Aggregator
Kings conclude pursuit of Grizzlies star Ja Morant
Gavin Newsom donors landed plum state posts after shelling out thousands to his PACs, wife’s nonprofit
California Residents Sue Gas Stations Alleging AI Price Fixing
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,
Three California residents are suing a fuel pricing company and several gas station operators, alleging that they use artificial intelligence-based pricing systems to raise gasoline prices in an uncompetitive manner.
Gas prices above $6 a gallon are displayed at a Shell station in Los Angeles on on May 4, 2026. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images"Californians are being forced to pay surcharges that cannot be explained by crude oil costs, refining costs, environmental regulation, or taxes," said the June 22 class action lawsuit, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
"Part of the cause of California's astronomical fuel prices is an illegal algorithmic price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the algorithmic pricing company Kalibrate and some of the state's largest fuel retailers."
The company's Kalibrate Fuel Pricing software, an algorithmic, AI-based pricing system, "connects directly to gas stations' pumps and signs. Instead of lowering prices to attract drivers, Kalibrate Fuel Pricing relies on the data of competing gas stations to coordinate high prices and wring more money from the pockets of consumers throughout the state," the lawsuit states.
This is contradictory to historical trends where gas stations have competed to secure customers by "aggressively undercutting" retail prices, the lawsuit said.
The "artificial surcharge" from the algorithmic pricing scheme inflicts a "severe, daily financial toll" on millions of Californians, the lawsuit said. For people whose livelihoods are tied to road transport, such as truck drivers, the higher gas prices eat into their incomes.
According to data from the American Automobile Association, a gallon of regular gasoline costs $5.56 on average in California as of June 23, the highest in the country.
A month ago, prices were at $6.11 per gallon amid US-Iran war tensions. A year ago, prices were still close to $5 at $4.66 per gallon.
California's current gasoline price of $5.56 per gallon is more than $1.6 higher than the $3.92 national average.
In their lawsuit, the defendants said that Kalibrate Fuel Pricing even has a feature that enables almost all gas stations in a market to raise gasoline prices simultaneously.
In addition to Kalibrate, the complaint lists 14 gas station operators and 10 unidentified gasoline fuel retail companies as defendants. Some of the major gas station operators include 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's Club, and BP.
The plaintiffs - Joel Casciani from Chula Vista, Paola Hartman from Homeland, and Crystal Turnbough from Marysville - allege that the gas station defendants' actions amount to a "modern, digital iteration of traditional price-fixing and combination that California law expressly forbids."
They asked the court to stop "Defendants' unlawful combination and collusion, restore competition to California's retail fuel markets, and make California drivers whole by compensating them for the substantial overcharges Defendants have extracted from them through their illegal scheme."
The Epoch Times reached out to Kalibrate, 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's Club, and BP for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
According to Kalibrate, its pricing software is used in more than 20 nations across five continents. The company says on its website that the Kalibrate Fuel Pricing platform delivers "competitive, profitable prices at speed," powered with AI-driven intelligence.
The software delivers 8.3 million fuel prices every month. More than 25,000 fuel sites are actively priced with Kalibrate Fuel Pricing, with the average weekly profit per site rising by $331 from AI optimization, the company said.
California's Gasoline CrisisMeanwhile, California is experiencing an energy crisis resulting from decades of environmental regulations that stifled domestic oil production, defense and engineering expert Mike Fredenburg said in a Feb. 23 commentary published by The Epoch Times.
"Refining capacity has plummeted to about 1.3 million barrels per day today from 2.5 million barrels per day in 1982 - a drop of 48 percent," Fredenburg said.
"During this same period, oil pumped from California wells dropped to a little more than 300,000 from more than 1 million barrels per day, a 70 percent decrease."
Fredenburg attributed the huge premium paid by Californians for gasoline partly to the "general hostility" of the state to the oil and gas sector.
This has created a situation in which many oil and gas companies are moving away from the state. As such, California is left to buy crude oil from foreign nations and even pay other countries to produce the state's special gas and diesel formulation, Fredenburg said.
In May, a group of lawmakers introduced the Transportation Fuel Market Transparency Act to crack down on market manipulation and protect people from price spikes at gas pumps, according to a May 5 statement from the office of Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).
The bill seeks to create a Transportation Fuel Monitoring and Enforcement Unit within the Federal Trade Commission to "proactively monitor fuel markets for fraud, manipulation, and anti-competitive behavior that can artificially inflate prices," the statement said.
The measure "would also increase transparency across fuel markets and significantly raise penalties for bad actors," it said.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:25Penthouse Pet is caught breaking the law again… but soft judge lets her off
Levi’s Stadium concession prices ridiculously expensive for World Cup
Pint-sized cop at center of deaf NYPD worker’s sex-harass suit now charged in gun rap
Everyone ‘heartbroken’ behind the scenes at ‘Today’ as Savannah Guthrie breaks down in tears on air
Everyone ‘heartbroken’ behind the scenes at ‘Today’ as Savannah Guthrie breaks down in tears on air
Olympic gold medalist Bode Miller’s arrest due to magic mushrooms
Tesla goes rogue, smashes into posh Beverly Hills playground in shocking scene
Parolee, 24, charged with igniting inferno at NY homeless hotel, killing 6
Two-time Slovakia Olympian dead at 24 after being hit by car
Israel furious with Trump for being left out of the US-Iran peace talks: ‘It’s a huge mess’
SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire
Scotiabank analysts write that SpaceX is using the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) process to transform spectrum rights, service approvals, and satellite rulemaking into a regulatory moat around Starlink. This reinforces its position as the rocket and AI company moves to secure years of dominance as the leading space-based communications provider.
Scotiabank's Maher Yaghi and Joey Chan wrote in a note titled "SpaceX at the FCC: Building a Wider Regulatory Moat" that, after reviewing SpaceX's filings from October 2025 through June, there are three major takeaways regarding how the company is "reinforcing three core advantages":
1. Increasing control of scarce spectrum assets,
2. shaping a regulatory framework better suited to scaled constellation economics, and
3. broadening the authority needed to extend Starlink into mobile and supplemental-coverage use cases.
Yaghi said, "For investors, the filings point to a coordinated effort to widen SpaceX's structural lead over smaller or less integrated peers."
Here's how the coordinated push could allow Starlink to dominate the industry for years, as explained by the analysts:
The biggest file in the dockets is spectrum transfers. The Echostar related filings collectively suggest that SpaceX was not simply pursuing transfer approval, but working to ensure the asset would be usable on commercially attractive terms. That distinction matters. Spectrum only carries strategic value if the associated rights are flexible enough to support deployment, service expansion, and product monetization. Viewed through that lens, the filing record suggests SpaceX was willing to make concessions to secure an asset that could deepen service quality, broaden addressable markets, and raise the entry hurdle for competitors without comparable spectrum depth or regulatory leverage.
The second pillar is rule-shaping. SpaceX has been active in the FCC's work on NGSO/GSO coexistence, particularly docket SB 25-157, where the outcome has direct implications for how efficiently large constellations can scale. This is important because, in satellite, the rule book can be as valuable as the hardware. A sharing framework that better accommodates large, dense networks disproportionately benefits operators with the capital base, launch cadence, and vertical integration to exploit it. Read alongside GN 25-340, which relates to SpaceX's push for NGSO MSS authority and supplemental coverage from space, the broader pattern is clear: the company appears to be aligning spectrum, service authority, and operating rules around a more integrated mobile-satellite platform. If successful, that could strengthen SpaceX's cost, coverage, and time-to-market advantages.
More broadly, SpaceX's filing activity suggests it is not limiting itself to company-specific approvals. Its presence across proceedings on market access reciprocity, satellite modernization, Upper C-band, spectrum abundance, and coordination procedures indicates a wider effort to influence the regulatory architecture. For investors, that matters because competitive advantage here is not determined solely by launch capability or network footprint; it is also shaped by who helps define the operating environment. Consistent engagement across multiple proceedings suggests SpaceX is seeking to shape a framework that reinforces LEO scale economics.
Comparing SpaceX filings at the FCC to T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T, we see differences. Clearly, the three incumbents appear substantially more active at the FCC in raw filing volume. Compared with the incumbents, SpaceX appears less active in raw volume but more concentrated in a small number of strategic, platform-defining asks, whereas T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T maintain much broader filing portfolios spanning transactions, waivers, operational compliance, and policy matters. SpaceX's interventions are concentrated in the following areas: (1) spectrum acquisition and waiver relief, (2) reshaping satellite sharing constraints, (3) securing NGSO MSS and supplemental coverage authority, and (4) shaping adjacent policy frameworks such as market access reciprocity.
Those rivals include:
1. Amazon Kuiper: Amazon's planned low-earth-orbit broadband constellation and probably Starlink's most important future U.S. competitor.
2. OneWeb / Eutelsat: A LEO satellite network focused heavily on enterprise, government, aviation, maritime, and remote connectivity.
3. Telesat Lightspeed: Canada-backed LEO broadband constellation aimed at enterprise, telecom, aviation, maritime, and government markets.
4. Viasat / Inmarsat: GEO and mobility-focused satellite broadband player, strong in aviation, maritime, government, and defense.
5. HughesNet / EchoStar / Dish spectrum assets: Legacy satellite broadband and spectrum player, relevant because of SpaceX's EchoStar-related filings.
6. AST SpaceMobile: Direct-to-device satellite broadband company focused on connecting standard mobile phones from space.
The key to understanding Starlink's lead is that it is not just a satellite internet provider. It is vertically integrated with SpaceX's impressive launch machine, giving it a massive advantage no rival can currently match - not even Amazon Kuiper with Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. And that advantage could widen once Starship is commercialized.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:00