A federal judge in California has agreed with WhatsApp that the NSO Group, the Israeli cybersurveillance firm behind the Pegasus spyware, had hacked into its systems by sending malware through its servers to thousands of its users' phones. WhatsApp and its parent company, Meta, sued the NSO Group back in 2019 and accused it of spreading malware to 1,400 mobile devices across 20 countries with surveillance as its purpose. They revealed back then some of the targeted phones were owned by journalists, human rights activists, prominent female leaders and political dissidents. The Washington Post reports that District Judge Phyllis Hamilton has granted WhatsApp's motion for summary judgement against NSO and has ruled that it had violated the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). 

The NSO Group disputed the allegations in the "strongest possible terms" when the lawsuit was filed. It denied that it had a hand in the attacks and told Engadget back then that its sole purpose was to "provide technology to licensed government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to help them fight terrorism and serious crime." The company argued that it should not be held liable, because it merely sells its services to government agencies, which are the ones that determine their targets. In 2020, Meta escalated its lawsuit and accused the firm of using US-based servers to stage its Pegasus spyware attacks.

Judge Hamilton has ruled that the NSO Group violated the CFAA, because the firm appears to fully acknowledge that the modified WhatsApp program its clients use to target users send messages through legitimate WhatsApp servers. Those messages then allow the Pegasus spyware to be installed on users' devices — the targets don't even have to do anything, such as pick up the phone to take a call or click a link, to be infected. The court has also found that the plaintiff's motion for sanctions must be granted on account of the NSO Group "repeatedly [failing] to produce relevant discovery," most significant of which is the Pegasus source code. 

WhatsApp spokesperson Carl Woog told The Post that the company believes this is the first court decision agreeing that a major spyware vendor had broken US hacking laws. "We’re grateful for today’s decision," Woog told the publication. "NSO can no longer avoid accountability for their unlawful attacks on WhatsApp, journalists, human rights activists and civil society. With this ruling, spyware companies should be on notice that their illegal actions will not be tolerated." In her decision, Judge Hamilton wrote that her order resolves all issues regarding the NSO Group's liability and that a trial will only proceed to determine how much the company should pay in damages.  

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/judge-finds-spyware-maker-nso-group-liable-for-attacks-on-whatsapp-users-140054522.html?src=rss

©

© KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV via Getty Images

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has reached a settlement with Amazon about alleged hazardous workplace conditions at ten of the tech giant's facilities. Under the terms of the settlement, Amazon will pay a penalty of $145,000 and must implement "corporate-wide ergonomic measures" to reduce the risk of worker injuries. OSHA will also continue inspecting the facilities for the next two years. On the government side of the agreement, OSHA is withdrawing nine of its ten ergonomic citations against the company.

Ergonomic injuries are also known as musculoskeletal disorders. These can include sprains and strains experienced on the job.

A rep from the Department of Labor told ABC News that this settlement is the "largest of its kind" and "will resolve all outstanding ergonomic litigation" against Amazon. However, it will not impact a separate investigation into Amazon allegedly concealing workplace injuries that is currently underway at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Amazon has denied those charges.

Amazon's workforce also made news this week as strikes began at multiple facilities in California, Georgia, Illinois and New York. Members of the Teamsters union organized the effort, with several union chapters voting yesterday to take action against the company. The Teamsters had called on Amazon to negotiate around working conditions, wages and benefits, asking the company to agree to bargaining dates for a contract by December 15. Local journalists from Hell Gate captured footage of the first day of strikes in Queens, NY, showing a peaceful picket line being broken by local police, who reportedly erected barricades to allow contractors to enter and leave the Amazon distribution center.

“If your package is delayed during the holidays, you can blame Amazon’s insatiable greed," Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien said in a statement from the organization. "We gave Amazon a clear deadline to come to the table and do right by our members. They ignored it."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/amazon-to-pay-osha-145000-in-workplace-safety-settlement-230933629.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear TikTok owner ByteDance’s appeal of a law that could ban the app. The court took up the case (via NBC News) unusually quickly — only two days after the company filed its appeal. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 10.

The law being challenged, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, is set to go into effect on January 19, the day before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. The court didn’t provisionally block the law when saying it would take up the case.

The bill mandates that the app be banned if ByteDance doesn’t sell the platform to an American company. It was passed with overwhelming support in Congress and signed by President Biden in April. The argument was that TikTok had become a national security issue.

The Justice Department defended the law in lower courts, citing concerns that the Chinese government could influence the company and collect data about American citizens. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the legislation earlier this month.

ByteDance has claimed the law violates free speech rights, a position the ACLU has supported. Trump tried to ban TikTok during his first term but changed his tune during the 2024 Presidential campaign.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-tiktoks-ban-appeal-172302392.html?src=rss

©

© ByteDance

Nima Momeni has been found guilty of second-degree murder in the death of notable fintech figure Bob Lee. Momeni, an IT consultant and entrepreneur, faces 16 years to life in prison. Best known as the creator and founder of Cash App, Lee was fatally stabbed in April 2023 in San Francisco. Momeni was arrested as a suspect nine days later. 

The autopsy report revealed that Lee was under the influence of cocaine, alcohol and ketamine at the time of his death. He had been in the company of Momeni and his sister, Khazar Momeni, that night. Prosecutors argued that Mr. Momeni attacked Lee on the street after discovering that an associate of Lee's had drugged and assaulted Ms. Momeni. Momeni's legal team said he acted in self-defense and was unaware that Lee was injured in their altercation.

Most recently, Lee had been the chief product officer for cryptocurrency operation MobileCoin. He had previously held an executive position at Square and played a role in developing the Android mobile operating system at Google.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/consultant-found-guilty-in-murder-of-cash-app-founder-bob-lee-192430902.html?src=rss

©

© MobileCoin

After a federal court last week denied TikTok’s request to delay a law that could ban the app in the United States, the company is now turning to the Supreme Court in an effort to buy time. The social media company has asked the court to temporarily block the law, currently set to take effect January 19, 2025, it said in a brief statement.

“The Supreme Court has an established record of upholding Americans’ right to free speech,” TikTok wrote in a post on X. “Today, we are asking the Court to do what it has traditionally done in free speech cases: apply the most rigorous scrutiny to speech bans and conclude that it violates the First Amendment.”

The company, which has argued that the law is unconstitutional, lost its initial legal challenge of the law earlier this month. The company then requested a delay of the law’s implementation, saying that President-elect Donal Trump had said he would “save” TikTok. That request was denied on Friday.

In its filing with the Supreme Court, TikTok again referenced Trump's comments. "It would not be in the interest of anyone—not the parties, the public, or the courts—for the Act’s ban on TikTok to take effect only for the new Administration to halt its enforcement hours, days, or even weeks later," it wrote. Trump's inauguration is one day after a ban of the app would take effect. 

TikTok is now hoping the Supreme Court will intervene to suspend the law in order to give the company time to make its final legal appeal. Otherwise, app stores and Internet service providers will be forced to begin blocking TikTok next month, making the app inaccessible to its 170 million US users.

Update December 16, 2024, 1:30 PM PT: Updated with details from TikTok's court filing. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/tiktok-asks-the-supreme-court-to-delay-upcoming-ban-211510659.html?src=rss

©

© NurPhoto via Getty Images

A federal court has denied TikTok’s request for a temporary pause of a law that could result in a ban of the app next month. The ruling, which came in response to an emergency injunction filed by TikTok earlier this week, is the latest legal setback for the company as it tries to avoid a total ban of its app in the United States.

In its request for a delay in the law taking effect, TikTok indicated that it planned to appeal to the Supreme Court. The company’s lawyers also cited the possibility that President-elect Donald Trump may want to take a different approach given some of Trump’s past comments about the app. But in a brief order, a panel of three judges denied that request, writing that such a pause was “unwarranted.”

TikTok’s future now depends on the Supreme Court, though there’s no guarantee the court will agree to hear the case. "As we have previously stated, we plan on taking this case to the Supreme Court, which has an established historical record of protecting Americans' right to free speech,” the company said in a statement. “The voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world will be silenced on January 19th, 2025 unless the TikTok ban is halted."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/tiktok-loses-its-bid-to-pause-the-law-that-could-ban-it-next-month-004200884.html?src=rss

©

© STR via Getty Images

The American Civil Liberties Association (ACLU) is sounding a warning about the use of AI in creating police reports, saying the tech could produce errors that affect evidence and court cases. The nonprofit highlighted the dangers of the tech in a white paper, following news that police departments in California are using a program called Draft One from Axon to transcribe body camera recording and create a first draft of police reports. 

One police department in Fresno said that it's using Draft One under a pilot program, but only for misdemeanor reports. "It's nothing more than a template," deputy chief Rob Beckwith told Industry Insider. "It’s not designed to have an officer push a button and generate a report." He said that the department has seen any errors with transcriptions and that it consulted with the Fresno County DA's office in training the force,

However, the ACLU noted four issues with the use of AI. First off, it said that AI is "quirky and unreliable and prone to making up fact... [and] is also biased." Secondly, it said that an officer's memories of an incident should be memorialized "before they are contaminated by an AI's body camera based storytelling." It added that if a police report is just an AI rehash of body camera video, certain facts might be omitted and it may even allow officers to lie if they did something illegal that wasn't captured on camera. 

The third point was around transparency, as the public needs to understand exactly how it works based on analysis by independent experts, according to the ACLU. Defendants in criminal cases also need to be able to interrogate the evidence, "yet much of the operation of these systems remains mysterious." Finally, the group noted that the use of AI transcriptions might remove accountability around the use of discretionary power. "For these reasons, the ACLU does not believe police departments should allow officers to use AI to generate draft police reports," it said.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/aclu-highlights-the-rise-of-ai-generated-police-reports--what-could-go-wrong-133030452.html?src=rss

©

© ACLU

The US Supreme Court dismissed an NVIDIA case it previously agreed to hear as “improvidently granted.” In other words: “Oops, we never should’ve taken this one.” The decision lets most of the lawsuit, brought by shareholders against the chip maker, proceed.

An investment firm and a pension fund brought the case against NVIDIA, claiming the company misled investors about its reliance on the crypto-mining industry. The suit claims NVIDIA concealed its dependence on the market before a 2018 crash that sunk the chip maker’s stock prices. (For better or worse, cryptocurrency has rebounded, and Bitcoin recently passed the $100,000 plateau for the first time.)

The court’s unanimous dismissal reflected its apparent aversion to hearing the case’s complex technical details. “The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted” is all the decision said. That language was identical to a remarkably similar dismissal in a case SCOTUS heard last month against Meta, which also accused it of deceiving investors.

The Washington Post reports that the justices offered hints at the NVIDIA dismissal when they heard arguments in mid-November. “It becomes less and less clear why we took this case … and … why you should win it,” Justice Elena Kagan reportedly said. The New York Times says court members across the ideological spectrum sounded frustrated with the arguments. “This is a highly technical subject,” Justice Samuel Alito said at one point. “It just seems to me that you’re asking us to engage in a kind of analysis that we are not very good at and weren’t expecting to when we took this case,” Kagan said.

As AI’s thorny and ultra-high-stakes legal and ethical questions loom, we can take comfort in the fact that the highest court in the world’s most powerful nation sounds… utterly uninterested in diving into Big Tech’s often head-spinning technical details. At least the stakes are much lower in this case, only affecting the finances of a crazy-rich corporation and a group of (likely rich) Wall Street investors.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/us-supreme-court-bails-on-nvidia-case-allowing-a-shareholder-lawsuit-to-proceed-214001377.html?src=rss

©

© US Supreme Court

A judge has issued an injunction ordering WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg and his company Automattic to restore access to the WP Engine web hosting service, according to legal documents seen by The Verge. Automattic must also restore WP Engine's control of its popular ACF (Advanced Custom Fields) plugin. It also removes a checkbox implemented by Automattic that made people say they had no relationship with WP Engine. 

The ruling follows a major dispute between WP Engine and Automattic and its CEO Matt Mullenweg, a co-founder of WordPress. Last September, Mullenweg accused WP Engine of misusing the WordPress trademark and said it "never once" donated to the open-source arm of the foundation. The WordPress foundation then banned WP Engine from accessing resources like plug-ins and themes, breaking many of WP Engine's over 200,000 websites. It also took control of the company's ACF plugin, forking and renaming it to Secure Custom Fields. 

WP Engine then sued Automattic and Mullenweg, accusing them of extortion and abuse of power. The company said that Automattic demanded eight percent of its gross revenues (or donated employee time) in exchange for restoring its access. Mullenweg admitted that "a good chunk of my Automattic colleagues disagreed with my actions," and said that 159 employees resigned and took him up on a buyout offer of at least $30,000.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said that WP Engine's claims that Automattic's actions harmed its business had merit. Without the injunction, WP Engine will suffer "irreparable harm" because it has "suffered loss of existing and potential customers," adding that those customers and the larger WordPress community also sustained harm. 

In a post on X, WP Engine said it's "grateful that the court has granted our motion for a preliminary junction that restores access to and functionality of wordpressdotorg for WP Engine, its customers and its users." Automattic, meanwhile, said that it planned to file counterclaims "shortly" and "looks forward to prevailing in trial." It should be noted that while providing temporary relief to WP Engine, the injunction is certainly not the end of the legal actions. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/wp-engine-wins-preliminary-injunction-in-wordpress-legal-battle-131527285.html?src=rss

©

© Automaticc

TikTok is beginning its last-ditch legal challenge to avoid a ban in the United States. The company filed an emergency injunction in federal court Monday, asking for a delay in the law that would ban the app from taking effect so it could have time to mount a Supreme Court challenge.

The new court filing comes just three days after the company lost its initial court challenge to the law, currently set to take effect January 19, 2025, that requires app stores and internet providers to block TikTok if ByteDance doesn’t sell the app. In their ruling, a panel of three appeals court judges wrote that the US government had “persuasive national security justifications that apply specifically to the platform that TikTok operates.”

TikTok has argued the law is unconstitutional and that it would unjustly hurt creators and businesses that rely on its service. “Estimates show that small businesses on TikTok would lose more than $1 billion in revenue and creators would suffer almost $300 million in lost earnings in just one month unless the TikTok Ban is halted,” TikTok said in a statement Monday.

In its latest filing, TikTok notes that President-elect Donald Trump has promised to “save” the app and that temporarily halting the law would allow “the incoming Administration to evaluate this matter.” Right now, the law is slated to take effect the day before Trump’s inauguration.

The company requested a decision by December 16. Even if the injunction isn’t granted, it’s still not quite the end of the line for the company’s legal challenges. If the Supreme Court ends up taking on the case, TikTok would have another opportunity to try to get the law overturned.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/tiktok-asks-court-to-delay-the-law-that-would-ban-its-app-next-month-192427139.html?src=rss

©

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Friday said it has ordered federal supervision of Google Payment Corp. after determining that it meets the legal requirements for such oversight. The CFPB monitors banks, credit unions and other financial institutions, and recently finalized a rule to supervise digital payment apps. In the order, which focuses on the Google Pay app and its peer-to-peer (P2P) payment service (discontinued in the US earlier this year), the CFPB said it has “reasonable cause to determine that Google has engaged in conduct that poses risks to consumers.” Google filed a lawsuit shortly after the announcement to challenge the decision, Reuters reports.

The risks identified by the CFPB are tied to Google’s handling of erroneous transactions and fraud prevention. Based on customer complaints, the order said it appears that Google didn’t adequately investigate erroneous transfers, or adequately explain the findings of its investigations into these issues. The complaints also indicate Google didn’t do enough to prevent fraud, the order says. But, the CFPB announcement notes that the order “does not constitute a finding that the entity has engaged in wrongdoing,” nor does it “require the CFPB to conduct a supervisory examination.”

In a statement to TechCrunch, a Google spokesperson said, “This is a clear case of government overreach involving Google Pay peer-to-peer payments, which never raised risks and is no longer provided in the U.S., and we are challenging it in court.” The CFPB's order acknowledges that Google Pay was discontinued but says this is “not a basis to refrain from designating Google for supervision,” though it could affect whether it decides to conduct an examination.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-sues-after-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-orders-supervision-of-its-payment-arm-000829576.html?src=rss

©

© Google

Former cryptocurrency leader Alex Mashinsky has pleaded guilty to two fraud charges. The founder and CEO of Celsius Network was indicted on seven criminal counts in 2023, including charges of fraud, conspiracy and market manipulation. He entered a not guilty plea at the time, but in a hearing today, Mashinsky pled guilty to two of those original counts. The first is commodities fraud and the second is a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the price of his company's in-house crypto token CEL. Reuters reported that as part of a plea deal, Mashinsky has agreed not to appeal any sentence of 30 years or less.

Mashinsky's case is one of several fraud cases being pursued against leaders of cryptocurrency operations. The most well-publicized charges are those brought against FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who was found guilty on seven counts of fraud in 2023.

National agencies began a push into fraud charges for cryptocurrency schemes in 2022, when several notable companies filed for bankruptcy as token prices plummeted in response to rising interest rates and high inflation. That year, the Federal Trade Commission said that victims of crypto schemes had lost more than $1 billion since 2021.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/former-celsius-ceo-pleads-guilty-to-two-fraud-charges-224046043.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

Elon Musk’s attorneys filed for an injunction against OpenAI and Microsoft on Friday accusing the two of anticompetitive practices and seeking to stop OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit company. The filing, spotted by TechCrunch, also names OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, Microsoft’s Dee Templeton and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman as defendants. Musk first sued OpenAI earlier this year for allegedly violating its founding mission of building AI “for the benefit of humanity,” but withdrew the lawsuit a few months later. He then filed another lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court in August, and recently added Microsoft as a defendant.

The new motion accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of telling investors not to fund OpenAI’s competitors, such as Musk’s xAI, of “benefitting from wrongfully obtained competitively sensitive information or coordination” through its relationship with Microsoft, and other alleged antitrust violations. “OpenAI’s path from a non-profit to for-profit behemoth is replete with per se anticompetitive practices, flagrant breaches of its charitable mission, and rampant selfdealing,” it states. “Allowing this course of conduct to continue until final disposition will seriously harm Plaintiffs and the public at large.”

It comes a few months after it was reported that OpenAI is making the switch to a for-profit model. In statement shared with Engadget in response to Musk’s latest filing, an OpenAI spokesperson said, “Elon’s fourth attempt, which again recycles the same baseless complaints, continues to be utterly without merit.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/elon-musk-asks-court-to-stop-openai-from-becoming-a-for-profit-165051728.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

One of the world’s most notorious hackers could finally be in custody. Bleeping Computer reports that ransomware affiliate Mikhail Pavlovich Matveev also known as Wazawaka, Uhodiransomwar, m1x and Boriselcin has been arrested.

Prosecutors have not confirmed if Matveev is under arrest, but reports indicate that Matveev may be the hacker in Russian custody. The Russian state news agency РИА Новости (translated on BlueSky by the Center for Strategic Research’s Oleg Shakirov) reported that the Kaliningrad Interior Ministry and Russian prosecutors sent a case of “a programmer accused of creating a malicious program” to court. An anonymous source with knowledge of the matter confirms that Matveev is the programmer.

Matveev is also wanted on charges in the US for launching attacks on US law enforcement agencies and healthcare organizations as far back as 2020. The US State Department is offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture in May of last year when the Department of Justice filed criminal charges against him. If he’s in Russian custody, the US may not get a chance to prosecute him.

Matveev, a Russian national, has links to ransomware hacking groups such as Hive, LockBit and Babuk. He’s linked to a number of attacks including an April 2021 lockout attack on the systems of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. More than a year later, he allegedly helped launch a Hive ransomware attack on a healthcare NGO in New Jersey.

Attacks from LockBit are particularly destructive and egregious. In late 2022, the group infected the computer systems of 1,400 victims including a Holiday Inn hotel in Turkey. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also placed sanctions against Matveev for his role in several ransomware attacks on US services and critical infrastructure targets. The Justice Department believes Matveev has extracted more than $75 million from his victims in ransom payments.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/russia-arrests-ransomware-attacker-wazawaka-202134431.html?src=rss

©

© FBI

A coalition of Canadian news outlets sued OpenAI on Friday for copyright infringement. The joint lawsuit accuses the company of “capitalizing and profiting” from the unauthorized use of their content for ChatGPT. The legal action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs include CBC/Radio-Canada, Postmedia, Metroland, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and The Canadian Press. They’re seeking punitive damages from OpenAI, payments for any profits the ChatGPT creator made from using their news articles and a ban on further use of their content.

“OpenAI regularly breaches copyright and online terms of use by scraping large swaths of content from Canadian media to help develop its products, such as ChatGPT,” the media outlets wrote in a statement (via CBC News). “OpenAI is capitalizing and profiting from the use of this content, without getting permission or compensating content owners.”

In a statement to Engadget, OpenAI noted its news content partnerships and opt-out process while voicing a belief that its practices are covered under fair use.

“Hundreds of millions of people around the world rely on ChatGPT to improve their daily lives, inspire creativity, and solve hard problems,” an OpenAI spokesperson wrote. “Our models are trained on publicly available data, grounded in fair use and related international copyright principles that are fair for creators and support innovation. We collaborate closely with news publishers, including in the display, attribution and links to their content in ChatGPT search, and offer them easy ways to opt-out should they so desire.”

OpenAI’s new search engine is built into ChatGPT. It crawls websites and points users toward them for additional info. The company has said it doesn’t use that data for crawling or training its models.

The Canadian news outlets have joined a long list of companies, individuals, and other organizations that have sued the ChatGPT maker for unauthorized training on their work. That list includes (among others) The New York Times, The Intercept, Raw Story, a group of nonfiction authors and the comedian Sarah Silverman.

Early this year, OpenAI wrote to a UK committee that it would be “impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.” This month, the NYT filed a court declaration as part of its lawsuit, stating that OpenAI’s engineers accidentally erased evidence of the company’s AI training data.

OpenAI has argued that using publicly available online content falls under the fair use doctrine. The Canadian plaintiffs objected to that view, writing that “journalism is in the public interest. OpenAI using other companies’ journalism for their own commercial gain is not. It’s illegal.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/canadian-news-organizations-sue-openai-for-chatgpt-copyright-infringement-190806649.html?src=rss

©

© OpenAI / Will Shanklin for Engadget

Canada's antitrust watchdog is suing Google to force the breakup of the company’s ad tech unit. In a statement published Thursday, during the US Thanksgiving holiday, the Competition Bureau said a “thorough” investigation had found that Google had abused its dominant position in programmatic web advertising to “maintain and entrench its market power.”

Specifically, the watchdog has accused Google of giving its own tools preferential access to online ad inventory. The Competition Bureau alleges the company also took a financial hit on some transactions in an effort to disadvantage rival platforms, and that it even went so far as dictating the terms by which its own customers could do business with competing ad tech companies.

Among other remedies, the Competition Bureau is seeking to force Google to sell two of its ad tech tools. The agency also wants the company to pay a penalty for its behavior.

Google did not immediately respond to Engadget’s request for comment. In a statement it shared with Reuters, Google said the complaint "ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice.” The tech giant added it is looking forward to arguing its case in court. “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Dan Taylor, vice-president of Global Ads at Google, said separately.

“The Competition Bureau conducted an extensive investigation that found that Google has abused its dominant position in online advertising in Canada by engaging in conduct that locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, excluding competitors, and distorting the competitive process,” said Matthew Boswell, Canada’s Commissioner of Competition. 

“Google's conduct has prevented rivals from being able to compete on the merits of what they have to offer, to the detriment of Canadian advertisers, publishers and consumers. We are taking our case to the Tribunal to stop this conduct and its harmful effects in Canada.”

The case comes as Google attempts to fend off a separate attempt by the US Department of Justice to break up the company’s ad business. The two sides made their closing arguments in that case on Monday, and a decision could be announced as early as next week.

Update 11/29, 4:30am ET: Dan Taylor, VP of Global Ads at Google, said “Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers. Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector. The CCB’s complaint ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice and we look forward to making our case in court.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/canadas-competition-bureau-sues-to-break-up-googles-ad-business-030032969.html?src=rss

©

© Reuters / Reuters

Amazon won’t need to pay the European Union €250 million ($263 million) in back taxes. On Wednesday, the bloc’s executive branch said it was closing three separate state aid investigations, including one involving Amazon. The decision ends one of the company’s longest-running legal sagas.

In 2017, the European Commission found that, from 2006 to 2014, Amazon had used an operating company in Luxembourg to pay substantially less tax to the European Union. The shell company had no offices or staff, and was, according to the Commission, used solely by Amazon to lower its tax bill. By the Commission’s estimate, the e-commerce giant avoided taxation on three quarters of all the profit it made from online sales in the EU during that period.

In 2021, however, Amazon won an appeal against the ruling. Although the company changed its tax structure following the investigation, it argued at the time that the Commission’s decision was full of "methodological errors.” It also said the payments were legal per international tax principles, an argument Europe’s second-highest court agreed with after finding Amazon’s structure didn’t confer it an advantage over other companies. Subsequently, the court ordered the Commission’s decision annulled.

With this week’s announcement, the Commission said it was “taking into account the guidance of the EU Courts” in closing the case against Amazon. Amazon did not immediately respond to Engadget’s comment request.

While the end of its case against Amazon is a setback for the European Commission, earlier this year the body won a decisive victory against Apple. In September, Europe’s highest court ordered the tech giant to pay back a €13 billion ($14.4 billion) tax break from Ireland that was found to be illegal in 2016.

Update 11/29 7:50am ET: An Amazon spokesperson shared the following comment: “We welcome the Court’s ruling, which confirms that Amazon followed all applicable laws and received no special treatment. We look forward to continuing to focus on delivering for our customers across Europe.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/european-commission-ends-state-aid-case-against-amazon-with-no-tax-payout-004438602.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

The Federal Trade Commission has put Uber in its sights once again. Bloomberg reported that the regulator is investigating complaints about the Uber One subscription program. Customers alleged that the company signed users up for the service without their consent and made it difficult to cancel their subscriptions. According to documents seen by Bloomberg, the Commission opened this inquiry earlier this year.

"We will continue to answer any questions the FTC may have about our cancellation policies,” Uber representative Noah Edwardsen told the publication. "The Uber One cancellation process follows both the letter and the spirit of the law: Uber One members can easily cancel their membership in the app — in fact, the majority of those cancellations take 20 seconds or less."

Earlier in 2024, the FTC ratified a "click to cancel" rule that requires companies make it as easy to end a subscription as it is to start one. The regulator sued Amazon and Adobe for similar claims around their subscription products within the past year.

This also isn't the first time the FTC has examined the rideshare company. Uber agreed to a settlement with the agency in 2017 around questions of exaggerating driver income to encourage recruitment. In 2018, the company also reached an accord around a data breach and misconduct in trying to cover up the scope of the problem.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/the-ftc-is-investigating-uber-for-its-subscription-policies-232453366.html?src=rss

©

© Reuters / Reuters

If you ask Drake, Kendrick Lamar's Not Like Us isn't as popular as it seems. The Canadian rapper has filed a petition in New York's Supreme Court, accusing Universal Music Group of using bots and paying Spotify, Apple and other entities to "artificially inflate the spread of Not Like Us and "deceiving consumers" into believing that "it was more popular than it was in reality." Universal Music Group represents both Drake and Lamar. 

"In 2024, UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices, to 'break through the noise' on Spotify, and likely other music platforms. It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves with a song, Not Like Us. in order to make that song go viral, including by using 'bots' and pay-to-play agreements," the petition reads. Drake's camp filed the petition to seek pre-action discovery in order to prepare a lawsuit accusing UMG of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). 

The music label allegedly charged Spotify 30 percent less for the right to stream Not Like Us in exchange for the streaming service recommending the song to users looking for other artists and tracks. Neither party has disclosed the deal. UMG also used bots to boost the song's popularity, the complaint says, citing a podcast wherein an individual reportedly said that Lamar's label paid him to use bots to achieve 30,000,000 streams on Spotify within the first few days of the song's release. 

UMG also paid Apple to have Siri "purposely misdirect" users to Lamar's song, the complaint alleges. Apparently, Siri starts playing Not Like Us, "which contains the lyric 'certified pedophile' that's an allegation against Drake," when a user asks it to play Drake's Certified Loverboy album. In addition, Drake accused UMG of paying radio promoters to increase the song's airplay and influencers to review the song without disclosing that money had changed hands. 

The complaint says the company's executives launched the scheme to maximize their profits. UMG apparently refused to engage in negotiations even though Drake's camp has been trying to get them to sit down and talk over the past few months. In his complaint, Drake claims that UMG has taken steps to conceal its scheme, including firing personnel close to him. "The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue," the company's spokesperson told The Verge. Spotify has decline to comment about the issue.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/drake-accuses-umg-of-using-bots-and-conspiring-with-spotify-to-make-not-like-us-go-viral-140056292.html?src=rss

©

© Amy Sussman via Getty Images

Four years after Tesla filed a lawsuit against Rivian alleging that the company poached its employees with a goal of obtaining trade secrets, the two appear to be nearing a resolution. According to Bloomberg, Tesla says it’s reached a “conditional” settlement with Rivian and expects to seek the case’s dismissal by December 24. In the lawsuit filed in 2020, Tesla claimed Rivian encouraged exiting Tesla employees to steal information, and that it caught three employees taking “highly valuable, confidential information as they left for Rivian.” Rivian has denied the allegations from the start, calling them “baseless.”

Rivian filed a motion for the lawsuit to be dismissed, but this was denied by a California judge who tentatively ruled earlier this year that Rivian would have to face a trial. The trial was expected to take place in 2025, but it now looks like the matter may be wrapped up before the end of the year without coming to that.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/transportation/evs/tesla-and-rivian-have-reached-a-conditional-settlement-in-lawsuit-over-trade-secrets-214721559.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters