Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

Judge dismisses X’s lawsuit against anti-hate group

Posted on by

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that researches hate speech on the Elon Musk-owned platform. In the decision, the judge said that the lawsuit was an attempt to “punish” the organization for criticizing the company.

X sued the CCDH last summer, accusing the group of “scraping” its platform as part of a “scare campaign” to hurt its advertising business. The group had published research claiming X was failing to act on reports of hate speech, and was in some cases boosting such content.

In a ruling, federal judge Charles Breyer said that “this case is about punishing” CCDH for publishing unflattering research. “It is clear to the Court that if X Corp. was indeed motived to spend money in response to CCDH’s scraping in 2023, it was not because of the harm such scraping posed to the X platform, but because of the harm it posed to X Corp.’s image,” Breyer wrote. “X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others.”

X said it planned to appeal the decision.

In a statement, CCDH CEO Imram Ahmed said that the ruling “affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors.” He added that “it is now abundantly clear that we need federal transparency laws” that would require online platforms to make data available to independent researchers.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/judge-dismisses-xs-lawsuit-against-anti-hate-group-173048754.html?src=rss

The EU is investigating Apple, Meta and Google over fees and self-preferencing

Posted on by

Uh oh. Apple, Meta and Google could be in hot water in Europe over their attempts to stand within the letter, if not exactly the spirit, of the bloc's sweeping new Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Core to the probe are concerns Google parent Alphabet and Apple have not given sufficiently allowed "app developers to “steer” consumers to offers outside the gatekeepers' app stores, free of charge," according to the European Commission (the European Union's executive arm). As things currently stand, the new rules from these tech companies may "constrain ... developers' ability to freely communicate and promote offers and directly conclude contracts, including by imposing various charges." 

The European Commission said it also believes Alphabet's search may still engage in self-preferencing of Google-owned services, like Google Flights. Apple, it said, may not be allowing users meaningful choice in selecting alternatives to default iOS services or preferences — the ability to uninstall any pre-loaded app, for instance. Also caught up in the probe is Meta, in relation to its new EU scheme wherein users can opt out of ads, but only for a price.   

The European Commission had, in the lead up to these probes, been hinting at a possible investigation into Apple and Google. In January, Apple announced a raft of App Store changes to comply with the DMA, which required it to (among other things) enable alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the EU and to let developers direct users to third-party payment systems. Included in Apple's updates was a new "core technology fee" of €0.50 that developers will have to pay per user per year after the first 1 million installs of an app — even if a user downloads the software from a third-party marketplace. Google is also charging developers fees in the EU if they bypass the Play Store.

Many of Apple's rivals slammed the App Store changes. Some criticized the company's fees for third-party payments in the US too.

The EU, perhaps unsurprisingly, is keeping a close eye on how companies subject to DMA rules are complying (or not) with them. "There are things that we take a keen interest in, for instance, if the new Apple fee structure will de facto not make it in any way attractive to use the benefits of the DMA," antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager told Reuters on March 19. "That kind of thing is what we will be investigating."

Today's announcement also hints that Apple's "new fee structure" for alternative app stores may still be on the docket for future intervention, along with, apparently, Amazon's possible self-preferencing in its digital storefront. 

In statements to press Apple has said it's "confident our plan complies with the DMA" while Alphabet has said it will "continue to defend our approach in the coming months." A Meta spokesperson called its paid, ad-free option "a well-established business model across many industries."

News of the sweeping probe comes soon after the US Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The government and more than a dozen states accused Apple of fostering a mobile app monopoly, claiming the company makes it too difficult for rivals to compete with its own products and services. 

It might be a while before we learn the outcome of the EU probes. According to Bloomberg, EC investigators try to reach a final decision within a year of starting a formal investigation. If officials determine that these companies aren't complying with the DMA, they face hefty penalties. 

Under the law, the EU can fine a company up to 10 percent of its total annual revenue, and up to 20 percent for repeated violations. Such penalties could make the $2 billion that the EU recently fined Apple for allegedly suppressing iTunes and Apple Music competitors like Spotify look like pocket change.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-eu-is-investigating-apple-meta-and-google-over-fees-and-self-preferencing-124147179.html?src=rss

Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its infamous ‘walled garden’

Posted on by

The US Department of Justice and more than a dozen states have filed a lawsuit against Apple in federal court, accusing it of violating antitrust laws by making its hardware and software products largely inaccessible to competitors. Apple's "walled garden" approach to business, as it's so often called, makes it difficult for rivals to compete and for customers to switch to other companies' products. The lawsuit comes on the heels of the European Commission slapping Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) fine. Apple, the commission concluded, prevented music streaming developers from "informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available" outside the App Store.

"Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone," Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release published by CNN. "Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others."

The complaint alleges that Apple has illegally monopolized the software app market, with the DOJ suggesting that the company used its control over iOS to block innovative apps and cloud streaming services from the public. The suit also suggests that Apple has made it harder for Android messages to appear on iPhones, obstructed rival payment platforms and restricted how competing smartphones integrated with iOS devices. 

"By stifling these technologies, and many others," the complaint reads, “Apple reinforces the moat around its smartphone monopoly not by making its products more attractive to users, but by discouraging innovation that threatens Apple’s smartphone monopoly."

Apple has issued a statement regarding the suit, suggesting that it would hinder its ability to make the types of gadgets and software that made it one of the most valuable companies in the world. The company also said the lawsuit, if successful, would "set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology."

The New York Times first reported that the DOJ, which was apparently approaching the conclusion of a probe into the company, could file "a sweeping antitrust case" against Apple back in January. While the department initially focused on the the strategies the company took to protect the iPhone's dominance, it reportedly expanded its investigation's scope to cover other aspects of Apple's business. According to The Times', the DOJ also looked into how the Apple Watch is capable of deeper integration with the iPhone than rival wearables' and the fact that competing operating systems can't access the company's iMessage service. 

This lawsuit against Apple is just the latest proof of the government's increasing scrutiny on the biggest players in the tech industry. The Justice Department had previously accused Google of maintaining an unfair monopoly over search and search-related advertising, and it also filed a separate antitrust lawsuit accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the digital ads market. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of certain monopolistic practices that include prohibiting merchants from offering their goods at lower prices on other platforms. The commission and more than 40 US states sued Meta in 2020, as well, for buying former rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/justice-department-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-over-its-infamous-walled-garden-144834571.html?src=rss

Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its infamous ‘walled garden’

Posted on by

The US Department of Justice and more than a dozen states have filed a lawsuit against Apple in federal court, accusing it of violating antitrust laws by making its hardware and software products largely inaccessible to competitors. Apple's "walled garden" approach to business, as it's so often called, makes it difficult for rivals to compete and for customers to switch to other companies' products. The lawsuit comes on the heels of the European Commission slapping Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) fine. Apple, the commission concluded, prevented music streaming developers from "informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available" outside the App Store.

"Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone," Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release published by CNN. "Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others."

The complaint alleges that Apple has illegally monopolized the software app market, with the DOJ suggesting that the company used its control over iOS to block innovative apps and cloud streaming services from the public. The suit also suggests that Apple has made it harder for Android messages to appear on iPhones, obstructed rival payment platforms and restricted how competing smartphones integrated with iOS devices. 

"By stifling these technologies, and many others," the complaint reads, “Apple reinforces the moat around its smartphone monopoly not by making its products more attractive to users, but by discouraging innovation that threatens Apple’s smartphone monopoly."

Apple has issued a statement regarding the suit, suggesting that it would hinder its ability to make the types of gadgets and software that made it one of the most valuable companies in the world. The company also said the lawsuit, if successful, would "set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology."

The New York Times first reported that the DOJ, which was apparently approaching the conclusion of a probe into the company, could file "a sweeping antitrust case" against Apple back in January. While the department initially focused on the the strategies the company took to protect the iPhone's dominance, it reportedly expanded its investigation's scope to cover other aspects of Apple's business. According to The Times', the DOJ also looked into how the Apple Watch is capable of deeper integration with the iPhone than rival wearables' and the fact that competing operating systems can't access the company's iMessage service. 

This lawsuit against Apple is just the latest proof of the government's increasing scrutiny on the biggest players in the tech industry. The Justice Department had previously accused Google of maintaining an unfair monopoly over search and search-related advertising, and it also filed a separate antitrust lawsuit accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the digital ads market. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of certain monopolistic practices that include prohibiting merchants from offering their goods at lower prices on other platforms. The commission and more than 40 US states sued Meta in 2020, as well, for buying former rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/justice-department-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-over-its-infamous-walled-garden-144834571.html?src=rss

Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group come out swinging against Apple’s third-party payment rules

Posted on by

Several notable names have joined Epic Games in taking a stance against Apple's decision to charge a fee for iOS payments made outside of the App Store. Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group filed an amicus brief in the case, as The Wall Street Journal reports. That lends some heavyweight backing to Epic's cause.

Apple was forced to enable third-party payments on iOS due to the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) and a court ruling in the US. It also has to allow alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the EU. The company takes up to a 30 percent cut of App Store purchases. Perhaps fearing that it was about to lose out on a significant chunk of commission, Apple said it would charge a fee of up to 27 percent when developers process purchases outside of the App Store.

Epic this month filed a petition asking District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to enforce a permanent injunction she issued against Apple in 2021 as part of her ruling in the case between the two companies. The decision compelled Apple to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment systems.

Most of Rogers' ruling was in Apple's favor, however, and both companies appealed the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, in January, the highest court in the US declined to hear the appeals. That means Rogers' permanent injunction against Apple stood, but Epic was not happy about the way Apple implemented the third-party payment changes.

The four companies supporting Epic's petition claim that the fee Apple is charging on external payments effectively leaves the previous rules in place. "The Apple Plan comports with neither the letter nor the spirit of this Court's mandate," their brief states.

As X put it, the 27 percent fee doesn't give developers much incentive to link to external payment methods. Microsoft, which has been working on its own mobile game store, noted that Apple's latest policy limits its ability to offer users subscriptions and discounts. Match Group argued that Apple's decision will affect many developers and users, and that it stymies the court's attempt to offer consumers competition on pricing.

Meta, meanwhile, charges more for its ad-free plans and boosted posts on its iOS apps than it does on the web. (The ad-free subscription is also more expensive in the company's Android apps, as Google takes a cut of in-app payments too). Meta states in the amicus brief that it ought to be able to direct users to other payment options for boosted posts.

Apple claims to have complied with the court order. According to the Journal, the company (which is reportedly facing a Justice Department antitrust case) says its current external link policies are important to protect user privacy and security. Apple has also been dinged over its compliance with the DMA, with critics suggesting the company might be adhering to the letter of the law, but not its spirit. 

For what it's worth, Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group filed their petition one day after the EU's antitrust chief warned Apple over new fees it's charging developers (and Meta over its ad-free subscription). Margrethe Vestager told Reuters that feedback from developers would play an important factor in whether the bloc investages Apple, Meta or any other company subject to the DMA's rules. She noted that she had received "quite a lot" of comments from third parties.

Meanwhile, Epic is gearing up to debut its game store on both iOS and Android later this year. The company said at the Game Developer Conference that the store would be cross-platform between mobile, PC and macOS. The company plans to charge developers of mobile games the same 12 percent cut it takes from PC game sales.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-microsoft-x-and-match-group-come-out-swinging-against-apples-third-party-payment-rules-200705867.html?src=rss

First cyberflasher convicted in England is sentenced to 66 weeks in jail

Posted on by

A man has been jailed for 66 weeks in England after pleading guilty to cyberflashing. Nicholas Hawkes is the first person to be convicted of the crime in the country under the Online Safety Act. Cyberflashing (sending unsolicited photos of genitalia) was outlawed in England and Wales under the law on January 31.

“Cyberflashing is a serious crime which leaves a lasting impact on victims, but all too often it can be dismissed as thoughtless ‘banter’ or a harmless joke," prosecutor Hannah von Dadelzsen said in a statement. “Just as those who commit indecent exposure in the physical world can expect to face the consequences, so too should offenders who commit their crimes online; hiding behind a screen does not hide you from the law."

Registered sex offender Hawkes, of Basildon, Essex, admitted to sending a photo of his genitals to a 15-year-old girl and a woman in early February. The woman took screenshots of the image and reported it to police. Cyberflashing victims receive lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act after reporting such crimes.

Hawkes pleaded guilty on February 12 to two counts of sending a photograph or film of genitals to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. He was held in custody until his sentencing on Tuesday. Hawkes was jailed for one year for the cyberflashing counts, and 14 weeks for breaching a previous order. He was convicted last year of exposure and sexual activity with a child under 16 and was sentenced to a community order.

Some other jurisdictions have similar laws against cyberflashing. Scotland banned it in 2010 and Northern Ireland followed suit last year. Singapore made it a crime in 2019, while the practice is illegal in some circumstances in Australia. Some states have moved to tackle cyberflashing too, including California, Virginia and Texas.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/first-cyberflasher-convicted-in-england-is-sentenced-to-66-weeks-in-jail-182615668.html?src=rss

First cyberflasher convicted in England is sentenced to 66 weeks in jail

Posted on by

A man has been jailed for 66 weeks in England after pleading guilty to cyberflashing. Nicholas Hawkes is the first person to be convicted of the crime in the country under the Online Safety Act. Cyberflashing (sending unsolicited photos of genitalia) was outlawed in England and Wales under the law on January 31.

“Cyberflashing is a serious crime which leaves a lasting impact on victims, but all too often it can be dismissed as thoughtless ‘banter’ or a harmless joke," prosecutor Hannah von Dadelzsen said in a statement. “Just as those who commit indecent exposure in the physical world can expect to face the consequences, so too should offenders who commit their crimes online; hiding behind a screen does not hide you from the law."

Registered sex offender Hawkes, of Basildon, Essex, admitted to sending a photo of his genitals to a 15-year-old girl and a woman in early February. The woman took screenshots of the image and reported it to police. Cyberflashing victims receive lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences Act after reporting such crimes.

Hawkes pleaded guilty on February 12 to two counts of sending a photograph or film of genitals to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. He was held in custody until his sentencing on Tuesday. Hawkes was jailed for one year for the cyberflashing counts, and 14 weeks for breaching a previous order. He was convicted last year of exposure and sexual activity with a child under 16 and was sentenced to a community order.

Some other jurisdictions have similar laws against cyberflashing. Scotland banned it in 2010 and Northern Ireland followed suit last year. Singapore made it a crime in 2019, while the practice is illegal in some circumstances in Australia. Some states have moved to tackle cyberflashing too, including California, Virginia and Texas.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/first-cyberflasher-convicted-in-england-is-sentenced-to-66-weeks-in-jail-182615668.html?src=rss

Apple can’t get out of facing a class-action lawsuit over AirTags stalking claims

Posted on by

A San Francisco judge has ruled that Apple must face a lawsuit accusing the company of negligence over the potential stalking risks created by its AirTags, Bloomberg reports. While the bulk of the roughly three dozen claims in the class-action suit were dismissed, US District Judge Vince Chhabria denied Apple’s bid to have the suit thrown out based on three plaintiffs’ claims alleging that “when they were stalked, the problems with the AirTag’s safety features were substantial, and that those safety defects caused their injuries.”

While the suit argues that Apple was warned of the potential for its Bluetooth item trackers to be misused and thus should be held liable under California law, Apple disagrees, according to Bloomberg. After it released AirTags, Apple later rolled out safety features designed to thwart stalking attempts, like an update that made it so AirTags would emit a loud sound when they get a certain distance from their owner and notifications about unknown trackers. Apple and Google also last year announced that they’re working together on developing industry standards to proactively fight the misuse of tracking devices.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit argues that AirTags have “become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers,” Bloomberg reports. The case was filed in the Northern California district court.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-cant-get-out-of-facing-a-class-action-lawsuit-over-airtags-stalking-claims-184329639.html?src=rss

Tesla settles long-running racial discrimination court battle with former worker

Posted on by

Owen Diaz's lengthy court battle against Tesla is officially over, now that both parties have agreed on a settlement. Attorney Lawrence Organ, Diaz's lawyer, told CNBC that that the "parties have reached an amicable resolution of their disputes," but that the "terms of the settlement are confidential." If you've been following this case for a while now, that means you won't get to find out how much Diaz is getting after the massive $137 million in damages he was originally awarded got dramatically lowered to $3.2 million. 

The former elevator operator famously sued the automaker for enabling a racist workplace, saying that he faced discrimination "straight from the Jim Crow era" as a Black individual. He said his fellow workers left left drawings of swastika and racist graffiti, such as ones of Inki the Caveman, on his workspace and around Tesla's Fremont assembly plant. Diaz also said that he and other Black workers were subjected to racial slurs, and that the company failed to address thes behaviors despite repeated complaints. 

In 2021, a San Francisco court ordered Tesla to pay $137 million in damages to its former worker, which was one of the highest amounts awarded to a plaintiff suing on the basis of discrimination. However, a judge during the appeals that followed found the amount excessive and lowered it to $15 million, even though he upheld the original jury's verdict. The parties went back into trial after Diaz refused the lowered amount, but a jury lowered the damages Tesla must pay even further to $3.2 million. At the time, Diaz's lawyer said he was wrongly attacked by the defense and that they had already requested a new trial due to misconduct. It looks like both parties have since agreed to negotiate behind closed doors. 

While Diaz's case is done, Organ also represents Marcus Vaughn, who filed another lawsuit against the automaker for racial harassment. Vaughn called Tesla's Fremont plant a "hotbed for racist behavior" and petitioned the court last year to give his lawsuit class action status so that he could add 240 Black colleagues to his complaint. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tesla-settles-long-running-racial-discrimination-court-battle-with-former-worker-133036456.html?src=rss

Tesla settles long-running racial discrimination court battle with former worker

Posted on by

Owen Diaz's lengthy court battle against Tesla is officially over, now that both parties have agreed on a settlement. Attorney Lawrence Organ, Diaz's lawyer, told CNBC that that the "parties have reached an amicable resolution of their disputes," but that the "terms of the settlement are confidential." If you've been following this case for a while now, that means you won't get to find out how much Diaz is getting after the massive $137 million in damages he was originally awarded got dramatically lowered to $3.2 million. 

The former elevator operator famously sued the automaker for enabling a racist workplace, saying that he faced discrimination "straight from the Jim Crow era" as a Black individual. He said his fellow workers left left drawings of swastika and racist graffiti, such as ones of Inki the Caveman, on his workspace and around Tesla's Fremont assembly plant. Diaz also said that he and other Black workers were subjected to racial slurs, and that the company failed to address thes behaviors despite repeated complaints. 

In 2021, a San Francisco court ordered Tesla to pay $137 million in damages to its former worker, which was one of the highest amounts awarded to a plaintiff suing on the basis of discrimination. However, a judge during the appeals that followed found the amount excessive and lowered it to $15 million, even though he upheld the original jury's verdict. The parties went back into trial after Diaz refused the lowered amount, but a jury lowered the damages Tesla must pay even further to $3.2 million. At the time, Diaz's lawyer said he was wrongly attacked by the defense and that they had already requested a new trial due to misconduct. It looks like both parties have since agreed to negotiate behind closed doors. 

While Diaz's case is done, Organ also represents Marcus Vaughn, who filed another lawsuit against the automaker for racial harassment. Vaughn called Tesla's Fremont plant a "hotbed for racist behavior" and petitioned the court last year to give his lawsuit class action status so that he could add 240 Black colleagues to his complaint. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tesla-settles-long-running-racial-discrimination-court-battle-with-former-worker-133036456.html?src=rss