Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

Google ordered to pay $665 million for anticompetitive practices in Germany

Posted on by

Google may have to fork over 572 million euros, or nearly $665 million, to two German companies for "market abuse," according to a recent ruling from a Berlin court. First reported by Reuters, the tech giant was ordered to pay approximately 465 million euros, or approximately $540 million, to Idealo and another 107 million euros, or roughly $124 million, to Producto, both of which are price comparison platforms based in Germany. According to the ruling, Google abused its dominant market position by favoring Google Shopping in its own search results.

Idealo pursued legal action against Google, claiming that the Alphabet subsidiary was "self-preferencing" its own platforms, which led to unfair market advantages that hindered competitors. The company first demanded at least 3.3 billion euros, or more than $3.8 billion, in damages in February 2025. To counter, Google said it made changes in 2017 that allowed competing shopping platforms the same opportunity as Google Shopping to display ads through Google Search.

Idealo said in a press release that it will continue the legal pressure on Google, claiming that "the amount awarded reflects only a fraction of the actual damage." Albrecht von Sonntag, co-founder and member of Idealo's advisory board, added in a press release that "abuse of dominance must have consequences and must not be a profitable business model that pays off despite fines and damages."

It's not the first time Google has found itself in legal trouble in Europe. Beyond Google Shopping, Google was accused of favoring its own Google Flights and Google Hotels in search results, leading the European Union to threaten massive fines for violating its Digital Markets Act. A month prior, the European Commission fined Google nearly 3 billion euros, or more than $3.4 billion, for its anticompetitive practices in the advertising tech industry.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-ordered-to-pay-665-million-for-anticompetitive-practices-in-germany-184505191.html?src=rss

Google and Epic Games reach settlement for antitrust lawsuit

Posted on by

Google and Epic Games have reached a settlement that would bring their years-long court battle to a close. The companies have filed a proposal in the federal court of San Francisco, asking US District Judge James Donato to approve a modified version of the order he originally imposed on Google when it lost the case. "Together with Epic Games we have filed a proposed set of changes to Android and Google Play that focus on expanding developer choice and flexibility, lowering fees, and encouraging more competition all while keeping users safe," said Sameer Samat, the President of Android Ecosystem at Google, on X. 

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised the proposal for "genuinely [doubling] down on Android's original vision as an open platform to streamline competing store installs globally, reduce service fees for developers on Google Play and enable third-party in-app and web payments." Epic Games sued Google in 2020, accusing it of an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. 

The court sided with Epic Games in late 2023, and Google lost its appeal in July this year. Google tried to ask the Supreme Court to block the injunction Donato handed down, which required the company to make major changes to the Play Store, while it appealed the case again. But the Supreme Court denied its request. That means Google will be prohibited from paying manufacturers and app developers to exclusively install and distribute on the Play Store, respectively. It will also be prohibited from forcing developers to only use its payment system, and it will have to allow third-party app stores to be installed on Android devices. 

Google will still have to follow most of Donato's orders under the proposal, but the companies made some modifications. To start with, they've worked out how to "allow developers and users to seamlessly use alternative payment mechanisms," both in-app and via external links, while adhering to Google's security and safety standards. They've also specified the maximum fees Google can charge for both in-app and linked transactions, which are 9 percent or 20 percent, depending on the type of transaction. This fee cap also depends on when the app in question was installed. Specifically, the commission caps on third party in-app payment systems would only apply to new app installs.

The companies have identified "reasonable, neutral criteria" that third-party stores would be required to meet, as well. Users will easily be able to download stores that meet those criteria so they can compete against the Play Store and each other around the world. 

Samat said that the companies are meeting with Judge Donato on Thursday, and if he approves of the proposal, it "would resolve [the] litigations."

Update, November 5, 2025, 2:22PM ET: This story has been updated with more details on how the fee caps for in-app purchases and linked transactions work.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-and-epic-games-reach-settlement-for-antitrust-lawsuit-120019374.html?src=rss

Nintendo’s patent on summoning fighting NPCs is being reexamined

Posted on by

Nintendo's lawsuit against Palworld just hit a snag. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has ordered a reexamination of a key Nintendo patent expected to be wielded in the case. Games Fray reports that the office is reviewing the Switch maker's patent regarding "summon subcharacter and let it fight in 1 of 2 modes." If we view Nintendo's Palworld lawsuit as a test bed for monopolizing game mechanics, the development can only be seen as a good thing. 

Several factors make the reexamination unusual. First, Nintendo's patent in question (No. 12,403,397) was just granted in September. The review was personally ordered by newly sworn-in USPTO Director John A. Squires. The Trump appointee has historically sided with patent holders, making it harder to contest them. Stranger still, Games Fray says this may be the USPTO's first patent reexamination in over a decade.

Sheep with guns in the game Palworld.
Palworld
Pocketpair

Those ingredients suggest widespread blowback may be the driving force. Although Palworld developer Pocketpair is Nintendo's immediate target, it's easy to see the case opening a Pandora's box where developers fear using well-established game mechanics. Indie developers would be particularly vulnerable. The "slippery slope" commentary practically writes itself.

If Nintendo's patent is ultimately invalidated, we may be able to thank Konami. A 2002 patent application from the maker of Metal Gear and Castlevania was cited as prior art, casting doubt on Nintendo's claim. A separate Nintendo patent, published in 2020, was also listed as possible prior art. Games Fray's report dives much deeper into the legal weeds.

Nintendo now has two months to respond. During that period, third parties can come forward with additional prior art references. As a nervous industry eyes Nintendo's case as a potential test bed for monopolizing game mechanics, don't be shocked if gaming lawyers search far and wide for more examples.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/nintendos-patent-on-summoning-fighting-npcs-is-being-reexamined-180949135.html?src=rss

YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels

Posted on by

Disney's channels have gone dark on YouTube TV after the companies failed to reach an agreement by their October 30 deadline. The affected channels include ESPN, local ABC stations, ABC News, FX, NatGeo, Disney Channel and Freeform. "Last week Disney used the threat of a blackout on YouTube TV as a negotiating tactic to force deal terms that would raise prices on our customers," YouTube said in an announcement on its blog. "They’re now following through on that threat, suspending their content on YouTube TV." YouTube added that Disney's decision harms its subscribers while benefiting its own live TV products, such as Hulu+Live TV and Fubo.

In a statement sent to the Los Angeles Times, however, Disney accused Google's YouTube TV of choosing to deny "subscribers the content they value most by refusing to pay fair rates for [its] channels, including ESPN and ABC." Disney also accused Google of using its market dominance to "eliminate competition and undercut the industry-standard terms" that other pay-TV distributors have agreed to pay for its content. YouTube TV lost access to Disney channels back in 2021, but they were immediately able to strike a deal that restored the channels the very next day. The companies are most likely still trying to negotiate at the moment, but Google says it will offer subscribers a $20 credit if Disney channels remain offline for an extended period of time. 

Google has had to make several similar announcements over the past year. In February, YouTube TV almost lost Paramount content, including CBS, CBS Sports and Nickelodeon, before reaching a last-minute deal. The same thing happened in August with Fox. More recently, Google and NBCUniversal also came to an agreement at the eleventh hour, though YouTube TV lost access to Univision, the largest Spanish-language broadcaster in the US.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/youtube/youtube-tv-loses-espn-abc-and-other-disney-channels-113026329.html?src=rss

Google and Amazon’s Israeli cloud contracts reportedly require them to sidestep legal orders

Posted on by

Chalk this one up under "The most clever (alleged) legal sidesteps this side of Tony Soprano." On Wednesday, The Guardian published a report about a so-called "winking mechanism" regarding Israeli cloud computing contracts with Amazon and Google. The stipulation from 2021's Project Nimbus is said to require the US companies to send coded messages to Israel. According to the report, whenever Google or Amazon secretly complies with an overseas legal request for Israeli data, they're required to send money to Israel. The dollar amount indicates which country issued the request.

The coding system reportedly involves country dialing prefixes. For example, if Google or Amazon hand over Israeli data to the US (dialing code +1), they would send Israel 1,000 shekels. For Italy (code +39), they would send 3,900 shekels. (Out of morbid curiosity, I discovered that the highest dialing code is Uzbekistan's +998.) There's reportedly even a failsafe: If a gag order prevents the companies from using the standard signal, they can notify Israel by sending 100,000 shekels.

The Guardian says Microsoft, which bid for the Nimbus contract, lost out in part because it refused to accept some of Israel's terms.

In a statement to Engadget, an Amazon spokesperson highlighted customer privacy. "We respect the privacy of our customers, and we do not discuss our relationship without their consent, or have visibility into their workloads," they wrote.

The Amazon spokesperson denied that the company has any underhanded workarounds in place. "We have a rigorous global process for responding to lawful and binding orders for requests related to customer data," they said. "[Amazon Web Services] carefully reviews each request to assess any non-disclosure obligations, and we maintain confidentiality in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. While AWS does not disclose customer information in response to government demands unless we're absolutely required to do so, we recognize the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies to investigate serious crimes. We do not have any processes in place to circumvent our confidentiality obligations on lawfully binding orders."

Google also denied any wrongdoing. "The accusations in this reporting are false, and imply that we somehow were involved in illegal activity, which is absurd," a company spokesperson said. "As is common in public sector agreements, an RFP does not reflect a final contract. The idea that we would evade our legal obligations to the US government as a US company, or in any other country, is categorically wrong."

"We've been very clear about the Nimbus contract, what it's directed to, and the Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy that govern it," the Google spokesperson continued. "Nothing has changed. This appears to be yet another attempt to falsely imply otherwise."

We also reached out to the Israeli government for a statement, and we'll update this story if we hear back. The Guardian's full report has much more detail on the alleged leak.

Update, October 29, 2025, 6:29 PM ET: This story has been updated to add a statement from a Google spokesperson.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-and-amazons-israeli-cloud-contracts-reportedly-require-them-to-sidestep-legal-orders-164635805.html?src=rss

OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora’s ‘Cameo’ feature

Posted on by

When OpenAI launched its TikTok-like Sora app, a key feature was "Cameo" that allows people to add any likeness to videos they generate. Now the maker of Cameo, an app that allows you to buy short videos from celebrities, has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of violating its trademark by using the same name, Reuters reported. It claims that OpenAI's use of "Cameo" is likely to cause consumer confusion and dilute its brand. 

"Via the conduct alleged in this Complaint, OpenAI has knowingly co-opted a well-established, federally registered trademark, ignoring... the clear risk of consumer confusion, and the irreparable harm that will be inflicted on Plaintiff’s Cameo trademark rights and brand," the complaint states. 

Open AI is reviewing the complaint, but "disagree[s] that anyone can claim exclusive ownership over the word 'cameo,'" a spokesperson told Reuters. Meanwhile, Cameo's CEO Steven Galanis said it tried to resolve the dispute "amicably," but OpenAI refused to stop using the name.  

Cameo lets users choose from a stable of celebrities — including the likes of Jon Gruden, Lisa Vanderpump and Colin Mochrie — to create short, personalized videos. Prices range from around $30 to $600 per video. 

Sora, meanwhile, uses OpenAI's Sora 2 video generation tech to create and share videos. The app immediately drew attention over potentially unauthorized use of anime, deceased celebrities and other legally protected sources. 

Cameo stated that OpenAI not only used its name, but starting offering its own cameo service using deepfake likenesses of celebrities like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul. "Users seeking a personalized celebrity video [could] use Plaintiff's Cameo service to book talent and receive an authentic, custom video prepared by that celebrity, or use Sora’s 'Cameo' service to create an extremely realistic AI-generated video featuring a celebrity’s likeness," the lawsuit states.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/openai-sued-for-trademark-infringement-over-soras-cameo-feature-113047158.html?src=rss

Snap calls New Mexico’s child safety complaint a ‘sensationalist lawsuit’

Posted on by

Snap has accused New Mexico's attorney general of intentionally looking for adult users seeking sexually explicit content in order to make its app seem unsafe in a filing asking the court to dismiss the state's lawsuit. In the document shared by The Verge, the company questioned the veracity of the state's allegations. The attorney general's office said that while it was using a decoy account supposed to be owned by a 14-year-old girl, it was added by a user named Enzo (Nud15Ans). From that connection, the app allegedly suggested over 91 users, including adults looking for sexual content. Snap said in its motion to dismiss, however, that those "allegations are patently false."

It was the decoy account that searched for and added Enzo, the company wrote. The attorney general's operatives were also the ones who looked for and added accounts with questionable usernames, such as "nudenude_22" and "xxx_tradehot." In addition, Snap is accusing the office of "repeatedly [mischaracterizing]" its internal documents. The office apparently cited a document when it mentioned in its lawsuit that the company "consciously decided not to store child sex abuse images" and when it suggested that it doesn't report and provide those images to law enforcement. Snap denied that it was the case and clarified that it's not allowed to store child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) on its servers. It also said that it turns over such materials to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The New Mexico Department of Justice's director of communications was not impressed with the company's arguments. In a statement sent to The Verge, Lauren Rodriguez accused Snap of focusing on the minor details of the investigation in an "attempt to distract from the serious issues raised in the State’s case." Rodriguez also said that "Snap continues to put profits over protecting children" instead of "addressing... critical issues with real change to their algorithms and design features."

New Mexico came to the conclusion that Snapchat's features "foster the sharing of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and facilitate child sexual exploitation" after a months-long investigation. It reported that it found a "vast network of dark web sites dedicated to sharing stolen, non-consensual sexual images from Snap" and that Snapchat was "by far" the biggest source of images and videos on the dark web sites that it had seen. The attorney general's office called Snapchat "a breeding ground for predators to collect sexually explicit images of children and to find, groom and extort them." Snap employees encounter 10,000 sextortion cases each month, the office's lawsuit said, but the company allegedly doesn't warn users so as not to "strike fear" among them. The complaint accused Snap's upper management of ignoring former trust and safety employees who'd pushed for additional safety mechanisms, as well.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/snap-calls-new-mexicos-child-safety-complaint-a-sensationalist-lawsuit-140034898.html?src=rss

Report: Amazon is likely to face an EU antitrust investigation next year

Posted on by

2025 could be a tense year for Amazon. Reuters reports that, according to its sources, Amazon “will likely” be investigated by the European Union (EU) for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by allegedly promoting and offering its own products ahead of others in its online store.

The decision to launch the investigation will be made by incoming EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera. Her term will start next month following outgoing chief Margrethe Vestager, who is stepping down after serving two terms.

Amazon denies that it violated the DMA. The EU’s antitrust regulators launched an investigation into Apple, Meta and Google in March over issues such as fees and preferential presentation of its own apps on its online stores. The European Commission also hinted that it might be looking into Amazon’s business practices under the new laws.

The DMA took effect last year and establishes criteria for large online platforms to “behave in a far way online and leave room for contestability,” according to the EU’s website. The guidelines prevent big tech companies like Amazon from giving preferential treatment to their own products and services on their platforms.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/report-amazon-is-likely-to-face-an-eu-antitrust-investigation-next-year-214556510.html?src=rss

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will now regulate Apple Pay, Venmo and others

Posted on by

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is no longer regulating just banks, now supervising Apple and other companies offering digital wallets and payment apps. It will focus on companies that handle over 50 million transactions per year and ensure they have "the authority to conduct proactive examinations to ensure companies are complying with the law in these and other areas," the bureau said in a statement. "Supervision also is an important tool for the CFPB to assess risks that can emerge rapidly in this market, including from outages and other issues that could lead to millions of consumers losing access to their funds."

The CFPB will supervise Apple Pay, Google Pay, Venmo and others in the areas of privacy and surveillance, debanking (losing access to their app without notice) and errors and fraud. This could provide more options for opting out of data collection and restricting them from misrepresenting their data protection practices, among other regulations. "Digital payments have gone from novelty to necessity and our oversight must reflect this reality. The rule will help to protect consumer privacy, guard against fraud, and prevent illegal account closures," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. In October, the CFPB fined Apple and Goldman Sachs $89 million over misleading customers and not following through with disputed transactions on the Apple Card. 

The CFPB originally proposed this setup in November 2023, but the final policies have changed. Most notably, businesses originally had to process just five million transactions, rather than the 50 million. It also reduced the number to just count US dollars, rather than a wider scope. The supervision will go into effect 30 days following the Federal Register publication. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-us-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-will-now-regulate-apple-pay-venmo-and-others-132129928.html?src=rss

X adds Twitch to its advertising boycott lawsuit

Posted on by

Twitch is now on the docket for X’s lawsuit against companies that stopped advertising on the social media site. X amended its lawsuit on Monday to include Twitch as a defendant in its lawsuit in a federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, according to Reuters.

The new complaint claims that the gaming stream site owned by Amazon stopped purchasing ads on X at the end of 2022. X alleges that Twitch and other companies conspired with the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) network’s Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative to withhold “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from Elon Musk’s social media company. 

The plaintiff alleges the boycott violated federal antitrust laws and is demanding a jury trial to settle the matter. GARM also announced its discontinuation two days after X filed its lawsuit.

X Corp.’s joint lawsuit first filed in August also includes the WFA, the global food manufacturer Mars Incorporated, the drugstore chain CVS and the Danish energy company Ørsted A/S over the advertising boycott. X also has a lawsuit against the media watchdog group Media Matters for publishing a report showing X displayed ads next to antisemitic content on the platform.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/x-adds-twitch-to-its-advertising-boycott-lawsuit-215540775.html?src=rss