The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeals filed by both Apple and Epic Games following a judge’s ruling that Apple must allow developers to offer alternative methods to pay for apps and services other than through the App Store. It did not provide an explanation as to why it refused to review either appeal, but it means the permanent injunction giving developers a way to avoid the 30 percent cut Apple takes will remain in place.

Apple made the appeal to the high court back in September of last year, requesting it review the circuit court’s decision it deemed “unconstitutional.” The case brought forward by Epic Games is the first to challenge the business model of the App store, which helps Apple rake in billions. In May 2023, Apple said that developers generated about $1 trillion in total billings through the App Store in 2022. Gaming apps sold on the App Store generate an estimated $100 billion in revenue each year.

While the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Epic’s appeal that Apple has indeed broken California's Unfair Competition law, it rejected Epic’s claim that the App store is a monopoly. In addition to declining to hear Apple’s appeal, SCOTUS also will not review Epic’s appeal that the district court had made “legal errors.”

Epic claimed that Apple violates federal antitrust laws through its business model, however, this is not an issue the high court will consider. The CEO of Epic Games, Tim Sweeney, called the appeal denial “a sad outcome” on X.

Epic Games has been front and center in the fight against Apple’s developer transaction fee policy since 2020. Other companies, including Spotify and the New York Times, are also trying to challenge app store policies on Apple and Google platforms. The Coalition for App Fairness, which consists of more than 60 companies now, believes no developers should be required to use the app store exclusively. The Epic lawsuit was just the start — problems have been piling up for Apple. Even the Department of Justice (DOJ) is reportedly considering filing an antitrust case against it. The DOJ has been conducting an investigation into whether Apple’s App Store practices have killed competition in the space.

Days after laying off more than a thousand employees from Pixel, Nest, Fitbit, Google Assistant and core engineering divisions, Google is cutting “hundreds of roles” on its advertising sales team, a company spokesperson told Engadget on Tuesday.

“Every year we go through a rigorous process to structure our team to provide the best service to our Ads customers,” the company said in a statement. “We map customers to the right specialist teams and sales channels to meet their service needs. As part of this, a few hundred roles globally are being eliminated and impacted employees will be able to apply for open roles on the team or elsewhere at Google.”

The spokesperson declined to share information about the exact number of employees impacted by the cuts or where they were located. The news was first reported by Business Insider, which obtained a memo that Google’s chief business officer Philipp Schindler sent staff on Tuesday.

Google’s latest cuts continue the trend of layoffs at tech companies, which shed thousands of jobs in 2023. In the first two weeks of this year, for instance Amazon cut hundreds of workers in video game streaming service Twitch, Prime Video, MGM Studios, and Audible. Discord, Meta, Unity and Duolingo have also let go employees in 2024.

In December, The Information reported that Google was planning to reorganize its ad sales unit, which has more than 30,000 people, in favor of using machine learning to help customers buy more ads on flagship products like Google Search and YouTube, which is how the company makes a bulk of its revenue. Most of the company’s cuts taking place today will focus on ad sales teams selling ads to large businesses.

Meanwhile, the company is reportedly throwing millions of dollars of stock at select researchers at DeepMind, its artificial intelligence unit, to stop them from decamping to rivals like OpenAI.

When Mark Zuckerberg announced last year that Meta was laying off 10,000 workers, he described 2023 as a "year of efficiency" defined by removing layers of middle management to create a "leaner org." Turns out the company still isn't done restructuring its organization. According to Business Insider, Meta recently told at least 60 of its employees at Instagram that it's eliminating their position altogether. The affected employees are technical program managers, the people who go in between Meta's tech workers, including its engineers, and the higher level product managers.

Based on posts on Blind, an app for tech employees, and on LinkedIn seen by the publication, the workers losing their jobs are given the chance to be interviewed to be considered for a position as product manager. By March, those who chose to leave or weren't given a new role will no longer have a job with Meta. The company slashed 11,000 jobs in the fall of 2022 in addition to the 10,000 workers it laid off last year in an effort to cut costs. It also issued a hiring freeze and closed thousands of open roles it was originally hiring for. 

"A leaner org will execute its highest priorities faster. People will be more productive, and their work will be more fun and fulfilling," Zuckerberg said last year. It's unclear if Meta has already lifted its hiring freeze, but it's expected to do so only after it's done with restructuring. 

The US Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule to the Federal Register on Wednesday that would increase the difficulty of classifying workers as independent contractors. If the rule survives court challenges unscathed, it will replace a business-friendly Trump-era regulation that did the opposite. It’s scheduled to go into effect on March 11.

The new rule, first proposed in 2022, could have profound implications for companies like Uber and DoorDash that rely heavily on gig workers. It would mandate that workers who are “economically dependent” on a company be considered employees.

The rule restores a pre-Trump precedent of using six factors to determine workers’ classification. These include their opportunity for profit or loss, the financial stake and nature of resources the worker has invested in the work, the work relationship’s permanence, the employer’s degree of control over the person’s work, how essential the person’s work is to the employer’s business and the worker’s skill and initiative.

In its decision to publish the new guidance, the DOL cites a “longstanding precedent” in the courts predating the Trump administration’s hard right turn. “A century of labor protections for working people is premised on the employer-employee relationship,” Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su said in a press call with Bloomberg.

“Misclassifying employees as independent contractors is a serious issue that deprives workers of basic rights and protections,” Su wrote in the announcement post. “This rule will help protect workers, especially those facing the greatest risk of exploitation, by making sure they are classified properly and that they receive the wages they’ve earned.”

Mike Kemp via Getty Images

If the rule takes effect, it’s expected to increase employer costs. The US Chamber of Commerce, a non-government lobby for business interests, unsurprisingly opposes it. “It is likely to threaten the flexibility of individuals to work when and how they want and could have significant negative impacts on our economy,” Marc Freedman, VP of the US Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement to Reuters.

DoorDash sounds optimistic that the rule wouldn’t apply to its workforce. “We are confident that Dashers are properly classified as independent contractors under the FLSA, and we do not anticipate this rule causing changes to our business,” the company wrote in a statement. “We will continue to engage with the Department of Labor, Congress, and other stakeholders to find solutions that ensure Dashers maintain their flexibility while gaining access to new benefits and protections.”

Groups with similar views are expected to mount legal challenges to the rule before it goes into effect. A previous attempt by the Biden Administration to void the Trump-era rules met such a fate when a federal judge blocked the DOL’s reversal.

Although the most prominent theoretical applications of the rule would be with gig economy apps like DoorDash, Lyft and Uber, it could stretch to sectors including healthcare, trucking and construction. “The department is seeing misclassifications in places it hasn’t seen it before,” Wage and Hour Division Administrator Jessica Looma said to Bloomberg on Monday. “Health care, construction, janitorial, and even restaurant workers who are often living paycheck to paycheck are some of the most vulnerable workers.”

OpenAI and its biggest backer, Microsoft, are facing several lawsuits accusing them of using other people's copyrighted works without permission to train the former's large language models (LLMs). And based on what OpenAI told the House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee, we might see more lawsuits against the companies in the future. It would be "impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," OpenAI wrote in its written evidence (PDF) submission for the committee's inquiry into LLMs, as first reported by the The Guardian.

The company explained that it's because copyright today "covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents." It added that "[l]imiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens." OpenAI also insisted that it complies with copyright laws when it trains its models. In a new post on its blog made in response to the The New York Times' lawsuit, it said the use of publicly available internet materials to train AI falls under fair use doctrine. 

It admitted, however, that there is "still work to be done to support and empower creators." The company talked about the ways it's allowing publishers to block the GPTBot web crawler from being able to access their websites. It also said that it's developing additional mechanisms allowing rightsholders to opt out of training and that it's engaging with them to find mutually beneficial agreements. 

In some of the lawsuits filed against OpenAI and Microsoft, the plaintiffs accuse the companies of refusing to pay authors for their work while building a billion-dollar industry and enjoying enormous financial gain from copyrighted materials. The more recent case filed by a couple of non-fiction authors argued that the companies could've explored alternative financing options, such as profit sharing, but have "decided to steal" instead.

OpenAI didn't address those particular lawsuits, but it did provide a direct answer to The New York Times' complaint that accuses it of using its published news articles without permission. The publication isn't telling the full story, it said. It was already negotiating with The Times regarding a "high-value partnership" that would give it access to the publication's reporting. The two parties were apparently still in touch until December 19, and OpenAI only found out about the lawsuit on December by reading about it on The Times.

In the complaint filed by the newspaper, it cited instances of ChatGPT providing users with "near-verbatim excerpts" from paywalled articles. OpenAI accused the publication of intentionally manipulating prompts, such as including lengthy excerpts of articles in its interaction with the chatbot to get it to regurgitate content. It's also accusing The Times of cherry picking examples from many attempts. OpenAI said the lawsuit filed by The Times has no merit, but it's still hopeful for a "constructive partnership" with the publication. 

Duolingo has cut 10 percent of its contractors and using AI tools to handle the tasks they used to do, Bloomberg reports. "We just no longer need as many people to do the type of work some of these contractors were doing," a spokesperson told the news organization without saying what they did for the company exactly. "Part of that could be attributed to AI." 

As Bloomberg notes, Chief Executive Officer Luis von Ahn told shareholders in November that the company is using AI to create new content, such as scripts, "dramatically faster." Duolingo also relies on AI to generate the voices users hear in-app. The company previously released customer-facing AI features, as well. Last year, it introduced a premium tier called Duolingo Max that gives subscribers access to a chatbot that can explain why their responses were correct or incorrect. Another Max feature called Roleplay lets subscribers practice their language skills in made-up scenarios, like ordering food in a Parisian cafe. 

The rise of modern generative AIs over the past couple of years brought to surface society's fear of losing jobs to technology. In this case, no full-timers were affected by the job reductions, and the spokesperson said it's not a sign that it's straight up replacing its workers with artificial intelligence. A lot of the company's full-time employees and contractors are apparently using AI tools to accomplish certain tasks in their work.

In November, a group of non-fiction authors filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of using other people's intellectual property without permission to train the former's generative AI technology. Now, more non-fiction writers are suing the companies for using their work to train OpenAI's GPT large language models (LLM). Journalists Nicholas A. Basbanes and Nicholas Gage are accusing the defendants of "massive and deliberate theft of copyrighted works" by writers like them in a proposed class action lawsuit. 

Professional writers "have limited capital to fund their research" and "typically self-fund their projects," they said in their complaint. Meanwhile, the defendants have "ready access to billions in capital" and "simply stole" the plaintiffs' "copyrighted works to build another billion+ dollar commercial industry," they allege. Using copyrighted works is a "deliberate strategy" by the companies, the complaint reads, and not paying writers give the defendants "an even higher profit margin." The plaintiffs added that the companies could've explored alternative financing options, such as profit sharing, but have "decided to steal" instead. 

Basbanes and Gage are seeking "to represent a class of writers whose copyrighted work has been systematically pilfered" by the defendants. They're seeking up to $150,000 per infringed work in damages, as well as a permanent injunction "to prevent these harms from recurring." Basbanes is a "renowned authority on the history of books and book culture." Gage, according to the CNBC, had previously worked for the Times and The Wall Street Journal.

OpenAI is contending with a growing list of lawsuits filed by creatives accusing it of using their work without permission to train its LLMs, including one by fiction authors George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult. In late December 2023, The New York Times sued the company and its biggest backer, Microsoft, for using the newspaper's articles for AI training. An OpenAI representative told us at the time that both parties were engaged in "productive conversations" and that the lawsuit was unexpected.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently accused SpaceX of unlawfully firing eight employees who wrote an open letter criticizing Elon Musk's behavior on social media, as well as the company's response to it. Now, according to Bloomberg, SpaceX is trying to stall the complaint's progress by suing the labor board. The company reportedly argues in its lawsuit that the complaint should be dismissed because the NLRB's structure is "unconstitutional." 

SpaceX's lawsuit attacks the way the labor board conducts its hearings. The NLRB uses its own administrative judges for its proceedings, and the company says that deprives it of its "constitutional right to trial by jury." Companies can appeal rulings by agency judges to NLRB members in Washington, and they could even go as far as to escalate their appeal to federal court. SpaceX apparently told the court that the case against it should be put on hold to prevent the company from having to go through "protracted administrative proceedings before an unconstitutionally structured agency."

The open letter at the center of this case called Musk's behavior on social media "a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment." It called out the executive's "harmful Twitter behavior," including a tweet wherein he made a joke about the sexual misconduct allegation made against him. The letter asked the company to hold all leadership accountable for their actions and to condemn harmful behavior. SpaceX fired a total of nine employees over the letter, the NLRB's complaint said, which means they were illegally fired for "engaging in protected concerted activity at work."

In its lawsuit, SpaceX said the open letter "caused significant distraction to SpaceX employees around the country" and that it fired the employees involved "for violating numerous company policies." As Reuters notes, the private space corporation used a similar tactic in the past to block the US Department of Justice from pursuing an administrative case that accused the company of discriminatory hiring practices. SpaceX also filed a lawsuit protesting the fact that the Justice Department's administrative judges have powers reserved for President-appointed officials even though they were only appointed by the US attorney general. The company successfully convinced the judge to pause the administrative case against it while its own lawsuit was ongoing. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a complaint against SpaceX, accusing it of unlawfully firing eight employees involved in writing a letter that called Elon Musk's behavior on social media "a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment." According to the filing, the company committed an unfair labor practice when it fired the workers for "engaging in protected concerted activity at work." It also accused SpaceX of interrogating at least one employee about the letter, as well as about the identities of their colleagues and the nature of their "concerted protected activity."

In addition, the complaint said SpaceX created an "impression of surveillance" by showing an employee screenshots of a Signal group chat several employees were a part of. The open letter at the center of this case was calling out Musk's "harmful Twitter behavior" before he acquired the website now known as X. In particular, the employees raised concerns about the crude jokes he made on X about the sexual misconduct accusations against him, which SpaceX settled for $250,000. The letter asked the company to hold leadership accountable for their actions and to condemn harmful behavior.

The employees involved in writing the letter circulated it within the company in mid-2022. According to The New York Times, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell reprimanded them within a few hours of sending it out and told them to "stop flooding employee communication channels immediately." Five employees were reportedly fired the next day, and four others were fired over July and August. Only one of them didn't take part in filing the unfair labor practice complaint. "At SpaceX the rockets may be reusable, but the people who build them are treated as expendable," Paige Holland-Thielen, one of the fired employees, told The Times. "I am hopeful these charges will hold SpaceX and its leadership accountable for their long history of mistreating workers and stifling discourse."

The case is slated to go before an administrative judge on March 5, though the company could settle before it takes place. If the NLRB decides that the company has violated labor laws, it can order SpaceX to reinstate workers and to give them appropriate backpay. SpaceX could appeal the decision to the board and then to a federal court, though, so it could be a long journey for the employees involved. 

Musk has been at odds with the NLRB for years through his other companies. The board previously accused X of illegally firing an employee who pushed back against his return-to-office policy. Meanwhile, Tesla has dealt with several NLRB complaints, including one accusing the automaker of illegally terminating employees in retaliation for union activity.

NVIDIA may have figured out a way to go around the US export restrictions on China, but apparently ASML, the Dutch firm behind the key chipmaking equipment, isn't having much say on this end. According to Bloomberg, Biden's administration reportedly reached out to ASML "weeks before" the January 1, 2024 export ban deadline, requesting the firm to halt some pre-scheduled shipments of its deep ultraviolet lithography (DUV) machines to its Chinese customers. This came after the revelation that SMIC used ASML tech to manufacture Huawei's latest flagship processor, the 7nm HiSilicon Kirin 9000S.

In addition to DUV machines, ASML also manufactures extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines for making more advanced chips — with node processes of 5nm or less — for the likes of Apple and Qualcomm. While ASML was never allowed to sell EUV equipment to China, the Dutch government did grant licenses to the firm for shipping DUV machines to China until the end of 2023.

Bloomberg reports that things changed when the US government — National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, specifically — allegedly contacted the Dutch government regarding some of ASML's final shipments to China, to which his team was asked to reach out to ASML directly. "Shipments of a limited number of machines" were affected.

While China had been able to source lithography machines from elsewhere, they tended to be off less advanced methods. Not to mention the joint effort between the US, Japan and the Netherlands on limiting China's access to such equipment. That said, China had since been pushed to beef up its own silicon ecosystem, to the point where it surprised the world with its homegrown 7nm mobile 5G chip. It's no wonder the US was desperate to halt ASML's final DUV shipments to China, though doing so before the agreed deadline may be a questionable move.