The use of coal to generate electricity on the US grid has been plunging for nearly two decades, and the first Trump administration was unable to affect the trend. So his second administration has attempted more aggressive interventions to prop up coal use. One of its most direct means of doing so is to order coal plants that were scheduled to close to remain open, even if there is no need for them.
The administration's justification for these orders is a statute that allows the Department of Energy (DOE) to declare an emergency in the case of wartime or a sudden shortfall in generation. A number of parties, including states where coal plants have been slated to close, have challenged this declaration. And on Friday, in the first of these cases to make its way through the courts, the declaration was judged to be contrary to the statute. While this only affects a single coal plant in Michigan, the reasoning of the decision will apply to every coal plant closure that has been blocked by the DOE.
No emergency
The decision was issued by a unanimous three-judge panel from the DC Circuit's Court of Appeals. It focuses on the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant, which was scheduled to close last year but has been kept open by a total of five emergency declarations by the DOE, each limited to 90 days by the Federal Power Act. At issue was section 202(c) of that Act, which allows the DOE to declare emergencies when the US is at war or when “an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy.”
Unicoin has sued Uniswap Labs in New York federal court, seeking declarations that its UNICOIN brand does not infringe Uniswap’s trademarks and asking the court to cancel Uniswap’s federal UNI trademark registration. Unicoin said in a Sept. 8 complaint shared…
The Hyperliquid Policy Center has asked a federal court to dismiss CME Group’s lawsuit against the CFTC, arguing that the derivatives exchange lacks standing and cannot rely on the Commodity Exchange Act provisions cited in its complaint. Hyperliquid policy group…
Two Illinois customers allege Walmart created voiceprints from service calls without obtaining consent required under the state’s biometric privacy law.
Two Illinois customers allege Walmart created voiceprints from service calls without obtaining consent required under the state’s biometric privacy law.
Apple says evidence from a former engineer’s MacBook strengthens its trade secret case against OpenAI as the companies clash over AI hardware and hiring.
Apple says evidence from a former engineer’s MacBook strengthens its trade secret case against OpenAI as the companies clash over AI hardware and hiring.
Movable shelving towers that hold items that are autonomously moved to Amazon employees who pack them for shipping. (GeekWire Photo / Lisa Stiffler)
Amazon is accused of artificially inflating the ad prices on its e-commerce site in a lawsuit filed Monday by Washington’s attorney general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 21 other states.
Amazon denies the allegations, saying its ad pricing has not harmed advertisers or shoppers and that the FTC’s claims mischaracterize how its system works.
Ads are sold on Amazon’s platform through so-called “second-price” auctions, in which businesses set a maximum price they’re willing to pay for an ad. If they’re the highest bidder, they pay only one cent more than the second-highest bid, and the auctions do not allow advertisers to see other bids.
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in late 2018, Amazon started adding surcharges to the prices, despite claims that it was still using a second-price system.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, alleges the tech giant overcharged roughly 1.2 million ad customers by overriding and replacing auction results with “higher prices set by Amazon to increase its profits.” The amount collected through the allegedly deceptive pricing scheme totals $20 billion, according to the suit.
“Many small business owners in Washington rely on Amazon for their livelihoods, and our office is committed to making sure Amazon treats them fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law,” said Nick Brown, Washington’s attorney general, in a statement.
Amazon posted an online response to the allegations. “The FTC’s claim fundamentally misunderstands how advertisers operate,” the company stated. “Advertisers adjust bids based on real-world performance, not descriptions of auction mechanics.”
The company said it prioritizes the relevance of an ad to the shoppers being targeted over bid price alone. As a result, Amazon said, 92% of winning ads in recent years were not given to the highest bidder, and ad performance has improved. Conversion rates — the percentage of shoppers who take a desired action after interacting with an ad — rose 24% from 2021 to 2025, according to Amazon.
The company also said that from 2019 to 2024, the average cost-per-click for sponsored product search ads was flat when adjusted for inflation.
Amazon acknowledged it has changed its ad pricing approach over time, saying that as the system prioritized ad relevance, winning bids increasingly fell below market value. As a result, the company now sets minimum prices, or “reserves,” for participating in an auction and for the minimum market value of the ad.
“Reserves like these,” it said, “are common across the industry.” The company said it does not charge advertisers more than their bid.
Amazon said it clearly explains its pricing process to advertisers. Plaintiffs dispute that, citing company employees who described creating fake auction participants.
The suit states that an Amazon senior scientist said that to increase auction prices, the company inserts “an invented auction participant representing how much Amazon thinks that particular ad slot is worth.”
The lawsuit is being led by the FTC and also includes the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.
The company is also in the FTC’s crosshairs in a separate, broader antitrust case accusing Amazon of maintaining an illegal monopoly in online retail, which is scheduled for trial next year.
Plaintiffs in the case announced Monday are asking the court to order Amazon to reform its practices, pay restitution and civil penalties for each violation, and cover attorneys’ fees.
A federal judge has allowed parts of an investor class-action lawsuit against Coinbase and certain executives to proceed, keeping allegations over risk disclosures alive in court.
US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled on August 20 that some claims could move into discovery. The court dismissed several claims but allowed allegations that Coinbase misled investors by concealing potential bankruptcy risks and downplaying SEC scrutiny to proceed.
The ruling is procedural.
It does not mean Coinbase has been found liable. It does not prove wrongdoing. It means the plaintiffs cleared enough of an early legal hurdle for certain claims to continue.
TL;DR
A federal judge allowed parts of a Coinbase investor class action to proceed.
The claims center on risk disclosures tied to bankruptcy and SEC scrutiny.
The ruling does not decide liability.
Why The Case Matters
Coinbase is one of the most important public companies in crypto.
Its disclosures, risk factors, regulatory statements, and investor communications are watched closely by both traditional markets and digital asset investors. A securities class action against the company therefore has broader relevance.
The case goes to a familiar question.
How much risk must crypto companies disclose, and how clearly must they explain regulatory uncertainty to investors?
That question has become more important as crypto firms operate in public markets, face agency scrutiny, and deal with fast-changing rules.
Risk Disclosure Is The Core Issue
The surviving claims reportedly concern whether Coinbase adequately disclosed certain risks.
Investors say the company concealed or downplayed potential bankruptcy-related concerns and regulatory scrutiny. Coinbase can still defend itself, and the facts remain contested.
But the court’s decision means those claims can proceed into discovery.
Discovery matters because it can force production of documents, communications, internal analysis, and testimony. That process can be expensive and revealing, even if a company ultimately wins.
Public Crypto Companies Face A Higher Bar
Private crypto firms can often operate with limited disclosure.
Public companies cannot. They must file risk factors, financial statements, management discussion, legal updates, and material event disclosures. Investors rely on those filings when buying shares.
That creates legal exposure.
If plaintiffs believe a company misrepresented risks or omitted material information, they may bring securities claims. Courts then decide which claims are strong enough to proceed.
Coinbase is not alone in facing this type of scrutiny, but its position makes the case especially visible.
No Liability Finding Yet
The caution is essential.
A motion-stage ruling is not a verdict. The court did not conclude that Coinbase misled investors. It only allowed certain allegations to continue.
Many class actions narrow over time.
Claims can be dismissed later, settled, or defeated after discovery. Coinbase can still challenge the allegations and defend its disclosures.
Markets should not treat the ruling as proof of wrongdoing.
Why Crypto Regulation Remains Central
The case also shows how regulatory uncertainty can become a securities-law issue.
If a crypto company’s business depends heavily on regulatory treatment, investors may argue that regulatory risk is material. Companies then need to describe that risk clearly enough that investors understand the potential impact.
That is difficult in crypto because rules can shift quickly.
SEC scrutiny, exchange registration questions, custody concerns, staking services, token listings, and bankruptcy treatment can all affect business models.
Coinbase operates directly inside that uncertainty.
What Comes Next
The case now moves forward on the surviving claims.
Discovery will determine what evidence the plaintiffs can obtain and how Coinbase responds. The company may later seek dismissal, summary judgment, settlement, or trial depending on how the case develops.
For now, the key takeaway is narrow but important.
Coinbase has not been found liable, but it must continue defending parts of an investor lawsuit over risk disclosures.
That keeps public-company crypto disclosure standards in the spotlight.
The Blockchain Association and Crypto Council for Innovation have filed a joint lawsuit challenging Illinois’ Digital Asset Tax Act, setting up a legal fight over whether the state can impose a transaction tax on digital asset activity.
The lawsuit was filed in Illinois state court on August 21 and seeks to block the law before it takes effect on January 1, 2027. The Digital Asset Tax Act would impose a 0.2% tax on the value of digital asset transactions.
The industry groups argue that the tax violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, and state due process protections.
That makes this more than a local tax dispute.
If allowed to stand, the law could become a model for other states looking to tax crypto transactions directly. If successfully challenged, it could limit how far state-level crypto taxation can go.
TL;DR
The Blockchain Association and Crypto Council for Innovation are suing over Illinois’ Digital Asset Tax Act.
The law would impose a 0.2% tax on digital asset transactions from January 1, 2027.
The lawsuit is ongoing, and the tax has not been blocked yet.
Why Illinois’ Tax Matters
Crypto taxation is usually discussed at the federal level.
Investors think about capital gains, income reporting, broker rules, and IRS guidance. But states can also shape digital asset markets through tax policy, licensing, consumer protection laws, and money-transmission rules.
Illinois’ Digital Asset Tax Act is notable because it targets transactions themselves.
A 0.2% tax may sound small, but transaction-based costs can matter in high-frequency markets, exchange activity, DeFi routing, payments, and institutional trading. If the tax applies broadly, it could affect both users and service providers.
That is why industry groups are pushing back before the law takes effect.
The Commerce Clause Argument
The dormant Commerce Clause argument is central.
In simple terms, states generally cannot pass laws that place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Crypto transactions often cross state and national boundaries, involve global networks, and may not map cleanly onto one local jurisdiction.
That creates a legal question.
If a state taxes digital asset transactions that involve activity beyond its borders, challengers may argue that the law interferes with commerce outside the state’s proper reach.
That argument could become important if other states attempt similar measures.
Internet Tax Freedom Act Adds Another Layer
The lawsuit also invokes the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
That federal law limits certain discriminatory taxes on internet access and online commerce. Crypto groups may argue that a digital asset transaction tax unfairly targets internet-based financial activity.
Whether that argument succeeds will depend on how the court interprets the law and how Illinois defends the tax.
But it gives the case a broader technology-policy angle.
This is not only about crypto. It is about how states tax digital commerce.
No Court Victory Yet
The market should not overread the filing.
The lawsuit has been filed, but there has been no final ruling blocking the tax. Illinois can still defend the law. The case may take time, and the outcome is uncertain.
That distinction matters because crypto markets often treat lawsuits as if the filer has already won.
Here, the industry has opened a legal challenge. It has not yet secured relief.
Why The Case Could Set A Precedent
If the challenge advances, it could influence how other states approach crypto taxation.
A ruling against Illinois might discourage transaction-level digital asset taxes. A ruling favoring the state could encourage similar laws elsewhere.
Either way, the case gives the industry a new front in the fight over crypto policy.
Federal regulators may dominate headlines, but state-level laws can directly affect users, exchanges, developers, and payment providers.
The Illinois lawsuit is a reminder that crypto regulation is not only being shaped in Washington. It is also being contested in state courts.
A US appeals court has allowed a proposed Binance-related theft lawsuit to proceed in federal court, rejecting a lower-court order that had forced the plaintiffs into arbitration.
The Eleventh Circuit issued an extraordinary writ of mandamus on August 19, directing the lower court to vacate its arbitration order. The panel found that the eight alleged crypto theft victims had never opened Binance accounts and therefore were not bound by Binance’s Terms of Use.
That is an important procedural ruling.
It does not mean Binance has been found liable. It does not prove RICO or anti-money-laundering allegations. It only determines that the plaintiffs can pursue the case in federal court rather than being forced into arbitration.
TL;DR
The Eleventh Circuit allowed eight alleged crypto theft victims to pursue claims in federal court.
The panel found they were not bound by Binance’s arbitration terms because they never opened Binance accounts.
The ruling is procedural and does not decide liability.
Why Arbitration Was The Key Issue
Many online platforms include arbitration clauses in their terms.
Those clauses can require users to resolve disputes privately instead of suing in court. Companies often prefer arbitration because it can reduce litigation costs, limit class-action risk, and keep disputes out of public court proceedings.
But arbitration usually depends on agreement.
If someone never opened an account and never accepted the terms, the argument that they must arbitrate becomes weaker.
That appears to be the issue in this case.
The plaintiffs argued they were victims of crypto theft and did not agree to Binance’s user terms. The appeals court agreed that forcing arbitration under those terms was improper.
Why This Matters For Crypto Platforms
Crypto theft cases often involve complicated chains of transactions, exchanges, wallets, and intermediaries.
Victims may claim stolen funds passed through major platforms even if they were never customers of those platforms. Exchanges, meanwhile, may argue that claims connected to their services should be handled under platform terms.
The Eleventh Circuit ruling limits how far that argument can reach.
If non-users are not bound by platform terms, they may have more room to pursue claims in court. That could matter in future theft, laundering, fraud, and tracing cases.
It does not guarantee those plaintiffs will win. It simply keeps the courthouse door open.
The Allegations Still Need To Be Proven
The lawsuit reportedly includes serious allegations, including RICO and anti-money-laundering compliance claims against Binance-related defendants.
But allegations are not findings.
The court did not rule that Binance laundered funds, violated RICO, or caused the plaintiffs’ losses. It only addressed whether the plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate.
That distinction is essential.
Crypto litigation headlines can easily make procedural rulings sound like judgments on the facts. This ruling is about venue and consent, not liability.
A Wider Compliance Signal
Even though the ruling is procedural, it still adds pressure to exchanges.
Major platforms are already under scrutiny from regulators, plaintiffs, and law enforcement over transaction monitoring, sanctions compliance, fraud controls, and the movement of stolen assets.
A federal case moving forward can create discovery, public filings, and legal risk.
That may encourage platforms to keep strengthening compliance systems, especially around suspicious flows and account activity linked to hacks or scams.
What Comes Next
The case now returns to federal court unless further review changes the outcome.
The plaintiffs still need to prove their claims. Defendants can still challenge the allegations, seek dismissal, contest class certification, and defend the case on the merits.
For now, the key point is narrower.
The appeals court found that alleged victims who never opened Binance accounts could not be forced into arbitration based on account terms they did not accept.
That gives the case a path forward in federal court — and adds another legal development to the growing list of crypto exchange liability battles.
Logitech is facing a proposed class action lawsuit for not giving customers tariff refunds.
In April 2025, Logitech raised the prices on 51 percent of its portfolio, with some prices increasing by as much as 25 percent.
The complaint seeks to “recover monies that Logitech extracted from American consumers as offset for import tariffs that the United States Supreme Court has since declared unlawful, tariffs for which Logitech now stands to be reimbursed by the federal government. This is all while Logitech retained every dollar of the corresponding price increases it charged its customers due to the illegal tariffs.”
Login
