Among the many traits of Americans I admired while growing up in Canada was their so-called rugged individualism. Canadians were—and still are—notorious for their acceptance of government and corporate mediocrity and for obediently tolerating being jerked around. A popular pastime in the Canada of my youth was waiting in line for just about everything—be it a bank withdrawal or a cup of Tim Hortons coffee.
The other day I saw a photo of throngs of jam-packed travelers at Newark Airport, stranded due to technology issues affecting air traffic control in one of America’s busiest flight corridors. Even by Canadian standards, the chaos was remarkable. Had you shown me the photo and asked me to guess the location, I would have guessed a Third World country.
That America’s air traffic controllers are working with antiquated equipment has long been known. The likelihood of disaster has also been predicted. In December, United CEO Scott Kirby told NPR that the FAA was about 3,000 air traffic controllers short and said the shortage would lead to delays across the country. He cited Newark—United’s hub—as an example of an airport that needed more staff to prevent continued long delays.
“For the whole month of November, we had over half a million customers that were delayed because of air traffic control shortfalls in Newark alone. It is the biggest issue, the biggest opportunity to make air travel better for customers in the United States,” Kirby said.
Sean Duffy’s Gall
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has some real gall blaming the problem entirely on the Biden administration. FAA issues existed during President Trump’s first term, and no meaningful action was taken. Moreover, it was under the Trump administration that the FAA began allowing Boeing employees to oversee parts of the agency’s aircraft certification process—and we know how that turned out with the 737 MAX.
Pete Buttigieg, the former college-town mayor who frequently touted being the first openly gay Transportation Secretary, prioritized symbolism over substance when it came to modernizing the FAA’s outdated technology infrastructure. Under his leadership, the agency emphasized diversity initiatives, including efforts to attract more employees with disabilities.
As the FAA’s website stated during Buttigieg’s tenure:
Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the Federal Government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring. They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism.
Defanging the CFPB
When it comes to consumer protections, Americans had better brace for more corporate abuse and exploitation. To the disgrace of the mainstream media, there has been scant coverage of the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to marginalize the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—an agency that both Trump and Elon Musk have called to eliminate entirely.
On Tuesday, the CFPB canceled a 2023 settlement with the financing arm of Toyota over allegations that the auto giant had illegally steered thousands of consumers into costly and unwanted product bundles. The agency also dropped a federal lawsuit against Walmart and the workforce payments firm Branch, in which officials alleged the companies forced more than a million delivery drivers to use accounts that cost them over $10 million in so-called junk fees.
Since Trump’s reelection, the CFPB has eliminated virtually all enforcement actions that were pending when he took office.
Trump has claimed that the CFPB was politically motivated and has repeatedly argued that U.S. companies require no regulatory oversight because they can police themselves. That reckless assertion is both unfounded and blind to a reality that is undeniable.
Ripe for the Fleecing
Consumer exploitation by U.S. corporations is arguably at an unprecedented level in modern history. From hidden fees and shrinkflation to deceptive advertising and fine-print traps, many companies have long abandoned the ethos that “the customer is always right.” Instead, they increasingly treat consumers as profit centers to be squeezed—through reduced services, inflated prices, and charges designed to obscure true costs.
Airlines now routinely impose fees for basic conveniences like seat selection and carry-ons. Grocery manufacturers quietly reduce package sizes without lowering prices. Tech platforms aggressively monetize user data while degrading service for non-paying users—many of whom don’t realize they’re sacrificing their privacy.
Over lunch today, my cousin Rob showed me a list of 384 data brokers with his detailed personal information identified by a service he hired to reduce his online footprint. These brokers likely have been selling his personal information—without his knowledge or consent. The privacy protection service, which Cousin Rob signed up for just a few weeks ago, is still actively scouring the internet for more brokers holding his personal information.
Privacy is no longer an obscure issue championed by niche nonprofits. Americans now understand that every transaction, click, and swipe is tracked, stored, and sold. Polls show that most Americans are increasingly concerned about their lack of privacy and, quite rightly, feel helpless to stop it. Whether it’s facial recognition at airports, health data shared through apps, or smartphones listening for voice prompts, consumers recognize that privacy is no longer just about secrecy—it’s about corporate and potentially governmental control, much like in China.
In yet another example of corporate media’s disconnect from public concerns, there has been little national coverage of the $1.4 billion landmark settlement Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton secured last week with Google. Paxton called it the largest recovery nationwide by any state attorney general enforcing privacy laws—and it wasn’t part of a multistate coalition.
Here’s perspective: prior to Texas’s deal, no state had secured more than $93 million from Google for similar privacy violations. A coalition of 40 states together reached just $391 million—nearly $1 billion less than what Texas alone recovered.
“In Texas, Big Tech is not above the law. For years, Google secretly tracked people’s movements, private searches, and even their voiceprints and facial geometry. I fought back and won,” Paxton said. “This $1.375 billion settlement is a major win for Texans’ privacy and tells companies they will pay for abusing our trust.”
For Paxton’s office, the legal takedown of Google was no fluke. Last July, he secured a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta over facial recognition data misuse—the largest ever by a single state. He previously reached $700 million and $8 million settlements with Google for anticompetitive and deceptive practices.
Data Privacy Division
Paxton last June launched a major data privacy and security initiative, creating a dedicated team within his office’s consumer protection division to enforce Texas privacy laws. The team is led by Georgetown Law graduate Tyler Bridegan and is likely the largest state-level legal unit focused solely on privacy enforcement.
Bridegan’s team has since targeted General Motors, which faces over two dozen class-action lawsuits following a New York Times exposé by Kashmir Hill. Hill revealed that GM was collecting and selling data about drivers’ behaviors to brokers, who resold it to insurance firms. The data included cornering speed, braking habits, trip lengths, and speeding frequency—all without most drivers’ awareness or consent.
Bridegan filed a lawsuit last August alleging that GM entered “many agreements” to sell this data—and even demanded kickbacks from third-party buyers who resold data from other automakers. GM allegedly received both upfront lump-sum payments and ongoing revenue shares.
Bridegan claims GM “profited handsomely” from this “ill-gotten data.” CEO Mary Barra once boasted that GM would become a “platform innovator” generating $25 billion annually from software-based services—like subscriptions for heated seats.
GM employs more than 9,000 people in Texas and builds many of its highest-margin trucks and SUVs near Dallas, with a tech innovation center in Austin. Texas accounts for 9% of GMC dealerships nationwide.
Bridegan’s lawsuit seeks up to $10,000 per violation and $250,000 for violations involving Texans 65 and older. With claims that GM sold driving data on 1.8 million Texans, the potential penalty could exceed $18 billion.
FTC love tap
That payout is unlikely, but GM probably won’t get off as easily as it did under Joe Biden’s FTC. In one of its last actions before the Biden administration ended, the FTC reached a settlement with GM that barred it from sharing sensitive geolocation and driver data—a meaningless move, as GM had already stopped doing so. No financial penalties were imposed, despite GM reporting $187 billion in 2024 revenue and spending $16 billion on stock buybacks to boost its underperforming share price.
In another weak penalty, the Biden DOJ allowed GM’s Cruise unit—chaired by CEO Barra—to pay just $500,000 to settle charges that it submitted false information to the NHTSA about a driverless vehicle crash.
Politico reported close ties between Biden and Barra, and that one of Biden’s top aides was a former GM lobbyist, with his brother still on GM’s lobbying payroll.
Texas may be a pro-business state, but it’s sending a clear message: that friendliness ends when companies violate the privacy of its citizens. Corporations thinking of mining personal data would be wise to avoid doing it in the Lone Star State.