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

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

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

©

© 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

©

© NurPhoto via Getty Images

A judge has ruled that publisher Krafton must reinstate Ted Gill as CEO of Unknown Worlds Entertainment, according to a report by Bloomberg. The company fired Gill and two other co-founders last year as part of a shakeup involving the long-anticipated sequel Subnautica 2.

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

©

© Krafton

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

©

© Britannica

To keep Ticketmaster, Live Nation is going to have to make some major changes. As first reported by Politico, 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

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

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

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

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

©

© Mat Smith for Engadget

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

©

© Reuters / Reuters

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