A proposed class action lawsuit has accused Apple of accepting a form of bribe from Visa and Mastercard to ensure their dominance over point-of-sale payment card services for Apple Pay transactions, according to Reuters. As a result, the lawsuit says merchants have been forced to pay higher fees.

The companies are being sued by beverage retailer Mirage Wine & Spirits in Illinois on behalf of “all merchants in the United States that accepted Apple Pay as a method of payment at the physical point-of-sale.” According to the complaint, Apple made an agreement with Visa and Mastercard that did away with any incentive for it to develop its own competing point-of-sale transaction payment network or allow other companies to make use of iPhone’s “tap to pay” NFC functionality with third-party wallet apps. On the iPhone, Apple’s own wallet app is the only option. All of this has led to inflated merchant fees, the suit argues.

“In exchange for agreeing not to compete with Visa and Mastercard in the Relevant Market, the two card networks offered Apple a very large and ongoing cash bribe,” the lawsuit states. This bribe came as a percentage of the two companies’ transaction fees for credit and debit card payments made with Apple Pay. “Even as Apple Pay was in its infancy, the Entrenched Networks and Apple understood that this bribe would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars per year.”

Apple has been accused of anti-competitive behavior with Apple Pay in the past for how it blocks third-party access to its contactless payment technology. But earlier this week, Reuters reported that Apple may open up NFC access in the EU to avoid a fine in a case that has been ongoing since 2020.

California's Civil Rights Department (CRD) has announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with Activision Blizzard for a case it filed in 2021, accusing the company of systemic gender discrimination and fostering a culture that encouraged rampant misogyny and sexual harassment. The agency, which sued the developer when it was still called the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said Activision Blizzard will have to pay $54 million to settle its allegations. Out of the total, $45.75 million will go towards a fund meant to compensate female employees and contract workers who worked for the company in California from October 12, 2015 until December 31, 2020. 

In addition, the developer is expected to retain an independent consultant to evaluate its promotion policies and training materials, as well as to make recommendations based on what they see. If you'll recall, the agency's lawsuit alleged that female employees were overlooked for promotions and were paid less than their male colleagues. According to Marketwatch, though, the settlement will also see the agency withdraw its claims that there was widespread sexual harassment at the company. The department will reportedly have to file an amended complaint that only focuses on gender-based pay gap and discrimination. 

California's original lawsuit detailed how Activision Blizzard condoned a "frat boy" culture that encouraged certain unsavory behaviors. Male employees allegedly did "cube crawls," wherein they routinely groped and sexually harassed their female colleagues at their desks. A spokesperson for the company told Marketwatch that it is "gratified that the CRD has agreed to file an amended complaint that entirely withdraws its 2021 claims alleging widespread and systemic workplace harassment at Activision Blizzard." They added: "We appreciate the importance of the issues addressed in this agreement and we are dedicated to fully implementing all the new obligations we have assumed as part of it. We are committed to ensuring fair compensation and promotion policies and practices for all our employees, and we will continue our efforts regarding inclusion of qualified candidates from underrepresented communities in outreach, recruitment, and retention."

Meanwhile, the department told the website that its announcement, which contains no reference to its earlier sexual harassment allegations, "largely speaks for itself with respect to the historic nature of this more than $50 million settlement agreement, which will bring direct relief and compensation to women who were harmed by the company’s discriminatory practices."

As The Wall Street Journal noted when it reported the settlement, this lawsuit set the stage for Microsoft to acquire the developer. After reports came out that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick kept sexual harassment allegations within the company from reaching its board of directors, the developer's shares fell, giving Microsoft the opening to offer a deal. The $68.7 billion acquisition was finalized in October after almost two years of contending with regulators trying to block the purchase. 

If you used Apple’s Family Sharing feature with at least one other person and bought a subscription to an app through the App Store between 2015 and 2019, you might just get a settlement of up to $50 from the company. MacRumors reports that Apple will pay $25 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accuses the tech giant of misleading customers over Family Sharing.

The feature lets up to six family members share app subscriptions with each other but allows individual developers to forbid people from sharing a single subscription if they wish to. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2019, accuses Apple of not being transparent about this and misleading customers by making them think they could share a subscription to every app available in the App Store. “[The] vast majority of subscription-based apps” did support Family Sharing, the lawsuit claims.

The complaint also alleges that Apple placed ads on the landing pages of some subscription-based apps that didn’t support Family Sharing. This led “millions of customers” to download subscription-based apps believing they would be able to access them through their Family Sharing subscription, it says, citing YouTube Red and a puzzle game called Brainwell as examples of apps that didn’t support sharing their subscriptions with family members. 

Apple has reportedly denied any wrongdoing and has only agreed to settle the case to avoid the potential costs associated with a jury trial. The company did not respond to a request for comment from Engadget.

OpenAI will pay German publisher Axel Springer to use its news articles to train its AI models and show real-time information from Axel Springer's brands, which include Business Insider and Politico in the US and Bild and Welt in Europe, in ChatGPT’s responses. None of the companies disclosed how much the deal was worth, but Bloomberg reported that OpenAI will pay the publisher tens of millions of euros over the next three years.

“This partnership with Axel Springer will help provide people with new ways to access quality, real-time news content through our AI tools,” said OpenAI’s chief operating officer Brad Lightcap in a statement. “We are deeply committed to working with publishers and creators around the world and ensuring they benefit from advanced AI technology and new revenue models.”

OpenAI’s partnership with Axel Springer comes on the heels of concerns from creators, authors, and publishers who have criticized and sued generative AI companies for training their models on their content without consent or compensation. Some publishers like The New York Times, Vox Media, BBC News, Reuters, and CNN have blocked OpenAI from accessing their data. Striking deals with AI companies, however, could provide a brand new revenue source for publishers who are currently going through the worst year for the media business in decades.

As part of the deal, Alex Springer will provide OpenAI with both current news articles as well as archives from all its brands to train its large language models, the foundational tech that powers ChatGPT. When ChatGPT uses Axel Springer’s articles in its responses, it will include attribution and links to the pieces for transparency. Axel Springer will also be able to use OpenAI’s technology to improve its own products, The Wall Street Journal reported.

This isn’t the first deal that OpenAI has struck with a news publisher. Earlier this year, the company entered into a two-year partnership with The Associated Press to use select content from the AP’s archives dating back to 1985 to train its AI models, although the terms of that deal do not include letting ChatGPT use AP content in its responses. OpenAI also has a $5 million partnership with the American Journalism Project to explore how local news organizations can benefit from artificial intelligence.

EU regulators have reportedly sided against Apple in its long fight against Spotify over App Store policies. The complaint centered on "anti-steering" rules that allegedly prevented platforms like Spotify from adequately promoting alternative methods of payment. While Spotify was the key opposition, the decision impacts not just music-streaming, but anyone offering software that requires a monthly subscription.

Bloomberg reports that regulators are still putting the final touches on the ruling, with a formal decision expected for early next year. Along with the ruling, the EU will likely penalize Apple for the practice and ban it outright. It’s expected that Apple will get hit with a steep fine, with some experts suggesting it could be as much as ten percent of its annual global revenue. This could add up to nearly $40 billion.

However, the fine is likely to be lower than that, as the EU tends to place more of an emphasis on actually ending abusive practices, instead of relying solely on fines as a deterrent. So the big news will be Apple being forced to play by the rules when operating in Europe, ending anti-steering practices once and for all. Of course, it’s all up in the air until the regulating body releases its judgment.

This follows a probe that started four years ago. It all began with a complaint from Spotify alleging that Apple’s anti-steering practices were forcing the music-streaming platform to raise prices to cover costs associated with appearing on the App Store. This led to an initial “statement of objections” against Apple in 2021 and a formal charge sheet this past February, as reported by The Verge.

The formal charge sheet declared in a “preliminary view” that “Apple’s anti-steering obligations” offer “unfair trading conditions.” For years, Apple didn’t allow rival streaming services like Spotify to even include links in third-party apps to their own subscription sign-ups. The company has since loosened this restriction slightly after an antitrust investigation in Japan. The EU ruling could further erode this mandate.

The European regulatory commission will address the accusation that Apple stopped companies from advertising alternative subscription methods but will not address anything related to in-app purchases. If you’ve been following this story, fees associated with in-app purchases were also part of the complaint until being dropped in February. The EU has issued a separate probe into Apple’s tap-to-pay technology and whether there are any inherent antitrust concerns. According to reports, the company’s in talks to settle that case.

How will this affect the rest of the world? There’s a similar case making its way through the US courts, via an antitrust suit brought forth by Epic Games. A judge sided with Epic, but Apple recently asked the Supreme Court for an appeal. The court granted a temporary reprieve, so Apple can still do whatever it wants in its App Store, for now. Apple is a global entity, however, so all it takes is a few countries to force a company-wide change. As an example, just look at USB-C ports.

Google faced a different outcome in a US court this week. A federal jury sided with Epic Games in a similar antitrust case against Google. The jury unanimously agreed that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices.

Apple is attempting to avoid a fine and ongoing legal battle with the European Union. The company is allegedly offering its rivals access to its Near-Field Communication (NFC) technology, used for tap-and-go payments, Reuters reports. The update follows the European Commission's May 2022 charge and ongoing probe into Apple's potential antitrust Apple Pay practices.

The Commission has been investigating Apple since 2020, with Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager previously stating there were "indications that Apple restricted third-party access to key technology necessary to develop rival mobile wallet solutions on Apple's devices." 

While Apple's current proposal could get it out of a hefty fine and settle the case against it, it's not guaranteed to move forward. The Commission will likely confer with Apple's rivals and customers in the next month or so to determine if it should accept the offer. More than 2,500 banks across Europe use Apple Pay. 

Apple also faces a lawsuit in the United States, brought in July 2022 by Iowa's Affinity Credit Union. Similarly, it accuses Apple of engaging in anti-competitive behavior by illegally restricting iOS users to Apple Pay for any contactless payments.

In September 2023, a US District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of California ruled that the case would move forward, stating: "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Apple Pay charges arbitrary and inflated fees to issuers, and that competition in the tap-and-pay iOS mobile wallet market would spur innovation and lead to lower prices." In his decision, White also explained that the plaintiffs properly demonstrated Apple's alleged and attempted monopolization.

Epic Games' lawsuit against Google has had a much different turnout from its courtroom battle with Apple. A federal jury has sided with the video game developer and has found Google to be in violation of US antitrust laws when it comes to how it runs the Play Store. According to The Verge, the jury has unanimously agreed that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. Further, it found the company's distribution agreements with other video gaming companies, as well as its deals with device manufacturers to pre-install its apps on Android devices, to be anticompetitive. 

In its complaint, Epic said that Google had silently paid game developers hundreds of millions of dollars to make their titles downloadable from the Play Store in an initiative that was originally known as "Project Hug." It alleged that the company had paid Activision Blizzard $360 million to abandon its plans of creating a competing app store, which the game developer subsequently denied. Google, which Epic said came up with the incentive program after it released Fortnite outside of the Play Store, also reportedly inked deals with Nintendo, Ubisoft and Riot Games. 

The jury has come to the conclusion that Epic Games has been negatively affected by Google's actions, but we've yet to know how its victory will change the latter's practices. In a statement posted on X, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said the court will start "work[ing] on remedies" in January. Judge James Donato, who's overseeing the case, will be making the decision whether to order Google to give developers the freedom to introduce their own app stores and billing systems for Android devices. In the case of Epic's lawsuit against Apple, the court ruled that the iPhone-maker didn't violate US antitrust laws, but it ordered the company to allow App Store developers to direct customers through third-party payment systems. 

Google, however, doesn't intend to go down without a fight. Wilson White, Google VP for Government Affairs and Public Policy, told Engadget that the company plans to challenge the verdict. "Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform," White said. "The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles. We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."

Amazon filed a motion on Friday in the Western Washington district court asking a judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against it. The FTC along with 17 state attorneys general sued Amazon in September, alleging the company uses monopolistic practices that are unfair to both its competitors and consumers. Amazon is now arguing that the FTC did not provide evidence that its practices have driven up prices or harmed consumers, according to Bloomberg.

The FTC’s lawsuit claims Amazon uses illegal tactics to crush its competition — like punishing sellers who list their products for better prices elsewhere by burying them in search results, and coercing sellers into using Amazon’s own fulfillment service by tying it to Prime eligibility. It also accuses Amazon of inflating prices from 2016-2018 using an algorithmic tool codenamed Project Nessie. These increases added up to more than $1 billion, according to the suit.

In Amazon’s motion for dismissal, per AP, Amazon said it’s only engaging in “common retail practices” that “benefit consumers and are the essence of competition.” Amazon attorney Heidi Hubbard wrote that the suit “implausibly, and illogically, assumes that Amazon’s efforts to keep featured prices low on Amazon somehow raised consumer prices across the whole economy,” according to Bloomberg.

Game studios and publishers have collectively laid off an estimated 9,000-plus workers this year. Microsoft (which itself has laid off workers from Xbox teams in 2023) is bucking the trend to a certain extent by hiring dozens of ZeniMax quality assurance contractors as unionized employees.

The company agreed at the beginning of this year to formally recognize a union representing around 300 QA workers at ZeniMax Media, the parent company of Bethesda that Microsoft bought in 2021. As part of bargaining talks that have been ongoing since April, Microsoft has agreed to hire 77 temporary workers and incorporate them into the ZeniMax Workers United-CWA (Communications Workers of America) union.

Microsoft is hiring 23 of the workers as full-time, permanent employees with a pay increase of 22.2 percent. The other 54 workers are getting an immediate pay bump from $18 per hour to $20.75 an hour. Once the collective bargaining agreement is ratified, Microsoft will hire those workers as temporary employees.

According to the CWA, the new employees will now receive paid holidays and sick leave. The latter was previously only available if contractors lived in a jurisdiction that requires paid time off for illness. In addition, all of the workers will receive a copy of Starfield, the blockbuster game they had worked on. The CWA says it was not standard practice for contractors to get copies of the games they help to ship.

The CWA says the union will keep fighting for more contractors to have a pathway to permanent roles. “We look forward to continued good faith negotiations as we work towards a collective bargaining agreement,” Microsoft vice president Amy Pannoni told Bloomberg.

“We are now stronger at the bargaining table and are working to secure a fair contract for all workers — direct employees and contractors," Chris Lusco, associate QA tester and a member of ZeniMax Workers United-CWA, said in a statement. "We are all a part of ZeniMax Studio’s success and we all deserve our fair share. We hope to set a new precedent for workers across Microsoft and the entire gaming industry so that all workers, regardless of their employment status, are able to improve their working conditions through collective bargaining."

Last year, while Microsoft was attempting to win regulatory approval to buy Activision Blizzard, the company said it would remain neutral when the publisher's employees wished to unionize. A pact it reached with the CWA to that effect is set to come into force on December 12, 60 days after the Activision deal closed.

Genetic testing company 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent customers from filing class action lawsuits or participating in a jury trial days after reports revealing that attackers accessed personal information of nearly 7 million people — half of the company’s user base — in an October hack.

In an email sent to customers earlier this week viewed by Engadget, the company announced that it had made updates to the “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration section” of its terms “to include procedures that will encourage a prompt resolution of any disputes and to streamline arbitration proceedings where multiple similar claims are filed.” Clicking through leads customers to the newest version of the company’s terms of service that essentially disallow customers from filing class action lawsuits, something that more people are likely to do now that the scale of the hack is clearer.

“To the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, you and we agree that each party may bring disputes against the other party only in an individual capacity and not as a class action or collective action or class arbitration,” the updated terms say. Notably, 23andMe will automatically opt customers into the new terms unless they specifically inform the company that they disagree by sending an email within 30 days of receiving the firm’s notice. Unless they do that, they “will be deemed to have agreed to the new terms,” the company’s email tells customers.

23andMe did not respond to a request for comment from Engadget.

In October, the San Francisco-based genetic testing company headed by Anne Wojcicki announced that hackers had accessed sensitive user information including photos, full names, geographical location, information related to ancestry trees, and even names of related family members. The company said that no genetic material or DNA records were exposed. Days after that attack, the hackers put up profiles of hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people for sale on the internet. But until last week, it wasn’t clear how many people were impacted.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 23andMe said that “multiple class action claims” have already been against the company in both federal and state court in California and state court in Illinois, as well as in Canadian courts.

Forbidding people from filing class action lawsuit, as Axios notes, hides information about the proceedings from the public since affected parties typically attempt to resolve disputes with arbitrators in private. Experts, such as Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Nancy Kim, an online contractor expert, told Axios that changing its terms wouldn’t be enough to protect 23andMe in court.

The company’s new terms are sparking outrage online. “Wow they first screw up and then they try to screw their users by being shady,” a user who goes by Daniel Arroyo posted on X. “Seems like they’re really trying to cover their asses,” wrote another user called Paul Duke, “and head off lawsuits after announcing hackers got personal data about customers.”