New California law will force companies to admit you don’t own digital content

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 2426, a new law that requires digital marketplaces to make clearer to customers when they are only purchasing a license to access media. The law will not apply to cases of permanent offline downloads, only to the all-too-common situation of buying digital copies of video games, music, movies, TV shows or ebooks from an online storefront. The Verge spotted the development, which could see marketplaces facing fines for false advertising in the state if they don't use clear language to explain the limitations of what access entails. In other words, you won't be seeing language like "buy" or "purchase" once the law takes effect in 2025.

The move to digital storefronts has raised new parallel concerns about ownership and preservation for media in the modern age. Ubisoft's move to delete The Crew from players' libraries after the game's servers shuttered is one of the most recent examples of how customers can suddenly lose access to media they felt they owned. The new California law won't stop situations like The Crew's disappearance from happening, and it won't stop those losses from hurting. But it does make clearer that ownership is a pretty rare and intangible thing for digital media.

Governor Newsom is having a busy week. He also signed the state's "click to cancel" bill yesterday and last week signed two bills with protections against unwanted AI likenesses of actors, both living and deceased.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/new-california-law-will-force-companies-to-admit-you-dont-own-digital-content-203053750.html?src=rss

DoNotPay ‘robot lawyer’ fined $193K by the FTC for not being a lawyer

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against DoNotPay, alleging that the AI-powered company billing itself as "the world's first robot lawyer" failed to back its claims that it could replace human legal representation. The agency's complaint argues that DoNotPay did not conduct tests to assess whether its AI chatbot was equivalent to a human lawyer, and that the company did not hire or retain any attorneys of its own. DoNotPay has agreed to a proposed settlement that would see it face fines of $193,000. In addition, the settlement will require DoNotPay to inform customers who subscribed to its service between 2021 and 2023 about the limitations of its offerings.

This proposed settlement is part of an FTC program called Operation AI Comply, which is targeting businesses that leverage artificial intelligence to make deceptive claims. "Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal," FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said. "The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected."

In addition to promising legal services, DoNotPay also claimed it could get accounts unbanned from social media platforms. The company postponed its first attempt to use its AI chatbot in a court setting in 2023 after multiple state bar associations intervened in the case.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/donotpay-robot-lawyer-fined-193k-by-the-ftc-for-not-being-a-lawyer-223227153.html?src=rss

DoNotPay ‘robot lawyer’ fined $193K by the FTC for not being a lawyer

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against DoNotPay, alleging that the AI-powered company billing itself as "the world's first robot lawyer" failed to back its claims that it could replace human legal representation. The agency's complaint argues that DoNotPay did not conduct tests to assess whether its AI chatbot was equivalent to a human lawyer, and that the company did not hire or retain any attorneys of its own. DoNotPay has agreed to a proposed settlement that would see it face fines of $193,000. In addition, the settlement will require DoNotPay to inform customers who subscribed to its service between 2021 and 2023 about the limitations of its offerings.

This proposed settlement is part of an FTC program called Operation AI Comply, which is targeting businesses that leverage artificial intelligence to make deceptive claims. "Using AI tools to trick, mislead, or defraud people is illegal," FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said. "The FTC’s enforcement actions make clear that there is no AI exemption from the laws on the books. By cracking down on unfair or deceptive practices in these markets, FTC is ensuring that honest businesses and innovators can get a fair shot and consumers are being protected."

In addition to promising legal services, DoNotPay also claimed it could get accounts unbanned from social media platforms. The company postponed its first attempt to use its AI chatbot in a court setting in 2023 after multiple state bar associations intervened in the case.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/donotpay-robot-lawyer-fined-193k-by-the-ftc-for-not-being-a-lawyer-223227153.html?src=rss

Google files EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft

Google filed a complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission on Wednesday. In it, Google accused Microsoft of making it prohibitively expensive for cloud customers to move their work from Azure to other providers, like Google Cloud.

Google claims Microsoft’s cloud licensing terms restrict European customers from switching to competing cloud platforms despite “no technical barriers to doing so.” In a blog post explaining its complaint, Google wrote that Microsoft’s practices have “significantly harmed European companies and governments,” costing European businesses €1 billion ($1.1 billion) annually, wasting taxpayer money and stifling competition.

Amazon’s AWS leads Europe’s cloud market. Microsoft’s Azure is second, followed by Google in third. Oracle, Salesforce and IBM rounded out the top six in Q2 2024.

On Wednesday, a European Commission spokesperson confirmed to Engadget that the EU governing body received Google’s complaint. “We will assess it according to our standard procedures,” EC spokesperson Lea Zuber wrote.

Google’s complaint referred to a settlement this summer between Microsoft and CISPE (Cloud Infrastructure Service Providers in Europe), the trade body for Europe’s cloud industry. The latter filed a complaint against Microsoft in late 2022, accusing the company of anti-competitive practices with Azure (strikingly similar to Google’s complaints from today). The full details of the settlement, which led to CISPE withdrawing its complaint, weren’t made public. CISPE wrote in July that Microsoft would make changes to address its concerns. Those included releasing an enhanced version of the Azure Stack HCI, which would bring features that Microsoft's customers enjoy to European cloud providers.

In a statement to Engadget, Microsoft was optimistic that the EC would dismiss Google’s complaint. “Microsoft settled amicably similar concerns raised by European cloud providers, even after Google hoped they would keep litigating,” a Microsoft spokesperson wrote, referring to a Bloomberg report that Google offered a $500 million alternative deal to keep the antitrust complaint alive. “Having failed to persuade European companies, we expect Google similarly will fail to persuade the European Commission,” Microsoft’s spokesperson wrote.

Google says Windows Server is at the heart of its complaint. Describing it as “a must-have workhorse in many IT environments,” the company says Microsoft changed its practices after cloud computing became a more lucrative business. “But as Azure faced more competition, Microsoft introduced new rules that severely limited customer choice,” Google wrote.

Google said the licensing terms Microsoft adopted in 2019 “imposed extreme financial penalties” on companies who wanted to use Windows Server software with Azure competitors like AWS and Google Cloud. “Microsoft’s own statements indicate that customers who want to move their workloads to these competitors would need to pay up to five times more,” Google wrote, citing an archived 2023 webpage comparing Azure pricing to that of AWS. Google said Microsoft also limited security patches and created other barriers to choice in cloud providers.

Google also linked to research from Professor Frédéric Jenny, a French economist and chair of the OECD Competition Committee. The study claims that European companies and government organizations pay “unfair, additional costs” to customers who license software to run on cloud infrastructure from independent service providers. Professor Jenny claimed those choosing non-Microsoft cloud providers “sucked an additional €1,010,394,489 out of the European economy in 2022.”

Google Cloud’s Head of Platform Amit Zavery wrote on Wednesday that Microsoft’s practices lock customers into Azure, hurt cybersecurity and limit innovation. Zavery also spoke with CNBC, advocating for a more open market for cloud providers. “Today the restrictions [do] not allow choice for customers,” he said. Zavery wants Microsoft’s restrictions “to be removed and allow customers to have and choose whatever cloud provider they think is best for them commercially and technically.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-microsoft-183050473.html?src=rss

Google files EU antitrust complaint against Microsoft

Google filed a complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission on Wednesday. In it, Google accused Microsoft of making it prohibitively expensive for cloud customers to move their work from Azure to other providers, like Google Cloud.

Google claims Microsoft’s cloud licensing terms restrict European customers from switching to competing cloud platforms despite “no technical barriers to doing so.” In a blog post explaining its complaint, Google wrote that Microsoft’s practices have “significantly harmed European companies and governments,” costing European businesses €1 billion ($1.1 billion) annually, wasting taxpayer money and stifling competition.

Amazon’s AWS leads Europe’s cloud market. Microsoft’s Azure is second, followed by Google in third. Oracle, Salesforce and IBM rounded out the top six in Q2 2024.

On Wednesday, a European Commission spokesperson confirmed to Engadget that the EU governing body received Google’s complaint. “We will assess it according to our standard procedures,” EC spokesperson Lea Zuber wrote.

Google’s complaint referred to a settlement this summer between Microsoft and CISPE (Cloud Infrastructure Service Providers in Europe), the trade body for Europe’s cloud industry. The latter filed a complaint against Microsoft in late 2022, accusing the company of anti-competitive practices with Azure (strikingly similar to Google’s complaints from today). The full details of the settlement, which led to CISPE withdrawing its complaint, weren’t made public. CISPE wrote in July that Microsoft would make changes to address its concerns. Those included releasing an enhanced version of the Azure Stack HCI, which would bring features that Microsoft's customers enjoy to European cloud providers.

In a statement to Engadget, Microsoft was optimistic that the EC would dismiss Google’s complaint. “Microsoft settled amicably similar concerns raised by European cloud providers, even after Google hoped they would keep litigating,” a Microsoft spokesperson wrote, referring to a Bloomberg report that Google offered a $500 million alternative deal to keep the antitrust complaint alive. “Having failed to persuade European companies, we expect Google similarly will fail to persuade the European Commission,” Microsoft’s spokesperson wrote.

Google says Windows Server is at the heart of its complaint. Describing it as “a must-have workhorse in many IT environments,” the company says Microsoft changed its practices after cloud computing became a more lucrative business. “But as Azure faced more competition, Microsoft introduced new rules that severely limited customer choice,” Google wrote.

Google said the licensing terms Microsoft adopted in 2019 “imposed extreme financial penalties” on companies who wanted to use Windows Server software with Azure competitors like AWS and Google Cloud. “Microsoft’s own statements indicate that customers who want to move their workloads to these competitors would need to pay up to five times more,” Google wrote, citing an archived 2023 webpage comparing Azure pricing to that of AWS. Google said Microsoft also limited security patches and created other barriers to choice in cloud providers.

Google also linked to research from Professor Frédéric Jenny, a French economist and chair of the OECD Competition Committee. The study claims that European companies and government organizations pay “unfair, additional costs” to customers who license software to run on cloud infrastructure from independent service providers. Professor Jenny claimed those choosing non-Microsoft cloud providers “sucked an additional €1,010,394,489 out of the European economy in 2022.”

Google Cloud’s Head of Platform Amit Zavery wrote on Wednesday that Microsoft’s practices lock customers into Azure, hurt cybersecurity and limit innovation. Zavery also spoke with CNBC, advocating for a more open market for cloud providers. “Today the restrictions [do] not allow choice for customers,” he said. Zavery wants Microsoft’s restrictions “to be removed and allow customers to have and choose whatever cloud provider they think is best for them commercially and technically.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-microsoft-183050473.html?src=rss

FTX advisor and Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison gets two years in prison

A US district court judge sentenced Caroline Ellison, the former advisor and ex-girlfriend to the convicted crypto fraudster and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, to two years in prison.

The New York Times reported Ellison’s sentence for her role in the $8 billion in fraud committed by the FTX crypto exchange that sent Bankman-Fried to federal prison for 25 years back in March. Ellison will also have to serve three years of supervised release once she’s finished her prison sentence.

Ellison pled guilty at the end of 2022 to seven counts of fraud just as Bankman-Fried was being extradited to the US from the Bahamas. US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Director of Enforcement Sanjay Wadhwa said following Ellison’s plea that she and Wang “were active participants in a scheme to conceal material information from FTX investors.”

Ellison was also the former chief executive officer of FTX’s sister company Alameda Research. Prosecutors said she diverted FTX customers’ funds onto Alameda’s books to hide risks from their clients. Ellison testified against Bankman-Fried, making her a key witness in his criminal fraud trial.

Prosecutors also got Bankman-Friend’s house arrest and bail revoked when a judge determined the FTX founder tried to hinder Ellison’s testimony last year. Bankman-Fried tried to message FTX’s general counsel on Signal and email in 2023 to influence Ellison’s testimony who was only identified as “Witness-1.”

Nine months later, Bankman-Fried showed a New York Times reporter personal writings from Ellison that prosecutors said were an attempt to damage her reputation especially amongst prospective jurors. The judge agreed both instances merited Bankman-Fried’s arrest and jailing while he awaited trial. Bankman-Fried is currently serving his 25-year sentence in a federal prison in Brooklyn awaiting appeal for his conviction.

Ellison issued a statement before her sentence apologizing for her crimes to the people she and her former firm defrauded. Prosecutors did not issue a recommended sentence and characterized her cooperation with investigators as “exemplary” in a memo to the judge.

“Not a day goes by that I don’t think of the people I hurt,” Ellison said in court. “I am deeply ashamed of what I have done.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/ftx-advisor-and-alameda-ceo-caroline-ellison-gets-two-years-in-prison-214828333.html?src=rss

FTX advisor and Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison gets two years in prison

A US district court judge sentenced Caroline Ellison, the former advisor and ex-girlfriend to the convicted crypto fraudster and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, to two years in prison.

The New York Times reported Ellison’s sentence for her role in the $8 billion in fraud committed by the FTX crypto exchange that sent Bankman-Fried to federal prison for 25 years back in March. Ellison will also have to serve three years of supervised release once she’s finished her prison sentence.

Ellison pled guilty at the end of 2022 to seven counts of fraud just as Bankman-Fried was being extradited to the US from the Bahamas. US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Director of Enforcement Sanjay Wadhwa said following Ellison’s plea that she and Wang “were active participants in a scheme to conceal material information from FTX investors.”

Ellison was also the former chief executive officer of FTX’s sister company Alameda Research. Prosecutors said she diverted FTX customers’ funds onto Alameda’s books to hide risks from their clients. Ellison testified against Bankman-Fried, making her a key witness in his criminal fraud trial.

Prosecutors also got Bankman-Friend’s house arrest and bail revoked when a judge determined the FTX founder tried to hinder Ellison’s testimony last year. Bankman-Fried tried to message FTX’s general counsel on Signal and email in 2023 to influence Ellison’s testimony who was only identified as “Witness-1.”

Nine months later, Bankman-Fried showed a New York Times reporter personal writings from Ellison that prosecutors said were an attempt to damage her reputation especially amongst prospective jurors. The judge agreed both instances merited Bankman-Fried’s arrest and jailing while he awaited trial. Bankman-Fried is currently serving his 25-year sentence in a federal prison in Brooklyn awaiting appeal for his conviction.

Ellison issued a statement before her sentence apologizing for her crimes to the people she and her former firm defrauded. Prosecutors did not issue a recommended sentence and characterized her cooperation with investigators as “exemplary” in a memo to the judge.

“Not a day goes by that I don’t think of the people I hurt,” Ellison said in court. “I am deeply ashamed of what I have done.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/ftx-advisor-and-alameda-ceo-caroline-ellison-gets-two-years-in-prison-214828333.html?src=rss

Visa slapped with a DOJ antitrust lawsuit

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Visa. The lawsuit alleges that the financial firm holds a monopoly over debit network markets allowing it to charge banks and markets with exorbitant fees that get passed onto consumers and keep rival companies like PayPal and Square from competing on their level.

Bloomberg first reported on Monday that the DOJ planned to file an antitrust suit against Visa following a multiyear investigation into Visa’s business practices starting in 2020. Visa attempted to acquire the fintech startup Plaid with a $5.3 billion bid but the DOJ filed a lawsuit blocking the deal claiming the acquisition would eliminate a competitive threat that challenged Visa’s powerful control of debit markets.

Visa dropped the bid a year later to avoid any further legal entanglements but the DOJ continued investigating Visa’s business practices.

The DOJ alleges in its latest lawsuit that Visa’s “web of exclusionary agreements” with banks and businesses helped strengthen its market dominance and “smother” any potential competitors. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Visa “unlawfully amassed the power to extract fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive market.

“Merchants and banks pass along those costs to customers, either by raising prices or reducing quality or service,” the statement reads. “As a result, Visa’s unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing — but the price of nearly everything.”

Visa's General Counsel Julie Rottenberg told Engadget in an emailed statement that the DOJ's lawsuit is "meritless" and that they plan to vigorously defend themselves in court. 

"Today's lawsuit ignores the reality that Visa is just one of many competitors in a debit space that is growing, with entrants who are thriving," Rottenberg said by email. "When businesses and consumers choose Visa, it is because of our secure and reliable network, world-class fraud protection, and the value we provide. We are proud of the payments network we have built, the innovation we advance, and the economic opportunity we enable."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/visa-slapped-with-a-doj-antitrust-lawsuit-204710873.html?src=rss

Visa slapped with a DOJ antitrust lawsuit

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Visa. The lawsuit alleges that the financial firm holds a monopoly over debit network markets allowing it to charge banks and markets with exorbitant fees that get passed onto consumers and keep rival companies like PayPal and Square from competing on their level.

Bloomberg first reported on Monday that the DOJ planned to file an antitrust suit against Visa following a multiyear investigation into Visa’s business practices starting in 2020. Visa attempted to acquire the fintech startup Plaid with a $5.3 billion bid but the DOJ filed a lawsuit blocking the deal claiming the acquisition would eliminate a competitive threat that challenged Visa’s powerful control of debit markets.

Visa dropped the bid a year later to avoid any further legal entanglements but the DOJ continued investigating Visa’s business practices.

The DOJ alleges in its latest lawsuit that Visa’s “web of exclusionary agreements” with banks and businesses helped strengthen its market dominance and “smother” any potential competitors. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Visa “unlawfully amassed the power to extract fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive market.

“Merchants and banks pass along those costs to customers, either by raising prices or reducing quality or service,” the statement reads. “As a result, Visa’s unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing — but the price of nearly everything.”

Visa's General Counsel Julie Rottenberg told Engadget in an emailed statement that the DOJ's lawsuit is "meritless" and that they plan to vigorously defend themselves in court. 

"Today's lawsuit ignores the reality that Visa is just one of many competitors in a debit space that is growing, with entrants who are thriving," Rottenberg said by email. "When businesses and consumers choose Visa, it is because of our secure and reliable network, world-class fraud protection, and the value we provide. We are proud of the payments network we have built, the innovation we advance, and the economic opportunity we enable."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/visa-slapped-with-a-doj-antitrust-lawsuit-204710873.html?src=rss

X is reportedly now complying with orders from Brazil’s Supreme Court

X is reportedly reversing course after weeks of refusing to comply with conditions set by the Brazilian Supreme Court that would allow it to operate in the country again. According to The New York Times, the company’s lawyers said in a Friday court filing that X has named a legal representative in Brazil as demanded by justice Alexandre de Moraes and removed accounts that the judge had identified as a threat to democracy, along with paying the fines it owed. But, the publication also reports that the Brazil Supreme Court has said X did not submit all the necessary paperwork, and now has five days to do so.

The paperwork X failed to submit is that which would prove it formally appointed a legal representative in Brazil, as required by Brazilian law, according to Reuters. X named Rachel de Oliveira Conceicao as its new legal representative in the filing on Friday. The company has been working to restore service to users in Brazil after it was blocked at the end of August, and briefly came back online earlier this week using Cloudflare’s DNS. But, it said that this was “inadvertent and temporary.” In a statement, an X spokesperson said at the time, “While we expect the platform to be inaccessible again in Brazil soon, we continue efforts to work with the Brazilian government to return very soon for the people of Brazil.”

Brazil has threatened X and Starlink with daily fines of nearly $1 million if they do not comply with the ban in the country. Justice Moraes also made it so users in Brazil could be fined roughly $8,900 if caught using a VPN to access X. The company’s latest move is a step toward resolving the issue and potentially bringing X back to Brazil legally.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/x-is-reportedly-now-complying-with-orders-from-brazils-supreme-court-170651920.html?src=rss