& Co. reached a $3.7 billion deal with regulators to resolve allegations that it harmed more than 16 million people with deposit accounts, auto loans and mortgages.
The settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau includes a $1.7 billion penalty, the agency’s largest-ever fine, and more than $2 billion in consumer restitution, the regulatory agency said Tuesday.
The consumer watchdog agency said the bank illegally assessed fees and interest charges on loans for cars and homes. Some consumers had their vehicles illegally repossessed while others had overdraft fees unlawfully applied, the agency said.
Wells Fargo’s regulatory troubles continue to ripple through the bank more than six years after its fake account scandal burst into public view. Other problems later surfaced across the San Francisco-based bank, including in its lending and deposit-taking businesses.
The CFPB settlement resolves a major penalty hanging over Wells Fargo but leaves it handcuffed by other regulators. The Federal Reserve has had a cap on the bank’s asset growth in place for nearly five years. Politicians continue to target the bank, and investors have filed a series of class-action lawsuits.
“Wells Fargo is a corporate recidivist,” said CFPB Director
Rohit Chopra,
on a call with reporters Tuesday. He said the settlement “should not be read as a sign that Wells Fargo has moved past its longstanding problems.”
The bank had been negotiating with the CFPB for months in an effort to lump as many outstanding issues into the settlement as possible, according to people familiar with the matter.
Newsletter Sign-up
Alert
Markets
Major financial-market and trading news.
Much of the $2 billion remediation included in the settlement has already been doled out to customers. The bank, for example, has paid $1.3 billion to 11 million customers who had auto-loan servicing issues, the CFPB said.
Wells Fargo has been working for years to resolve a series of regulatory matters stemming from a fake-accounts scandal in 2016. Afterward, other problems surfaced across the bank, including in its mortgage and auto-lending businesses.
The CFPB said the bank’s actions span over a decade. Wells Fargo incorrectly applied auto-loan payments because of technology and compliance failures from 2011 through 2022, the agency said. Errors in its home loan modification process went on from 2011 to 2018, the agency said.
The bank sometimes charged overdraft fees even when a customer had enough funds available to make a debit-card transaction or ATM withdrawal, CFPB said. Wells Fargo is required to refund customers about $205 million in fees since the beginning of last year that weren’t yet reversed. CFPB will oversee that process.
Mr. Chopra, an appointee of President Biden, has said he plans to target repeat offenders. “Corporate recidivism has become normalized and calculated as the cost of doing business,” he said in a speech earlier this year. He has also sought to make his agency more adversarial toward financial firms.
The CFPB said Wells Fargo has accelerated efforts to clean up its act since 2020. Tied to the settlement, the agency will terminate one of the consent orders it had placed on the bank in 2016 and clarify that a 2018 consent order will terminate in no more than three years.
Wells Fargo, led by CEO Charlie Scharf, had signaled for months that it expected another large regulatory penalty.
Photo:
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
“This far-reaching agreement is an important milestone in our work to transform the operating practices at Wells Fargo and to put these issues behind us,” Chief Executive
Charlie Scharf
said in a statement.
Mr. Scharf was brought in to clean up the bank in 2019. He has overhauled the top executive ranks, cut its workforce and gave priority to remaking the bank’s back-end systems for managing internal controls and risk.
The bank had signaled for months that it expected another big regulatory penalty, and it took a $2 billion charge in the third quarter tied to resolving long-running legal and regulatory issues. The bank said Tuesday that it expects an operating losses expense of $3.5 billion in the current quarter.
has signaled it plans to challenge the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit to block its $75 billion deal for
Activision
ATVI -0.38%
Blizzard Inc., and is expected to argue that it is an underdog in videogame developing.
The personal-computing company has been publicizing its position for months, saying the acquisition wouldn’t threaten competition in the industry because Microsoft trails rivals in videogame consoles and has a limited presence in mobile-game development. The company has also said it expects the industry to get more competitive in the future with the rise of cloud gaming.
Legal experts say Microsoft will likely build its case around those talking points as well as the fact that it is pursuing what is called a vertical merger, meaning it is buying a company in its supply chain as opposed to a direct competitor.
Newsletter Sign-up
Alert
Technology
Major news in the technology sector.
The deal “is fundamentally good for gamers, good for consumers, good for game developers and good for competition,” said
Brad Smith,
Microsoft’s president and vice chair, at the company’s annual shareholders meeting Tuesday. “We will have to present this case to a judge in a court because this is a case in which I have great confidence.”
Microsoft has until Thursday to respond to the FTC’s suit, which was filed Dec. 8 in the agency’s administrative court.
In its complaint, the FTC alleged the deal is illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers access Activision’s games beyond the Redmond, Wash., company’s own Xbox consoles and subscription services. The company could raise prices or degrade Activision’s content for people who don’t use its hardware to access the developer’s games, or even cut off access to the games entirely, the FTC said.
“If you can control an important source of content like Activision Blizzard, you have a variety of tools to leverage at your disposal,” which could stifle competition, an agency official said earlier this month.
At the shareholder meeting, Mr. Smith challenged the FTC’s concerns that Microsoft’s chief rival, PlayStation maker
Sony Group Corp.
, would be harmed by the deal, saying Sony has too big a lead in the high-performance console space to warrant protection.
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer discusses growth in cloud gaming, gaming subscriptions and the planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
He further argued that the FTC’s case largely hinges on a worry that Microsoft could one day make games from Activision’s “Call of Duty”—which has been a hit among PlayStation users—exclusive to its Xbox system. Mr. Smith said Sony has about four times as many exclusive games on its consoles today as Microsoft has on its gaming machines.
Sony didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Microsoft said it made a last-minute offer to keep “Call of Duty” games accessible to others through a legally binding consent decree, augmenting an offer that the company had made months earlier to keep it accessible for at least 10 years.
A hearing would take place in the FTC’s administrative court in August, unless a resolution is reached before then. After the case is heard, legal experts say it could take months before a decision is handed down, and the losing side can then appeal it with the full commission. If an appeal is filed, the commission reviews the entire record anew and hears oral arguments, before deciding to uphold or overturn the administrative law judge’s order. At that point, if Microsoft loses, the company can appeal the commission’s decision to a federal appeals court.
“This is no way a slam-dunk case for the FTC,” said
Eric Talley,
a professor at Columbia Law School. “Even if the odds are a little bit long, they’re showing they’re willing to kick the tires to budge legal precedent a little bit more in their favor.”
Microsoft recently made a last-minute move to augment its offer to keep Activision’s ‘Call of Duty’ games accessible to others.
Photo:
Martin Meissner/Associated Press
Some analysts said Microsoft might want to drop the acquisition, which the company values at $68.7 billion after adjusting for Activision’s net cash, to avoid executive distraction and expensive regulatory concessions. Microsoft has said it is committed to addressing regulators’ concerns.
While the litigation is continuing, Microsoft could offer the FTC additional commitments or implement them itself, said
Benjamin Sirota,
an antitrust attorney with the law firm Kobre & Kim LLP in New York. But to be satisfied, the government would have to enforce those commitments, which “takes resources and circumstances often change,” he said. The agency might also consider how “commitments that solve a competition problem now might not work in the future,” he added.
The FTC faces hurdles in its case because of the deal’s vertical-merger status, according to
David Hoppe,
mergers and acquisitions, tech and media attorney with Gamma Law in San Francisco.
“With these cases, it’s hard to prove consumer harm,” he said. “It’s not two competitors combining, in which case the harm to consumers is typically self-evident.”
The FTC has been clear about its intention to expand the scope of harm beyond a merger’s likely impact on consumer prices, Mr. Hoppe said. The agency might be concerned about actions that could indirectly put consumers at risk, he said, such as the misuse of sensitive competitor information by the combined enterprise. That information could give Microsoft a way to keep newcomers in videogame distribution from succeeding, which could result in fewer options for consumers, he said.
“It’s all about the network effect,” Mr. Hoppe said.
Write to Sarah E. Needleman at Sarah.Needleman@wsj.com
oversaw one of the biggest financial frauds in American history, a top federal prosecutor said in charging that the former chief executive stole billions of dollars from the crypto exchange’s customers while misleading investors and lenders.
An indictment by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, unsealed Tuesday, charges Mr. Bankman-Fried with eight counts of fraud. Prosecutors allege that he took FTX.com customers’ money to pay the expenses and debts of Alameda Research, an affiliated trading firm. Mr. Bankman-Fried is charged as well with conspiring to defraud the U.S. and violate campaign-finance rules by making illegal political contributions.
Damian Williams,
the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said he authorized the charges against Mr. Bankman-Fried last Wednesday and a grand jury voted on the indictment Friday.
“This investigation is very much ongoing, and it is moving very quickly,” Mr. Williams said at a press conference in Manhattan on Tuesday. “While this is our first public announcement, it will not be our last.”
John J. Ray III, the new chief executive of FTX, testified in front of a House committee Tuesday on the collapse of the crypto exchange. Photo: Nathan Howard/Getty Images
Separately, John J. Ray III, the new chief executive of FTX, said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that FTX incurred losses in excess of $7 billion. Mr. Ray, who oversaw the Enron Corp. bankruptcy early in the 2000s decade, said funds were taken from FTX and Alameda, an affiliated trading firm that incurred trading losses.
Mr. Ray described Enron as having been brought down by sophisticated people whose machinations aimed to keep transactions secret. FTX presents as “old-fashioned embezzlement,” Mr. Ray said. “It’s taking money from customers and using it for your own purpose.”
Also Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged in a civil lawsuit that Mr. Bankman-Fried diverted customer funds from the start of FTX to support Alameda and to make venture investments, real-estate purchases and political donations. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a lawsuit Tuesday linking his allegedly fraudulent conduct at Alameda and FTX to markets that the CFTC regulates.
“
Sam Bankman-Fried
built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto,” SEC Chair
Gary Gensler
said.
The charges are the latest twist in a saga that has rattled the world of cryptocurrencies, a largely unregulated market that boomed during the pandemic but has been hammered this year by rising interest rates and the failure of several significant industry players.
FTX, one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, filed for bankruptcy last month after the firm ran out of cash and a merger with rival Binance collapsed. The firm’s failure marked a sudden fall from grace for Mr. Bankman-Fried, who portrayed FTX as a safer crypto exchange to use and cast himself as an ally of regulation.
In interviews since the filing, Mr. Bankman-Fried said he bore responsibility for FTX’s collapse but denied he committed any fraud.
Mark Cohen,
a lawyer for Mr. Bankman-Fried, said Tuesday that his client “is reviewing the charges with his legal team and considering all of his legal options.”
Newsletter Sign-up
WSJ Crypto
Smart and accessible crypto market analysis for investors.
Mr. Bankman-Fried, 30 years old, was arrested Monday in the Bahamas. He appeared in court Tuesday in Nassau. He was denied bail and has been remanded to jail until Feb. 8, according to a person familiar with the matter.
A U.S. court official said that while the case had been assigned to a federal judge in Manhattan, there was no timing yet for Mr. Bankman-Fried’s extradition.
The tales of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s alleged misdeeds resonated with crypto customers around the world, even those who haven’t suffered significant losses as various firms by turns suspended withdrawals and collapsed.
Vasco Tagachi, a 42-year-old Portuguese-Sri Lankan trader based in China, said he felt a sigh of relief after learning of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s arrest. He said he had $57,423 in an FTX account this fall but was able to withdraw almost all of it just before the firm stopped honoring withdrawal requests.
“I had a little bit of tears in my eyes hearing that,” he said.
Prosecutors allege that from 2019 through November 2022, Mr. Bankman-Fried conspired with unnamed individuals to defraud customers and lenders. He provided false and misleading information to lenders on the financial condition of Alameda, according to the indictment.
Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas on Monday, a day before he was expected to testify on the sudden collapse of FTX before the House Committee on Financial Services. Illustration: Jacob Reynolds
While the 14-page indictment was light on detailed allegations, it says that on Sept. 18, 2022, Mr. Bankman-Fried caused an email to be sent to an FTX investor in New York that contained false information about FTX’s financial condition. In June 2022, the indictment says, Mr. Bankman-Fried and others misappropriated FTX.com customer deposits to satisfy the loan obligations of Alameda.
Mr. Bankman-Fried is also accused of defrauding the Federal Election Commission starting in 2020 by conspiring with others to make illegal contributions to candidates and political committees in the names of other people.
He and his associates contributed more than $70 million to election campaigns in recent years, The Wall Street Journal previously reported. He personally made $40 million in donations ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, most of which went to Democrats and liberal-leaning groups.
Mr. Ray, the FTX CEO, said FTX is investigating whether any loans taken by FTX executives were improperly used for campaign contributions.
Mr. Ray added that tracing fund flows from FTX to executives and third parties was difficult because of the lack of a paper trail for many corporate transactions at FTX.
“We’re dealing with a paperless bankruptcy,” he said. “It makes it very difficult to trace and track assets.”
The CFTC’s complaint contains a detailed discussion of events at Alameda and FTX and argues that the agency, generally less visible to the public than the SEC, also has jurisdiction over the case. While the CFTC regulates U.S. derivatives markets, it can go after fraud that affects some commodity markets.
Besides giving Alameda access to its customer deposits, FTX granted the crypto hedge fund controlled by Mr. Bankman-Fried a series of trading-execution privileges that provided it an edge against other traders on the platform, the CFTC lawsuit alleges.
The CFTC said that while institutional customers had their orders routed through the FTX system, Alameda was able “to bypass certain portions of the system and gain faster access.” It resulted in Alameda’s orders being received by FTX several milliseconds faster than those of other institutional clients.
The lawsuit also alleges that Alameda wasn’t subject to certain automated verification processes, including on whether it had available funds before executing a transaction, giving it further advantage on the speed of its trades.
The edge wasn’t enough to keep Mr. Bankman-Fried from thinking about shutting down Alameda in September, according to the CFTC complaint.
In a document titled “We came, we saw, we researched,” Mr. Bankman-Fried laid out reasons for shutting down Alameda, according to the CFTC lawsuit. Chief among them: Alameda wasn’t making enough money to justify its existence, he wrote.
The CFTC said the statements contradicted what Mr. Bankman-Fried and Alameda were saying publicly at the time.
Tuesday’s congressional hearing was the first public appearance for Mr. Ray on FTX’s bankruptcy. Mr. Bankman-Fried had been scheduled to appear virtually at the same hearing, before he was arrested in the Bahamas at the request of the U.S. government. Bahamian police have said that they would keep him in custody and that they are awaiting an extradition order from U.S. authorities.
“The operation of Alameda really depended, based on the way it was operated, on the use of customer funds,” Mr. Ray said, responding to questions from members of Congress at the hearing. “There were virtually no internal controls…whatsoever.”
He described numerous loans totaling billions of dollars taken out by Mr. Bankman-Fried from Alameda.
“We have no information at this time as to what purpose or use of those funds were,” Mr. Ray added. He said Mr. Bankman-Fried had signed as the issuer and recipient for some of the loans.
Mr. Ray pushed back against recent statements made by Mr. Bankman-Fried that he had little to no involvement in the management of Alameda after passing control of the company to
Caroline Ellison
and
Sam Trabucco,
as well as Mr. Bankman-Fried’s statements that customer funds were passed to Alameda because of an accounting error.
“I don’t find those statements to be credible,” Mr. Ray said.
The Justice Department’s indictment of Mr. Bankman-Fried includes an array of charges with few supporting details, a tactic that could give federal prosecutors flexibility in navigating the rules involving extradition.
The charges against Mr. Bankman-Fried run the gamut from wire fraud to securities fraud conspiracy to conspiring to launder money and conspiring to break campaign-finance laws.
The statutes charged, with the exception of the campaign-finance offense, are enormously broad, said Rebecca Mermelstein, a former federal prosecutor who is now at O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
“By not being superspecific, you protect yourself later against an argument that charges relating to different criminal conduct are being added,” she said.
The arrest of Mr. Bankman-Fried is the latest case to highlight prosecutors’ push to bring white-collar cases to justice faster.
Deputy U.S. Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in a September speech that making prosecutors and companies feel that they were “on the clock” in these cases was a key priority for the department.
FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried sat down with The Wall Street Journal to discuss what happened to the billions of dollars deposited by the exchange’s customers. Photo: Kenny Wassus/The Wall Street Journal
“We need to do more and move faster,” she said. “In individual prosecutions, speed is of the essence.”
Former federal prosecutors say that high-profile financial cases with lots of victims can increase the pressure on authorities to bring cases more quickly.
“Appearances matter when it comes to criminal justice,” said Mark Chutkow, a former federal prosecutor who is currently head of government investigations and corporate compliance at Dykema Gossett PLLC.
If Mr. Bankman-Fried remains in the Bahamas while the details of his potential extradition to the U.S. are worked out, there is only one prison there: the Bahamas Department of Correctional Services, commonly known as Fox Hill Prison.
Prison inmates reported removing human waste by buckets and developing bed sores from lying on the bare ground, according to a 2021 human-rights report on the Bahamas by the U.S. State Department. Cells were infested with rats, maggots and insects, the report said.
Inmates are supposed to get an hour every day outside for exercise. Because of staff shortages and overcrowding, there are times when inmates will only get 30 minutes a week, said Romona Farquharson, an attorney in the Bahamas.
The prison has different sections that separate those serving terms for violent crimes, for instance, from those who aren’t. Because of overcrowding, there have been instances in which inmates awaiting trial for minor crimes have been sent to the maximum-security facility, said Ms. Farquharson.
“I think they’ve got to be careful not to have him in really rough areas in the prison,” she said.
—Angel Au-Yeung, Ben Foldy and Hannah Miaocontributed to this article.
Write to Corinne Ramey at corinne.ramey@wsj.com, James Fanelli at james.fanelli@wsj.com, Dave Michaels at dave.michaels@wsj.com, Alexander Saeedy at alexander.saeedy@wsj.com and Vicky Ge Huang at vicky.huang@wsj.com
Cloud gaming is an emerging technology that allows people to stream videogames to nearly any internet-connected device, similar to how movies and shows are viewed on
Netflix,
Hulu and other streaming platforms.
The business model being developed alongside cloud gaming is a subscription service, where consumers get to play a catalog of games for a flat monthly or annual fee. With cloud gaming, players can avoid downloading games to their devices, which takes up memory, and they don’t need to invest in hardware such as a console or high-end computer.
The FTC and videogame industry participants anticipate cloud gaming will become a much larger part of the market in years to come. With its lawsuit, the FTC says it is protecting the videogame-distribution market—as it is today and how it is expected to evolve—from being dominated by a few companies.
Newsletter Sign-up
Technology
A weekly digest of tech reviews, headlines, columns and your questions answered by WSJ’s Personal Tech gurus.
Microsoft is an early leader in cloud gaming with its Xbox Game Pass subscription service. The company’s $75 billion deal forActivision would bolster its content library, adding several blockbuster franchises including “Call of Duty,” “World of Warcraft” and “Candy Crush Saga.”
Microsoft, which has pledged to fight the FTC’s suit, has said it is an underdog in the existing console market, with Xbox’s position trailing
Sony Group Corp.’s
PlayStation and
Nintendo Co.
’s Switch. The company doesn’t disclose Xbox sales by volume.
Shoppers are seeing more out-of-stock messages than ever, but inventory tracking websites like HotStock and Zoolert are giving people a better chance of finding the hot-ticket products they’re looking for. Here’s how those websites work. Illustration: Sebastian Vega
The technology giant has also said that it has no meaningful presence in mobile, the biggest corner of the overall videogame industry by revenue.
Apple Inc.
and
Alphabet Inc.’s
Google, makers of the predominant smartphone operating systems, play a critical role in how people access mobile games, and they take a cut of developers’ in-app and subscription sales.
Xbox Game Pass, which Microsoft launched in 2017, offers a library of hundreds of games for subscribers to play starting at $9.99 a month. The basic plan allows subscribers to download individual games on their Xbox or PC to play whenever they want. For $14.99 a month, subscribers can play some of thosegames via the cloud, all part of Microsoft’s ambitions to build a “Netflix of gaming.” The company in January said Game Pass had 25 million subscribers.
Global consumer spending on cloud-gaming services and games streamed via the cloud will reach a combined $2.4 billion by the end of this year, according to an estimate from Newzoo BV. That is a tiny fraction—1.4%—of the $184.4 billion in overall spending on videogame software.
Sony, which has aggressively lobbied governments around the world to oppose the Microsoft-Activision tie-up, and others have attempted to grow their own cloud-gaming subscription services. Microsoft, for now, is the dominant player, accounting for 60% of the overall cloud-gaming business last year, according to an estimate from research firm Omdia.
Microsoft is an early leader in cloud gaming with its Xbox Game Pass subscription service.
Photo:
etienne laurent/Shutterstock
The FTC appears concerned that it “can’t see the unintended consequences even just a few years down the road for an acquisition like this,” said
Paul Swanson,
a Denver-based antitrust lawyer at Holland & Hart LLP. “What they’re saying here is we’re going to err on the side of preserving as many independent competitors as we can.”
Over the past decade, Microsoft has poured billions into its cloud operations primarily for selling software and infrastructure for enterprise customers. It is now building out a separate cloud infrastructure to power its videogaming ambitions, which have been under development since it launched its first Xbox console in 2001.
Cloud gaming hasn’t been an easy business to navigate. The technology is difficult for companies to execute smoothly because games need to support multiple players with minimal delay regardless of where players are located. Earlier this year, Google shut down its game-streaming service, Stadia, after struggling to gain traction with users.
Microsoft remains heavily invested in its Xbox hardware, but cloud gaming gives it an opportunity to reach more gamers. It wants to build its own mobile app store, a move it says would create more competition in mobile videogames, not less. The Redmond, Wash., company has argued that Apple and Google’s app marketplaces have policies that pose technical and financial barriers to its goals.
Representatives for Apple and Google didn’t respond to requests for comment. Apple has said that it doesn’t prevent cloud-gaming apps from appearing in the App Store and that it isn’t trying to block their emergence.
Industry researcher and academic
Joost van Dreunen
said Microsoft’s mobile move would likely benefit the videogame ecosystem by diminishing Apple and Google’s grip.
Microsoft has said it is an underdog in the console market, with Xbox trailing consoles such as Nintendo’s Switch.
Photo:
Guillaume Payen/Zuma Press
“It breaks down the so-called walled-garden strategy that has dominated the game industry for 20 years,” he said.
Since Microsoft announced its deal for Activision, which it values at nearly $69 billion after adjusting for the developers’ net cash, some videogame players have been concerned about what it means for industry competition.
Steve Schweitzer of State College, Pa., is worried that Microsoft will raise the price of Game Pass over time. He said that it is affordable now but that in a few years, if Microsoft becomes more dominant, it could bump up the price and start cutting back on quality. Mr. Schweitzer, 55 years old, said he remembers back in the 1990s when Microsoft was able to use its market power to capture market share in the browser wars. “I’ve seen this game before,” he said.
Before its lawsuit, the FTC had been reviewing the deal for months. Regulators in other jurisdictions, including the European Union and the United Kingdom, are doing the same. The company has gained approval for the deal in smaller markets such as Brazil and Saudi Arabia.
Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com and Aaron Tilley at aaron.tilley@wsj.com
WASHINGTON—Congressional leaders are set to return to the Capitol on Monday under pressure to negotiate a spending bill that would fund the federal government’s operations beyond Friday.
Negotiators have days to reach a deal on a full-year spending bill or pass a short-term measure delaying the deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown. To reach a longer-term deal, they will have to break the partisan deadlock between Republicans and Democrats, who are split over $26 billion in nondefense spending.
Republicans say that Democrats want big increases for entities such as the Internal Revenue Service that they say are already flush with cash. Democrats say their funding priorities, such as funding veterans’ healthcare, are critical.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What steps would you like Congress to take on pending legislation? Join the conversation below.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate need to convince at least 10 Republicans to agree to advance a spending bill with the 60 votes needed. In the House of Representatives, a spending bill can be passed with a simple majority.
Few other items remain on the congressional agenda before new lawmakers take over for the next session, which begins on Jan. 3. Lawmakers who see the spending bill as the last major piece of legislation to pass are also lobbying hard for negotiators to include other measures they see as top priorities.
Some lawmakers want the spending bill to include the Electoral Count Act, which would change an 1887 law governing how Congress deals with presidential-election disputes. The bill has been pitched as a way to prevent a repeat of what happened following the 2020 election when then-President
Donald Trump
pressured his vice president,
Mike Pence,
to reject the Electoral College votes from some states. Mr. Pence declined to do so.
Other lawmakers are trying to include a measure that would extend a Dec. 27 deadline for
Boeing Co.
to secure federal safety approvals for two new versions of the 737 MAX airplane. The company was required by law to install new cockpit-alerting systems to help pilots resolve emergencies in the wake of two deadly crashes.
Boeing has said it might cancel two new versions of one of its airplanes if it doesn’t get an extension on a safety-approval deadline.
Photo:
JASON REDMOND/REUTERS
The deadline was set by Congress two years ago, but Federal Aviation Administration approvals have taken longer than expected. Without an extension, Boeing said in a securities filing that it might cancel both planes, exposing it to losses of potentially tens of billions of dollars.
Sen.
Roger Wicker
(R., Miss.), the top Republican on the Senate committee that oversees transportation issues, said he was hopeful that an extension would be included in a spending bill.
“I think it’s a reasonable ask,” he said last week.
Lawmakers could also include a provision that would shield banks from penalties if they handle marijuana-related transactions.
Banks that do business with the cannabis industry risk losing their federal banking charters because marijuana, despite being legal in some states, remains illegal on a federal level. As a result, some marijuana businesses are excluded from credit-card processing and rely heavily on cash to operate, making them targets for robberies.
Sen.
Joe Manchin
(D., W.Va.) could look toward the spending bill as a way to pass a measure that would speed up environmental reviews of major energy projects, including natural-gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines, wind farms and solar-power installations.
Sens.
Martin Heinrich
(D., N.M.) and
Roy Blunt
(R., Mo.) are pushing to include a measure that would steer federal money toward projects to restore habitats for struggling species.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) could press for changes to environmental reviews for energy projects.
Photo:
SARAH SILBIGER/REUTERS
The measure would fund state conservation plans, which are federally required strategies and wish lists that wildlife agency officials keep on struggling animal, fish and plant populations they monitor. Those plans say more than 12,000 species need conservation help because of extreme weather, habitat loss, invasive species and disease. Such plans received unstable funding in the past.
“Without enough resources, wildlife agencies have been forced to pick and choose which species are worth saving,” Mr. Heinrich said in a statement.
Senate lawmakers are expected this week to pass a defense policy bill that authorizes U.S. military leaders to purchase new weapons and increase pay for troops, and lifts a requirement for members of the military to get vaccinated against Covid-19.
Newsletter Sign-up
What’s News
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
The annual National Defense Authorization Act would increase America’s total national security budget for fiscal year 2023 to $857.9 billion. House lawmakers passed the NDAA bill on Thursday with 350 votes in favor and 80 votes against it.
Republicans had pushed for the bill to end the Defense Department’s Covid-19 vaccine rule, arguing that scrapping it would help recruitment and prevent the loss of additional troops whose departures have left the U.S. military weaker.
Katherine Kuzminski,
a senior fellow and program director on military, veterans and society issues for the Center for a New American Security, a military think tank, said it is hard to assess whether vaccine-related discharges have hurt the U.S. military’s capability because it is unclear whether the people who left worked in high-profile, hard-to-fill specialized positions or whether they were easily replaceable.
On recruitment, she said that younger people who are weighing military service “are less likely to make decisions regarding military recruitment based on political debates.”
had been working for close to a year to calm regulators’ concerns about its acquisition of videogame developer
Activision Blizzard Inc.,
ATVI 0.54%
but the Federal Trade Commission’s suit to block the deal raised doubts about the company’s pledge not to shut out rivals.
The FTC this week took one of its biggest swings ever against a big technology company and sued to stop the planned $75 billion acquisition, setting the stage for a court challenge over a deal the antitrust agency said would harm competition.
The commission’s complaint said the deal is illegal because it would give Microsoft the ability to control how consumers beyond users of its own Xbox consoles and subscription services access Activision’s games. Microsoft has repeatedly said it wouldn’t engage in such actions. The FTC’s complaint accused Microsoft of reneging on a similar pledge to a European regulator in the past, a criticism the company disputes.
Earlier this week, as the possibility of a lawsuit grew, Microsoft touted the deal’s benefits to gamers through an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal and announced an agreement to give a competitor access to one of Activision’s most popular games. The FTC filed its lawsuit on Thursday.
“The Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, may lessen competition substantially or tend to create a monopoly,” the FTC said in its complaint against Microsoft.
Executives at the Redmond, Wash., company have said it would take a long time to get all the approvals needed from regulators around the world, and it had given itself close to 18 months for the process. The deal could now miss Microsoft’s mid-2023 deadline, and some analysts said Microsoft might want to drop the acquisition.
Microsoft should “take the hint and give up the deal that, if completed, might end up a Pyrrhic victory of executive distraction and expensive regulatory concessions,” John Freeman, vice president at investment-research firm CFRA Research, wrote in a note to investors.
Competitors had expressed concerns the deal would block them from access to Activision games such as the popular ‘Call of Duty’ franchise.
Photo:
Allison Dinner/Associated Press
At stake is Microsoft’s big ambitions for its videogaming business, which had revenue of $16 billion in the company’s last fiscal year. That total represents less than 10% of Microsoft’s overall revenue. The business is a crucial part of Microsoft’s plans to diversify to attract more noncorporate customers.
The FTC’s move came after the company had avoided the brunt of the anti-tech backlash of recent years.
The suit represents a “somewhat meaningful setback” for Microsoft because of the company’s longtime lobbying efforts, said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Brad Reback. “They’ve worked very hard to stay on the right side of government agencies.”
Microsoft’s representative in Washington—its vice chairman and president,
Brad Smith
—has been building relationships in the capital for decades. He had helped cultivate an image of the software giant as one of the friendly technology leaders, an enviable position in a regulatory environment that has been increasingly hostile toward tech titans.
One of the longest-serving leaders inside Microsoft, Mr. Smith joined the company in 1993 and was a legal adviser through its bitter antitrust disputes with regulators worldwide in the 1990s.
“We have been committed since Day One to addressing competition concerns, including by offering earlier this week proposed concessions to the FTC,” Mr. Smith said after the lawsuit was filed. “While we believed in giving peace a chance, we have complete confidence in our case and welcome the opportunity to present our case in court.”
In its complaint, the FTC accused Microsoft of previously suppressing competition from rivals through its 2021 acquisition of ZeniMax Media Inc., parent of “Doom” developer Bethesda Softworks, despite giving assurances to European antitrust authorities that it would do otherwise. Microsoft said the FTC’s ZeniMax allegation is misinformed.
Brad Smith, Microsoft’s vice chairman and president, has been building relationships in Washington for decades.
Photo:
Zed Jameson/Bloomberg News
Microsoft officials have expressed confidence in closing the Activision deal, which it has valued at $68.7 billion after adjusting for Activision’s net cash. Lawmakers and industry representatives have said it would be hard for any of the biggest U.S. tech companies—including
Apple Inc.,
Amazon.com Inc.,
Google parent
Alphabet Inc.
or
Facebook
owner Meta Platforms Inc.—to win approval for a large acquisition in the current political environment.
In recent years, as government scrutiny and competition between the biggest tech companies have been increasing, Microsoft has tried to appease regulators.
For example, in May, Microsoft announced a set of principles it would abide by when dealing with cloud-service providers in Europe, hoping to assuage concerns its cloud business was hurting European cloud companies. The principles included pledges to work with European cloud providers and support the success of software vendors running on Microsoft’s cloud.
Amid concern the deal could hurt attempts to unionize at Activision or elsewhere in the gaming industry, Microsoft in June said it was open to working with any labor unions that want to organize.
As PlayStation maker
Sony Group Corp.
and others said they were concerned the acquisition could leave competitors locked out of Activision’s popular “Call of Duty” franchise, Microsoft this week said it would make it available for the first time on Nintendo Co.’s Switch gaming consoles for at least 10 years.
Microsoft this week also made its case to the public. “Blocking our acquisition would make the gaming industry less competitive and gamers worse off,” Mr. Smith, wrote in the Monday op-ed article in the Journal. “Think about how much better it is to stream a movie from your couch than drive to Blockbuster. We want to bring the same sort of innovation to the videogame industry.”
It is too soon to tell whether the FTC can succeed in blocking the acquisition. The agency likely will have to go before a federal judge, a process that could take months to unfold, said Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School.
The case could be difficult for the regulator to win because courts have traditionally not seen deals among companies that specialize in different phases of the same industry’s production process—so-called vertical mergers—as competitive dangers, he said.
“It may require the commission to convince a judge to change the law somewhat,” he said. “That makes it a difficult case for the FTC to win, though they presumably knew this going in.”
Write to Sarah E. Needleman at Sarah.Needleman@wsj.com
is planning to significantly expand its data-encryption practices, a step that is likely to create tensions with law enforcement and governments around the world as the company continues to build new privacy protections for millions of iPhone users.
The expanded end-to-end encryption system, an optional feature called Advanced Data Protection, would keep most data secure that is stored in iCloud, an Apple service used by many of its users to store photos, back up their iPhones or save specific device data such as Notes and Messages. The data would be protected in the event that Apple is hacked, and it also wouldn’t be accessible to law enforcement, even with a warrant.
While Apple has drawn attention in the past for being unable to help agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation access data on its encrypted iPhones, it has been able to provide much of the data stored in iCloud backups upon a valid legal request. Last year, it responded to thousands of such requests in the U.S., according to the company.
With these new security enhancements, Apple would no longer have the technical ability to comply with certain law-enforcement requests such as for iCloud backups—which could include iMessage chat logs and attachments and have been used in many investigations.
Apple has added additional methods to help users recover their end-to-end encrypted data.
Photo:
Apple
The company said the security enhancements, which were announced Wednesday, are designed to protect Apple customers from the most sophisticated attackers.
“As customers have put more and more of their personal information of their lives into their devices, these have become more and more the subject of attacks by advanced actors,” said
Craig Federighi,
Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering, in an interview. Some of these actors are going to great lengths to get their hands on the private information of people they have targeted, he said.
The FBI said it was “deeply concerned with the threat end-to-end and user-only-access encryption pose,” according to a statement provided by an agency spokeswoman. “This hinders our ability to protect the American people from criminal acts ranging from cyberattacks and violence against children to drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorism,” the statement said. The FBI and law enforcement agencies need “lawful access by design,” it said.
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.
Former Western law-enforcement and intelligence officials said they were surprised by Apple’s decision in part because the company had refrained in the past from rolling out such encryption settings for iCloud. The officials said Apple would sometimes point authorities to the iCloud as a possible means of collecting information that could be useful for criminal investigations.
Ciaran Martin,
former chief of the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre, said the announcement by Apple could pose legal complications for the company in multiple democracies that in recent years have adopted or weighed restrictions on technology that can’t be responsive to law-enforcement demands.
“Things will only be clearer when further technical details are given,” Mr. Martin said. “But on the face of it, existing legislation in Australia and looming legislation in the U.K. would seem to give those governments the power to tell Apple in those countries effectively not to do this.”
Last year, Apple proposed software for the iPhone that would identify child sexual-abuse material on the iPhone. Apple now says it has stopped development of the system, following criticism from privacy and security researchers who worried that the software could be misused by governments or hackers to gain access to sensitive information on the phone.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What do you think about Apple’s new security feature? Join the conversation below.
Mr. Federighi said Apple’s focus related to protecting children has been on areas such as communication and giving parents tools to protect children in iMessage. “Child sexual abuse can be headed off before it occurs,” he said. “That’s where we’re putting our energy going forward.”
Apple released a feature in December 2021 called “Communication Safety” in Messages, which offers tools for parents that warn their children when they have received or attempt to send photos that contain nudity. The option is part of Apple’s “Screen Time” parental-controls software.
The new encryption system, to be tested by early users starting Wednesday, will roll out as an option in the U.S. by year’s end, and then worldwide including China in 2023, Mr. Federighi said.
“This development will prompt questions at home and abroad, including whether the government of China will really accept a loss of data access,” said Sumon Dantiki, a former senior FBI and Justice Department official who worked on cyber investigations and is now a partner at the King & Spalding law firm. U.S. officials have long pointed to China’s increasingly strict demands for access to data on companies that operate within its borders as a national-security concern.
In addition to Advanced Data Protection, Apple is also modifying its Messages app to make it harder for messages to be snooped on, and it will now allow users to log in to their Apple accounts with hardware-based security keys made by other companies such as Yubico.
Privacy groups have long called on Apple to strengthen encryption on its cloud servers. But because the Advanced Protection encryption keys will be controlled by users, the system will restrict Apple’s ability to restore lost data.
Apple has added additional methods to help users recover their end-to-end encrypted data.
Photo:
Uncredited
To set up Advanced Data Protection, users will have to enable at least one data-recovery method. This could be a recovery key—a long list of numbers and characters that users could print out and store in a secure location—or the user could assign a friend or family member as a recovery contact.
Over the past two decades, businesses and consumers have moved much of their data off computer systems that they control and onto the cloud—data centers filled with servers that are operated by large technology companies. That trend has made these cloud systems an attractive target for cyber intruders.
Mr. Federighi said that Apple isn’t aware of any customer data being taken from iCloud by hackers but that the Advanced Protection system will make things harder for them. “All of us in the industry who manage customer data are under constant attack by entities that are attempting to breach our systems,” he said. “We have to stay ahead of future attacks with new protections.”
As Apple has locked down its systems, governments worldwide have become increasingly interested in the data stored on phones and cloud computers. That interest has led to friction between Apple and law-enforcement agencies, along with a growing market for iPhone hacking tools. In 2020, Attorney General
William Barr
pressured Apple for a way to crack the iPhone’s encryption to help with a terror investigation into a shooting that killed three people at a Florida Navy base.
Newsletter Sign-up
Tech Things With Joanna Stern
Everything is now a tech thing. Columnist Joanna Stern is your guide, giving analysis and answering your questions about our always-connected world.
Advanced Protection will reduce the amount of iCloud information that Apple can provide to law-enforcement agencies, who frequently request iPhone data from Apple as part of their investigations. Apple received requests for information on 7,122 Apple accounts from U.S. authorities in the first six months of 2021, the last period for which the company has provided information.
Apple had already offered end-to-end encryption for some of its services, but the protection will now extend to 23 services, including iPhone backups and Photos. However, three services—Mail, Contacts and Calendar—won’t qualify for Advanced Protection because they use older technology protocols, Mr. Federighi said.
Mr. Federighi said Apple believes it shares the same mission as law enforcement and governments: keeping people safe. If sensitive information were to get in the hands of an attacker, a foreign adversary or some other bad actor, it could be disastrous, he said.
“We’re giving users the option to keep that key only on their devices, which means that even if an attacker were to successfully breach the cloud and access all that data, it would be nonsense to them,” Mr. Federighi said. “They’d lack the key to decrypt it.”
to resume pumping oil from its Venezuelan oil fields after President Nicolás Maduro’s government and an opposition coalition agreed to implement an estimated $3 billion humanitarian relief program and continue dialogue in Mexico City on efforts to hold free and fair elections.
Following the Norwegian-brokered agreement signed in Mexico City, the Biden administration granted a license to Chevron that allows the California-based oil company to return to its oil fields in joint ventures with the Venezuela national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela SA. The new license, granted by the Treasury Department, permits Chevron to pump Venezuelan oil for the first time in years.
Biden administration officials said the license prohibits PdVSA from receiving profits from Chevron’s oil sales. The officials said the U.S. is prepared to revoke or amend the license, which will be in effect for six months, at any time if Venezuela doesn’t negotiate in good faith.
Venezuela produces some 700,000 barrels of oil a day, compared with more than 3 million in the 1990s.
Photo:
Isaac Urrutia/Reuters
“If Maduro again tries to use these negotiations to buy time to further consolidate his criminal dictatorship, the United States and our international partners must snap back the full force of our sanctions,” said Sen.
Robert Menendez
(D., N.J.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The U.S. policy shift could signal an opening for other oil companies to resume their business in Venezuela two years after the Trump administration clamped down on Chevron and other companies’ activities there as part of a maximum-pressure campaign meant to oust the government led by Mr. Maduro. The Treasury Department action didn’t say how non-U.S. oil companies might re-engage with Venezuela.
Venezuela produces some 700,000 barrels of oil a day, compared with more than 3 million barrels a day in the 1990s. Some analysts said Venezuela could hit 1 million barrels a day in the medium term, a modest increment reflecting the dilapidated state of the country’s state-led oil industry.
Some Republican lawmakers criticized the Biden administration’s decision to clear the way for Chevron to pump more oil in Venezuela. “The Biden administration should allow American energy producers to unleash DOMESTIC production instead of begging dictators for oil,” Rep. Claudia Tenney (R., N.Y.) wrote on Twitter.
Biden administration officials said the decision to issue the license wasn’t a response to oil prices, which have been a major concern for President Biden and his top advisers in recent months as they seek to tackle inflation. “This is about the regime taking the steps needed to support the restoration of democracy in Venezuela,” one of the officials said.
The Wall Street Journal reported in October that the Biden administration was preparing to scale down sanctions on Venezuela’s regime to allow Chevron to resume pumping oil there.
Jorge Rodriguez led the Venezuelan delegation to the talks in Mexico City, where an agreement was signed.
Photo:
Henry Romero/Reuters
Under the new license, profits from the sale of oil will go toward repaying hundreds of millions of dollars in debt owed to Chevron by PdVSA, administration officials said. The U.S. will require that Chevron report details of its financial operations to ensure transparency, they said.
Chevron spokesman Ray Fohr said the new license allows the company to commercialize the oil currently being produced at its joint-venture assets. He said the company will conduct its business in compliance within the current framework.
The license prohibits Chevron from paying taxes and royalties to the Venezuelan government, which surprised some experts. They had been expecting that direct revenue would encourage PdVSA to reroute oil cargoes away from obscure export channels, mostly to Chinese buyers at a steep discount, which Venezuela has relied on for years to skirt sanctions.
“If this is the case, Maduro doesn’t have significant incentives to allow that many cargoes of Chevron to go out,” said
Francisco Monaldi,
director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Sending oil to China, even at a heavy discount, would be better for Caracas than only paying debt to Chevron, he said.
The limited scope of the Chevron license is seen as a way to ensure that Mr. Maduro stays the course on negotiations. “Rather than fully opening the door for Venezuelan oil to flow to the U.S. market immediately, what the license proposes is a normalization path that is likely contingent on concessions from the Maduro regime on the political and human-rights front,” said
Luisa Palacios,
senior research scholar at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy.
The license allows Venezuelan oil back into the U.S., historically its largest market, but only if the oil from the PdVSA-Chevron joint ventures is first sold to Chevron and doesn’t authorize exports from the ventures “to any jurisdiction other than the United States,” which appears to restrict PdVSA’s own share of the sales to the U.S. market, said Mr. Monaldi.
Newsletter Sign-up
WSJ Climate & Energy
A weekly must-read of news, analysis and exclusive data focused on the intersection of business, money and climate.
The license prohibits transactions involving goods and services from Iran, a U.S.-sanctioned oil producer that has helped Venezuela overcome sanctions in recent years. It blocks dealings with Venezuelan entities owned or controlled by Western-sanctioned Russia, which has played a role in Venezuela’s oil industry.
Jorge Rodriguez,
the head of Venezuela’s Congress as well as the government’s delegation to the Mexico City talks, declined to comment on the issuance of the Chevron license.
Freddy Guevara,
a member of the opposition coalition’s delegation, said the estimated $3 billion in frozen funds intended for humanitarian relief and infrastructure projects in Venezuela would be administered by the United Nations. He cautioned that it would take time to implement the program fully. “It begins now, but the time period is up to three years,” he said.
The Venezuelan state funds frozen in overseas banks by sanctions are expected to be used to alleviate the country’s health, food and electric-power crises in part by building infrastructure for electricity and water-treatment needs. “Not one dollar will go to the vaults of the regime,” Mr. Guevara said.
Chevron plans to restore lost output as it performs maintenance and other essential work, but it won’t attempt major work that would require new investments in the country’s oil fields until debts of $4.2 billion are repaid. That could take about two to three years depending on oil-market conditions, according to people familiar with the matter.
PdVSA owes Chevron and other joint-venture partners their shares of more than two years of revenue from oil sales, after the 2020 U.S. sanctions barred the Venezuelan company from paying its partners, one of the people said. The license would allow Chevron to collect its share of dividends from its joint ventures such as Petropiar, in which Chevron is a 30% partner.
Analysts said the new agreement raises expectations that will take time and work to fulfill. “Ensuring the success of talks won’t be easy, but it’s clear that offering gradual sanctions relief like this in order to incentivize agreements is the only way forward. It’s a Champagne-popping moment for the negotiators, but much more work remains to be done,” said Geoff Ramsey, Venezuela director at the Washington Office on Latin America.
—José de Córdoba and Ginette Gonzalez contributed to this article.
Write to Collin Eaton at collin.eaton@wsj.com and Andrew Restuccia at andrew.restuccia@wsj.com
move to purge Twitter Inc. employees who don’t embrace his vision has led to a wave of departures among policy and safety-issue staffers around the globe, sparking questions from regulators in key jurisdictions about the site’s continued compliance efforts.
Scrutiny has been particularly close in Europe, where officials have in recent years assumed a greater role in regulating big tech companies.
Staff departures in recent days include dozens of people spread across units such as government policy, legal affairs and Twitter’s “trust and safety” division, which is responsible for functions like drafting content-moderation rules, according to current and former employees, postings on social media and emails sent to work addresses of people who had worked at Twitter that recently bounced back.They have left from hubs including Dublin, Singapore and San Francisco.
Many of the departures follow Mr. Musk’s ultimatum late last week that staffers pledge to work long hours and be “extremely hardcore” or take a buyout. Hundreds or more employees declined to commit to what Mr. Musk has called Twitter 2.0 and were locked out of company systems. That comes after layoffs in early November that cut roughly half of the company’s staff.
Twitter conducted another round of job cuts affecting engineers late Wednesday, before the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S., people familiar with the matter said. The exact scope couldn’t be immediately learned, though some of the people estimated dozens of employees were let go.
Newsletter Sign-up
What’s News
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
Twitter sent fired engineers an email saying their code wasn’t satisfactory and offering four weeks of severance, some of the people said. Some other engineers received an email warning them to improve their performance to keep their jobs, the people said.
Ireland’s Data Protection Commission said this week it was asking Twitter whether it still had sufficient staff to assure compliance with the European Union’s privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The company last week told the Irish data regulator that it did, but is still reviewing the impact of the staff departures, a spokesman for the Irish regulator said.
He said Twitter has appointed an interim chief data protection officer, an obligation under the GDPR, after the departure of Damien Kieran, who had served in the role but left shortly after the first round of layoffs.
In France, meanwhile, the country’s communications regulator said it sent a letter last Friday asking that Twitter explain by this week whether it has sufficient personnel on staff to moderate hate speech deemed illegal under French law—under which Twitter could face legal orders and fines.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What will be the impact on Twitter of having a reduced staff to oversee regulatory and content issues? Join the conversation below.
The staff departures come as Twitter holds talks with the EU about the bloc’s new social-media law, dubbed the Digital Services Act, which will apply tougher rules on bigger platforms like Twitter by the middle of next year.
Didier Reynders,
the EU’s justice commissioner, is slated to attend a previously scheduled meeting with Twitter executives in Ireland on Thursday. He plans to ask about the company’s ability to comply with the law and to meet its commitments on data protection and tackling online hate speech, according to an EU official familiar with the trip.
Věra Jourová, a vice president of the EU’s executive arm, said she was concerned about reports of the firing of vast amounts of Twitter staff in Europe. “European laws continue to apply to Twitter, regardless of who is the owner,” she said.
Mr. Musk has said that he would follow the laws of the countries where Twitter operates and that it “cannot become a free-for-all hellscape.”
Twitter didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Late Wednesday, Mr. Musk tweeted that the number of views of tweets he described as “hate speech” had fallen below levels seen before a spike in such views in late October. “Congrats to the Twitter team!” Mr. Musk wrote.
Some of the people who either departed or declined to sign on to Twitter 2.0 appear to include Sinead McSweeney, the company’s Ireland-based vice president of global policy and philanthropy, who led government relations and compliance initiatives with regulations worldwide, as well as the two remaining staffers in Twitter’s Brussels office.
Ms. McSweeney and the two Brussels employees declined to comment, but emails to their work addresses started bouncing back undeliverable in recent days according to checks by The Wall Street Journal. Four other Brussels-based employees were earlier this month told they were being laid off, according to social-media posts and people familiar with the matter.
Twenty Air Street, London, the home of Twitter’s U.K. office.
Photo:
Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Damien Viel, Twitter’s country manager for France, was also among a wave of staffers who posted publicly this week that they had left the company. He declined to comment when reached by the Journal.
At least some of the departures occurred in teams that reported to
Yoel Roth,
Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, who resigned earlier this month. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Roth said he resigned because Mr. Musk made it clear that he alone would make decisions on policy and the platform’s rules and that he had little use for those at the company who were advising him on those issues.
The team included Ilana Rosenzweig, who worked as Twitter’s senior director and head of international trust and safety. She has left the company, according to her LinkedIn profile. Based in Singapore, Ms. Rosenzweig led Twitter’s trust and safety teams across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, along with Japan and other Asia-Pacific countries, according to her profile.
“I decided not to agree to Twitter 2.0,” Keith Yet, a Twitter trust and safety worker based in Singapore, wrote on LinkedIn on Monday. Mr. Yet worked on child sexual exploitation issues and handling legal escalations from Japan and other countries, according to his LinkedIn profile. Attempts to reach Ms. Rosenzweig and Mr. Yet were unsuccessful.
The departures come amid a wave of new tech regulation, particularly in Europe. The Digital Services Act, which will by the middle of next year require tech companies like Twitter with more than 45 million users in the EU to maintain robust systems for removing content that European national governments deem to be illegal.
The layoff announcements just keep coming. As interest rates continue to climb and earnings slump, WSJ’s Dion Rabouin explains why we can expect to see a bigger wave of layoffs in the near future. Illustration: Elizabeth Smelov
The act also requires these companies to reduce risks associated with content that regulators consider harmful or hateful. It mandates regular outside audits of the companies’ processes and threatens noncompliance fines of up to 6% of a company’s annual revenue.
Political leaders had warned that Mr. Musk’s Twitter would have to comply with EU rules. “In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules,” tweeted the EU’s commissioner for the internal market,
Thierry Breton,
hours after Mr. Musk completed his Twitter deal in late October tweeting, “the bird is free.”
A spokesman for the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, said this week that it had active contacts with the company regarding the regulation and tackling disinformation and illegal hate speech, but declined to comment on the substance of Twitter’s compliance plans.
Activists and researchers are also concerned that the departures could undermine Twitter’s ability to block state-backed information operations aimed at spreading propaganda and harassing adversaries. The wave of departures “raises questions about how Twitter will moderate tweets and comments in a professional and neutral manner,” said Patrick Poon, an activist turned scholar at Japan’s Meiji University, who analyzes free speech.
—Liza Lin, Alexa Corse and Sarah E. Needleman contributed to this article.
Write to Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com, Kim Mackrael at kim.mackrael@wsj.com and Newley Purnell at newley.purnell@wsj.com
Saudi Arabia and other OPEC oil producers are discussing an output increase, the group’s delegates said, a move that could help heal a rift with the Biden administration and keep energy flowing amid new attempts to blunt Russia’s oil industry over the Ukraine war.
A production increase of up to 500,000 barrels a day is now under discussion for OPEC+’s Dec. 4 meeting, delegates said. The move would come a day before the European Union is set to impose an embargo on Russian oil and the Group of Seven wealthy nations’ plans to launch a price cap on Russian crude sales, potentially taking Moscow’s petroleum supplies off the market.
After The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations reported on the discussions Monday, Saudi energy minister Prince
Abdulaziz bin Salman
denied the reports and said a production cut was possible instead.
Any output increase would mark a partial reversal of a controversial decision last month to cut production by 2 million barrels a day at the most recent meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their Russia-led allies, a group known collectively as OPEC+.
Newsletter Sign-up
What’s News
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
The White House said the production cut undermined global efforts to blunt Russia’s war in Ukraine. It was also viewed as a political slap in the face to President Biden, coming before the congressional midterm elections at a time of high inflation. Saudi-U.S. relations have hit a low point over oil-production disagreements this year, though U.S. officials had said they were looking to the Dec. 4 OPEC+ meeting with some hope.
Talk of a production increase has emerged after the Biden administration told a federal court judge that Saudi Crown
Prince Mohammed
bin Salman should have sovereign immunity from a U.S. federal lawsuit related to the brutal killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The immunity decision amounted to a concession to Prince Mohammed, bolstering his standing as the kingdom’s de facto ruler after the Biden administration tried for months to isolate him.
It is an unusual time for OPEC+ to consider a production increase, with global oil prices falling more than 10% since the first week of November. Oil prices fell 5% after reports of the increase and then pared those losses after
Prince Abdulaziz
‘s comments. Brent crude traded at $86.25 on Monday afternoon, down more than 1%.
Ostensibly, delegates said, a production increase would be in response to expectations that oil consumption will rise in the winter, as it normally does. Oil demand is expected to increase by 1.69 million barrels a day to 101.3 million barrels a day in the first quarter next year, compared with the average level in 2022.
Saudi energy minister Abdulaziz bin Salman has said the kingdom would supply oil to ‘all who need it.’
Photo:
AHMED YOSRI/REUTERS
OPEC and its allies say they have been carefully studying the G-7 plans to impose a price cap on Russian oil, conceding privately that they see any such move by crude consumers to control the market as a threat. Russia has said it wouldn’t sell oil to any country participating in the price cap, potentially resulting in another effective production cut from Moscow—one of the world’s top three oil producers.
Prince Abdulaziz said last month that the kingdom would “supply oil to all who need it from us,” speaking in response to a question about looming Russian oil shortages. OPEC members have signaled to Western countries that they would step up if Russian output fell.
Talk of a production increase sets up a potential fight between OPEC+’s two heavyweight producers, Saudi Arabia and Russia. The countries have an oil-production alliance that industry officials in both nations have described as a marriage of convenience, and they have clashed before.
Saudi officials have been adamant that their decision to cut production last month wasn’t designed to support Russia’s war in Ukraine. Instead, they say, the cut was intended to get ahead of flagging demand for oil caused by a global economy showing signs of slowing down.
Raising oil production ahead of the price cap and EU embargo could give the Saudis another argument that they are acting in their own interests, and not Russia’s.
Another factor driving discussion around raising output: Two big OPEC members, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates, want to pump more oil, OPEC delegates said. Both countries are pushing the oil-producing group to allow them a higher daily-production ceiling, delegates said, a change that, if granted, could account for more oil production.
Under OPEC’s complex quota system, the U.A.E. is obligated to hold its crude production to no more than 3.018 million barrels a day. State-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., which produces most of the U.A.E.’s output, has an output capacity of 4.45 million barrels a day and plans to accelerate its goal of reaching 5 million barrels of daily capacity by 2025. Abu Dhabi has long pushed for a higher OPEC quota, only to be rebuffed by the Saudis, OPEC delegates have said.
Last year, the country was the lone holdout on a deal to boost crude output in OPEC+, saying it would agree only if allowed to boost its own production much more than other members. The public standoff inside OPEC was the first sign that the U.A.E. has adopted a new strategy: Sell as much crude as possible before demand dries up.
Earlier this month, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani said that his country, which is the second-largest crude oil producer in OPEC, would discuss a new quota with other members at its next meeting.
A discussion of OPEC production quotas has been on hold for months. The idea faces opposition from some OPEC nations because many can’t meet their current targets and watching other countries run up their quotas could cause political problems domestically, delegates said.
—Michael Amon contributed to this article.
Write to Summer Said at summer.said@wsj.com and Benoit Faucon at benoit.faucon@wsj.com
