Brazilian regulators have reached a settlement with Apple after a yearslong investigation into the company's App Store fee practices as well as its policies against third-party app stores. As first reported by Brazilian tech site tecnoblog, the nation's Administrative Council of Economic Defense (CADE) said it has accepted Apple's proposed agreement that will address claims of anticompetitive practices.
The agreement will allow for third-party payment processing methods for in-app purchases and reins in Apple's anti-steering efforts by allowing links to external websites for transactions. The settlement requires that these payment options be shown next to Apple's own. Apple must also allow third-party app stores to be installed on its devices, though the company is allowed to display warnings to users if they are written in a neutral and objective way.
A new fee structure has also been agreed to, with Apple applying no fee if users are directed to outside payment methods in a text-only way. The use of a clickable link or button for an external payment option will incur a 15 percent fee. Purchases made within Apple's App Store will still be subject to a 10 percent or 20 percent commission. Developers using Apple’s payment system would also be subject to a 5 percent transaction fee.
Additionally a 5 percent "Core Technology Fee" would be levied against all app downloads from third-party app stores. This new structure bears similarities to policy and fee changes made after the EU passed its Digital Markets Act, with Apple allowing third-party app stores and external purchases subject to varying fees.
Apple will have 105 days to comply under the new agreement and could face fines of up to $27 million for failure to implement the changes. The iPhone maker has been facing mounting pressure from regulators worldwide over its anti-steering practices and was recently handed a $587 million fine by the EU for violating its Digital Markets Act. Apple is appealing the fine. In the US, Apple has been embroiled in a court battle with Fortnite maker Epic Games over commissions on purchases that take place on third-party payment platforms.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apple-will-allow-third-party-app-stores-and-payment-processing-in-brazil-135114824.html?src=rss
Investigative reporter John Carreyrou of the New York Times filed a lawsuit against xAI, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta and Perplexity on Monday for allegedly training their AI models on copyrighted books without permission. Carreyrou is perhaps best known for exposing the Theranos fraudulent blood test scandal.
According to Reuters, the lawsuit was filed alongside five other writers who all claim big tech companies have been violating their intellectual property rights in the name of building large language models.
This comes after a banner year for IP lawsuits against AI companies brought by rights holders. Just about every type of entity that deals in protected content has gone to court against AI companies this year, from movie studios like Disney and Warner Bros. to papers like the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. Some of these cases have led to settlements in the form of partnerships, such as the licensing deal between Disney and OpenAI.
It's notable that this case is being brought by a small group of individuals instead of as a class action, something the authors involved say is no accident. "LLM companies should not be able to so easily extinguish thousands upon thousands of high-value claims at bargain-basement rates," the complaint reads. This is also the first case of its kind to list xAI as a defendant.
A spokesperson for Perplexity told Reuters that the company "doesn't index books." Anthropic, for its part, is no stranger to lawsuits from book publishers, having recently settled a class-action lawsuit brought by half a million authors for $1.5 billion. Apple was also sued earlier this year amid similar allegations. This latest complaint mentions the Anthropic settlement specifically, saying that class members in that case will only receive "a tiny fraction (just 2 percent) of the Copyright Act’s statutory ceiling of $150,000."
Engadget has reached out to xAI, Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta and Perplexity for comment and will update with any response.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/new-york-times-reporter-files-lawsuit-against-ai-companies-161624268.html?src=rss
The Federal Trade Commission has sent Instacart a civil investigative demand, seeking information about its AI-powered pricing tool, according to Reuters. This comes after a recently published pricing experiment study showed that the online grocery delivery app gave different users different prices for the same items from the same store location at the exact same time. Some of the testers saw prices up to 23 percent higher than what the other testers saw, though the average difference for the same list of items was around 7 percent. Those higher prices could cost customers over $1,000 more in expenses for the year.
“The Federal Trade Commission has a longstanding policy of not commenting on any potential or ongoing investigations,” the FTC told Reuters in a statement. “But, like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart’s alleged pricing practices.”
When the study came out, Instacart told Engadget that the pricing variances were caused by some of its retail partners doing “limited, short-term and randomized tests” to better understand consumers. Those randomized pricing tests were enabled by Instacart’s AI pricing tool called Eversight developed by a company it purchased in 2022. Instacart told CNBC that “much of what’s been reported has mischaracterized how pricing works” on its platform. The spokesperson repeated that retailers conduct pricing tests on its app and said that “prices on Instacart do not change in real time,” aren’t based on supply or demand and that it never uses “personal, demographic, or user-level behavioral data to set item prices.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/the-ftc-is-reportedly-investigating-instacart-over-its-ai-pricing-tool-130000472.html?src=rss
Earlier this year Sony sued Tencent for copyright infringement over its Light of Motiram game, calling it a "slavish clone" of Horizon Zero Dawn. Then, earlier this month, Tencent agreed to stop promoting and publicly testing the game. Now, the two companies have reached a "confidential settlement" and the case has been dismissed, according to court documents seen by The Verge. Light of Motiram has also disappeared from Steam and Epic's game stores.
"SIE and Tencent are pleased to have reached a confidential resolution and will have no further public comment on this matter," Tencent's spokesperson told The Verge.
When Sony first filed its lawsuit in July 2025, it said that Tencent's game appeared to copy aspects of not just Horizon Zero Dawn, but other franchise games including Horizon Forbidden West and Lego Horizon Adventures. That included the post-apocalyptic setting with humans and machines coexisting, the visual appearance of characters and even the marketing materials — something Engadget certainly noticed when Tencent first announced the game.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/sony-settles-with-tencent-over-slavish-horizon-clone-120042886.html?src=rss
When it comes to convenience, it’s hard to beat Amazon. And that rationale isn’t limited to consumers: Many local districts shopping for supplies with public funds apply the same logic. But the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) published a study earlier this month (via The American Prospect) that illustrates the cost of that bargain. It suggests that Amazon’s “dynamic pricing” has led many schools and other localities to overpay for supplies.
Public schools and local governments have historically bought supplies by soliciting competitive bids from local suppliers. Those vendors then respond with fixed price lists, delivery timelines and other terms. This competition — all out in the open, part of the public record — encourages low prices and transparency.
On the surface, ordering from Amazon appears to offer competition, too. After all, the platform includes third-party vendors fighting for your dollars. But turning taxpayer funds over to Amazon’s algorithms isn’t quite that simple. That’s because the platform’s “dynamic pricing” (algorithmically driven real-time changes) is inherently opaque.
According to the report, Amazon’s contracts with public entities don’t include fixed price lists. Instead, they include language built around swings. “This contract has a dynamic pricing structure in which the price for items listed on the online digital marketplace is driven by the market,” Amazon’s contract with Utah reads. “This contract will not need to be amended when prices fluctuate.”
Below are some examples of wild price discrepancies for these districts. All of ILSR’s examples are from localities buying supplies from Amazon Business with public funds in 2023.
A City of Boulder, CO employee ordered a 12-pack of Sharpie markers from Amazon Business for $8.99. On the same day, a Denver Public Schools worker ordered the same markers for $28.63.
Amazon charged Clark County, WA, $146,000 for 610 computer monitors. On another day, that same order would have cost $24,000 less.
Pittsburgh Schools bought two cases of Kleenex for $57.99 each. On the same day, Denver Schools paid $36.91 for a single case.
On a single August day, Denver Schools placed two separate orders for bulk cases of dry-erase markers. One cost $114.52. The other was $149.07.
In March 2023, Denver Schools paid $15.39 for a Swingline stapler (sold by Amazon). A few days later, the same school system paid $61.87 for the same product (sold by a third-party seller).
Even in that last example, ILSR says Amazon’s algorithms are the culprit. “It might be tempting to blame the seller for putting a $62 price tag on a stapler or the employee for not noticing the cost,” the nonprofit argues. “But that overlooks Amazon’s pivotal role in the transaction — and the profit it makes. Amazon’s algorithms steer shoppers’ attention, selecting featured products and organizing search results. The platform routinely prompts users to ‘buy it again,’ even when the price has jumped. For busy public school employees, it’s all too easy to simply click the buy button, under the assumption that Amazon is surfacing the best option.”
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy
Noah Berger via Getty Images
One portion of the study looked at repeat orders for 2,500 “high-frequency items.” (These included Amazon-brand copy paper, Elmer’s glue, BIC pens, Lysol cleaning wipes and Crayola crayons.) In total, the jurisdictions in the study spent $3 million on those items. But based on the lowest prices Amazon charged during that period, they would have paid only $2.5 million. Across those same items, one school district could have saved 17 percent (about $1 million) if it consistently received Amazon’s lowest prices.
What would fair market value have been for those items? Well, it’s hard to say because the algorithms are steering pricing silently in the background. A more thorough study that included the same items, bought exclusively through the traditional procurement method, would tell us much more. And recent history has taught us that trusting Big Tech’s algorithms to serve the public good (rather than its own bottom line) is a fool’s errand.
In at least some cases, the practice routes public funds away from local vendors and toward overseas ones — and, of course, Amazon itself. In Berkeley County, WV, the school district spent $1.3 million on Amazon Business in 2023. What portion went to sellers in the state? A measly $142.
On top of all of that, the practice has snuffed out many of the smaller vendors that traditionally competed for these contracts. “The disappearance of these small and mid-sized businesses weakens local economies and tax bases,” the report concludes. “And it leaves governments increasingly dependent on Amazon, paving the way for the kind of monopoly control that ensures higher prices, poorer service, and less innovation.”
In a statement sent to The Guardian, Amazon disputed the study’s conclusions. “Pricing research is notoriously difficult to conduct accurately and typically lacks reliable methodology, including cherry-picked product selections, mismatched product comparisons and comparing in-stock items with products out-of-stock at competitors,”
ILSR’s report drew in spending data from 128 local governments (including cities, counties and school districts) and 122 state agencies. It also gathered contract documents and interviewed public officials, procurement experts and vendors.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/study-links-amazons-algorithmic-pricing-with-erratic-inflated-costs-for-school-districts-202047988.html?src=rss
Tesla’s sales in California should be suspended for 30 days because its marketing around Autopilot and Full Self-Driving misled consumers, a California administrative law judge has ruled. Back in 2022, the California DMV accused the automaker of using deceptive language to advertise those products and making it seem like its vehicles are capable of level 5 autonomous driving. Tesla has since added the word “Supervised” to the name of its Full Self-Driving assistance technology.
As Bloomberg notes, the DMV asked the administrative law judge if a suspension is warranted based on the evidence it presented. Even though the judge has agreed that it is, the agency will give Tesla 90 days to explain its side and remove any untrue or misleading language in the marketing materials for the products. Tesla’s sales and manufacturing in California will only be suspended if it doesn’t comply within that timeframe.
“We’re really asking Tesla to do their job, as they’ve done in other markets, to properly brand these vehicles,” said California DMV director, Steve Gordon, in a statement.
A suspension in California could be devastating for the automaker. While new Tesla registrations in the state plummeted earlier this year, Reuters says California accounts for nearly a third of the company’s sales in the country. In addition, Tesla only manufactures its Model S and X vehicles in its Fremont plant, where it also produces Model 3 and Model Y units.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/evs/tesla-used-deceptive-language-to-market-autopilot-california-judge-rules-035826786.html?src=rss
Behold: Ken Paxton will now demonstrate that broken clocks are indeed right twice a day. The Texas Attorney General is notorious for, well, a very long list of reasons. But in this case, he at least appears to be doing consumers a solid: He sued five television companies for using ad-targeting spyware on their TVs.
Texas sued Sony, Samsung, LG, Hisense and TCL for allegedly recording what viewers watch without their consent. The predatory technology, Automated Content Recognition (ACR), identifies the content being played on a device by matching short content fingerprints to a database.
ACR is essentially a Shazam for video. Except in this case, its sole purpose is to target your viewing habits to help line advertisers' pockets. "This software can capture screenshots of a user's television display every 500 milliseconds, monitor viewing activity in real time and transmit that information back to the company without the user's knowledge or consent," Paxton's press release says.
An LG Ad Solutions website boasts how ACR helps advertisers "target by content viewership, including show, network, app, service or genre." Since it works with anything running on the device, it can identify purchases and subscriptions, track gamers' habits and pinpoint users by region, city or zip code.
There should be a setting on your TV to turn it off. But, as Texas' lawsuit against LG notes, TV software often "deceptively guides consumers to activate ACR and buries any explanation of what that means in dense legal jargon that few will read or understand."
Paxton's press release emphasized Hisense and TCL's home base of China. "These Chinese ties pose serious concerns about consumer data harvesting and are exacerbated by China's National Security Law, which gives its government the capability to get its hands on US consumer data," the statement reads.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/texas-sues-five-tv-manufacturers-over-predatory-ad-targeting-spyware-201500248.html?src=rss
Amazon is set to fire 370 people at its European headquarters in Luxembourg in the coming weeks, as Bloomberg reports. That accounts for about 8.5 percent of the workforce. Amazon initially planned to reduce its headcount there by 470, but under European Union law, companies have to negotiate layoffs with employee reps and, in some cases, governments.
Amazon reportedly told employees at the European HQ in a memo the layoffs are "adjustments that reflect business needs and local strategies." The company claims to be going "well beyond industry benchmarks" in Luxembourg with regards to the severance packages it's offering.
An Amazon employee said it would be difficult for hundreds of people who are all going into the job market at the same time to find employment elsewhere in the country. Affected employees who moved from other countries to work for Amazon will have to leave if they don't land another job in Luxembourg within three months. After the layoffs, Amazon is still expected to be the fifth-largest employer in Luxembourg, which has a population of 680,000.
One employee told Bloomberg that the cuts would primarily affect software developers amid a push in the tech industry for AI to take on more coding tasks. Amazon said in October it would cut 14,000 jobs from its global workforce amid its deepening embrace of AI. It was reported that same month that the company's plans to ramp up its robotics operations could put around half a million jobs in the US at risk.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/amazon-is-set-to-lay-off-370-workers-at-its-european-hq-154037845.html?src=rss
PayPal is the latest company looking to become a bank in the US. On Monday, the company announced it had submitted applications for PayPal Bank to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Utah Department of Financial Institutions (UDFI). PayPal is already a bank in Europe, based in Luxembourg.
According to PayPal, it has provided "over $30 billion in loans and working capital" for more than 420,000 business accounts globally. PayPal puts its focus on small businesses in pitching the need for a US bank. "Securing capital remains a significant hurdle for small businesses striving to grow and scale," Alex Chriss, president and CEO of PayPal, said in a release. "Establishing PayPal Bank will strengthen our business and improve our efficiency, enabling us to better support small business growth and economic opportunities across the US."
PayPal also plans to provide "interest-bearing saving accounts" as a bank. If approved, it would be chartered in Utah.
Applications to become a bank have popped up left and right this year, with approval odds increasing under the Trump administration. On Friday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced that five cryptocurrency companies, including BitGo, Circle and Ripple, received conditional approval to become federally charted trust banks.
"New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy," the OCC's comptroller Jonathan V. Gould stated in the announcement. "They provide access to new products, services and sources of credit to consumers, and ensure a dynamic, competitive and diverse banking system."
Other companies such as Nissan and Sony have also submitted applications to form a bank.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/paypal-applies-to-become-a-bank-under-trumps-looser-financial-rules-143025772.html?src=rss
Disney has accused Google of copyright infringement on a "massive scale," alleging that the tech giant is training its AI tools on protected materials as well as allowing those tools to generate infringing images and videos. Variety reports that Disney attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google on Wednesday.
“Google is infringing Disney’s copyrights on a massive scale, by copying a large corpus of Disney’s copyrighted works without authorization to train and develop generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) models and services, and by using AI models and services to commercially exploit and distribute copies of its protected works to consumers in violation of Disney’s copyrights,” reads the letter, which Variety reviewed.
The letter includes examples of images from several Disney properties including Deadpool, Moana, Star Wars and others, reproduced by Google's AI tools. Disney is demanding that Google implement guardrails within all its AI products to prevent further infringement. The media giant sent a similar letter to Character.AI in September, and is currently suing Hailuo and Midjourney over alleged copyright infringement.
Copyright enforcement has become more challenging in the face of AI-created imagery, and companies are increasingly taking an "if you can't beat them, join them" approach. Today Disney announced a deal with OpenAI to license its characters for use in Sora, OpenAI's video generator. The deal will see Disney invest $1 billion in OpenAI (a paltry sum by some standards), with the option to purchase additional equity at a later date.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/disney-has-accused-google-of-copyright-infringement-on-a-massive-scale-163737642.html?src=rss
