Regulation

US District Judge Richard Stearns sided with 25 states and the District of Columbia which sued the administration.

A federal judge has ruled against enforcing a new rule by the administration of US President Donald Trump that would require chronically ill people on Medicaid, a public health insurance programme for low-income individuals, to prove themselves “medically frail” to qualify for work exemptions.

US District Judge Richard Stearns blocked the rule on Thursday, siding with 25 states and the District of Columbia, which had sued the Trump administration in June over the change, arguing that it unlawfully limits exemptions for people with serious medical conditions.

The law says the definition of medically frail must include people who are blind or disabled, have substance use disorders or disabling mental disorders, have certain disabilities that significantly impair daily activities, or have serious or complex medical conditions.

‘Significantly impair’ abilities

But the administration’s rule went further, requiring people in those categories to show that their conditions also “significantly impair” their ability to comply with the law’s work requirements.

The plaintiffs argued that the stricter rule would prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need, and that it oversteps the law’s text.

“The states have met their burden of showing irreparable harm for which monetary damages would provide inadequate compensation – they face the burden of costly and intensive alterations to their eligibility verification systems,” Stearns said in his 16-page ruling.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency that adopted the rule, declined to comment.

Medicaid is a public health insurance programme for low-income people, funded by state and federal governments.

Two restrictions upheld

Starting January 1, 2027, Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19 to 64 must show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programmes, among others.

Notably, while the ruling will make it easier for some Medicaid recipients with qualifying medical conditions to obtain an exemption from the new work requirements, Stearns’s decision does not strike down the work requirements as unlawful.

Stearns serves in the District of Massachusetts and was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

His ruling upheld two other federal restrictions on how states can verify medical frailty that the states and the District of Columbia had also contested.

The US tech giant is investing $15bn in a huge new data centre project in northern Finland.

Finnish police have launched a criminal investigation into suspected breaches of environmental law at the construction site of a planned Google data centre in northern Finland.

The project is part of a $15bn deal announced last month by Alphabet’s Google to invest in artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure in Finland, which the US company described as its largest investment in Europe.

Authorities have said Tuike Finland, a local subsidiary of Google, conducted forest clearing and drainage at a planned site near the town of Muhos, before the environmental impact assessments required under Finnish law had been completed.

“We are investigating whether the company’s operations have breached the Water Act and resulted in environmental damage,” Detective Superintendent Kari Pakanen told the Reuters news agency on Thursday, adding that a guilty finding could lead to a corporate fine.

Pakanen declined to say whether any individuals could become a target of the investigation, and a Google spokesperson said the company would cooperate with the police investigation and continue to focus on maintaining compliance at its sites.

Tree felling prompts local anger

Videos and photographs showing the scale of the forest clearance at the site of the data centre, and Google’s initial reluctance to address the issue in the days after the news broke, have prompted widespread anger in Finland, where there is a high level of respect for the natural environment among the public.

“All the outrage and dismay directed at Google, I can very much share that, especially when we are talking about the parent company valued as the third-largest in the world,” Finnish Green MP Oras Tynkkynen told Al Jazeera. “There is just no excuse. You have to know the legislation of the country you are operating in; you can afford to hire the best legal experts to help you navigate the local legal requirements.”

Finnish authorities ordered Google to stop work at the data centre site at the start of October, and the latest information from the police highlights shortcomings in the drainage and water management at the site.

Tynkkynen called Google’s actions “unforgivable”, but cautioned that while the anger being directed at the US tech giant was justified, it was also diverting scrutiny away from legacy Finnish forestry companies, which he says are “by far the biggest contributors to biodiversity loss in this country”.

What is Finland’s appeal for data centre construction?

Finland’s cool climate, low-carbon electricity and government endorsement of AI projects have contributed to making the country one of Europe’s main destinations for data centre investments in recent years.

Finland, similar in size to Germany – but with one-seventh of the population, less than six million people – has had less vocal opposition to data centre buildouts than other places, including in the United States.

AI data centres are among the main drivers of a projected rise of up to 40 percent in Finland’s electricity consumption in the coming years, if all agreed grid connection projects go ahead, grid operator Fingrid has said.

Google’s planned investments in Finland include data centres, electricity grid improvements and clean energy and battery projects to power services such as Gemini, Search, Maps and YouTube.

Supporting Google’s plan, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said in September that the deal would be a boost for the economy, playing down concerns that it would suck up energy and push up power prices.

Pete Hegseth says the Pentagon dismantled 80 ‘propaganda cells’ operating under new names at 30 universities.

The United States Department of Defense has designated Confucius Institutes, Chinese-funded cultural centres on university campuses, as a threat to US national security.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the move on Friday in a video posted on social media, saying the Pentagon added the organisations to its list of institutions that threaten national security.

Washington has long accused the centres of serving as Chinese propaganda tools and has taken steps to crack down on them.

Hegseth said Confucius Institutes had operated in disguise after being restricted by Congress, calling them “sleeper organisations”.

“It turns out that 80 new propaganda cells across 30 universities had popped up using different names and different charters, but with the same mission: to steal intellectual property and to infiltrate the minds of American students,” he said.

In the video, Hegseth said that Chinese government-backed cultural programmes had infiltrated universities and reappeared in new guises despite congressional restrictions.

Over the past two months, the Pentagon has “systematically dismantled every single one of these organisations”, he said.

The Chinese embassy in Washington did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment.

Class action could be first in Australia to blame social media for harming its users.

Meta and its social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are facing a class action lawsuit in Australia over allegations that addictive design features are harming children and teenagers.

The lawsuit, filed by MinterEllison in the Australian Federal Court, seeks to recover compensation for current and former users of Facebook and Instagram who claim they were exposed to harmful content or developed an addiction to social media as a result of using those platforms, the law firm said in a statement released on Thursday.

“This proceeding raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia. Those questions will now be considered through the Federal Court process,” MinterEllison Partner William Nolan said in the statement.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs who allege they were harmed by Meta while they were below the age of 18.

In a suppression order on Monday, the court prohibited the reporting of any information that could reveal their identities and the statement of claim.

“We are aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Litigation Lending Services said it was funding the class action for Australian families who “would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant”.

The lawsuit comes amid rising tensions between Australia and Big Tech after a world-first ban on social media for children below 16 in 2025, and newly proposed rules that could let users switch off algorithm-driven content on their feeds.

Meta agreed in August to pay $18bn to settle with nearly all US states to resolve claims that it designed social media to addict children.

The lawsuit argues Trump bypassed Congress and misused a century-old law to impose sweeping tariffs on Canadian imports.

A US food importer is suing US President Donald Trump over his 50 percent tariffs on Canadian goods, arguing he lacks the legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs without congressional approval.

Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey-based company that imports Canadian cheese, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the US Court of International Trade in New York.

The company says the tariffs are driving up its costs and disrupting its relationships with suppliers on both sides of the border. Between September 16 and October 11, Gellert had paid more than $520,000 in duties, according to the complaint.

“Gellert Global Group has spent generations building trusted relationships with suppliers, customers and partners across the food industry,” said Thomas Gellert, the company’s co-chief executive officer, in a press release. “These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain.”

The lawsuit challenges Trump’s decision to use a Depression-era law to impose tariffs on a wide range of Canadian products, including dairy products, furniture, clothing and wine.

Trump first imposed the 50 percent tariffs over the summer, accusing Canada of discriminating against American-made cars, alcohol and dairy products. He expanded the measures in September, adding more products in response to Canadian retaliatory tariffs.

The lawsuit argues that the law doesn’t apply to the Canadian policies the Trump administration says are discriminatory, since two of them “arose in response to the president’s own tariffs, while the third involves Canadian dairy policy governed by the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)”.

It also questions why Canadian cheese is being taxed over disputes involving alcohol and cars.

“No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required,” said Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal organisation that filed the suit on Gellert’s behalf.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to the Reuters news agency.

At the centre of the case is Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries found to discriminate against American businesses.

The provision had never been used until Trump invoked it this year.

The lawsuit argues that newer laws passed by Congress since then, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, require investigations, public comment and other safeguards that Gellert says the Trump administration has bypassed, and that these override Section 338.

“The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff,” said Jeffrey Schwab, the Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel and director of litigation.

In addition, the lawsuit says that even if Trump is allowed to use the older law, he hasn’t met its requirements, including waiting 30 days before tariffs can be collected on new products added to the list.

The administration only waited seven days to start collecting tariffs on cheese in September, according to the lawsuit.

Gellert is asking the court to declare the tariffs illegal, stop them from being collected, and order refunds with interest for importers who have been impacted.

The lawsuit marks the fourth major legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs.

In February, the US Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs he imposed in 2025, and a trade court later ruled against a temporary 10 percent global tariff. A separate challenge to tariffs imposed over alleged forced labour in international trade is still pending.

Mexico will require the digital platforms to protect minors from violent and sexual content.

Mexican ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠President Claudia ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sheinbaum signed a presidential decree requiring digital platforms, including TikTok, Meta and X, to protect children from violent, sexual and other harmful content online.

The decree establishes that digital platforms must, by design, restrict exposure to content involving violence, harassment or sexual abuse, as well as immediately remove any risky material from the profiles of minors.

Sheinbaum said on Wednesday that the government would back legislation to penalise companies that fail to implement the decree.

“If no progress is made, it would become a law,” she told a news conference on Tuesday.

“The goal is for digital platforms to take on some of the responsibility and refrain from disseminating, promoting, or spreading content related to this type of information — including criminal acts or violent behaviour,” Sheinbaum had said earlier when she indicated she would introduce the decree.

The decree comes after an attack by two 18-year-olds on their former high school in the northern ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌state of Coahuila in early October that killed one and wounded three others.

Digital platforms will have one month to comply with the decree, government adviser Luisa Maria Alcalde said.

Officials said they had already discussed the matter with representatives of social media outlets and streaming platforms such as Meta, Microsoft, Apple, TikTok, Google, X and Huawei.

Last August, Meta, for example, agreed to pay an $18bn settlement in a major US federal case accusing it of endangering children, and was forced to introduce new safety features to platforms including Instagram and Facebook. The lawsuit alleged Meta had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠retaining, and using personal data from children under 13 without proper parental consent.

Mexico’s move follows a broader global push to protect minors online, with governments in Europe and Australia tightening oversight of digital platforms and US states pursuing a range of child-safety measures.

Brazil has also moved to strengthen protections for children online. Such measures have raised questions over how to protect minors while safeguarding privacy and freedom of expression.

The second-largest US bank faces record penalties for failing to comply with sanctions and money laundering laws.

The US Treasury Department has imposed more than $1.21 billion in penalties against Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the US, for violating anti-money laundering and sanctions laws.

The fines announced on Tuesday include the third-largest penalty in the department’s history, the US Treasury said in a statement.

“When a bank of this size fails to meet its anti-money laundering and sanctions obligations, the consequences extend far beyond its own walls, exposing the entire US financial system to significant illicit finance risks,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

He added that these “actions send a clear message that even the biggest financial institutions are not above the law”.

Enforcement actions

According to the Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) assessed a $1.2 billion penalty over the bank’s failure to mitigate and report “priority national security risks, including Chinese Money Laundering Networks and illicit finance along the southwest border”.

The failures identified by FinCEN involved deficiencies related to the bank’s suspicious transaction identification and reporting and customer due diligence processes. According to the statement, “the Bank effectively outsourced to third parties a substantial portion of its proactive detection and reporting obligations”.

“Bank of America failed to timely report to FinCEN over $5 billion dollars in suspicious transactions”, the Treasury said in the statement.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) assessed a $750 million fine, the largest in its history, for the bank’s deficient and ineffective anti-money laundering compliance programme. FinCEN’s $1.2 billion penalty includes credit for the OCC fine.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also announced an $11.6 million settlement agreement over apparent violations of numerous sanctions programmes, including on Iran, Russia, narcotics and global terrorism.

Bank of America agreed to settle 475 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programmes, and the settlement includes “significant compliance commitments regarding training, testing and audit, and future communication and cooperation with OFAC”.

In the statement, the Treasury said the actions “underscore the importance of effectively complying” with US anti-money laundering and sanctions requirements.

In response, Bank of America said in a statement: “Financial crime compliance is serious, and we are responsible for getting it right.”

“We have invested billions of dollars in technology and dedicated thousands of employees to combat financial crime, and our team is far along with and committed to completing the work required to address the issues raised by our regulators.”

Advisory comes amid growing concern about the devices being used to secretly record girls and women.

The European Union’s data watchdog has called for smart glasses to clearly show when they are recording, saying bystanders have the right to know when they are being photographed or filmed.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued the non-binding recommendation on Tuesday, amid mounting concern about the devices being used to secretly record girls and women.

It said the use of smart glasses – which can resemble ordinary glasses but also take photos and videos, make phone calls and translate text when connected to the internet – raises “serious privacy concerns”.

EDPB chair Anu Talus said the glasses should have clear signals when they are recording, such as “bright LED lights, audio signals or voice activation cues, privacy-friendly smartphone notifications, or unique designs”.

“These warnings need to be reliable, hard to ignore, and always up to date,” said Talus. “Even in public spaces, bystanders should clearly understand that someone is filming or photographing them.”

The devices carry greater risks in “sensitive” spaces like schools and hospitals, as well as public spots like beaches, and raised concerns about children who are “more vulnerable to covert or intrusive processing of their personal data”, the EDPB warned.

The advisory comes amid campaigns in several European countries to ban or restrict smart glasses over privacy concerns.

Norway’s government said last week it was also worried about privacy invasions and wants a temporary ban on the use of smart glasses in certain public places. The capital Oslo already opted to ban glasses equipped with cameras in schools.

France’s e-Enfance association, which operates the national hotline for victims of online abuse, has also sounded the alarm about videos recorded with camera-equipped glasses and shared online.

Last month, French prosecutors said they had opened a criminal probe ⁠following sexual harassment complaints related to a social media trend of using smart glasses to film women on the street, without their consent, and posting the videos online.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “Stop Smart Glasses” campaign has launched a petition and call for supporters to contact stores to stop their sale. It reached more than 10,000 signatures, which means the UK government must respond.

The NFL is urging the Supreme Court to rule on the regulation of prediction markets, arguing in an amicus brief filed Thursday that states — which already regulate legal sports books — are better positioned to oversee sports-related contracts “given the current landscape.”

The NFL is supporting New Jersey’s request for the Supreme Court to rule on the governing authority for prediction markets, which provide an opportunity to trade — or wager — on the result of future events. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has maintained it has exclusive federal jurisdiction, while states have argued that the array of typically yes-or-no questions is akin to gambling and falls under their purview.

“Absent the clarity that only this Court can provide, (prediction market) operators will continue exploiting the gap between state and federal regulation, endangering consumers and the integrity of sports events across the country,” lawyers for the NFL wrote.

According to the NFL’s brief, on the first Sunday of this season, more than half of the trading volume on prediction markets — $1.8 billion out of $3.3 billion total — was related to the league.

“Any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity,” the NFL wrote in its brief.

Kalshi spokeswoman Elisabeth Diana said its top priority is market integrity, and she pointed to its partnerships with the NHL, Major League Baseball and other sports organizations as evidence.

“Contrary to the NFL’s statements, the CFTC is actively policing sports-related markets, which are now listed on nearly every U.S. commodities exchange,” Diana said. “The CFTC’s ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL’s supposed concerns. And those rules sit atop the same comprehensive system of federal enforcement that protects trillions of dollars of transactions in U.S. markets.”

A Polymarket spokesperson said the operator “shares the NFL’s commitment to preserving the integrity of the game,” and it is working on “a harmonized federal framework that delivers a stronger, more consistent form of integrity compared to a patchwork of disconnected state laws built for a bygone era.”

Ohio filed a brief on Wednesday urging the high court to side with New Jersey and preserve the power of all states to regulate prediction markets, as they do casino gambling and sports betting. The filing was backed by 38 states, including Republican and Democratic attorneys general from states including Arkansas, California, Illinois, Missouri, New York, South Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Roughly 20 states are involved in litigation over prediction markets, and a split has formed between appeals courts, making it more likely that the Supreme Court will take up the issue. The 6th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled in favor of states seeking to regulate prediction markets, while the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kalshi in a ruling earlier this year.

“As between the two approaches, the NFL believes the Sixth and Ninth Circuits got it right, given the current landscape,” lawyers for the league wrote in their brief.

The NFL also is questioning the CFTC’s enforcement capabilities. In its filing, the league writes that the commission has 543 employees and their responsibilities include a range of derivatives beyond event contracts.

“Without adequate staff engaged in oversight and enforcement, even the best regulations cannot meaningfully ensure game integrity and consumer protection,” lawyers wrote in the NFL brief.

A message was left by the AP seeking comment from the CFTC.

The NFL has urged the CFTC and prediction markets to adopt a list of prohibited wagers that it feels pose the greatest threats to game integrity, according to the brief, but they have declined thus far. It also has asked the commission to adopt an age limit of 21 for trading on prediction markets, up from the current 18.

Diana said Kalshi has tried to collaborate with the NFL on market integrity, but it has received no response.

Cohen writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Marc Levy contributed to this report.

The multi-vehicle crash occurred in the Salama area, 90km southeast of Nairobi, killing mostly Catholic pilgrims.

At least 17 people, most of them Catholic pilgrims on the way to a prayer site, have been killed in a crash involving multiple vehicles on the highway to the Kenyan coastal city of Mombasa.

The crash in the Salama area, about 90 kilometres (about 55 miles) southeast of the capital Nairobi, happened after midnight, police said on Saturday.

The crash occurred when a truck driver tried and failed to overtake another truck; that caused a collision with vehicles including a van carrying pilgrims, police said.

Kenyan media reported that the pilgrims were travelling in a 14-seater minibus.

The van’s driver and 16 passengers, most of them women, died at the scene, police said.

The pilgrims were going to a prayer site in Nakuru County, west of Nairobi, said Martin Kivuva, archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Mombasa.

The archbishop said in a statement that he and others were “saddened with lots of grief” over the deaths.

President William Ruto offered condolences to the families, friends, parishioners and the entire Catholic community “who are mourning this painful loss”.

Kenya’s National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) launched an investigation into the crash.

The NTSA said it dispatched investigators “to establish the full circumstances leading to the collision”.

But it noted that the stretch of road where the crash occurred is a known “black spot” and that “recommendations have been made to address safety concerns” regarding the route.

Road accidents are a problem across Africa. In Kenya and elsewhere in the region, the accidents are often blamed on poorly maintained vehicles, excess speed and poor road conditions.

Kenya recorded 5,009 road traffic deaths last year, while 2,150 deaths were reported in the first six months of 2026, local media reported, citing numbers from the NTSA.