Since 2023, more than 200,000 Dashers in New York City were underpaid or paid late under the City’s delivery worker pay rules. These errors were unintentional, but that doesn’t make them acceptable. Dashers should be paid in full, on time, every time. We take full responsibility, and we’re deeply sorry. We’ve reached a $131.5 million settlement with the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. Every impacted Dasher will receive the amount they are owed, and they’ll be contacted directly with payment details. We understand the impact of even one missed or late payment. We’ve addressed the issues that caused these errors and made changes to prevent them from happening again. Read more here: about.doordash.com/en-us/new….

SCOOP: two senators are urging the FTC today to investigate Amazon and Walmart over how their AI shopping bots treat “Made in America” claims. Both retailers allegedly “suppress” data on domestic goods and undermine sellers making products here. wsj.com/cmo-today/senators-a…

With a vote for cloture on the Protect College Sports Act imminent, @SenatorCantwell has released a financial report “that demonstrates how unsustainable growth in spending in college sports” among NCAA members masks a 94% rate of operating deficits: usatoday.com/story/sports/co…

Trump tech adviser David Sacks at Politico AI summit citing former Biden FTC chair Lina Khan's remarks that existing laws can be used to address some AI concerns. "I agree with that," he says

New: Members of Congress and governors are under increasing pressure to regulate AI, but more than two dozen of them told us they don't use the technology or have rarely done so. Many are older, influential lawmakers. One House Democrat called it "f*cking absurd," arguing, "Anyone who's overseeing this has to be someone who's a regular user." w/ @AndrewSolender @StefWKight axios.com/2026/09/16/lawmake…

NEW: Mamdani's DCWP Commissioner Sam Levine is building a new sub-agency of consumer protection sleuths: economists and technologists who can extract and analyze companies' data to find out whether they're ripping off workers and consumers. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products. We shouldn’t let discussions about new legal regimes distract from the fact that there’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books — a point @FTC emphasized repeatedly during my tenure. 1. There is an extensive set of laws that govern dangerous and defective products. For example, releasing unvetted AI models or agents can violate consumer protection laws. Shipping flawed AI tools without implementing adequate measures to detect and stop rogue or defective AI agents can be an “unfair or deceptive” act or practice under the FTC Act (and analogous state laws). And some state AGs are already exploring holding AI firms and their CEOs criminally liable when their models participate in criminal activity. 2. Existing laws also prohibit “unfair methods of competition.” This covers instances where AI firms appropriate the competitively sensitive information of their customers, including through tracking their use of various tools. It can also cover instances where firms pursue dangerous behavior, aware that doing so may compel rivals to do the same. As the Supreme Court has noted: “A method of competition which casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal, was thought to involve the kind of unfairness at which the [unfair methods of competition] statute was aimed." 3. The highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets could be creating major risks and conflicts of interest. We had started investigating these partnerships and cross-investments across the stack (and released a preliminarily overview of some findings: ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre…). Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and inter-dependencies. We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this — given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead. 4. As AI tools dramatically change the landscape of cybersecurity risks and hacks, all businesses should be doubling down on having core security protections in place. Firms that fail to invest in adequate data security measures or fix known vulnerabilities can also be breaking the law. A recent analysis showed that around 1/3 of Fortune 100 companies do not even have a way to notify them about security issues. During my @FTC tenure, we sued firms for poor data security practices and held CEOs liable when they were personally responsible. this.weekinsecurity.com/doze… ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre… 5. As policymakers consider new legal regimes, we should be looking to lessons from prior efforts to govern major sectors, such as banking and other networks, platforms, and utilities. Tools like structural separations, nondiscrimination, and supervision could be key, and there’s a rich history of what works and what doesn’t. But we can and must pursue any new efforts alongside enforcing existing laws.