The privacy-focused browser DuckDuckGo has updated its Chrome extension to block two new ad targeting methods that are a part of Google’s Privacy Sandbox. In a blog post, DuckDuckGo informed users that they can block Google Topics and FLEDGE via its extension, or just disable the “Privacy Sandbox” setting in Chrome. The search giant’s Privacy Sandbox initiative — its alternative method of tracking and targeting users for online ads that Google argues is more privacy-focused — has been met with scrutiny by regulators and privacy advocates. DuckDuckGo has joined the chorus criticizing Google’s new ad tech, which the search giant is currently testing on a limited number of users.

“While some suggest that Topics is a less invasive way of ad targeting, we don't agree. Why not? Fundamentally it’s because, by default, Google Chrome will still be automatically surveilling your online activity and sharing information about you with advertisers and other parties so they can behaviorally target you without your consent,” wrote DuckDuckGo’s product director Peter Dolanjski in the post.

The company also called out Google’s FLEDGE (short for First Locally-Executed Decision over Groups Experiment), its new method of ad re-targeting (otherwise known as those obnoxious ads that follow users wherever they go on the web). Unlike older methods, Google claims that FLEDGE allows for re-marketing with relying on a personal identifier about users. FLEDGE will also be directly baked in Google’s Chrome browser, instead of traditional ad re-targetting which occurs through third-party cookies.

“When you visit a website where the advertiser may want to later follow you with an ad, the advertiser can tell your Chrome browser to put you into an interest group. Then, when you visit another website which displays ads, your Chrome browser will run an ad auction based on your interest groups and target specific ads at you. So much for your browser working for you!,” wrote Dolanjski.

It’s possibly just lip service, but Google has emphasized that it’s accepting feedback from privacy advocates and regulators as it continues to test Privacy Sandbox. UK’s competition watchdog gave Privacy Sandbox a cautious stamp of approval earlier this year. Phasing out third-party cookies has taken Google longer than expected. Google has regularly updated its Privacy Sandbox timeline, and the new estimate is that it will gradually stop supporting third-party cookies over a three-month period in late 2023.

Amazon has one less legal challenge to worry about. An appeals court today dismissed a lawsuit by New York State Attorney General Letitia James against the company for its coronavirus safety protocols and alleged retaliation against workers, reportedReuters. In its ruling, the court said that since federal labor law preempts state labor law, National Labor Relations Board “should serve as the forum” for the dispute. It also pointed to a separate NLRB case over fired employee Gerald Bryson and said it contained “essentially the same” allegations of retaliation, and argued there was a risk of “interference” over the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

The lawsuit — filed last year — accused Amazon of subjecting workers from two Staten Island facilities to unsafe conditions during the pandemic. It also alleged that Amazon retaliated against former employees Christian Smalls and Derrick Palmer — now of the Amazon Labor Union — by firing them after they protested the company’s working conditions. Just a few days earlier, Amazon filed its own lawsuit against the New York State attorney general’s office in an effort to stop the investigation.

Last month, it appeared that luck was on the NY State attorney general’s side when a federal judge denied Amazon’s bid to transfer the lawsuit. But the New York Court of Appeals today not only reversed this decision, it dismissed claims in the state attorney general’s lawsuit that Amazon violated COVID-19 health and safety protocols. The appeals court stated that since New York State’s coronavirus workplace protocols have since been lifted, the lawsuit's efforts to get Amazon to comply with them were “moot.”

“Throughout the pandemic, Amazon has failed to provide a safe working environment for New Yorkers, putting their health and safety at risk. As our office reviews the decision and our options moving forward, Attorney General James remains committed to protecting Amazon workers, and all workers, from unfair treatment,” wrote Morgan Rubin, a spokesperson for the attorney general, in a statement to Engadget.

Engadget has reached out to Amazon for comment on the lawsuit and will update if we hear back. 

Starting tomorrow, YouTube will give both fans and creators the ability to gift paid channel subscriptions. A number of influential streamers tweeted the announcement today, many of whom were ecstatic about a new monetization tool. Gifted subs have been a popular feature on Twitch — YouTube Gaming's main rival— for a while. Many streamers see subscriptions as an easy way to generate revenue while also building their community. But YouTube has dragged its heels on releasing the much-anticipated feature for some time. Finally, YouTube Japan tested the waters with gifted memberships earlier this year for a select number of channels. Gifted memberships — which is still in beta — will now be available to all YouTube Gaming users in the US and UK.

Fans normally pay $4.99 per month for channel memberships, which allow them to access user badges, emotes and other exclusive content by their favorite creators. YouTube Gaming has released a number of other Twitch-like features this year, such as Live Redirects, which allow streamers to send fans to other streams or premieres. 

While Twitch remains the biggest US-based platform for livestreaming, a number of its high-profile streamers have decamped in recent years for YouTube Gaming. And there may be more to follow. Bloomberg reported last month that Twitch partners will get a smaller cut of revenue from subscriptions (50 percent from 70 percent) under a new monetization model by the Amazon-owned platform. YouTube Gaming takes only 30 percent of a streamer’s revenue from channel subscriptions. While YouTube Gaming doesn’t have as big of an audience as Twitch, that could easily change if more popular Twitch creators leave for greener pastures.

Uber is planning on tightening the purse strings this year. In an email to employees shared with CNBC, the ride-hailing firm’s CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said the company would cut back on spending amidst a “seismic shift” in investor sentiment. First up on the chopping block are marketing and incentives, also known as Uber’s various perks for customers and drivers that include sign-up bonuses and ride discounts. Although Khosrowshahi didn’t mention lay-offs in the e-mail, he made clear that any new hiring at the company would be treated as "a privilege."

“We have to make sure our unit economics work before we go big. The least efficient marketing and incentive spend will be pulled back. We will treat hiring as a privilege and be deliberate about when and where we add headcount. We will be even more hardcore about costs across the board,” wrote Khosrowshahi.

The company’s quarterly earnings call last week contained both good news and bad news: Uber’s $6.9 billion in reported revenue for the first quarter of 2022 was a staggering 136 percent increase from the same period last year. It’s clear that demand is returning to pre-pandemic levels. But the company also lost $5.6 billion due to its many investments, which include overseas ride-sharing apps. Uber often buys a stake in local competitors or acquires them outright. But this strategy can backfire, as it did with Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi. Uber sold its stake in Didi last year after its value dropped by $2 billion in under a couple of weeks. It’s also looking to speed up the sale of its 29 percent stake in Russia’s ride-hailing platform Yandex.

Uber’s incentives program has boosted new driver sign-ups and ridership, but has also led to significant losses for the company. The company reported a $509 million loss last August, solely due to its heavy spending on sign-up bonuses it used to lure drivers back on the road.

The rideshare platform plans on focusing even more on Uber Eats and its new Freight program, which businesses can use to ship packages. Uber’s delivery business posted $2.5 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2022, and currently has a record number of merchants.

“Investors are happy with Delivery’s growth coming out of the pandemic and see that we have performed better than many other pandemic winners. I must admit that was a bit of a surprise for me because I firmly believe Delivery should be growing even faster,” wrote Khosrowshahi.

Elon Musk's $44 billion buyout of Twitter is facing its first legal challenge. A Florida pension fund is suing Musk and Twitter, arguing that the deal can't legally close until 2025 due to the billionaire's stake in the platform. The proposed class-action lawsuit — filed today by the Orlando Police Pension Fund in the Delaware Chancery court— also declares that Twitter’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by allowing the deal to go through. In addition to Musk and Twitter, the lawsuit also named former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, current Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and the company’s board as defendants.

In a message to Engadget, Tulane Law School’s Professor Ann M. Lipton says the lawsuit raises "some very novel issues" under Delaware corporate law. Under a law known as Section 203, shareholders who own more than 15 percent of the company can’t enter a merger without two-thirds of the remaining shares granting approval. Without this approval, the merger can’t be finalized for another three years.

The fund’s lawyers state that Musk initially owned roughly 10 percent of Twitter’s shares, which would seemingly not make Section 203 applicable. But, the fund argues, Musk formed a pact with Morgan Stanley (which owns 8.8 percent of shares) and former CEO Jack Dorsey (who has 2.4 percent) to advance the deal. The combined stake of these parties allegedly makes Musk and his allies in the takeover deal an "interested shareholder" under Section 203 — which, if the court agrees with the underlying reasoning presented in the case, means the merger must either be delayed or get approval shareholders representing at least two-thirds of the company's ownership. 

“Section 203 is not often litigated, and so the issue of whether Musk's relationship with these parties actually counts for statutory purposes is an unsettled question and it will be interesting to watch how it unfolds,” wrote Lipton.

More details of Musk’s highly complex $44 billion buyout of Twitter have been made public since the social media platform accepted the billionaire’s offer last month. The New York Times reported that Musk promised investors returns of nearly five to ten times their investments if the deal went through. Parts of the deal are being scrutinized, including its reliance on foreign investors and whether Musk bought shares in the company specifically to influence its leadership. But antitrust experts say the merger is unlikely to be blocked by the FTC. The agency will decide in the next month whether to quickly approve the merger or launch a lengthier investigation.

Mining Capital Coin CEO and founder Luiz Capuci Jr. was — in an indictment unsealed yesterday — accused by the DOJ of allegedly running a $62 million global investment fraud scheme. He's the latest of severalcrypto company heads who have recently been similarly charged.

Through his company, Capuci convinced investors to purchase “Mining Packages," a global network of cryptocurrency mines that promised a certain return on investment every week. But instead of using investors’ funds to mine cryptocurrency as he promised, the DOJ alleges that Capuci diverted the funds to his own cryptocurrency wallets. Another MCC product known as “Trading Bots” operated under the same false pretenses. Capuci claimed that the bots operated in “very high frequency, being able to do thousands of trades per second” and promised investors daily returns.

“As he did with the Mining Packages, however, Capuci allegedly operated an investment fraud scheme with the Trading Bots and was not, as he promised, using MCC Trading Bots to generate income for investors, but instead was diverting the funds to himself and co-conspirators,” wrote the DOJ in its indictment.

MCC seemed to have all the workings of a pyramid scheme. Capuci recruited affiliates and promoters to lure investors. In return, he promised the promoters a number of lavish gifts, including Apple watches, iPads and luxury vehicles.

Currently the FBI’s Miami Field Office is investigating the case. The DOJ has charged Capuci, who is from Port St. Lucie, Florida, with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and conspiracy to commit international money laundering. If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of 45 years.

In a review of the cryptocurrency mining platform, crypto blogger Peter Obi noted that the combination of MCC’s $50 monthly fee for membership and its steep 3% withdrawal fee meant that investors were unlikely to make a profit unless they referred other investors. He pointed out that such a referral process was “particularly worrying” because it was consistent with other past crypto scams.

Indeed, a number of crypto leaders have been accused by authorities of running Ponzi schemes in recent years. Earlier this year the DOJ indicted Bitconnect founder Satishkumar Kurjibhai Kumbhani for allegedly running a $2 billion Ponzi scheme — believed to be the largest virtual currency pyramid scheme in history.

Capuci never registered his company with the SEC. The agency today issued a fraud alert for the company. According to the SEC press release, Capuci and his associates successfully convinced 65,535 investors to purchase mining packages worldwide and promised daily returns of one percent, paid weekly for over a year. In total, the group netted $8.1 million from the sale of the mining packages and $3.2 million from initiation fees.

Amazon fired a number of senior managers from its JFK8 warehouse in Staten Island on Thursday, only a month after workers voted to unionize. The New York Times reported that the company axed more than half a dozen senior-level workers on Thursday, many of who were involved in union organizing. A number of anonymous employees told the NYT that they believed the firings were retaliatory. JFK8 is the first and currently the only unionized Amazon warehouse in the US.

In a statement to Engadget, Amazon said the workers were fired as a result of “management changes.” “Part of our culture at Amazon is to continually improve, and we believe it’s important to take time to review whether or not we’re doing the best we could be for our team. Over the last several weeks, we’ve spent time evaluating aspects of the operations and leadership at JFK8 and, as a result, have made some management changes.”

Other Amazon workers have recently gotten the pink slip, allegedly due to their union involvement. Just a couple of weeks ago, four recently terminated Amazon employees filed charges with the NLRB, alleging that they were being punished for supporting a union. Last month the NLRB ordered Amazon to reinstate Gerald Bryson, a worker at the JFK8 facility who was fired due to what Amazon alleged was his violation of a company language policy. But the NLRB’s judge was not convinced by this argument, and accused Amazon of performing a “skewed investigation” of Bryson and retaliating against him for his union work.

Just yesterday, Amazon Labor Union president Chris Smalls testified before the Senate Budget Committee and met with President Joe Biden. The Biden administration has expressed reserved support for unionization efforts by Amazon, Starbucks and other workers.

In his testimony before the Senate, Smalls argued that the federal government should avoid awarding Amazon contracts due to its labor practices. “We cannot allow Amazon or any other employer to receive taxpayer money if they engage in illegal union-busting behavior and deny workers’ rights,” said Smalls.

In a win for net neturality, ISPs agreed to end their legal challenge to a 2018 Californa law that bars providers from throttling service. Telecom groups and California Attorney General Rob Bonta today jointly agreed to dismiss the case, reportedReuters. 

It’s fair that say that luck hasn’t exactly been on the telecom industry’s side. Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its ruling that California’s law be upheld. And last year, the US DOJ dropped its own lawsuit over the net neutrality law, which the agency had filed during the Trump administration.

“Following multiple defeats in court, internet service providers have finally abandoned an effort to block enforcement of CA's net neutrality law. This is a win for California and for a free and fair internet,” wrote Bonta in a tweet.

After Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai overturned the agency's net neutrality rules in 2017, California’s legislature decided to enact its own law. The state’s net neutrality law, which went into effect in August 2018, expanded on previous federal rules by banning the use of “zero-rating” by ISPs in an anti-competitive manner. Zero-rating occurs when an ISP exempts any of its affiliated services from eating away at a customer’s data caps. For example, AT&T Wireless once exempted HBO Max from the data caps of its internet customers. The company dropped this practice last year, and blamed the impact of California’s law. Digital rights groups like Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued that zero-rating is hostile to consumers, especially those from low-income households.

Federal net neutrality rules that were blocked under the Trump administration have yet to be restored by the FCC under President Joe Biden. That’s because the five-member panel is currently short one member, which they’ll need in order to vote on net neutrality. The agency is awaiting the Senate confirmation of Gigi Sohn. But thanks to intense lobbying from telecom groups and a number of Republicans (and moderate Democrats) in Congress, Sohn’s confirmation is stalled at present.

Whisteblowers are accusing Facebook of purposely blocking government, healthcare and emergency services pages in Australia in order to thwart a potential law that would require platforms to pay for news, according to WSJ. The accusers say the platform last year created an algorithm to identify pages that would affect the most publishers. But Facebook reportedly didn’t just take down pages for media outlets — it also removed pages for hospitals, governments and charities.

According to the documents, Facebook put together a team of roughly a dozen employees who were tasked with removing news content from Australia. The team sidestepped an existing Facebook database of existing news publishers. Instead, the Facebook employees quickly created a new algorithm with a definition of news broad enough to grab a large number of non-news pages. “If 60 percent of [sic] more of a domain’s content shared on Facebook is classified as news, then the entire domain will be considered a news domain,” stated one internal document.

The end-result was that — for several days — Australians weren’t able to access or share any news or information from governments and healthcare services pages on Facebook. The timing was particularly bad, since the nation was just about to embark on a mass vaccination campaign for Covid-19. A number of Australian health officials decried the move. "It is truly ironic that Facebook has allowed health misinformation to be spread via its platform throughout this pandemic, yet today much of this misinformation remains on Facebook while official information sources are blocked … [The decision is] corporate bullying at its worst,” Australian Medical Association President Dr. Omar Khorshid told NBC last year.

Facebook’s troubles in Australia began when the nation’s Parliament began devising ways to force companies to pay publishers for news content distributed via search products and social media platforms. Back in February 2021, the Australian House of Representatives passed a version of this legislation opposed by Facebook. The company then blocked Australians from sharing or viewing news on the platform altogether. Following days of public outcry, the Australian Parliament eventually negotiated with Facebook and passed a new, more lenient bill that had the support of the social media giant. Facebook then reversed the ban.

Facebook has maintained that blocking the government and healthcare pages was accidental. “The documents in question clearly show that we intended to exempt Australian government Pages from restrictions in an effort to minimize the impact of this misguided and harmful legislation,” Facebook spokesman Andy Stone told WSJ. “When we were unable to do so as intended due to a technical error, we apologized and worked to correct it. Any suggestion to the contrary is categorically and obviously false.”

The documents that the whistleblowers submitted were filed with the US Department of Justice and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, WSJ reported. A number of members of the US Congress were also given copies of the Facebook documents.

The smart home ecosystem is getting a little more integrated: Google just updated its Amazon Alexa Skill to work on its latest Nest cameras. So if you already own a variety of Nest and Alexa devices, they'll work together more seamlessly moving forward. Now, you can stream live feeds from your Nest cameras, doorbells and other devices to anything from your Amazon Fire TV to any Echo device. Amazon made a similar gesture to open up its own smart home ecosystem last month, when it announced that its doorbells and security cameras would work with Google Nest, Ring, Abode and other third-party devices. Amazon’s Ring doorbell already works with Google Home and Apple Homekit.

A few other integrations between Nest and Alexa have been available for a while. For example, if you own a Google Nest thermostat, you can tell Alexa to change the temperature of your home. Older Nest cameras and doorbells have also had limited Alexa abilities, but the new skill allows for even more cross-platform integration. According to a recent post on Google Nest’s blog, the updated skill means Alexa will now support streaming from the Nest Cam with Floodlight, as well as the battery-powered models of Nest Cam and Nest Doorbell to the Echo Show, Fire TV or Fire Tablets.

If you own a Nest Doorbell, you can also talk to people through your door with any of your Alexa devices (such as the Echo, Echo Show, Fire TV and Fire Tablet). Eventually, Alexa will be able to announce when a Nest Cam or Nest Doorbell detects a person at your front door as well.