Uber is locking New York drivers out of its apps and blaming a city pay rule

For the last month, Uber has been locking New York City drivers out of its apps during low-demand periods, and Lyft has threatened to do so, too. Bloomberg reports that the ride-hailing companies blame a New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) rule for their behavior. At least one drivers’ union says it may consider striking if the lockouts continue.

The mid-shift lockouts stem from a six-year-old NYC pay rule that requires ride-sharing companies to pay drivers for idle time between fares. Capping how long drivers without passengers can be paid means Uber pays less, but it also means drivers are taking home much less money for the same amount of time on the clock. And they can’t predict when they’ll lose access to the app.

Drivers are understandably angry. “I used to work 10 hours and make $300 to $350,” Nikoloz Tsulukidze, a full-time Uber driver, told Bloomberg. “Now, I just worked 10 hours and barely made $170. I was so disappointed. I’m paying for my gas and cannot make money.”

Uber and Lyft are deploying the “Look what you made me do!” strategy, pointing fingers at the TLC’s pay rule (and each other) while trying to turn drivers into lobbyists against the regulation. An Uber email to its drivers from last month, viewed by Bloomberg, encouraged drivers to “let the TLC know the effect their rules have had” on their wages.

The way the rule affects the companies differently is also a factor in their blame games. Uber’s drivers have been busier this year, meaning its numbers have more weight on the city’s averages, which determine the minimum-pay limits. “The city’s rule bizarrely holds Uber responsible for Lyft’s failures,” Uber spokesperson Freddi Goldstein told Bloomberg. “With Lyft struggling to keep drivers busy, we don’t have other options.”

Meanwhile, Lyft (naturally) views the situation in reverse. “Uber wants to change the rules so that Lyft is penalized,” the company wrote in a June email to drivers. “The current NYC pay formula is broken,” Lyft spokesperson CJ Macklin told Bloomberg. “It forces rideshare companies to limit when drivers can earn, and therefore how much they can earn.”

A drivers’ union says Uber’s over-hiring is the root cause of the ordeal. Bhairavi Desai, president of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, told Bloomberg that the company “mismanaged” hiring by allowing too many drivers to join its ranks — and the workers are now left to foot the bill. She accused Uber of “gaming the system” by using the TLC’s rule to withhold “time that should be paid under the law and making it unpaid.” Desai says the union will consider striking if necessary.

Although Lyft hasn’t yet begun locking out drivers, it might. A June email to the company’s drivers warned that it would soon “have to” adopt a similar practice.

The current mess in NYC follows a long trail of ugly fights across the country between ride-sharing companies and city regulations. Uber and Lyft staged similar lockouts in 2019 in response to a flat minimum wage requirement for drivers that continued until the following spring. Earlier this year, the two companies threatened to pull out of Minneapolis after the city tried to force a driver pay raise that would push their rates up to the equivalent of minimum wage.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/uber-is-locking-new-york-drivers-out-of-its-apps-and-blaming-a-city-pay-rule-204737818.html?src=rss

Record labels sue AI music generators for ‘massive infringement of recorded music’

Major music labels are taking on AI startups that they believe trained on their songs without paying. Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group sued the music generators Suno and Udio for allegedly infringing on copyrighted works on a “massive scale.”

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) initiated the lawsuits and wants to establish that “nothing that exempts AI technology from copyright law or that excuses AI companies from playing by the rules.”

The music labels’ lawsuits in US federal court accuse Suno and Udio of scraping their copyrighted tracks from the internet. The filings against the AI companies reportedly demand injunctions against future use and damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work. (That sounds like it could add up to a monumental sum if the court finds them liable.) The suits appear aimed at establishing licensed training as the only acceptable industry framework for AI moving forward — while instilling fear in companies that train their models without consent.

Screenshot of the Udio AI music generator homescreen.
Udio

Suno AI and Udio AI (Uncharted Labs run the latter) are startups with software that generates music based on text inputs. The former is a partner of Microsoft for its CoPilot music generation tool. The RIAA claims the services’ reproduced tracks are uncannily similar to existing works to the degree that they must have been trained on copyrighted songs. It also claims the companies didn’t deny that they trained on copyright works, instead shielding themselves behind their training being “confidential business information” and standard industry practices.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the lawsuits accuse the AI generators of creating songs that sounded remarkably similar to The Temptations’ “My Girl,” Green Day’s “American Idiot,” and Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” among others. They also claim the AI services produced indistinguishable vocals from artists like Lin-Manuel Miranda, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson and ABBA.

Wired reports that one example cited in the lawsuit details how one of the AI tools reproduced a song that sounded nearly identical to Chuck Berry’s pioneering classic “Johnny B. Goode,” using the prompt, “1950s rock and roll, rhythm & blues, 12 bar blues, rockabilly, energetic male vocalist, singer guitarist,” along with some of Berry’s lyrics. The suit claims the generator almost perfectly generated the original track’s “Go, Johnny, go, go” chorus.

Screenshot for the Suno AI webpage.
Suno

To be clear, the RIAA isn’t advocating based on the principle that all AI training on copyrighted works is wrong. Instead, it’s saying it’s illegal to do so without licensing and consent, i.e., when the labels (and, likely to a lesser degree, the artists) don’t make any money off of it.

The recording industry is working on AI deals of its own that license music in a way that it believes is fair for its bottom line. These include an agreement between Universal and SoundLabs, which allows the latter to create vocal models for artists while still allowing the singers to control ownership and output. The label also partnered with YouTube on an AI licensing and royalties deal. Universal also represents Drake, whose diss track against Kendrick Lamar from earlier this year used AI-generated copies of Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg’s voices.

“There is room for AI and human creators to forge a sustainable, complementary relationship,” the filing against Suno reads. “This can and should be achieved through the well-established mechanism of free-market licensing that ensures proper respect for copyright owners.”

According to Bloomberg, Suno co-founder Mikey Shulman said in April that the company’s practices are “legal” and “fairly in line with what other people are doing.” The AI industry at large appears to be attempting to race towards a threshold where its tools are considered too ubiquitous to be held accountable before anyone can do anything about how it trained its models.

“We work very closely with lawyers to make sure that what we’re doing is legal and industry standard,” Suno’s founder said in April. “If the law changes, obviously we would change our business one way or the other.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/record-labels-sue-ai-music-generators-for-massive-infringement-of-recorded-music-172915925.html?src=rss

How small claims court became Meta’s customer service hotline

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.

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.”

“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.

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."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/how-small-claims-court-became-metas-customer-service-hotline-160224479.html?src=rss

Snap will pay $15 million to settle California lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination

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. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/snap-will-pay-15-million-to-settle-california-lawsuit-alleging-sexual-discrimination-120019788.html?src=rss

Amazon’s Affordable Pharmacy program rxPass opens up to Medicare users with Prime

Amazon launched its RxPass in 2023, giving Prime customers access to generic medications that treat more than 80 common health conditions for $5 a month on top of a Prime subscription. Now, Amazon is expanding the program to Prime members on Medicare insurance, opening eligibility up to an additional 50 million customers, the company wrote in a press release.

As before, members get unlimited access to 60 generic medications and shipping — along with 24/7 access to a pharmacist — for a flat monthly $5 fee. Same-day delivery is offered in nine major cities.

If you're a Medicare user who takes at least one medication, you could save up to $70 per year, and even more for two or more medications, according to Amazon Pharmacy VP John Love. The company estimates that if every eligible Prime user signed up for the service, it could save Medicare $2 billion per year and reduce customer out-of-pocket spending. 

"For some of the Medicare population, the mobility feature can be very compelling. If you don't have easy access to a car or easy access to a retail pharmacy, the ability to get meds delivered is compelling," said Love. 

Amazon competes against other pharmacies including CVS, Walgreens and rival retailers like Costco. Medications included in RxPass are shown here and when searching, you'll see the RxPass logo next to eligible medications. Amazon also offers discounts up to 80 percent on generic drugs, and 40 percent on brand names. 

However, the program may not cost-effective if you need medications not included in the 60 offered by Amazon, according to Clark.com. RxPass also requires Amazon Prime, which costs $139 a year or $15 per month, on top of the $5 fee. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/amazons-affordable-pharmacy-program-rxpass-opens-up-to-medicare-users-with-prime-123026092.html?src=rss

The US has sued Adobe over early termination fees and making subscriptions hard to cancel

The US government has sued Adobe and two senior company executives for allegedly deceiving consumers by hiding early termination fees and making them jump through hoops to cancel subscriptions to Adobe products.

The complaint filed by the Department of Justice on Monday accuses the Adobe of pushing consumers towards its “annual paid monthly” subscription plan without adequately disclosing that canceling the plan within the first year could result in an early termination fee. The complaint also alleges that Adobe’s early termination fee disclosures were buried in fine print or required consumers to hover over tiny icons to find them.

“Americans are tired of companies hiding the ball during subscription signup and then putting up roadblocks when they try to cancel,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. “The FTC will continue working to protect Americans from these illegal business practices.” 

Dana Rao, Adobe's general counsel and chief trust officer said that the company would fight the FTC in court. In a statement published on the company's website, Rao said: "Subscription services are convenient, flexible and cost effective to allow users to choose the plan that best fits their needs, timeline and budget. Our priority is to always ensure our customers have a positive experience. We are transparent with the terms and conditions of our subscription agreements and have a simple cancellation process. We will refute the FTC’s claims in court.”

The FTC said that it took action against Adobe after receiving complaints from consumers around the country who said that they were not aware of Adobe’s early termination fee. It noted that Adobe continued the practice despite being aware of consumers’ confusion. Any consumers who reached out to Adobe’s customer service to cancel their subscription encountered other obstacles like dropped calls and chats and being transferred to multiple representatives, the FTC’s statement adds.

The FTC’s action follows a wave of customer outrage over Adobe’s latest terms of service. Users were concerned that Adobe’s vague language suggested that the company could freely use their work to train its generative AI modes. In response to the backlash, Adobe announced updates to its terms of service to provide more detail around areas like AI and content ownership.

Update, June 17 2024, 1:39 PM ET: This story has been updated with a statement from Adobe. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-us-has-sued-adobe-for-early-termination-fees-and-making-subscriptions-hard-to-cancel-165808358.html?src=rss

If Clearview AI scanned your face, you may get equity in the company

Controversial facial recognition company Clearview AI has agreed to an unusual settlement to a class action lawsuit, The New York Times reports. Rather than paying cash, the company would provide a 23 percent stake in its company to any Americans in its database. Without the settlement, Clearview could go bankrupt, according to court documents. 

If you live in the US and have ever posted a photo of yourself publicly online, you may be part of the class action. The settlement could amount to at least $50 million according to court documents, It still must be approved by a federal judge. 

Clearview AI, which counts billionaire Peter Thiel as a backer, says it has over 30 billion images in its database. Those can be accessed and cross-referenced by thousands of law enforcement departments including the US FBI and Department of Homeland Security. 

Shortly after its identity was outed, Clearview was hit with lawsuits in Illinois, California, Virginia, New York and elsewhere, which were all brought together as a class action suit in a federal Chicago court. The cost of the litigation was said to be draining the company's reserves, forcing it to seek a creative way to settle the suit.

The relatively small sum divided by the large number of users likely to be in the database means you won't be receiving a windfall. In any case, it would only happen if the company goes public or is acquired, according to the report. Once that occurs, lawyers would take up to 39 percent of the settlement, meaning the final amount could be reduced to about 30 million. If a third of Americans were in the database (about 110 million), each would get about 27 cents. 

That does beg the question of whether it would be worth just over a quarter to see one of the creepiest companies of all time to go bankrupt. To cite a small litany of the actions taken against it (on top of the US class action):

  • It was sued by the ACLU in 2020 (Clearview agreed to permanently halt sales of its biometric database to private companies in the US as part of the settlement.

  • Italy slapped a €20 million fine on the company in 2022 and banned it from using images of Italians in its database

  • Privacy groups in Europe filed complaints against it for allegedly breaking privacy laws (2021)

  • UK's privacy watchdog slapped it with a £7.55 million fine and ordered it to delete data from any UK resident

  • The LAPD banned the use of its software in 2020

  • Earlier this year the EU barred untargeted scraping of faces from the web, effectively blocking Clearview's business model in Europe

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/if-clearview-ai-scanned-your-face-you-may-get-equity-in-the-company-120018460.html?src=rss

Apple hit with lawsuit for allegedly underpaying female employees

A class action lawsuit filed by two women against Apple seeks damages for 12,000 current and former female employees for allegedly underpaying them. The complaint says the tech giant “systematically” paid them a lower wage than their male employees over a four-year period.

The lawsuit filed in a California state court in San Francisco County on Thursday claims Apple’s systematic behavior of sexual discrimination stems from a policy that set employees’ salaries based on their previous employment, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Prior to fall of 2017, the complaint states that Apple used job applicants’ provided prior pay rates to set their starting salaries. The following year, Apple asked applicants for their pay expectations. The lawsuit alleges that both of these practices led to lower pay rates for women in the workplace. It also claims the latter policy of asking prospective employees for their pay expectations is “highly correlated with prior pay; studies show that persons asked for pay expectations generally provide a number slightly higher than the pay at their current or last job.”

The pay policy for job applicants created a pattern of lower pay for female employees, the lawsuit alleges: “Apple’s policy or practice of collecting information about pay expectations and using that information to set starting salary has had the effect of perpetuating past pay disparities and paying women less than men performing substantially similar work.” 

The lawsuit goes even further by suggesting that Apple regularly punishes female employees because of “scored categories” of job performances that drive pay bonuses and increases.

“Apple’s performance evaluation system is biased against women because for scored categories such as teamwork and leadership, men are rewarded and women are penalized for the same behaviors,” the complaint reads.

The class action lawsuit seeks payment for damages and “declaratory relief” as well as repayment of low earnings and benefits due to the alleged discrepancies by Apple. The plaintiffs are also asking the court to hold a jury trial to hear their complaint.

In 2022, reporters for the Financial Times talked with several female Apple employees who alleged they were the victims of sexual abuse and bullying on the job. Then when they filed complaints with human resources, they alleged that their cases were either minimized or ignored, or they received retaliation for filing their complaints.

One of the most jarring examples came from Apple’s former legal department director Jayne Whitt who says a colleague hacked into her devices and issued death threats. She filed a complaint with HR and was assured action would be taken. Whitt claims that Apple’s HR team not only failed to even reprimand the employee but they eventually fired her. She blew the whistle on Apple in an online essay describing the situation that prompted a wave of support and similar stories from other female Apple employees.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-hit-with-lawsuit-for-allegedly-underpaying-female-employees-214538519.html?src=rss

LinkedIn’s AI job coach can write your cover letters and edit your resumé

Last year, LinkedIn began experimenting with AI-powered tools for job seekers on its platform. Now the company has added a bunch of new capabilities for its premium subscribers who are #OpentoWork, including personalized resumé, AI-assisted cover letters and more conversational job searches.

The changes are meant to speed up some of the most tedious aspects of looking for a new role. For example, the revamped job search feature now allows you to look for roles with queries like “find me a marketing job that’s fully remote and pays at least $100,000 a year,” or “find business development roles in biotech.” Those are all relatively simple descriptions but anyone who has searched for jobs on LinkedIn (without the help of AI) knows that it can often be a struggle to narrow down job listings with keywords.

Once you find a role you’re interested in, the built-in assistant can give you feedback on your qualifications and help with your application. You can upload a copy of your current resumé and LinkedIn’s AI will provide tips on what to update based on the job description. This can include suggestions on specific experiences to highlight or the ability to rewrite entire sections of the document. Likewise, LinkedIn can generate cover letters based on your experience and the job you want to apply for.

LinkedIn Job Seeker AI
LinkedIn

The company gave me a preview of these tools and I thought it did a surprisingly decent job for a first attempt at a cover letter. It incorporated specific details from my profile and the tone didn’t feel as robotic as much of the AI-written text I’ve encountered. Of course, as a journalist, I like to believe I can still write a better cover letter than an AI. But, I can see how the tool could be useful for people applying to dozens of jobs at once, especially since many companies use AI software to whittle down applications anyway.

LinkedIn product manager Rohan Rajiv says that these tools are meant to be more of a jumping off point for users rather than an all-in-one solution. “What we want to do is make it easy for folks who have a difficult time telling their story, have a difficult time staring at a blank screen trying to put something together to at least get started,” he tells Engadget.

But he also notes that the company is still in the relatively early stages of its AI push and it could eventually automate more of the job application process. “The next horizon is going to be … can you just do that for me,” he says. “You can almost imagine people thinking about it from an agent standpoint, and helping you get things done.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/linkedins-ai-job-coach-can-write-your-cover-letters-and-edit-your-resume-130033553.html?src=rss

Elon Musk sued for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by former SpaceX engineers

Eight former SpaceX engineers filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk on Wednesday, accusing the CEO of sexual harassment and retaliation. The same group of fired employees have also filed complaints with the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) about SpaceX’s alleged retaliation. Bloomberg first reported on the lawsuit.

“Musk knowingly and purposefully created an unwelcome hostile work environment based upon his conduct of interjecting into the workplace vile sexual photographs, memes, and commentary that demeaned women and/or the LGBTQ+ community,” the eight former employees wrote in Wednesday’s filing.

The former SpaceX engineers said some of them were harassed by other co-workers who “mimicked Musk’s posts,” in an alleged example of mob bullying under the influence of their superior’s behavior. The plaintiffs wrote that this “created a wildly uncomfortable hostile work environment.”

The group worked together on an open letter in 2022, highlighting the Tesla founder’s allegedly problematic behavior. They say they were fired in retaliation for that essay.

According to Bloomberg, the filing says the former SpaceX engineers have reason to believe Musk made the decision to fire them in retaliation for their letter. The complaint claims that when a SpaceX HR official suggested the company conduct a formal investigation before taking any decisive action, Musk replied, “I don’t care — fire them.”

The engineers’ case with the NLRB has been held up by an appeals court injunction despite the board agreeing that SpaceX illegally retaliated against them. SpaceX sued the agency in January, calling its structure “unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit follows a report on Tuesday detailing allegations that Musk had sexual relations with two female employees and asked a third to have his babies.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-sued-for-sexual-harassment-and-retaliation-by-former-spacex-engineers-190846047.html?src=rss