The Brief

The European Union has announced a fine of $140 million against Elon Musk's X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, for several failures to comply with rules governing large digital platforms. A European Commission spokesperson said the fine against X's holding company was due to the platform's misleading use of a blue check mark to identify verified users, a poorly functioning advertising repository, and a failure to provide effective data access for researchers.

Europe's preference had not been to fine X, said the spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, as he drew a contrast with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok. Regnier announced Friday that TikTok had separately offered concessions that would allow it to avoid such penalties.

"If you engage constructively with the Commission, we settle cases," Regnier said at a press conference in Brussels. "If you do not, we take action."

The possibility that X would face financial penalties in Europe had drawn significant political fire, not only from Musk but also from others in Washington, D.C., over the past two years since the European Commission began its investigation.

"Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship," Vice President J.D. Vance wrote on X on Thursday. "The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage."

In July 2024, in a set of preliminary findings, the European Commission formally accused X — which serves more than 100 million users within the EU — of several violations. These included its failure to meet transparency mandates, obstructing researchers' access to data and misleading users by converting the blue verification badge into a paid subscription feature.

Musk has long stated his intention to legally challenge any EU sanctions, rather than make concessions to resolve the investigation.

Nonetheless, the company could have faced far higher financial penalties, with European authorities able under new legislation — known as the Digital Services Act — to fine offenders 6% of their worldwide annual revenue, which in this case could have included several other of Musk's companies, including SpaceX.

The fine announcement follows months of accusations from activists and trade experts that authorities in Brussels were deliberately easing up on enforcement to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. Musk was a prominent supporter of Trump's campaign and spent several months this past spring serving as an administration adviser and the public face of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

The willingness to take on Musk's business empire could serve as a critical test of the EU's determination, especially in light of Trump's previous threats of tariffs over the bloc's fines against U.S. technology giants.

The confrontation highlights a growing division over the concept of digital sovereignty, which has transformed long-standing allies into competitors as Europe strives to establish itself as the global authority for digital regulation, and the Trump administration pushes back against perceived curbs on U.S. companies' profits and freedom of expression.

So, experts warn, this direct punitive action against Musk's businesses carries the risk of U.S. retaliation, even though the EU remains heavily dependent on American technology for a range of sectors.

The United States is already leveraging some of these concerns about free speech as grounds for denying U.S. visas to certain individuals.

The Trump administration also has consistently argued that the EU unfairly targets U.S. technology companies with severe financial penalties and burdensome regulations, equating these measures to tariffs that justify trade retaliation. Just last week, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that the EU must revise its digital regulations to secure a deal aimed at reducing steel and aluminum tariffs.

The Commission denied again Friday any connection between the trade negotiations with the U.S. and the implementation of its technology rulebooks, any targeting of American firms or any kind of infringement on freedom of expression.

"Our digital legislation has nothing to do with censorship," said Commission spokesperson Regnier. "We adopt the final decision, not targeting anyone, not targeting any company, not targeting any jurisdictions based on their color or their country of origin."

Despite the Trump administration's pressure, the EU has proceeded with the enforcement of its digital antitrust rules, recently imposing fines of $584 million on Apple Inc. and $233 million on Meta Platforms Inc.

It also has issued substantial penalties against other corporations, including over $8 billion total in fines against Alphabet Inc.'s Google over several years and a separate directive for Apple to repay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland for providing unfair state aid.

Other potentially more serious concerns about X's management of illegal content, election-related misinformation and the utilization of Community Notes have not yet progressed to the preliminary stage in a separate investigation by the European Commission.

The Supreme Court on Monday gave itself more time to consider a national ban on telemedicine access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

Justice Samuel Alito extended an earlier order he issued by three more days, so rules for prescribing mifepristone online or through the mail remain in effect through Thursday at a minimum.

The case at issue

The tumult over the future of telemedicine access to mifipristone started on May 1 with a ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling re-instituted prescribing rules from before the pandemic that required patients to receive mifepristone in person in a doctor's office or clinic.

The Food and Drug Administration determined that the rule was medically unnecessary in 2021. The state of Louisiana sued last fall, arguing that telemedicine access undermines the state's abortion ban.

What is telemedicine abortion?

The telemedicine abortion process starts with a patient connecting with a healthcare provider on the phone or online. If the patient is eligible, that provider can prescribe two medications — mifepristone and another pill called misoprostol. Patients can pick up the medicine at a local pharmacy, or providers can mail the drugs to a patient's home.

That access is a big part of the reason why the number of abortions nationally has actually increased since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. Now, most abortions in the U.S. use this combination of medications, and one quarter happen via telemedicine.

After the 5th Circuit ruling, some providers said they would continue offering telemedicine access to abortion medication using a different protocol that involves higher doses of misoprostol and no mifepristone.

Researchers say that method is just as safe and effective, but tends to cause more pain for patients and more side effects, like nausea and diarrhea. Misoprostol has other medical uses, such as treating gastric ulcers and hemorrhage, and has been on the market longer than mifepristone. It is likely to remain fully accessible, even if mifepristone is restricted.

Since the FDA's prescribing rules for medications apply to the whole country, a change to the rules about how mifepristone can be accessed has national impact. That means it affects states with constitutionally-protected access to abortion, states with criminal bans, like Louisiana, and all states in between.

States' rights

Nearly two dozen Democratic-led states submitted an amicus brief in this case, writing that the appeals court decision put the policy choices of states with bans above the choices of states "that have made the different but equally sovereign determinations to promote access to abortion care."

There are also stakes related to the power of FDA and other expert agencies to set rules. While the Trump administration's FDA did not respond to the Supreme Court's request for briefs, a group of former leaders of the agency, who served under mainly Democratic and some Republican presidents, wrote about this in an amicus brief.

They defended the FDA's process in approving the medication and modifying the rules for prescribing it, and say the appeals court decision "would upend FDA's gold-standard, science-based drug approval system."

Copyright 2026 NPR

For a decade, LAist has been making navigating elections in California and L.A. easier through our Voter Game Plan guides. More than 3 million people visited the Voter Game Plan during our coverage of the 2024 elections. That’s equivalent to more than half of the overall registered voters in L.A. County.

We’ve heard from so many people who tell us that Voter Game Plan has helped them make their most informed votes ever. You’ve told us that these helpful, plain-spoken and nonpartisan guides are essential in Southern California.

And each election cycle, we strive to find new ways to make them even better. Over the last few elections, we’ve added charts that let you follow the money in key races by tracking campaign finance. We’ve expanded to Orange County, Long Beach and Pasadena. We spun up our popular newsletter, “Make It Make Sense,” which keeps you informed on what goes on after the election. This year, we added a pre-game to the newsletter and brought you up to speed on recent big elections ahead of this primary election day.

What is Voter Game Plan+

Now we’re launching another new experiment. We call it Voter Game Plan+. This feature will offer you a new toolkit of features to enhance your voting research experience. Here's how it works:

• If you already support LAist’s work as a member, thank you. You’ll have full access to these new tools.
• If you haven’t yet taken the step of joining the LAist member ranks, we are asking for a small, one-time payment of $7 for these additional features through the Nov. 3 mid-term election.

All of our voter guides remain free for all to use, and you can still submit your questions to our reporters and we’ll get them answered.

Why ask for money? This nominal fee will help offset the cost of producing these specific guides and tools, as well as the overall Voter Game Plan, which takes the equivalent of at least two journalists working full-time for a year to produce every election cycle.

As part of VGP+, you will be able to match your interests and topical positions against 14 candidates in the L.A. mayoral race through an interactive quiz. And the California governor's race quiz launches later this week.

We’re also offering a way to follow and save your favorite candidates across all races. This tool will be useful if you want a printable list of choices to take to the ballot box, or if you just want to keep track of how you voted when the general election comes around in November. And there are more features to come.

Our ask to you

With VGP+, LAist continues our tradition of working hard to make elections and long ballots less intimidating and giving voters more context and support for making informed decisions.

This is not a paywall, and you are not under any obligation to purchase VGP+. But we are asking this: Has LAist’s Voter Game Plan saved you time and given you confidence at the ballot box? If the answer is yes, we’d be very grateful for your support.

A fire has broken out on an oil and gas platform about 6.6 miles offshore from Santa Barbara.

The fire was reported just after 7 a.m. on Monday. Onboard crew members were unable to contain it. The 26 workers were evacuated, and two minor injuries were reported.

Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara City and Ventura County firefighters, as well as the Santa Barbara Harbor Patrol and the U.S. Coast Guard, are involved in efforts to contain the blaze.

There's no word on what started the fire.

This is a developing story.