The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) union has accused Apple of unlawfully discriminating against the unionized employees of the company’s Towson, Maryland retail store. IAM has filed an unfair labor practice charge against Apple with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after the company announced on April 9 that it was shutting down three of its US stores. One of those locations was the Towson retail outlet, which employed nearly 90 workers and became the first Apple Store in the country to unionize back in 2022.
In its complaint, IAM said that Apple didn’t offer the employees it represents the transfer opportunities it provided to non-unionized employees from its other stores. Unlike those non-represented employees, Towson personnel were allegedly told that they had to reapply for positions through the same process as external candidates. “Apple is denying union-represented workers the same opportunities it is giving to others — and doing so because these workers chose to organize,” the organization said. “That is discrimination, and it is exactly what federal labor law is designed to prevent.”
In addition to the Towson location, Apple also shut down its stores in Trumbull, CT, Escondito, CA. Back when the closures were announced, IAM said that “Apple’s claim that the collective bargaining agreement prevents relocation is simply false and raises serious concerns that [the] closure is a cynical attempt to bust the union.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/union-accuses-apple-of-unlawful-discrimination-against-represented-workers-094531505.html?src=rss
In a few short days, jury selection will begin in the long-awaited Musk v. Altman case. At the end of that process, an Oakland federal court will task nine regular people with deciding if OpenAI defrauded Elon Musk when it announced, and recently completed, its reorganization to become a more traditional for-profit business. More than just being the venue where two billionaires will air their grievances against one another in public, the trial has the potential to reshape the AI industry.
How did we get here?
Musk first sued OpenAI in 2024, but the seed of the dispute was planted when Sam Altman emailed the billionaire on the evening of May 25, 2015. “Been thinking a lot about whether it’s possible to stop humanity from developing AI. I think the answer is most definitely not,” Altman wrote at the time. “If it’s going to happen anyway, it seems like it would be good for someone other than Google to do it first. Any thoughts on whether it would be good for [Y Combinator] to start a Manhattan Project for AI?”
“Probably worth a conversation,” Musk responded a couple of hours later. That same year, OpenAI announced itself to the world, with Altman and Musk as co-chairs of the new joint venture. “OpenAI is a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is mostly likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. Since our research is free from financial obligations, we can better focus on a positive human impact.”
If we’re to believe OpenAI’s telling of the events that followed, by 2017, almost everyone at the company, including Musk, agreed that a for-profit entity “had to be part of the next phase for OpenAI,” due to the enormous amount of investment needed to pursue its original mission. At some point before Musk left OpenAI’s board of directors in February 2018, OpenAI claims he demanded full control of the company, with the intent to eventually merge it with Tesla.
Following Musk’s departure, OpenAI created its for-profit arm in 2019, which at the time was organized under a “capped-profit” structure designed to limit investor returns to 100x, with any excess windfalls flowing to the company’s nonprofit. The idea being that if OpenAI achieved artificial general intelligence, its nonprofit would be the greatest beneficiary. However, after the success of ChatGPT in 2022, that structure became problematic for OpenAI as the company sought to raise ever more capital, and as part of its $6.6 billion funding round in October 2024, it reportedly agreed to a less-than-two-year deadline to free its for-profit from control of the nonprofit.
“At the heart of this trial is that OpenAI began as a non-profit organization, and then decided that it needed to be a for-profit organization in order to raise the enormous sums of money it needed to develop the technology it wanted to create,” explains Professor Michael Dorff, executive director of the Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy at UCLA. “That is a very troublesome transition under the law.”
Earlier this year, following protracted negotiations with Microsoft (the for-profit’s largest investor) and the state attorneys general of California and Delaware, OpenAI announced the successful reorganization of its corporate structure. As things stand, the for-profit is now a public benefit corporation, making it more appealing to investors looking for an uncomplicated return structure. Meanwhile, the nonprofit — now known as the OpenAI Foundation — holds equity in the for-profit arm, a stake valued at $130 billion at the time the agreement was announced.
At the end of last year, Musk filed an injunction to prevent the reorganization from going through but failed. As an early donor to OpenAI, Musk will not see a single cent of money come his way when the company holds an initial public offering, on account of the fact donations are made with no expectation of any return. Musk has therefore argued OpenAI’s founding group, including CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman, defrauded him as a donor.
Determining the exact amount Musk contributed to OpenAI was an early question during pre-trial discovery. You see, Musk has greatly exaggerated his monetary contributions. As recently as March 2023, the billionaire regularly claimed he had donated about $100 million to OpenAI. He later cut that estimate by half, telling CNBC in May 2023: “I’m not sure the exact number but it’s some number on the order of $50 million.” In recent court filings, that number was again revisited to $38 million, and it’s the number that currently stands.
What’s at stake for OpenAI?
In his original complaint, Musk’s legal team tried to “throw the kitchen sink” at OpenAI, says Professor Dorff. In subsequent filings, Musk’s lawyers narrowed down their client’s desired set of outcomes to a handful of remedies. Should the jury rule in his favor, Musk has requested the court force Altman and Brockman to step down, and for OpenAI to restructure as “a bona fide public charity that operates as the nonprofit it was intended to be, consistent with its founding charter and mission.” He's also made the highly unusual request that any monetary damages which would be awarded to him in the verdict be redirected to OpenAI's own nonprofit arm.
According to Professor Dorff, it’s highly unlikely Musk will be able to undo OpenAI’s reorganization. For one, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has already signaled her reluctance to do just that — and it’s her, not the jury, who will get to decide if that’s an appropriate remedy. Effectively, Musk is asking the judge to “unscramble the eggs” of a complicated corporate restructuring.
“There was a moment where that might have been possible, when the attorneys general of Delaware and California intervened and came to the current compromise,” explains Dorff. “Whether you agree or disagree with what the AGs decided to do, I think it's unlikely the court will feel it's appropriate to undo that compromise because of all the high government officials involved who, in theory, had all of the right incentives.” When Musk filed his request for a preliminary injunction to stop OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit company, the judge said the request was “extraordinary and rarely granted.” The fact Musk is deeply involved with OpenAI's competitor xAI “may also weigh heavily on the judge's mind,” Droff adds.
Far more uncertain is how Musk’s other demands could play out, since the jury will decide if OpenAI is guilty of defrauding him. According to Dorff, most high-stakes business cases end with the two sides settling because of the risk of involving a jury in the outcome. “I just don’t see that happening here given the tenor of the dispute,” he says. “It seems unlikely either side will settle.”
If the case does end in a jury decision, it will then be up to those nine people, with guidance from the judge, to decide on monetary damages. “That will be very difficult to figure out because there is a maximalist version of this, and a minimalist version of this. They’re very different numbers and the result could be anywhere in between the two,” says Dorff. Musk’s legal team is seeking a disgorgement of between $65.5 billion and $109.43 billion from OpenAI (and between $13.3 billion and $25.06 billion from Microsoft, which is a co-defendant in the case). In a worse case scenario, Professor Dorff suggests Altman might lose the confidence of OpenAI’s board, costing him his position as CEO. He might even be forced to write some checks to settle the disgorgements.
Dorff suspects OpenAI “would love” the minimalist version where Musk is rewarded his $38 million donation back. Should some other disgruntled donors emerge to sue OpenAI for fraud, the Musk v. Altman case would make it easier to litigate those cases, given “the map has been drawn as to which legal claims are likely to succeed,” says Dorff. However, those would amount to “traffic tickets” for OpenAI.
Whatever happens next, it should be an eventful trial. With public testimonies from Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, former OpenAI board member and Musk confidant Shivon Zilis and even Altman himself a likelihood, we'll at the very least be treated to a wealth of formerly private communications — and some new piece of vocabulary — between some of the richest people in the tech space.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/what-you-need-to-know-as-elon-musks-lawsuit-against-sam-altman-begins-191500726.html?src=rss
Meta is facing a new lawsuit over its advertising practices. The nonprofit group Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has filed a proposed class-action suit against Meta for "failing to protect users" from scam ads on Facebook and Instagram.
The lawsuit, which was first reported by Wired, alleges that Meta has run afoul of consumer protection laws in Washington D.C. for misleading Facebook and Instagram users about scams on its apps and that the company has "chased profits rather than protecting its users." The filing includes numerous examples of alleged scam ads that CFA says it found in Meta's ad library. These include ads promoting a "free government iPhone," as well as those claiming to offer $1,400 checks to people born in certain years. Many of the ads use AI videos, according to CFA.
Some of examples of alleged scam ads CFA includes in its lawsuit.
CFA
Meta's advertising practices have been in the spotlight since last year when Reuters reported on internal documents that indicated the company was making billions of dollars from ads promoting scams and banned goods. The report also highlighted how Meta's own processes have at times made it harder for its own employees to fight malicious advertisers.
"Meta claims it is doing all it can to crack down on scam advertising on its platforms," CFA's lawsuit states. "But in reality, Meta has knowingly taken steps and adopted policies that pad its bottom line at the expense of its users’ safety and well-being. In fact, rather than prohibiting advertisers who the company itself has determined pose a higher risk to its users (as other tech companies like Google have), Meta just charges these advertisers more. The perverse result is that the riskier the advertiser, the more money Meta makes."
CFA's allegations "misrepresent the reality of our work and we will fight them," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "We aggressively combat scams across our platforms to protect people and businesses — last year alone, we removed over 159 million scam ads, 92% of which we took down before anyone reported them, and took down 10.9 million accounts on Facebook and Instagram associated with criminal scam centers. We fight scams because they are bad for business — people don't want them, advertisers don't want them, and we don't want them either.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-has-misled-users-about-scam-ads-on-facebook-and-instagram-lawsuit-says-193220235.html?src=rss
Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of California, has released an unredacted copy of a legal document that the state filed in relation to its lawsuit against Amazon, containing details of the company’s alleged price fixing scheme. In it, the state of California accuses the e-commerce company of reaching out to brands and asking them to “fix” the retail prices of their products on competitors’ websites. Due to Amazon’s “overwhelming bargaining leverage” and out of fear of punishment, the brands agree to raise their products’ prices on other retailers like Walmart and Target or to remove them altogether, the filing reads.
California filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Amazon of price fixing back in 2022. It said the company prevented sellers from offering lower prices on other sites and that vendors risked losing buy buttons and prominent listings if they defied Amazon. In February this year, Bonta filed for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to put a stop to Amazon’s “illegal conduct” while the state’s lawsuit is ongoing and waiting to go to trial next year.
In the unredacted filing, California said that Amazon instructs vendors and brands to increase their prices on other retailers and threatens them with “significant penalties for failure to comply.” State officials gave several examples in the filing, including one incident wherein Amazon allegedly emailed security systems provider Arlo.
The company talked to Arlo about “external price matching,” along with a screenshot of one of its cameras on Walmart, noting that its price of $549.93 “did not go back up.” Arlo reportedly responded that it would get it addressed, and Amazon told the company to “get [it] corrected by EOD.” Afterward, Arlo sent Amazon a screenshot, showing the same Walmart page now listing the camera’s price at $649.99. Amazon ended the conversation by thanking Arlo for its “quick action.” Other samples include Amazon asking Levi’s to “resolve” the lower prices of its khaki pants on Walmart and Hanes to increase the prices of its clothing items on Walmart and Target.
Amazon shrugged off the filing’s release and called California’s case against the company weak. “The Attorney General’s motion is a transparent attempt to distract from the weakness of its case, coming more than three years after filing its complaint and based on supposedly ‘new’ evidence it has had for years,” an Amazon spokesperson told Engadget. “Amazon is consistently identified as America’s lowest-priced online retailer, and we’re proud of the low prices customers find when shopping in our store. Amazon looks forward to responding in court at the appropriate time.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/amazon-allegedly-pressured-companies-to-raise-product-prices-with-other-retailers-115302642.html?src=rss
Apple's refusal to provide financial data to an Indian regulatory agency as part of an antitrust case will culminate in a final hearing on May 21, as first reported by Reuters. According to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Apple still hasn't submitted information about its financials and its views on an antitrust investigation that started in October 2024.
The case revolves around the CCI accusing Apple of exploiting its dominant position with the App Store, arguing that developers are forced to use Apple's proprietary system for in-app purchases. Apple countered that Android was the more dominant smartphone operating system in India and that iPhones held a smaller market share in India. However, Apple has slowly been gaining momentum with its share of the Indian smartphone market, hitting nine percent in 2025, according to data from Counterpoint Research.
Reuters reported that the latest CCI order said that Apple had plenty of opportunities to file objections or suggestions, but added that the company still hadn't submitted the "requisite financial information," which is used to determine the amount of a potential penalty. Apple argued that the penalties could be up to $38 billion and responded to the order by citing a separate case where the tech giant challenged the country's antitrust penalty law.
It's not the first time Apple has butted heads with the Indian government, as it previously refused to pre-install a state-owned app called Sanchar Saathi onto its smartphones. The Indian government later decided to withdraw its mandate requiring smartphone makers to install the app, but it's much less willing to budge on this antitrust case. According to Reuters, the CCI offered Apple two more weeks to file any responses before the final hearing date next month.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apple-could-be-fined-up-to-38-billion-by-indian-antitrust-regulator-150821172.html?src=rss
Apple has secured a major victory for its redesigned smartwatches as per the latest decision from the US International Trade Commission. The federal agency ruled against reinstating an import ban on Apple Watches, allowing the tech giant to continue selling its devices with a reworked blood-oxygen monitoring technology.
The ITC decided to terminate the case and refer to a preliminary ruling from one of its judges in March that claimed that Apple's redesigned smartwatches don't infringe on patents held by Masimo, the medical tech company that has long been embroiled in lawsuits surrounding the Apple Watch. Apple thanked the ITC in a statement, adding that "Masimo has waged a relentless legal campaign against Apple and nearly all of its claims have been rejected." We reached out to Masimo for comment and will update the story when we hear back.
The latest decision could offer some closure to the longstanding legal feud between Masimo and Apple. The patent battle dates back to 2021 with Masimo's first filing against Apple that requested an import ban on Apple Watches. The ITC ended up ruling that Apple violated Masimo's patents, resulting in the previous import ban and the Apple Watch maker redesigning the blood-oxygen reading feature in certain models. However, Masimo wasn't satisfied with this conclusion and sought another import ban on the updated Apple Watch models. Now that the ITC has ruled against that, Masimo is left with the option to appeal the decision with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
While Masimo may currently be on the losing side of this legal battle, it's confronting Apple on multiple fronts. In November, a federal jury sided with Masimo and ruled that Apple has to pay $634 million in a separate patent infringement case.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wearables/apple-avoids-a-second-import-ban-for-its-redesigned-smartwatches-in-latest-court-ruling-175600668.html?src=rss
FILE PHOTO: The series 11 Apple watch sits on display at the Apple Store in New York City, U.S., September 19, 2025. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo
The open-source library and search engine Anna’s Archive has been ordered to pay Spotify and the three of the world’s largest music labels $322 million in damages after it claimed to have scraped the entirety of the streaming platform’s library of music.
Spotify, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, sued Anna’s Archive in January for a slightly comical $13 trillion. They alleged Anna's Archive had illegally scraped 86 million songs — a significant chunk of all the music on the planet — and intended to make them available for download via BitTorrent. At the time, Spotify called the scraping a "brazen theft of millions of files containing nearly all of the world’s commercial sound recordings."
In a since-deleted blog post, Anna's Archive stated the scraping was an act of preservation. Still, a New York federal judge sided with the plaintiffs after the archive's anonymous operator failed to respond to the lawsuit.
The court order finding Anna's Archive guilty of direct copyright infringement, breach of contract and violation of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) was filed on April 14. A further claim of violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was dismissed by the judge.
The total breakdown of damages includes $7.5 million to each of Sony and Universal Music and $7.2 million to Warner Music, with the remaining $300 million going to Spotify. The latter figure amounts to $2,500 for each of the 120,000 scraped music files already made available by Anna’s Archive. The remainder of the 86 million files were due to be released to the public at a later date.
The court also ordered Anna’s Archive to "immediately destroy all copies and phonorecords of any work ‘scraped,’ downloaded, copied or otherwise extracted from Spotify," but whether it actually does this, or indeed hands over a penny of the damages, remains to be seen. The bizarre reality of this case is that the person (or people) behind Anna’s Archive remains a mystery.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/annas-archive-told-to-pay-spotify-and-record-labels-322-million-over-unprecedented-music-scraping-151034032.html?src=rss
ANKARA, TURKIYE - OCTOBER 24: In this photo illustration the logo of Spotify is being displayed on a mobile phone screen in front of computer screen displaying the logos of Spotify in Ankara, Turkiye on October 24, 2025. (Photo by Muhammed Selim Korkutata/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Apple is closing three of its retail stores this summer, including its first location to unionize. The tech company said it plans to permanently close Apple Store in Trumbull, CT, Escondito, CA, and Towson, MD. The Apple Store location in Towson, was the first where unionized workers and Apple reached a contract agreement back in 2024.
MacRumors published a statement from Apple confirming the closures. The company credited noting "the departure of several retailers and declining conditions" at the shopping centers where this trio of stores are housed as the reason for ending operations. "Our team members at Trumbull and North County will continue their roles at nearby Apple Retail stores," the statement reads. "Towson employees will be eligible to apply for open roles at Apple in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement." We reached out to the company for additional comment, and were sent the same statement.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which leads the union the Towson workers had joined, released a statement about the closure. "Apple’s claim that the collective bargaining agreement prevents relocation is simply false and raises serious concerns that this closure is a cynical attempt to bust the union," the organization said. "We are exploring all legal options and will work with elected officials and allies to hold Apple accountable."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apple-is-closing-three-us-stores-including-the-first-to-unionize-225941912.html?src=rss
After ByteDance suspended the global rollout of its new Seedance 2.0 AI video generator on the weekend, US senators have now told the company to "immediately shut down" the app. "Seedance 2.0 poses a direct threat to the American intellectual property system and, more broadly, to the constitutional rights and economic livelihoods of our creative community," Senators Marsha Blackburn and Peter Welch wrote in a letter to the company.
The letter reflects an increasing worry in government about AI companies training their apps on copyrighted materials from artists, actors and filmmakers without permission. "Responsible global companies follow the law and respect core economic rights, including intellectual property and personal likeness protections," the senators wrote. They cited Seedance AI examples including an AI generated Thanos and Superman battle, a rewritten Stranger Things ending and that famous (fake) Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt battle.
After pulling Seedance 2.0, ByteDance said on the weekend that it "respects intellectual property rights" and that it is "taking steps to strengthen current safeguards as we work to prevent the unauthorized use of intellectual property and likeness by users."
However, Blackburn and Welch called that pledge "a delay tactic to continue to abuse the innovators and profit from their success," adding that its regard for American IP is "part of a larger trend of artificial intelligence companies stealing protected work at the expensive of the creative community."
Filmmakers have also taken action against Seedance 2.0, including the Motion Picture Association with recently sent a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance. Yesterday, senators including Blackburn and Welch unveiled a partisan bill to help artists protect their IP by allowing them to access training records used for AI models, among other measures.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/senators-tell-bytedance-to-shut-down-seedance-20-ai-video-app-immediately-112146241.html?src=rss
The Seedance2.0 app appears on a mobile phone with the company branding visible in the background in this photo illustration in Brussels, Belgium, on February 16, 2026. (Photo by Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The Delaware judge said Krafton had violated the terms of its contract with Unknown Worlds when it fired the executives. "To remedy these breaches, Gill is reinstated as CEO of Unknown Worlds with full operational authority over the studio," wrote judge Lori W. Will.
A Krafton spokesperson said in a statement that "we respectfully disagree with today's ruling" and that "we are evaluating our options as we determine our path forward." Further litigation over potential damages is still pending.
This legal battle has been brewing for a while. Krafton bought Unknown Worlds back in 2021 and the contract stipulated that executives and staff would get to share in a $250 million bonus if they hit certain revenue targets by 2025. Those targets were not reached, and could not be reached, because Krafton delayed Subnautica 2.
According to the pre-trial brief, Krafton CEO Changham Kim allegedly nixed the payout because it would be a "professional embarrassment" and make him look like a "pushover." He reportedly consulted ChatGPT to ask about ways to avoid paying the bonus and, oddly, seemed to consider a hostile takeover by a newly-formed entity.
Judge Will dinged the CEO on both counts, saying that Kim regretted committing to the payout and "consulted an artificial intelligence chatbot to contrive a corporate 'takeover' strategy." Engadget reached out to Krafton and the company re-emphasized it was displeased with the ruling but said that it doesn't resolve the ongoing litigation.
As for the game, Krafton says Subnautica 2 is coming sooner rather than later. We've heard that one before.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/judge-rules-that-krafton-must-rehire-fired-subnautica-director-184702823.html?src=rss
OpenAI has been hit with another lawsuit. This time, Encyclopedia Britannica took legal action against OpenAI, accusing the company of copyright and trademark infringements, as first reported by Reuters. More specifically, Britannica alleged that OpenAI illegally used its "copyrighted content at a massive scale" when training its AI models. Not just with training, the encyclopedia company claimed that ChatGPT's responses to user queries sometimes contain "full or partial verbatim reproductions of [Britannica's] copyright articles."
Along with claims of copyright violations, Britannica argued that OpenAI was also responsible for trademark infringement. According to the lawsuit, ChatGPT generates "made-up content or 'hallucinations' and falsely attributes them" to Encyclopedia Britannica. The lawsuit doesn't specify an amount for monetary damages, but Britannica is also seeking an injunction to prevent OpenAI from repeating these accusations.
When reached out for comment, a spokesperson for OpenAI told Engadget that, "ChatGPT helps enhance human creativity, advance scientific discovery and medical research, and enable hundreds of millions of people to improve their daily lives. Our models empower innovation, and are trained on publicly available data and grounded in fair use."
It's not the first time that Britannica has filed a lawsuit against an AI company. In September, the company, which owns Merriam-Webster, also sued Perplexity for similar reasons. On the other side, OpenAI is still embroiled in a legal battle with The New York Times, which also sued the AI giant for copyright infringement.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/encyclopedia-britannica-sues-openai-for-copyright-and-trademark-infringement-164747991.html?src=rss
To keep Ticketmaster, Live Nation is going to have to make some major changes. As first reported byPolitico, Live Nation reached a settlement with the Department of Justice in its antitrust case that accused the live entertainment giant of monopolistic practices. Live Nation will reportedly pay at least $200 million in damages to states that were part of the lawsuit filed in May 2024, but avoid selling off Ticketmaster.
Live Nation will also be required to make a few changes to its business practices. According to NBC News, Ticketmaster, a subsidiary of Live Nation, will be required to create a "standalone ticketing system" that allows third-party competitors like SeatGeek and Eventbrite to sell tickets on.
The settlement aims to loosen some of Live Nation's control over venues as well. 13 amphitheaters that Live Nation previously had exclusive booking arrangements with will move to an open booking model which will let other promotors book at the venues. The company is also prohibited from retaliating against venues that choose another ticket seller over Ticketmaster.
The settlement comes less than a week after the case went to trial. While the matter may be concluded with the Justice Department, many of the states' attorneys general who were part of the lawsuit will be continuing their legal action separately.
"The settlement recently announced with the U.S. Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers," New York State Attorney General Letitia James wrote in a press release. "We will continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and restore fair competition to the live entertainment industry." 26 other attorneys general signed onto continuing the lawsuit with James.
Update, March 10, 2026, 11:37AM ET: This story was updated to clarify that Live Nation moved to an open booking model with 13 venues that it previously had exclusive booking rights with. Those venues were not owned by Live Nation.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/music/live-nation-settlement-avoids-breakup-with-ticketmaster-155031214.html?src=rss
FILE PHOTO: Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster logos are seen in this illustration taken May 23, 2024. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration//File Photo
As AI-generated artwork becomes more commonplace, it still won't be able to be copyrighted, according to US courts. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case about whether an artwork generated with the help of AI can be copyrighted. The refusal means that a lower court's decision to reject the copyright request will stand.
The case dates back to 2018 when Stephen Thaler applied for a copyright of an artwork called A Recent Entrance to Paradise. Unlike using ChatGPT or Midjourney, Thaler, a computer scientist, created an AI system that generated the artwork in question. However, the US Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022 on the grounds that it wasn't made by a human author. Thaler sought appeals at higher courts, but ultimately had to escalate the case to the Supreme Court after both a federal judge in Washington and the US Court of Appeals ruled against him.
With a refusal from the highest court in the US, it's unlikely Thaler's case can continue. The US Supreme Court could always hear a related case in the future, but Thaler's lawyers said, "even if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late," adding that the decision will have negatively impacted the creative industry during "critically important years." It's worth noting that Thaler also filed applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office for AI-generated inventions, which were rejected for similar reasons.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-supreme-court-doesnt-care-if-you-want-to-copyright-your-ai-generated-art-171849407.html?src=rss
The U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 25, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Another major antitrust lawsuit has launched in the UK. This time its against Sony, which could be on the hook for almost £2 billion ($2.7 billion) for overcharging PlayStation users.
A class action case for about 12.2 million users argues that Sony "occupies a dominant position in relation to the digital distribution of PlayStation games and in-game content and that it has been unfairly charging its UK customers too much for digital games and in-game content purchased through the PlayStation Store."
It argues that Sony "has a near monopoly" on add-on content and digital games through the PlayStation store, allowing it to set the prices and take a 30 percent commission.
The class action encompasses anyone in the UK who owned a PlayStation console and purchased digital games or made in-game purchases through the PlayStation store between August 19, 2016 and February 12, 2026. It's being run as an opt-out lawsuit, so anyone meeting the criteria can qualify without taking any action. If the lawsuit is successful then each person could receive about £162 ($217).
Sony has argued that allowing downloads from third-party stores could bring security and privacy risks, according to the Financial Times. It further states that the digital sales commission makes up profits lost for selling their consoles with minimal profit.
This lawsuit follows the success of a similar class action decided in October. The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal found that Apple had been abusing its dominant market position and overcharging App Store users. In December, Apple filed an appeal against the £1.5 billion ($2 billion) fine.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/sony-faces-a-27-billion-antitrust-lawsuit-in-the-uk-114113889.html?src=rss
OpenAI has successfully convinced the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s xAI, accusing the company of stealing its trade secrets. In her decision, US District Judge Rita F. Lin wrote that xAI’s complaint “does not point to any misconduct by OpenAI” and instead attributes all listed misconducts to its eight former employees who “ left for OpenAI at around the same time.”
Lin said that xAI accused two of its former employees of stealing its source code before leaving at a time when they were already speaking to an OpenAI recruiter. However, the company didn’t say if the recruiter told those former employees to do so. xAI’s lawsuit also accuses two other former employees of keeping their work chats on their devices even after leaving, another of refusing to provide certifications related to confidential information after his departure, and another of unsuccessfully trying to access xAI hiring and datacenter optimization information when he was already working for OpenAI.
“Notably absent are allegations about the conduct of OpenAI itself,” the judge noted. xAI didn’t include any information that directly accuses OpenAI of making those employees steal its trade secrets. It also didn’t include allegations that those former employees used any stolen trade secrets after they were already working for OpenAI. To be precise, OpenAI’s motion for dismissal was granted with leave to amend, so the lawsuit may not be completely over just yet. That means xAI can still file an amended complaint addressing what the judge wrote in her decision until March 17, 2026.
OpenAI and xAI have a longstanding feud, and this is just one of the several lawsuits between the two companies. In fact, Musk has an ongoing complaint against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing the former of violating its nonprofit status. Musk, who was an early funder of OpenAI, is now asking the company for $79 billion to $134 billion in damages from “wrongful gains.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/xais-trade-secret-lawsuit-against-openai-has-been-dismissed-101912599.html?src=rss
The office of the Attorney General for West Virginia announced Thursday that it has filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that the company had "knowingly" allowed its iCloud platform "to be used as a vehicle for distributing and storing child sexual abuse material." The state alleges this went on for years but drew no action from the tech giant "under the guise of user privacy."
In the lawsuit, the state repeatedly cites a text from Apple executive Eric Friedman, in which he calls iCloud "the greatest platform for distributing child porn" in a conversation with another Apple executive. These messages were first uncovered by The Verge in 2021 within discovery documents for the Epic Games v. Apple trial. In the conversation, Friedman says while some other platforms prioritize safety over privacy, Apple's priorities "are the inverse."
The state further alleges that detection technology to help root out and report CSAM exists, but that Apple chooses not to implement it. Apple indeed considered scanning iCloud Photos for CSAM in 2021, but abandoned these plans after pushback stemming from privacy concerns.
In 2024 Apple was sued by a group of over 2,500 victims of child sexual abuse, citing nearly identical claims and alleging that Apple's failure to implement these features led to the victims' harm as images of them circulated through the company's servers. At the time Apple told Engadget, “child sexual abuse material is abhorrent and we are committed to fighting the ways predators put children at risk. We are urgently and actively innovating to combat these crimes without compromising the security and privacy of all our users."
The case in West Virginia would mark the first time a governmental body is bringing such an action against the iPhone maker. The state says it is seeking injunctive relief that would compel Apple to implement effective CSAM detection measures as well as damages. We have reached out to Apple for comment on the suit and will update if we hear back.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/west-virginia-is-suing-apple-alleging-negligence-over-csam-materials-164647648.html?src=rss
Cameo, the platform where celebrities sell short, personalized videos, has scored a preliminary win in a trademark lawsuit against OpenAI. A California judge has ruled that the AI company's video generation tool Sora cannot use the term 'cameo' or any variation likely to cause confusion. A temporary restraining order in the case was originally granted in November of last year.
The suit was first brought in response to a feature available within the Sora app at launch called 'Cameo' that allowed users to add any likeness to videos they generated. Cameo claimed the use of the term in this setting was likely to cause confusion and could dilute their brand. OpenAI then carried on with the feature despite the suit.
U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee ruled on Saturday that Cameo's lawsuit was likely to succeed and granted a preliminary injunction, blocking OpenAI from continuing to use the name. An OpenAI spokesperson responded to the ruling saying, "We disagree with the complaint's assertion that anyone can claim exclusive ownership over the word ‘cameo,’ and we look forward to continuing to make our case," according to Reuters.
This is just the latest in a string of intellectual property cases against AI companies that have accelerated as video generation capabilities have improved across the board. Rights holders of all kinds from authors and music publishers to major movie studios have taken the likes of OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity and others to court, seeking to protect their IP.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/federal-court-rules-that-openai-must-stop-using-the-term-cameo-124559072.html?src=rss
The European Commission (EC) has opened an investigation into low-cost fast fashion retailer Shein. EC officials are concerned about the sale of illegal products, including child sexual abuse material, as well as the potentially addictive design of its shopping experience. The Commission found fellow low-cost retailer Temu in violation of the Digital Services Act after a similar investigation last year.
The probe is being opened under the Digital Services Act, a set of EU rules governing online services. The Commission will examine how Shein drives engagement with shoppers, including using a points and rewards system, and whether the company is properly mitigating the risk of addiction via these and other features.
Algorithmic recommendation systems are another point of contention, and the Commission will ask Shein to disclose how it suggests products to users. It also says that the company must offer users a system that is not based on profiling.
The Singapore-based company has faced a great deal of scrutiny in past years on a number of fronts, including its labor practices, materials sourcing, data practices and IP infringement. Last year the Texas Attorney General opened a probe into the company's safety and labor practices amid allegations that Shein uses forced labor as well as toxic or hazardous materials.
Addictive design has been a recent priority for European regulators, with the Commission demanding that TikTok make changes to its platform after a similar probe concluded earlier this month. Algorithms have also been in focus, with the Commission recently launching a probe into how exactly X's recommendation algorithm works.
The regulatory body will now continue collecting evidence in the matter, and holds the authority within the EU to levy fines and demand changes should the platform wish to continue operations in the region.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/europe-probes-sheins-addictive-app-design-and-illegal-product-sales-125322191.html?src=rss
ByteDance released Seedance 2.0 less than a week ago and enraged artists everywhere with a viral clip AI-generated clip of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt fighting. Unsurprisingly, the AI video-making tool has reportedly already received multiple cease-and-desist letters around copyright infringement. Now, it appears ByteDance is going to curb the new media generator's use of prohibited content.
In a statement to the BBC, ByteDance said, "We are taking steps to strengthen current safeguards as we work to prevent the unauthorised use of intellectual property and likeness by users." It added that the company "respects intellectual property rights and we have heard the concerns regarding Seedance 2.0." However, when pressed for more information on exactly how they would do this, ByteDance didn't respond.
ByteDance's vague pledge follows a cease-and-desist letter from the Walt Disney Company on Friday. Disney claimed that Seedance 2.0 uses "a pirated library of Disney's copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and other Disney franchises, as if Disney's coveted intellectual property were free public domain clip art." Disney included example videos that included its copyrighted characters, such as Spider-Man and Darth Vader.
Paramount Skydance has also reportedly issued a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance to stop Seedance 2.0 from using its materials, according to the BBC.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/bytedance-promises-to-tighten-up-its-new-ai-video-generator-after-viral-cruise-vs-pitt-clip-112941384.html?src=rss
Disney is going after another generative AI tool, accusing ByteDance and its recently released Seedance 2.0 of using its copyrighted material without permission. As first reported on by Axios, the Walt Disney Company sent a cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance, claiming the Chinese company developed its Seedance tool "with a pirated library of Disney's copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and other Disney franchises, as if Disney's coveted intellectual property were free public domain clip art."
The letter, which was obtained by Axios, included examples of Seedance videos featuring copyrighted Disney characters, including Spider-Man, Darth Vader, Peter Griffin and more. Even though ByteDance just released Seedance 2.0 on Thursday, it's already earned praise, but also indignation from Hollywood studios, when it comes to its AI-generating capabilities.
With the strong early momentum, Seedance has already found itself in hot water with one of the largest media companies in the world. However, it's not the first time that Disney has threatened legal action against an AI company, since Character.AI received a cease-and-desist letter for the same offense in September. A few months later, Disney even accused Google of copyright infringement when training its AI models. On the other hand, Disney partnered with OpenAI in a three-year licensing agreement that allows the AI giant to generate images and videos using that highly sought-after intellectual property.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/disney-accuses-bytedance-of-virtual-smash-and-grab-when-using-copyrighted-works-to-train-its-ai-191116136.html?src=rss
Anmelden
