Peter Steinberger, the developer who vibe coded the popular OpenClaw autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agent, has joined OpenAI.

After an exceptionally wet start to 2026, two climate scientists explain what’s going on.

According to a court document published by _Bloomberg Law_, Steve Bannon and Boris Epshteyn were named as defendants in a class-action lawsuit regarding Let’s Go Brandon Coin, which is a crypto token that was launched in 2021. Among other allegations, the lawsuit claims that the memecoin was promoted as stable and decentralized when, in reality, it involved a large amount of centralized control and management. It also claims the token was used by the defendants to exploit their audiences and the followers of a broader political movement. “Defendants deliberately targeted a politically aligned and deeply loyal audience—individuals who trusted Defendants’ judgment, motives, and commitment to shared values—and encouraged them to invest in the Token as a means of participating in a broader movement,” claims the court filing. “Defendants’ conduct was particularly insidious because it exploited that trust to induce purchases of an unregistered, highly speculative asset under the guise of financial independence and community membership.” Although it popped up prior to the memecoin frenzy that occurred on the Solana-based crypto platform Pump.fun in 2024 and 2025, the creators and promoters of Let’s Go Brandon Coin are facing accusations similar to those faced by the “Hawk Tuah” girl and many others in a separate lawsuit focused on a variety of coins launched on Solana and Pump.fun. That said, the class action lawsuit states that the defendants repeatedly stated that Let’s Go Brandon Coin was not a memecoin and promoted it as “a serious financial project with real-world utility, charitable purpose, and resilience against inflation, debanking, and financial censorship.” Previous reporting from _Protos_ indicates Let’s Go Brandon Coin was originally launched on Binance Smart Chain, which is the proprietary blockchain network associated with global crypto exchange Binance, rather than Solana. The document also alleges that the defendants had centralized control over the token via its associated smart contract and the ability to freeze user funds, which reportedly did happen, despite claims that users of the token would be “uncancellable.” The documents also allege a number of securities violations took place with Let’s Go Brandon Coin. This is notable because there has been a reversal of crypto policy under the Trump administration, which both of the key defendants in this case are affiliated with in one way or another. Bannon served as chief executive of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and as chief strategist in his first administration, while Epshteyn acted as a senior advisor during the 2016 campaign and has continued to advise the president as a member of his inner circle since then. “The securities laws exist precisely to prevent influential insiders from exploiting trust, obscuring material facts, and shifting risk onto retail investors without transparency or registration,” claims the lawsuit. “This action seeks to make Defendants answer for their conduct, restore what was taken from investors, and deter the misuse of public platforms and personal influence.” Notably, the SEC put out guidance last year shortly after Trump took office, claiming that memecoins should not typically be regarded as securities for regulatory or legal purposes. House Democrats have written to the SEC regarding fears of corruption and pay-to-play schemes involving crypto during Trump’s second term, particularly in the cases of TRON founder Justin Sun and the pardon of Changpeng Zhao, who is the former CEO of crypto exchange Binance. On top of these corruption accusations, both President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump also launched their own memecoins, which are both down 95% or more from their all-time highs. The crypto industry is currently hoping to get further regulatory clarity and approval signed into law via the CLARITY Act, but the legislation hit a roadblock last month in the form of crypto exchange giant Coinbase pulling their support for a draft version of the bill. The prospects of the legislation getting signed into law this year are now unclear, with prediction market Kalshi currently putting the odds at 52%.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján, a Democrat from New Mexico, and Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, introduced legislation Thursday that would ban so-called surveillance and surge pricing in grocery stores. Officially known as the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2026, the Senate legislation is modeled on a 2025 bill in the House. The new bill would require stores to disclose their use of facial recognition technology and would ban electronic shelf labels (ESL) in large grocery stores. ESLs are controversial because they allow retailers to change the price of a given item remotely, opening up the possibility that they could be tied to algorithms which raise and lower prices based on conditions in the store or who’s trying to buy something. Hypothetically, stores can charge different prices at different times of day or rely on different inputs, right down to personalizing the price based on an individual who was looking at a given item, spotted with facial recognition tech. The concern is that factors like race, gender, and income level could be used to determine how much people are charged. A 2025 study found that Instacart was charging customers different prices for the same products, sometimes as much as 23% more. A few weeks after the study received negative press coverage, Instacart announced it was pulling the plug on its AI-powered pricing. “In New Mexico and across the country, Americans are struggling to put food on the table,” Sen. Luján said in a statement posted online. “With rising costs driven by President Trump’s trade war and Republican cuts to SNAP, Congress must act to ensure that technologies are being used to improve the lives of Americans, not increase their grocery bills. Our friends, family, and neighbors should be able to shop at their local grocery store without worrying about predatory pricing.” At least six states have seen legislation introduced to stop surge and surveillance pricing, according to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which has also developed a 30-second ad to spread the word on the threat. It’s not clear how many grocery outlets are actually utilizing in-store surveillance pricing, but part of the reason legislators feel like new laws are needed is that they want to get ahead of things before the practice becomes commonplace. “This legislation is actually pretty simple: If two people are in the same store buying the same item, they should pay the same price,” Washington State Representative Mary Fosse said in an emailed statement. “Large retailers are investing in AI, algorithms, and data systems that can change prices instantly, individually, and secretly,” Fosse continued. “We need to stop the rip-off at the register before these practices become the norm. Technology should serve workers and consumers, not exploit them.” The Biden administration launched an investigation into surveillance pricing in 2024 with FTC chair Lina Khan initiating a study on the ways it may harm U.S. consumers. But after President Donald Trump took power in 2025, his administration killed the study. Surge pricing for food is extremely unpopular, with one of the most famous cases happening in 2024 when Wendy’s merely discussed the possibility of introducing it in 2025. Within just a couple of days the backlash had gotten so bad the company denied even contemplating the idea, despite pretty clear evidence it was working on surge pricing. The restaurant chain’s CEO had even said it would “begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing” in an earnings call. Consumers are extremely price sensitive when it comes to food these days, and it’s no wonder, as people struggle to get by in an economy that prioritizes stock prices and Wall Street. “Americans are hurting under the affordability crisis, and UFCW members see the pain in their faces every time they enter the grocery store,” UFCW International President Milton Jones said in a statement to Gizmodo. “Our members also feel it themselves when they shop for their families.” “We are starting this national campaign to stop corporations from being able to change prices in front of their eyes just because they live in the wrong zipcode or are a new parent. We are proud to work with elected officials in every part of the country to lead the fight for affordable groceries and good jobs because that is what our members want.”

2.13.26