Category:technology
The Erosion of Judicial Authority Through Agency Inaction: The FCC’s Five-Year Delay
More than five years ago, a federal court ordered the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to justify its decades old limits on radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices. Five years later, nothing has been done. In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit held that the FCC’s decision to keep the 1996 limits unchanged was, in part, arbitrary and capricious. Rather than respond, the FCC let the remand sit until Children’s Health Defense, Environmental Health Trust, and three individual petitioners sought a writ of mandamus in May 2026; only then did the FCC ask for public comment. To prevent rendering its 2021 ruling meaningless by further delay, the D.C. Circuit must hold the FCC accountable by imposing a firm compliance deadline. Otherwise, the FCC’s inaction risks setting a precedent that federal agencies may ignore court orders or delay compliance without consequence, undermining judicial authority and eliminating meaningful accountability.
The New Space Race: Data Centers in Orbit
Data centers have taken up permanent residence both around the world and in the news. Nearly 4,000 data centers exist throughout the United States, consuming a staggering 312.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2025 alone. For context, one TWh can power 90,000 homes annually. Despite their expansion across the U.S., data centers are highly controversial. As data centers continue to appear throughout the country and expend exorbitant amounts of energy, tech giants, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman, have begun brainstorming an extraterrestrial alternative: launch networks of data centers into low orbit. At the current moment, an incomplete patchwork of federal regulations and international treaties govern the development and execution of orbital data centers. Together, the international community must work to establish a clear set of regulatory guidelines that ensure the environment is safeguarded from social, environmental, and geopolitical degradation.
When Data Centers Become Toxic: Turning Public Backlash into Lasting Regulation
Data centers have rapidly emerged across the country to support the AI boom. Originally, policymakers were supportive of data center construction in their communities because they promised an influx of construction jobs, tax revenue, and community investment. To compete for data center construction in their communities, policymakers relaxes permitting requirements, offered tax subsidies, and signed non-disclosure agreements to keep development plans hidden. This competitive deregulation began to devolve into a race to the bottom; then, the public realized promises of construction fell short.
Data centers’ enormous energy consumption has spiked demand, forcing utility companies to build additional infrastructure and drive up rates for everyone on the grid. The rising energy prices—coupled with impacts on water resources, the environment, and community character—have made the public resentful of data centers in their communities. In response to the growing public resentment, elected officials facing reelection in the November midterm races are pivoting away from pro-data center policies toward increased regulation. Those officials should use the political momentum to build coordinated approaches that will prevent competitive deregulation and protect ratepayers long after the midterms.
Evolving Technology in Law Enforcement: Concerns and Solutions
Facial recognition technology has become widespread in consumer and commercial environments, and particularly law enforcement. Despite numerous benefits, these systems raise great concerns about privacy and data protection. The current legal frameworks are not strong enough to effectively manage the risks. No federal laws currently exist to regulate the use of facial recognition technology. Instead, enforcement is left to the states. Without aggressive state initiatives, use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement will continue unabated. This will result in data collection mired in algorithmic bias and will result in a complete disregard of civil liberties.
The European Union’s Antitrust Actions Against Google and Apple: The Last Soldier of Big Tech Regulation
Due to President Trump’s focus on weakening regulations on big technology companies, the European Union (EU) finds itself once again at the forefront of regulating big tech to ensure fair competition within digital markets. The EU’s recent actions, as of March 19, 2025, accuse Google and Apple of antitrust violations, a move that may increase geopolitical tensions as President Trump has made it clear he will protect American companies from “overseas extortion.” The EU remains one of the few remaining checks on the power of big tech.
The NCAA’s Gamble on Sports Betting Tech
March Madness is among the most anticipated sporting events of the year, with millions of viewers and billions of dollars in wagers making it one of the busiest times for college sports betting. However, rapid expansion of legalized sports betting across the U.S. has introduced significant regulatory challenges for the NCAA, colleges, and the compliance community. With an estimated $31 billion wagered in the 2025 tournament alone, ensuring conformity with NCAA sports betting regulations has become increasingly complex. To address these challenges, the NCAA has turned to advanced compliance technology, like Prohibet and Integrity Compliance (IC360), to monitor and enforce wagering restrictions.
Regulating Deepfakes: Strengthening the Fight Against Deceptive Media
In response to the growing threat of deepfake technology, two significant pieces of legislation have emerged: California’s 2024 Deepfake Deception Defense Act and the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act. A deepfake is a digitally altered video or image that uses artificial intelligence to make it appear as though someone is saying or doing something they never actually did. These laws aim to curb the spread of deceptive synthetic media and ensure transparency and accountability in digital content. Both Acts represent progress, but enhanced real-time monitoring, a registry, and a dedicated regulatory body are needed for better deepfake regulation.
The RegTech Revolution: Automating Compliance in a Complex Regulatory Landscape
In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, organizations face an ever-expanding array of regulations and compliance requirements. To navigate this complex environment, many businesses are turning to Regulatory Technology, or RegTech, to automate compliance processes. While automation promises increased efficiency and reduced costs, it also raises concerns about added complexities and potential risks. Is relying on technology to handle compliance a prudent strategy, or would this add layers to an already tangled web?
CrowdStrike’s Setback: A Blueprint for Better Third-Party Risk Compliance
Earlier this year, CrowdStrike, a leading cybersecurity company, experienced a major outage caused by an automatic software update. This incident disrupted services globally, affecting over 8.5 million devices, including critical sectors such as healthcare and financial services. As businesses increasingly rely on third-party vendors for cybersecurity, this outage underscores the importance of managing third-party risks and ensuring digital resilience. Organizations can use this event as a valuable lesson to reassess their risk management practices and strengthen their defenses. Furthermore, the incident reveals how even highly reputed vendors are not immune to failure, stressing the need for layered defenses that safeguard against vendor disruptions at every level.
Breaching the Last Bastion of the Human Psyche: Neural Data as Biometrics
Earlier this year, the New York Times reported on the proposed Colorado Privacy Act and the impact it would have on neurotechnology which uses “neural data” and already has noteworthy support within programming communities. What the Colorado Privacy Act aims to address are not the labs and medical studies conducted within clinics, but how it may be used within a consumer context. The Colorado Privacy Act does more than Illinois’ pioneer Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA).