The defamation lawsuit, filed by Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing and its attorney, Sebastian Rucci, claims nonprofit Comite Civico del Valle (CCV) and the group’s executive director, Jose Luis Olmedo Velez, are attempting to stall the data center project in a bid to force a financial settlement.

Illustration of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing’s proposed AI data center in Imperial, CA. Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing

NIMBY protesters demonstrate against a proposed data center in Imperial, CA. Facebook/NIMBY, Imperial

The group also hired Jake Tison to allegedly create a brutal online campaign, “publishing over 100 false and defamatory posts and videos across social media platforms” in an effort to make IVCM and Rucci look bad, according to the lawsuit.

Tison’s purported online posts called Rucci a “life-long fraud” and accused him of violating the California Environmental Quality Act, a statute that has become notorious for being leveraged to gum up development projects across the state, court documents obtained by The California Post said.

The suit alleges Tison spread false posts that Rucci had been thrown in jail for fraud. In reality, Rucci did spend a month in jail but for a misdemeanor liquor license violation, not fraud, according to the suit. 

Tison’s alleged online attacks then spiraled into something more violent and dangerous when his followers began to read his posts, according to Rucci and IVCM.

Superior Court of California

Superior Court of California

The lawsuit alleges Tison’s followers commented things like “public executions” and threatened to “burn the data center to the ground.” “Why can’t somebody just get him like Luigi did with the UntiedHealthcare CEO,” another wrote.

CC presents itself as an environmental justice nonprofit, but has “perfected a lucrative greenmail extortion racket: it files CEQA challenges to delay projects, then demands massive “public benefit” settlements that it alone controls,” according to the documents.

“Defendants also engaged in environmental terrorism by intimidating Imperial County Supervisors with threats of “slaughter at the voting booth” and placing their photos on milk cartons to coerce denial of a ministerial lot merger,” according to the documents.

Sebastian Rucci of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing Sebastian Rucci

Rucci’s lawsuit is the latest salvo in the furious battle to build the state’s largest artificial intelligence data supplier. Google is in line to become the tenant of the data goliath should the project get built, according to written communications reviewed by The Post. A Google spokesperson said the company isn’t involved with the project.

“The ultimate tenant will surface when the environmental terrorists, and their hired-thug propagandists, are forced to scatter like cockroaches after being exposed for their actions,” Rucci said in an interview with The Post. “They are extortionists, not environmentalists.”

Sign up for the California Morning Report newsletter

California’s top news, sports and entertainment delivered to your inbox every day.

Thanks for signing up!

Douglas Carstens, an attorney for CCV, said in a statement: “This lawsuit is meritless and its foundational claims lack a factual basis. The intention of this lawsuit should be questioned by all who value transparency, community voice, and the fundamental right of organizations to engage in good-faith policy advocacy on issues affecting the health, environment, and future of the Imperial Valley. CCV has worked tirelessly to ensure communities are protected from the environmental harms that proposed projects can bring, and those efforts should not be misconstrued.”

NIMBY protesters against a proposed data center. Facebook/NIMBY, Imperial

Rucci said he has the stomach to take on the activists but it’s a drag on time and resources. He said onerous state regulations can easily be hijacked to make building near impossible.

The Imperial county project demonstrates the challenges of building large data centers in California, despite the state being the technology capital of the world. Khara Boender, who lobbies on behalf of data center development for the Data Center Coalition, said developers are increasingly considering moving potential projects out of state because of the tough regulatory environment.

Superior Court of California

Superior Court of California

Rucci’s company, Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, says the $10 billion project will create jobs and generate $28.75 million in annual property tax revenue.

The project has already featured a headspinning amount of drama since it was proposed in 2024: The city of Imperial has sued the county, arguing the project should not have received an exemption from California Environmental Quality Act. Rucci then sued the city earlier this year, in addition to now suing the activists who oppose the project.   

Last month, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors held a meeting to solicit feedback from residents and allow Rucci to try to warm them up. The meeting ended, according to Rucci, with him having to evacuate because tensions involving residents and activists nearly boiled over as protestors chanted “We don’t care! It’s hot air!”

In written comments posted by the county, residents cite a litany of concerns about the project, including the health impacts on nearby neighborhoods, potential utility price hikes and the environmental strain of building a water intensive data center in a desert. Data centers use large amounts of water to cool equipment. 

 
Attorney Alene Taber, representing the city of Imperial, said in an interview that the developer and county have tried to skirt procedures and regulations in an attempt to fast track the project.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

California Post News: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn
California Post Sports Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X
California Post Opinion
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!
California Post App: Download here!
Home delivery: Sign up here!
Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here!

The post Online attacks and Luigi Mangione-inspired death threats in ugly brawl to build California AI megaproject appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Senate Bill 2007 cleared the Legislature on March 26, 2026, after months of committee review and debate. The proposal was submitted by the Department of Public Safety and introduced in the Senate by Sen. Craig Hickman of Kennebec during the 132nd Legislature’s second regular session.

Once enacted, the measure makes it explicit under Maine law that operating or promoting online sweepstakes games constitutes unlawful gambling and exposes violators to both civil and criminal penalties.

Law targets sweepstakes platforms operating in legal gray area

Sweepstakes casinos have grown rapidly across the U.S. by offering games that resemble traditional online casinos while relying on promotional sweepstakes mechanics to argue they are not accepting wagers.

Maine’s legislation is designed to eliminate that gray area by creating a dedicated statutory section that both defines and prohibits online sweepstakes games. Lawmakers said the goal was to prevent companies from using dual-currency promotional models to sidestep existing gambling restrictions.

How Maine defines online sweepstakes gambling

Under the new law, an online sweepstakes game is defined as any internet-based game, contest or promotion that simulates traditional casino products, including slot machines, poker, table games, bingo, lottery-style drawings and sports wagering and can be accessed through smartphones, tablets or computers.

A central feature of the definition is the use of a dual-currency system, in which players participate using either purchased virtual coins or promotional credits that can be redeemed for prizes. The bill explicitly states that this structure falls within the definition of unlawful gambling.

Civil fines and criminal liability introduced

The legislation establishes a two-track enforcement system.

Civil penalties

Operating or promoting an online sweepstakes game is treated as a civil violation carrying fines between $10,000 and $100,000 per violation, with funds directed to Maine’s Gambling Addiction Prevention and Treatment Fund.

Criminal consequences

The bill also amends Maine’s criminal code to clarify that running or supporting an online sweepstakes platform constitutes unlawful gambling, opening the door to criminal prosecution.

Regulators warn consumers about unlicensed platforms

State officials have repeatedly warned residents that sweepstakes casinos operate without oversight or consumer protections. Similar warnings in other states have framed the platforms as risky and potentially deceptive.

In Tennessee, for example, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a crackdown on sweepstakes sites that “the only thing you can be sure about with an online sweepstakes casino is that it’s going to take your money,” emphasizing the lack of regulatory safeguards.

While not issued in Maine, the comment reflects a broader concern shared by regulators nationwide that sweepstakes casinos can expose consumers to financial harm without the protections required of licensed gambling operators.

Severe consequences for licensed gambling operators

The law imposes especially strict penalties on companies already licensed to offer gambling in Maine. If a license holder is found to have operated or supported a sweepstakes platform, regulators are required to revoke that license and may bar the company or its executives from obtaining future gambling approvals.

This provision is intended to prevent regulated casinos, suppliers or fantasy sports operators from running sweepstakes products alongside licensed gambling offerings.

Maine joins growing national push against sweepstakes casinos

Maine’s action is part of a broader nationwide shift as lawmakers and regulators move to close what they view as loopholes in gambling laws.

In Indiana, regulators told lawmakers that sweepstakes casinos were operating outside the state’s regulatory framework because of their multi-currency structure, noting that:

it’s nuanced, but we don’t think [they are illegal under current law], which is why we need this legislation.”

That same reasoning, that sweepstakes platforms exist in a gray area not clearly addressed by existing statutes, has driven legislative efforts in multiple states, including Minnesota, Tennessee and Louisiana.

Lawmakers say goal is clarity and consumer protection

According to the bill’s official summary, the measure is intended to clarify that operating or promoting an online sweepstakes game constitutes unlawful gambling under Maine law and to establish additional civil penalties tied to that conduct.

Supporters argued that sweepstakes casinos blur the line between promotional contests and real-money gambling, potentially exposing players to financial risks without the oversight, age verification and responsible-gaming protections applied to regulated operators.

Featured Image: Quintin Soloviev, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The post Maine bans online sweepstakes casino platforms statewide appeared first on Our Story Insight.

The exchange unfolded on X, where Chili’s responded to a post highlighting Ruth’s Chris Steak House’s “business casual” policy, which requires guests to wear what the company describes as “proper attire.”

The casual dining chain quickly jumped into the conversation with a blunt response.

“The only dress code at Chili’s is that you have to be dressed,” the company wrote.

The remark quickly gained traction, drawing more than a million views and prompting users to weigh in on the two chains’ very different approaches.

Ruth’s Chris’ policy states that guests who do not meet the dress code may be asked to dine in the bar or lounge area, a move that has drawn criticism from some diners, Fox News Digital previously reported.

The guidelines also say hats should be removed upon entering, with those wearing ball caps directed to sit in the bar instead of the main dining room.

“The following attire is not permitted in our dining rooms: Gym wear, pool attire, tank tops, clothing with offensive graphics or language, revealing clothing or exposed undergarments,” the notice added.

Ruth’s Chris is owned by Darden Restaurants, which also operates Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse and The Capital Grille.

Chili’s is calling out Ruth’s Chris Steak House after the chain’s dress code sparked backlash online. Christopher Sadowski

The Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse at 148 W51st Street in New York, NY. Christopher Sadowski

Fox News Digital reached out to Darden for comment.

Chili’s response drew a range of reactions on social media.

“I’d rather go to Chili’s,” one user wrote, while others leaned into the chain’s more laid-back approach.

The exchange unfolded on X, where Chili’s responded to a post highlighting Ruth’s Chris Steak House’s “business casual” policy, which requires guests to wear what the company describes as “proper attire.” Zoran Zeremski – stock.adobe.com

Others disagreed, pointing to the difference between the two chains.

“Chili’s is not fine dining,” another commenter said, as some users argued that restaurants like Ruth’s Chris should maintain a higher standard.

“I should be able to go have a nice date night with a significant other in a classier steak house with a proper ambiance, and I should also be able to go hang with the boys with some delicious food and ice cold beer in a rowdier and more comfortable environment,” a user noted.

Deirdre Bardolf of Fox News Digital contributed reporting.

The post Ruth’s Chris gets schooled by Chili’s in viral dress code feud online appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Pan European Game Information, better known as PEGI, says it will expand its classification criteria starting in June 2026. This will apply to games submitted for rating from that point forward and will look more closely at design features that influence how players interact with games over time.

Under the new changes, PEGI will now weigh gameplay systems tied to online communication, in-game purchases, randomized rewards, and mechanics designed to keep players returning regularly, such as loot boxes.

Games with loot boxes will soon receive a PEGI 16 rating across Europe, including the UK. The move aims to highlight concerns that these features can blur the line between gaming and gambling, but will a higher age rating actually reduce young people’s exposure?

1/2 pic.twitter.com/catXp83lbU

— Gambling Harm UK (@gamblingharmuk) March 13, 2026

According to the organization, the aim is to give parents clearer guidance about how contemporary games actually function, especially as many titles increasingly rely on live service features and ongoing monetization systems.

PEGI worked with its internal experts to develop the new criteria and also consulted Germany’s ratings authority, USK. Germany introduced a similar framework in 2023 after changes to the country’s Youth Protection Act required regulators to consider interactive and monetization elements when assigning ratings.

“It was incredibly useful to learn from the experiences of our colleagues in Germany,” says Dirk Bosmans, Director of PEGI. “We are confident that these ambitious updates to PEGI’s classification criteria will provide parents and players with more useful and transparent advice that better reflects the overall experience that players can expect from the video games they play.”

How the new PEGI video game age categories will work

Some of the elements PEGI plans to incorporate are already displayed as informational labels. Features such as in-game purchases or paid random items have long appeared alongside age ratings, but the revised system will directly link certain mechanics to specific age categories.

For example, games that include time-limited or quantity-limited offers encouraging players to buy digital content will automatically receive a PEGI 12 rating. Titles that incorporate NFTs or other blockchain-based mechanisms will be classified PEGI 18.

Randomized paid rewards, often referred to as loot boxes, will generally trigger a PEGI 16 rating. PEGI says particularly aggressive implementations could push the rating to PEGI 18.

The system also introduces rules for so-called play-by-appointment mechanics. Games that reward players for logging in regularly through daily challenges or similar incentives will receive a PEGI 7 rating. If a game penalizes players for missing those sessions by removing items or reducing progress, the rating increases to PEGI 12.

Communication tools are another focus. Games that allow fully unrestricted communication without blocking or reporting features will automatically receive a PEGI 18 rating.

Debates over mechanics like loot boxes have intensified across Europe. Courts and regulators have increasingly examined whether randomized in-game rewards resemble gambling. In Austria, the country’s Supreme Court recently weighed in on cases involving loot boxes.

Academic research has also added pressure. A Norwegian study found evidence suggesting links between certain gaming spending behaviors and later gambling activity among adolescents, raising concerns about how monetization systems may influence younger players.

PEGI says publishers will now need to provide additional information when submitting games that include these newly defined features. Because games are often rated before they are publicly revealed, the organization expects the first titles assessed under the updated rules to appear later this summer.

USK says its own experience suggests the changes can have a measurable effect on classifications.

“We are happy to find ourselves once again aligned with PEGI in addressing online interaction risks as soon as these changes are coming into effect,” says Elisabeth Secker, Managing Director of USK. “For us, it has been a useful and successful change: at least one of the new USK criteria has been applied to approximately 30% of all games that were submitted since we updated our system. Around 1 in 3 of those games have been given a higher age rating as a result. The effect of the changes was visible and impactful.”

Featured image: PEGI screenshot via website

The post PEGI updates video game age ratings for online safety appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Researchers say the grade reflects a gap between how easy it is to place a bet and the rules meant to protect people from financial harm or addiction. The scorecard warns that “operators can offer bets to individuals demonstrating addictive gambling behaviors,” drawing attention to what it calls a major weakness in Ohio’s current system.

CASPR scorecard ranks Ohio 23rd nationwide for online gambling safety, giving the state a D grade and citing limited consumer protections. Credit: CASPR

Ohio legalized sports betting in 2022, launching retail sportsbooks and mobile apps at the start of 2023. Since then, wagering by smartphone has quickly become the dominant way residents place bets, mirroring a nationwide shift toward always-available digital gambling platforms.

Scrutiny on Ohio regulatory safety gaps as gambling market keeps expanding

According to the analysis, Ohio’s framework leans more toward allowing gambling than limiting its risks. The state collected 40 points for restrictions on online gambling but only 14 points for direct consumer protections, with almost no credit for tax structure or age-related safeguards.

The report also says several policies commonly recommended by public health experts simply do not exist in Ohio law. The scorecard states there are “no addiction or bankruptcy prevention protections,” and it notes that tools like mandatory loss limits, deposit waiting periods, and tougher advertising restrictions are missing.

Without those guardrails, researchers say mobile betting platforms can accelerate losses because wagers, deposits, and promotional offers happen instantly. Separate industry research has also warned about where gambling money ultimately goes, finding that 74% of U.S. online gambling revenue flowed to offshore platforms rather than regulated domestic operators.

CASPR’s report raises a similar concern about economic leakage. It estimates Ohio could see more than $533 million in annual net economic outflows tied to online betting. As the study explains, “online gambling apps route losses to out-of-state operators and vendors, creating large net leakages from state economies.”

Ohio officials have taken some steps to tighten oversight. Regulators have pursued action against prediction-market style products tied to sports outcomes, and Governor Mike DeWine has recently pushed regulators to review and potentially limit certain proposition bets that critics say can raise integrity and addiction concerns.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are also debating whether to expand the industry further by allowing full online casino games and poker. Even as that discussion moves forward, the CASPR report says Ohio still permits “24/7 sports gambling apps,” while many stronger consumer safeguards remain absent.

Featured image: Canva

The post Ohio online gambling safety report gives state low marks appeared first on Our Story Insight.

House Bill 1226, titled the Maryland Illegal Online Gambling Enforcement Act, would let the Attorney General issue cease-and-desist orders to any sweepstakes operator accused of offering or promoting illegal online gambling in the state. It also requires the Attorney General to keep a public list of website URLs that have received those orders, effectively creating a blacklist that others would be expected to follow.

Under the bill’s language, a platform provider is defined broadly as any company that stores or hosts content on a web server and makes it accessible online. Financial transaction providers, including payment processors and credit card issuers, are also explicitly covered.

That reach is what stands out to legal observers.

“It’s pretty far reaching,” said Robert L. Ruben, a partner at Duane Morris LLP and a gaming law expert, in an interview with ReadWrite.

Maryland online gambling bill jurisdiction questions and criminal penalties

Ruben pointed to a key distinction in how the bill treats operators compared with platform providers.

“If you notice there’s a difference in the provisions of the bill regarding an operator versus a platform provider or someone else,” Ruben said. “For the operator, the provision says that you’re submitting to the jurisdiction only if you knew or should have known that what the bill refers to as illegal online gambling is occurring in the state. But for the platform provider, it does not have that language.”

It’s not completely unprecedented that a regulator would claim jurisdiction over an entity that’s unaware that its products are being offered in a particular state. But again, I haven’t seen it before in gaming in a criminal context like this.

Robert L. Ruben, Duane Morris LLP partner

The measure states that an out-of-state platform provider whose service allows for online exchanges to or from people physically located in Maryland submits to the jurisdiction of Maryland courts. It also says platform providers and financial transaction providers are deemed to have constructive knowledge of websites identified by the Attorney General.

The structure, Ruben said, could create enforcement and due process challenges, especially because the bill carries criminal penalties.

“I think that could be problematic from an enforcement perspective, particularly a statute that carries criminal consequences,” Ruben said. “If you don’t know that software is somehow being used by somebody else, I think enforcement could be difficult under U.S. law.”

For operators, a first violation could mean up to three years in prison or a $50,000 fine, rising to $100,000 for subsequent violations. Each wager is treated as a separate offense. Platform providers face escalating daily fines if they fail to comply with blocking orders.

Ruben stresses that the bill includes a compliance window

“In most if not all cases under this bill, those penalties don’t kick in unless you fail to cease within the 10-day period,” he said. “So before they impose those harsh penalties, they are providing an opportunity to come into compliance.”

The proposal also squarely targets sweepstakes-style platforms, defining them as games that use a dual-currency system and simulate casino play. Similar legislative fights are unfolding in states including Florida, Indiana and Illinois, where industry groups such as the Social Gaming Leadership Alliance have argued that expansive bans risk sweeping in legitimate promotional models and skill-based offerings.

As drafted, HB 1226 has a companion measure in the Senate, a routine step in Maryland’s legislative process. Lawmakers would need to reconcile both versions before sending any final bill to the governor.

For now, the bill has sparked debate over how far a single state can go in trying to police the global internet.

As he put it, “I haven’t seen it before in gaming in a criminal context like this.”

Ruben said he would prefer to see the bill give prosecutors clearer discretion, especially in cases where any violation is inadvertent rather than intentional. He also flagged what he called a “curious” tension in the definitions section. 

While the bill’s definition of online gambling includes “games, sweepstakes games, games of chance, and any other game typically offered in a casino,” the definition of a wager refers to placing money at risk on an outcome determined by “skill, chance or elements of skill and chance.” 

This creates a potential conflict, he suggested, because the definition of illegal online gambling focuses on games of chance, not games of skill. “If the intent, and it’s not clear to me, if the intent is to render illegal gains of skill, that is in conflict with, you know, decades and decades of Maryland case law that a game of skill is not illegal gambling,” Ruben said.

Featured image: Canva

The post Maryland online gambling bill sparks enforcement concerns appeared first on Our Story Insight.

The online seller has agreed to purchase secondhand fashion marketplace Depop from Etsy for about $1.2 billion in cash, the companies said Wednesday.

The deal comes at a time when used clothing has become increasingly popular, sought out by shoppers searching for unique items that cost less than new ones and keep the old stuff from heading to the landfill.

An Ebay app logo is shown on a mobile phone, July 11, 2019, in Miami. AP

In a statement, eBay’s CEO Jamie Ianonne said that the acquisition is an opportunity to capture a younger demographic.

“We are confident that as part of eBay, Depop will be even more well-positioned for long-term growth, benefiting from our scale, complementary offerings, and operational capabilities,” Ianonne said.

As of Dec. 31, 2025, Depop’s marketplace had 7 million active buyers, nearly 90% of which are under the age of 34, and more than 3 million active sellers, the joint release said.

The deal comes five years after Etsy bought Depop for $1.6 billion. The app was founded in 2011.

The Depop application on a smartphone arranged in the Brooklyn borough of New York, U.S., on Wednesday, June 2, 2021. Bloomberg via Getty Images

EBay, based in San Jose, California, said it intends to pay cash. Etsy, based in Brooklyn, New York, plans to utilize the proceeds for general corporate purposes, continued share repurchases and investment in its core marketplace, according to the release.

Start your day with all you need to know

Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.

Thanks for signing up!

The transaction, which has been unanimously approved by eBay’s and Etsy’s boards, is currently expected to close in the second quarter, the companies said.

Depop is expected to retain its name, brand, platform, and its culture, the companies said.

EBay’s shares rose more than 7%, while Etsy’s share soared close to 15% in after-hours trading when the news was announced.

The post Online retailer eBay buying Gen Z secondhand marketplace Depop from Etsy for $1.2B in cash appeared first on Our Story Insight.

While online sports betting is legal in Maine, online gambling has largely been illegal in the state. However, Gov Janet Mills has now allowed for the passage of the online casino bill LD1164.

iGaming is coming to Maine. That’s according to a statement released by Gov. Janet Mills earlier today.

Based on the statement’s wording, it appears she’s letting it become law without her signature. pic.twitter.com/0GKMFjUlTC

— Steve Bittenbender (@Stepbitt) January 8, 2026

In its statement, the CFG says: “The proponents of legalization make false representations that it will replace illegal gambling. It does not – it normalizes the activity, growing the total market, the total consumption, the total harm, and the illegal sector.

“Besides, the Mills Administration has done little to attempt to combat illegal online gambling.”

They continue to suggest that slot games on mobile devices are the most addictive form of gambling, as they say these target anybody, anywhere, anytime, in any condition. The statement from the Campaign for Fairer Gambling also says that each harmed gambler, on average, impacts several others in their personal circle.

NAAiG also issues statement, saying they are disappointed in Gov Mills iGaming reversal

They say this can cause significant familial and community destruction, with the socio-economic costs of gambling harm falling on state services and budgets.

Campaign for Fairer Gambling founder Derek Webb said: “I thought that we had reached the point where there was a consensus that the US expansion of online gambling has been a disaster. Janet Mills has proven that as Governor she has failed to protect the people of Maine with integrity.”

Governor Janet Mills’ decision to reverse her long-standing opposition to online casino gambling and allow the #iGambling bill on her desk to become law represents a clear break from the Governor’s previously stated position and disregards overwhelming public opposition, expert… pic.twitter.com/U64fuCLspp

— NAAIG_Official (@NAAIG_Official) January 8, 2026

The group isn’t the only to speak out on the reversal, as the National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG) has also issued a statement as they say they are “deeply disappointed.”

The association says: “This decision represents a clear break from the Governor’s previously stated position and disregards overwhelming public opposition, expert warnings from her own regulators, and a proven gaming framework that has delivered meaningful benefits to Maine communities and tribal nations for more than a decade.”

Further into the statement, they say they will not accept the decision quietly and will ensure the people of Maine have the final say.

Featured Image: Credit to Quinti Soloviev on Wikimedia Commons, CC 4.0 license

legianbet

The post Maine governor allows online casino legalization backlash appeared first on Our Story Insight.