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

©

© Steve Dent for Engadget

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

©

© Getty Images

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

©

© ByteDance

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

©

© ByteDance

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reportedly been asking tech companies for information on accounts posting anti-ICE sentiments. According to The New York Times, DHS has sent hundreds of administrative subpoenas to Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta over the past few months. Homeland Security asked the companies for names, email addresses, telephone numbers and any other identifying detail for accounts that have criticized the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency or have reported the location of its agents. Google, Meta and Reddit have complied with some of the requests

Administrative subpoenas are different from warrants and are issued by the DHS. The Times says they were rarely used in the past and were mostly sent to companies for the investigation of serious crimes, such as child trafficking. Apparently, though, the government has ramped up its use in the past year. “It’s a whole other level of frequency and lack of accountability,” Steve Loney, a senior supervising attorney for ACLU, told the publication.

Companies can choose whether to comply with the authorities or not, and some of them give the subject of a subpoena up to 14 days to fight it in court. Google told The Times that its review process for government requests is “ designed to protect user privacy while meeting [its] legal obligations” and that it informs users when their accounts have been subpoenaed unless it has been legally ordered not to or in exceptional circumstances. “We review every legal demand and push back against those that are overbroad,” the company said.

Some of the accounts that were subpoenaed belong to users posting ICE activity in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania on Facebook and Instagram in English and Spanish. The DHS asked Meta for their names and details on September 11, and the users were notified about it on October 3. They were told that if Meta didn’t receive documentation that they were fighting the subpoena in court within 10 days, Meta will give Homeland Security the information it was asking for. The ACLU filed a motion for the users in court, arguing that the DHS is using administrative subpoenas as a tool to suppress speech of people it didn’t agree with.

In late January, Meta started blocking links to ICE List, a website that lists thousands of ICE and Border Patrol agents’ names. A few days ago, House Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) also asked Apple and Google to turn over all their communication with the US Department of Justice to investigate the removal of ICE-tracking apps from their respective app stores.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/homeland-security-has-reportedly-sent-out-hundreds-of-subpoenas-to-identify-ice-critics-online-135245457.html?src=rss

©

The European Commission has opened a new probe into Google, this time focused on the company's massive online advertising business, Bloomberg reports. European Union regulators have already fined Google billions for violating the Digital Markets Act, and being found guilty of anticompetitive behavior in online advertising could add to that total.

While the Commission has yet to announce a formal investigation, Bloomberg writes that it has started contacting Google's customers and competitors for information about its dominance across multiple online advertising markets. Regulators are particularly concerned that Google could be "artificially increasing the clearing price" of ad auctions "to the detriment of advertisers." If the company is found to be violating the EU's competition rules, Google could be fined 10 percent of its global annual sales.

Google's approach to advertising to minors was reportedly already under investigation by the EU as of December 2024, and besides fines, regulators have ordered the company to open up Android to competing AI assistants and share search data with rivals. In the US, there's also precedent for finding Google's approach to online advertising anticompetitive.

A US federal judge found that Google is a monopolist in online advertising in April 2025, the conclusion of a legal battle that started with a Department of Justice lawsuit accusing the company of dominating the ad market and using its control to charge more and keep a larger portion of ad sales. The DOJ ultimately wants Google to sell its ad tech business, but a final decision hasn't been reached as to how the company's anticompetitive behavior should be remedied.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/eu-reportedly-opens-another-probe-into-googles-ads-pricing-194435095.html?src=rss

©

Uber must pay a passenger who accused one of its drivers of rape $8.5 million, a federal jury in Phoenix has ordered. The jury found Uber liable for its driver’s misconduct, determining that the driver was an agent of the company. Part of Uber’s defense was that it’s not responsible for what its drivers do, as they are independent contractors. This decision is for but one of the 3,000 similar cases against Uber that have been consolidated in federal court. It was a bellwether trial meant to determine the possible outcomes of the other cases, as well as the possible settlements. As The Guardian explains, the results for this case could be used as a precedent for all the other pending lawsuits if the verdict is upheld by the appeals court.

The case chosen for the bellwether trial was filed by Jaylynn Dean, who said she was raped by her Uber driver in 2023. Dean said she was intoxicated when she ordered an Uber to take her back home from her boyfriend’s apartment after celebrating passing a test for her flight attendant training. The driver allegedly stopped at a dark parking lot and raped her in the backseat.

Uber argued that the driver had no criminal history, had completed training and had excellent passenger feedback. The company’s camp also presented its safety measures, including the development of a machine-learning tool that can assess the risk of potential rides. But Dean’s lawyers showed evidence during the trial that she was tagged as high risk for a serious safety incident just before her ride arrived and that she wasn’t notified about it. They also presented documents suggesting that Uber resisted introducing in-car cameras, because it would slow down growth. “Women know it’s a dangerous world. We know about the risk of sexual assault,” Dean’s layer said in her closing arguments. “They made us believe that this was a place that was safe from that.“

Despite the jury holding Uber liable for the incident, it determined that the company wasn’t negligent when it comes to safety practices and its app’s safety systems were not faulty. “This verdict affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety,” an Uber spokesperson told The New York Times. He also said that Uber plans to appeal the jury’s decision. In addition to the 3,000 lawsuits consolidated in federal court, Uber is also facing 500 similar cases in California state court. Last year, a California jury found that the company was not liable for a sexual assault that the plaintiff alleged her driver had committed back in 2016.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/uber-ordered-to-pay-85-million-to-passenger-who-accused-a-driver-of-rape-141800931.html?src=rss

©

Google might have been officially ruled to have a monopoly, but we're still a long way from figuring out exactly what that determination will change at the tech company. Today, the US Department of Justice filed notice of a plan to cross-appeal the decision last fall that Google would not be required to sell off the its Chrome browser. The agency's Antitrust Division posted about the action on X. According to Bloomberg, a group of states is also joining the appeal filing. 

At the time of the 2025 ruling, the Justice Department had pushed for a Chrome sale to be part of the outcome. Judge Amit Mehta denied the request from the agency. "Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divesture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints," Mehta's decision stated. However, he did set other restrictions on Google's business activities, such as an end to exclusive deals for distributing some services and a requirement to share select search data with competitors.

Google has already filed its own appeal over this part of its ongoing antitrust battle. Of course, the tech giant is hoping to get off the hook with fewer penalties rather than the heavier ones the DOJ is seeking.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/doj-and-states-appeal-google-monopoly-ruling-to-push-for-harsher-penalties-against-the-company-235115249.html?src=rss

©

A group of music publishers led by Concord Music Group and Universal Music Group are suing Anthropic, according to a report by Reuters. The suit accuses the AI company of illegally downloading more than 20,000 copyrighted songs, including sheet music, lyrics and compositions.

These songs were then allegedly fed into the chatbot Claude for training purposes. There are some iconic tunes named by Universal in the suit, including tracks by The Rolling Stones, Neil Diamond and Elton John, among many others. Concord is an independent publisher that handles artists like Common, Killer Mike and Korn.

The publishers issued a statement saying that the damages could amount to more than $3 billion. This would make it one of the largest non-class action copyright cases in US history.

"While Anthropic misleadingly claims to be an AI 'safety and research' company, its record of illegal torrenting of copyrighted works makes clear that its multibillion-dollar business empire has in fact been built on piracy," the lawsuit says.

The suit was filed by the same legal team as last year's Bartz v. Anthropic case. The music publishers say they found that Anthropic had been illegally downloading thousands of songs during the discovery process of that suit.

For the unfamiliar, the Bartz v. Anthropic case ended with an award of $1.5 billion to impacted writers after it was found that the company had illegally downloaded their published works for similar training purposes. The terms of that agreement dictated that the 500,000 authors involved in the case would get $3,000 per work. The $1.5 billion looks like a big number, but not so much when broken down like that. Also, Anthropic is worth around $350 billion.

In the Bartz case, Judge William Alsup ruled that it was legal for Anthropic to train its models on copyrighted content but not legal to acquire that content via piracy. We'll have to wait and see how this new suit shakes out. The legal precedent here seems to suggest that if Anthropic would have just spent a buck on each copyrighted song, then they'd be in the clear. That's an odd distinction when it comes to building an entire company around snatching up copyrighted content, but whatever.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/music-publishers-sue-anthropic-for-3-billion-over-flagrant-piracy-185459358.html?src=rss

©

© Anthropic

Google has agreed to a preliminary $135 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought by Android users who accused it of harvesting their data without consent. The suit alleged that since November 12, 2017, Google has been illegally collecting cellular data from phones purchased through carriers, even when apps were closed or location features were disabled.

As reported by Reuters, the affected users believed Google using their data for marketing and product development meant it was guilty of "conversion." In US law, conversion occurs when one party takes the property of another with "the intent to deprive them of it" or "exert property rights over it."

Subject to approval from a judge, a settlement of $135 million was filed in a San Jose federal court earlier this week. The payout would be one of, if not the largest ever in a case of this nature, according to Glen Summers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Each user involved in the lawsuit would be entitled to up to $100 from Google, which denies any wrongdoing and has agreed to seek consent during the setup process of a new phone from now on. A toggle will be added to enable users to easily disable data transfer, while the Alphabet-owned company will also adjust its terms of service accordingly. A trial is scheduled for August 5.

This is the second settlement this week for Google. On January 26, the company also agreed to a $68 million settlement regarding claims that Google Assistant had been spying on users after being triggered by what it had misheard as wake words. Again, Google denied any wrongdoing in the class action suit.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-will-pay-135-million-to-settle-illegal-data-collection-lawsuit-133012112.html?src=rss

©

© Reuters / Reuters

TikTok has reached a settlement in a closely-watched lawsuit over social media addiction, narrowly avoiding a trial that's scheduled to begin jury selection Tuesday. Terms of the deal, which was reported by The New York Times, weren't disclosed. 

TikTok's settlement comes about one week after Snap reached a settlement in the same case. The trial is expected to move forward in Los Angeles with Meta and YouTube as the only defendants. Mark Lanier, a lawyer for the plaintiff, said in a statement to NYT that they were "pleased" with the settlement and that it was "a good resolution." TikTok didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The trial stems from a 2023 lawsuit brought by a California woman known in court documents as "K.G.M." She sued Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube and alleged that their platforms were addictive and had harmed her as a child. The judge in the case previously ordered the companies' executives, including Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri, to testify. YouTube's top exec, Neal Mohan, is also likely to testify, according to The New York Times. 

The lawsuit is the first among several high-profile cases against social media companies to go to trial this year. Meta is expected to head to court in New Mexico in early February in a case brought by the state's attorney general, who has alleged that Facebook and Instagram have facilitated harm to children. TikTok and Snap are collectively facing more than a dozen other trials in California courts this year.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/tiktok-settles-to-avoid-major-social-media-addiction-lawsuit-183943927.html?src=rss

©

The European Commission has started proceedings to ensure Google complies with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in certain ways. Specifically, the European Union’s executive arm has told Google to grant third-party AI services the same level of access to Android that Gemini has. "The aim is to ensure that third-party providers have an equal opportunity to innovate and compete in the rapidly evolving AI landscape on smart mobile devices," the Commission said in a statement. 

The company will also have to hand over "anonymized ranking, query, click and view data held by Google Search" to rival search engines. The Commission says this will help competing companies to optimize their services and offer more viable alternatives to Google Search. 

"Today’s proceedings under the Digital Markets Act will provide guidance to Google to ensure that third-party online search engines and AI providers enjoy the same access to search data and Android operating system as Google's own services, like Google Search or Gemini," said Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy. "Our goal is to keep the AI market open, unlock competition on the merits and promote innovation, to the benefit of consumers and businesses."

The Commission plans to wrap up these proceedings in the next six months, effectively handing Google a deadline to make all of this happen. If the company doesn't do so to the Commission's satisfaction, it may face a formal investigation and penalties down the line. The Commission can impose fines of up to 10 percent of a company's global annual revenue for a DMA violation.

Google was already in hot water with the EU for allegedly favoring its own services — such as travel, finance and shopping — over those from rivals and stopping Google Play app developers from easily directing consumers to alternative, cheaper ways to pay for digital goods and services. The bloc charged Google with DMA violations related to those issues last March. 

In November, the EU opened an investigation into Google's alleged demotion of commercial content on news websites in search results. The following month, it commenced a probe into Google's AI practices, including whether the company used online publishers' material for AI Overviews and AI Mode without "appropriate compensation" or offering the ability to opt out.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-eu-tells-google-to-give-external-ai-assistants-the-same-access-to-android-as-gemini-has-154157081.html?src=rss

©

Google has agreed to a $68 million settlement regarding claims that its voice assistant inappropriately spied on smartphone users. Plaintiffs claimed that the company’s Google Assistant platform began listening to them after it misheard conversations that sounded like its wake words. The suit argued that private information that Google Assistant shouldn't have heard was then used to deliver those individuals targeted ads. 

Reuters reported that Google denied wrongdoing in the suit, but according to court papers, the company agreed to a settlement in order to avoid the risk and costs of litigating the issue. The preliminary class action settlement was filed on Friday and now awaits approval from U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

Google has been transitioning away from the Google Assistant platform in the past year, replacing it with its Gemini tool. Not that AI chatbots should be trusted as paragons of privacy either.

Apple faced a very similar allegations around its Siri voice assistant in 2019; that class-action suit ended in a $95 million settlement in January 2025. Not sure if a reward of $20 per device feels sufficient when these companies are accidentally overhearing deeply personal conversations and details, but that's how the justice system shakes out some times.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-agrees-to-68-million-settlement-in-voice-assistant-privacy-lawsuit-222405727.html?src=rss

©

We now have some idea of what's at stake in the longstanding feud between Elon Musk and OpenAI. As first reported by Bloomberg, the latest filing, as part of a lawsuit that accuses the AI giant of abandoning its non-profit status, claims that Musk is owed anywhere between $79 billion and $134 billion in damages from the "wrongful gains" of OpenAI and Microsoft.

Musk claimed in the filing that he's entitled to a portion of OpenAI's recent valuation at $500 billion, after contributing $38 million in "seed funding" during the AI company's startup years. Along with providing "roughly 60 percent of the nonprofit's seed funding," Musk offered recruiting of key employees, introductions with business contacts and startup advice, according to the filing. The monetary estimate comes from C. Paul Wazzan, a financial economist who's serving as Musk's expert in the case. According to Wazzan's calculations, OpenAI earned between $65.5 billion and $109.43 billion in wrongful gains, while Microsoft saw between $13.3 billion and $25.06 billion.

The lawsuit between Elon Musk and OpenAI dates back to March 2024, when the xAI CEO first filed a legal action claiming that OpenAI violated its non-profit status. Musk later added Microsoft as another defendant and even tried to get an injunction when OpenAI announced efforts to reorganize its corporate structure. Besides this suit, Musk has named OpenAI in another legal battle, accusing the company, along with Apple, of monopolistic practices that prevent xAI from getting a fair shot in the App Store.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/elon-musk-is-looking-for-a-134-billion-payout-from-openai-and-microsoft-171824945.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

Google has filed its appeal to the Department of Justice’s antitrust case that ended with a federal judge ruling that the company was maintaining a monopoly with its search business. While the company goes through the appeals process, it’s also asking that implementation of the remedies from the case, which include a requirement that Google share search data with its competitors, also be paused.

“As we have long said, the Court’s August 2024 ruling ignored the reality that people use Google because they want to, not because they’re forced to,” Google said in a statement. “The decision failed to account for the rapid pace of innovation and intense competition we face from established players and well-funded start-ups. And it discounted compelling testimony from browser makers like Apple and Mozilla who said they choose to feature Google because it provides the highest quality search experience for their consumers.”

The company says that the requirement that it “provide syndication services to rivals” and share search data is a privacy risk and could “discourage competitors from building their own products.” Both remedies where compromises based on what the Justice Department originally proposed, which included forcing Google to sell its Chrome web browser.

After a 10-week trial held in 2023, Google was found to have a search monopoly in 2024 because of the placement it maintained as the default search engine on multiple platforms, and the control it exerted over the ads that appear in search results. Both arguments were key points in the DOJ’s original 2020 lawsuit.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-is-appealing-the-ruling-from-its-search-antitrust-case-to-avoid-sharing-data-with-rivals-215107905.html?src=rss

©

San Francisco-founded Smart glasses maker Viture has been sued in a US court by rival XREAL over claims it infringed on its patents, XREAL announced in a press release. The complaint, lodged in a federal Texas court, accuses Viture of illegally incorporating XREAL's patented tech into its products including the Luma Pro, Luma Ultra and Beast models. 

"The lawsuit is not merely about enforcing a single patent," the company wrote. "It is about stopping a pattern of intellectual property infringement that undermines the integrity of innovation and endangers continued technological development in this industry." 

XREAL has already won a preliminary injunction against Viture in Germany. That resulted in a sales freeze in that country, which could spread to nine other European nations including France, Italy and Spain. That injunction affects Viture's Pro, Luma and Luma Pro smart glasses.

Both companies make augmented reality (AR) glasses with built-in displays that connect to smartphone or laptops, letting you play games, watch movies or do productivity tasks. Their products offer similar display resolutions and fields of view, both of which are key specifications for those products. 

In response, Viture issued its own statement: "Our product does not infringe upon the cited patent in any way," the company told Tom's Guide. "We encourage everyone to look closely at the patent itself and form their own judgment, it becomes clear very quickly how weak and questionable it is. XREAL has simultaneously circulated false claims suggesting that Viture is 'banned across nine European countries.' This is entirely untrue." The company added that it's taking legal action itself because of XREAL's comments. 

Viture is a relatively new player in the AR/VR world, but XREAL's lawsuit could be a prelude to similar actions, judging by the wording in its press release. XREAL holds over 800 patent and patent applications around the world around AR, VR and other tech, and claims that Viture has fewer than 70 and none in the US and Europe. At CES 2026, XREAL unveiled several new products, including the ROG X R1 AR glasses built in conjunction with ASUS. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/wearables/xreal-files-lawsuit-against-rival-smart-glass-maker-viture-133018692.html?src=rss

©

© Viture