Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

How small claims court became Meta’s customer service hotline

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

The FTC has referred its child privacy case against TikTok to the Justice Department

Posted on by

The Federal Trade Commission has referred its complaint against TikTok to the Justice Department after a long-running investigation into the company’s privacy and security practices. “Our investigation found reason to believe that TikTok is violating or about to violate the FTC Act and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a post on X.

In a longer statement shared by the FTC, the regulator noted its investigation into TikTok after a 2019 privacy settlement related to Musical.ly, the app acquired by ByteDance that eventually became TikTok. The FTC “also investigated additional potential violations of COPPA and the FTC Act,” it said. It’s not clear exactly what the FTC turned up, though Politico reported earlier this year that the regulator was also looking into whether TikTok had misled users about whether their personal data was accessible to people in China.

The statement itself is a somewhat unusual move for the FTC, which acknowledged that it doesn't typically publicize its referral decisions. It said it believed doing so in this case “was in the public interest.” The referral is likely to ramp up pressure on TikTok, which is also fighting a legal battle against the US government to avoid a potential ban. Lawmakers and other officials have alleged the app poses a national security threat due to its ties to China.

A TikTok spokesperson told Engadget in a statement that the company was “disappointed” with the FTC’s decision. "We've been working with the FTC for more than a year to address its concerns,” the spokesperson said. “We're disappointed the agency is pursuing litigation instead of continuing to work with us on a reasonable solution. We strongly disagree with the FTC's allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed. We're proud of and remain deeply committed to the work we've done to protect children and we will continue to update and improve our product.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-ftc-has-referred-its-child-privacy-case-against-tiktok-to-the-justice-department-211542778.html?src=rss

Amazon faces nearly $6 million in fines over California labor law violations

Posted on by

The California Labor Commissioner's office has fined Amazon $5,901,700 for infractions related to a law designed to protect warehouse workers. Under the state's AB-701 law, large companies are required to tell warehouse or distribution center workers in writing what their expected quotas are, including how often they should perform particular tasks, and what consequences they may face for failing to meet those quotas.

This law was a reaction to stories from Amazon workers who said they would skip bathroom breaks or risk injury in order to maximize their output. "The hardworking warehouse employees who have helped sustain us during these unprecedented times should not have to risk injury or face punishment as a result of exploitative quotas that violate basic health and safety," Governor Gavin Newsom said when he signed the bill in 2021.

According to the California Labor Commissioner, Amazon failed to meet those rules at two of its facilities in the cities of Moreno Valley and Redlands, with 59,017 violations logged during the labor office's inspections. It's one of the first big fines levied thanks to AB-701, which took effect in January 2022. The tech giant claimed it did not need to provide written information because it uses a "peer-to-peer system."

"The peer-to-peer system that Amazon was using in these two warehouses is exactly the kind of system that the Warehouse Quotas law was put in place to prevent," Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower said in an official statement. "Undisclosed quotas expose workers to increased pressure to work faster and can lead to higher injury rates and other violations by forcing workers to skip breaks."

The AB701 bill was passed by the state in September 2021, headed up by State Assembly rep Lorena Gonzalez. She was also a part of passing California's AB-5 bill in 2019 to seek better protections for gig workers at companies such as Uber and Lyft.

Amazon spokesperson Maureen Lynch Vogel told Engadget, however, that the company disagrees with the allegations made in the citations and have already appealed the fines. "The truth is, we don't have fixed quotas," Vogel continued. "At Amazon, individual performance is evaluated over a long period of time, in relation to how the entire site’s team is performing. Employees can — and are encouraged to — review their performance whenever they wish. They can always talk to a manager if they’re having trouble finding the information."

Update, June 18, 2024, 8:48PM ET: We've updated this post's headline to correct the fine Amazon is facing. We regret the error. We've also added a statement from Amazon. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/amazon-faces-nearly-6b-in-fines-over-california-labor-law-violations-203238513.html?src=rss

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

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

Posted on by

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

Whistleblower claims Amazon violated UK sanctions by selling facial recognition tech to Russia

Posted on by

An ex-employee has accused Amazon of breaching UK sanctions by selling facial recognition technology to Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine, The Financial Times reported. 

Charles Forrest alleged that he was unfairly dismissed in 2023 after accusing Amazon of wrongdoing on a number of issues between November 2022 and May 2023, according to the article. The allegations were presented to a London employment tribunal as part of a hearing this week. 

Forrest said that Amazon closed a deal with Russian firm VisionLabs to provide access to its Rekognition facial recognition technology. It did that "through what appears to be a shell company based in the Netherlands," according to the tribunal filings. He also accused the company of breaking its self-imposed moratorium on police use of facial recognition tech implemented after the murder of George Floyd.

Amazon denied the allegations. "We believe the claims lack merit and look forward to demonstrating that through the legal process," a spokesperson told the FT. "Based on available evidence and billing records, AWS did not sell Amazon Rekognition services to VisionLabs."

Forrest was let go for "gross misconduct" after refusing to work his contractual hours and failed to respond to emails or attend meetings, Amazon alleged. It denied that Forrest made the sorts of disclosures that would entitle him to whistleblower protections. 

Amazon has denied the contention it provided police with facial recognition technology, and added in a tribunal filing that "a self-imposed moratorium does not amount to a legal obligation."

Update, June 7 2024, 11:14AM ET: An Amazon spokesperson clarified that the company is denying it provided facial recognition capabilities to police, and the last paragraph of this story has been changed to reflect that. The company remains adamant it did not sell that same software to VisionLabs but has declined to provide a statement related to whether VisionLabs obtained those capabilities through an intermediary. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/whistleblower-claims-amazon-violated-uk-sanctions-by-selling-facial-recognition-tech-to-russia-125001230.html?src=rss

FTC launches an antitrust probe into Microsoft’s deal with Inflection AI

Posted on by

Microsoft is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission over its deal with Inflection AI, according to The Wall Street Journal. Back in March, the company hired almost all of Inflection AI's employees, including founders Karén Simonyan and Mustafa Suleyman, who was also a DeepMind cofounder. In addition, Microsoft paid Inflection AI $650 million to license its artificial intelligence technology. Now, the FTC wants to know whether the companies deliberately structured the deal to avoid being the subject of regulatory antitrust review. 

As The Journal notes, companies are required to report any acquisition that's valued at $119 million or more to federal antitrust agencies. The FTC or the Justice Department could then investigate whether the deal stifles competition in the industry and then sue to block the merger or the investment that it deems to be anti-competitive. When companies want to hire all the talent in another firm, they typically buy the other out in an "acquihire." But Microsoft didn't buy Inflection, which denied that the bigger company has any power over it. Ted Shelton, its new COO, told the publication that it still operates as an independent company under new leadership. 

The FTC has already sent out subpoenas to both Microsoft and Inflection, asking for relevant documents over the past two years. If it does determine that the companies entered into an agreement in a way that would give Microsoft control over the other while dodging regulatory review, then Microsoft could be fined, and the transaction could be suspended pending a more in-depth investigation. 

Microsoft provided Engadget with the following statement: "Our agreements with Inflection gave us the opportunity to recruit individuals at Inflection AI and build a team capable of accelerating Microsoft Copilot, while enabling Inflection to continue pursuing its independent business and ambition as an AI studio. We take our legal obligations to report transactions under the HSR Act seriously and are confident that we have complied with those obligations."

US federal agencies have been cracking down on monopolistic practices by the world's largest tech companies over the past few years. To be even more efficient in conducting antitrust investigations involving the current biggest players in artificial intelligence, the agencies have also just struck a deal on how they're dividing their responsibilities. The Justice Department will take the lead in investigations involving NVIDIA, while the FTC will take charge of antitrust probes involving Microsoft and OpenAI.

Update, June 6 2024, 11:46AM ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from Microsoft.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ftc-launches-an-antitrust-probe-into-microsofts-deal-with-inflection-ai-130038896.html?src=rss

Samsung sues Oura to block Oura from suing Samsung over the Galaxy Ring

Posted on by

Samsung has filed a lawsuit against Oura to try to head off intellectual property disputes as the Galaxy Ring launch draws near. The suit notes that Oura has used its patent portfolio to sue smaller wearable tech competitors and has hinted it may do the same against the much larger Samsung. Welcome to the weird modern world of mega-corporations suing startups to prevent them from filing suits of their own.

“Oura’s actions and public statements demonstrate that Oura will continue asserting patent infringement against other entrants into the U.S. smart ring market, including Samsung,” the lawsuit, first reported on by The Verge, reads. “Oura’s immediate response to the announcement of the Galaxy Ring was to point to the purported strength of its intellectual property portfolio.”

The lawsuit claims the Galaxy Ring doesn’t infringe on Oura’s patents. However, in justifying its suit, it lays out a pattern of what it frames as aggressive IP protection by the Finnish startup. It lists cases where Oura sued smaller competitors like Ultrahuman, Circular and RingConn “as soon as, or even before, they entered the U.S. market.”

The document also cites Oura embarking on a media tour immediately following the Galaxy Ring announcement, touting the company’s “over 150 patents.” It specifically calls out patent-related quotes published by TechCrunch and a CNBC interview where Oura CEO Tom Hale hinted the company may use its IP portfolio against Samsung.

The third-generation Oura Ring sitting on a wooden table.
Daniel Cooper for Engadget

Samsung’s legal filing essentially tries to paint Oura as a patent troll, claiming many of the Finnish company’s patent disputes have been for features common to the entire category of smart rings, like electronics, sensors, a battery and scores that weigh health metrics. That approach conjures memories of Samsung’s old patent disputes with Apple. A common theme in those decade-old courtroom battles was Samsung accusing the iPhone maker of holding bogus patents that should never have been granted because they used obvious technologies or methods shared by the entire industry. (It worked with mixed results in those cases.)

Samsung filed its new lawsuit against Oura in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Oura is based in Finland but has a US wing of its operations based in Delaware, including offices in San Francisco with more than 50 employees.

The lawsuit reveals extra detail about Samsung’s Galaxy Ring, which the company first showed off in a render in January before revealing physical models at the Mobile World Congress in February. The document says Samsung only finalized the Galaxy Ring’s design in “mid-May 2024” and plans to enter mass production in mid-June.

It adds that the Galaxy Ring will arrive in the US “in or around August of this year,” which aligns with expectations that the company will launch it at a summer Unpacked event.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/samsung-sues-oura-to-block-oura-from-suing-samsung-over-the-galaxy-ring-203353759.html?src=rss