OpenAI wins first round against Raw Story and AlterNet copyright case

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

A fired Disney employee allegedly altered menus to change allergy markers

As someone allergic to a big sect of food (hey gluten free eaters!), I know how important accurate allergy markers are on a menu. Yet, a new criminal complaint alleges that a former Disney World employee intentionally altered a menu's allergy information to state foods didn't contain peanuts that, in fact, did, 404 Media and Court Watch reported in collaboration. 

The complaint alleges that Michael Scheuer was fired by Disney and then used still viable passwords to access a third-party created proprietary menu creation and inventory system. Over the course of his misdoings, he allegedly changed the allergy information along with adding profanity, altering prices and changing the font to Wingdings. Those wingdings were what initially tipped off employees. All menus in the database were deemed unusable and the application went offline for one to two weeks to fix the issues.

Disney changed the passwords, but then Scheuer allegedly broke into multiple of the third-party company's FTPs, to change the allergy markers and altered QR codes from directing to a menu to a boycott Israel website. He also tried to break into Disney employees' accounts nearly 8,000 times. Disney claims that the altered menus were identified before being shipped out to restaurants. 

This case is unrelated to a doctor who died of an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant last year. Notably, Disney tried to get a lawsuit filed by the doctor's husband thrown out in August, alleging that he had agreed to settle lawsuits out of court through arbitration. The reason? He had signed a terms of service for a one-month Disney+ trial in 2019 and again when making an account to buy park tickets. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/a-fired-disney-employee-allegedly-altered-menus-to-change-allergy-markers-161549481.html?src=rss

Brazil sues Meta and TikTok for over $500 million for not protecting minors

Meta and TikTok are once again in hot water for allegedly failing to protect minors or limit their use on the platforms. The Collective Defense Institute, a consumer rights group in Brazil, has issued two lawsuits against Meta, TikTok and Kwai, another short video platform from China, to the sound of three billion reais ($525.8 million), Reuters reports

The lawsuits pull from some of the (many) studies demonstrating the risk of social media use. It orders Meta and co. to clearly issue warnings about how platform addiction can negatively impact minors' mental health. It also calls for the companies to lay out detailed data protection mechanisms. 

"It is urgent that measures be adopted in order to change the way the algorithm works, the processing of data from users under 18, and the way in which teenagers aged 13 and over are supervised and their accounts created, in order to ensure a safer, healthier experience...as is already the case in developed countries," said Lillian Salgado, a lawyer and one of the plaintiffs.

This is far from the first lawsuit for Meta or TikTok regarding the safety of minors. In late 2023, New Mexico sued Meta for not protecting children in a claim that both Facebook and Instagram suggested sexual content to minors. One month later it was revealed that, in a 2021 internal memo, Meta had found over 100,000 child users faced daily harassment. Yet, Meta executives rejected recommended algorithm redesigns. Earlier this month, 14 attorneys general sued TikTok for "falsely claiming its platform is safe for young people." These are just two of the many suits filed against social media platforms for not protecting young users.

Meta recently created teen accounts on Instagram that are mandatory for all users under 16. They have stricter privacy settings and require parent approval for any changes. However, these accounts are not yet available in Brazil — though Meta claims they will be soon. 

A statement from Meta said it wants "young people to have safe and age-appropriate experiences on our apps, and we have been working on these issues for over a decade, developing more than 50 tools, resources, and features to support teens and their guardians." 

Notably, Brazil has recently squared off with Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) for refusing to block profiles that the government claimed promoted election misinformation. The company eventually paid a 28 million reais ($4.9 million fine).

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/brazil-sues-meta-and-tiktok-for-over-500-million-for-not-protecting-minors-154518826.html?src=rss

Microsoft accuses Google of secretly funding regulatory astroturf campaign

Microsoft is accusing Google of funding a proxy campaign designed to discredit it in the eyes of regulatory authorities and policymakers in the European Union and beyond. In a blog post penned by Rima Alaily, the company’s deputy general counsel, Microsoft claims the search giant has gone to “great lengths to obfuscate its involvement, funding and control” of the Open Cloud Coalition, a group of “cloud service providers, industry leaders and stakeholders” that says it’s committed to advocating for a “fair, competitive, and open cloud services industry across the UK and EU.”

According to Microsoft, Google hired a lobbying agency in Europe to create and operate the organization, and recruited “a handful of” European cloud providers to appear as the public face of the soon-to-launch campaign. The company says that Google plans to “present itself as a backseat member” of the Open Cloud Coalition, rather than its leader and primary funder. As one example, Microsoft points to a recruitment document (PDF link) that makes no mention of the group’s claimed affiliation to Google. It also notes the involvement of Nicky Steward, who co-wrote a complaint against Microsoft and Amazon Web Services as part of the UK’s ongoing antitrust investigation into the cloud services market.

“It remains to be seen what Google offered smaller companies to join, either in terms of cash or discounts,” Microsoft says. It adds that one of the cloud providers Google approached about joining the Open Cloud Coalition claims that the company will direct the group to attack “Microsoft’s cloud computing business in the European Union and the United Kingdom.”

Engadget was unable to independently verify Microsoft’s claims.

"We’ve been very public about our concerns with Microsoft’s cloud licensing. We and many others believe that Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices lock-in customers and create negative downstream effects that impact cybersecurity, innovation, and choice,” a Google spokesperson told Engadget, and pointed us to four separate blog posts on the matter.

As for why Google would potentially go to the extraordinary lengths of funding an astroturf campaign, Microsoft points to the recent uptick in regulatory scrutiny of the company’s search, advertising and mobile app store businesses. By Microsoft’s count, Google faces at least 24 antitrust investigations globally, including a Department of Justice probe that could see the potential break up of the company.

“Never in the past two decades have Google’s search, digital advertising, and mobile app store monopolies faced such a concerted and determined threat as they do today.” Alaily writes. “At a time when Google should be focused on addressing legitimate questions about its business, it is instead turning its vast resources towards tearing down others. It is disappointing that, with the foundation of their business facing jeopardy, they have sought to bolster their cloud computing service – Google Cloud Platform – by attacking ours.”

The accusations come after Google had reportedly attempted to derail an antitrust settlement Microsoft had negotiated with the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (CISPE). In July, Bloomberg wrote that Google had offered the group €470 million to go forward with litigation against its rival, an overture CISPE ultimately rejected.

As revenue growth from digital ads has slowed for Google in recent years, the company has increasingly turned to the cloud market to pick up the slack. In 2023, Google’s cloud business broke even for the first time. More recently, the unit generated a $900 million profit in the first quarter of this year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/microsoft-accuses-google-of-secretly-funding-regulatory-astroturf-campaign-203804594.html?src=rss

Microsoft accuses Google of secretly funding regulatory astroturf campaign

Microsoft is accusing Google of funding a proxy campaign designed to discredit it in the eyes of regulatory authorities and policymakers in the European Union and beyond. In a blog post penned by Rima Alaily, the company’s deputy general counsel, Microsoft claims the search giant has gone to “great lengths to obfuscate its involvement, funding and control” of the Open Cloud Coalition, a group of “cloud service providers, industry leaders and stakeholders” that says it’s committed to advocating for a “fair, competitive, and open cloud services industry across the UK and EU.”

According to Microsoft, Google hired a lobbying agency in Europe to create and operate the organization, and recruited “a handful of” European cloud providers to appear as the public face of the soon-to-launch campaign. The company says that Google plans to “present itself as a backseat member” of the Open Cloud Coalition, rather than its leader and primary funder. As one example, Microsoft points to a recruitment document (PDF link) that makes no mention of the group’s claimed affiliation to Google. It also notes the involvement of Nicky Steward, who co-wrote a complaint against Microsoft and Amazon Web Services as part of the UK’s ongoing antitrust investigation into the cloud services market.

“It remains to be seen what Google offered smaller companies to join, either in terms of cash or discounts,” Microsoft says. It adds that one of the cloud providers Google approached about joining the Open Cloud Coalition claims that the company will direct the group to attack “Microsoft’s cloud computing business in the European Union and the United Kingdom.”

Engadget was unable to independently verify Microsoft’s claims.

"We’ve been very public about our concerns with Microsoft’s cloud licensing. We and many others believe that Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices lock-in customers and create negative downstream effects that impact cybersecurity, innovation, and choice,” a Google spokesperson told Engadget, and pointed us to four separate blog posts on the matter.

As for why Google would potentially go to the extraordinary lengths of funding an astroturf campaign, Microsoft points to the recent uptick in regulatory scrutiny of the company’s search, advertising and mobile app store businesses. By Microsoft’s count, Google faces at least 24 antitrust investigations globally, including a Department of Justice probe that could see the potential break up of the company.

“Never in the past two decades have Google’s search, digital advertising, and mobile app store monopolies faced such a concerted and determined threat as they do today.” Alaily writes. “At a time when Google should be focused on addressing legitimate questions about its business, it is instead turning its vast resources towards tearing down others. It is disappointing that, with the foundation of their business facing jeopardy, they have sought to bolster their cloud computing service – Google Cloud Platform – by attacking ours.”

The accusations come after Google had reportedly attempted to derail an antitrust settlement Microsoft had negotiated with the Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (CISPE). In July, Bloomberg wrote that Google had offered the group €470 million to go forward with litigation against its rival, an overture CISPE ultimately rejected.

As revenue growth from digital ads has slowed for Google in recent years, the company has increasingly turned to the cloud market to pick up the slack. In 2023, Google’s cloud business broke even for the first time. More recently, the unit generated a $900 million profit in the first quarter of this year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/microsoft-accuses-google-of-secretly-funding-regulatory-astroturf-campaign-203804594.html?src=rss

Apple wins $250 in Masimo smartwatch patent case

The legal battle between Apple and medical technology company Masimo rages on, with the bigger company — sorta, kinda — winning their latest face off. A federal jury has agreed with Apple that previous versions of Masimo's W1 and Freedom (pictured above) watches infringed on its design patents, according to Reuters. It only awarded Apple $250 in damages, which is the smallest amount that could be awarded for patent infringement, but the company's lawyers reportedly told the court that it wasn't after money anyway. 

What Apple, which is worth $3.5 trillion, wanted was an injunction on the sales of Masimo's current smartwatch models. However, the jury determined that those newer models don't violate Apple's intellectual property. That is why Masimo is also treating the jury's decision as a win, telling the news organization that it's thankful for the verdict that's "in favor of Masimo and against Apple on nearly all issues." Apparently, the ruling only affects a "discontinued module and charger." As for Apple, it told Reuters that it was "glad the jury's decision today will protect the innovations [it advances] on behalf of [its] customers."

Masimo sued Apple in 2021, accusing it of infringing on several of its light-based blood-oxygen monitoring patents, while the tech giant countersued a year later. A court sided with Masimo in 2023, forcing Apple to pause sales on its latest smartwatch models, as the US International Trade Commission blocked all Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 imports into the country. The company appealed and was ultimately able to sell its watches in the country earlier this year by removing the technology from the units offered in the US. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apple-wins-250-in-masimo-smartwatch-patent-case-150020340.html?src=rss

Apple wins $250 in Masimo smartwatch patent case

The legal battle between Apple and medical technology company Masimo rages on, with the bigger company — sorta, kinda — winning their latest face off. A federal jury has agreed with Apple that previous versions of Masimo's W1 and Freedom (pictured above) watches infringed on its design patents, according to Reuters. It only awarded Apple $250 in damages, which is the smallest amount that could be awarded for patent infringement, but the company's lawyers reportedly told the court that it wasn't after money anyway. 

What Apple, which is worth $3.5 trillion, wanted was an injunction on the sales of Masimo's current smartwatch models. However, the jury determined that those newer models don't violate Apple's intellectual property. That is why Masimo is also treating the jury's decision as a win, telling the news organization that it's thankful for the verdict that's "in favor of Masimo and against Apple on nearly all issues." Apparently, the ruling only affects a "discontinued module and charger." As for Apple, it told Reuters that it was "glad the jury's decision today will protect the innovations [it advances] on behalf of [its] customers."

Masimo sued Apple in 2021, accusing it of infringing on several of its light-based blood-oxygen monitoring patents, while the tech giant countersued a year later. A court sided with Masimo in 2023, forcing Apple to pause sales on its latest smartwatch models, as the US International Trade Commission blocked all Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 imports into the country. The company appealed and was ultimately able to sell its watches in the country earlier this year by removing the technology from the units offered in the US. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apple-wins-250-in-masimo-smartwatch-patent-case-150020340.html?src=rss

Cash App users can claim thousands of dollars in a data breach settlement

Heads up if you’ve had a Cash App account over the last six years or so: you may now be able to claim thousands of dollars as a result of a class-action settlement. The company proposed the $15 million settlement earlier this year following two security incidents. If you're eligible to make a claim, you only have a few weeks to do so.

The first related breach took place in December 2021 when, according to Cash App, a former employee downloaded reports containing information on more than 8 million users. This included their full names, brokerage account numbers and, in some cases, the holdings and value of investment portfolios. Cash App disclosed the incident in April 2022.

The consolidated class-action complaint alleged that Cash App and parent company Block failed to enact sufficient security measures to prevent another data breach. This involved Cash App’s person-to-person payment services. According to the plaintiffs, “an unauthorized user accessed certain Cash App accounts in 2023 using recycled phone numbers." The complaint contended that Cash App and Block mishandled complaints related to both breaches and fraudulent transactions.

Cash App and Block have denied any wrongdoing, The New York Times reports. They say the settlement is not an admission of liability.

You may be eligible to make a claim if you had a Cash App account between August 23, 2018 and August 20 of this year. The settlement will cover up to $2,500 of out-of-pocket costs stemming from the breaches, as well as up to three hours worth of lost time at $25 per hour. Those who have sustained a monetary loss and haven’t yet been reimbursed can file a claim for that too.

If you plan to file a claim through the settlement website, you’ll need to do so by 2AM ET on November 19. A final court hearing in the case is set for December 16.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/cash-app-users-can-claim-thousands-of-dollars-in-a-data-breach-settlement-194520756.html?src=rss

Cash App users can claim thousands of dollars in a data breach settlement

Heads up if you’ve had a Cash App account over the last six years or so: you may now be able to claim thousands of dollars as a result of a class-action settlement. The company proposed the $15 million settlement earlier this year following two security incidents. If you're eligible to make a claim, you only have a few weeks to do so.

The first related breach took place in December 2021 when, according to Cash App, a former employee downloaded reports containing information on more than 8 million users. This included their full names, brokerage account numbers and, in some cases, the holdings and value of investment portfolios. Cash App disclosed the incident in April 2022.

The consolidated class-action complaint alleged that Cash App and parent company Block failed to enact sufficient security measures to prevent another data breach. This involved Cash App’s person-to-person payment services. According to the plaintiffs, “an unauthorized user accessed certain Cash App accounts in 2023 using recycled phone numbers." The complaint contended that Cash App and Block mishandled complaints related to both breaches and fraudulent transactions.

Cash App and Block have denied any wrongdoing, The New York Times reports. They say the settlement is not an admission of liability.

You may be eligible to make a claim if you had a Cash App account between August 23, 2018 and August 20 of this year. The settlement will cover up to $2,500 of out-of-pocket costs stemming from the breaches, as well as up to three hours worth of lost time at $25 per hour. Those who have sustained a monetary loss and haven’t yet been reimbursed can file a claim for that too.

If you plan to file a claim through the settlement website, you’ll need to do so by 2AM ET on November 19. A final court hearing in the case is set for December 16.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/cash-app-users-can-claim-thousands-of-dollars-in-a-data-breach-settlement-194520756.html?src=rss

McDonald’s restaurants can finally repair their own McFlurry machines

There are days where it feels like nothing will ever change and the best thing you can do is just learn to tolerate mediocrity. Today is not one of those days. Public Knowledge announced that the US Copyright Office granted an exemption request from the non-profit public interest group and the DIY repair site iFixit to allow McDonald’s franchise owners to hire a third-party to repair their McFlurry and soft service ice cream machines.

Franchise owners legally couldn’t hire any outside business to work on the machine because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). McDonald’s soft serve ice cream machines have a digital lock and Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal for anyone to bypass the lock on a copyrighted work even if no copyright infringement occurs. Only the original manufacturer of the machine can repair a copyrighted device with a digital lock. The recent exemption overrules the digital lock law.

If you’ve ever pulled up to a McDonald’s drive-thru window and couldn’t get an ice cream treat like a McFlurry, it probably wasn’t an anomaly. Franchises had to wait on the McDonald’s corporation to send an approved repair person to fix the machines. The problem caught the attention of the Federal Trade Commission in 2021 under a directive by President Joe Biden to draft new regulations to allow consumers to legally repair their own devices and hire third-parties to fix them. The FTC contacted McDonald’s franchise owners to learn more about the ice cream machines and the difficulties in repairing them.

iFixit did a teardown of a McDonald’s ice cream dispenser last year and found it had “lots of easily replaceable parts” but they couldn’t be fixed without earning the wrath of federal copyright laws. The teardown prompted the companyto work with Public Knowledge to obtain a copyright exemption to repair them. The repair website also compiled a video explaining the machine’s innerworkings in more detail.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/mcdonalds-restaurants-can-finally-repair-their-own-mcflurry-machines-183006996.html?src=rss