Category: Business

(WASHINGTON) — A fresh inflation reading this week flashed a warning: Price increases are rising again, just when the Federal Reserve had appeared close to declaring “mission accomplished” in its yearslong fight to lower them.

In theory, the trend would prompt the Fed to raise rates, or at least hold them steady, when central bankers meet next week. High interest rates, after all, are the main tool the Fed has used to ratchet inflation down from its pandemic-era heights.

Instead, investors peg the chances of a rate cut next week at an overwhelming 98%, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.

The reason is clear, experts told ABC News: Interest rates will remain historically high even after a small cut. The Fed likely does not view a mild uptick of inflation this fall as enough to deviate from a path of rate cuts it laid out earlier this year, they added.

“I don’t think the recent inflation has diverged enough from what the Fed expected to change its outlook,” William English, a professor of finance at Yale University and a former Fed official, told ABC News.

Consumer prices rose 2.7% in November compared to a year ago, marking two consecutive months of rising inflation, government data this week showed.

Inflation has slowed dramatically from a peak of more than 9% in June 2022. But the recent uptick has reversed some progress made at the start of this year that had landed price increases right near the Fed’s target of 2%.

That progress had helped nudge the Fed toward its landmark shift to interest rate cuts.

In recent months, the Fed has cut its benchmark rate three-quarters of a percentage point, dialing back its fight against inflation and delivering some relief for borrowers saddled with high costs.

Even after the cuts, the benchmark rate stands between 4.5% and 4.75%, its highest level in nearly two decades. The high interest rates have kept borrowing costs high for everything from credit cards to mortgages.

The average interest rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage stands at nearly 6.7%, well above an average rate four years ago of 2.6%, Freddie Mac data shows.

A small rate cut by the Fed would not meaningfully reduce mortgage payments for new loans, Yeva Nersisyan, a professor of economics at Franklin & Marshall College, told ABC News. In turn, the rate decision poses little risk of boosting demand for big-ticket items, like homes, which make up prices most immediately sensitive to lower rates. Other prices operate on a prolonged lag in response to changes in interest rates, she added.

“In that sense, a quarter of a percentage point cut or not really wouldn’t make a difference for inflation,” Nersisyan said.

The anticipated rate cut also reflects the Fed’s consideration of employment, which makes up the other component of its dual mandate besides inflation, English said. The unemployment rate has increased this year from 3.7% to 4.2%, though it remains at a historically low level. Hiring has slowed down but remained solid.

Lower interest rates are meant to stimulate economic activity over the long term, keep the economy growing and safeguard the labor market.

“They’ve been trying to balance two risks: One is that the economy slows more than they thought, and the other is that inflation proves more stubborn than they thought,” English said.

Still, experts cautioned that the recent uptick in inflation may delay or alter plans for rate cuts next year.

“Starting next year, they probably will take a more cautious outlook,” Nersisyan said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Multiple “Wanted” signs featuring corporate executives posted in Manhattan this week included a grave warning, according to a New York Police Department bulletin. “Brian Thompson was denied his claim to life. Who will be denied next?” the signs said.

The threats of violence against CEOs followed an outpouring of criticism on social media directed at corporate leaders in the wake of the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Many online also praised Luigi Mangione, the murder suspect, who assailed large corporations in writings found by police.

The wave of sympathy toward Mangione and hostility toward CEOs sparked debate about how a set of Americans had come to cheer, or at least condone, wishes of violence hurled toward corporate executives.

Some experts who spoke to ABC News attributed the anti-corporate outcry to a host of overlapping trends: widening wealth inequality and a perception of an economy rigged against everyday people, blistering rhetoric supercharged by social media and a populist strain of politics that faults elites.

“People feel that the system just isn’t built to favor regular folks. That’s underlying a lot of the macabre response that we’ve seen to this shooting,” Chris Jackson, senior vice president of public affairs for Ipsos in the U.S., told ABC News.

Other experts, however, have said the criticism voiced by a small but outspoken minority risked overstating the level of dissatisfaction with CEOs.

“Despite a vocal fringe, most Americans continue to admire businesses and their leaders as vital forces of innovation, prosperity and stability,” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor of management at Yale University who regularly convenes meetings of the nation’s top CEOs, wrote in the outlet Chief Executive.

Mangione was arrested by police on Monday in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on gun charges, before being charged in New York with murder. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges in Pennsylvania, and has fought extradition to New York.

The online response to the murder has arrived at a moment of deep distrust about what determines economic outcomes, polls show. More than two-thirds of Americans think the nation’s economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful, an Ipsos survey last year found.

That perception of unfairness coincided with a rise in anti-corporate attitudes among members of both major parties, according to a 2022 Pew survey. Only 1 in 4 adults believed large businesses have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, down from 36% just three years earlier, the poll showed.

“There’s growing dissatisfaction and anger toward top-level corporate management,” Daniel Kinderman, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, told ABC News.

Such distrust, Kinderman said, traces in part to wide economic inequality. The wealthiest 10% of U.S. families control about 60% of the country’s wealth, a Congressional Budget Office report in October found.

“A lot of people are working hard, but they’re not really getting anywhere,” Kinderman said. “There’s a sense that the system is broken.”

Some experts have disputed explanations of the anti-CEO sentiment that attribute the phenomenon primarily to individuals’ economic outlook, however.

Sonnenfeld said the hostility owes to populists on both ends of the political spectrum who villainize corporate America.

“This unholy alliance between the far left and far right seems to think that businesses cannot succeed without doing something unethical or hurting others,” Sonnenfeld wrote in the outlet Chief Executive.

Much of the vitriol has targeted the health care industry, which aggravates consumers more than corporations overall, Tom Rogers, the founder of CNBC, told ABC News.

“I don’t really see another industry where the depth of disapproval and disgust that people have would be anywhere near as motivating in terms of the ill will toward CEOs,” Rogers said.

Social media also drew blame from experts, who faulted algorithms that they said often reward provocative posts with higher engagement and wider reach. Viral posts online have listed the names and salaries of several health insurance executives, the NYPD said in its bulletin this week.

Robert Pape, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago who studies political violence, acknowledged the role of social media but said a focus on any single factor risks overlooking the contribution from others, including economic frustration and populist politics.

“It’s really an interwoven cocktail,” Pape said.

Pape pointed to recent bouts of political violence that in his view have weakened a longstanding taboo against it: the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; the assault of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, in 2022; and a pair of assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Political violence has become normal,” Pape said. “We’re on a slippery slope.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Albertsons has filed a lawsuit against its rival Kroger following a failed multibillion dollar deal that would have marked the biggest supermarket merger in U.S. history.

Two federal judges in Oregon and Washington blocked the merger Tuesday, siding with the Federal Trade Commission, which has opposed the plan, arguing it would eliminate competition and raise prices for American shoppers.

Albertsons announced Wednesday that it had terminated the merger agreement following the failed bid.

“Given the recent federal and state court decisions to block our proposed merger with Kroger, we have made the difficult decision to terminate the merger agreement,” Albertsons CEO Vivek Sankaran said in a statement. “We are deeply disappointed in the courts’ decisions.”

Less than 24 hours after the failed deal, the Boise, Idaho-based retailer also announced it had taken legal action against Kroger.

“Kroger willfully breached the Merger Agreement in several key ways, including by repeatedly refusing to divest assets necessary for antitrust approval, ignoring regulators’ feedback, rejecting stronger divestiture buyers and failing to cooperate with Albertsons,” the company alleged in a statement Wednesday.

Albertsons claimed the Cincinnati, Ohio-based grocery chain failed to exercise “best efforts” and failed to take “‘any and all actions’ to secure regulatory approval of the companies’ agreed merger transaction as was required of Kroger under the terms of the merger agreement between the parties.”

The complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Kroger and is temporarily under seal.

In response to the lawsuit, Kroger released its own statement, calling the suit “baseless.”

“Kroger refutes these allegations in the strongest possible terms, especially in light of Albertsons’ repeated intentional material breaches and interference throughout the merger process, which we will prove in court,” the company claimed. “This is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility following Kroger’s written notification of Albertsons’ multiple breaches of the agreement, and to seek payment of the merger’s break fee, to which they are not entitled.”

Kroger said the company “looks forward to responding to these baseless claims in court.”

Tom Moriarty, Albertsons’ general counsel and chief policy officer, expressed his disappointment and said the merger “would have delivered meaningful benefits for America’s consumers,” as well as both companies’ employees.

“Rather than fulfill its contractual obligations to ensure that the merger succeeded, Kroger acted in its own financial self-interest, repeatedly providing insufficient divestiture proposals that ignored regulators’ concerns,” Moriarty claimed in a statement. “Kroger’s self-serving conduct, taken at the expense of Albertsons and the agreed transaction, has harmed Albertsons’ shareholders, associates and consumers.”

The two supermarket chains first proposed combining forces back in October 2022, sharing a definitive agreement in which Kroger, the second largest U.S. grocery store chain, sought to purchase the fourth largest, Albertsons, for an estimated total enterprise value of $24.6 billion.

Following a three-week hearing in Portland, Oregon, U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson issued a temporary injunction blocking the merger on Tuesday.

That was followed later on Tuesday by a decision from Judge Marshall Ferguson in Seattle, Washington, who issued a permanent injunction that barred the merger in that state, citing competition concerns and a violation of Washington’s consumer-protection laws.

Kroger operates 2,800 stores across 35 states, with brands including Ralphs, Smith’s and Harris Teeter. Albertsons operates 2,273 stores in 34 states, including brands like Safeway, Jewel Osco and Shaw’s.

Between them, the two grocery chains have more than 700,000 workers and operate almost everywhere in the U.S.

In separate statements following Tuesday’s court rulings, both Kroger and Albertsons expressed disappointment and said at the time, they would review their options.

Both the White House and the FTC praised the rulings Tuesday.

“The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons,” Bureau of Competition Director Henry Liu said in a statement. “This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries — from milk, to bread, to eggs — ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets.”

White House National Economic Council Deputy Director Jon Donenberg said in a separate statement Tuesday, “The Kroger-Albertsons merger would have been the biggest supermarket merger in history — raising grocery prices for consumers and lowering wages for workers. Our administration is proud to stand up against big corporate mergers that increase prices, undermine workers, and hurt small businesses.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Consumer prices rose 2.7% in November compared to a year ago, ticking upward from the previous month and potentially giving pause to the Federal Reserve as it weighs an interest rate cut expected next week. The reading matched economists’ expectations.

The fresh data marked two consecutive months of rising inflation, extending a bout of accelerated price increases that has reversed some of the progress made in lowering inflation earlier in the year.

The inflation gauge makes up the last piece of significant economic data before the Fed announces its next interest rate decision on Dec. 18. A finding of accelerated price hikes may give the Fed pause as it weighs interest rate cuts.

The inflation gauge makes up the last piece of significant economic data before the Fed announces its next interest rate decision on Dec. 18.

Core inflation — a closely watched measure that strips out volatile food and energy prices — increased 3.3% over the year ending in November, matching the previous month, the data showed.

Food prices rose 2.4% in November compared to a year ago, matching the previous month and marking slower price increases than the overall inflation rate.

Prices fell in November compared to a year ago for an array of household staples like cereal, rice, flour, bread, bacon and seafood.

Over that period, the price of eggs soared more than 37%, however, as a result of an avian flu that has depleted supply. Prices for sugar, butter and pork chops also rose faster than the overall inflation rate.

Inflation has slowed dramatically from a peak of more than 9% in June 2022, but price increases remain slightly above the target rate of 2%.

In recent months, the Fed has cut its benchmark rate three quarters of a percentage point, dialing back its yearslong fight against inflation and delivering relief for borrowers saddled with high costs.

The Fed is expected to cut interest rates by another quarter of a percentage point at its meeting next week, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.

Over time, rate cuts ease the burden on borrowers for everything from home mortgages to credit cards to cars, making it cheaper to get a loan or refinance one. The cuts also boost company valuations, potentially helping fuel returns for stockholders.

In theory, the policy eases access to funds, stimulates economic activity and boosts demand. But the promise of bolstered consumer strength risks increased prices.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell voiced optimism about the prospects for achieving a “soft landing,” in which the U.S. averts a recession while inflation returns to normal.

“We continue to be confident that with an appropriate recalibration of our policy stance, strength in the economy and labor market can be maintained with inflation moving sustainably down to 2%,” Powell said.

The trajectory of inflation could shift in the coming months. Some economists expect President-elect Donald Trump’s proposals of heightened tariffs and the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants to raise consumer prices.

When asked about the Fed’s potential response to Trump’s policies, Powell said the central bank would make its rate decisions based on how any policy changes impact the economy.

“In the near term, the election will have no effects on our policy decisions,” Powell said. “We don’t know what the timing and substance of any policy changes will be. We therefore don’t know what the effects on the economy will be.”

“We don’t guess, we don’t speculate and we don’t assume,” Powell added.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Fresh inflation data set for release on Wednesday will provide an update on prices ahead of the holidays and help determine the outcome of an interest rate decision at the Federal Reserve slated for next week.

A monthslong slowdown of inflation came to an end when price increases accelerated in October, the most recent month for which data is available. The hot reading reversed some previous progress in lowering inflation and left price increases above the Fed’s target rate.

Economists expect consumer prices to have climbed 2.7% in November, which would amount to a slight uptick in price increases and mark two consecutive months of rising inflation.

The inflation gauge makes up the last piece of significant economic data before the Fed announces its next interest rate decision on Dec. 18. A finding of accelerated price hikes may give the Fed pause as it weighs interest rate cuts.

Inflation has slowed dramatically from a peak of more than 9% in June 2022, but price increases remain slightly above the target rate of 2%.

In recent months, the Fed has cut its benchmark rate three quarters of a percentage point, dialing back its yearslong fight against inflation and delivering relief for borrowers saddled with high costs.

The Fed is expected to cut interest rates by another quarter of a percentage point at its meeting next week, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.

Over time, rate cuts ease the burden on borrowers for everything from home mortgages to credit cards to cars, making it cheaper to get a loan or refinance one. The cuts also boost company valuations, potentially helping fuel returns for stockholders.

In theory, the policy eases access to funds, stimulates economic activity and boosts demand. But the promise of bolstered consumer strength risks increased prices.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell voiced optimism about the prospects for achieving a “soft landing,” in which the U.S. averts a recession while inflation returns to normal.

“We continue to be confident that with an appropriate recalibration of our policy stance, strength in the economy and labor market can be maintained with inflation moving sustainably down to 2%,” Powell said.

The trajectory of inflation could shift in the coming months. Some economists expect President-elect Donald Trump’s proposals of heightened tariffs and the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants to raise consumer prices.

When asked about the Fed’s potential response to Trump’s policies, Powell said the central bank would make its rate decisions based on how any policy changes impact the economy.

“In the near term, the election will have no effects on our policy decisions,” Powell said. “We don’t know what the timing and substance of any policy changes will be. We therefore don’t know what the effects on the economy will be.”

“We don’t guess, we don’t speculate and we don’t assume,” Powell added.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A bankruptcy judge rejected the sale of Infowars to The Onion, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said during his podcast on Tuesday.

“We are deeply disappointed in today’s decision but The Onion will continue to seek a resolution that helps the Sandy Hook families receive a positive outcome for the horror they endured,” The Onion CEO Ben Collins said on social media.

“We will also continue to seek a path towards purchasing InfoWars in the coming weeks,” Collins’ statement continued.

Jones accused The Onion and Sandy Hook Elementary School families of “collusive bidding” and asked a bankruptcy court judge to halt the sale of his Infowars platform in November.

Jones, who defamed the Sandy Hook families by calling the 2012 massacre a hoax and the parents of the 20 first graders actors, called The Onion’s winning $1.75 million bid “sheer nonsense” because it’s half of what the losing bidder offered.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

 

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — TikTok on Monday requested the emergency pause of a law set to ban the popular social media app next month.

A temporary lifting of the measure would afford the Supreme Court time to determine whether it should review the law, the company said in a court filing.

The filling arrives days after TikTok — which boasts more than 170 million U.S. users — lost a challenge against the measure in a federal appeals court.

A pause of the law would afford the Supreme Court time to determine whether it should “review this exceptionally important case,” TikTok said in the court filing on Monday.

The law would impose a nationwide ban of TikTok on Jan. 19, 2025, unless the company finds a different owner.

The ban would take effect one day before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has signaled that he would seek to reverse a possible ban.

The legal pause would also allow the Trump administration an opportunity to decide its approach to TikTok, the company’s legal filing said.

TikTok had challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that a potential ban would deny American users access to a popular venue for public expression. Attorneys for the company also disputed claims that the app poses a national security risk.

In a ruling on Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s bid to overturn the law.

The federal court found merit in security concerns about potential data collection or content manipulation undertaken by the Chinese government.

Each of those two concerns “constitutes an independently compelling national security interest,” the court opinion said. The court cited previous instances in which the Chinese government had pursued data, noting the government’s use of relationships with Chinese-owned businesses.

The China-based app has faced growing scrutiny from government officials over fears that user data could fall into the possession of the Chinese government and the app could be weaponized by China to spread misinformation. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has denied those claims.

There is little evidence that TikTok has shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or that the Chinese government has asked the app to do so, cybersecurity experts previously told ABC News.

In a statement on Monday, TikTok urged the Supreme Court to intervene on its behalf.

“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” the company said. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — President-elect Donald Trump this week vowed to block the purchase of U.S. Steel by Japanese steelmaker Nippon Steel Corp., promising to bolster the domestic steel industry with tariffs.

“I am totally against the once great and powerful U.S. Steel being bought by a foreign company, Trump said in a post on Truth Social, pledging to make U.S. Steel “Strong and Great Again, and it will happen FAST!”

Trump has proposed a tax as high as 20% on every product imported from all U.S. trading partners, as well as a tax of between 60% and 100% on all goods from China, the world’s leading steel producer.

Those policies could modestly improve the outlook for domestic steelmakers by hiking prices, boosting revenue and increasing employment, though the benefits would not lift the sector to the heights attained in its heyday, experts told ABC News.

The experts warned, however, that a potential rekindling of consumer price increases as a result of the wide-ranging tariffs could damage the steel industry as part of a wider economic slowdown.

The policies also risk harming the nation’s manufacturing sector as a whole, since the tariffs would hike costs for factories that rely on raw steel as an input, making those firms less competitive with their international counterparts, the experts said.

“We have tried to help the steel industry many, many times before,” Kyle Handley, a professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego, told ABC News, pointing to steel tariffs established during Trump’s first term and retained under President Joe Biden.

“Yet, here we are and the industry still needs more help,” Handley added.

In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the Trump transition team touted the tariffs imposed during his first term in office.

“In his first term, President Trump instituted tariffs against China that created jobs, spurred investment, and resulted in no inflation. President Trump will work quickly to fix and restore an economy that puts American workers [first] by re-shoring American jobs, lowering inflation, raising real wages, lowering taxes, cutting regulations, and unshackling American energy,” Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

Tariffs remain popular with steel industry leaders. The Steel Manufacturers Association, or SMA, the largest U.S. trade association representing steelmakers, has urged the incoming Trump administration to strengthen steel tariffs.

“We are under constant threat from nonmarket economies who evade our trade laws to dump cheap, heavily subsidized, high-emissions steel and other products into the American market, making it hard for domestic manufacturers to compete,” SMA President Philip Bell said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Fortunately, President-elect Trump has vowed to use every tool he can to end unfair trade while stimulating growth in jobs and productivity,” Bell added.

In 2018, Trump slapped tariffs on aluminum and steel from a host of countries, including Mexico, Canada and the European Union.

Over the ensuing years, U.S. steel prices soared and output climbed.

The average price of a ton of hot-rolled steel — a common metric used for steel prices — soared from about $700 to $1,850 between 2017 and 2021, according to a study last year by the United States International Trade Commission, a government agency.

However, prices also spiked in non-U.S. steel markets over that period amid a global rise in demand, leaving only a modest impact from the tariffs, the study found. Steel production showed a similarly incremental advance, ticking upward by nearly 2% per year on average due to the tariffs, the study showed.

“It was a good thing for the steel industries because they were getting higher prices for steel and producing more,” Handley said.

The tariffs did not cause a sustained increase in employment for the steel industry, however, according to some data. Nationwide employment at steel and iron mills stood at 80,600 in 2017 — and registered the exact same number of workers last year, government data showed.

Technological advances in steel production have made the work less labor intensive, reducing the need for employees, Katheryn Russ, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, told ABC News.

The proposed across-the-board tariffs could amplify the benefits for the steel industry that resulted from tariffs initiated during Trump’s first term, Russ said. But, she added, “It is unclear how it would affect employment in steel plants.”

Trump’s proposals would also intensify the negative effects that resulted from the first round of tariffs, including cost increases for a range of manufacturers that use raw steel as inputs, experts said. Those higher costs would hurt the competitiveness of such U.S. producers, risking lost revenue and potential layoffs, they added.

“Everybody who buys steel would now have higher costs,” Handley said. “We can have a debate about who should win or lose from that, but you can’t have everybody win.”

Economists widely forecast that tariffs of the magnitude proposed by Trump would also increase prices paid by U.S. shoppers, since importers typically pass along a share of the cost of those higher taxes to consumers.

A potential price spike risks slashing consumer purchases and slowing the economy, which would hurt a wide swath of businesses, including steel producers, Gordon Johnson, whose firm, GLJ Research, analyzes the steel industry, told ABC News.

“People will buy less of everything,” Johnson said. “That would be very bad for all U.S. businesses — steel companies as well.”

Still, Johnson said he understands the enduring cultural resonance of the steel industry, citing the phenomenon as a reason for why the sector receives attention from policymakers.

“When you say ‘steelworkers,’ you think of some guy who gets up at 6 a.m., gets McDonald’s coffee, puts on overalls and a big flannel and goes to work in the mill,” Johnson said. “He’s a hard worker and a quintessential U.S. citizen.”

He added, “Steel was a historic and traditional American staple. That’s why people care so much.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Department of Labor is investigating HelloFresh over allegations that the popular meal kit service employed migrant children at a cooking and packaging facility in Illinois as recently as this summer, ABC News has learned.

At least six teenagers, at least some of whom migrated from Guatemala, were found working night shifts at the facility, said Cristobal Cavazos, the executive director for Immigrant Solidarity, an immigrant rights advocacy group that helped report the matter to federal regulators.

“They’re minors working dangerous jobs,” Cavazos told ABC News.

The Labor Department is also investigating whether Midway Staffing, an agency that hires employees to work at the HelloFresh facility, also violated federal child labor rules, according to documents obtained by ABC News.

The German-based HelloFresh, which is the largest meal kit company in the U.S., is the latest food supply firm to come under scrutiny for allegedly employing underaged migrants.

The Department of Labor confirmed to ABC News it is investigating the HelloFresh facility and the staffing agency.

“We were deeply troubled to learn of the allegations made against a former temporary staffing agency,” a spokesperson for HelloFresh told ABC News in a statement. “As soon as we learned of these allegations, we immediately terminated the relationship.”

“We have strict protocols in place to ensure all vendors follow our robust global ethics and compliance policies,” the spokesperson said. “We have zero tolerance for any form of child labor, and we have taken action to ensure no minors perform work in or have access to our facilities.”

The spokesperson told ABC News that the facility, in Aurora, Illinois, is a Factor75 facility, which was acquired by HelloFresh in 2020. Factor75 is a prepared meal delivery services company.

Midway Staffing did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

In fiscal year 2024, the Labor Department found 4,030 children employed in violation of child labor laws across all industries. Of the 736 cases brought by the department, nearly half involved minors employed in violation of hazardous occupation laws.

According to immigrant rights advocacy groups and labor experts, migrant children in the U.S. are not only employed in agriculture and food supply jobs, but also in dangerous jobs including construction and roofing.

Last month, the Labor Department fined a sanitation contractor that employed children to perform dangerous work during overnight shifts at its Sioux City pork processing plant. Eleven children were found to have used “corrosive cleaners to clean head splitters, jaw pullers, bandsaws, neck clippers and other equipment” from at least September 2019 through September 2023, according to court documents.

In September, three immigrant teenagers filed a federal lawsuit against a seafood processing plant in Massachusetts alleging that the company forced the minors to work through “perilous, overnight shifts in its seafood processing plant.”

“In early 2023, American consumers were shocked to learn that children as young as 13 were working illegally in meatpacking plants throughout the U.S.,” Reid Maki, Director of Child Labor Advocacy for the National Consumers League, told ABC News, “It’s disturbing that this illegal hazardous child labor is continuing, with kids often exposed to caustic chemicals, working the night shift, and trying to attend school without sleep.”

“Some companies are ramping up monitoring, but the problem is pervasive and the U.S. Department of Labor badly needs congressional appropriations to increase the number of inspectors to make sure corporate efforts are succeeding,” Maki said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court on Friday rejected TikTok’s bid to overturn a law banning the platform unless the company finds a new owner. The defeat moves the app closer to a U.S. ban, which is set to take effect on Jan. 19, 2025.

TikTok had challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that a potential ban would deny American users access to a popular venue for public expression. Attorneys for the company also disputed claims that the app poses a national security risk.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the app, which boasts more than 170 million U.S. users.

The China-based app has faced growing scrutiny from government officials over fears that user data could fall into the possession of the Chinese government and the app could be weaponized by China to spread misinformation. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has denied those claims.

In its ruling, the court found merit in security concerns about potential data collection or content manipulation undertaken by the Chinese government, referring to it by its formal name as the People’s Republic of China, or PRC.

Each of those two concerns “constitutes an independently compelling national security interest,” the court opinion said. The court cited previous instances in which the Chinese government pursued data, noting the government’s use of relationships with Chinese-owned businesses.

In a statement to ABC News on Friday, TikTok urged the Supreme Court to overrule the decision.

“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue. Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” TikTok said.

“The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025,” the company added.

There is little evidence that TikTok has shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or that the Chinese government has asked the app to do so, cybersecurity experts previously told ABC News.

President-elect Donald Trump has voiced opposition to a potential ban of TikTok. The president is expected to try to stop the ban of TikTok after he takes office, The Washington Post reported last month, citing people familiar with his views on the matter.

The most straightforward way to reverse the policy would be a repeal of the law that enacted the ban in the first place, experts previously told ABC News.

A repeal would require passage in both houses of Congress, landing the measure on Trump’s desk for his signature.

Trump may encounter difficulty gaining support for repeal of the measure among lawmakers, however.

Congress voted in favor of the ban earlier this year. In the House of Representatives, the ban passed by an overwhelming margin of 352-65. In the Senate, 79 members voted in favor of the measure, while 18 opposed and 3 abstained.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.