Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

HP is seeking up to $4 billion from Mike Lynch’s estate

Posted on by

British tech billionaire Mike Lynch died in August after the yacht he was on capsized off the coast of Sicily. Yet, Hewlett-Packard is continuing its UK lawsuit, seeking up to $4 billion in damages — just against his estate instead. In a statement, HP said it intended "to follow the proceedings through to their conclusion."

Lynch and HP have been at odds since the entrepreneur sold his company, Autonomy, to HP for $11 billion in 2011. One year later, a new management team at HP valued the company at only $8.8 billion and accused Lynch of inflating sales, accounting improprieties and misleading HP overall. In June, a US jury found Lynch not guilty on all 15 counts of fraud. 

However, in 2022, HP won its civil claim in the UK when a high court judge found Lynch and his former finance director, Sushovan Hussain, had defrauded the company — a claim Lynch denied until his death. The amount paid out to HP should be decided soon, though the judge stated in his initial ruling that the damages would likely be "substantially less than is claimed." 

Lynch, his 18-year-old daughter and five others died when Bayesian, an 183-foot super-yacht, was caught in a violent storm early in the morning on August 19. Fifteen other passengers were rescued, including Lynch's wife, Angela Bacares. The outing had been a celebration of Lynch's recent acquittal, with a mix of loved ones and business associates joining him on board. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/hp-is-seeking-up-to-4-billion-from-mike-lynchs-estate-120027940.html?src=rss

Social media companies can’t be forced to block teens from seeing ‘harmful’ content, judge rules

Posted on by

A federal judge has ruled that social media companies can’t be required to block certain types of content from teens. The ruling will prevent some aspects of a controversial social media law in Texas from going into effect.

The ruling came as the result of tech industry groups’ challenge to the Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act, a Texas law that imposes age verification requirements and other policies for how social media companies treat teenage users. But, as The Verge points out, the measure also requires companies to “prevent the known minor’s exposure to harmful material,” including content that “glorifies” self-harm and substance abuse.

It’s that latter requirement that was struck down, with the judge saying that “a state cannot pick and choose which categories of protected speech it wishes to block teenagers from discussing online.” The judge also criticized the language used in the law, writing in his decision that terms like “glorifying” and “promoting” are “politically charged” and “undefined.”

At the same time, the judge left other aspects of the law, including age verification requirements and bans on targeted advertising to minors, in place. NetChoice, the tech industry group that challenged the law, has argued that measures like the Scope Act require major tech companies to increase the amount of data collected from minors.

The Texas law, originally passed last year, is one of many across the country attempting to change how social media platforms deal with underage users. New York recently passed two laws restricting social media companies’ ability to collect data on teenage users, and requiring parental consent for younger users to access “addictive” features like algorithmic feeds. California lawmakers also recently passed a measure, which has yet to be signed into law by the governor, that requires social media companies to limit notifications to minors and restrict them from “addictive” algorithms.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/social-media-companies-cant-be-forced-to-block-teens-from-seeing-harmful-content-judge-rules-221321184.html?src=rss

Elon Musk’s Starlink will comply with the Brazil X ban after all

Posted on by

Update, September 3, 5:15PM ET: Starlink has reversed course on its decision to not comply with Brazil’s block of X. In a statement posted to X, the company said:

“To our customers in Brazil (who may not be able to read this as a result of X being blocked by @alexandre):

The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected.

Following last week’s order from @alexandre that froze Starlink’s finances and prevents Starlink from conducting financial transactions in Brazil, we immediately initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court explaining the gross illegality of this order and asking the Court to unfreeze our assets. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing of our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil.

We continue to pursue all legal avenues, as are others who agree that @alexandre’s recent orders violate the Brazilian constitution.”

The original story, "Starlink is refusing to comply with Brazil's X ban," as published on September 2, continues below unedited.

After the country’s Supreme Court ordered internet service providers to block access to X, the platform was largely unavailable in the country by Sunday night. The only ways to access X since then have been through VPNs (for those willing to risk huge fines) and Starlink, the satellite internet service that’s also run by X owner Elon Musk.

The president of Brazil’s telecom agency, Anatel, said that Starlink refused to comply with the court order until officials released its frozen assets, The New York Times reports. Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice who has been on the warpath against X, also blocked the local bank accounts of Starlink, which is a SpaceX subsidiary. Moraes, who has accused X of disseminating hate speech and disinformation, is said to have done so with the aim of collecting $3 million in fines levied against X for ignoring his orders to block certain accounts.

Starlink petitioned the court to unblock its assets but the court dismissed the request. Musk called the Starlink account freeze "illegal," arguing that SpaceX and X are separate entities while claiming he owns 40 percent of the former.

There are around 250,000 Starlink customers in Brazil. The service has proven popular there in rural areas and among Indigenous tribes in the Amazon. Starlink pledged to provide free internet access to its Brazilian customers while its accounts in the country remain blocked.

If Starlink maintains its stance on X, Brazil could revoke the internet service’s license. If it continues to operate after that, officials could seize equipment from 23 ground stations. The gear helps Starlink improve the quality of its satellite connections.

Meanwhile, a majority of a Supreme Court panel upheld the X ban, which Moraes issued after Musk defied several of his orders, at a trial on Monday. X will have the right to appeal the decision. The panel also approved an order by Moraes to fine anyone caught using a VPN to access X in Brazil a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian Real (around $8,900).

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/elon-musks-starlink-will-comply-with-the-brazil-x-ban-after-all-181144471.html?src=rss

Brazil bans X for refusing to comply with Supreme Court order

Posted on by

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has ordered the nation’s internet service providers to block the social media platform X. The New York Times reports that the order stems from owner Elon Musk’s refusal to appoint a legal representative for his case and comply with Moraes’ order to shut down X accounts he deemed as harmful to the democratic process. The order has been published online by Brazilian news site Poder 360.

The justice issued a deadline to telecom companies and tech giants to remove the X from its app stores and platforms. Apple and Google have five days to take down the social media app from its app stores. Brazil’s telecommunication’s agency Anatel has confirmed it has received the order, and ISPs in the country have just 24 hours to comply with the order.

Justice Moraes’ order doesn’t just block the country’s access to X. It also makes it a crime to use the app through a virtual private network (VPN). Anyone caught accessing X with a VPN could face a daily fine of 50,000 Brazilian Real (around $8,900).

Justice Moraes also froze the Brazillian bank accounts of SpaceX’s Starlink internet service provider on Thursday to further pressure Musk to comply with the court’s order. SpaceX, like X, is a private company majority owned by Musk, and X has $3 million in unpaid fines related to its case in the country. The day before, Justice Moraes issued a threat to ban the X platform entirely across Brazil if the social media company did not appoint a legal representative in the country. The deadline passed without any change to the court’s docket so the judge followed through on his promise.

Starlink expressed its disapproval with the order, vowing to fight the ruling. It even threatened to make its services free to customers to subvert the justice’s order.

The legal fight between Justice Moraes and Musk has been fuming for months. The Supreme Court Judge is also Brazil’s electoral authority and has been monitoring and issuing orders to candidates to steer clear of spreading false information through internet and social media channels.

Brazil’s 2022 presidential election between infamous incumbent Jair Bolsonaro and challenger and former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was reportedly filled with attempts to present voters with false information. Justice Moraes was, until recently, president of the nation's Superior Electoral Court, which gave him the power to order takedowns of content that violated previous court orders. The judge issued a similar block of the messaging app Telegram for failing to freeze offending accounts, which was lifted after compliance.

Musk characterized Moraes’ directives to take down or freeze similar misinformation accounts from X as “censorship orders.” Earlier this month, Musk expressed his continued refusal to comply with the court by closing X’s Brazilian office in order “to protect the safety of our staff.” X’s Global Governments Affairs team also promised to publish all of “Judge de Moraes’ illegal demands and all related court filings.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/brazil-bans-x-for-refusing-to-comply-with-supreme-court-order-230247980.html?src=rss

Judge denies Media Matters’ motion to dismiss X’s not-libel lawsuit

Posted on by

A Texas judge denied Media Matters for America’s request for a dismissal on Thursday allowing X’s lawsuit over alleged anti-semitic and racist content. The Verge reported that Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O’Connor dismissed the request for a dismissal paving the way for X’s lawsuit against Media Matters to continue.

Media Matters submitted its dismissal request in early March on the grounds that X’s case lacked “personal jurisdiction,” an “improper venue” and the “failure to state a claim.” O’Connor dismissed all of those claims, according to court records.

The lawsuit filed last year in federal court seeks damages from the media watchdog group over “maliciously manufactured” images reporting that X’s platform placed Neo-Nazi and white-nationlist content next to advertisers’ images causing advertisers to flee the site. The images Media Matters used weren’t manufactured but X’s claim is that its dogged pursuit of ads’ placement with racist content by using certain accounts to bypass ad filters caused irreparable harm to the social media giant.

X owner Elon Musk’s other companies are located in Texas but aren’t directly connected to the Media Matters lawsuit. X closed its San Francisco offices earlier this month and owner Elon Musk announced in July that X’s headquarters will move to Austin. Tesla moved its headquarters from California to the Lone Star State in 2021 and SpaceX from Delaware earlier this year when a judge threw out a $56 billion pay package from the state.

However, in dismissing the personal jurisdiction argument, O’Connor noted that two of X’s “blue-chip” advertisers like AT&T and Oracle included in Media Matters’ coverage are based in Texas. He cited the landmark 2002 Internet defamation case Revell v. Lidov quoting the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ assertion that “if you are going to pick a fight in Texas, it is reasonable to expect that it be settled there.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/judge-denies-media-matters-motion-to-dismiss-xs-not-libel-lawsuit-204732720.html?src=rss

Starlink’s local bank accounts are frozen as X prepares to be shut down in Brazil

Posted on by

A judge in Brazil has blocked Starlink’s bank accounts in the country amid a deepening dispute with X. The move comes as the same Supreme Court judge has threatened to shut down X in the country, and is a direct response to the ongoing legal battle with the social media company, Reuters reported.

X owner Elon Musk has been feuding with Brazil Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes for months over demands to block certain accounts in the country. The company closed down its operations in Brazil earlier this month as a result of the court orders, which X has characterized as “censorship orders.”

Now, Moraes is apparently attempting to use one of Musk’s other companies, SpaceX-owned Starlink, in an attempt to get X to comply with the court order. “This order is based on an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied—unconstitutionally—against X,” Starlink wrote in a statement on X. “It was issued in secret and without affording Starlink any of the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution of Brazil. We intend to address the matter legally.”

Moraes has also threatened to shut down X in the country entirely. On Wednesday, the judge said X would be shut down in Brazil if they didn’t appoint a legal representative in the country. X said in an update Thursday, shortly after that deadline had passed, that it “soon” expects Moraes to order the shutdown.

“We are absolutely not insisting that other countries have the same free speech laws as the United States,” the company wrote in a statement published in English and Portuguese. “The fundamental issue at stake here is that Judge de Moraes demands we break Brazil’s own laws. We simply won’t do that.” The company said it planned to publish Moraes' "illegal demands and all related court filings" in the coming days. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/starlinks-local-bank-accounts-are-frozen-as-x-prepares-to-be-shut-down-in-brazil-234046493.html?src=rss

Yelp files antitrust lawsuit against Google

Posted on by

Yelp has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google. As CNN reports, the move caps off years of animosity between the two companies, with Yelp alleging that Google has leveraged its control over online searching to dominate local queries and prioritize its own reviews. 

"Google abuses its monopoly power in general search to keep users within Google’s owned ecosystem and prevents them from going to rival sites," Yelp Co-founder and CEO Jeremy Stoppelman said in a blog post announcing the suit. "This anticompetitive conduct siphons traffic and advertising revenue from vertical search services, like Yelp, that provide objectively higher quality local business content for consumers."

The US lawsuit could carry extra weight following a Department of Justice case where the judge deemed Google a monopolist over search. The August ruling did not place any sanctions on Google, but it's likely that Yelp's case will be the first of many brought by the tech company's competitors.

In response to a request for comment, a Google spokesperson told Engadget:

“Yelp’s claims are not new. Similar claims were thrown out years ago by the FTC, and recently by the judge in the DOJ’s case. On the other aspects of the decision to which Yelp refers, we are appealing. Google will vigorously defend against Yelp’s meritless claims.”

While this lawsuit centers on the US, Yelp has also been sounding off about Google's practices overseas. The European Digital Markets Act was meant to loosen some of the company's stranglehold over search results with rules to prevent massive tech businesses from favoring their own services. But Yelp argued that Google's attempt at DMA compliance actually made users less likely to leave the Google ecosystem.

In a statement regarding the suit, Yelp’s General Counsel Aaron Schur said:

"Yelp’s antitrust lawsuit against Google addresses how Google abuses its illegal monopoly in general search to engage in anticompetitive conduct, including self-preferencing its own inferior local product, to dominate the local search and local search advertising markets. For years, Google has leveraged its monopoly in general search to pad its own bottom line at the expense of what’s best for consumers, innovation, and fair competition. By willfully engaging in exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct, Google has driven traffic and revenue away from competitors, made it harder for them to scale, and increased their costs, while degrading consumer choice, to grow its own market power.

Judge Amit Mehta’s recent ruling in the government’s antitrust case against Google, finding Google illegally maintained its monopoly in general search, is a watershed moment in antitrust law, and provides a strong foundation for Yelp’s case against Google. In addition to injunctive relief, Yelp seeks a remedy that ensures Google can no longer self-preference in local search. The harms caused by Google’s self-preferencing are not unique to Yelp, and we look forward to telling our story in court."

Update, August 28, 8:15PM ET: This story was updated after publish to include a comment from a Google spokesperson and an additional comment from Yelp's General Counsel.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/yelp-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-230228737.html?src=rss

Telegram CEO charges include distributing CSAM and money laundering

Posted on by

French authorities have now shared the why behind the August 24 arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov. His arrest came in response to a series of charges, including complicity in "distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in an organized group." The charges stem from a judicial investigation opened on July 8 against an unnamed individual.

The release, penned by Prosecutor of the Republic Laure Beccuau, details 12 charges in total, including money laundering, drug trafficking, fraud, running an online platform that allows illegal transactions and possessing child pornography. Durov can be held in custody until Wednesday, August 28.

The arrest has raised questions about how much leaders are responsible for what happens on their platforms. Telegram shared a post stating the company "abides by EU laws" and "It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform." There have also been outcries from individuals like Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter), who posted "#FreePavel" on X, and NSA whistleblower and now Russian citizen Edward Snowden, who called it politically motivated. Telegram is especially popular in Russia and Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron responded on X (formerly Twitter) to "false information" that the arrest was politically motivated. "France is deeply committed to freedom of expression and communication, to innovation, and to the spirit of entrepreneurship. It will remain so," Macron shared on August 26. "In a state governed by the rule of law, freedoms are upheld within a legal framework, both on social media and in real life, to protect citizens and respect their fundamental rights. It is up to the judiciary, in full independence, to enforce the law."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/telegram-ceo-charges-include-distributing-csam-and-money-laundering-125336547.html?src=rss

Uber gets slapped with €290 million fine

Posted on by

Uber has received its largest fine to date, with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) issuing a €290 million ($324 million) penalty to the rideshare company. The regulatory body announced it had issued the fine in response to Uber transferring the personal data of European taxi drivers into the United States without properly safeguarding the information. The complaint came from France, but the case was moved to Holland, where Uber's EU headquarters are located. 

The Dutch DPA found that Uber took account details, taxi licenses, location data, photos, payment details, identity documents and more from European drivers and transferred them to servers at their US headquarters for over two years. During this period, Uber didn't use any transfer tools, a decision the Dutch DPA has deemed caused insufficient protection. "In Europe, the GDPR protects the fundamental rights of people, by requiring businesses and governments to handle personal data with due care," Dutch DPA chairman Aleid Wolfsen said in a statement. "Uber did not meet the requirements of the GDPR to ensure the level of protection to the data with regard to transfers to the US. That is very serious."

The Dutch DPA has fined Uber twice before, first imposing a €600,000 ($670,000) fine in 2018 after the company failed to report a data breach that occurred two years earlier within a 72-hour timeframe. In 2023, the Dutch DPA fined Uber €10 million ($11.2 million) for not fully detailing its data retention periods (regarding information about European drivers) or the non-European countries where it shares data. Uber objected to the latter fine and has made its intentions clear to fight the €290 million.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/uber-gets-slapped-with-%E2%82%AC290-million-fine-123039726.html?src=rss

The DOJ files an antitrust suit against a software company for allegedly manipulating rent prices

Posted on by

The Department of Justice and eight states’ attorney generals filed an antitrust lawsuit against rental software company RealPage on Friday, accusing it of using algorithms to drive up rent prices nationwide. The suit alleges RealPage’s software, YieldStar, gathers sensitive information from landlords and rental companies, which it feeds into algorithms that recommend prices and practices that limit competition and force renters to pay more.

“Americans should not have to pay more in rent because a company has found a new way to scheme with landlords to break the law,” Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a DOJ press release.

RealPage’s software reportedly manages more than 24 million rental units globally. The DOJ’s complaint accuses the Texas-based company of contracting with competing landlords who agree to share “nonpublic, competitively sensitive information” about rental rates and other lease terms. RealPage then trains YieldStar’s algorithms, which generate pricing and other competitive recommendations “based on their and their rivals’ competitively sensitive information,” according to the DOJ.

The DOJ was joined in its suit by the attorney generals of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. It filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, accusing the company of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The 1890 law is considered the bedrock of US antitrust actions.

In addition, the lawsuit accuses RealPage of monopolizing the rental market in a feedback loop that “strengthens RealPage’s grip on the market,” making it harder for “honest businesses to compete on the merits.”

The DOJ’s complaint cites internal documents and sworn testimony from the company, along with landlords who have used the software to allegedly price-gouge renters. The agency says RealPage admitted its software was designed to maximize rent prices, saying its product excels at “driving every possible opportunity to increase price,” “avoid[ing] the race to the bottom in down markets” and “a rising tide raises all ships.”

In addition, the DOJ quotes a RealPage executive as observing that its software helps landlords avoid competing. The executive allegedly opined that “there is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down.” (Perhaps the executive doesn’t consider renters part of “the greater good.”)

The DOJ also quotes a RealPage executive as explaining to a landlord that its competitor data can help spot situations where they “may have a $50 increase instead of a $10 increase for the day.” The suit even cites a landlord’s comment that YieldStar helps the supply side control the market. “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That’s classic price fixing.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-doj-files-an-antitrust-lawsuit-against-a-software-company-for-allegedly-manipulating-rent-prices-154230054.html?src=rss