Online retailers like Temu and Shein are known for selling cheap products like baby clothes, kitchen gadgets and electronics. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) wants to know the true costs that foreign online retailers are cutting to sell these products at lower prices.
CPSC commissioners Peter Feldman and Douglas Dziak released a joint statement today calling for their staff to evaluate the operations of foreign e-commerce sites. The statement cites Shein and Temu as two online retail companies that “raise specific concerns.”
Recent news reports of “deadly baby and toddlers products” being sold on these platforms started to raise red flags at the CPSC. A recent report from The Information found several baby and children’s products on Shein deemed to be unsafe, such as children’s drawstring hoodies for sale that had been flagged by regulators as a strangulation risk. The fashion industry news site Fashion Dive found Temu selling children’s pajamas by brands that the CPSC ruled violated “the flammability standards for children’s sleepwear.”
A Shein spokesperson said in a statement to CNN that its customers’ safety remains their “top priority and we are investing millions of dollars to strengthen our compliance programs.” Meanwhile, a Temu spokesperson told us that it required "all sellers on [its] platform to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to product safety." The spokesperson added: "Our interests are aligned with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in ensuring consumer protection and product safety, and we will cooperate fully with any investigation."
The CSPC isn’t the first US government agency to scrutinize foreign e-commerce companies like Shein and Temu. Last year, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission issued a brief detailing the challenges presented by “Chinese ‘fast fashion’ platforms.” The Commission questioned these platforms’ alleged exploitations of trade loopholes and concerns about its sale of items that posed product safety risks, violated copyrights and trademarks and used forced labor to make and sell products.
Update, September 05, 2024, 12:19AM ET: This story has been updated to add Temu's statement.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-us-government-may-be-preparing-to-investigate-internet-retail-giants-like-shein-and-temu-193218089.html?src=rss
A Texas judge denied Media Matters for America’s request for a dismissal on Thursday allowing X’s lawsuit over alleged anti-semitic and racist content. The Verge reported that Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O’Connor dismissed the request for a dismissal paving the way for X’s lawsuit against Media Matters to continue.
Media Matters submitted its dismissal request in early March on the grounds that X’s case lacked “personal jurisdiction,” an “improper venue” and the “failure to state a claim.” O’Connor dismissed all of those claims, according to court records.
The lawsuit filed last year in federal court seeks damages from the media watchdog group over “maliciously manufactured” images reporting that X’s platform placed Neo-Nazi and white-nationlist content next to advertisers’ images causing advertisers to flee the site. The images Media Matters used weren’t manufactured but X’s claim is that its dogged pursuit of ads’ placement with racist content by using certain accounts to bypass ad filters caused irreparable harm to the social media giant.
X owner Elon Musk’s other companies are located in Texas but aren’t directly connected to the Media Matters lawsuit. X closed its San Francisco offices earlier this month and owner Elon Musk announced in July that X’s headquarters will move to Austin. Tesla moved its headquarters from California to the Lone Star State in 2021 and SpaceX from Delaware earlier this year when a judge threw out a $56 billion pay package from the state.
However, in dismissing the personal jurisdiction argument, O’Connor noted that two of X’s “blue-chip” advertisers like AT&T and Oracle included in Media Matters’ coverage are based in Texas. He cited the landmark 2002 Internet defamation case Revell v. Lidov quoting the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ assertion that “if you are going to pick a fight in Texas, it is reasonable to expect that it be settled there.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/judge-denies-media-matters-motion-to-dismiss-xs-not-libel-lawsuit-204732720.html?src=rss
Yelp has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google. As CNNreports, the move caps off years of animosity between the two companies, with Yelp alleging that Google has leveraged its control over online searching to dominate local queries and prioritize its own reviews.
"Google abuses its monopoly power in general search to keep users within Google’s owned ecosystem and prevents them from going to rival sites," Yelp Co-founder and CEO Jeremy Stoppelman said in a blog post announcing the suit. "This anticompetitive conduct siphons traffic and advertising revenue from vertical search services, like Yelp, that provide objectively higher quality local business content for consumers."
The US lawsuit could carry extra weight following a Department of Justice case where the judge deemed Google a monopolist over search. The August ruling did not place any sanctions on Google, but it's likely that Yelp's case will be the first of many brought by the tech company's competitors.
In response to a request for comment, a Google spokesperson told Engadget:
“Yelp’s claims are not new. Similar claims were thrown out years ago by the FTC, and recently by the judge in the DOJ’s case. On the other aspects of the decision to which Yelp refers, we are appealing. Google will vigorously defend against Yelp’s meritless claims.”
While this lawsuit centers on the US, Yelp has also been sounding off about Google's practices overseas. The European Digital Markets Act was meant to loosen some of the company's stranglehold over search results with rules to prevent massive tech businesses from favoring their own services. But Yelp argued that Google's attempt at DMA compliance actually made users less likely to leave the Google ecosystem.
In a statement regarding the suit, Yelp’s General Counsel Aaron Schur said:
"Yelp’s antitrust lawsuit against Google addresses how Google abuses its illegal monopoly in general search to engage in anticompetitive conduct, including self-preferencing its own inferior local product, to dominate the local search and local search advertising markets. For years, Google has leveraged its monopoly in general search to pad its own bottom line at the expense of what’s best for consumers, innovation, and fair competition. By willfully engaging in exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct, Google has driven traffic and revenue away from competitors, made it harder for them to scale, and increased their costs, while degrading consumer choice, to grow its own market power.
Judge Amit Mehta’s recent ruling in the government’s antitrust case against Google, finding Google illegally maintained its monopoly in general search, is a watershed moment in antitrust law, and provides a strong foundation for Yelp’s case against Google. In addition to injunctive relief, Yelp seeks a remedy that ensures Google can no longer self-preference in local search. The harms caused by Google’s self-preferencing are not unique to Yelp, and we look forward to telling our story in court."
Update, August 28, 8:15PM ET: This story was updated after publish to include a comment from a Google spokesperson and an additional comment from Yelp's General Counsel.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/yelp-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-230228737.html?src=rss
HP is the latest recipient of CHIPS and Science Act funding. The Biden-Harris Administration said on Tuesday that the Department of Commerce has agreed to preliminary terms with the company to funnel up to $50 million into modernizing the company’s Oregon-based plant. The expansion of HP’s “lab-to-fab” facility, which combines R&D with chip manufacturing, is expected to create over 250 jobs.
Once finalized, HP’s funding would support the development of chips for life sciences lab equipment. This includes devices used for drug discovery, single-cell research and cell line development. HP says the expansion will also advance tech built for microfluidics, the study of the behavior and control of fluid on a microscopic scale. “Microfluidics has the potential to drive revolutionary changes across industries, delivering speed, efficiency, and precision, to help pave the way for the next generation of innovation in life sciences and technology,” HP’s President and CEO Enrique Lores wrote in a Department of Commerce press release.
The proposed $50 million would support the expansion and modernization of HP’s existing plant in Corvallis, OR, around 80 miles south of Portland. In addition to manufacturing silicon, the plant is one of the company’s three global R&D centers. The 80,000-square-foot plant has incubated 39 startups, including 20 spun off from Oregon State University faculty and students. The company has academic partnerships with Portland Community College on training and recruitment programs.
The proposed $50 million funding is through a preliminary memorandum of terms (PMT). The non-binding agreement is “conditional on the achievement of certain milestones.” Having completed a merit review of HP’s application, the Department of Commerce will begin due diligence on HP’s proposed projects before the agency negotiates or refines its final funding terms.
The $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act, signed by President Biden in 2022, directs funding to incentivize semiconductor companies to manufacture in America, boosting America's ability to compete with China while generating job growth. It includes $39 billion in subsidies for domestic chip manufacturing and $13 billion for workforce training.
Previous recipients include $8.5 billion for Intel, $6.6 billion for TSMC and $6.4 billion for Samsung. In addition, GlobalFoundries received $1.5 billion and Texas Instruments got $1.6 billion to produce legacy chips (less advanced silicon for things like phones, appliances and defense equipment).
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/hp-secures-up-to-50-million-in-chips-act-funding-to-expand-an-oregon-facility-171233289.html?src=rss
Uber has received its largest fine to date, with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) issuing a €290 million ($324 million) penalty to the rideshare company. The regulatory body announced it had issued the fine in response to Uber transferring the personal data of European taxi drivers into the United States without properly safeguarding the information. The complaint came from France, but the case was moved to Holland, where Uber's EU headquarters are located.
The Dutch DPA found that Uber took account details, taxi licenses, location data, photos, payment details, identity documents and more from European drivers and transferred them to servers at their US headquarters for over two years. During this period, Uber didn't use any transfer tools, a decision the Dutch DPA has deemed caused insufficient protection. "In Europe, the GDPR protects the fundamental rights of people, by requiring businesses and governments to handle personal data with due care," Dutch DPA chairman Aleid Wolfsen said in a statement. "Uber did not meet the requirements of the GDPR to ensure the level of protection to the data with regard to transfers to the US. That is very serious."
The Dutch DPA has fined Uber twice before, first imposing a €600,000 ($670,000) fine in 2018 after the company failed to report a data breach that occurred two years earlier within a 72-hour timeframe. In 2023, the Dutch DPA fined Uber €10 million ($11.2 million) for not fully detailing its data retention periods (regarding information about European drivers) or the non-European countries where it shares data. Uber objected to the latter fine and has made its intentions clear to fight the €290 million.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/uber-gets-slapped-with-%E2%82%AC290-million-fine-123039726.html?src=rss
The 28-year-old founders of TollBit, a New York-based startup that is all of six months old, think we’re living in the “Napster days” of AI. Just like people of a certain generation downloaded digital music, companies are ripping off vast swaths of the internet without paying the rights holders. They want TollBit to be the iTunes of the AI world.
“It’s kind of the Wild West right now,” Olivia Joslin, the company’s co-founder and chief operating officer, told Engadget in an interview. “We want to make it easier for AI companies to pay for the data they need.” Their idea is simple: create a marketplace that connects AI companies that need access to fresh, high-quality data to the publishers who actually spend money creating it.
AI companies have, indeed, only recently started paying for (some of) the data they need from news publishers. OpenAI kicked off an arms race at the end of 2022, but it was only a year ago that the company signed the first of its many licensing deals with the Associated Press. Later that year, OpenAI announced a partnership with German publisher Axel Springer, which operates Business Insider and Politico in the US. Multiple publishers including Vox, the Financial Times, News Corp and TIME, have since signed deals with OpenAI and Google.
But that still leaves countless other publishers and creators out in the cold — without the option to strike this Faustian Bargain even if they want to. This is the “long tail” of publishers that TollBit wants to target.
“Powerful AI models already exist and they have already been trained,” Toshit Panigrahi, TollBit’s co-founder and CEO told Engadget. “And right now, there are thousands of applications just taking these existing models off the shelves. What they need is fresh content. But right now, there’s no infrastructure — neither for them to buy it, nor for content-makers to sell it in a way that is seamless.”
Both Joslin and Panigrahi weren’t particularly knowledgeable about the media industry. But they both knew how online marketplaces and platforms operated – they were colleagues at Toast, a platform that lets restaurants manage billing and reservations. Panigrahi watched both the deals — and the lawsuits — pile up in the AI sector, then called on Joslin.
Their early conversations were about RAG, which stands for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the AI world. With RAG, AI models first look up information from specific databases (like the scrapable portions of the internet) and use that information to synthesize a response instead of simply relying on training data. Services like ChatGPT don’t know current home prices, or the latest news. Instead, they fetch that data, typically by looking at websites. That absence of fresh data is why AI chatbots are often stumped by queries about breaking news events — if they don’t scrape the latest data, they simply can’t keep up.
“We thought that using content for RAG was something fundamentally different than using it for training,” said Panigrahi.
TollBit
By some estimations, RAG is the future of search engines. More and more, people are asking questions on the internet and expecting complete answers in return instead of a list of blue links. In just over a year, startups like Perplexity, backed by Jess Bezos and NVIDIA among others, have burst onto the scene with ambitions of taking on Google. Even OpenAI has plans to someday let ChatGPT become your search engine. In response, Google has sprung into action — it now culls relevant information from search results and presents it as a coherent answer at the top of the results page, a feature it calls AI Overviews. (It doesn’t always work well, but is seemingly here to stay).
The rise of RAG-based search engines has publishers shaking in their boots. After all, who would make money if AI reads the internet for us? After Google rolled out AI Overviews earlier this year, at least one report estimated that publishers would lose more than $2 billion in ad revenue because fewer people would have a reason to visit their websites. “AI companies need continuous access to high quality content and data too,” said Joslin, “but if you don’t figure out some economic model here, there will be no incentive for anyone to create content, and that’ll be the end of AI applications too.”
Instead of cutting one-off checks, TollBit’s model aims to compensate publishers on an ongoing basis. Hypothetically, if someone’s content was used in a thousand AI-generated answers, they would get paid a thousand times at a price that they set and which they can change on the fly.
Each time an AI company accesses fresh data from a publisher through TollBit, it can pay a small fee set by the publisher that Panigrahi and Joslin think should be roughly equivalent to whatever a traditional page view would have made the publisher. And the platform can also block AI companies who haven’t signed up from accessing publishers’ data.
So far, the founders claim to have onboarded a hundred publishers and are in pilots with three AI companies since TollBit launched in February. They refused to reveal which publishers or AI companies had signed on so far, citing confidentiality clauses, but did not deny speaking with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta. So far, they say that no money has changed hands between AI companies and publishers on their platform.
TollBit
Until that happens, their model is still a giant hypothetical — although one that investors have so far poured $7 million into. TollBit’s investors include Sunflower Capital, Lerer Hippeau, Operator Collective, AIX and Liquid 2 Ventures, and more investors are currently “pounding down their door,” Joslin claimed. In April, TollBit also brought on Campbell Brown as a senior adviser, a former television anchor who previously acted as Meta’s head of news partnerships for the better part of a decade.
In spite of some high-profile lawsuits, AI companies are still scraping the internet for free and largely getting away with it. Why would they have any incentive to actually pay publishers for this data? There are three big reasons, the founders say: more websites are taking steps to prevent their content from being scraped ever since generative AI went mainstream, which means that scraping the web is getting harder and more expensive; no one wants to deal with ongoing copyright lawsuits; and, crucially, being able to easily pay for content on an as-needed basis lets AI companies tap into smaller and more niche publications because it isn’t possible to strike individual licensing deals with every single website. Joslin also pointed out that multiple TollBit investors have also invested in AI companies which they worry might face litigation for using content without permission.
Getting AI companies to pay for content could provide a recurring revenue stream for not just large publishers but to potentially anyone who publishes anything online. Last month, Perplexity — which was accused of illegally scraping content from Forbes, Wired and Condé Nast — launched a Publishers’ Program under which it plans to share a cut of any revenue it earns with publishers if it uses their content to generate answers with AI. The success of the program, however, hinges on how much money Perplexity makes when it introduces ads in the app later this year. Like Tollbit, it's another complete hypothetical.
“Our thesis with TollBit is that if you lose a page view today, you should be compensated for it immediately rather than a few years after when a tech company figures out its ads program,” said Panigrahi about Perplexity’s initiative.
Despite all the existing licensing deals and technical advances, AI-powered chatbots still make for terrible news sources. They still make up facts and confidently conjure up entire links to stories that don’t actually exist. But technology companies are now stuffing AI chatbots in every crevice they can, which means that many people will still get their news from one of these products in the not-so-distant future.
A more cynical take on TollBit’s premise is that the startup is effectively offering hush money to publishers whose work is more likely than not to be sausaged into misinformation. Its founders, naturally, don’t agree with the characterization. “We are careful about the AI partners we onboard,” Panigrahi said. “These companies are very mindful about the quality of input material and correctness of responses. We’re seeing that paying for content – even nominal amounts – creates incentive to respect the raw inputs into their systems instead of treating it as a free, replaceable commodity.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/this-startup-wants-to-be-the-itunes-of-ai-content-licensing-162942714.html?src=rss
The Department of Justice and eight states’ attorney generals filed an antitrust lawsuit against rental software company RealPage on Friday, accusing it of using algorithms to drive up rent prices nationwide. The suit alleges RealPage’s software, YieldStar, gathers sensitive information from landlords and rental companies, which it feeds into algorithms that recommend prices and practices that limit competition and force renters to pay more.
“Americans should not have to pay more in rent because a company has found a new way to scheme with landlords to break the law,” Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a DOJ press release.
RealPage’s software reportedly manages more than 24 million rental units globally. The DOJ’s complaint accuses the Texas-based company of contracting with competing landlords who agree to share “nonpublic, competitively sensitive information” about rental rates and other lease terms. RealPage then trains YieldStar’s algorithms, which generate pricing and other competitive recommendations “based on their and their rivals’ competitively sensitive information,” according to the DOJ.
The DOJ was joined in its suit by the attorney generals of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. It filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, accusing the company of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The 1890 law is considered the bedrock of US antitrust actions.
In addition, the lawsuit accuses RealPage of monopolizing the rental market in a feedback loop that “strengthens RealPage’s grip on the market,” making it harder for “honest businesses to compete on the merits.”
The DOJ’s complaint cites internal documents and sworn testimony from the company, along with landlords who have used the software to allegedly price-gouge renters. The agency says RealPage admitted its software was designed to maximize rent prices, saying its product excels at “driving every possible opportunity to increase price,” “avoid[ing] the race to the bottom in down markets” and “a rising tide raises all ships.”
In addition, the DOJ quotes a RealPage executive as observing that its software helps landlords avoid competing. The executive allegedly opined that “there is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down.” (Perhaps the executive doesn’t consider renters part of “the greater good.”)
The DOJ also quotes a RealPage executive as explaining to a landlord that its competitor data can help spot situations where they “may have a $50 increase instead of a $10 increase for the day.” The suit even cites a landlord’s comment that YieldStar helps the supply side control the market. “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That’s classic price fixing.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-doj-files-an-antitrust-lawsuit-against-a-software-company-for-allegedly-manipulating-rent-prices-154230054.html?src=rss
An appeals court has revived an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon filed by the Attorney General of Washington, DC more than three years ago. The online retailer must now face allegations that it illegally raised prices for consumers.
The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 and cited Amazon’s practices related to third-party sellers on its platform. Specifically, it called out a provision in the company’s agreements with third-party sellers that allowed it to punish businesses that offered its products at lower prices on non-Amazon platforms. Karl Racine, the AG at the time, said these agreements allowed the company to “impose an artificially high price floor across the online retail marketplace.” Racine later expanded the case to include Amazon’s pricing tactics for wholesalers.
Amazon has disputed those allegations, and the case was dismissed in 2022. But an appeals court has now reversed that decision. “Viewed as a whole, the District’s allegations about Amazon’s market share and maintenance of its market power through the challenged agreements plausibly suggest that Amazon either already possesses monopoly power over online marketplaces or is close to a ‘dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power,’” the judge wrote.
“We disagree with the District of Columbia’s allegations and look forward to presenting facts in court that demonstrate how good these policies are for consumers," Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle told Engadget in a statement. "Just like any store owner who wouldn’t want to promote a bad deal to their customers, we don’t highlight or promote offers that are not competitively priced. It’s part of our commitment to featuring low prices to earn and maintain customer trust, which we believe is the right decision for both consumers and sellers in the long run.”
The reversal adds to Amazon’s antitrust woes. The company is also facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and more than a dozen states. The UK’s antitrust regulator has also opened an investigation centered around the company’s $4 billion investment into Anthropic.
In a statement, DC's current AG Brian Schwalb noted that the district “was the first jurisdiction to take antitrust enforcement action” against the company. “Now, our case will move forward, and we will continue fighting to stop Amazon’s unfair and unlawful practices that have raised prices for District consumers and stifled innovation and choice across online retail.”
Update, August 22 2024, 7:13 PM ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from Amazon.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/dcs-antitrust-case-against-amazon-comes-back-to-life-194314355.html?src=rss
The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) efforts to ban noncompete agreements has been blocked by a federal judge in Texas. According to The Washington Post, US District Judge Ada Brown has determined that the agency doesn't have the authority to enforce the rule, which was supposed to take effect on September 4. She reportedly wrote in her decision that the FTC only looked at "inconsistent and flawed empirical evidence" and didn't consider evidence in support of noncompetes. "The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency thinks it should do," she added.
FTC Chair Lina M. Khan explained that "noncompete clauses keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism" when the agency voted 3-2 in favor of the ban. Noncompete agreements are widely used in the tech industry, and preventing companies from adding them to contracts would mean that workers will be able to freely move to a new job or start a business in the same field. The two Republican commissioners in the FTC, Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson, voted against the ban and also said that the agency "overstepped the boundaries of its power."
In July, Brown temporarily blocked the rule's enforcement to assess the lawsuit filed by Dallas tax services firm Ryan LLC mere hours after the FTC announced the ban. The US Chamber of Commerce and other groups of American businesses eventually joined the tax firm in challenging the new rule on noncompete clauses.
"We are disappointed by Judge Brown's decision and will keep fighting to stop noncompetes that restrict the economic liberty of hardworking Americans, hamper economic growth, limit innovation, and depress wages," FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham told The Post. "We are seriously considering a potential appeal, and today's decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-case enforcement actions."
A federal judge in Florida also blocked the rule last week, though only for the lawsuit's plaintiffs. Meanwhile, another judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month that the agency has the authority to enforce the ban in a separate case filed by a tree-care company in the state. All three cases could still be appealed and could even make their way to the Supreme Court.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/texas-judge-blocks-the-ftc-from-enforcing-its-ban-on-noncompete-agreements-133059676.html?src=rss
Condé Nast, the media conglomerate that owns publications like The New Yorker, Vogue and Wired, has announced a multi-year partnership OpenAI to display content from Condé Nast titles in ChatGPT as well as SearchGPT, the company’s prototype AI-powered search engine. The partnership comes amid growing concerns over the unauthorized use of publishers’ content by AI companies. Last month, Condé Nast sent a cease-and-desist letter to AI search startup Perplexity, accusing it of plagiarism for using its content to generate answers.
“Over the last decade, news and digital media have faced steep challenges as many technology companies eroded publishers’ ability to monetize content, most recently with traditional search,” Condé Nast CEO Roger Lynch wrote to employees in a memo that was first reported by Semafor’s Max Tani. “Our partnership with OpenAI begins to make up for some of that revenue, allowing us to continue to protect and invest in our journalism and creative endeavors.” It's not clear how much money OpenAI will pay Condé Nast for the partnership.
The move makes Condé Nast the latest in a growing line of publishers who have struck deals with OpenAI. These include News Corp, Vox, The Atlantic, TIME and Axel Springer among others. But not everyone is on board with the idea. Last year, the New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for using information from the publisher’s articles in ChatGPT’s responses.
Lynch has been vocal about these concerns. In January, he warned that “many” media companies could face financial ruin by the time it would take for litigations against AI companies to conclude and called upon Congress to take “immediate action" to take "immediate action" and clarify that publishers must be compensated by AI companies for both training and output if they use their content. Earlier this month, three senators introduced the COPIED ACT, a bill that aims to protect journalists and artists from having their content scraped by AI companies without their permission.
Perplexity, which was recently accused by Forbes and Wired of stealing content, now plans to share a portion of potential advertising revenues with publishers who sign up for a newly-launched Publishers’ Program.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-will-now-use-content-from-wired-vogue-and-the-new-yorker-in-chatgpts-responses-193057432.html?src=rss