Tag Archives: Business

Google is being targeted for oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Posted on by

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has started the process of placing Google under federal supervision, an action which could create new standards for how the federal government can oversee big tech if the effort is successful. Falling under the CFPB's supervision would subject Google to regular inspections and scrutiny, although the exact aims of the department's efforts have not been fully disclosed. However, it has been an ongoing project for some time, as sources told The Washington Post that Google has been fighting against this move by the CFPB for months.

This department was created in 2008 in response to the financial crisis that year, and its objective is to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive financial practices. The CFPB primarily focuses on businesses such as banks and credit unions, but Director Rahit Chopra has voiced an interest over recent years in subjecting tech companies that offer financial products to similar oversight. For instance, the bureau began an investigation into app store payments systems from Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, PayPal and Square back in 2021.

The preliminary moves by the CFPB to oversee Google, and the agency's entire scope of operation, will likely be impacted by Donald Trump's return to the presidency in early 2025.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-is-being-targeted-for-oversight-by-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-181032853.html?src=rss

EU fines Meta $842 million in a Facebook Marketplace antitrust case

Posted on by

The executive arm of the European Union isn’t shying away from slapping major tech companies with hefty fines. The European Commission has fined Meta €797.12 million ($842 million) for violating antitrust regulations.

The EC says that by tying Facebook Marketplace to Facebook and “imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers,” Meta “abused its dominant positions" in the social networking space. Regulators determined that all Facebook users are “regularly exposed” to Marketplace, even if they don’t want to be. To that end, the link between the two services gives Meta “a substantial distribution advantage which competitors cannot match.”

In addition, the EC found that third-party classified ads services that advertised on the likes of Facebook and Instagram were subject to unfair trading conditions. “This allows Meta to use ads-related data generated by other advertisers for the sole benefit of Facebook Marketplace,” regulators contended.

The fine was determined based on the duration and extent of the infringement, as well as Meta’s revenue. The Commission also told Meta to end the practice and avoid repeating such conduct or trying something similar.

Meta said it will appeal the ruling. “This decision ignores the realities of the thriving European market for online classified listing services and shields large incumbent companies from a new entrant, Facebook Marketplace, that meets consumer demand in innovative and convenient new ways,” it claimed.

The company is trying to appease European regulators on other fronts. The EC said in the preliminary findings of an ongoing investigation that Meta violated the Digital Markets Act with its approach to an ad-free subscription, as it required EU users to consent to highly targeted advertising or pay to avoid it. This week, Meta lowered the monthly subscription fee and said it would offer an advertising option that won't use as much of a user's data, though this will include some unskippable ads.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/eu-fines-meta-842-million-in-a-facebook-marketplace-antitrust-case-154111594.html?src=rss

Amazon can’t force employees into anti-unionization meetings

Posted on by

After a lengthy consideration, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Amazon’s “captive-audience meetings” are a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. These are mandatory meetings where an employer shares its stance on unionization.

“Ensuring that workers can make a truly free choice about whether they want union representation is one of the fundamental goals of the National Labor Relations Act. Captive audience meetings—which give employers near-unfettered freedom to force their message about unionization on workers under threat of discipline or discharge—undermine this important goal,” Chairman Lauren McFerran said of the ruling. “Today’s decision better protects workers’ freedom to make their own choices in exercising their rights under the Act, while ensuring that employers can convey their views about unionization in a noncoercive manner.”

The decision noted that employers may hold meetings about unionization as long as workers receive advanced notice about the topic, are told that attendance is voluntary and without consequences for opting not to participate, and that attendance records are not kept.

Today’s ruling centers on Amazon, which has a rocky history with its employees’ efforts to organize and with the NLRB. However, the decision could impact other big tech firms that have followed similar practices around unionization.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/amazon-cant-force-employees-into-anti-unionization-meetings-214438177.html?src=rss

Grubhub just sold for a tenth of what it was worth during the pandemic

Posted on by

A startup called Wonder is now the new owner of Grubhub. The food delivery app announced its acceptance of the deal on its website earlier today.

Wonder acquired Grubhub from the Dutch food company Just Eat Takeaway for $650 million. Pending regulatory approval, the deal will close early next year. Wonder also announced it has raised an additional $250 million in venture capital funding “to further its mission and growth.”

Chicago software engineers Matt Maloney and Mike Evens founded Grubhub in 2004 as an online restaurant ordering service and an alternative to those paper menus that showed up on doorsteps and in junk mailings. The company merged with the automated food ordering and delivery company Seamless in 2013. Just Eat Takeaway bought Grubhub in 2020 for $7.3 billion at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The numbers for restaurant delivery apps started to drop once the pandemic became part of history and people started going out again. Legal troubles started in 2021 when Chicago took Grubhub and some of its competitors to court for alleged unfair business practices and fees. Companies like DoorDash eventually settled but Grubhub’s legal battle with Chicago is still raging in court, according to the Chicago Business Journal.

The District of Columbia won a similar lawsuit against Grubhub in 2021 that ended with a $3.5 million settlement. The following year, Grubhub announced it would lay off 15 percent of its corporate staff.

Wonder is a new fooddelivery company started by Marc Lore, a former Walmart executive who owns two professional basketball teams. Lowe previously founded Diapers.com and Jet.com. The New York Times published a profile on Lore and his newest venture Wonder, which he said “could be the Amazon of food and beverage.”

Wonder’s original focus was to get “its own restaurants up and running” and create a delivery service that offers “cheaper, quicker build-outs.” Maybe that’s because third-party food delivery services like Grubhub, DoorDash and Uber have seen their prices jump in the last couple of years, according to CNBC.

Just in New York City, food delivery prices increased by 58 percent in just under a year, according to Bloomberg. A new law that went into effect at the end of last year raised the minimum wage for New York delivery drivers to $17.96 an hour. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection reported that food delivery workers saw their wages increase by 64 percent and their tips decreased by 60 percent in just eight months.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/grubhub-just-sold-for-a-tenth-of-what-it-was-worth-during-the-pandemic-204555195.html?src=rss

Meta will have to defend itself from antitrust claims after all

Posted on by

The Federal Trade Commission will get a chance to argue its case for Meta’s breakup in court. On Wednesday, US District Judge James Boasberg allowed the FTC’s lawsuit against the social media giant to move forward (PDF link). The FTC first sued Meta in 2020 in an attempt to force the company, then known as Facebook, to divest itself of Instagram and WhatsApp. Alongside dozens of attorneys general, the agency alleged Meta acquired the platforms in 2012 and 2014 to stifle growing competition in the social media market.

This past April, Meta asked Judge Boasberg to dismiss the case. In addition to noting that the FTC had previously approved both acquisitions, Meta argued that the agency had failed to show that the company held monopoly power in the social networking services market, and that, in buying Instagram and WhatsApp, it had harmed consumers. Additionally, the company claimed that it had invested billions of dollars in both platforms and made them better as a result, to the benefit of social media users everywhere.

While he did not entirely dismiss the lawsuit, Boasberg did force the FTC to narrow its case, dismissing an allegation that Facebook had provided preferential access to developers who agreed not to compete with it.

“We are confident that the evidence at trial will show that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp have been good for competition and consumers. More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared these deals, and despite the overwhelming evidence that our services compete with YouTube, TikTok, X, Apple’s iMessage, and many others, the Commission is wrongly continuing to assert that no deal is ever truly final, and businesses can be punished for innovating,” a Meta spokesperson told Engadget. “We will review the opinion when it’s filed.”

Judge Boasberg will meet with the two sides on November 25 to schedule the trial. The FTC lawsuit, it should be noted, was filed under the previous Trump administration, though whether it moves forward and in what form will depend on who President-elect Trump appoints to lead the agency.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/meta-will-have-to-defend-itself-from-antitrust-claims-after-all-155730259.html?src=rss

Nintendo Palworld lawsuit seeks $65,700 in damages

Posted on by

Nintendo and the Pokémon Company are seeking approximately $65,700 in compensation from their lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair. In a press release the studio issued on Friday, it said Nintendo and the Pokémon Company want ¥5 million each (plus late fees), for a total of ¥10 million or $65,700 in damages.

At first glance, that's a paltry amount of money to demand for copying one of the most successful gaming properties ever, particularly when you consider Tropic Haze, the creator of the now defunct Yuzu Switch emulator, agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle its recent case with Nintendo. While Nintendo and the Pokémon Company may have well wanted to sue for more, their legal approach may have limited their options somewhat.

As you might recall, when the two sued Pocketpair in September, they didn’t accuse it of copyright infringement. Instead, they went for patent infringement. On Friday, Pocketpair listed the three patents Nintendo and the Pokémon Company are accusing the studio of infringing. Per Bloomberg, they relate to gameplay elements found in most Pokémon games. For example, one covers the franchise’s signature battling mechanics, while another relates to how players can ride monsters.

Pokémon games have featured those mechanics since the start, but here’s the thing: all three patents were filed and granted to Nintendo and the Pokémon Company after Pocketpair released Palworld to early access on January 19, 2024. The earliest patent, for instance, was granted to Nintendo and the Pokémon Company on May 22, 2024, or nearly four months after Palworld first hit Steam and Xbox Game Pass.

According to Pocketpair, the two companies seek “compensation for a portion of the damages incurred between the date of registration of the patents and the date of filing of this lawsuit.” Put another way, it's a small window of time the suit targets. 

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t comment on Nintendo’s strategy of attempting to enforce patents that were issued after Palworld was already on the market. However, I think it’s worth mentioning that Pocketpair CEO Takuro Mizobe had said before the game's release that Palworld had “cleared legal reviews,” suggesting the studio had looked at Nintendo's patent portfolio for possible points of conflict. In any case, the Tokyo District Court is scheduled to hear opening remarks from each side next week.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/nintendo-palworld-lawsuit-seeks-65700-in-damages-163051523.html?src=rss

Nintendo Palworld lawsuit seeks $65,700 in damages

Posted on by

Nintendo and the Pokémon Company are seeking approximately $65,700 in compensation from their lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair. In a press release the studio issued on Friday, it said Nintendo and the Pokémon Company want ¥5 million each (plus late fees), for a total of ¥10 million or $65,700 in damages.

At first glance, that's a paltry amount of money to demand for copying one of the most successful gaming properties ever, particularly when you consider Tropic Haze, the creator of the now defunct Yuzu Switch emulator, agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle its recent case with Nintendo. While Nintendo and the Pokémon Company may have well wanted to sue for more, their legal approach may have limited their options somewhat.

As you might recall, when the two sued Pocketpair in September, they didn’t accuse it of copyright infringement. Instead, they went for patent infringement. On Friday, Pocketpair listed the three patents Nintendo and the Pokémon Company are accusing the studio of infringing. Per Bloomberg, they relate to gameplay elements found in most Pokémon games. For example, one covers the franchise’s signature battling mechanics, while another relates to how players can ride monsters.

Pokémon games have featured those mechanics since the start, but here’s the thing: all three patents were filed and granted to Nintendo and the Pokémon Company after Pocketpair released Palworld to early access on January 19, 2024. The earliest patent, for instance, was granted to Nintendo and the Pokémon Company on May 22, 2024, or nearly four months after Palworld first hit Steam and Xbox Game Pass.

According to Pocketpair, the two companies seek “compensation for a portion of the damages incurred between the date of registration of the patents and the date of filing of this lawsuit.” Put another way, it's a small window of time the suit targets. 

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t comment on Nintendo’s strategy of attempting to enforce patents that were issued after Palworld was already on the market. However, I think it’s worth mentioning that Pocketpair CEO Takuro Mizobe had said before the game's release that Palworld had “cleared legal reviews,” suggesting the studio had looked at Nintendo's patent portfolio for possible points of conflict. In any case, the Tokyo District Court is scheduled to hear opening remarks from each side next week.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/nintendo-palworld-lawsuit-seeks-65700-in-damages-163051523.html?src=rss

TSMC will reportedly stop making advanced AI chips for Chinese companies

Posted on by

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has suspended the production of advanced AI chips for Chinese companies, according to the Financial Times. The Taiwanese semiconductor chip manufacturer has reportedly notified its clients from China that it will stop producing AI chips for them, particularly models 7 nanometers and smaller, starting this Monday. If a Chinese company orders products that fall within that category, they'll have to go through an approval process that'll likely involve the US government. 

The manufacturer's new policy could be a direct result of its discovery that Huawei had used its chips in AI accelerators without its knowledge. A Canadian research firm called TechInsights was the one that notified the company that it discovered the presence of TSMC-manufactured products in Huawei's hardware. It was a violation of the trade sanctions the US Commerce Department had imposed against Huawei way back in 2020 that prevented it from acquiring chips made by foreign firms. More recently, it revoked its licenses that allowed Intel and Qualcomm to manufacture chips for its devices.

TSMC reported TechInsights' findings to the US Commerce Department, which is now investigating how it had happened. The company denied any working relationship with Huawei and also stopped selling its chips to the client it believes had been illegally forwarding them to the Chinese brand. The Times' sources said that TSMC made the decision to suspend the production of AI chips for Chinese clients altogether, because it wants to show the US government that it's "not acting against US interests." Its new policy could have a big impact on the AI efforts of its Chinese clients. Baidu, for instance, had plans to build hardware for its AI business powered by a series of chips made by TSMC.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/tsmc-will-reportedly-stop-making-advanced-ai-chips-for-chinese-companies-143029506.html?src=rss

TSMC will reportedly stop making advanced AI chips for Chinese companies

Posted on by

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has suspended the production of advanced AI chips for Chinese companies, according to the Financial Times. The Taiwanese semiconductor chip manufacturer has reportedly notified its clients from China that it will stop producing AI chips for them, particularly models 7 nanometers and smaller, starting this Monday. If a Chinese company orders products that fall within that category, they'll have to go through an approval process that'll likely involve the US government. 

The manufacturer's new policy could be a direct result of its discovery that Huawei had used its chips in AI accelerators without its knowledge. A Canadian research firm called TechInsights was the one that notified the company that it discovered the presence of TSMC-manufactured products in Huawei's hardware. It was a violation of the trade sanctions the US Commerce Department had imposed against Huawei way back in 2020 that prevented it from acquiring chips made by foreign firms. More recently, it revoked its licenses that allowed Intel and Qualcomm to manufacture chips for its devices.

TSMC reported TechInsights' findings to the US Commerce Department, which is now investigating how it had happened. The company denied any working relationship with Huawei and also stopped selling its chips to the client it believes had been illegally forwarding them to the Chinese brand. The Times' sources said that TSMC made the decision to suspend the production of AI chips for Chinese clients altogether, because it wants to show the US government that it's "not acting against US interests." Its new policy could have a big impact on the AI efforts of its Chinese clients. Baidu, for instance, had plans to build hardware for its AI business powered by a series of chips made by TSMC.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/tsmc-will-reportedly-stop-making-advanced-ai-chips-for-chinese-companies-143029506.html?src=rss

OpenAI wins first round against Raw Story and AlterNet copyright case

Posted on by

OpenAI is facing multiple lawsuits over its use of several publications' and books' content to train its large language models without explicit permission or proper compensation. A judge has just dismissed one of them. New York federal judge Colleen McMahon has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Raw Story and AlterNet, which accused the company of using their materials for AI training without consent. As VentureBeat notes, though, their complaint didn't argue that OpenAI infringed on their copyright like other publications' lawsuits do. Instead, it focused on the DMCA provision that protects "copyright management information."

The publications argued that OpenAI removed the author names, titles and other metadata identifying their copyright from the articles it used to train its LLMs. McMahon explained that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered "a cognizable injury" from those actions and that the harm they had cited was "not the type of harm that has been elevated" to warrant a lawsuit. The judge also said that "the likelihood that ChatGPT would output plagiarized content from one of [their] articles seems remote." She added that the plaintiffs are truly seeking redress for the use of their articles "to develop ChatGPT without compensation" and not for the removal of their copyright management information. 

Raw Story and AlterNet don't intend to back down, based on what their lawyer told Reuters. Matt Topic, their attorney, said they're "certain [they] can address the concerns the court identified through an amended complaint."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-wins-first-round-against-raw-story-and-alternet-copyright-case-130027681.html?src=rss