Attorney General Merrick Garland said the department had indicted two Russia-based employees of RT, Russia’s international news channel—and a key conduit for Russia’s disinformation efforts. Konstantine Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva are charged with money laundering, and with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act by secretly spreading propaganda in the U.S.

RT and the defendants allegedly funded a U.S. company called Tenet Media that pumped out videos that Garland said “were often consistent with Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions in order to weaken U.S. opposition to core Russian interests, particularly its ongoing war in Ukraine.” Tenet then allegedly paid conservative social media influencers to spread these videos, without telling them of Russia’s involvement.

Separately, Garland said the DOJ had seized 32 domains that “Russian public relations companies” had used for a form of cybersquatting—the URLs were similar to those for the likes of Fox News and the Washington Post, but they were again filled with pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine propaganda, and with attempts to secure “Russia’s preferred outcome in the election.”

Here it comes again: “The Russian public relations companies drove viewers to these websites by deploying influencers and paid social media advertisements,” Garland said. “They also created fake social media profiles, posing as U.S. citizens, to post comments on social media platforms with links to the sites.”

Sure sounds like social media platforms ought to be extra-vigilant right now! But, with exquisite timing, a federal appeals court yesterday handed Elon Musk’s X, formerly Twitter, a victory in its quest to avoid having to be transparent about its anti-disinformation efforts.

California has a content moderation law that forces platforms to give the state attorney general detailed reports about what they’re doing to tackle: misinformation and disinformation; hate speech and racism; harassment; extremism and radicalization; and foreign political interference.

There have been First Amendment concerns about the law since it was going through the legislative process a couple years ago, but, last year, X tried and failed to get a court to issue an injunction against the law’s enforcement.

That loss has now been overturned, with the appeals court saying the law’s “content category reports” probably violate the First Amendment because “they are not narrowly tailored to serve the State’s purported goal of requiring social media companies to be transparent about their policies and practices.” The district court now must issue the preliminary injunction against the content moderation law, the future of which is now in doubt.

But even if the government can’t tell Musk what to do about disinformation and other ills—in the U.S. that is; the EU very much can—there are ample reasons for any sensible social media supremo to take content moderation seriously.

For one thing, advertisers don’t like to spend their money in a swamp. Market Research firm Kantar today released a study showing that 26% of marketers plan to reduce ad spend on X, and only 4% thought X provided brand safety (i.e. some kind of guarantee against major embarrassment.) The study said this was “the biggest recorded pullback from any major global ad platform.”

“It’s difficult to feel confident about your brand safety in that environment,” said Kantar director Gonca Bubani, adding that the “stark acceleration” of the advertiser exodus over the last year “means a turnaround currently seems unlikely.”

More news below.

David Meyer

Want to send thoughts or suggestions to Data Sheet? Drop a line here.

NEWSWORTHY

Bolt drama continues. Ryan Breslow, the cofounder of U.S. payments firm Bolt, wants to return as its CEO. On Monday, he touted the names of 13 Bolt investors who, he claimed, supported his plan to do so and to raise $450 million. But Forbes reports that only one confirmed they had actually signed up to Breslow’s proposal, and some say they do not support it. The proposal was already controversial as it would largely shut out existing shareholders who don’t pony up more cash.

Android Auto antitrust. Google may have broken EU competition laws by refusing to give an e-mobility app access to its Android Auto platform, an advisor to the EU’s top court has written. The app in question was developed by the Italian energy giant Enel, to provide access to its electric-vehicle charging stations across Europe. But, unlike Google Maps, Google won’t give it access to the dashboard display. The Italian antitrust regulator fined Google $113 million over the affair, and the Court of Justice of the EU is now handling Google’s appeal. The court usually (but not always) follows the advice of its advocates general. 

Internet Archive loses book appeal. The Internet Archive, keeper of online history, has lost its appeal in a much-watched case about its ability to lend out books. As Ars Technica explains, the appellate judge ruled that the Archive wasn’t profiting off its loaning of e-books, but its loaning model nonetheless broke copyright law. Electronic libraries usually purchase licenses to lend out e-books, but the Archive instead bought physical books, scanned them and lent out the digital version. It claimed that this was “fair use,” but the courts disagreed.

SIGNIFICANT FIGURES

$20 billion

—The sum that Verizon is paying for Frontier Communications, to boost its fiber network.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Elon Musk’s misery is limited to Brazil for now, but EU sanctions may be coming his way, by AFP

Google faces a possible $100 billion litigation avalanche, says Bernstein, by Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez

Two astronauts are stuck in space. Soon, the solution could be an elevator, by Carolyn Barber (Commentary)

Here’s why Nvidia’s aggressive sales tactics are in the DOJ’s crosshairs, by Will Daniel

Nvidia shares keep falling. Should you buy the dip?, by Greg McKenna

Europe’s drone-friendly regulations are helping Manna soar above U.S. delivery rivals, by Anna Heim

BEFORE YOU GO

Stop bricking stuff. Consumer and anti-waste groups have urged the Federal Trade Commission to issue “clear guidance” on the practice of software tethering, where physical products rely on associated software to function properly. As The Verge reports, the groups are incensed by cases such as Juicero juicers becoming unusable when the company went bust, and the makers of the $1,695 Snoo bassinet introducing a monthly fee for some of its advertised features.

“If we want to stop the tech industry from pushing us into replacing products that still work, we need to stand up for consumers’ right to get what we’ve paid for in the age of connected devices,” Lucas Rockett Gutterman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, one of the signatories, told the publication.