X says it's ending business operations in Brazil effective immediately, but the service will remain available to users in the country. The company says Alexandre de Moraes, the president of the Superior Electoral Court and a justice of the Supreme Federal Court, threatened one of X's legal representatives with arrest if it did not "comply with his censorship orders." 

According to Reuters, de Moreas demanded that X remove certain content from its platform. Rather than comply, X has opted to end its local operations "to protect the safety of our staff." 

According to X, de Moraes made the threat in a "secret order," which it shared publicly. X owner Elon Musk claimed that the demand "would require us to break (in secret) Brazilian, Argentinian, American and international law." He added that, "The decision to close the 𝕏 office in Brazil was difficult, but, if we had agreed to @alexandre’s (illegal) secret censorship and private information handover demands, there was no way we could explain our actions without being ashamed."

"Despite our numerous appeals to the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform, Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process," X said in a statement on its Global Government Affairs account. "[de Moraes'] actions are incompatible with democratic government. The people of Brazil have a choice to make — democracy, or Alexandre de Moraes."

Musk has been railing against de Moraes for months. In April, he said he would defy orders from the legislator to block certain accounts in Brazil, claiming that they were unconstitutional. In response, de Moraes opened an obstruction of justice inquiry against Musk. X said later in April it would comply with every order issued by Brazil's top courts.

That same month, the House Judiciary Committee released an interim staff report claiming that the Brazilian government was trying to force X (and other social media platforms) to censor more than 300 accounts. It said that the accounts included those belonging to former Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro, a member of the country's federal senate and a journalist.

X does not have a public relations team that can be reached for comment.

Google is in deep trouble after a federal judge ruled that the company illegally abused a monopoly over the search industry. The ruling follows a 10-week trial held in 2023 that stemmed from a 2020 lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice and several states. 

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in the ruling. "It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act."

Mehta has not imposed any remedies on Google at the time of writing. The judge may order Google to change how it operates or even sell parts of its business. 

The lawsuit claimed that Google illegally acted to maintain its dominant position in search through a number of actions, such as paying the likes of Apple, Samsung and Mozilla billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine on their phones and web browsers. The DOJ argued that Google facilitates almost 90 percent of web searches and that by paying to be the default option, it prevented rivals from achieving the kind of scale needed to compete. As such, Google is deemed to benefitted in terms of both revenue and data collection.

"Those search access points are preset with a 'default' search engine," the ruling reads. "The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points. Google derives extraordinary volumes of user data from such searches. It then uses that information to improve search quality."

According to Mehta, Google has acknowledged that losing its position as the default search engine on various platforms would harm its bottom line. "For instance, Google has projected that losing the Safari default would result in a significant drop in queries and billions of dollars in lost revenues," the ruling states. 

Google released the following statement from Kent Walker, President of Global affairs, on X regarding the judge's decision:

"This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available. We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

During the trial, Google argued that its significant slice of market share was due to having a better product that consumers appreciated. 

In addition, the DOJ claimed that Google held a monopoly over ads that appear in search results. It argued that Google artificially inflated the prices of ads beyond what they'd cost in a free market.

In his ruling, Mehta agreed that "Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits." However, the judge added that Google does not hold monopoly power in the broader market of search advertising.

Meanwhile, Mehta declined to impose sanctions on Google for failing to preserve employee chat messages that may have been pertinent to the case. The ruling notes that, since 2008, Google deletes chat messages between its employees by default after 24 hours.

"The court’s decision not to sanction Google should not be understood as condoning Google’s failure to preserve chat evidence," Mehta wrote. "Any company that puts the onus on its employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril. Google avoided sanctions in this case. It may not be so lucky in the next one."

Google and the DOJ are set to return to federal court in September over an ad tech case.

Update, August 5 2024, 4:40PM ET: This story was updated to include Google's statement on the ruling.

CrowdStrike has taken a lot of flak over the enormous IT outage that brought much of the planet's computer systems to a halt last month. One thing that the company isn't willing to accept full blame for though is Delta's severe flight troubles.

Delta CEO Ed Bastian said last week the company had "no choice" but to seek damages. The airline canceled more than 5,000 flights and said it was looking at a cost of over $500 million in lost revenue and compensation to passengers.

However, CrowdStrike claims it offered Delta assistance several times only to be rebuffed. "CrowdStrike worked tirelessly to help its customers restore impacted systems and resume services to their customers," CrowdStrike lawyer Michael Carlinsky wrote in a letter to his counterpart at Delta. "Within hours of the incident, CrowdStrike reached out to Delta to offer assistance and ensure Delta was aware of an available remediation. Additionally, CrowdStrike's CEO personally reached out to Delta's CEO to offer onsite assistance, but received no response."

Carlinsky goes on to state that if Delta does pursue legal action, it will have to explain "why Delta's competitors, facing similar challenges, all restored operations much faster" and why it rejected free onsite help from CrowdStrike technicians "who assisted many other customers to restore operations much more quickly than Delta." The lawyer adds that CrowdStrike's liability is contractually capped "in the single-digit millions."

CrowdStrike's public relations team made similar comments last week about Delta turning down "our repeated efforts to assist it in a speedy recovery.” However, a formal letter from the company's lawyer holds a bit more weight, especially amid the threat of legal action.

Here we go again. Elon Musk has filed another lawsuit against OpenAI and the company's CEO Sam Altman, two months after withdrawing a previous one. Musk once again alleges that OpenAI breached its founding commitments by putting commercial concerns ahead of the public good.

This time around, though, the suit has been filed in federal court rather than in a state court. That's because the new filing alleges that OpenAI violated federal racketeering laws by conspiring to defraud Musk, according to his lawyer, Marc Toberoff. “The previous suit lacked teeth — and I don’t believe in the tooth fairy,” Toberoff told The New York Times. “This is a much more forceful lawsuit.”

The latest suit claims that Altman and fellow OpenAI founder Greg Brockman knowingly misled Musk when the trio (and others) formed the company. It alleges that Altman and Brockman walked back on their pledge to open source OpenAI's tech by instead granting Microsoft an exclusive license to it. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars into OpenAI's for-profit subsidiary and holds a 49 percent stake (the FTC is said to be investigating those business dealings).

Furthermore, Musk has asked the court to determine whether OpenAI has achieved artificial general intelligence (AGI), a form of AI that's the equivalent of a human brain. Altman said in January that AGI could be developed in the “reasonably close-ish future.”

Per the suit, Microsoft's contract with OpenAI stipulates that once the latter has reached AGI, it can no longer use the company's tech. If OpenAI has reached AGI in the eyes of the court, then its pact with Microsoft should be declared null and void, according to the filing.

Musk filed the original suit in February. He withdrew it in June, one day before a judge was set to rule on OpenAI's request to dismiss it, but did not provide a reason for doing so.

In a response to the original suit, which it claimed was "incoherent," OpenAI says it aimed to serve the public good by creating AGI. It claims that it needed far more resources than initially thought to do so. The company added that it (and Musk) agreed that a for-profit arm was required to accrue enough resources. However, the parties disagreed on how to go about this, according to OpenAI. The company said Musk wanted full control or for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. Musk ultimately left OpenAI and eventually went on to start his own AI company, xAI.

According to Bloomberg and The New York Times, Meta is in talks with the likes of Keegan-Michael Key, Awkwafina and Dame Judi Dench, among others, for its AI projects. The company apparently intends to incorporate their voices into a conversational generative AI-slash-digital assistant called MetaAI, which is rumored to be like Siri and Google Assistant, which could live within Facebook, Meta hardware, and all the other parts of the multimillion-dollar social network company.

The actors’ representatives are still negotiating for stricter limits, though SAG-AFTRA has reportedly agreed on terms with Meta. SAG-AFTRA, if you recall, fought for provisions to protect actors from the threat of job loss due to AI.

Didn’t Meta already do something like this? Yes. During its Connect event last year, the company also introduced a chatbot platform with 28 “characters” voiced by celebrities, including Snoop Dogg, Paris Hilton, Dwyane Wade and Kendall Jenner. However, those celebrity chatbots’ pages have since disappeared, and The Information reports that Meta has just quietly scrapped that project.

This appears to be more central to Meta’s AI ambitions.

— Mat Smith

The biggest stories you might have missed

What to expect from Google’s Pixel 2024 event

Apple apologizes for another ad that missed the mark

OpenAI is looking into text watermarking for ChatGPT, which could expose cheating students

Nintendo profits fall 55 percent as people save their cash for the Switch 2

Say goodbye to Boomerang, the streaming service dedicated to classic cartoons

​​You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

Apple has finally started sending out payments from its butterfly keyboard settlement

It agreed to pay $50 million.

Payments relating to a class action lawsuit filed in 2018 over Apple’s butterfly MacBook keyboards have reportedly begun. The settlement website now states that payments for approved claims will go out in August, and claimants will receive checks. For some, it could mean a check of up to $395.

After Apple introduced the butterfly keyboard in 2015, complaints arose over “sticky” and unresponsive keys. A lawsuit filed in 2018 accused Apple of knowing its keyboards had problems and concealing this from consumers. While Apple denied the lawsuit’s allegations of defective keyboards, it agreed to pay $50 million as part of a settlement. It also started phasing out the keyboard design in 2019.

Continue reading.

Instagram scammer faces felony charges after bragging on a podcast

Idriss Qibaa is being charged over death threats in social media extortion.

A guest who appeared on a podcast to boast about a hack-and-payback scheme involving his victims’ social media accounts is now facing the wrath of the FBI. It received a tip about Qibaa’s alleged extortion scheme on April 1, pointing to his appearance on the No Jumper podcast. Qibaa outlined a financial scheme using over 200 victims’ social media accounts, in which he would lock them out of their pages and charge them to regain access. He added he made about $600,000 a month.

Continue reading.

Game Informer magazine is shutting down

After 33 years.

Game Informer

Game Informer announced its parent company, GameStop, is shutting the magazine after 33 years in the business. The entire website and its archives are gone, redirecting to the magazine’s final statement of thanks to its readers. The publication’s content director, Kyle Hilliard, said on X the bad news about the mass staff layoffs landed right when they were in the middle of creating an issue. Game Informer launched in August 1991 with Sonic the Hedgehog sprinting across its cover.

Continue reading.

Payments relating to a class action lawsuit filed in 2018 over Apple’s butterfly MacBook keyboards have reportedly begun to arrive. The settlement website now states that payments for approved claims will go out in August — and sure enough, 9to5Mac’s Michael Burkhardt reports that he received two settlement checks in the mail on Saturday. Just how much eligible MacBook owners will get varies depending on the extent of the repairs their devices needed. But for some, it could mean a check (or multiple) of up to $395.

After Apple introduced the butterfly keyboard in 2015, complaints arose over “sticky” and unresponsive keys, susceptibility to debris and other major issues. The company ultimately started phasing out the design in 2019. The lawsuit filed in 2018 accused Apple of knowing that its keyboards had problems and concealing this from consumers. While Apple denied the lawsuit’s allegations of defective keyboards and did not admit to any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $50 million as part of a settlement.

Per the settlement website, people who got two or more topcase replacements within four years of purchasing one of the affected MacBooks are expected to get between $300-$395. MacBook owners who got just one topcase replacement could get up to $125. Claimants who only needed keycap replacements will get a maximum of $50. Of course, to receive a payment, you’d need to have filed any claims by the deadlines outlined in the settlement. And, when the settlement was first reached in 2022, Reuters reported that it will only apply to customers who bought the affected laptops in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Washington. You can find the full details in the case’s FAQ.

The US Department of Justice is suing TikTok for violating a child privacy law and violating a 2019 agreement with the Federal Trade Commission for previous privacy violations. The lawsuit stems from an earlier investigation into the company by the Federal Trade Commission, which referred its privacy case to the DoJ earlier this year.

The FTC had been looking into whether TikTok had violated the terms of an earlier privacy settlement with Musical.ly, which was acquired by ByteDance prior to the launch of TikTok. According to the FTC, the investigation found that TikTok had “flagrantly” violated both the 2019 settlement and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

In a statement, the Justice Department also cited TikTok’s collection of personal information about children on its platform and its failure to comply with the requests for the information to be deleted.

From 2019 to the present, TikTok knowingly permitted children to create regular TikTok accounts and to create, view, and share short-form videos and messages with adults and others on the regular TikTok platform. The defendants collected and retained a wide variety of personal information from these children without notifying or obtaining consent from their parents. Even for accounts that were created in “Kids Mode” (a pared-back version of TikTok intended for children under 13), the defendants unlawfully collected and retained children’s email addresses and other types of personal information. Further, when parents discovered their children’s accounts and asked the defendants to delete the accounts and information in them, the defendants frequently failed to honor those requests. The defendants also had deficient and ineffectual internal policies and processes for identifying and deleting TikTok accounts created by children.

In a statement, TikTok said it took issue with the allegations, saying it had previously addressed some of the conduct described by the Justice Department. “We disagree with these allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed,” the company said. “We are proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform. To that end, we offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users, and have voluntarily launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing, and additional privacy protections for minors.”

The lawsuit comes at a particularly inconvenient time for TikTok, which is set to face off with the Justice Department in federal court next month over a law that aims to force ByteDance to sell the app or face a ban in the United States.

Apple has been pressuring ByteDance and Tencent to close loopholes in China that funnel customers to external payment systems for making in-app purchases, according to a report by Bloomberg. Anyone living in the West knows the drill here. Apple wants that 30 percent commission.

Reporting indicates this pressure campaign began in May. Apple allegedly warned Tencent that it would reject crucial WeChat updates if it didn’t eliminate the ability for users to make payments outside of Apple’s ecosystem. Tencent complied with the original request, issuing an update in July, but Apple went one step further.

WeChat is home to thousands of third-party mini-games and experiences. Apple asked Tencent to disable in-game chat between creators and players, as that's another theoretical loophole that could funnel users to third-party payment systems. Tencent has yet to agree to this request.

Back in June, Apple reportedly did something similar with ByteDance. It threatened to withhold updates of Douyin, which is basically the Chinese version of TikTok, unless it plugged any gaps that steer users away from that much-coveted 30 percent commission. According to Bloomberg, ByteDance has yet to issue a formal response.

These are aggressive moves on the part of Apple. China is the world’s largest smartphone market, sure, but the iPhone isn’t the dominant brand throughout the country. As a matter of fact, the phone failed to crack the top five in sales last quarter and the company recently experienced a 6.5 percent decline in profits.

It’s also worth noting that both ByteDance and Tencent aren’t happy corporate warriors looking out for the little guy. These massive companies levy their own commissions on creators and likely didn’t want Apple cutting into their bottom lines.

An Apple spokesperson was unusually blunt in a statement to Bloomberg, simply saying that company guidelines dictate that the sale of all digital goods must go through its system and that the review team has the power to reject app submissions that violate that policy. Neither Tencent or ByteDance issued a comment to Bloomberg. 

China, like the rest of the world, has been cracking down on walled gardens like Apple’s App Store. Despite the country’s hesitance to continue allowing closed ecosystems controlled by a single entity, Apple CEO Tim Cook is bullish about its prospects in China. “We continue to be confident in the long-term opportunity in China,” he said during a recent earnings call. “I don’t know how every chapter of the book reads, but we’re very confident in the long term.”

Apple is facing numerous legal hurdles all over the world regarding its Hungry Hungry Hippos approach to gobbling up commission fees. The European Commission issued a ruling that dictates it must allow app developers to steer users to payment systems and offers outside of the App Store. The company also faces potential fines from the EU, to the tune of ten percent of global annual revenue. As for the US, Epic sued Apple over its developer transaction fee policy and many other companies have expressed their own concerns. It's also worth nothing that Tencent owns a 40 percent stake in Epic Games. 

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business' actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: "It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case." And that's because its training data "includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet," which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. "It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product," the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don't include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn't a problem.

Calling the defendants' actions "evading and misleading," the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. "Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals," a spokesperson for the organization said. "Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases."

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

Payments relating to a class action lawsuit filed in 2018 over Apple’s butterfly MacBook keyboards have reportedly begun to arrive. The settlement website now states that payments for approved claims will go out in August — and sure enough, 9to5Mac’s Michael Burkhardt reports that he received two settlement checks in the mail on Saturday. Just how much eligible MacBook owners will get varies depending on the extent of the repairs their devices needed. But for some, it could mean a check (or multiple) of up to $395.

After Apple introduced the butterfly keyboard in 2015, complaints arose over “sticky” and unresponsive keys, susceptibility to debris and other major issues. The company ultimately started phasing out the design in 2019. The lawsuit filed in 2018 accused Apple of knowing that its keyboards had problems and concealing this from consumers. While Apple denied the lawsuit’s allegations of defective keyboards and did not admit to any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $50 million as part of a settlement.

Per the settlement website, people who got two or more topcase replacements within four years of purchasing one of the affected MacBooks are expected to get between $300-$395. MacBook owners who got just one topcase replacement could get up to $125. Claimants who only needed keycap replacements will get a maximum of $50. Of course, to receive a payment, you’d need to have filed any claims by the deadlines outlined in the settlement. And, when the settlement was first reached in 2022, Reuters reported that it will only apply to customers who bought the affected laptops in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Washington. You can find the full details in the case’s FAQ.

The US Department of Justice is suing TikTok for violating a child privacy law and violating a 2019 agreement with the Federal Trade Commission for previous privacy violations. The lawsuit stems from an earlier investigation into the company by the Federal Trade Commission, which referred its privacy case to the DoJ earlier this year.

The FTC had been looking into whether TikTok had violated the terms of an earlier privacy settlement with Musical.ly, which was acquired by ByteDance prior to the launch of TikTok. According to the FTC, the investigation found that TikTok had “flagrantly” violated both the 2019 settlement and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

In a statement, the Justice Department also cited TikTok’s collection of personal information about children on its platform and its failure to comply with the requests for the information to be deleted.

From 2019 to the present, TikTok knowingly permitted children to create regular TikTok accounts and to create, view, and share short-form videos and messages with adults and others on the regular TikTok platform. The defendants collected and retained a wide variety of personal information from these children without notifying or obtaining consent from their parents. Even for accounts that were created in “Kids Mode” (a pared-back version of TikTok intended for children under 13), the defendants unlawfully collected and retained children’s email addresses and other types of personal information. Further, when parents discovered their children’s accounts and asked the defendants to delete the accounts and information in them, the defendants frequently failed to honor those requests. The defendants also had deficient and ineffectual internal policies and processes for identifying and deleting TikTok accounts created by children.

In a statement, TikTok said it took issue with the allegations, saying it had previously addressed some of the conduct described by the Justice Department. “We disagree with these allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed,” the company said. “We are proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform. To that end, we offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users, and have voluntarily launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing, and additional privacy protections for minors.”

The lawsuit comes at a particularly inconvenient time for TikTok, which is set to face off with the Justice Department in federal court next month over a law that aims to force ByteDance to sell the app or face a ban in the United States.

Apple has been pressuring ByteDance and Tencent to close loopholes in China that funnel customers to external payment systems for making in-app purchases, according to a report by Bloomberg. Anyone living in the West knows the drill here. Apple wants that 30 percent commission.

Reporting indicates this pressure campaign began in May. Apple allegedly warned Tencent that it would reject crucial WeChat updates if it didn’t eliminate the ability for users to make payments outside of Apple’s ecosystem. Tencent complied with the original request, issuing an update in July, but Apple went one step further.

WeChat is home to thousands of third-party mini-games and experiences. Apple asked Tencent to disable in-game chat between creators and players, as that's another theoretical loophole that could funnel users to third-party payment systems. Tencent has yet to agree to this request.

Back in June, Apple reportedly did something similar with ByteDance. It threatened to withhold updates of Douyin, which is basically the Chinese version of TikTok, unless it plugged any gaps that steer users away from that much-coveted 30 percent commission. According to Bloomberg, ByteDance has yet to issue a formal response.

These are aggressive moves on the part of Apple. China is the world’s largest smartphone market, sure, but the iPhone isn’t the dominant brand throughout the country. As a matter of fact, the phone failed to crack the top five in sales last quarter and the company recently experienced a 6.5 percent decline in profits.

It’s also worth noting that both ByteDance and Tencent aren’t happy corporate warriors looking out for the little guy. These massive companies levy their own commissions on creators and likely didn’t want Apple cutting into their bottom lines.

An Apple spokesperson was unusually blunt in a statement to Bloomberg, simply saying that company guidelines dictate that the sale of all digital goods must go through its system and that the review team has the power to reject app submissions that violate that policy. Neither Tencent or ByteDance issued a comment to Bloomberg. 

China, like the rest of the world, has been cracking down on walled gardens like Apple’s App Store. Despite the country’s hesitance to continue allowing closed ecosystems controlled by a single entity, Apple CEO Tim Cook is bullish about its prospects in China. “We continue to be confident in the long-term opportunity in China,” he said during a recent earnings call. “I don’t know how every chapter of the book reads, but we’re very confident in the long term.”

Apple is facing numerous legal hurdles all over the world regarding its Hungry Hungry Hippos approach to gobbling up commission fees. The European Commission issued a ruling that dictates it must allow app developers to steer users to payment systems and offers outside of the App Store. The company also faces potential fines from the EU, to the tune of ten percent of global annual revenue. As for the US, Epic sued Apple over its developer transaction fee policy and many other companies have expressed their own concerns. It's also worth nothing that Tencent owns a 40 percent stake in Epic Games. 

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business' actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: "It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case." And that's because its training data "includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet," which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. "It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product," the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don't include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn't a problem.

Calling the defendants' actions "evading and misleading," the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. "Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals," a spokesperson for the organization said. "Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases."

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

A federal judge dismissed a case brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC) against Google over its Gmail service. The suit alleged that Google’s email platform labeled GOP fundraising emails as spam at a higher rate than those from the other side of the aisle.

District Court Judge Daniel Calabretta from the Eastern California District Court dismissed the case with prejudice, preventing the Republican party from bringing its case against Google back to court. The dismissal with prejudice means it cannot bring the case to another court but can still file an appeal to Calabretta’s decision, according to The Verge.

Calabretta wrote in his dismissal order that the RNC failed to state a claim under “any legislative policy” or prove there was “sufficient harm to users of Gmail.”

“The RNC has not shown Google’s alleged conduct has violated any other law, which is a necessary element of intentional interference with economic relations,” Calabretta wrote in his dismissal order. “Accordingly, the court grants Google’s motion to dismiss, this time with prejudice.” Calabretta had previously dismissed the case without prejudice.

Thursday’s ruling marks the second case that the RNC has lost over allegations of unfair filtering by Gmail. The RNC filed a lawsuit in the same court in 2022 seeking damages from Google for “donations it allegedly lost as a result” of labeling fundraising emails as spam. Calabretta called the lawsuit a “close case” but ultimately ruled that the RNC “failed to plausibly allege its claims” that Google’s spam filtering was committed in bad faith, according to court filings.

The illegal streaming service Jetflicks once boasted on its website that visitors could watch just about any TV show or movie “Anytime. Anywhere.” Now the five people behind the bootleg streaming service are facing some serious jail time.

A jury found Kristopher Dallman, Douglas Courson, Felipe Garcia, Jared Jaurequi and Peter Huber guilty in a Las Vegas federal court on Friday for conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. Dallmann was also found guilty on two counts of money laundering and three counts of misdemeanor criminal copyright infringement for leading the Jetflicks operation, according to court documents and a US Department of Justice press release.

Jetflicks used computer scripts and software to scour the internet for illegal copies of movies and television shows and posted hundreds of thousands of illegal copies as far back as 2007 from torrent and Usenet sites. The defendants created a catalog of bootleg shows and movies bigger than the combined collections of streaming services including Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and Amazon Prime, according to the Department of Justice.

Users could pay a subscription fee to access the site on pretty much any media streaming device with a web browser. Jetflicks claimed to “offer more than 183,200 television episodes and have more than 37,000 subscribers,” according to the initial indictment filed in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2019.

Dallmann, the leader of the group, and his co-conspirators “made millions of dollars streaming and distributing this catalog of stolen content,” according to the press release.

At one point, operators and employees of Jetflicks were making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from its subscription service. Dallman wrote in an online chat that his site made $750,000 in one year, according to the indictment.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) took notice of Jetflicks in 2012 and sent cease and desist letters to the site’s operators. Four years later, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started its undercover operation of the site by paying for a six-month subscription. Undercover agents recorded multiple instances of illegal uploads of shows like Shameless, Ray Donovan, The OA and SyFy’s 12 Monkeys alongside charges for accessing them. Then the agents traced those charges back to the defendants’ bank accounts, according to court records.

A sentencing hearing has yet to be scheduled. The Department of Justice says Dallman could face up to 48 years in prison and the four remaining defendants could each face five years in prison.

Apple reportedly said on Friday that it would delay iOS 18’s marquee AI features in the European Union, conveniently blaming Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulations. The company claimed it would block the launch of Apple Intelligence, iPhone Mirroring on the Mac and SharePlay Screen Sharing in the EU this year, according to Bloomberg, which reported the news.

“We are concerned that the interoperability requirements of the DMA could force us to compromise the integrity of our products in ways that risk user privacy and data security,” the company said in a statement to Bloomberg. Apple didn’t expand on how DMA regulations could force it to compromise user privacy and security.

The DMA, which passed in 2022, tries to usher in fair competition by reining in what Big Tech companies can do to stifle competition. It blocks them from pushing out smaller competitors, favoring their own services over those of rivals, locking customers’ data into their platform and limiting transparency about their use of advertising data.

This isn’t the first time Apple has pinned blame on regulations — without offering much in the way of specifics — for blocking EU users from having nice things. Earlier this year, the company said it would remove the ability to add home screen web apps in Europe due to DMA rules. It later reversed course, citing “requests” it received. Google did something similar when it removed third-party apps and watch faces from European devices, blaming “new regulatory requirements.”

Apple’s delay comes when EU regulations present a thorn in the company’s side. The European Commission formally opened an investigation into the company in March and reportedly plans to charge it in the coming weeks for DMA violations. The company was already fined €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) earlier this year for preventing app developers from informing iOS users about cheaper music subscription plans outside of the company’s ecosystem.

Last month, Ray Palena boarded a plane from New Jersey to California to appear in court. He found himself engaged in a legal dispute against one of the largest corporations in the world, and improbably, the venue for their David-versus-Goliath showdown would be San Mateo's small claims court.

Over the course of eight months and an estimated $700 (mostly in travel expenses), he was able to claw back what all other methods had failed to render: his personal Facebook account.

Those may be extraordinary lengths to regain a digital profile with no relation to its owner's livelihood, but Palena is one of a growing number of frustrated users of Meta's services who, unable to get help from an actual human through normal channels of recourse, are using the court system instead. And in many cases, it's working.

Engadget spoke with five individuals who have sued Meta in small claims court over the last two years in four different states. In three cases, the plaintiffs were able to restore access to at least one lost account. One person was also able to win financial damages and another reached a cash settlement. Two cases were dismissed. In every case, the plaintiffs were at least able to get the attention of Meta’s legal team, which appears to have something of a playbook for handling these claims.

Why small claims?

At the heart of these cases is the fact that Meta lacks the necessary volume of human customer service workers to assist those who lose their accounts. The company’s official help pages steer users who have been hacked toward confusing automated tools that often lead users to dead-end links or emails that don’t work if your account information has been changed. (The company recently launched a $14.99-per-month program, Meta Verified, which grants access to human customer support. Its track record as a means of recovering hacked accounts after the fact has been spotty at best, according to anecdotal descriptions.)

Hundreds of thousands of people also turn to their state Attorney General’s office as some state AGs have made requests on users’ behalf — on Reddit, this is known as the “AG method.” But attorneys general across the country have been so inundated with these requests they formally asked Meta to fix their customer service, too. “We refuse to operate as the customer service representatives of your company,” a coalition of 41 state AGs wrote in a letter to the company earlier this year.

Facebook and Instagram users have long sought creative and sometimes extreme measures to get hacked accounts back due to Meta’s lack of customer support features. Some users have resorted to hiring their own hackers or buying an Oculus headset since Meta has dedicated support staff for the device (users on Reddit report this “method” no longer works). The small claims approach has become a popular topic on Reddit forums where frustrated Meta users trade advice on various “methods” for getting an account back. People Clerk, a site that helps people write demand letters and other paperwork required for small claims court, published a help article called “How to Sue facebook,” in March.

It’s difficult to estimate just how many small claims cases are being brought by Facebook and Instagram users, but they may be on the rise. Patrick Forrest, the chief legal officer for Justice Direct, the legal services startup that owns People Clerk, says the company has seen a “significant increase” in cases against Meta over the last couple years.

One of the advantages of small claims court is that it’s much more accessible to people without deep pockets and legal training. Filing fees are typically under $100 and many courthouses have resources to help people complete the necessary paperwork for a case. “There's no discovery, there are no depositions, there's no pre-trial,” says Bruce Zucker, a law professor at California State University, Northridge. “You get a court date and it's going to be about a five or 10 minute hearing, and you have a judge who's probably also tried to call customer service and gotten nowhere.”

The stakes

“Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp [have] become crucial marketplaces where people conduct their business, where people are earning a living," Forrest said. “And if you are locked out of that account, business or personal, it can lead to severe financial damages, and it can disrupt your ability to sustain your livelihood.”

One such person whose finances were enmeshed with Meta's products is Valerie Garza, the owner of a massage business. She successfully sued the company in a San Diego small claims court in 2022 after a hack which cost her access to personal Facebook and Instagram accounts, as well as those associated with her business. She was able to document thousands of dollars in resulting losses.

A Meta legal representative contacted Garza a few weeks before her small claims court hearing, requesting she drop the case. She declined, and when Meta didn’t show up to her hearing, she won by default. "When we went through all of the loss of revenues," Garza told Engadget, "[the judge] kind of had to give it to me.”

But that wasn’t the end of Garza’s legal dispute with Meta. After the first hearing, the company filed a motion asking the judge to set aside the verdict, citing its own failure to appear at the hearing. Meta also tried to argue that its terms of service set a maximum of $100 liability. Another hearing was scheduled and a lawyer again contacted Garza offering to help get her account back.

“He seemed to actually kind of just want to get things turned back on, and that was still my goal, at this point,” Garza said. It was then she discovered that her business’ Instagram was being used to advertise sex work.

She began collecting screenshots of the activity on the account, which violated Instagram’s terms of service, as well as fraudulent charges for Facebook ads bought by whoever hacked her account. Once again, Meta didn’t show up to the hearing and a judge ordered the company to pay her the $7,268.65 in damages she had requested.

“I thought they were going to show up this time because they sent their exhibits, they didn't ask for a postponement or anything,” she says. “My guess is they didn't want to go on record and have a transcript showing how completely grossly negligent they are in their business and how very little they care about the safety or financial security of their paying advertisers.”

In July of 2023, Garza indicated in court documents that Meta had paid in full. In all, the process took more than a year, three court appearances and countless hours of work. But Garza says it was worth it. “I just can't stand letting somebody take advantage and walking away,” she says.

Even for individuals whose work doesn't depend on Meta's platforms, a hacked account can result in real harm.

Palena, who flew cross-country to challenge Meta in court, had no financial stake in his Facebook account, which he claimed nearly 20 years ago when the social network was still limited to college students. But whoever hacked him had changed the associated email address and phone number, and began using his page to run scam listings on Facebook Marketplace.

“I was more concerned about the damage it could do to me and my name if something did happen, if someone actually was scammed,” he tells Engadget. In his court filing, he asked for $10,000 in damages, the maximum allowed in California small claims court. He wrote that Meta had violated its own terms of service by allowing a hacked account to stay up, damaging his reputation. “I didn't really care that much about financial compensation,” Palena says “I really just wanted the account back because the person who hacked the account was still using it. They were using my profile with my name and my profile image."

A couple weeks later, a legal rep from Meta reached out to him and asked him for information about his account. They exchanged a few emails over several weeks, but his account was still inaccessible. The same day he boarded a plane to San Mateo, the Meta representative emailed him again and asked if he would be willing to drop the case since “the access team is close to getting your account secure and activated again.” He replied that he intended to be in court the next day as he was still unable to get into his account.

Less than half an hour before his hearing was scheduled to start, he received the email he had spent months waiting for: a password reset link to get back into his account. Palena still attended the hearing, though Meta did not. According to court records reviewed by Engadget, Palena told the judge the case had been “tentatively resolved,” though he hasn’t officially dropped the case yet.

The hurdles of small claims

While filing a small claims court case is comparatively simple, it can still be a minefield, even to figure out something as seemingly straightforward as which court to file to. Forrest notes that Facebook’s terms of service stipulates that legal cases must be brought in San Mateo County, home of Meta’s headquarters. But, confusingly, the terms of service for Meta accounts states that cases other than small claims court must be filed in San Mateo. In spite of the apparent contradiction, some people (like Garza) have had success suing Meta outside of San Mateo.

Each jurisdiction also has different rules for maximum allowable compensation in small claims, what sorts of relief those courts are able to grant and even whether or not parties are allowed to have a lawyer present. The low barrier to entry means many first-time plaintiffs are navigating the legal system for the first time without help, and making rookie mistakes along the way.

Shaun Freeman had spent years building up two Instagram accounts, which he describes as similar to TMZ but with “a little more character.” The pages, which had hundreds of thousands of followers, had also been a significant source of income to Freeman, who has also worked in the entertainment industry and uses the stage name Young Platinum.

He says his pages had been suspended or disabled in the past, but he was able to get them back through Meta’s appeals process, and once through a complaint to the California Attorney General’s office. But in 2023 he again lost access to both accounts. He says one was disabled and one is inaccessible due to what seems like a technical glitch.

He tried to file appeals and even asked a friend of a friend who worked at Meta to look into what had happened, but was unsuccessful. Apparently out of other options, he filed a small claims case in Nevada in February. A hearing was scheduled for May, but Freeman had trouble figuring out the legal mechanics. “It took me months and months to figure out how to get them served,” Freeman says. He was eventually able to hire a process server and got the necessary signature 10 days before his hearing. But it may have been too late. Court records show the case was dismissed for failure to serve.

Even without operator error, Meta seems content to create hardship for would-be litigants over matters much smaller than the company's more headline-grabbing antitrust and child safety disputes. Based on correspondence reviewed by Engadget, the company maintains a separate "small claims docket" email address to contact would-be litigants.

Ron Gaul, who lives in North Dakota, filed a small claims suit after Meta disabled his account following a wave of what he describes as targeted harassment. The case was eventually dismissed after Meta’s lawyers had the case moved to district court, which is permissible for a small claims case under North Dakota law.

Gaul says he couldn’t keep up with the motions filed by Meta’s lawyers, whom he had hoped to avoid by filing in small claims court. “I went to small claims because I couldn't have a lawyer,” he tells Engadget.

Ryan, an Arizona real estate agent who asked to be identified by his first name only, decided to sue Meta in small claims with his partner after their Facebook accounts were disabled in the fall of 2022. They were both admins of several large Facebook Groups and he says their accounts were disabled over a supposed copyright violation.

Before a scheduled hearing, the company reached out. “They started basically trying to bully us,” says Ryan, who asked to be identified by his first name only. “They started saying that they have a terms of service [and] they can do whatever they want, they could delete people for any reason.” Much like Gaul, Ryan expected small claims would level the playing field. But according to emails and court records reviewed by Engadget, Meta often deploys its own legal resources as well as outside law firms to respond to these sorts of claims and engage with small claims litigants outside of court. "They put people that still have legal training against these people that are, you know, representing themselves,” he said.

In the end, Meta’s legal team was able to help Ryan get his account back and he agreed to drop himself from the small claims case. But two months later his partner had still not gotten back into hers. Meta eventually told her that her account had been permanently deleted and was no longer able to be restored. Meta eventually offered $3,500 — the maximum amount for a small claims case in Arizona. He says they wanted more, but Meta refused, and they felt like they were out of options. Ryan claims they had already lost tens of thousands of dollars in potential sales that they normally sourced from Facebook. “We were prepared to go further, but no lawyer would really take it on without a $15,000 retainer and it wasn't worth it.”

While it may seem surprising that Meta would give these small claims cases so much attention, Zucker, the Cal State Northridge professor, says that big companies have their own reasons for wanting to avoid court. “I don’t think places like Google or Meta want to have a bunch of judgments against them … because then that becomes a public record and starts floating around,” he says. “So they do take these things seriously.”

Without responding to specific questions about the substance of this story, Meta instead sent Engadget the following statement:

"We know that losing and recovering access to your online accounts can be a frustrating experience. We invest heavily in designing account security systems to help prevent account compromise in the first place, and in educating our users, including by regularly sharing new security features and tips for how people can stay safe and vigilant against potential targeting by hackers. But we also know that bad actors, including scammers, target people across the internet and constantly adapt to evade detection by social media platforms like ours, email and telecom providers, banks and others. To detect malicious activity and help protect people who may have gotten compromised via email phishing, malware or other means, we also constantly improve our detection, enforcement and support systems, in addition to providing channels where people can report account access issues to us, working with law enforcement and taking legal action against malicious groups."

The California Civil Rights Department has revealed that Snap Inc. has agreed to pay $15 million to settle the lawsuit it filed "over alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against women at the company." California's civil rights agency started investigating the company behind Snapchat over three years ago due to claims that it discriminated and retaliated against female employees. The agency accused the company of failing the make sure that female employees were paid equally despite a period of rapid growth between 2015 to 2022. 

Women, especially those in engineering roles, were allegedly discouraged to apply for promotions and lost them to less qualified male colleagues when they did. The agency said that they also had to endure unwelcome sexual advances and faced retaliation when they spoke up. Female employees were given negative performance reviews, were denied opportunities and, ultimately, were terminated.

"In California, we’re proud of the work of our state’s innovators who are a driving force of our nation’s economy," CRD Director Kevin Kish said in a statement. "We're also proud of the strength of our state’s civil rights laws, which help ensure every worker is protected against discrimination and has an opportunity to thrive. This settlement with Snapchat demonstrates a shared commitment to a California where all workers have a fair chance at the American Dream. Women are entitled to equality in every job, in every workplace, and in every industry."

Snapchat denies that the company has an issue with pay inequality and sexual discrimination. In a statement sent to Politico and Bloomberg, it says it only decided to settle due to the costs and impact of a lengthy litigation. "We care deeply about our commitment to maintain a fair and inclusive environment at Snap, and do not believe we have any ongoing systemic pay equity, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation issues against women. While we disagreed with the California Civil Rights Department's claims and analyses, we took into consideration the cost and impact of lengthy litigation, and the scope of the CRD’s other settlements, and decided it is in the best interest of the company to resolve these claims and focus on the future," the company explains.

Under the settlement terms, which still have to be approved by a judge, $14.5 million of the total amount will go towards women who worked as employees at Snap Inc. in California between 2014 and 2024. The company will also be required to have a third-party monitor audit its sexual harassment, retaliation and discrimination compliance.

California's Civil Rights Department was the same agency that sued Activision Blizzard in 2021 and accused the company of fostering a "frat boy" culture that encouraged rampant misogyny and sexual harassment. The agency also found that women in the company were overlooked for promotions and were paid less than their male colleagues. It settled with the video game developer in late 2023 for $54 million, though it had to withdraw its claims that there was widespread sexual harassment at the company. 

It seems Apple’s recently added option for App Store developers to include links to external payment methods isn’t actually all that appealing. In a hearing on Friday as part of the ongoing legal battle with Epic, Apple said only 38 developers have applied to add such links — out of roughly 65,000 that could, according to Bloomberg. The new guidelines, introduced in January, require developers get Apple’s approval before they can add alternative payment options and stipulate that they’ll still have to pay a commission fee of up to 27 percent.

The changes were intended to satisfy an injunction ordered by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021, but, per Reuters, Epic in March called Apple’s attempt at compliance “a sham” and filed a complaint with the court. At this point, Rogers doesn’t really seem impressed either. “It sounds to me as if the goal was to then maintain the business model and revenue you had in the past,” Rogers said of Apple's solution during the latest hearing, according to Bloomberg.

On top of Apple’s commission, developers also need to consider payment processing fees, which altogether could lead to them paying even more than they did before. “You’re telling me a thousand people were involved [in approving the new fee] and not one of them said maybe we should consider the cost [to developers]?” the judge reportedly said.

Epic Games won its antitrust lawsuit against Google in December when a federal jury found that the latter violated US antitrust laws with regards to how it runs the Play Store. A few months later, the gaming developer submitted its list of demands, which if implemented will blow the Play Store wide open. Now, Google has filed an injunction telling the court that no, it will not give Epic what it wants without a fight, because the company's asks "stray far beyond the trial record." 

The remedies Epic had submitted would require the court not just to create a global regulatory regime to set prices for apps, Google wrote in the filing as seen by Engadget, but also to micromanage "a highly complex and dynamic ecosystem" used by billions of consumers and app developers around the world. If you'll recall, Epic wants Google to open up Android to third-party app stores and to make its catalog of apps available to those stores. It also wants restrictions on pre-installed apps to be outlawed and to prohibit any Google activity that incentivizes third-parties. 

Google said that bowing down to all those demands would "effectively prevent [it] from competing," which in turn would negatively affect Android users and developers. Epic's proposals only benefit Epic, Google said in its filing, and will harm other developers by depriving them of control over where their app is distributed. Manufacturers will no longer be able to take advantage of the partnerships Google typically offers, while users have to deal with additional security and privacy risks. 

The company also slammed Epic over the "vagueness" of its proposed injunction, which would require the repeated and ongoing intervention of the courts. Similarly, Epic's demands would apparently require the court to micromanage Google's business. 

"Epic’s demands would harm the privacy, security, and overall experience of consumers, developers, and device manufacturers," Wilson White, Google's Vice President of Government Affairs & Public Policy, told Engadget in a statement. "Not only does their proposal go far beyond the scope of the recent US trial verdict — which we will be challenging — it’s also unnecessary due to the settlement we reached last year with State Attorneys General from every state and multiple territories. We will continue to vigorously defend our right to a sustainable business model that enables us to keep people safe, partner with developers to innovate and grow their businesses, and maintain a thriving Android ecosystem for everyone."

Google said that if Epic truly wants to promote competition rather than create "an unfair, court- supervised advantage for itself," then it would take cues from its settlement with the state officials that previously accused the company of abusing its dominance on Android app distribution. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney was, unsurprisingly, unhappy with that settlement, tweeting at the time: "If Google is ending its payments monopoly without imposing a Google Tax on third party transactions, we'll settle and be Google's friend in their new era. But if the settlement merely pays off the other plaintiffs while leaving the Google Tax in place, we'll fight on. Consumers only benefit if antitrust enforcement not only opens up markets, but also restores price competition."

Facebook’s News Feed algorithm has long been at the center of debates about some of Meta’s biggest problems. It’s also been a near constant source of complaints from users. But, if a newly filed lawsuit is successful, Facebook users may be able to use the social network with a vastly different feed. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is suing Meta on behalf of a researcher who wants to release a browser extension that would allow people to “effectively turn off” their algorithmic feeds.

The extension was created by Ethan Zuckerman, a researcher and professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He argues that Facebook users would be better off with more control over their feeds. “The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, would allow users to unfollow their friends, groups, and pages, and, in doing so, to effectively turn off their newsfeed—the endless scroll of posts that users see when they log into Facebook,” the lawsuit explains. “Users who download the tool would be free to use the platform without the feed, or to curate the feed by refollowing only those friends and groups whose posts they really want to see.” (Meta officially renamed the News Feed to “Feed” in 2022.)

Zuckerman isn’t the first to come up with such a tool. He was inspired by a similar project, also called “Unfollow Everything,” from 2021. Facebook sued the U.K man who created that extension and permanently disabled his account. Zuckerman is trying to avoid a similar fate with his lawsuit. The suit, filed in San Francisco federal court Wednesday, asks the court “to recognize that Section 230 protects the development of tools designed to empower people to better control their social media experiences.”

The case could be a novel test of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which is mostly known as the law that shields online platforms from legal liability for the actions of their users. But unlike recent Supreme Court cases involving the statute, Zuckerman’s case “relies on a separate provision protecting the developers of third-party tools that allow people to curate what they see online, including by blocking content they consider objectionable.”

A spokesperson for Meta declined to comment on the lawsuit. The company has a history of heavy-handed tactics when it comes to independent researchers. In addition to shutting down the earlier version “Unfollow Everything,” the company disabled the Facebook accounts of a group of NYU researchers attempting to study political ad targeting in 2021. Those types of tactics have led to some researchers pursuing “data donation” programs, which recruit volunteers to “donate” their own browsing data for academic studies.

If released, Zuckerman’s browser extension would also have a data donation component, allowing users to opt-in to sharing “anonymized data about their Facebook usage.” The data would then be used for research into the effects of Facebook’s feed algorithm.

A federal judge has sentenced Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (often known as “CZ”) to four months in prison, as first reported by The New York Times. Prosecutors had recommended three years. Zhao pleaded guilty in November to violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to set up an anti-money-laundering program.

The DOJ accused Zhao of allowing criminal activity to flourish on the crypto exchange. “Binance turned a blind eye to its legal obligations in the pursuit of profit. Its willful failures allowed money to flow to terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers through its platform,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in November.

The government accused Binance of refusing to comply with American sanctions and failing to report suspicious transactions related to drugs and child sexual abuse materials. Prosecutors said in court that Zhao had told Binance employees it was “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” while bragging that if Binance had obeyed the law, it wouldn’t be “as big as we are today.”

Under the plea deal’s terms, Binance agreed to forfeit $2.5 billion and pay a $1.8 billion fine. Zhao personally paid $50 million as part of the settlement.

Although the charges differed, Zhao’s sentence is dramatically shorter than the 25 years fellow crypto figurehead Sam Bankman-Fried received in March. SBF, as he’s often known, was convicted on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy for his role at the helm of the crypto platform FTX.

Zhao played an integral role in Bankman-Fried’s downfall — and the crypto industry’s broader decline in the last 18 months. The Binance founder tweeted in November 2022 that his company would liquidate its holdings in FTX’s de facto token. He said “recent revelations that have came[sic] to light” while citing “ethical concerns” and “regulatory risks.” The posts not only crushed FTX but the crypto world at large. (They likely helped attract the government’s attention as well.) When FTX’s wells dried up following the platform’s rapid collapse, Zhao briefly agreed to buy the company but quickly backed out.

Prosecutors said Zhao’s crime carried a standard federal sentence of 12 to 18 months but argued for a three-year term, describing his crimes as being “on an unprecedented scale.” But Judge Richard A. Jones saw it differently, sentencing him to a measly one-twelfth of the government’s suggested term.

“This wasn’t a mistake — it wasn’t a regulatory oops,” Kevin Mosley, a DOJ lawyer, reportedly said in court on Tuesday. “Breaking U.S. law was not incidental to his plan to make as much money as possible. Violating the law was integral to that endeavor.”

Grindr has been sued for allegedly sharing personal information with advertising companies without users' consent. A lawsuit filed in London claims that the data included HIV statuses and test dates, ethnicity and sexual orientation, Bloomberg reports.

According to the class action-style suit, the alleged data sharing involved adtech companies Localytics and Apptimize. Grindr is said to have supplied the companies with user info before April 2018 and then between May 2018 and April 2020. Engadget has asked Grindr for comment.

In April 2018, Grindr admitted it had shared HIV data with Apptimize and Localytics following an investigation by BuzzFeed News and Norwegian non-profit SINTEF. It said it would stop the practice.

This isn't the only time Grindr has been accused of sharing users' personal information. A 2022 report from The Wall Street Journal indicated that precise location data on Grindr users was up for sale for at least three years. In addition, Norway's data protection agency fined Grindr $6 million in 2021 for violating the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation. The agency said Grindr had unlawfully shared "personal data with third parties for marketing purposes."

Google has fired 28 employees involved in protests against the company's "Project Nimbus" cloud contract with the Israeli government, according to an internal memo seen by The Verge. That follows the arrest and suspension of nine employees on April 16 and a previous firing related to the same project last month. 

Some of the fired workers were forcibly removed after occupying the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian. Google head of global security Chris Rackow said that the company "will not tolerate" such incidences and warned that the company could take further action. 

"If you’re one of the few who are tempted to think we’re going to overlook conduct that violates our policies, think again," he told employees in a letter. "The company takes this extremely seriously, and we will continue to apply our longstanding policies to take action against disruptive behavior — up to and including termination."

Behavior like this has no place in our workplace and we will not tolerate it. It clearly violates multiple policies that all employees must adhere to — including our Code of Conduct and Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation, Standards of Conduct, and Workplace Concerns.

However, workers in the "No Tech for Apartheid" group organizing the protests called the dismissals "a flagrant act of retaliation." It added that the Google saying protests largely involve people not working at the company is "insulting," adding that the push to drop Project Nimbus is supported by "thousands" of their colleagues. 

"In the three years that we have been organizing against Project Nimbus, we have yet to hear from a single executive about our concerns,” it wrote in a Medium post. "Google workers have the right to peacefully protest about terms and conditions of our labor. These firings were clearly retaliatory.”

Warning: The following article covers matters of a sensitive nature.

A SpaceX employee has filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing it of siding with a supervisor who pressured her into having sexual relations with him. The plaintiff said that she and other female employees also had to endure "humiliating comments" questioning their credentials, that she was passed up for promotions in favor of male candidates and that she experienced retaliation when she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts. 

The plaintiff, Michelle Dopak, has been working at the aerospace corporation's headquarters in California since 2017. According to her complaint, she experienced discrimination early on in her employment when she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of external male candidates. Her male colleagues allegedly spread rumors about their female coworkers, as well, claiming that they only got their jobs because of their looks. Dopak and two of her female colleagues met with Gwynne Shotwell to complain about both issues — "an action that no male colleague or employee at SpaceX would ever feel the need to do to justify their hiring and stop such discriminatory actions," the lawsuit reads. The SpaceX president, however, apparently didn't take any action. 

After a reorganization in 2019, the plaintiff was placed under the supervision of a male boss who allegedly pressured her into having a sexual relationship that lasted years. When she got pregnant as a result, she said her married supervisor offered her $100,000 to have an abortion, which she had refused. She also accused SpaceX of colluding with her boss to transfer 48,289 shares worth $3,718,253 out of his name so that he could get out of paying child support. 

Her complaints didn't end there. After getting promoted to a position she had been chasing for years, she found out that a male colleague who was hired at the same time was being paid $5,000 more. The company officials she talked to about the pay disparity couldn't justify it and allegedly offered her only $2,500 more if she also took a reduction in stock benefits. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff said the offer was "a message that if you complain at SpaceX, we will just retaliate against you and find other ways to punish you."

The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of forcing female employees who have claims of sexual harassment and discrimination into bringing their claims to arbitration so that they could be kept secret from the public. "SpaceX has also attempted to coerce and force [the plaintiff] into only bringing her claims in arbitration even though such claims are barred from being forced to arbitration," the complaint continues.

The plaintiff is asking for general, compensatory and consequential damages, including lost wages, earnings and other employee benefits. She's also asking the court to prohibit SpaceX from continuing any "unfair and unlawful business practices." SpaceX is currently facing another proposed class action lawsuit that claims it pays women and minorities tens of thousands less than what it pays white male employees. In January, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against SpaceX, as well, accusing it for illegally firing a group of engineers who criticized Elon Musk for making crude jokes on X about the sexual misconduct accusations against him.

Legal claims are starting to pile up against Microsoft and OpenAI, as three more news sites have sued the firms over copyright infringement, The Verge reported. The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits accusing ChatGPT of reproducing news content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while stripping out important attribution like the author's name.

The sites, all represented by the same law firm, said that if ChatGPT trained on copyright material, it "would have learned to communicate that information when providing responses." Raw Story and AlterNet added that OpenAI and Microsoft must have known that the chatbot would be less popular and generate lower revenue if "users believed that ChatGPT responses violated third-party copyrights." 

The news organizations note in the lawsuit that OpenAI offers an opt-out system for website owners, meaning that the company must be aware of potential copyright infringement. Microsoft and OpenAI have also said that they'll defend customers against legal claims around copyright infringement that might arise from using their products, and even pay for incurred costs.

Late last year, The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, saying it "seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages". OpenAI asked a court to dismiss that claim, saying the NYT took advantage of a ChatGPT bug that made it recite articles word for word.

The companies also face lawsuits from multiple non-fiction authors accusing them of "massive and deliberate theft of copyrighted works," and by comedian Sarah Silverman over similar claims. 

An appeals court has blocked a $1 billion copyright verdict from 2019 against US internet service provider Cox Communications and ordered a retrial, Arts Technica has reported. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Cox didn't profit directly from its users' piracy, rebutting claims from Sony, Universal and Warner. 

The judges did affirm the original jury's finding of willful contributory infringement from the trial, first announced back in 2018. To that effect, they ordered a new damages trial that may reduce the size of the award.

"We reverse the vicarious liability verdict and remand for a new trial on damages because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability," the panel wrote. It added that "no reasonable jury could find that Cox received a direct financial benefit from its subscribers' infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights." 

Cox allegedly refused to take "reasonable measures" to fight piracy, according to the original allegations. Internet providers are supposed to terminate the accounts of offending users, but the ISP only conducted temporary disconnections and warned some users more than 100 times. The labels claimed it even instituted a cap on accepted copyright complaints and cut back on anti-piracy staffers.

However, the judges said that Sony offered no causal connection between infringement and higher revenues for Cox. "No evidence suggest that customers chose Cox's Internet service, as opposed to a competitor's, because of any knowledge or expectation about Cox's lenient response to infringement." 

Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and EU rules, ISPs enjoy "safe harbor" protections that shield them from liability for user actions. However, that only holds if they comply with specific requirements and address copyright violations promptly — and in this case, Cox didn't do that, the judges said. 

"The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly Internet access to those users... because it wanted to avoid losing revenue," the ruling states. The case is now headed back to a US District court.

International law enforcement, led by the UK’s National Crime Agency, have disrupted ransomware gang Lockbit's operation. The group behind notable hacks against aircraft manufacturer Boeing, chip giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, sandwich chain Subway and thousands more had its site taken offline on Monday while authorities arrested major players behind the gang. "This site if now under the control of law enforcement," the website reads. According to malware repository Vx-underground, law enforcement took down at least 22 Lockbit-affiliated Tor sites.

"Through our close collaboration, we have hacked the hackers; taken control of their infrastructure, seized their source code, and obtained keys that will help victims decrypt their systems," National Crime Agency Director General, Graeme Biggar, said in a statement. “As of today, LockBit are locked out. We have damaged the capability and most notably, the credibility of a group that depended on secrecy and anonymity."

Lockbit admitted defeat, too. In a statement to Vx-underground, the group said "FBI pwned me." Operation Cronos, the name law enforcement used for their efforts, also resulted in the seizure of source code and other useful data related to Lockbit's operations. At the same time, authorities in Poland, Ukraine and the US arrested key members of the ransomware operation. There are sanctions out for two more Lockbit affiliates in Russia.

There's more good news for Lockbit victims, too: The operation obtained keys from Lockbit to create a decryption tool for victims to get their data back, according to US Attorney General Merrick Garland. The free decryptors can be found via the No More Ransom project. 

Since 2019 when Lockbit first entered the scene, it's squeezed victims for more than $120 million in ransomware payments, according to acting assistant AG Nicole Argentieri.

An appeals court has blocked a $1 billion copyright verdict from 2019 against US internet service provider Cox Communications and ordered a retrial, Arts Technica has reported. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Cox didn't profit directly from its users' piracy, rebutting claims from Sony, Universal and Warner. 

The judges did affirm the original jury's finding of willful contributory infringement from the trial, first announced back in 2018. To that effect, they ordered a new damages trial that may reduce the size of the award.

"We reverse the vicarious liability verdict and remand for a new trial on damages because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability," the panel wrote. It added that "no reasonable jury could find that Cox received a direct financial benefit from its subscribers' infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights." 

Cox allegedly refused to take "reasonable measures" to fight piracy, according to the original allegations. Internet providers are supposed to terminate the accounts of offending users, but the ISP only conducted temporary disconnections and warned some users more than 100 times. The labels claimed it even instituted a cap on accepted copyright complaints and cut back on anti-piracy staffers.

However, the judges said that Sony offered no causal connection between infringement and higher revenues for Cox. "No evidence suggest that customers chose Cox's Internet service, as opposed to a competitor's, because of any knowledge or expectation about Cox's lenient response to infringement." 

Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and EU rules, ISPs enjoy "safe harbor" protections that shield them from liability for user actions. However, that only holds if they comply with specific requirements and address copyright violations promptly — and in this case, Cox didn't do that, the judges said. 

"The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly Internet access to those users... because it wanted to avoid losing revenue," the ruling states. The case is now headed back to a US District court.

International law enforcement, led by the UK’s National Crime Agency, have disrupted ransomware gang Lockbit's operation. The group behind notable hacks against aircraft manufacturer Boeing, chip giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, sandwich chain Subway and thousands more had its site taken offline on Monday while authorities arrested major players behind the gang. "This site if now under the control of law enforcement," the website reads. According to malware repository Vx-underground, law enforcement took down at least 22 Lockbit-affiliated Tor sites.

"Through our close collaboration, we have hacked the hackers; taken control of their infrastructure, seized their source code, and obtained keys that will help victims decrypt their systems," National Crime Agency Director General, Graeme Biggar, said in a statement. “As of today, LockBit are locked out. We have damaged the capability and most notably, the credibility of a group that depended on secrecy and anonymity."

Lockbit admitted defeat, too. In a statement to Vx-underground, the group said "FBI pwned me." Operation Cronos, the name law enforcement used for their efforts, also resulted in the seizure of source code and other useful data related to Lockbit's operations. At the same time, authorities in Poland, Ukraine and the US arrested key members of the ransomware operation. There are sanctions out for two more Lockbit affiliates in Russia.

There's more good news for Lockbit victims, too: The operation obtained keys from Lockbit to create a decryption tool for victims to get their data back, according to US Attorney General Merrick Garland. The free decryptors can be found via the No More Ransom project. 

Since 2019 when Lockbit first entered the scene, it's squeezed victims for more than $120 million in ransomware payments, according to acting assistant AG Nicole Argentieri.

TikTok is in the EU's crosshairs over potential Digital Services Act (DSA) breaches around the safety of minors and other matters. The formal proceedings will focus on addictive algorithms, the "rabbit hole effect," age verification issues and default privacy settings. The European Commission is also probing ad transparency and data access for researchers, it said in a press release. 

The probe is focusing on the privacy and safety of minors. The Commission will look at the potentially negative aspects of TikTok's design and algorithms, including addictive behavior and "rabbit hole effects" that can lead to harmful content. The assessment aims to "counter potential risks for the exercise of the fundamental right to the person's physical and mental well-being [and] the respect of the rights of the child," the EC wrote. 

As part of that, it's also examining TikTok's age verification tools that are supposed to prevent access by minors to inappropriate content. At the same time, it will force the social media site to ensure high levels of privacy, safety and security for minors with regard to default privacy settings — much as it did for Meta's Instagram and Facebook.

Europe is also looking into TikTok compliance with DSA obligations to "provide a searchable and reliable repository for advertisements." At the same time, it's investigating suspected shortcomings in researcher access to TikTok's publicly accessible data, as required by the DSA. 

After the proceedings open, The Commission will continue to gather evidence. The procedure allows it to take further enforcement steps including interim measures and non-compliance decisions.

TikTok (and parent ByteDance) was already forced to make large changes for EU users to meet the DSA by giving users the choice to not let algorithms power their For You Page (FYP). It also introduced new harmful content reporting options and dropped personalized ads for EU users aged 13 to 17. 

The EU is already investigating TikTok, along with Meta, to determine what they've done to mitigate illegal content and misinformation related to the ongoing violence in the Middle East. In 2022, Meta was hit with a $414 million fine for requiring personalized ads. It's rumored to be introducing a paid tier as a way to allow users to get rid of personalized ads — and TikTok may also be working on such a scheme. Civil rights groups are urging the EU to reject these plans, labelling them "pay for privacy."

Apple may be facing a fine of roughly $539 million (500 million euros) from the EU and a ban on its alleged anti-competitive App Store practices for music streaming services, according to FT. The publication, which cites five unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter, reports that the European Commission will announce its ruling early next month.

The probe stems from a 2019 antitrust complaint filed by Spotify and is focused on App Store rules that at the time prevented developers from directing customers to alternative subscription options outside the app, which could be cheaper as they wouldn’t have to compensate for Apple’s 30 percent fee. Apple later loosened these restrictions. According to FT, the Commission will say Apple broke EU antitrust law and created “unfair trading conditions” for its rivals with the App Store’s “anti-steering obligations.”

Amazon, a company that employs more than 1.54 million people, has claimed that the National Labor Relations Board Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for protecting the rights of workers, is unconstitutional. Amazon made the claim in a legal document filed on Thursday as part of a case in which prosecutors from the Board have accused the e-commerce giant of discrimination against workers at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island who had voted to unionize, according to The New York Times.

Amazon is not the first company to challenge the Board’s constitutionality. Last month, Elon Musk’s SpaceX sued the NLRB after the agency accused the company of unlawfully firing eight employees and called the agency “unconstitutional” in the lawsuit. Weeks later, grocery chain Trader Joe’s, which the NLRB accused of union-busting, said that the NLRB’s structure and organization was “unconstitutional,” Bloomberg reported. And in separate lawsuits, two Starbucks baristas have independently challenged the agency’s structure as they sought to dissolve their unions.

Amazon’s claim is similar to the existing claims filed by SpaceX and Trader Joe’s. In the lawsuit, the company’s lawyers argued that “the structure of the N.L.R.B. violates the separation of powers” by “impeding the executive power provided for in Article II of the United States Constitution.” In addition, Amazon claimed that the NLRB’s hearings “can seek legal remedies beyond what’s allowed without a trial by jury.”

Seth Goldstein, a lawyer who represents unions in the Amazon and Trader Joe’s cases told Reuters that these challenges to the NLRB increase the chances of the issue reaching the Supreme Court. And they might cause employers to stop bargaining with unions in hope that courts will finally strip the federal agency of its powers, Goldstein said. Amazon has a contentious history with the NLRB, which said the company broke federal labor laws last year.