Tag: extortion

  • Extortion in plain sight | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Extortion in plain sight | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    This essay was originally published by The Dispatch on July 4, 2025.

    Paramount Global’s decision to pay $16 million to end President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris was a “win for the American people,” according to Trump’s lawyers. And it happened because “CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle.”

    Well, not quite.

    The case is “historic” for sure, but not in a good way or because the advocates came up with profound theories of media law. Quite to the contrary: The case is so baseless, so devoid of factual or legal support, and so diametrically opposed to basic First Amendment principles it is hard to imagine how those who filed it sleep at night. 

    The main question about Paramount’s decision to settle this comically frivolous lawsuit is not why the company decided to settle, but why did resolving it take this long if the “historic case” were so “strong?” The reason for the settlement is obvious. Paramount, the corporate parent of the CBS television network, had a gun to its head. 

    Paramount must get approval from the Federal Communications Commission for its proposed $8 billion merger with Skydance Media (which includes the transfer of 28 CBS-owned and -operated broadcast stations). The merger agreement expired April 7 but was extended to July 7. So it was pay-up or shut-up time.

    The holdup, in every sense of that word, came in the form of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whom President Trump elevated to head the commission on Inauguration Day. As one of his first official acts, Carr opened his own investigation of the Harris interview over supposed “news distortion,” and he slow-rolled the FCC’s merger review process. The Securities and Exchange Commission and European regulators had approved the merger back in February, but the FCC continued to “ponder” the matter as the deal clock ticked down.

    Trump’s $16M win over ’60 Minutes’ edit sends chilling message to journalists everywhere

    Trump’s $16M win over a “60 Minutes” edit sends a chilling message to journalists everywhere. FIRE’s Bob Corn-Revere calls it what it is: the FCC playing politics.


    Read More

    But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt: Couldn’t it be that Carr was just carefully considering nuanced issues of media law in order to safeguard the public from big-network media bias? After all, Trump had claimed that CBS had edited its interview deceptively to make Harris “look better” — something he called “totally illegal,” an “UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL,” and for which the FCC should “TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.” Never mind that networks are not licensed by the FCC (stations are), the rant led to the lawsuit in Texas and later the FCC investigation.

    Loopy all-cap social media posts aside, there was never a legitimate basis either for the lawsuit or the FCC action. Every day, from the smallest newspaper to the largest network, reporters and editors must digest and condense the information they collect — including quotes from politicians and other newsmakers — to tell their stories concisely and understandably. For instance, Trump has repeatedly received the same treatment. Fox News repeatedly edited interviews with then-candidate Trump during the campaign, editing answers to enhance coherence, eliminate digressions, and excise insults. Making sense of the stuff that pours from politicians’ mouths is not easy. And here, CBS was accused of something unforgivable: committing standard journalism. 

    This was never about swapping out answers to different questions or rewriting answers, as Trump and his supporters falsely claim. During the interview, 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker asked then-Vice President Harris a question about the Biden administration’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: 

    MR. BILL WHITAKER: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The Wall Street Journal said that he — that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu, and in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration’s entreaties.

    VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.

    CBS broadcast two excerpts of Harris’ answer on two separate programs: On Face the Nation, CBS aired the first sentence of Harris’ answer. On 60 Minutes, CBS aired the last sentence of the answer. Really — that’s all this is about.

    The FCC in the past has never defined the editing process as “news distortion.” In fact, it has steadfastly maintained the First Amendment bars it from doing so. Chairman Carr’s decision to reopen a closed complaint in a matter he knows to be baseless and beyond the FCC’s authority is unprecedented and indefensible.

    We need a far stronger word than ‘hypocrite’ to capture this moment. We have a president who on day one issued an executive order purporting to ‘restore free speech’ … [then] deployed agency heads to retaliate against news organizations that displease him.

    And the arguments in the now-settled lawsuit are even more frivolous (if that’s even possible). Trump’s lawyers argued that the Harris interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the federal Lanham Act as a “false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice” and asserted $20 billion in damages. Those laws are designed to prevent consumer deception in marketing practices (like turning back the odometer on a used car) or false advertising. They simply don’t apply to editorial judgments by news organizations. No court in any jurisdiction has ever held that such a cause of action might be valid, and few plaintiffs have ever attempted to bring such outlandish claims. Those who have done so were promptly dismissed.

    But who needs good arguments or supporting legal authority when federal regulators are willing to ignore their oath to uphold the Constitution and back your political power play?

    Of course, Carr has maintained that there was no link between the Texas lawsuit and the FCC’s merger review or news distortion investigation. But let’s get real. Before he was named chairman, Carr said he didn’t think the 60 Minutes interview “should be a federal case,” and “we don’t want to get into authenticating news or being a Ministry of Truth.”

    But once Trump announced Carr as his pick to head the agency, Carr changed his tune, telling Fox News the FCC would review the 60 Minutes complaint while considering whether to approve the Paramount-Skydance merger. The hypocrisy here is staggering. As chairman, Carr has routinely boasted that he wants to move quickly to spur business and investment. Yet here, he mysteriously lagged in reviewing the Paramount Global-Skydance merger (coincidentally, no doubt) as settlement negotiations dragged on in Texas.

    We need a far stronger word than “hypocrite” to capture this moment. We have a president who on day one issued an executive order purporting to “restore free speech” and to bar any federal official from engaging in censorship. At the same time, the very same president deployed agency heads to retaliate against news organizations that displease him and to do so in support of his private litigation efforts. And we have an FCC chairman who used to say things like “[a] newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them,” who has made micromanaging news editing a defining principle of his administration.

    Meanwhile, settlement of Trump’s case against CBS and the anticipated merger approval raise some significant questions. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Ron Wyden have asked whether the settlement might violate federal bribery laws, which prohibit corruptly giving anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. In a similar vein, the Freedom of the Press Foundation has threatened (as a Paramount shareholder) to bring a derivative action against the company for conflict of interest, and last May filed a shareholder information demand. 

    Whatever else may happen, this week’s settlement announcement is not the end of this saga. But one thing is clear: The bullying tactics that led to this settlement stain our nation’s character and taint not just those who engage in them but also those who give in.

    Source link

  • PowerSchool data breach leads to school extortion attempts

    PowerSchool data breach leads to school extortion attempts

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Threat actors are trying to extort some public schools by threatening them with teacher and student information stolen in a December 2024 data breach of PowerSchool’s Student Information System, according to recent statements from the ed tech software provider and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 
    • PowerSchool confirmed on Wednesday that it paid a ransom to threat actors shortly after the Dec. 28, 2024, data breach. The company added that it believes the threat actors seeking ransoms from schools are using the same compromised data set from the December incident, which included student and staff names, contact information, some Social Security numbers, medical notes and a limited number of passwords. 
    • While PowerSchool’s December data breach appeared to impact a wide range of school districts across North America, a spokesperson on Friday told K-12 Dive that the threat actors have only contacted four school districts. Schools in locations ranging from North Carolina to Toronto began to report receiving such ransom threats this week. 

    Dive Insight:

    For years, the FBI has advised schools and other organizations not to pay ransomware demands, because doing so can embolden threat actors and there’s no guarantee that stolen data will be recovered.

    PowerSchool acknowledged in a Wednesday statement that it made a “very difficult decision” to pay a ransom after the December 2024 incident. The company said it thought paying a ransom was the best option for preventing the data from going public. 

    “In the days following our discovery of the December 2024 incident, we made the decision to pay a ransom because we believed it to be in the best interest of our customers and the students and communities we serve,” PowerSchool said. “As is always the case with these situations, there was a risk that the bad actors would not delete the data they stole, despite assurances and evidence that were provided to us.”

    A PowerSchool spokesperson said the company is not disclosing how much it paid to the threat actor. 

    Meanwhile in North Carolina, the state’s education department pointed out in a Wednesday statement that PowerSchool had assured its customers five months ago that the data compromised in the December 2024 data breach was not shared and had been destroyed. 

    “Unfortunately, that has proven to be incorrect,” the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction said. “PowerSchool is the party responsible for the breach. There is nothing NCDPI, school districts or individual schools could have done to prevent these violations.”

    The state education department added that it will not engage with the threat actors and that doing so would violate North Carolina law.

    Additionally, the department said the incident appears to be a global cybersecurity incident impacting customers in multiple states and Canada. An FBI investigation into the matter is ongoing, according to NCDPI.

    PowerSchool is working directly with the contacted schools and law enforcement, the company’s spokesperson said. The company is also providing free credit monitoring and identity protection services to students and staff. 

    Public pushback against PowerSchool since it announced the initial data breach in January has included multiple class action lawsuits. The company serves over 60 million students and 18,000 educational customers.

    The data breach occurred after a threat actor gained unauthorized access to an unknown amount of student and staff data by infiltrating the company’s PowerSource customer support portal for district and school staff. PowerSchool previously confirmed to K-12 Dive that the same system lacked multifactor authentication — a standard and encouraged practice for securing sensitive data.

    Source link