Connect with us

Business

Trump’s Latest Tariff Setback Looms Over China Talks

Published

on

Trump’s Latest Tariff Setback Looms Over China Talks

A day after a federal court ruled against President Trump’s latest global tariffs, his administration returned to the drawing board on Friday, trying to preserve its powers to wage economic warfare in time for high-stakes trade talks with China.

The latest legal blow concerned the 10 percent tariff that Mr. Trump imposed in late February on nearly all U.S. imports. The president unveiled that policy as a sort of temporary fix, after the Supreme Court tossed out his initial duties, but a panel of judges once again found that the White House had run afoul of the law.

The result was a familiar set of headaches for Mr. Trump, who has tried repeatedly — and with mixed success — to stretch his authority to tax imports without the express permission of Congress. By Friday, one of the president’s top aides signaled that an appeal was imminent, echoing the president, who told reporters shortly after the ruling that he would simply “do it a different way.”

Technically, the Court of International Trade only declared the president’s across-the-board, 10 percent tariff to be illegal. Otherwise, it did not issue an order forcing the government to stop collecting it from all importers, at least for now. Still, the outcome marked both a political and legal setback for Mr. Trump, who had spent much of the week issuing trade threats against Europe and preparing for talks in China.

Tariffs are expected to be a major topic on the agenda when Mr. Trump travels to Beijing to meet next week with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. Trade experts said the court decision could undercut the president’s leverage. Eswar Prasad, a professor of economics at Cornell University, said the ruling “severely handicapped” the administration’s ability to employ tariffs against foreign nations, leaving Mr. Trump with a “much weaker bargaining hand” when it comes to China.

Advertisement

“Any threats by Trump to hit China with broader and higher tariffs if Xi doesn’t bend to his will on economic and geopolitical matters now seem like empty bluster rather than credible ultimatums,” he said.

One of the president’s top trade advisers, Jamieson Greer, appeared to brush aside some of those concerns on Friday. During an interview on Fox Business, he criticized the court for ruling against the White House, claiming that some of the judges on the panel were “apparently just hellbent on importing more from China.”

Mr. Greer, who defended the president’s use of trade powers, added that the administration is “confident on appeal we’ll be successful.”

At the heart of the matter is Mr. Trump’s decision to invoke a trade power that no president had ever used. Known as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, it permits the president to impose tariffs up to 15 percent for 150 days, but only in response to strict conditions, including a “balance of payments” crisis.

The term itself reflects a bygone concern from the time the law was adopted, when the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold, creating unique economic risks. But the Trump administration sought to argue that the law still applied today, pointing in part to the country’s persistent trade deficit, a different measurement, which reflects the gap between U.S. imports and exports.

Advertisement

In the end, a majority of judges on the Court of International Trade found the argument unpersuasive and sided with small businesses and states that had sued. It marked the second time that some of those challengers had prevailed against Mr. Trump, after they convinced the Supreme Court to invalidate his earlier use of emergency powers to impose withering tariffs.

The new decision raised the odds that the administration could soon have to pay back the billions of dollars collected from its 10 percent tariff, on top of the $166 billion that the government already owes to U.S. importers from its last legal defeat. But the fight appeared far from over, and much remained uncertain by Friday — not just for American businesses, which paid the cost to import goods, but for the Trump administration itself.

“President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authorities granted to him by Congress to address our balance of payments crisis,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said in a statement. “The Trump administration is reviewing legal options and maintains confidence in ultimately prevailing.”

For one thing, the court only appeared to bar the collection of the president’s 10 percent tariff for some of the plaintiffs that sued, many legal experts said. That raised the odds that droves of U.S. businesses could soon mobilize and “file a court case” of their own asking for similar relief, said Ted Murphy, a top trade lawyer at the law firm Sidley Austin. He added that he also expected the trade court to pause implementation of its order pending an appeal.

The timing is important to Mr. Trump, who had always envisioned his across-the-board tariff as a stopgap that would allow the government time to prepare a set of more lasting rates using another set of authorities, known as Section 301. But that process was widely expected to take months, since the law requires the government to conduct investigations into other countries’ trade practices before Mr. Trump can apply new duties.

Advertisement

Those inquiries targeting dozens of countries are well underway, and the president at times has suggested the final rates could be set at new highs. Some experts believe the tariffs imposed using Section 301 could be more legally durable, though the administration could still face lawsuits over his aggressive use of the law.

Michael Lowell, the chair of the global regulatory enforcement group at the law firm Reed Smith, said the White House probably would not have to worry about “a broad attack on that authority.” But, he said, the courts had recently drawn something of a line in the sand, suggesting they would be “very skeptical of the administration looking to the past and finding and repurposing” other powers to advance its trade agenda.

Unlike the president’s other trade gambits, he has successfully applied tariffs in the past using Section 301, including on China. That left some analysts to conclude that Mr. Trump, while blemished, would still retain some leverage ahead of his trip to Beijing next week.

“Unless they have amnesia, China should remember quite vividly how during Trump’s first term, the U.S. imposed multiple rounds of tariffs under Section 301 on China during negotiations,” said Sarah Schuman, a former U.S. trade official who is now managing director at Beacon Global Strategies.

The administration still had multiple options “to increase tariffs on China in pretty short order,” she added.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s trip to China had been scheduled for April, but was delayed because of the war in Iran. U.S. officials have said their goals for the visit include establishing a “board of trade,” which would oversee commerce between the countries in an effort to balance trade and reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China

On Friday, Mr. Greer sketched out a long list of concerns that the administration planned to raise with its Chinese counterparts, from its adherence to past purchase agreements to its approach to artificial intelligence.

“There’s not really a situation where we go, we get China to change the way they govern, the way they manage their economy; that’s all baked into their system,” he said. “But I think there is a world where we find out where we can optimize trade between China and the U.S. to achieve more balance.”

Business

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

Published

on

Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown

The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.

The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.

“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”

The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.

In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.

Advertisement

Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.

Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.

Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win

Published

on

Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win

This porn company made millions by shaming the little guys who downloaded its films. But now it’s going after Meta for copyright infringement.

It isn’t often that a lawsuit can make me smile, much less laugh out loud. The latest exception is Strike 3 Holdings vs. Meta Platforms, which is currently unfolding in San Jose federal court.

Two things are amusing about the case. One is that Meta, the giant social media company, is accused of copyright infringement for allegedly downloading 2,400 of the plaintiff’s movies to train its AI bots. If Meta loses, that would be a serious (and in my opinion, deserved) blow against AI companies that have used copyrighted materials without permission.

The second part of the joke is the identity of the plaintiff. Strike 3 Holdings, you see, makes porn. Moreover, for years it has pursued a plainly unscrupulous business model in which it sues individuals for allegedly downloading its movies without permission, and shames them into settling for a few thousand dollars at a pop.

While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible…that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person—or any combination of such persons—was responsible for that activity.

— Meta points the finger at others for a porn scandal

Advertisement

Whether or not Strike 3 has a legitimate claim for copyright infringement, it doesn’t deserve your sympathy. The firm was flayed in 2018 by federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington, D.C., for engaging in what he labeled a “high-tech shakedown … smacking of extortion.” Lamberth called Strike 3 a “copyright troll” and threw out its lawsuit against an unidentified internet user for having treated his court “not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.”

When I wrote about this scheme in 2023, I counted more than 12,440 lawsuits that the Los Angeles-based firm had filed in federal courts coast-to-coast. The latest count, according to a Lexis search a defense lawyer ran for me, is more than 21,000. The vast majority were settled and closed within a few months of their filing, an indication that they were never meant to go to trial.

Now Strike 3 appears to have hooked a big fish. In the first significant ruling in its lawsuit against Meta, the firm scored a surprise win: On June 11, federal Judge Eumi K. Lee of San Jose denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the case. Meta’s defense, she wrote, “strains credulity.”

Advertisement

More about that in a moment. First, a few words about the litigants. Meta needs no introduction: Formerly known as Facebook and based in Menlo Park, Calif., Meta recorded a profit of $60.5 billion last year on $201 billion in revenue.

Strike 3 portrays itself as an avatar of “Hollywood style and quality” in its adult films, which it distributes through its streaming websites such as Blacked, Tushy, Vixen and Wifey. It has described Greg Landry, its former owner and house auteur, as the porn industry’s “answer to Steven Spielberg.”

Neither Meta nor Strike 3 responded to my request for comment beyond the claims and defenses in court filings.

As I reported in 2023, Strike 3 has flooded federal courts with cookie-cutter lawsuits alleging that defendants infringed its copyrights by downloading its movies via BitTorrent, an online service on which unauthorized content can be accessed by almost anyone with an internet connection. Its targets generally have been individuals with plenty to lose from being publicly outed as porn viewers.

“Given the nature of the films at issue,” a federal judge in Connecticut observed last year, “defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified.”

Advertisement

Strike 3’s letters to its target defendants have warned that the statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement is $150,000, but offer to make the case go quietly away for a few thousand bucks, which would be a fraction of the cost of hiring a defense lawyer, not to mention the downside of exposing oneself as a porn fiend.

J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Ore., lawyer who won a case against Strike 3, estimated in 2023 that Strike 3 “pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits.” But financial data that could validate his estimate hasn’t surfaced in court records.

There’s nothing new about content owners’ aggressive pursuit of copyright infringers. The practice was pioneered by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, when the industry feared that unauthorized downloading of music through programs such as Napster threatened its very existence. From 2003 through 2008, the association sued some 35,000 alleged song pirates.

But it abandoned the strategy because its legal dragnet swept up sympathetic targets such as single mothers and teenage girls, creating a public relations disaster.

There followed the appearance of outright trolls such as Prenda Law Group, which posted porn films online as bait to attract downloaders, whom it then sued in what judges ultimately found to be sham lawsuits. Prenda principal John L. Steele even bragged publicly that Prenda had made nearly $15 million with its lawsuits. U.S. Judge Otis Wright II of Los Angeles put the kibosh to its practice by slapping the Prenda lawyers with stiff sanctions for contempt.

Advertisement

That brings us to Strike 3’s case against Meta, which it filed in July. Strike 3 hasn’t been accused of a Prenda-style fraud, since it does own the films at issue and its right to sue copyright infringers isn’t disputed. But its allegation that Meta downloaded its films to train its AI bots, rather than just for personal enjoyment, is a new wrinkle for an old issue.

Strike 3 says its lawsuit grew out of a separate case in which a witness testified that Meta had downloaded thousands of pirated books to train its LLaMA AI bots — that is, feeding the content into LLaMA for it to use to generate answers to user questions. (Numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI firms alleging similar infringement.)

Strike 3 says that case prompted it to look into whether Meta had downloaded any of its content. It says it discovered that 47 IP addresses owned by Meta — that is, digital identifiers of internet accounts — had downloaded its movies without permission.

In all, Strike 3 alleges, those Meta addresses downloaded at least 2,396 of its movies — almost its entire catalog — more than 6,000 times via BitTorrent. What’s more, Strike 3 says Meta then posted some of that content back onto BitTorrent to take advantage of BitTorrent’s “tit-for-tat” mechanism through which users can obtain faster download speeds by uploading content to the platform.

If Strike 3 were to prevail on all its claims for illicit downloading, it would be entitled to about $360 million in damages, observes Eric Fruits, an Oregon economist who has testified for the defense in some Strike 3 lawsuits.

Advertisement

One might ask why Meta might be downloading porn for any reason, bot-training or otherwise. Meta, in its defense filings, says Strike 3 has offered no proof that Meta, as a corporation, was responsible for the downloading. If it happened, Meta says, it would have been inadvertent.

“Tens of thousands of employees and innumerable contractors, visitors, and third parties access the internet at Meta every day,” it wrote in its motion to dismiss the case. “While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible … that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person — or any combination of such persons — was responsible for that activity.” The “sporadic downloads,” Meta says, “exhibit the hallmarks of personal use,” not corporate strategy.

This defense has borne fruit in other Strike 3 cases, in which defendants successfully argued simply having an IP address that was used to infringe wasn’t enough to prove they committed the infringements.

Strike 3 says it can show that the downloads weren’t the work of random users. Some downloads, it says, were coordinated among several Meta IP addresses, all based on the same algorithmic keywords and occurring simultaneously, suggesting that the infringements “took place within Meta’s walls.”

On Dec. 15, 2022, for instance, downloads apparently based on the keyword “teen” involved not only the movies “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Teen Titans Go to the Movies,” but also “Teen Sex Sessions 2” and “Teens love Tats XXX,” according to Lee’s ruling. Other simultaneous downloads swept up episodes of “The Big Bang Theory” and “Ted Lasso” out of order, though a putative human user would probably have downloaded them sequentially.

Advertisement

“It strains credulity,” Lee ruled, “to suggest that these correlations are mere coincidence and the product of individual human selections.” Rather, the use of an algorithm would account for “why pornography was downloaded alongside children’s cartoons and sitcoms. … The odds that multiple people using the Corporate IP addresses … coincidentally torrented the same show, rather than simply streaming it, on the exact same day strains belief.”

The case is still at an early stage. For Strike 3, the lawsuit offers the potential of a big score. But Meta has signaled that it’s not inclined to roll over like a family man caught downloading skin flicks and worrying about his reputation at home and around town.

This time, Strike 3 may have a fight on its hands with a defendant that has money to burn.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin

Published

on

Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin

Rivian said it’s laying off hundreds of employees, or less than 2% of its workforce, as part of restructuring efforts aimed at making the company profitable for the first time.

The layoffs come one week after the Irvine-based electric vehicle maker began deliveries of its highly anticipated R2 SUV.

The company is hoping that the R2, which is currently only available as a performance version for $57,990, could attract more customers with its lower price tag.

But industry analysts said the performance R2 is still not affordable for many Americans, and investors reacted with disappointment to the first deliveries June 9, with shares falling 7% that day. On Wednesday, Rivian shares gained .33 points, or 2%, to close at $16.26.

The company said a standard version of the R2 starting at $44,990 will become available next year.

Advertisement

The layoffs took effect on Monday and affected Rivian’s service and customer organization employees, including sales and marketing teams. Rivian employed 15,232 people as of December.

“We recently restructured a handful of teams within Rivian as we work to profitably scale our ‌business,” a ⁠company spokesperson said.

The laid off employees have been provided with severance packages and are encouraged to apply for other open roles with Rivian, the company said.

Rivian may be trying to reach profitability by saving money on labor, said Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds.

“You have to wonder to what degree they do plan on replacing those people with some level of AI and automation,” he said.

Advertisement

Rivian, which is pouring money into autonomous vehicle efforts including a robotaxi partnership with Uber, has struggled to turn a profit with its luxury EVs.

The layoffs are likely not directly tied to recent reception of the R2, auto analyst Brian Moody said.

“I think that it’s declining interest in new electric cars, and maybe declining interest in expensive things,” he said. “We can surmise that [layoff] process began long before the R2 launch.”

The company lost $3.6 billion last year and recently said it is no longer expecting to meet its 2027 adjusted core profit target.

There has been a broad cooling of the EV market. Major automakers including Honda and Ford have cut back their EV options as excitement for the vehicles has fallen under the Trump administration. A $7,500 EV tax credit for new vehicles expired in September.

Advertisement

Rivian cut 4.5% of its workforce in October, or more than 600 jobs, following the expiration of the credit. The company also laid off about 200 employees in September.

In a recent turnaround, Rivian surprised the market with strong earnings results in February, reporting gross profits for 2025 of $144 million compared with a net loss in 2024 of $1.2 billion. Gross profit is revenue without subtracting the cost of production expenses.

In its earnings release, Rivian credited the swing to “strong software and services performance, higher average selling prices, and reductions in cost per vehicle.”

“The company has never posted a full year’s worth of profit, and this is the one lever they can pull to rightsize things,” Drury said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending