companies

In defeating a measure to rescind the 310 area code overlay, telecommunications companies showed they won’t shrink from battle as the state moves to put tighter controls on area code changes, industry leaders said Friday.

The state Assembly early Friday approved a bill, AB 406, that sets additional hurdles in place before area code splits and overlays can be imposed.

But the bill, which had been approved late Thursday by the Senate, was passed only after a provision rescinding the 310 overlay on the Westside and South Bay was removed.

That change was credited to a fierce lobbying effort by telecom companies, and could serve as a preview of what’s to come as lawmakers and utilities regulators consider ways to slow the proliferation of overlays and splits statewide, including a split proposed for the San Fernando Valley.

“I was unable to get for 310 what I had my heart set on, which was the recision of the 310 overlay and 11-digit dialing,” said Assemblyman Wally Knox (D-Los Angeles), who wrote AB 406 (which became the vehicle for the legislation formerly known as AB 818).

Knox said a sustained lobbying effort by telephone industry representatives resulted in the removal of the 310 overlay and 11-digit dialing portion from the bill.

Representatives from Pacific Bell, GTE, AT&T;, MediaOne Telecommunications of California, the California Cable Television Assn. and the Cellular Carriers Assn. of California were among the 30 lobbyists arguing that the provision would diminish competition among carriers and consumer choice.

“The intensive lobbying effort should have been anticipated by everyone because the stakes were so high for the industry,” said Dennis H. Mangers, senior vice president of the California Cable Television Assn., a group whose members are seeking a foothold in the telephone business.

Even so, the arm-twisting in Sacramento stands in contrast to the role played by phone companies at public forums on the issue.

At a recent Van Nuys town hall meeting on splits and overlays, for example, no phone company representative spoke publicly–although at least one was in attendance, observing the proceedings.

Telephone company officials said Friday that they have sent representatives to numerous public hearings on the matter, but remained silent to give residents the chance to express their concerns.

*

Industry lobbyists said regulatory meetings and legislative sessions are the proper forums for them to state their positions.

In Sacramento, telecom lobbyists argued that rescinding the overlay in West Los Angeles and the South Bay would be unfair because phone companies had already spent millions to compete for local customers in the region, Mangers said. He also said numbers already had been assigned in the new 424 area code overlay.

“We reminded them that it was they who encouraged communications companies to do business in California,” Mangers said. “If they passed the bill containing that provision, they would be cutting off their own policy.”

Cable company MediaOne, for example, spent $600 million to upgrade its facilities to provide digital telephone service, high-speed Internet access and cable television to Los Angeles customers, particularly those in the 310 region, officials said.

“We have definitely been lobbying in Sacramento,” said Theresa L. Cabral, MediaOne’s senior corporate counsel. “Our concern is that we have made that investment and we can’t use it.”

Pac Bell protested the bill because rolling back the 310 area code overlay would hurt customers who need numbers, said Steve Getzug, a spokesman for the company.

Pac Bell and GTE, the two largest phone companies in Los Angeles, are pushing specifically for overlays when area code relief is needed.

With an overlay, new phone lines within a specific area code are given a new area code–even if it is in the same home or building. Additionally, all users in an overlay area must dial the area code–even to a number with the same area code.

*

Phone company officials say the overlay is less disruptive than actually creating a new area code through a geographic split, but critics say such splits and overlays would not be needed if regulators did a better job of allocating and conserving phone numbers.

Knox, who has emerged as the leading consumer advocate on the issue, said Friday that he will now take his fight to the PUC, which is scheduled to take up proposals for a 310 overlay and an 818 split on Wednesday.

“It is important for folks to know that the fight is not over,” he said. “The momentum we have built in the Legislature we will now take to the PUC.”

Gov. Gray Davis has not taken a position on AB 406, aides said. But if he does sign the bill, PUC officials will analyze it to determine its role in implementing new area codes and overlays, said Kyle DeVine, a PUC spokeswoman.

“Until we get direction from the commissioners,” she said, “we can’t say what we are going to do.”

The bill, which passed the Senate on a 35-0 vote, was approved in the Assembly on a vote of 79 to 1, with Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), dissenting. He could not be reached for comment Friday.

Nov. 25 (UPI) — Private companies’ payrolls decreased by an average of 13,500 jobs for each of the four weeks ending Nov. 8, data from payroll processing company ADP indicates Tuesday.

The data was released as part of ADP’s weekly National Employment Report Pulse based on a four-week moving average of employment across the country. ADP releases this report three times a month, on the weeks when it doesn’t publish its monthly report, the last of which was Nov. 5.

The Nov. 5 report showed that private companies added 42,000 jobs in October.

Last week’s NER Pulse report showed a 2,500 average weekly job loss. The jump to 13,500 jobs lost per week is reflective of the growing pace of layoffs.

U.S. companies cut more than 150,000 jobs in October, the highest number of layoffs for that month since 2003.

Economists have had to rely more on ADP’s weekly and monthly reports as the release of federal data continues to be affected by the record 43-day shutdown, which ended Nov. 12, CNBC reported.

On Wednesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said its October jobs report won’t be released as planned. Instead, some of the data will come out in the full report for November. BLS officials said the report won’t include the unemployment rate for October because those figures allegedly couldn’t be collected during the shutdown.

Leading tech companies are in a race to release and improve artificial intelligence (AI) products, leaving users in the United States to puzzle out how much of their personal data could be extracted to train AI tools.

Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp), Google and LinkedIn have all rolled out AI app features that have the capacity to draw on users’ public profiles or emails. Google and LinkedIn offer users ways to opt out of the AI features, while Meta’s AI tool provides no means for its users to say “no, thanks.”

“Gmail just flipped a dangerous switch on October 10, 2025 and 99% of Gmail users have no idea,” a November 8 Instagram post said.

Posts warned that the platforms’ AI tool rollouts make most private information available for tech company harvesting. “Every conversation, every photo, every voice message, fed into AI and used for profit,” a November 9 X video about Meta said.

Starting December 16th, Meta will start feeding all your data to AI. This video is an instructional on how to turn these settings off. pic.twitter.com/BUJagaMr5b

— David Wolfe (@DavidWolfe) November 9, 2025

Technology companies are rarely fully transparent when it comes to the user data they collect and what they use it for, Krystyna Sikora, a research analyst for the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund, told PolitiFact.

“Unsurprisingly, this lack of transparency can create significant confusion that in turn can lead to fear mongering and the spread of false information about what is and is not permissible,” Sikora said.

The best – if tedious – way for people to know and protect their privacy rights is to read the terms and conditions, since it often explicitly outlines how the data will be used and whether it will be shared with third parties, Sikora said. The US doesn’t have any comprehensive federal laws on data privacy for technology companies.

Here’s what we learned about how each platform’s AI is handling your data:

Social media claim: “Starting December 16th Meta will start reading your DMs, every conversation, every photo, every voice message fed into AI and used for profit.” – November 9 X post with 1.6 million views as of November 19.

The facts: Meta announced a new policy to take effect December 16, but that policy alone does not result in your direct messages, photos and voice messages being fed into its AI tool. The policy involves how Meta will customise users’ content and advertisements based on how they interact with Meta AI.

For example, if a user interacts with Meta’s AI chatbot about hiking, Meta might start showing that person recommendations for hiking groups or hiking boots.

But that doesn’t mean your data isn’t being used for AI purposes. Although Meta doesn’t use people’s private messages in Instagram, WhatsApp or Messenger to train its AI, it does collect user content that is set to “public” mode. This can include photos, posts, comments and reels. If the user’s Meta AI conversations involve religious views, sexual orientation and racial or ethnic origin, Meta says the system is designed to avoid parlaying these interactions into ads. If users ask questions of Meta AI using its voice feature, Meta says the AI tool will use the microphone only when users give permission.

There is a caveat: The tech company says its AI might use information about people who don’t have Meta product accounts if their information appears in other users’ public posts. For example, if a Meta user mentions a non-user in a public image caption, that photo and caption could be used to train Meta AI.

Can you opt out? No. If you are using Meta platforms in these ways – making some of your posts public and using the chatbot – your data could be used by Meta AI. There is no way to deactivate Meta AI in Instagram, Facebook or Threads. WhatsApp users can deactivate the option to talk with Meta AI in their chats, but this option is available only per chat, meaning that you must deactivate the option in each chat’s advanced privacy settings.

The X post inaccurately advised people to submit this form to opt out. But the form is simply a way for users to report when Meta’s AI supplies an answer that contains someone’s personal information.

David Evan Harris, who teaches AI ethics at the University of California, Berkeley, told PolitiFact that because the US has no federal regulations about privacy and AI training, people have no standardised legal right to opt out of AI training in the way that people in countries such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom and South Korea do.

Even when social media platforms provide opt-out options for US customers, it’s often difficult to find the settings to do so, Harris said.

Deleting your Meta accounts does not eliminate the possibility of Meta AI using your past public data, Meta’s spokesperson said.

Google

Social media claim: “Did you know Google just gave its AI access to read every email in your Gmail – even your attachments?”  – November 8 Instagram post with more than 146,000 likes as of November 19.

The facts: Google has a host of products that interact with private data in different ways. Google announced on November 5 that its AI product, Gemini Deep Research, can connect to users’ other Google products, including Gmail, Drive and Chat. But, as Forbes reported, users must first give permission to employ the tool.

Users who want to allow Gemini Deep Research to have access to private information across products can choose what data sources to employ, including Google search, Gmail, Drive and Google Chat.

There are other ways Google collects people’s data:

• Through searches and prompts in Gemini apps, including its mobile app, Gemini in Chrome or Gemini in another web browser
• Any video or photo uploads that the user entered into Gemini
• Through interactions with apps such as YouTube and Spotify, if users give permission
• Through message and phone calls apps, including call logs and message logs, if users give permission.

A Google spokesperson told PolitiFact the company doesn’t use this information to train AI when registered users are under age 13.

Google can also access people’s data when they have smart features activated in their Gmail and Google Workplace settings (that are automatically on in the US), which gives Google consent to draw on email content and user activity data to help users compose emails or suggest Google Calendar events. With optional paid subscriptions, users can access additional AI features, including in-app Gemini summaries.

Turning off Gmail’s smart features can stop Google’s AI from accessing Gmail, but it doesn’t stop Google’s access to the Gemini app, which users can either download or access in a browser.

A California lawsuit accuses Gemini of spying on users’ private communications. The lawsuit says an October policy change gives Gemini default access to private content such as emails and attachments in people’s Gmail, Chat and Meet. Before October, users had to manually allow Gemini to access the private content; now, users must go into their privacy settings to disable it. The lawsuit claims the Google policy update violates California’s 1967 Invasion of Privacy Act, a law that prohibits unauthorised wiretapping and recording confidential communications without consent.

Can you opt out? If people don’t want their conversations used to train Google AI, they can use “temporary” chats or chat without signing into their Gemini accounts. Doing that means Gemini can’t save a person’s chat history, a Google spokesperson said. Otherwise, opting out of having Google’s AI in Gmail, Drive and Meet requires turning off smart features in settings.

LinkedIn

Social media claim: Starting November 3, “LinkedIn will begin using your data to train AI.” – November 2 Instagram post with more than 18,000 likes as of November 19.

The facts: LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft, announced on its website that starting November 3, it will use some US members’ data to train content-generating AI models.

The data the AI collects includes details from people’s profiles and public content that users post.

The training does not draw on information from people’s private messages, LinkedIn said.

LinkedIn also said, aside from the AI data access, that Microsoft started receiving information about LinkedIn members – such as profile information, feed activity and ad engagement – as of November 3 in order to target users with personalised ads.

Can you opt out? Yes. Autumn Cobb, a LinkedIn spokesperson, confirmed to PolitiFact that members can opt out if they don’t want their content used for AI training purposes. They can also opt out of receiving targeted, personalised ads.

To remove your data from being used for training purposes, go to data privacy, click on the option that says “Data for Generative AI Improvement” and then turn off the feature that says “use my data for training content creation AI models.”

And to opt out of personalised ads, go to advertising data in settings, and turn off ads on LinkedIn and the option that says “data sharing with our affiliates and select partners”.

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

“In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

“Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

One law, SB 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, Senate Bill 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could impact the climate.

The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

“No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

The emergency appeal was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.