Current Events in June 2019

After previously determining that coffee in the state should come with a cancer warning due to low levels of a carcinogenic chemical, California regulators have passed a new rule stating that the labels are not necessary.

In response to the decision, the coffee industry applauded the efforts of regulators for purportedly easing the fears of consumers who enjoy the beverage.

“It’s a great moment for the coffee industry and the billions of people around the world who enjoy their cup of joe every day,” said William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Association. “In serving up the perfect blend of science and regulation, the State of California has moved to formally recognize that coffee should not carry a ‘cancer warning.’”

Lawsuits, cancer warnings, and mixed findings

The move away from cancer warnings on coffee sold in California began in 2018, when the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed that the state should reverse the ruling of a Los Angeles judge who had determined that the warnings were necessary.

At the time, a nonprofit group called the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) had been pursuing a lawsuit against nearly 100 coffee companies in California because the beverage was found to contain traces of acrylamide, which is classified as a carcinogen.

The group said that the chemical’s presence violated Proposition 65 -- a state regulation that governs toxicity standards in drinking water -- but detractors said that the connection was tenuous at best because of the extremely small amounts of acrylamide in coffee.

“Coffee has been shown, over and over again, to be a healthy beverage. This lawsuit has made a mockery of Prop 65, has confused consumers, and does nothing to improve public health,” Murray said in a statement at the time.

While many consumers depend on coffee to get them moving in the morning, the available research on its safety can be described as mixed at best. Researchers have debated whether drinking coffee benefits or hurts heart health.

Consumers’ savings rates have steadily declined over the years, and perhaps it isn’t surprising. Banks have paid little to no interest on savings for the last couple of decades.

But the rise of online banks and fintech firms has been a game-changer. With less overhead, these firms can pay higher rates of interest while still offering FDIC protection.

Earlier this year, Wealthfront launched a simple savings account that paid the highest interest rate available. Recently, the rate has gone up to 2.51 percent, significantly higher than the U.S. government’s 10-year Treasury bond.

What makes the Wealthfront Cash Account particularly compelling is the fact that there are no fees; you can open an account with as little as $1 and withdraw your money at any time. Deposits are FDIC insured up to $1 million, which is more than most banks.

‘Self-driving money’

"Our cash account is another important milestone on our path to deliver our ultimate vision of self-driving money," said Wealthfront CEO Andy Rachleff when the account was launched. "In order to optimize and automate all of our clients finances, we need to offer ideal short and long-term destinations for their cash. You can expect us to further extend our services into the banking sector this year."

Once upon a time, a passbook savings account at your local bank might pay as much as 3 percent interest, but those days are long gone. Today, the average bank savings account rate is a paltry 0.1 percent, meaning the return on a Wealthfront Cash Account is about 25 times higher.

"Every year the four largest banks in the U.S. make over $300 billion in revenue while paying consumers next to nothing on their cash deposits," said Dan Carroll, co-founder of Wealthfront. "If the $8 trillion in cash sitting at the commercial banks was moved to a service like Wealthfront instead, consumers would have an additional $170 billion in their pockets every year. Imagine how impactful that extra money could be on people's lives."

Other investment products

Weathfront offers a range of financial services and investments, many of which are subject to market forces. Those kinds of investments should be carefully considered, perhaps with guidance from an objective and qualified financial advisor.

Savings accounts, on the other hand, are pretty straightforward. They can be a good place to tuck away money for an emergency fund. As always, it’s advisable to read the fine print carefully so that you fully understand the terms.

Suzuki Motor of America is recalling 21,052 model year 2010-2013 Kizashis.

The front passenger seat Occupant Classification System (OCS) may misclassify an adult occupant as child and deactivate the front airbag.

The deactivated front airbag will not deploy in the event of a crash, increasing the risk of injury.

What to do

The remedy for this recall is still under development.

The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Owners may contact Suzuki customer service at 1-800-934-0934. Suzuki's number for this recall is C5.

Polaris Industries of Medina, Minn., is recalling model year 2019 Polaris RZR XP 4 Turbo S recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs).

The brakes can fail, posing crash and injury hazards.

The firm has received 11 reports of brake failures, resulting in one crash and one rollover incident. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves model year 2019 RZR XP Turbo S recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs), with model numbers Z19VPL92AK, Z19VPL92AR, Z19VPL92BK, Z19VPL92BR.

The vehicles were sold in blue and red and have “POLARIS” stamped on the front grill, along the bottom edge of the passenger compartment and on the rear light assembly;

“TURBO S” is stamped on the front fenders and “POLARIS RZR” on the rear fenders.

The vehicle identification number (VIN) and model number can be found on a label affixed to the vehicle frame in the left front wheel well.

The ROVs, manufactured in Mexico, were sold exclusively at

Polaris dealers nationwide from December 2017, through January 2019, for about $28,400.

What to do

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ROVs and contact a Polaris dealer to schedule a free repair. Polaris is contacting all registered owners directly.

Consumers may contact Polaris at (800) 765-2747 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (CT) Monday through Friday or online at www.polaris.com and click on “Off Road Safety Recalls” at the bottom of the page for more information and to check your vehicle identification number (VIN) to see if your vehicle is included in any recalls

Despite the efforts of the Trump administration to divorce itself from the issue of climate change, a group of 21 young Americans, representing themselves under the moniker of “Youth,” are far from giving up. The group has filed a new lawsuit against the administration claiming that climate concerns are being handled so carelessly that it’s a violation of their constitutional rights.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court previously greenlighted the case, the feds are fighting back in a renewed effort to block the lawsuit from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Calling the lawsuit "radical" and an "anathema," Jeffrey Bossert Clark, the Trump-nominated United States Assistant Attorney General (AG) for the Environment and Natural Resources Division -- and not exactly a favorite of environmentalists -- argued that the suit should be tossed out for the sole reason that it is a "direct attack on the separation of powers" among the three branches of the federal government” and “would have earth-shattering consequences.”

Youth filed its original constitutional climate lawsuit, titled Juliana v. U.S. (Juliana), against the U.S. government in U.S. District Court four years ago. Partnering with Youth as a co-plaintiff is Earth Guardians, an organization that “trains diverse youth to be effective leaders in the environmental, climate and social justice movements across the globe” through the use of art, music, and civic engagement.

The complaint alleges that because the affirmative actions the U.S. has put in place cause climate change, the U.S., therefore, has breached younger Americans’ constitutional rights to equal protection; their incalculable, inherent, and inalienable natural rights; and their rights as beneficiaries of the federal public trust.

A “moonshot,” but promising

When the lawsuit first appeared, University of Oregon law professor Mary Wood told CNN that the suit was “the biggest case on the planet,” likening it to a moonshot attempt much like Brown v. Board of Education was in an effort to desegregate public schools.

The Juliana case isn’t flying solo on the younger generation’s fight against climate change. It’s also got a peer lawsuit in the Netherlands. Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told CNN that Juliana is the "most promising" legal action on climate change in the world at the moment.”

The U.S., however, seems to have a radically different point-of-view. AG Clark railed against the growing trend of letting policy be decided by those in the scientific community and those he viewed as sympathizers.

“When did America risk coming to be ruled by foreign scientists and apparatchiks at the United Nations? The answer, it would seem, is ever since Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Obama, chose to issue a rule determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare,” Clark said.

Many consumers take dietary supplements to lose weight, gain muscle, or get an extra boost of energy, but researchers say many of these products can lead to hospitalization or death if taken by young people.

A recent study conducted at the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health showed that children and young adults who take dietary supplements are at a high risk of “severe medical events.” Despite actions taken by regulators to curb these cases, the researchers say many young people are still putting themselves in harm’s way.

"The FDA has issued countless warnings about supplements sold for weight loss, muscle building or sport performance, sexual function, and energy, and we know these products are widely marketed to and used by young people,” said the study’s lead author Flora Or.

Playing “Russian roulette” with young lives

The researchers looked at over a decade’s worth of research catalogued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on adverse events related to dietary supplements. Of the nearly 1,000 cases affecting young people, nearly 40 percent involved a severe medical outcome that required hospitalization or led to death.

After breaking those numbers down, the researchers say that dietary supplements designed for weight loss, muscle building, and energy were three times more dangerous than vitamins when it came to severe medical events. Supplements designed for sexual function and colon cleanse were two times more dangerous than vitamins.

S. Bryn Austin, a senior author of the study, points to many of the substances used in these supplements as problematic. The researcher says many of these products contain prescription pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, pesticides, chemicals, and banned substances that make them a hazard, especially for young people.

“How can we continue to let the manufacturers of these products and the retailers who profit from them play Russian roulette with America’s youth?,” Austin asks. “It is well past time for policymakers and retailers to take meaningful action to protect children and consumers of all ages.”

The full study has been published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

YouTube announced on Wednesday that it intends to take down videos that contain white supremacy concepts as part of its effort to crack down on extremist views and hate speech.

“Today, we’re taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status,” the company said in a blog post.

Videos denying that well-documented violent incidents, like the Holocaust or the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place will also be banned under the policy.

“It’s our responsibility to protect [creativity and access to information], and prevent our platform from being used to incite hatred, harassment, discrimination and violence,” the company continued.

Controversial stance on anti-gay remarks

This week, YouTube also came forward with its response to journalist Carlos Maza’s account of being persistently harassed by rival content creator Steven Crowder. Maza, who presents a series called Strikethrough for Vox, posted a video compilation of Crowder insulting him in the form of his own “debunking” video response.

In the video, Crowder is heard imitating Maza’s accent and calling him a "lispy queer", a "gay Vox sprite" and a "gay Mexican".

After being contacted by Maza to weigh in on the issue, YouTube said an "in-depth review" it conducted over the course of several days found that the videos weren’t in violation of its policies.

"While we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don't violate our policies," YouTube said in a statement.

“As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions w/in the scope of our policies,” the company said on Twitter. “Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.”

Some have suggested that the speech contained in Crowder’s videos does violate YouTube’s policies, which prohibit videos that are “deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone” and videos in which someone “makes hurtful and negative personal comments about another person.”

Amid growing concern about the harmful effects of plastic on the world’s oceans, Nestle’s Poland Spring has announced that it’s transitioning toward the use of 100 percent recycled plastic bottles.

The company said it plans to use recycled plastic bottles across 25 percent of its entire product portfolio by 2021. By 2025, it’s aiming to increase that percentage to 50 percent. The brand’s push to begin using more recycled materials starts this month with its one-liter bottles of non-carbonated water, which will now be made using 100 percent rPET (recycled plastic).

Earlier this year, Poland Spring launched Poland Spring Origin. The 900ml bottles are also made of 100 percent recycled plastic.

"As a company, we've already put our stake in the ground when it comes to taking the 'single' out of 'single-use' plastic bottles," says Fernando Mercé, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé Waters North America. "As we begin to transform Poland Spring, our most iconic brand, to 100% recycled plastic packaging, we will begin to bring this commitment to life for our consumers in a tangible way. Bottles like these, which are made from 100% recycled plastic and are 100% recyclable, are proof that a fully circular economy is within our reach."

Keeping plastic out of oceans

Poland Spring, which has faced lawsuits from consumers accusing the company of selling groundwater, joins other brands who have pledged to use more recycled materials over the next few years.

Back in October, hundreds of organizations vowed to eliminate plastic waste from their operations by 2025 as part of a global campaign led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Other companies have set to curb their impact on the environment by phasing out single-use straws and plastic bags.

Researchers have calculated that if current trends continue, there could be more plastic than fish in the world’s seas by 2050. But using recycled plastic helps keep plastic out of landfills and oceans, according to the Association of Plastic Recyclers.

Researchers from around the world have gone back and forth on the potential health benefits and risks of drinking coffee. Previous studies have suggested that drinking too much of the beverage can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, while others assert the exact opposite for certain volumes.

Now, researchers from Queen Mary University of London say that drinking even excessive amounts of coffee do not negatively impact our hearts and cardiovascular systems as much as previously portrayed. Specifically, the team looked at the beverage’s impact on arterial health.

"Despite the huge popularity of coffee worldwide, different reports could put people off from enjoying it. Whilst we can't prove a causal link in this study, our research indicates coffee isn't as bad for the arteries as previous studies would suggest,” said Dr. Kenneth Fun, one of the study’s lead researchers.

Arterial stiffness debunked, researchers say

The study analyzed test results for over 8,000 consumers who underwent MRI scans for artery stiffness and also reported on their coffee drinking habits. Participants were divided into three groups -- those who drank less than one cup per day, those who drank between one and three cups per day, and those who drank more than three cups per day.

The findings showed that even those that drank more than three cups of coffee per day did not have stiffer arteries than those who drank less than one cup per day. This was true even after adjusting for factors like age, gender, and other health metrics.

The researchers hope their work may help assuage some of the concerns that consumers have about coffee. Professor Metin Avkiran, the associate medical director for the British Heart Foundation, points out that varying reports from the media and scientific community may have biased some people against drinking it.

"Understanding the impact that coffee has on our heart and circulatory system is something that researchers and the media have had brewing for some time...There are several conflicting studies saying different things about coffee, and it can be difficult to filter what we should believe and what we shouldn't,” he said.

“This research will hopefully put some of the media reports in perspective, as it rules out one of the potential detrimental effects of coffee on our arteries."

The team’s full study was recently presented at the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS) Conference.

After Princess Cruises, a subsidiary of Carnival, was caught dumping prohibited waste at sea, it settled the charges but came under heightened scrutiny from regulators.

Now the company has conceded that it violated some of the terms of that 2017 settlement by dumping food waste and plastic, and it has agreed to pay $20 million to settle charges related to the violation.

The settlement, filed in federal court this week, detailed the latest charges: releasing food waste and plastic in the ocean, failing to keep an accurate record of waste disposal, creating false training records, and conducting examination of ships to resolve environmental-compliance problems before official inspections were conducted.

In a statement to the media, Carnival said it remains committed to “environmental excellence.”

"Our aspiration is to leave the places we touch even better than when we first arrived," the company said.

Origin of the charges

In late December 2016, the company entered a guilty plea in federal court to seven felony charges of deliberate pollution and cover-up. It also agreed to pay a $40 million fine, the largest-ever criminal penalty involving deliberate vessel pollution.

The charges primarily focused on one ship, the Caribbean Princess, which routinely visits U.S. ports on the East Coast. They stemmed from a whistleblower who first reported the illegal discharge of oil into the ocean through a “secret pipe” and whose testimony led to charges of a cover-up on the part of senior officers.

Terms of a settlement with the U.S. government were signed in early 2017. As part of the settlement, the Caribbean Princess was placed on probation and agreed to undergo periodic inspections to ensure it was abiding by the settlement agreement.

Then in April of this year, the new pollution charges emerged. An incensed U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz heard allegations that the company’s ships had violated the terms of their probation by dumping prohibited items at sea. At the time, she threatened to bar Carnival ships from U.S. ports, a potentially crippling blow.

Carnival is the world’s largest cruise line operator.

Chances are you haven’t thought about vehicle tires in a while. And that’s a good thing.

When tires are on your mind, it’s usually unpleasant. Maybe you’ve had a flat, the sensor on your dashboard is telling you one of them is low on air, or you’ve just run over something in the road.

Michelin and GM say they can do something about those worries. They’ve teamed up to launch a new generation of airless wheel technology for passenger vehicles. The new product is the Michelin Uptis prototype, or "Unique Puncture-proof Tire System."

The two companies say they plan to work together to test and validate the prototype in hopes of putting them on passenger cars by 2024.

Testing is underway

Tests are already underway, with the tires going on select GM vehicles like the Chevrolet Bolt EV. Real-world tests will begin later this year on a fleet of Bolt EV vehicles in Michigan.

The concept is fairly simple. Uptis has no air, so there is no danger of it losing any or suffering a dangerous blowout on an interstate highway. As a result, Michelin believes motorists will feel safer behind the wheel. Companies that operate passenger vehicle fleets will be more efficient by eliminating flat tires. When it comes to wheels, fleet operators should have little to no maintenance.

The companies say there are also sustainability benefits because of the reduced use of raw materials for spare tires, which will no longer be needed.

Sustainability

"Uptis demonstrates that Michelin's vision for a future of sustainable mobility is clearly an achievable dream," said Florent Menegaux, chief executive officer for Michelin Group. "Through work with strategic partners like GM, who share our ambitions for transforming mobility, we can seize the future today."

Bridgestone is also testing an airless tire prototype after having introduced its second generation air free concept non-pneumatic tire in 2013. That tire, the company says, features a unique spoke structure designed to support the weight of a vehicle, effectively eliminating the need to periodically refill vehicle tires with air.

Michelin says airless tires will be important to the future of mobility, especially as autonomous vehicles become commonplace. With no one behind the wheel to monitor performance, all aspects of a vehicle will need to be as maintenance-free as possible.

President Trump is running into a wave of opposition to his threatened tariffs on Mexico, and it isn’t coming from the usual sources. It’s coming from Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

Tuesday morning, Trump said GOP senators would be “foolish” to try to block a proposed tariff on Mexico, aimed at forcing that country to take strong steps to stem the flow of illegal crossings into the U.S. He then dispatched two administration lawyers to Capitol Hill to explain what the administration was doing and why.

According to the New York Times, the meeting didn’t accomplish its goal. Quoting sources in the meeting, the Times reports Sen. Ted Cruz (D-Tex.) was particularly blunt, telling the two lawyers to deliver a message to the Oval Office.

“You didn’t hear a single yes,” Cruz reportedly said, calling the proposed 5 percent tariff on Mexican imports a $30 billion tax hike on Texans.

Veto-proof vote

Sen. Rob Johnson (R-Wisc.) went on the record, telling the Times that it would be a mistake for Trump to call the Senate Republicans’ bluff because the vote to block the tariffs would be overwhelming and veto-proof.

“The White House should be concerned about what that vote would result in, because Republicans really don’t like taxing American consumers and businesses,” Johnson told the newspaper.

At last word, Trump planned to move ahead with the tariffs on Mexico on June 10. Previously, he had said the import tax would gradually rise to 25 percent until Mexico clamped down on illegal border crossings.

While Trump is in Europe, U.S. and Mexican officials are scheduled to meet later today to find some resolution to the standoff. Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard is in Washington to participate in the meeting, hosted by Vice President Mike Pence.

The Mexican tariff threat came just a week after U.S., Canadian, and Mexican negotiators put the final touches on a new North American trade agreement. The tariff threat also comes amid worsening trade tensions between the U.S. and China. The increasing use of tariffs as a negotiating tactic appears to be worrying to the president’s friends and foes alike.

Automakers would be especially affected by a round of Mexican tariffs since many cars and trucks sold in the U.S. are made in Mexico. Toyota said Tuesday the tariffs would cost its suppliers $1 billion.

Consultancy LMC Automotive tells Reuters that the auto industry could absorb a 5 percent tariff for a month. Should the tariff rise to 25 percent and last a few months, the firm predicts it would devastate the industry.

Sikorski Sausages of London, Ontario, Canada, is recalling approximately 74 pounds of various imported meat and poultry sausage products.

The products did not undergo inspection prior to being imported.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.

A listing of the recalled ready-to-eat meat and poultry sausage items, imported on May 14, 2019, may be found here: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/e8a12bfa-ab93-41b9-9603-6cff011dc723/059-2019-List-of-Recall-Products.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

The recalled items, bearing Canadian establishment number “810” within the Canadian mark of inspection, were shipped to a retail location in California and sold in varying weights behind the deli or meat counter.

What to do

Customers who purchased the recalled products should not consume them, but discard or return them to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Michael Zoltanski at (519) 317-8711 or by email at michaelz@sikorski.ca.

Suzuki Motor of America is recalling 300 model year 2018-2019 Burgman 200/UH200 scooters.

The rivet connections may fail and allow the movable drive plate of the Continuously Variable Transmission to break.

If the drive plate breaks, the scooter will lose power to the rear wheel, increasing the risk of a crash.

What to do

Suzuki will notify owners, and dealers will replace the drive plate free of charge.

The recall is expected to begin June 5, 2019.

Owners may contact Suzuki customer service at (714) 572-1490. Suzuki's number for this recall is 2A89.

On Monday, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee made it official that it’s starting a “top-to-bottom” bipartisan investigation into competition in digital markets and possible antitrust behavior.

While the committee didn’t name names, Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all seem to fit the committee’s characterization of “a small number of dominant, unregulated platforms [that] have extraordinary power over commerce, communication, and information online.”

“Based on investigative reporting and oversight by international policymakers and enforcers, there are concerns that these platforms have the incentive and ability to harm the competitive process,” the committee wrote in a news release.

A long time coming

It’s been 18 years since the U.S. government filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the company of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market. At the time, regulators said the company did this primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.

When the matter came to trial, the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Then, in October 2011, the FTC found that Google misrepresented "privacy assurances to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser." Google cut a deal for $22.5 million and promised to make some voluntary changes, with the case closing in 2013.

Since then, there have been a variety of cases like the one the U.S. Supreme Court heard  stemming from an $8.5 million settlement between Google and class-action lawyers who said the tech giant had violated its users’ privacy rights. However, there has been no investigation representing the same magnitude as the one the Judiciary Committee is taking up now.

The case against Facebook

How did these tech giants land themselves in hot water? In Facebook’s case, it could be a mix of two elements: one, the fact that the company has about 70 percent of U.S. adults as a customer in one fashion or another -- which gives it an incredible amount of power; and, two, Facebook’s acquisition of nearly 80 other companies -- possibly an effort to have 80 fewer competitors to worry about. When some rising social media competitors tried to form an “anti-Facebook alliance,” they found out their David was no match for Facebook’s Goliath.

“Facebook would just approach a company and say something to the effect of, ‘Join us or we will copy you,’” said Foursquare co-founder Naveen Selvadurai of the issue.

While it’s too early to tell if Congress will find Facebook’s practices “anti-competitive,” one legal tech analyst thinks there’s enough smoke to start that fire already.

Writing in The Berkeley Business Law Journal, Dina Srinivasan suggests that Facebook conducted “pervasive surveillance in spite of consumers’ preference for privacy.”

In Srinivasan’s examination of Facebook, she claims that, overall, Facebook has a lamentable track record loaded with oh-sorry-we-missed-that type omissions, “reliance-inducing future promises,” insincere excuses, and false statements -- all of which “collectively, likely deceived users.”

Other consumer-oriented gaffes that Srinivasan says Facebook made include:

Advertising surveillance

In 2007, when Facebook’s steam was first picking up, it “reneged on the promise not to surveil users outside of Facebook through the release of an advertising product called ‘Beacon.’”

Beacon was part of Facebook’s advertising ecosystem that sent data from external websites back to its own platform for a variety of purposes, including ad targeting and tracking Facebook users’ activity on third-party sites that also employed Beacon. That third-party activity was reportedly published to users' News Feeds, and it took place when users weren’t connected to Facebook and without their knowledge.

The lack of an option to block information from being sent to Facebook was a major faux pas for Beacon -- one controversial enough that Beacon wound up the target of a class-action lawsuit, then shuttered in September 2009.

Mark Zuckerberg subsequently called Beacon a “mistake’ -- the kind that “overshadowed much of the good work we’ve done.”

Development of “social plugins”

After Facebook closed down Beacon, it began developing a series of “social plugin” products which Srinivasan argues are relevant to an antitrust inquiry for three reasons.

“First, history reveals that competition continued to restrain Facebook’s ability to initiate surveillance.”

“Second, Facebook’s surveillance framework today requires the coordination of millions of independent third-parties. Facebook induced publishers and others to first coordinate with Facebook upon the representation that Facebook would not leverage their coordination for commercial surveillance.”

“Third, the record opens the door to consider (as to) whether Facebook’s pattern of conduct reflects an anticompetitive acquisition of monopoly power under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

Deterioration of its promise not to track

Srinivasan cites a 2018 example where Erin Egan, the chief privacy officer of Facebook, explained that Facebook would bypass consumer Do Not Track settings because Facebook does not track consumers for advertising purposes, in effect arguing that consumers do not understand what Do Not Track means.

“We don’t use that data for an advertising purpose,” Egan emphasized. In 2014, after Facebook changed course and began tracking consumers for commercial purposes, Facebook simply continued to ignore consumers’ Do Not Track requests.

Facebook circumvents consumer attempts to opt-out

From Srinivasan’s point-of-view, Facebook tracked its users’ behavior across the internet even though consumers weren’t on board for that level of scrutiny.

“First, Facebook itself did not and does not allow consumers to opt-out of the new off-site tracking,” writes Srinivasan.

“Second, Facebook chose to ignore consumers’ explicit requests enacted via the browsers’ Do Not Track option, to not be tracked. Third, when consumers installed ad blockers to circumvent tracking and targeted advertising, Facebook responded by circumventing the users’ installed ad blockers.”

The chief consumer takeaway

Out of the myriad of arguments Srinivasan makes, her conclusion is the one that consumers should pay attention to most.

“The fact that this century’s new communications utility is free but necessitates widespread surveillance of consumers is a paradox in a democracy. Facebook watches, monitors, and remembers what over 2 billion people do and say online. Contrary to what those in the advertising industry would regulators to think, American consumers value a state of no surveillance and have attempted to protect this aspect of their privacy since the beginning. The fact that the free market today offers no real alternative to this exchange is a reflection only of the failure of competition.”

Only time will tell whether the House Judiciary Committee takes viewpoints like Srinivasan’s to heart and forces a total reset on how much power Big Tech can have. But, she already has one of Facebook’s co-founders sharing her opinion.

“Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can,” wrote Chris Hughes in an opinion piece in the New York Times.

The ball is now in Congress’ court

In summarizing his position on the matter, Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) -- like most consumers -- believes that the internet has tremendous upsides, including “a surge of economic opportunity, massive investment, and new pathways for education online.”

“But there is growing evidence that a handful of gatekeepers have come to capture control over key arteries of online commerce, content, and communications. The Committee has a rich tradition of conducting studies and investigations to assess the threat of monopoly power in the U.S. economy,” he said.

“Given the growing tide of concentration and consolidation across our economy, it is vital that we investigate the current state of competition in digital markets and the health of the antitrust laws.”

Apple announced Monday that it’s breaking up iTunes and replacing it with three standalone apps called Music, TV, and Podcasts.

The decision to dismantle the music-media platform, which launched with the first batch of iPods in 2003, was revealed at Apple’s annual developer's conference in California. Apple’s VP of Engineering, Craig Federighi, hinted that consumers have expressed interest in a version of iTunes that is capable of doing more.

“Customers love iTunes and everything it can do. But if there’s one thing we hear over and over, it’s can iTunes do even more?,” he said.

Splitting up the iTunes workload

Each of the apps that are set to take the place of iTunes will manage a portion of the workload formerly shouldered entirely by iTunes, with a few additions.

The Music app will primarily offer music and personalized recommendations; the Podcasts app will enable users to search with the help of machine learning; and the TV app will feature a combination of content from networks such as HBO and Showtime and original content from Apple.

Users will still be able to buy and download songs through Apple’s Music app, and movies and TV shows can be purchased in the TV app. Previous purchases and media libraries will be maintained in each new app on Mac computers, a spokesperson told CNN Business.

The change, slated to be implemented later this year, means users soon won’t see iTunes automatically pop up when they sync their iPhone, iPod, or iPad. The device will instead sync via the sidebar in Finder on Macs.

Many prospective employers now ask job applicants for their social media handles so an applicant’s postings can be reviewed as part of the vetting process, along with their resume and references.

The United States government thinks it’s also a good way to vet foreigners applying for visas to enter the country. Starting later this month, visitors to the U.S. will have to provide access to their postings on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.

A State Department official says the government has a compelling interest, just as prospective employers do. The U.S. government wants to see how an individual presents themselves in a public forum before letting them into the country.

The State Department says the inclusion of that information is not such a big deal. It notes that already visitors applying for visas are asked to provide information about their travel history, family members, and previous addresses.

It’s quite a bit easier for Americans who visit foreign countries. U.S. citizens entering Canada are not required to apply for a visa. Citizens of other nations may stay in Canada up to 180 days without a visa.

American citizens visiting Germany are not required to apply for a visa if they are staying for fewer than 90 days.

The Trump administration proposed the idea of requiring access to social media accounts as a condition of entering the country almost as soon as it took office, drawing pushback from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Writing on the group’s blog in February 2017, ACLU Staff Attorney Esha Bhandari called it an invasion of privacy, not only for visitors but also Americans with whom they are connected. However, she notes that the idea was first advanced by the Obama administration.

Getting your kids involved in sports or other recreational activities can do wonders for their health, but a recent study shows it can also positively impact their development in other ways.

Researchers from the Université de Montréal in Canada say that encouraging young children to participate in sports can lead to fewer behavioral problems when they get older, and it also led to fewer emotional problems like distress, anxiety, shyness, and social withdrawal.

"The results revealed that children who participated consistently from ages 6 to 10 showed fewer instances of those factors at age 12 than their counterparts who did not engage in physical activity in a consistent way," said Frédéric Brière, the study’s lead author. "We found these benefits above and beyond pre-existing individual and family characteristics."

Promoting development

To come to their conclusions, the researchers analyzed participants who took part in the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Mothers of children aged 6 to 10 were asked to report whether their kids engaged in organized sports or recreational activities. Then, at age 12, the teachers of those same children were asked to report about levels of emotional distress.

The results showed that children were less anxious, shy, chronically distressed, and withdrawn if they participated in organized physical activity. The researchers believe that the structure of these activities allowed children to develop physical, mental, and social skills that they otherwise may not have been able to. Brière points out that better emotional stability is key to proper development.

"Getting kids actively involved in organized sport seems to promote global development. This involvement appears to be good on a socio-emotional level and not just because of physical benefits,” he said.

“Being less emotionally distressed at the juncture between elementary and high school is a priceless benefit for children, as they are about to enter a much larger universe with bigger academic challenges. This research supports current parental guidelines promoting children's involvement in physical activity."

The full study has been published in the journal Pediatric Research.