Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

Some Vizio TV owners can claim a share of a $3 million settlement over misleading marketing

Posted on by

Vizio TVs’ “effective” refresh rates have been confusing customers for years, and the company may now owe payments to some buyers who were misled by the term. As spotted by The Verge, Vizio recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California over what plaintiffs claim is “false and misleading” advertising. While some Vizio TVs are marketed as having a “120Hz Effective Refresh Rate” or “240Hz Effective Refresh Rate,” that describes a result achieved using motion clarity technology. Their actual, native refresh rate in most cases is 60Hz.

Vizio has denied any wrongdoing on its part, but agreed to a $3 million settlement covering all Vizio TVs purchased in California that were advertised with the above descriptions, going back to April 30, 2014 and up until the final court judgment. The final approval hearing is right now set for June 20, 2024. People may be entitled to payments of up to $50, but claims must be in by March 30, 2024. The claim form can be found here. Vizio also agreed to stop marketing its TVs this way and to “provide enhanced services and a limited one-year warranty to all Settlement Class Members.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/some-vizio-tv-owners-can-claim-a-share-of-a-3-million-settlement-over-misleading-marketing-220925933.html?src=rss

Some Vizio TV owners can claim a share of a $3 million settlement over misleading marketing

Posted on by

Vizio TVs’ “effective” refresh rates have been confusing customers for years, and the company may now owe payments to some buyers who were misled by the term. As spotted by The Verge, Vizio recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California over what plaintiffs claim is “false and misleading” advertising. While some Vizio TVs are marketed as having a “120Hz Effective Refresh Rate” or “240Hz Effective Refresh Rate,” that describes a result achieved using motion clarity technology. Their actual, native refresh rate in most cases is 60Hz.

Vizio has denied any wrongdoing on its part, but agreed to a $3 million settlement covering all Vizio TVs purchased in California that were advertised with the above descriptions, going back to April 30, 2014 and up until the final court judgment. The final approval hearing is right now set for June 20, 2024. People may be entitled to payments of up to $50, but claims must be in by March 30, 2024. The claim form can be found here. Vizio also agreed to stop marketing its TVs this way and to “provide enhanced services and a limited one-year warranty to all Settlement Class Members.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/some-vizio-tv-owners-can-claim-a-share-of-a-3-million-settlement-over-misleading-marketing-220925933.html?src=rss

Former Trump ‘fixer’ Michael Cohen admits using Google Bard to cite bogus court cases

Posted on by

Donald Trump’s former “fixer,” Michael Cohen, used Google Bard to cite made-up legal cases that ended up in a federal court. The New York Times reported Friday that Cohen admitted in unsealed court papers that he passed on documents referencing bogus cases to his lawyer, who then relayed them to a federal judge. Cohen reportedly wrote in the sworn declaration he hadn’t stayed on top of “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology.”

Cohen’s legal team filed the paperwork in a motion asking for an early end to court supervision from his 2018 campaign finance case, for which he served three years in prison. After Cohen’s attorney, David M. Schwartz, presented the legal documents to the federal court, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Federal District Court said he was having trouble finding the three decisions cited by Schwartz (via Cohen).

Judge Furman told Schwartz that if he couldn’t provide documentation of the cases, the attorney needed to provide “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.” Schwartz must also explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned “for citing nonexistent cases to the court.” Cohen is a former lawyer who was disbarred after pleading guilty to multiple felonies.

Enter Bard. Cohen said he didn’t realize the AI bot “was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not.” Cohen also blamed his lawyer, saying he didn’t realize Schwartz “would drop the cases into his submission wholesale without even confirming that they existed.”

Although lawyers using AI chatbots to cite hallucinated cases makes for easy comedy, this flub could have profound implications for a critical case with potential political ramifications. Cohen is expected to be the star witness in the Manhattan criminal case against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records. The Bard flub gives Trump’s lawyers new ammunition to discredit the onetime fixer.

Cohen joins the company of ChatGPT Lawyer Steven Schwartz, who cited made-up cases (sourced through OpenAI’s chatbot) in a civil case earlier this year. He was allegedly joined by the attorney for Fugees rapper Pras Michel. In October, the artist accused his lawyer of using an AI program he may have had a financial stake in to produce his closing arguments.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/former-trump-fixer-michael-cohen-admits-using-google-bard-to-cite-bogus-court-cases-184125792.html?src=rss

Former Trump ‘fixer’ Michael Cohen admits using Google Bard to cite bogus court cases

Posted on by

Donald Trump’s former “fixer,” Michael Cohen, used Google Bard to cite made-up legal cases that ended up in a federal court. The New York Times reported Friday that Cohen admitted in unsealed court papers that he passed on documents referencing bogus cases to his lawyer, who then relayed them to a federal judge. Cohen reportedly wrote in the sworn declaration he hadn’t stayed on top of “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology.”

Cohen’s legal team filed the paperwork in a motion asking for an early end to court supervision from his 2018 campaign finance case, for which he served three years in prison. After Cohen’s attorney, David M. Schwartz, presented the legal documents to the federal court, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Federal District Court said he was having trouble finding the three decisions cited by Schwartz (via Cohen).

Judge Furman told Schwartz that if he couldn’t provide documentation of the cases, the attorney needed to provide “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.” Schwartz must also explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned “for citing nonexistent cases to the court.” Cohen is a former lawyer who was disbarred after pleading guilty to multiple felonies.

Enter Bard. Cohen said he didn’t realize the AI bot “was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not.” Cohen also blamed his lawyer, saying he didn’t realize Schwartz “would drop the cases into his submission wholesale without even confirming that they existed.”

Although lawyers using AI chatbots to cite hallucinated cases makes for easy comedy, this flub could have profound implications for a critical case with potential political ramifications. Cohen is expected to be the star witness in the Manhattan criminal case against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records. The Bard flub gives Trump’s lawyers new ammunition to discredit the onetime fixer.

Cohen joins the company of ChatGPT Lawyer Steven Schwartz, who cited made-up cases (sourced through OpenAI’s chatbot) in a civil case earlier this year. He was allegedly joined by the attorney for Fugees rapper Pras Michel. In October, the artist accused his lawyer of using an AI program he may have had a financial stake in to produce his closing arguments.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/former-trump-fixer-michael-cohen-admits-using-google-bard-to-cite-bogus-court-cases-184125792.html?src=rss

Federal judge rejects X’s claim that California’s content moderation law violates free speech

Posted on by

A federal judge in California has shot down Elon Musk’s attempt to invalidate a state social media law, first reported by The Verge. The state’s AB 587 requires social companies to publish their content moderation policies, something Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) claimed violated the First Amendment. US District Judge William Shubb wrote on Thursday, “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

X’s lawyers had argued the law was unconstitutional and would lead to censorship. AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in its lawsuit, filed in September. The company claimed the law’s “true intent” was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

Judge Shubb saw things differently. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual,” he wrote. “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories.”

He continued, “The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”

Shubb concluded that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta met the burden of demonstrating the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

It’s been a rocky year for X in Musk’s first year of ownership. The company changed its name, hired a new CEO, launched a snarky AI chatbot, brought back a notorious conspiracy theorist and bled money as the ad industry got cold feet about brands sitting next to content from Nazi sympathizers. Oh, and the EU has opened formal infringement proceedings against the company formerly known as Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/federal-judge-rejects-xs-claim-that-californias-content-moderation-law-violates-free-speech-171713008.html?src=rss

Federal judge rejects X’s claim that California’s content moderation law violates free speech

Posted on by

A federal judge in California has shot down Elon Musk’s attempt to invalidate a state social media law, first reported by The Verge. The state’s AB 587 requires social companies to publish their content moderation policies, something Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) claimed violated the First Amendment. US District Judge William Shubb wrote on Thursday, “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

X’s lawyers had argued the law was unconstitutional and would lead to censorship. AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in its lawsuit, filed in September. The company claimed the law’s “true intent” was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

Judge Shubb saw things differently. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual,” he wrote. “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories.”

He continued, “The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”

Shubb concluded that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta met the burden of demonstrating the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

It’s been a rocky year for X in Musk’s first year of ownership. The company changed its name, hired a new CEO, launched a snarky AI chatbot, brought back a notorious conspiracy theorist and bled money as the ad industry got cold feet about brands sitting next to content from Nazi sympathizers. Oh, and the EU has opened formal infringement proceedings against the company formerly known as Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/federal-judge-rejects-xs-claim-that-californias-content-moderation-law-violates-free-speech-171713008.html?src=rss

Google agrees to settle $5 billion lawsuit accusing it of tracking Incognito users

Posted on by

In 2020, Google was hit with a lawsuit that accused it of tracking Chrome users' activities even when they were using Incognito mode. Now, after a failed attempt to get it dismissed, the company has agreed to settle the complaint that originally sought $5 billion in damages. According to Reuters and The Washington Post, neither side has made the details of the settlement public, but they've already agreed to the terms that they're presenting to the court for approval in February. 

When the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, they said Google used tools like its Analytics product, apps and browser plug-ins to monitor users. They reasoned that by tracking someone on Incognito, the company was falsely making people believe that they could control the information that they were willing to share with it. At the time, a Google spokesperson said that while Incognito mode doesn't save a user's activity on their device, websites could still collect their information during the session. 

The lawsuit's plaintiffs presented internal emails that allegedly showed conversations between Google execs proving that the company monitored Incognito browser usage to sell ads and track web traffic. Their complaint accused Google of violating federal wire-tapping and California privacy laws and was asking up to $5,000 per affected user. They claimed that millions of people who'd been using Incognito since 2016 had likely been affected, which explains the massive damages they were seeking from the company. Google has likely agreed to settle for an amount lower than $5 billion, but it has yet to reveal details about the agreement and has yet to get back to Engadget with an official statement. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-agrees-to-settle-5-billion-lawsuit-accusing-it-of-tracking-incognito-users-042435935.html?src=rss

The Apple Watch import ban is paused — for now

Posted on by

A federal appeals court in Washington D.C. has allowed Apple to continue importing the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 models on Wednesday. The court’s decision comes a day after Apple filed an appeal against a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) to ban imports of both models of the Apple Watch, which are at the heart of a patent dispute.

The court’s ruling is temporary. It has given the ITC until January 10 to respond to Apple’s motion for a longer-term pause on the ban during the appeals process, Reuters reported. This means that Apple should be able to resume Apple Watch sales on its website and in Apple Stores in the US, something that the company had stopped doing last week. 

Hours after this story was published, Apple told Engadget that the company would, indeed, start selling the Apple Watch in the US again. “We are thrilled to return the full Apple Watch lineup to customers in time for the new year," an Apple spokeswoman said in a statement. "Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, including the blood oxygen feature, will become available for purchase again in the United States at Apple Stores starting today and from apple.com tomorrow by 12pm PT. Apple’s teams have worked tirelessly over many years to develop technology that empowers users with industry-leading health, wellness and safety features and we are pleased the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stayed the exclusion order while it considers our request to stay the order pending our full appeal.”

The Watch side of Apple's business generates about $17 billion a year, according to Bloomberg. In October, the ITC determined that Apple violated two patents belonging to another California-based company called Masimo. Both patents revolved around the blood-oxygen sensor that Apple has included in most models of the Watch since 2020. The ITC denied Apple’s appeal against its decision, sending the case all the way to the White House for a Presidential Review. President Biden, however, did not veto the ITC’s decision, which meant that the ban officially went into effect last week.

In its appeal filed on Tuesday, Apple claimed that the company will “suffer irreparable harm” if the ban continued. The company is currently exploring redesigning the blood oxygen sensors in its smartwatch after both the ITC and Masimo said that a software fix, which the company is scrambling to issue, would be insufficient to resolve the patent dispute.

Update, December 27 2023, 5:49PM ET: This story was updated with a statement from Apple.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-apple-watch-import-ban-is-paused--for-now-183332952.html?src=rss

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

Posted on by

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for using published news articles to train its artificial intelligence chatbots without an agreement that compensates it for its intellectual property. The lawsuit, which was filed in a Federal District Court in Manhattan, marks the first time a major news organization has pursued the ChatGPT developers for copyright infringement. The NYT did not specify how much it seeks in payout from the companies but that “this action seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages.”

The NYT claims that OpenAI and Microsoft, the makers of Chat GPT and Copilot, “seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism” without having any licensing agreements. In one part of the complaint, the NYT highlights that its domain (www.nytimes.com) was the most used proprietary source mined for content to train GPT-3.

It alleges more than 66 million records, ranging from breaking news articles to op-eds, published across the NYT websites and other affiliated brands were used to train the AI models. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants in the case have used “almost a century’s worth of copyrighted content,” causing significant harm to the Times’ bottom line. The NYT also says that OpenAI and Microsoft’s products can “generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.” This mirrors other complaints from comedians and authors like Sarah Silverman and Julian Sancton who claim OpenAI has profited off their works.

"We respect the rights of content creators and owners and are committed to working with them to ensure they benefit from AI technology and new revenue models," an OpenAI spokesperson told Engadget. In an email, the representative explained that the two parties were engaged in ongoing "productive conversations" and the company described the lawsuit as unexpected. "We are surprised and disappointed with this development," the OpenAI spokesperson told Engadget. Still, OpenAI is hopeful that the two will find a "mutually beneficial way to work together."

If the lawsuit makes any headway, it could create opportunities for other publishers to pursue similar legal action and make training AI models for commercial purposes more costly. Competitors in the space, like CNN and BBC News have already tried limiting what data AI web crawlers can scrape for training and development purposes.

While it’s unclear if the NYT is open to a licensing agreement after its earlier negotiations failed, leading to the lawsuit, OpenAI has reached a few deals recently. This month, it agreed to pay publisher Axel Springer for access to its content in a deal projected to be worth millions. And articles from Politico and Business Insider will be made available to train OpenAI’s next gen AI tools as part of a three year deal. It also previously made a deal with the AP to use its archival content dating back to 1985. Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment.

Update, December 27 2023, 8:36 PM ET: This story has been to include comments from an OpenAI spokesperson on the lawsuit.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-new-york-times-is-suing-openai-and-microsoft-for-copyright-infringement-181212615.html?src=rss

The Apple Watch ban is here: Why Apple is no longer selling the Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra

Posted on by

You can't buy the Apple Watch Series 9 and the Ultra 2 from Apple's online store anymore — and as of December 24, they're no longer available from the company's retail outlets. Here's why.

Why is there an Apple Watch ban?

Apple has pulled the watch models from its website after the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) ordered the company to stop selling them in the US.

The ITC issued the Apple Watch ban after siding with Masimo, a medical technology company, which sued Apple in 2021 for allegedly infringing on five patents related to light-based blood oxygen monitoring. In October, the ITC upheld a judge's ruling from earlier this year that the Apple Watch did violate Masimo's patents. Both the affected models come with the feature, but older models with the capability are not included in the sales ban. Apple started offering blood oxygen monitoring with the Watch Series 6. 

The ITC had upheld a judge’s previous ruling from earlier this year that Apple did violate Masimo’s patents. Apple is appealing the decision and tried to convince the commission to put a pause on the ban until it’s done. However, the ITC has denied the request, meaning the ban is pushing through unless the president himself steps in and vetoes the order. The US Trade Representative is reviewing the ITC’s decision, as well, and could choose to disapprove it due to policy reasons.

Masimo originally sued Apple in 2020 for allegedly stealing trade secrets. It alleged that Apple hired several Masimo employees and used their knowledge of Masimo's products to develop the Apple Watch's blood oxygen monitoring capabilities. That case is still ongoing.

What is Apple doing about it?

Apple previously told Engadget that it’s pulling the watch models from its websites on December 21 and from its retail outlets on December 24 as a preemptive measure. The import ban took effect on December 26, following the Presidential Review Period, which also ended December 25 without veto.

"Apple’s teams work tirelessly to create products and services that empower users with industry-leading health, wellness, and safety features," the company said earlier this month. "Apple strongly disagrees with the order and is pursuing a range of legal and technical options to ensure that Apple Watch is available to customers." The company added that it will "continue to take all measures to return Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to customers in the US as soon as possible.”

In 2022, Apple itself filed two patent infringement lawsuits against Masimo that accuse it of releasing a smartwatch that copies its watches’ features. If neither the president nor the US Trade Representative overturns the ban, however, the company may have to wait for the results of its appeal. 

Apple could also come to an agreement with Masimo, which most likely means money will be changing hands. The company's CEO has said he is open to a financial settlement, but told Bloomberg that Apple has not tried to negotiate an agreement. Bloomberg also reports that Apple is working on a software update that it believes will resolve the ITC dispute.

How can I buy an Apple Watch now?

You can still get the brand’s older watches, or the Apple SE, which doesn’t have a blood oxygen monitor. If you’re looking to buy either of the affected models this holiday season, they will still be available from third-party retailers. 

With the Apple Watch import ban now in effect, retailers will only be able to sell through their existing stock. So your best bet for buying these models would be a reputable retailer like Amazon, Best Buy, Target or Walmart. If they're out of stock, you'll just have to wait for this mess to get sorted out — or take it as an excuse to vacation in Mexico or Canada.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-apple-watch-ban-is-here-why-apple-is-no-longer-selling-the-watch-series-9-and-watch-ultra-203706971.html?src=rss