Judge blocks new California law barring distribution of election-related AI deepfakes

One of California's new AI laws, which aims to prevent AI deepfakes related to elections from spreading online, has been blocked a month before the US presidential elections. As TechCrunch and Reason report, Judge John Mendez has issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the state's attorney general from enforcing AB 2839. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed it into law, along with other bills focusing on AI, back in mid-September. After doing so, he tweeted a screenshot of a story about X owner Elon Musk sharing an AI deepfake video of Vice President Kamala Harris without labeling it as fake. "I just signed a bill to make this illegal in the state of California," he wrote. 

AB 2839 holds anybody who distributes AI deepfakes accountable, if they feature political candidates and if they're posted within 120 days of an election in the state. Anybody who sees those deepfakes can file a civil action against the person who distributed it, and a judge can order the poster to take the manipulated media down if they don't want to face monetary penalties. After Newsom signed it into law, the video's original poster, X user Christopher Kohls, filed a lawsuit to block it, arguing that the video was satire and hence protected by the First Amendment. 

Judge Mendez has agreed with Kohls, noting in his decision [PDF] that AB 2839 does not pass strict scrutiny and is not narrowly tailored. He also said that the law's disclosure requirements are unduly burdensome. "Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the internet, could be considered harmful," he wrote. The judge likened YouTube videos, Facebook posts and X tweets to newspaper advertisements and political cartoons and asserted that the First Amendment "protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take." Since this is merely a preliminary injunction, the law may be unblocked in the future, though that might not happen in time for this year's presidential elections. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/judge-blocks-new-california-law-barring-distribution-of-election-related-ai-deepfakes-133043341.html?src=rss

US labor board accuses Apple of violating employees’ rights

Apple has been in hot water with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) since 2022 when the company was accused of union-busting. It agreed to review its labor practices last January, but the NLRB determined that Apple had violated workers’ rights soon after. Today, the NLRB strikes again, accusing Apple of anti-union practices, denying employees the right to discuss wages and even signing illegal nondisclosure, noncompete and confidentiality agreements.

Truth be told, this is pretty much the same song and dance covered since 2022. These complaints originate from former Apple employees Cher Scarlett and Ashley Gjøvik. They claimed that Apple prohibited wage discussion and that CEO Tim Cook aimed to punish leakers, respectively. Gjøvik also alleged that it prevented staff from talking to reporters.

Apple provided a statement to Reuters, which first reported on this complaint. The company claims it always honors employees’ rights to discuss wages, hours and working conditions. Should Apple not settle the case, an administrative judge will hear it in January.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/us-labor-board-accuses-apple-of-violating-employees-rights-164643503.html?src=rss

X can be ‘immediately’ unblocked in Brazil after it pays a $1.9 million fine

X only has to pay one last fine in Brazil to get its services reinstated, according to Bloomberg and CNBC. Supreme Court R has ordered the company to pay 10 million Reais, or around $1.9 million, for its non-compliance with Brazil's court order for two days. Moraes added that the company's return "depends solely on the full compliance with Brazilian legislation and the absolute observance of the court orders in respect of national sovereignty." Specifically, Moraes fined X on September 19 for restoring its services in the country for some people despite a ban on the website. The judge also fined the company after X disregarded the ban for a second time on September 23 through Starlink. 

X's owner, Elon Musk, previously resisted Moraes' order to take down and freeze several accounts that were allegedly spreading disinformation on the platform. Musk saw it as censorship and opted to close its operations in the country instead of complying. In response, Moraes ordered the nation's internet providers to block the social media platform and to issue a new rule that anybody found to be accessing X through a VPN could face a daily fine of 50,000 Reais ($8,900). The court froze the Brazilian bank account of SpaceX’s Starlink internet service provider, as well. It ultimately withdrew 18.35 million Reais ($3.4 million) from Starlink's and X's account to settle previous penalties the Supreme Court had imposed on the social network.

A few days ago, however, X's lawyers reportedly filed a document in court naming the company's legal representative in Brazil, as Moraes had demanded. The website also removed the accounts the judge named in its initial directives and which he had identified as a threat to democracy, showing that it's now willing to comply with the court's orders. The New York Times reported back then that X had failed to submit all the necessary paperwork to get Brazil to lift its ban. Moraes' statement that the company can "immediately return to its activities" after it pays this fine suggests that X got that squared away, and Brazilian users may be able to access the website soon. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/x-can-be-immediately-unblocked-in-brazil-after-it-pays-a-19-million-fine-110001546.html?src=rss

Three men charged in connection with the Trump campaign hack

The US Department of Justice charged three Iranian nationals as part of an effort to hack into the emails and computers used by President Donald Trump’s campaign staff and other political connections.

The Washington Post reported that DOJ officials filed charges against Masoud Jalili, Seyyed Ali Aghamiri and Yasar Balaghi in an indictment filed Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The indictment alleges the three men “prepared for and engaged in a wide-ranging hacking campaign” against current and former US officials, political campaigns and the media.

According to the indictment Jalili, Aghamiri and Balaghi’s "activity is part of Iran’s continuing efforts to [...] erode confidence in the US electoral process." They also face possible charges such as providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The suspects are accused of running a targeted hacking campaign committed in Iran over a four-year period. Their victims include current and former officials with the US State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the US Ambassador to Israel and an Iranian human rights organization.

Then last May, the three hackers successfully gained access to accounts belonging to Trump campaign officials. (Attempts to breach Biden campaign staff were, apparently, unsuccessful.) President Joe Biden’s campaign staffers as well as news outlets like The Washington Post and Politico received unsolicited emails from an AOL account owned by “Robert” that contained materials stolen from the Trump campaign. They included some internal poll results and the vetting dossier for Trump’s running mate Senator J.D. Vance.

Because of extradition laws, it's unlikely these hackers will be brought to justice on US soil.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/three-men-charged-in-connection-with-the-trump-campaign-hack-191154617.html?src=rss

Valve cuts binding arbitration from its Steam user agreement

If you booted up Steam in the last 24 hours, then you probably saw the pop up window asking you to agree to a new Steam Subscriber Agreement (SSA). Valve laid out the changes in an official blog post on the Steam Community forum, and notably, binding arbitration is no longer part of the SSA.

Binding arbitration is a requirement that disputes be resolved by a legal proceeding that takes place outside of courts. Instead of a judge, these disputes are overseen by an arbitrator, who is paid by the company for their service. You can imagine why there might be some conflict of interest inherent (or why companies love these things). Instead, the new SSA says customers should seek resolutions to any problems by first contacting Steam Support. If a solution can’t be reached, disputes will be referred to the court instead of individual arbitration.

Hauling a company into court wouldn't be all that notable on its own, except that in recent years with the rise of Terms of Service agreements, arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous. Next time you download an app, join a website or even sign a contract for a new job, take a look at the contract: more often than not, you just signed away your right to sue.

The new SSA also no longer has a class action waiver, which previously barred groups of similarly situated plaintiffs to sue jointly, which is also a major departure from other Terms of Service agreements.

Valve says these changes will have “limited impact” in some regions including the EU and UK, Australia, New Zealand and Quebec. The arbitration requirement in the SSA did not apply to these regions.

While these are positive developments for consumers, Steam curiously doesn’t list its reasons for making these changes. We’ve reached out to a Steam representative for comment and will update if we hear back.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/valve-cuts-binding-arbitration-from-its-steam-user-agreement-174529582.html?src=rss

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