Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

Police are using pharmacies to secretly access medical information about members of the public

Posted on by

A Senate Finance Committee inquiry revealed on Tuesday that police departments can get access to private medical information from pharmacies, no warrant needed. While HIPAA may protect some access to personally identifiable health data, it doesn't stop cops, according to a letter from Senator Ron Wyden, Representative Pramila Jayapal and Representative Sara Jacobs to the Department of Health and Human Services. None of the major US pharmacies are doing anything about it either, the members of Congress say. 

"All of the pharmacies surveyed stated that they do not require a warrant prior to sharing pharmacy records with law enforcement agents, unless there is a state law that dictates otherwise," the letter said. "Those pharmacies will turn medical records over in response to a mere subpoena, which often do not have to be reviewed or signed by a judge prior to being issued."

The committee reached out to Amazon, Cigna, CVS Health, The Kroger Company, Optum Rx, Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreens Boots Alliance and Walmart about their practices for sharing medical data with police. While Amazon, Cigna, Optum, Walmart and Walgreen said they have law enforcement requests reviewed by legal professionals before complying, CVS Health, The Kroger Company and Rite Aid Corporation said they ask in-store staff to process the request immediately. 

Engadget asked the pharmacies mentioned in the letter for comment about the claims. CVS said its pharmacy staff are trained to handle these inquiries and its following all applicable laws around the issue. Walgreens said it has a process in place to assess law enforcement requests compliant with those laws, too, and Amazon said that although law enforcement requests are rare, it does notify patients and comply with court orders when applicable. The others either haven't responded or refuse to comment.

The pharmacies mostly blamed the current lack of legislative protections for patient data for their willingness to comply with cop requests. Most of them told the committee that current HIPAA law and other policies let them disclose medical records in response to certain legal requests. That's why the Senate Finance Committee is targeting HHS to strengthen these protections, especially since the 2023 Dobbs decision let states criminalize certain reproductive health decisions. 

Under current HIPAA law, patients have the right to know who is accessing their health information. But individuals have to request the medical record disclosure data, instead of health care professionals being required to share it proactively. "Consequently, few people ever request such information, even though many would obviously be concerned to learn about disclosures of their private medical records to law enforcement agencies," the letter states. The letter also urges pharmacies to change their policies to require a warrant, and publish transparency reports about how data is shared. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/police-are-using-pharmacies-to-secretly-access-medical-information-about-members-of-the-public-182009044.html?src=rss

Apple may lift NFC restrictions in Europe to escape antitrust fines

Posted on by

Apple is attempting to avoid a fine and ongoing legal battle with the European Union. The company is allegedly offering its rivals access to its Near-Field Communication (NFC) technology, used for tap-and-go payments, Reuters reports. The update follows the European Commission's May 2022 charge and ongoing probe into Apple's potential antitrust Apple Pay practices.

The Commission has been investigating Apple since 2020, with Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager previously stating there were "indications that Apple restricted third-party access to key technology necessary to develop rival mobile wallet solutions on Apple's devices." 

While Apple's current proposal could get it out of a hefty fine and settle the case against it, it's not guaranteed to move forward. The Commission will likely confer with Apple's rivals and customers in the next month or so to determine if it should accept the offer. More than 2,500 banks across Europe use Apple Pay. 

Apple also faces a lawsuit in the United States, brought in July 2022 by Iowa's Affinity Credit Union. Similarly, it accuses Apple of engaging in anti-competitive behavior by illegally restricting iOS users to Apple Pay for any contactless payments.

In September 2023, a US District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of California ruled that the case would move forward, stating: "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Apple Pay charges arbitrary and inflated fees to issuers, and that competition in the tap-and-pay iOS mobile wallet market would spur innovation and lead to lower prices." In his decision, White also explained that the plaintiffs properly demonstrated Apple's alleged and attempted monopolization.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-may-lift-nfc-restrictions-in-europe-to-escape-antitrust-fines-131004981.html?src=rss

Google loses antitrust trial against Epic Games

Posted on by

Epic Games' lawsuit against Google has had a much different turnout from its courtroom battle with Apple. A federal jury has sided with the video game developer and has found Google to be in violation of US antitrust laws when it comes to how it runs the Play Store. According to The Verge, the jury has unanimously agreed that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. Further, it found the company's distribution agreements with other video gaming companies, as well as its deals with device manufacturers to pre-install its apps on Android devices, to be anticompetitive. 

In its complaint, Epic said that Google had silently paid game developers hundreds of millions of dollars to make their titles downloadable from the Play Store in an initiative that was originally known as "Project Hug." It alleged that the company had paid Activision Blizzard $360 million to abandon its plans of creating a competing app store, which the game developer subsequently denied. Google, which Epic said came up with the incentive program after it released Fortnite outside of the Play Store, also reportedly inked deals with Nintendo, Ubisoft and Riot Games. 

The jury has come to the conclusion that Epic Games has been negatively affected by Google's actions, but we've yet to know how its victory will change the latter's practices. In a statement posted on X, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said the court will start "work[ing] on remedies" in January. Judge James Donato, who's overseeing the case, will be making the decision whether to order Google to give developers the freedom to introduce their own app stores and billing systems for Android devices. In the case of Epic's lawsuit against Apple, the court ruled that the iPhone-maker didn't violate US antitrust laws, but it ordered the company to allow App Store developers to direct customers through third-party payment systems. 

In a statement published on its website, Epic called its victory "a win for all app developers and consumers around the world" and said they have proved that "Google’s app store practices are illegal and they abuse their monopoly to extract exorbitant fees, stifle competition and reduce innovation." It also said that the case's outcome "demonstrates the urgent need for legislation and regulations that address Apple and Google strangleholds over smartphones."

Google, however, doesn't intend to go down without a fight. Wilson White, Google VP for Government Affairs and Public Policy, told Engadget that the company plans to challenge the verdict. "Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform," White said. "The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles. We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."

Update, Dec 12 2023, 11:00 AM ET: Added a statement from Epic.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/jury-sides-with-epic-games-in-its-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-032341810.html?src=rss

Google loses antitrust trial against Epic Games

Posted on by

Epic Games' lawsuit against Google has had a much different turnout from its courtroom battle with Apple. A federal jury has sided with the video game developer and has found Google to be in violation of US antitrust laws when it comes to how it runs the Play Store. According to The Verge, the jury has unanimously agreed that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. Further, it found the company's distribution agreements with other video gaming companies, as well as its deals with device manufacturers to pre-install its apps on Android devices, to be anticompetitive. 

In its complaint, Epic said that Google had silently paid game developers hundreds of millions of dollars to make their titles downloadable from the Play Store in an initiative that was originally known as "Project Hug." It alleged that the company had paid Activision Blizzard $360 million to abandon its plans of creating a competing app store, which the game developer subsequently denied. Google, which Epic said came up with the incentive program after it released Fortnite outside of the Play Store, also reportedly inked deals with Nintendo, Ubisoft and Riot Games. 

The jury has come to the conclusion that Epic Games has been negatively affected by Google's actions, but we've yet to know how its victory will change the latter's practices. In a statement posted on X, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said the court will start "work[ing] on remedies" in January. Judge James Donato, who's overseeing the case, will be making the decision whether to order Google to give developers the freedom to introduce their own app stores and billing systems for Android devices. In the case of Epic's lawsuit against Apple, the court ruled that the iPhone-maker didn't violate US antitrust laws, but it ordered the company to allow App Store developers to direct customers through third-party payment systems. 

Google, however, doesn't intend to go down without a fight. Wilson White, Google VP for Government Affairs and Public Policy, told Engadget that the company plans to challenge the verdict. "Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform," White said. "The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles. We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/jury-sides-with-epic-games-in-its-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-032341810.html?src=rss

Amazon asks court to dismiss FTC lawsuit that accuses it of ‘monopolistic practices’

Posted on by

Amazon filed a motion on Friday in the Western Washington district court asking a judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against it. The FTC along with 17 state attorneys general sued Amazon in September, alleging the company uses monopolistic practices that are unfair to both its competitors and consumers. Amazon is now arguing that the FTC did not provide evidence that its practices have driven up prices or harmed consumers, according to Bloomberg.

The FTC’s lawsuit claims Amazon uses illegal tactics to crush its competition — like punishing sellers who list their products for better prices elsewhere by burying them in search results, and coercing sellers into using Amazon’s own fulfillment service by tying it to Prime eligibility. It also accuses Amazon of inflating prices from 2016-2018 using an algorithmic tool codenamed Project Nessie. These increases added up to more than $1 billion, according to the suit.

In Amazon’s motion for dismissal, per AP, Amazon said it’s only engaging in “common retail practices” that “benefit consumers and are the essence of competition.” Amazon attorney Heidi Hubbard wrote that the suit “implausibly, and illogically, assumes that Amazon’s efforts to keep featured prices low on Amazon somehow raised consumer prices across the whole economy,” according to Bloomberg.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/amazon-asks-court-to-dismiss-ftc-lawsuit-that-accuses-it-of-monopolistic-practices-220546149.html?src=rss

Amazon asks court to dismiss FTC lawsuit that accuses it of ‘monopolistic practices’

Posted on by

Amazon filed a motion on Friday in the Western Washington district court asking a judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against it. The FTC along with 17 state attorneys general sued Amazon in September, alleging the company uses monopolistic practices that are unfair to both its competitors and consumers. Amazon is now arguing that the FTC did not provide evidence that its practices have driven up prices or harmed consumers, according to Bloomberg.

The FTC’s lawsuit claims Amazon uses illegal tactics to crush its competition — like punishing sellers who list their products for better prices elsewhere by burying them in search results, and coercing sellers into using Amazon’s own fulfillment service by tying it to Prime eligibility. It also accuses Amazon of inflating prices from 2016-2018 using an algorithmic tool codenamed Project Nessie. These increases added up to more than $1 billion, according to the suit.

In Amazon’s motion for dismissal, per AP, Amazon said it’s only engaging in “common retail practices” that “benefit consumers and are the essence of competition.” Amazon attorney Heidi Hubbard wrote that the suit “implausibly, and illogically, assumes that Amazon’s efforts to keep featured prices low on Amazon somehow raised consumer prices across the whole economy,” according to Bloomberg.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/amazon-asks-court-to-dismiss-ftc-lawsuit-that-accuses-it-of-monopolistic-practices-220546149.html?src=rss

23andMe frantically changed its terms of service to prevent hacked customers from suing

Posted on by

Genetic testing company 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent customers from filing class action lawsuits or participating in a jury trial days after reports revealing that attackers accessed personal information of nearly 7 million people — half of the company’s user base — in an October hack.

In an email sent to customers earlier this week viewed by Engadget, the company announced that it had made updates to the “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration section” of its terms “to include procedures that will encourage a prompt resolution of any disputes and to streamline arbitration proceedings where multiple similar claims are filed.” Clicking through leads customers to the newest version of the company’s terms of service that essentially disallow customers from filing class action lawsuits, something that more people are likely to do now that the scale of the hack is clearer.

“To the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, you and we agree that each party may bring disputes against the other party only in an individual capacity and not as a class action or collective action or class arbitration,” the updated terms say. Notably, 23andMe will automatically opt customers into the new terms unless they specifically inform the company that they disagree by sending an email within 30 days of receiving the firm’s notice. Unless they do that, they “will be deemed to have agreed to the new terms,” the company’s email tells customers.

23andMe did not respond to a request for comment from Engadget.

In October, the San Francisco-based genetic testing company headed by Anne Wojcicki announced that hackers had accessed sensitive user information including photos, full names, geographical location, information related to ancestry trees, and even names of related family members. The company said that no genetic material or DNA records were exposed. Days after that attack, the hackers put up profiles of hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people for sale on the internet. But until last week, it wasn’t clear how many people were impacted.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 23andMe said that “multiple class action claims” have already been against the company in both federal and state court in California and state court in Illinois, as well as in Canadian courts.

Forbidding people from filing class action lawsuit, as Axios notes, hides information about the proceedings from the public since affected parties typically attempt to resolve disputes with arbitrators in private. Experts, such as Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Nancy Kim, an online contractor expert, told Axios that changing its terms wouldn’t be enough to protect 23andMe in court.

The company’s new terms are sparking outrage online. “Wow they first screw up and then they try to screw their users by being shady,” a user who goes by Daniel Arroyo posted on X. “Seems like they’re really trying to cover their asses,” wrote another user called Paul Duke, “and head off lawsuits after announcing hackers got personal data about customers.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/23andme-frantically-changed-its-terms-of-service-to-prevent-hacked-customers-from-suing-152434306.html?src=rss

TikTok ban in Montana blocked by US judge over free speech rights

Posted on by

Montana's unprecedented state-wide ban of Chinese short-video app, TikTok, was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2024, but as reported by Reuters, US District Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction just one month ahead to block said ban. This means that for now, ByteDance and app stores are allowed to continue serving TikTok to users within the Montana state, without being fined $10,000 daily from the start date of the ban.

The judge was quoted saying the ban "oversteps state power and infringes on the constitutional rights of users" — echoing the legal challenge filed by five TikTok creators on the day after the bill was signed back in May, as well as another lawsuit filed by the platform's owner, ByteDance, later on in the same month. It was also questionable as to whether Google and Apple could have effectively enforced such a state-wide ban on their app stores.  

The relevant bill was originally drafted based on claims that this Chinese app would share US users' personal data with the Chinese government, to which ByteDance had long denied since the presidency of Donald Trump. "TikTok US user data is stored in the US, with strict controls on employee access," the company claimed back in August 2020 — and again via a new "transparency" push earlier this year, with reference to "Project Texas" for safeguarding US user data with help from Oracle. 

To date, no other US state had passed a bill to bar TikTok. The outcome of Montana's case may hold the key to this Chinese app's fate across the rest of the country.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tiktok-ban-in-montana-blocked-by-us-judge-over-free-speech-rights-011846138.html?src=rss

Meta’s controversial ad-free subscription is facing scrutiny from EU privacy campaigners

Posted on by

In a bid to comply with updated privacy rules in Europe, Meta recently gave Facebook and Instagram users in the region an ultimatum. They either had to agree to receive targeted ads or sign up for a €10 per month subscription for each app (or stop using them altogether). That would give users the choice of opting out of ad tracking, but they'd have to pay a hefty sum to do so. 

Now, an Austrian privacy group called noyb has filed a complaint against that Meta's actions on behalf of a client in financial distress. The group stated that the subscription price is out of proportion to the value Facebook receives, so it's effectively a false choice for users without the means to pay for a subscription. 

"More than 20% of the EU population are already at risk of poverty," wrote noyb founder noted EU privacy advocate Max Schrems. "For the complainant in our case, as for many others, a ‘Pay or Okay’ system would mean paying the rent or having privacy." 

Citing Meta's own data, noyb said that the company's average revenue per user in Europe was $16.79 between Q3 2022 and Q3 2023, or about €62.88 per user. However, it plans to charge a minimum of €120 per year (more if you sign up on a smartphone), or up to €251.88 ($275.88) to have both Instagram and Facebook. 

noyb notes that 3 to 10 percent of users want personalized ads, but 99.9 percent consent, due to the lack of a true choice. "EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a 'privacy fee' of up to €250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their fundamental right to data protection," said noyb's data protection lawyer Felix Mikolasch. 

Meta's actions are also likely to set off a "domino effect," according to noyb. "Already now, TikTok is reportedly testing an ad-free subscription outside the US. Other app providers could follow in the near future, making online privacy unaffordable." It added that if multiple apps took the same approach, data privacy would be available "only for the rich." 

Meta defended its approach, saying it follows EU laws. "The option for people to purchase a subscription for no ads balances the requirements of European regulators while giving users choice and allowing Meta to continue serving all people in the EU, EEA and Switzerland. In its ruling, the CJEU expressly recognized that a subscription model, like the one we are announcing, is a valid form of consent for an ads funded service," a spokesperson told TechCrunch, referring to a post from last month.

However, European courts have stated that any fee charged to avoid tracking on products must be "necessary" and "appropriate." It also says that consent must be freely given. noyb appears to be targeting those clauses by arguing that the relatively high fees will effectively deter free choice by EU citizens, particularly those in financial difficulty. 

"Fundamental rights are usually available to everyone. How many people would still exercise their right to vote if they had to pay €250 to do so? There were times when fundamental rights were reserved for the rich. It seems Meta wants to take us back for more than a hundred years," Schrems said. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/metas-controversial-ad-free-subscription-is-facing-scrutiny-from-eu-privacy-campaigners-131506495.html?src=rss

Unsealed complaint says Meta ‘coveted’ under-13s and deceives the public about age enforcement

Posted on by

An unsealed complaint in a lawsuit filed against Meta by 33 states alleges the company is not only aware that children under the age of 13 use its platforms, but has also “coveted and pursued” this demographic for years on Instagram. The document, which was first spotted by The New York Times, claims that Meta has long been dishonest about how it handles underage users’ accounts when they’re discovered, often failing to disable them when reported and continuing to harvest their data.

The newly unsealed complaint, filed on Wednesday, reveals arguments that were previously redacted when attorneys generals from across the US first hit Meta with the lawsuit last month in the California federal court. It alleges the presence of under-13s is an “open secret” at Meta. While the policies on Facebook and Instagram state a person must be at least 13 years old to sign up, children can easily lie about their age — something the lawsuit says Meta is well aware of, and has done little to stop. Instead, when Meta “received over 1.1 million reports of under-13 users on Instagram” from 2019-2023, it “disabled only a fraction of those accounts and routinely continued to collect children’s data without parental consent,” the complaint says.

Meta “routinely violates” the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) by targeting children and collecting their information without parental consent, according to the complaint. The lawsuit also argues that Meta’s platforms manipulate young users into spending unhealthy amounts of time on the apps, promote body dysmorphia and expose them to potentially harmful content. When the lawsuit was first filed in October, a Meta spokesperson said the company was “disappointed” over the chosen course of action, stating, “We share the attorneys general’s commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online.”

Meta earlier this month published a blog post calling for federal legislation to put more responsibility on parents when it comes to kids’ app downloads. Meta's global head of safety, Antigone Davis, proposed a requirement for parents to have approval power over downloads for kids under the age of 16.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/unsealed-complaint-says-meta-coveted-under-13s-and-deceives-the-public-about-age-enforcement-231034682.html?src=rss