the American Spirit (June 9, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-defi-roundtable-060925, ("Also resonant with the American spirit is the ability of people to publish written material without permission. Code is protected speech. Because the First Amendment protects someone who writes a DeFi software protocol and publishes it, the SEC has no authority to demand pre-publication approval rights even for code that could be used to exchange securities. The SEC must not infringe on First Amendment rights by regulating someone who merely publishes code on the basis that others use that code to carry out activity that the SEC has traditionally regulated. If somebody else subsequently violates the law using the software protocol, the user--not the developer of the software--should face the music.").
[7] Letter from Coin Center to Chairman Paul S. Atkins & Commissioner Hester M. Peirce (Apr. 21, 2026) at 3-4, https://coincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2026-04-06-1st-Amend.-Relief-Letter.pdf.
[8] Mikolaj Barczentewicz, Legally Credible Neutrality (Nov. 21, 2025) at 18, https://ssrn.com/abstract=5029148.
[9] Primavera De Filipinos, Morshed Mannan, & Kelsie Nabben, Tornado Cash, Flashbots, and Regulatory Equivalence: Alternatives to Regulatory Compliance or Avoidance in Blockchain Systems, in Public Governance on the Blockchain 26, 32 (Usman W. Cholan & Sven Van Kerckhoven eds., 2024).
[10] Id.
[11] See Rebecca Rettig, Michael Mosier, & Katja Gilman, Genuine DeFi as Critical Infrastructure: A Conceptual Framework for Combating Illicit Finance Activity in Decentralized Finance (Jan. 29, 2024) at 13, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4607332 (explaining the importance of this distinction and defining "genuine DeFi" as having "self-directed" users with "independent control over their own assets at all times through maintenance of the 'private key' for their wallets" acting exclusively through "a permissionless blockchain network"); see also Katrin Schuler, Ann Sofie Cloots, & Fabian Schar, On DeFi and On-Chain CeFi: How (Not) to Regulate Decentralized Finance, Journal of Financial Regulation, Vol. 10, No. 2, 213, 239-242, (2024), https://academic.oup.com/jfr/article/10/2/213/7606986, (explaining the characteristics of DeFi and on-chain CeFi and explaining that regulation of the latter should "account for the unique risk profiles resulting from the activities concerned and materiality of centralized controls [which] may be sufficiently distinct from traditional CeFi to warrant bespoke rules.").
[12] Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, S. 11A, 94th Cong. (1975), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1885/pdf/COMPS-1885.pdf.
[13] Letter from Andreessen Horowitz & DeFi Education Fund to Commissioner Hester M. Peirce (Aug. 13, 2025) at 5, https://www.defieducationfund.org/_files/ugd/84ba66_f5e85c6f415c4fbebce775c91d36c5b4.pdf.
[14] Reyes, supra note 2, at 1348 (footnote omitted).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-ic3-blockchain-camp-060226
FTC Sues to Stop Deceptive Mortgage Assistance Relief Operation that Targets Homeowners
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Sues to Stop Deceptive Mortgage Assistance Relief Operation that Targets Homeowners
*
At the Federal Trade Commission's request, a U.S. district court in California has temporarily halted an allegedly deceptive mortgage assistance relief operation that claims it can provide mortgage relief assistance under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to lure and scam homeowners.
The court granted a temporary restraining order against National Amendment Assistance (also doing business
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Sues to Stop Deceptive Mortgage Assistance Relief Operation that Targets Homeowners
*
At the Federal Trade Commission's request, a U.S. district court in California has temporarily halted an allegedly deceptive mortgage assistance relief operation that claims it can provide mortgage relief assistance under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to lure and scam homeowners.
The court granted a temporary restraining order against National Amendment Assistance (also doing businessas N.A.A.) after the mortgage assistance relief operator and related entities allegedly misled consumers into paying unlawful upfront fees in exchange for guarantees of lower mortgage rates and monthly payments that never materialized.
"When Americans look for ways to cut costs and lower their monthly bills, they shouldn't have to worry about being targeted by mortgage scammers," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "When scammers try to take advantage of ordinary consumers, the FTC will act swiftly and decisively to stop such scams."
According to the FTC's complaint, since at least 2022, Southern California-based companies steered by Marinus Pieter Van Zweeden, Martin Howard Rub and Susan Jane Bustamante have mailed letters to homeowners nationwide claiming to offer mortgage relief under the CARES Act. These letters claim that consumers can obtain a reduction in their home mortgage rate due to a special mortgage adjustment program connected to a "CARES-Act Homeowner Assistance Fund or Lender Specific In-house Mortgage Adjustment Program" and urge the consumer to call a phone number to learn more. The complaint notes that the letters provide specific terms for the mortgage modification that the consumer is supposedly eligible to obtain, including a lower mortgage rate and monthly mortgage payment.
The defendants also allegedly misrepresent that consumers have a "grace period," in which they do not need to pay their mortgage, according to the complaint.
The FTC alleges that these promises are false. Ultimately, the defendants do not obtain any mortgage relief for consumers and simply walk away with consumers' upfront fees and financial information. Consumers-many of whom are often already in financial distress-have lost the money they paid to the defendants and have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, with some facing foreclosure or default.
The proposed complaint alleges that the defendants violate the law by deceptively:
* Promising mortgage loan modifications that will make consumers' payments more affordable;
* Claiming their mortgage assistance relief services are associated with a federal government homeowner assistance plan;
* Instructing consumers that they do not have to or should not make monthly payments toward their mortgage;
* Collecting upfront payments before consumers executed a written agreement between the consumer and the loan holder or servicer; and
* Making false statements to induce consumers to provide the defendants with customer information of a financial institution, in violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act.
The complaint alleges that the defendants have violated the FTC Act, Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule, and the GLB Act, and the FTC seeks redress for affected consumers. The court entered a temporary restraining order against the defendants based on their alleged law violations.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint against the defendants was 2-0. The complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and the seal has now been lifted.
The defendants include Accounting Business Consultants Inc. (CA), Accounting Business Consultants Inc. (NV), Accounting Servicing Providers Inc., Amster Beene Partners Inc., Assertive Loan Advisors Inc., Independent Accounting Consulting Inc., United Administration Counseling Inc., United Bookkeeping Services Inc., and their three officers, Marinus Pieter Van Zweeden, Martin Howard Rub and Susan Jane Bustamante.
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.
Staff attorneys on this matter are David Hankin, Jeffrey Tang, Miles Freeman and John Jacobs, of the FTC's Western Region, Los Angeles. The FTC thanks the Better Business Bureau of Los Angeles & Silicon Valley for their invaluable assistance with this matter.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-sues-stop-deceptive-mortgage-assistance-relief-operation-targets-homeowners
FTC Seeks Comment on X Corp. Petition to Set Aside or Modify FTC Order Concerning Twitter
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Seeks Comment on X Corp. Petition to Set Aside or Modify FTC Order Concerning Twitter
*
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition from X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, to set aside or modify its 2022 settlement order with the agency.
In its petition to the Commission, X Corp. cited several reasons why it believes that the order should either be set aside or modified so that it terminates at the end of 2026. The petition argues:
* The order was imposed on a company
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Seeks Comment on X Corp. Petition to Set Aside or Modify FTC Order Concerning Twitter
*
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition from X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, to set aside or modify its 2022 settlement order with the agency.
In its petition to the Commission, X Corp. cited several reasons why it believes that the order should either be set aside or modified so that it terminates at the end of 2026. The petition argues:
* The order was imposed on a companythat no longer exists, that every individual responsible for the underlying failures has left the company and that X Corp. has since built a world-class privacy and data-protection program;
* The order no longer serves any valid regulatory purpose, imposing millions of dollars in needless costs to address obligations and protections already required by domestic and international privacy regimes and industry-recognized frameworks that X Corp. follows;
* Setting aside the order safeguards First Amendment values; and
* Setting aside or modifying the order is critical to advancing American leadership in artificial intelligence.
The public will have 30 days, until July 2, 2026, to submit comments on the petition. Instructions for filing comments appear on the docket. Once processed, they will be posted on Regulations.gov. After the comment period closes, the Commission will vote to determine how to resolve the petition.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-seeks-comment-x-corp-petition-set-aside-or-modify-ftc-order-concerning-twitter
FCC Kicks Off First Spectrum Auction in Four Years
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on June 2, 2026:
* * *
FCC Kicks Off First Spectrum Auction in Four Years
AWS-3 Auction Offers 200 Spectrum Licenses for Wireless Services Around the Country - Including in Major Markets
-
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr today welcomed the start of the first FCC spectrum auction in four years. The AWS-3 auction will offer 200 5G-grade spectrum licenses that laid fallow for more than a decade. The license areas included in this auction are home to over 100 million consumers across 48 states, two US territories,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on June 2, 2026:
* * *
FCC Kicks Off First Spectrum Auction in Four Years
AWS-3 Auction Offers 200 Spectrum Licenses for Wireless Services Around the Country - Including in Major Markets
-
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr today welcomed the start of the first FCC spectrum auction in four years. The AWS-3 auction will offer 200 5G-grade spectrum licenses that laid fallow for more than a decade. The license areas included in this auction are home to over 100 million consumers across 48 states, two US territories,and the Gulf of America. They include major markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, Tampa, and Charlotte.
Chairman Brendan Carr issued the following statement:
"Finally! The FCC is back in the game. Spectrum auctions are the lifeblood of licensed wireless service, and it has been far too long since the FCC has run an auction. Today, we are kicking off a vitally important auction to pump more spectrum into the marketplace. There is a reason why the first item the Commission voted on at my first meeting as Chairman was to get the process going for this very auction. More spectrum means more building, lower prices, and stronger competition. The FCC's Build America Agenda is restoring America's leadership in wireless."
Additional Background Information:
Bidding in the AWS-3 auction, formally designated as Auction 113, began this morning. The auction makes available spectrum licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. The auction makes over 1.4 billion MHz-POPs ("Megahertz Population") available for auction - a metric calculated by multiplying the bandwidth by the population covered by the licenses. The auction can be tracked at: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/113.
The auction started today utilizes rules the Commission proposed and adopted last year. The licenses made available had been auctioned in 2014 for commercial use, but were the subject of defaults or bid withdrawals. As a result, these 200 licenses were unsold in the prior auction and the spectrum has remained unused in the FCC's inventory ever since. Today's auction will put those spectrum licenses to productive use. The proceeds from this auction will fund the FCC's Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program - commonly known as "rip and replace" - which seeks to remove untrustworthy technology from U.S. communications networks.
The FCC's Build America Agenda is putting in the work to free up airwaves and restore the country's leadership in wireless. The Commission is advancing 5G and 6G leadership by executing on a massive spectrum pipeline to deliver 800 megahertz of spectrum by 2034 set out in President Trump's Working Families Tax Cut Act, which also restored the FCC's auction authority. In the secondary markets, we are seeing large swaths of spectrum moving into the hands of competitors that can put it to productive use quickly. For more on the wireless leadership efforts in the Build America Agenda, visit: https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-americas-leadership-wireless.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-422113A1.pdf
EEOC Announces Two Senior Agency Appointments
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Announces Two Senior Agency Appointments
*
WASHINGTON - Andrea Lucas, chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced two new appointments to the agency's senior leadership team.
The new appointments are Heather Olowski as the EEOC's Legal Counsel, head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and Kelley McLean as Principal Legislative Director in the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs (OCLA). Both bring deep expertise to the agency and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 3 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Announces Two Senior Agency Appointments
*
WASHINGTON - Andrea Lucas, chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), today announced two new appointments to the agency's senior leadership team.
The new appointments are Heather Olowski as the EEOC's Legal Counsel, head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and Kelley McLean as Principal Legislative Director in the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs (OCLA). Both bring deep expertise to the agency andwill play a critical role in executing the agency's strategic priorities under the leadership of Chair Lucas.
"I am proud to announce these key additions to the EEOC's senior leadership team," said Chair Lucas. "The EEOC has a critical mission to fulfill, and these senior leaders will further strengthen the agency's ability to restore evenhanded enforcement of the civil rights laws on behalf of all Americans."
Heather Olowski is a member of the Senior Executive Service and now serves as the EEOC's Legal Counsel, head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In this role, she will provide counsel to the Chair, develop policy guidance and regulatory actions, provide technical assistance to employers and employees, and coordinate with other agencies and stakeholders regarding the statutes and regulations enforced by the EEOC.
OLC also conducts and coordinates defensive litigation on behalf of the Chair and the Commission and advises agency officials on administrative issues such as contracts, disclosures, ethics, fiscal law, the Privacy Act, and recordkeeping matters. OLC also houses the agency's FOIA Division and its Records Management Division.
Olowski brings more than 15 years of substantive legal experience and is a recognized leader in civil rights enforcement, employment law and human capital management. Most recently, she served as director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of State.
Olowski said, "I am proud to join Chair Andrea Lucas and the dedicated professionals at the EEOC to advance the agency's mission of protecting equal opportunity in America. The EEOC's work has a direct impact on American workers and workplaces across the country, and I look forward to contributing to the agency's enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws."
Olowski earned her undergraduate degree with high honors from the University of California, Berkeley, and her juris doctor from Georgetown University Law Center, where she served as an editor of the American Criminal Law Review. She is a longstanding member of the Federalist Society civil rights practice group and Executive Committee.
Kelley McLean serves as the Principal Legislative Director in the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at the EEOC. In this role, she serves as the agency's senior liaison to Congress, advancing the Chair's legislative and policy priorities and leading engagement with Members of Congress and their staff.
McLean is a government affairs and public policy professional with more than 15 years of experience leading legislative, policy, and strategic initiatives across Capitol Hill, the executive branch, and the nonprofit sector. She joined the EEOC from First Liberty Institute, where she served as Director of Government Affairs, leading federal advocacy efforts and engagement with Congress, the White House, and executive branch agencies on religious liberty and related policy issues.
Prior to First Liberty, McLean served as Legislative Assistant to Senator James Lankford, advising the Senator on a broad policy portfolio and helping oversee the Senate Values Action Team. She also served as Government Affairs Fellow at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Earlier, she ran the House Values Action Team under its founding chairman, Congressman Joseph Pitts, where she advised Members of Congress and congressional staff on a wide range of policy issues.
Before her work on Capitol Hill, McLean held government relations roles with nonprofit organizations focused on advancing human rights, religious freedom, and rule of law initiatives internationally.
McLean said, "I am honored to join Chair Andrea Lucas and the talented team at the EEOC at this important moment for the agency. The Chair has articulated a clear commitment to restoring evenhanded enforcement of the nation's workplace civil rights laws, strengthening public confidence in the agency's work, and ensuring that the EEOC serves all Americans fairly and impartially. I look forward to advancing that mission and strengthening engagement with Congress and stakeholders across the country."
McLean holds a Bachelor of Arts in International Affairs and Asian Studies from Austin College.
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 also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-announces-two-senior-agency-appointments
