Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

Google and Amazon’s Israeli cloud contracts reportedly require them to sidestep legal orders

Posted on by

Chalk this one up under "The most clever (alleged) legal sidesteps this side of Tony Soprano." On Wednesday, The Guardian published a report about a so-called "winking mechanism" regarding Israeli cloud computing contracts with Amazon and Google. The stipulation from 2021's Project Nimbus is said to require the US companies to send coded messages to Israel. According to the report, whenever Google or Amazon secretly complies with an overseas legal request for Israeli data, they're required to send money to Israel. The dollar amount indicates which country issued the request.

The coding system reportedly involves country dialing prefixes. For example, if Google or Amazon hand over Israeli data to the US (dialing code +1), they would send Israel 1,000 shekels. For Italy (code +39), they would send 3,900 shekels. (Out of morbid curiosity, I discovered that the highest dialing code is Uzbekistan's +998.) There's reportedly even a failsafe: If a gag order prevents the companies from using the standard signal, they can notify Israel by sending 100,000 shekels.

The Guardian says Microsoft, which bid for the Nimbus contract, lost out in part because it refused to accept some of Israel's terms.

In a statement to Engadget, an Amazon spokesperson highlighted customer privacy. "We respect the privacy of our customers, and we do not discuss our relationship without their consent, or have visibility into their workloads," they wrote.

The Amazon spokesperson denied that the company has any underhanded workarounds in place. "We have a rigorous global process for responding to lawful and binding orders for requests related to customer data," they said. "[Amazon Web Services] carefully reviews each request to assess any non-disclosure obligations, and we maintain confidentiality in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. While AWS does not disclose customer information in response to government demands unless we're absolutely required to do so, we recognize the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies to investigate serious crimes. We do not have any processes in place to circumvent our confidentiality obligations on lawfully binding orders."

Google also denied any wrongdoing. "The accusations in this reporting are false, and imply that we somehow were involved in illegal activity, which is absurd," a company spokesperson said. "As is common in public sector agreements, an RFP does not reflect a final contract. The idea that we would evade our legal obligations to the US government as a US company, or in any other country, is categorically wrong."

"We've been very clear about the Nimbus contract, what it's directed to, and the Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy that govern it," the Google spokesperson continued. "Nothing has changed. This appears to be yet another attempt to falsely imply otherwise."

We also reached out to the Israeli government for a statement, and we'll update this story if we hear back. The Guardian's full report has much more detail on the alleged leak.

Update, October 29, 2025, 6:29 PM ET: This story has been updated to add a statement from a Google spokesperson.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-and-amazons-israeli-cloud-contracts-reportedly-require-them-to-sidestep-legal-orders-164635805.html?src=rss

OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora’s ‘Cameo’ feature

Posted on by

When OpenAI launched its TikTok-like Sora app, a key feature was "Cameo" that allows people to add any likeness to videos they generate. Now the maker of Cameo, an app that allows you to buy short videos from celebrities, has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of violating its trademark by using the same name, Reuters reported. It claims that OpenAI's use of "Cameo" is likely to cause consumer confusion and dilute its brand. 

"Via the conduct alleged in this Complaint, OpenAI has knowingly co-opted a well-established, federally registered trademark, ignoring... the clear risk of consumer confusion, and the irreparable harm that will be inflicted on Plaintiff’s Cameo trademark rights and brand," the complaint states. 

Open AI is reviewing the complaint, but "disagree[s] that anyone can claim exclusive ownership over the word 'cameo,'" a spokesperson told Reuters. Meanwhile, Cameo's CEO Steven Galanis said it tried to resolve the dispute "amicably," but OpenAI refused to stop using the name.  

Cameo lets users choose from a stable of celebrities — including the likes of Jon Gruden, Lisa Vanderpump and Colin Mochrie — to create short, personalized videos. Prices range from around $30 to $600 per video. 

Sora, meanwhile, uses OpenAI's Sora 2 video generation tech to create and share videos. The app immediately drew attention over potentially unauthorized use of anime, deceased celebrities and other legally protected sources. 

Cameo stated that OpenAI not only used its name, but starting offering its own cameo service using deepfake likenesses of celebrities like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul. "Users seeking a personalized celebrity video [could] use Plaintiff's Cameo service to book talent and receive an authentic, custom video prepared by that celebrity, or use Sora’s 'Cameo' service to create an extremely realistic AI-generated video featuring a celebrity’s likeness," the lawsuit states.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/openai-sued-for-trademark-infringement-over-soras-cameo-feature-113047158.html?src=rss

Snap calls New Mexico’s child safety complaint a ‘sensationalist lawsuit’

Posted on by

Snap has accused New Mexico's attorney general of intentionally looking for adult users seeking sexually explicit content in order to make its app seem unsafe in a filing asking the court to dismiss the state's lawsuit. In the document shared by The Verge, the company questioned the veracity of the state's allegations. The attorney general's office said that while it was using a decoy account supposed to be owned by a 14-year-old girl, it was added by a user named Enzo (Nud15Ans). From that connection, the app allegedly suggested over 91 users, including adults looking for sexual content. Snap said in its motion to dismiss, however, that those "allegations are patently false."

It was the decoy account that searched for and added Enzo, the company wrote. The attorney general's operatives were also the ones who looked for and added accounts with questionable usernames, such as "nudenude_22" and "xxx_tradehot." In addition, Snap is accusing the office of "repeatedly [mischaracterizing]" its internal documents. The office apparently cited a document when it mentioned in its lawsuit that the company "consciously decided not to store child sex abuse images" and when it suggested that it doesn't report and provide those images to law enforcement. Snap denied that it was the case and clarified that it's not allowed to store child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) on its servers. It also said that it turns over such materials to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The New Mexico Department of Justice's director of communications was not impressed with the company's arguments. In a statement sent to The Verge, Lauren Rodriguez accused Snap of focusing on the minor details of the investigation in an "attempt to distract from the serious issues raised in the State’s case." Rodriguez also said that "Snap continues to put profits over protecting children" instead of "addressing... critical issues with real change to their algorithms and design features."

New Mexico came to the conclusion that Snapchat's features "foster the sharing of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and facilitate child sexual exploitation" after a months-long investigation. It reported that it found a "vast network of dark web sites dedicated to sharing stolen, non-consensual sexual images from Snap" and that Snapchat was "by far" the biggest source of images and videos on the dark web sites that it had seen. The attorney general's office called Snapchat "a breeding ground for predators to collect sexually explicit images of children and to find, groom and extort them." Snap employees encounter 10,000 sextortion cases each month, the office's lawsuit said, but the company allegedly doesn't warn users so as not to "strike fear" among them. The complaint accused Snap's upper management of ignoring former trust and safety employees who'd pushed for additional safety mechanisms, as well.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/snap-calls-new-mexicos-child-safety-complaint-a-sensationalist-lawsuit-140034898.html?src=rss

Report: Amazon is likely to face an EU antitrust investigation next year

Posted on by

2025 could be a tense year for Amazon. Reuters reports that, according to its sources, Amazon “will likely” be investigated by the European Union (EU) for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by allegedly promoting and offering its own products ahead of others in its online store.

The decision to launch the investigation will be made by incoming EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera. Her term will start next month following outgoing chief Margrethe Vestager, who is stepping down after serving two terms.

Amazon denies that it violated the DMA. The EU’s antitrust regulators launched an investigation into Apple, Meta and Google in March over issues such as fees and preferential presentation of its own apps on its online stores. The European Commission also hinted that it might be looking into Amazon’s business practices under the new laws.

The DMA took effect last year and establishes criteria for large online platforms to “behave in a far way online and leave room for contestability,” according to the EU’s website. The guidelines prevent big tech companies like Amazon from giving preferential treatment to their own products and services on their platforms.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/report-amazon-is-likely-to-face-an-eu-antitrust-investigation-next-year-214556510.html?src=rss

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will now regulate Apple Pay, Venmo and others

Posted on by

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is no longer regulating just banks, now supervising Apple and other companies offering digital wallets and payment apps. It will focus on companies that handle over 50 million transactions per year and ensure they have "the authority to conduct proactive examinations to ensure companies are complying with the law in these and other areas," the bureau said in a statement. "Supervision also is an important tool for the CFPB to assess risks that can emerge rapidly in this market, including from outages and other issues that could lead to millions of consumers losing access to their funds."

The CFPB will supervise Apple Pay, Google Pay, Venmo and others in the areas of privacy and surveillance, debanking (losing access to their app without notice) and errors and fraud. This could provide more options for opting out of data collection and restricting them from misrepresenting their data protection practices, among other regulations. "Digital payments have gone from novelty to necessity and our oversight must reflect this reality. The rule will help to protect consumer privacy, guard against fraud, and prevent illegal account closures," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. In October, the CFPB fined Apple and Goldman Sachs $89 million over misleading customers and not following through with disputed transactions on the Apple Card. 

The CFPB originally proposed this setup in November 2023, but the final policies have changed. Most notably, businesses originally had to process just five million transactions, rather than the 50 million. It also reduced the number to just count US dollars, rather than a wider scope. The supervision will go into effect 30 days following the Federal Register publication. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-us-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-will-now-regulate-apple-pay-venmo-and-others-132129928.html?src=rss

X adds Twitch to its advertising boycott lawsuit

Posted on by

Twitch is now on the docket for X’s lawsuit against companies that stopped advertising on the social media site. X amended its lawsuit on Monday to include Twitch as a defendant in its lawsuit in a federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, according to Reuters.

The new complaint claims that the gaming stream site owned by Amazon stopped purchasing ads on X at the end of 2022. X alleges that Twitch and other companies conspired with the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) network’s Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative to withhold “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from Elon Musk’s social media company. 

The plaintiff alleges the boycott violated federal antitrust laws and is demanding a jury trial to settle the matter. GARM also announced its discontinuation two days after X filed its lawsuit.

X Corp.’s joint lawsuit first filed in August also includes the WFA, the global food manufacturer Mars Incorporated, the drugstore chain CVS and the Danish energy company Ørsted A/S over the advertising boycott. X also has a lawsuit against the media watchdog group Media Matters for publishing a report showing X displayed ads next to antisemitic content on the platform.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/x-adds-twitch-to-its-advertising-boycott-lawsuit-215540775.html?src=rss

Department of Justice will reportedly push for Google to sell Chrome

Posted on by

Google released Chrome in 2008 and it became synonymous with the company and its search engine. Well, that might no longer be the case if if the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has its way. The DOJ's antitrust officials reportedly plan to request a federal judge orders Google to sell off Chrome, Bloomberg reports, citing sources familiar with the plan. 

In August, federal judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google "is a monopolist" in the search engine industry. Mehta further agreed Google used its "monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads." The company takes signed-in users' data to create targeted advertising, however, Mehta ruled Google doesn't hold the same monopoly power when it comes to the general search advertising market. 

In response to the ruling, antitrust officers also reportedly plan to suggest Google changes its data licensing policies. A new proposal would have Google syndicate search results separately and sell its click and query data. These moves could aid rival search engines and AI startups. The officers reportedly considered asking Mehta to force Google to sell of Android but have moved away from that request. The DOJ submitted initial proposals in October to remedy Google's actions.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, stated, that the "government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed."

Mehta's August ruling stems from a 2020 lawsuit filed by the DOJ and about one-fifth of the states, including Florida, Indiana and Texas. It argued that Google spent billions of dollars annually to device manufacturers, US wireless carriers and browser developers "to secure default status for its general search engine and, in many cases, to specifically prohibit Google’s counterparties from dealing with Google’s competitors." According to testimony from Prabhakar Raghavan, Google's chief technologist, the company spent $26.3 billion in 2021 to maintain its default search engine status — a majority of which likely went to Apple. 

A two-week hearing is set for April 2025 on changes for Google to implement, with a final ruling expected by August next year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/department-of-justice-will-reportedly-push-for-google-to-sell-chrome-153612337.html?src=rss

X sues California over deceptive AI-made election content ban

Posted on by

Elon Musk’s X is taking the state of California to court over a new law that prevents the spread of AI-generated election misinformation. Bloomberg reports that X filed a lawsuit against AB 2655, also known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, in a Sacramento federal court.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law on September 17, creating accountability standards for using false political speech faked with AI programs close to an election. The legislation prevents the distribution of “materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election at which the candidate will appear on the ballet.”

X argues that the law will create more political speech censorship. The complaint says the First Amendment “includes tolerance for potentially false speech made in the context of such criticisms.”

Newsom signed AB 2655 into law as part of a large package of bills addressing concerns about the use of AI to create sexually explicit deepfakes and other deceptive material. The next day, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the law and other bills from Newsom’s signing.

California has become one of the epicenters of debate over the use and implementation of AI. Concerns about the use of AI in film and television projects, among other issues, prompted SAG-AFTRA to go on strike in 2023. SAG eventually reached a deal that included AI protections for actors prohibiting studios from using their likeness without permission or proper compensation. The following year, the state of California passed AB 2602, a law that makes it illegal for studios, publishers and video game studios to use someone’s likeness without their permission.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/x-sues-california-over-deceptive-ai-made-election-content-ban-185010406.html?src=rss

Elon Musk adds Microsoft as defendant in his lawsuit against OpenAI

Posted on by

Elon Musk has amended his lawsuit against OpenAI, adding more anti-trust claims against the company and including Microsoft as a defendant. He also added his company, xAI, as well as Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI board member and mother to three of his children, as plaintiffs. Musk originally sued OpenAI in March, accusing founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of violating the organization's non-profit mission by teaming up with Microsoft. He withdrew the state court lawsuit in June before suing OpenAI and Altman again in federal court. 

Musk was one OpenAI's earliest backers, and one of his arguments was that he was "betrayed by Mr. Altman and his accomplices." In response to his lawsuit, OpenAI published old emails from 2015 to 2018 in a blog post, wherein it claimed that Musk was involved in the planning when the company first explored transitioning into a for-profit structure. xAI's founder allegedly wanted majority equity, control of the initial board of directors and the CEO position and even suggested merging OpenAI with Tesla. Musk left the organization in 2018 before Microsoft invested the first billion in OpenAI. Since then, Microsoft has invested $13 billion in the generative AI firm, and OpenAI has taken steps to complete its transformation into a more traditional for-profit company with a non-profit arm. 

As TechCrunch notes, the amended lawsuit argues that OpenAI is "actively trying to eliminate competitors," including xAI, by making investors promise not to fund them. xAI has been harmed by OpenAI's and Microsoft's exclusive exchange of "competitively sensitive information," the lawsuit also says. Musk's new complaint names LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and Microsoft VP Dee Templeton as defendants, as well, for being involved with both OpenAI and Microsoft boards. As for why Zilis was named as a plaintiff, the lawsuit says it's because the former OpenAI board member and current director of Neuralink repeatedly raised concerns over OpenAI's deals that were similar to Musks. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/elon-musk-adds-microsoft-as-defendant-in-his-lawsuit-against-openai-140023400.html?src=rss

Meta will have to defend itself from antitrust claims after all

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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