Vizio TVs’ “effective” refresh rates have been confusing customers for years, and the company may now owe payments to some buyers who were misled by the term. As spotted by The Verge, Vizio recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California over what plaintiffs claim is “false and misleading” advertising. While some Vizio TVs are marketed as having a “120Hz Effective Refresh Rate” or “240Hz Effective Refresh Rate,” that describes a result achieved using motion clarity technology. Their actual, native refresh rate in most cases is 60Hz.

Vizio has denied any wrongdoing on its part, but agreed to a $3 million settlement covering all Vizio TVs purchased in California that were advertised with the above descriptions, going back to April 30, 2014 and up until the final court judgment. The final approval hearing is right now set for June 20, 2024. People may be entitled to payments of up to $50, but claims must be in by March 30, 2024. The claim form can be found here. Vizio also agreed to stop marketing its TVs this way and to “provide enhanced services and a limited one-year warranty to all Settlement Class Members.”

A federal judge in California has shot down Elon Musk’s attempt to invalidate a state social media law, first reported by The Verge. The state’s AB 587 requires social companies to publish their content moderation policies, something Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) claimed violated the First Amendment. US District Judge William Shubb wrote on Thursday, “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

X’s lawyers had argued the law was unconstitutional and would lead to censorship. AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in its lawsuit, filed in September. The company claimed the law’s “true intent” was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

Judge Shubb saw things differently. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual,” he wrote. “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories.”

He continued, “The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”

Shubb concluded that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta met the burden of demonstrating the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

It’s been a rocky year for X in Musk’s first year of ownership. The company changed its name, hired a new CEO, launched a snarky AI chatbot, brought back a notorious conspiracy theorist and bled money as the ad industry got cold feet about brands sitting next to content from Nazi sympathizers. Oh, and the EU has opened formal infringement proceedings against the company formerly known as Twitter.

In 2020, Google was hit with a lawsuit that accused it of tracking Chrome users' activities even when they were using Incognito mode. Now, after a failed attempt to get it dismissed, the company has agreed to settle the complaint that originally sought $5 billion in damages. According to Reuters and The Washington Post, neither side has made the details of the settlement public, but they've already agreed to the terms that they're presenting to the court for approval in February. 

When the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, they said Google used tools like its Analytics product, apps and browser plug-ins to monitor users. They reasoned that by tracking someone on Incognito, the company was falsely making people believe that they could control the information that they were willing to share with it. At the time, a Google spokesperson said that while Incognito mode doesn't save a user's activity on their device, websites could still collect their information during the session. 

The lawsuit's plaintiffs presented internal emails that allegedly showed conversations between Google execs proving that the company monitored Incognito browser usage to sell ads and track web traffic. Their complaint accused Google of violating federal wire-tapping and California privacy laws and was asking up to $5,000 per affected user. They claimed that millions of people who'd been using Incognito since 2016 had likely been affected, which explains the massive damages they were seeking from the company. Google has likely agreed to settle for an amount lower than $5 billion, but it has yet to reveal details about the agreement and has yet to get back to Engadget with an official statement. 

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for using published news articles to train its artificial intelligence chatbots without an agreement that compensates it for its intellectual property. The lawsuit, which was filed in a Federal District Court in Manhattan, marks the first time a major news organization has pursued the ChatGPT developers for copyright infringement. The NYT did not specify how much it seeks in payout from the companies but that “this action seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages.”

The NYT claims that OpenAI and Microsoft, the makers of Chat GPT and Copilot, “seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism” without having any licensing agreements. In one part of the complaint, the NYT highlights that its domain (www.nytimes.com) was the most used proprietary source mined for content to train GPT-3.

It alleges more than 66 million records, ranging from breaking news articles to op-eds, published across the NYT websites and other affiliated brands were used to train the AI models. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants in the case have used “almost a century’s worth of copyrighted content,” causing significant harm to the Times’ bottom line. The NYT also says that OpenAI and Microsoft’s products can “generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.” This mirrors other complaints from comedians and authors like Sarah Silverman and Julian Sancton who claim OpenAI has profited off their works.

If the lawsuit makes any headway, it could create opportunities for other publishers to pursue similar legal action and make training AI models for commercial purposes more costly. Competitors in the space, like CNN and BBC News have already tried limiting what data AI web crawlers can scrape for training and development purposes.

While it’s unclear if NYT is open to a licensing agreement after its earlier negotiations failed, leading to the lawsuit, OpenAI has reached a few deals recently. This month, it agreed to pay publisher Axel Springer for access to its content in a deal projected to be worth millions. And articles from Politico and Business Insider will be made available to train OpenAI’s next gen AI tools as part of a three year deal. It also previously made a deal with the AP to use its archival content dating back to 1985. Microsoft and OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

Amazon will no longer sell donkey-skin gelatin to California residents. A report published Wednesday by Wired states the online retailer settled with a nonprofit that filed a complaint, alleging the products violated state animal welfare laws protecting horses. Amazon denied any wrongdoing and disputed the allegations. Still, it agreed to block sales of ejiao, a traditional Chinese medicine made from donkey hide, in the Golden State.

The Center for Contemporary Equine Studies, an organization devoted to protecting horses, filed the complaint in February. It accused Amazon of violating California’s Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption Act. The nonprofit argued donkey products should be classified as horsemeat based on the law’s language.

Ejiao is a gelatin made from soaked and stewed donkey hides. Devotees believe it treats conditions related to blood circulation, insomnia and dry cough. However, apart from one published study — funded by an ejiao maker — suggesting it can be used successfully to treat anemia, scientific research doesn’t appear to support these claims.

Animal Welfare Institute

According to the Animal Welfare Institute, ejiao’s popularity is annihilating donkey populations. “Donkeys are being stolen, transported long distances without food or water, and killed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions” to fulfill ejiao’s demand, the organization wrote. Meanwhile, a report by the Donkey Sanctuary, an advocacy group, claims workers in Tanzania battered the animals with hammers to meet quotas.

The plaintiff’s attorney believes Amazon’s settlement sets a precedent for other retailers to cease ejiao sales in California. “Amazon doesn’t settle cases it thinks it can win,” Corey Page, an attorney with the firm that represented The Center for Contemporary Equine Studies, told Wired. “This is a signal that if anyone is doing this, they are doing something illegal. If a company like Amazon decides it needs to stop sending products and promoting products that violate California law, then all other retailers should do the same.”

Amazon’s settlement language reportedly agrees to “undertake reasonable best efforts” to enact “internal measures” blocking ejiao products “so that such products will not be available for sale to California addresses.”

Amazon

When I attempted to use an old (but still active, according to USPS) Los Angeles address of mine to buy an ejiao product called “Ass Hide Glue Lumps” (highlighted in a previous Wired report from earlier this year that drew attention to the issue), it thwarted the attempt. “Sorry, this item can’t be shipped to your selected address,” the error message read in red type. “You may either change the shipping address or delete the item from your order.”

If you’re surprised Amazon sold donkey meat in the first place (and still does outside California), consider some other “exotic” meats the retailer offers. These include whole-skinned alligator (only $195!), foie gras (duck or goose liver), kangaroo jerky and boneless snapping turtle meat.

We knew it was coming, but now we have a date: Bobby Kotick will officially step down as CEO of Activision Blizzard on December 29, 2023. Blizzard and King vice chairman Humam Sakhnini will also leave at the end of December, Activision Blizzard chief communications officer Lulu Meservey is out in January, and a handful of other executives will leave in March, according to an internal memo from Xbox head Phil Spencer published by The Verge.

Activision Blizzard vice chairman Thomas Tippl, Blizzard president Mike Ybarra and King president Tjodolf Sommestad will remain at the studio and report to Matt Booty, Microsoft's president of gaming content and studios. Otherwise, leadership teams across Activision, Blizzard and King will stay the same, according to the memo.

Kotick has been the head of Activision since 1991. At Activision Blizzard, he oversaw massively popular franchises including Call of Duty, Diablo, Starcraft and World of Warcraft, and once the company acquired mobile studio King in 2016, he added Candy Crush to that list. The company is a AAA powerhouse and it generated $7.5 billion in revenue in 2022.

Activision Blizzard was sued by California's Civil Rights Department in 2021 over allegations of systemic sexism, discrimination and harassment at the studio, and executives were accused of fostering a frat-house style culture. At the time, all top leadership roles at Activision Blizzard were filled by white men. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a separate, related lawsuit against the studio a few months later. In November 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported Kotick had long ignored and helped cover up instances of sexual harassment at the studio. In response, workers at Activision Blizzard held walk-outs and demanded Kotick's resignation, but a shareholder vote in 2022 kept him in place.

Activision Blizzard settled the SEC lawsuit for $35 million in February, and it settled the California CRD suit for $54 million just days ago.

Microsoft announced its intent to purchase Activision Blizzard in early 2022, lawsuits and all. The deal was valued at $69 billion, and considering the scale of both companies involved, it faced intense scrutiny from regulators in the US and the UK. The acquisition was approved in October, after 21 months of legal arguments and concessions. Microsoft is now the third-largest video game studio in the world by revenue and it's the face of the ongoing consolidation craze tearing through the industry.

Once Microsoft's purchase went through, Kotick said he'd stay on through the end of 2023. According to Bloomberg, Kotick is set to make $375 million from the acquisition, and he's expecting a golden parachute of $14.6 million.

AI may or may not take people's jobs in years to come, but in the meantime, there's one thing they cannot obtain: patents. Dr. Stephen Thaler has spent years trying to get patents for two inventions created by his AI "creativity machine" DABUS. Now, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court has rejected his appeal to approve these patents when listing DABUS as the inventor, Reuters reports. 

The court's rationale stems from a provision in UK patent law that states, "an inventor must be a natural person." The ruling stipulated that the appeal was unconcerned with whether this should change in the future. "The judgment establishes that UK patent law is currently wholly unsuitable for protecting inventions generated autonomously by AI machines," Thaler's lawyers said in a statement. 

Thaler first attempt to register the patents — for a food container and a flashing light — was in 2018, as owner of the machine that invented them. However, the UK's Intellectual Property Office said he must list an actual human being on the application, and when he refused, it withdrew his application. Thaler fought the decision in the High Court and then the Court of Appeal, with Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing stating, "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot." 

Thaler, an American, also submitted the two products to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which rejected his application. Plus, he previously sued the US Copyright Office (USCO) for not awarding him the copyright for a piece of art DABUS created. The case reached the US District Court of Columbia, with Judge Beryl Howell's ruling explaining, "Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright." Thaler has argued that this provision is unconstitutional, but the US Supreme Court declined to hear his case, ending any further chances to argue his stance. While the UK and US have rejected Thaler's petitions, he has succeeded in countries such as Australia and South Africa. 

Rite Aid will not be able to use any kind of facial recognition security system for next five years as part of its settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which accused it of "reckless use of facial surveillance systems.” The FTC said in its complaint that the drugstore chain deployed an artificial intelligence-powered facial recognition technology from 2012 to 2020 to identify customers who may have previously shoplifted or have engaged in problematic behavior. Apparently, the company had created a database with “tens of thousands” of customer images, along with their names, dates of birth and alleged crimes. Those photos were of poor quality, taken by its security cameras, employees’ phones and even from news stories. As a result, the system generated thousands of false-positive alerts.

Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said the technology’s use left Rite Aid’s customers “facing humiliation and other harms.” Employees would follow flagged customers around the store, the complaint said, would publicly accuse them of wrongdoing in front of friends and family and would sometimes get the police involved. Further, the system was more likely to generate false positives in predominantly Black and Asian communities. A Reuters investigation in 2020 revealed that the company used facial surveillance in “largely lower-income, non-white neighborhoods.” The FTC noted in its complaint that the technology and “Rite Aid’s failures were likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, especially to Black, Asian, Latino and women customers.”

In addition to prohibiting the use of facial surveillance technologies, the order also requires Rite Aid to delete the photos it collected, notify consumers when their information is registered in a database for security purposes and to provide conspicuous notices if it does use facial recognition or other types of biometric surveillance technologies. It also has to implement a proper data security program to protect the information it collects and will need to have a third party assess it. The proposed order will take effect after being approved by the bankruptcy court, since the company is currently going through bankruptcy proceedings.

Rite Aid, however, said that it “fundamentally disagree[s]” with the agency’s allegations and that it stopped using the surveillance technology years ago.

“We are pleased to reach an agreement with the FTC and put this matter behind us,” the drugstore chain said in a statement. “We respect the FTC’s inquiry and are aligned with the agency’s mission to protect consumer privacy. However, we fundamentally disagree with the facial recognition allegations in the agency’s complaint. The allegations relate to a facial recognition technology pilot program the Company deployed in a limited number of stores. Rite Aid stopped using the technology in this small group of stores more than three years ago, before the FTC’s investigation regarding the Company’s use of the technology began.

Rite Aid’s mission has always been and will continue to be to safely and conveniently serve the communities in which we operate. The safety of our associates and customers is paramount. As part of the agreement with the FTC, we will continue to enhance and formalize the practices and policies of our comprehensive information security program.”

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found that eBay has violated the rights of unionized workers at TCGPlayer, a trading card marketplace owned by the company. This comes in response to charges filed by the Communications Workers of America back in March of this year. eBay has allegedly refused to recognize TCGPlayer’s worker union and it delayed participating in any bargaining practices and it has also refused to divulge any information with the group that the union is legally entitled to.

As part of its examination of the issue, the NLRB said that because eBay and TCGPlayer broke the law, the company must face legal consequences for its union-busting practices. The union, which officially formed in March following numerous anti-union actions from eBay and TCGPlayer, was denied representation during disciplinary investigations. The NLRB also found that eBay was changing working conditions and benefits without engaging in bargaining with the group. On top of that, eBay is said to have even enforced rules that would punish any workers’ elections to unionize.

While the NLRB lays out evidence of eBay’s union-busting practices, it did not officially issue a decision on the matter. The agency is still waiting on the company’s response to the issue. “Now that the board has come to a decision on eBay’s illegal practices, we hope the company will see the light, obey labor law and engage in good faith bargaining practices so that workers can secure a strong union contract,” Dennis Trainor, Communications Workers of America District 1 Vice-President, said in a statement. eBay could not be reached for comment.

Adobe is abandoning its planned $20 billion acquisition of Figma after the companies determined that there was no clear path to obtaining approval from UK and European Union regulators. The two sides have signed an agreement that fully resolves all aspects of the failed deal. Adobe will pay collaborative design platform Figma a previously agreed $1 billion termination fee.

In November, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the European Commission both cited concerns over the proposed acquisition's impact on competition. The CMA said in its provisional findings that that the merger would “eliminate competition between two main competitors.” The competition watchdog said it was considering either blocking the deal or requiring Adobe to sell Figma's core product, Figma Design, along with Adobe XD.

Earlier on Monday, Adobe claimed that it wouldn't offer the CMA any potential remedies. “It is clear that no realistic remedy would satisfy the concerns the CMA is maintaining,” an Adobe spokesperson told Bloomberg. “We believe that the best path forward is to continue our ongoing engagement with the CMA on the merits.”

Meanwhile, Adobe had anticipated a potential lawsuit from the US Department of Justice in an attempt to block the deal Stateside. The company and Figma reportedly met with DOJ officials last week to try and secure approval for their merger. 

This story is developing; please refresh for updates.