The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Bittrex and former CEO William Shihara with operating an unregistered securities exchange. In a complaint filed on Monday, the SEC alleges the crypto exchange, once one of the largest in the US, earned at least $1.3 billion in revenue between 2017 and 2022 while offering the services of a broker, exchange and clearing agency. It did so without registering with the Commission, in violation of federal law, the SEC alleges.

Additionally, the SEC claims Bittrex “coordinated” with crypto issuers to delete “problematic statements” Shihara believed would prompt a regulator like the SEC to investigate the exchange. In one instance, the Commission states Shihara instructed a potential issuer to erase comments that referenced “price predictions” and “expectation of profit.”

“Today’s action, yet again, makes plain that the crypto markets suffer from a lack of regulatory compliance, not a lack of regulatory clarity,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler. “As alleged in our complaint, Bittrex and issuers that it worked with knew the rules that applied to them but went to great lengths to evade them by directing issuer-applicants to ‘scrub’ offering materials of information indicating that certain crypto assets were securities.”

As Coindesk notes, Bittrex, citing “continued regulatory uncertainty,” announced last month it would exit the US market at the end of April. Over the weekend, the company told The Wall Street Journal it was recently notified by the SEC of potential enforcement action by the Commission. David Maria, the company’s general counsel, said Bittrex would challenge the lawsuit unless the Commission offered “a reasonable settlement offer.” Last year, the US Treasury fined Bittrex $29 million for previously failing to comply with US money laundering and sanction laws.

The New York Attorney General has announced that its youth vaping lawsuit against Juul is over, ending with an agreement that distribute a $462 million settlement between six states and Washington DC. “JUUL lit a nationwide public health crisis by putting addictive products in the hands of minors and convincing them that it’s harmless," Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. "Today they are paying the price for the harm they caused.” The settlement will be split among the states of New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico and the District of Columbia.

The 2019 lawsuit alleged that Juul engaging in deceptive marketing and illegally sold products to minors by glamorizing vaping with ads that featured "young models using fruity, sweet and minty flavors that appealed to youth." In addition to the monetary penalty, the settlement includes strict restrictions to keep Juul from marketing its products that way in the future, including a ban on showing persons under 35 years of age using its products and rules that would keep Juul product placement from appearing in movies, tv shows, video games and even virtual reality.

This is the largest multi-state settlement Juul has made yet, but it's only a small part of the total the company has paid so far. In 2022, the company agreed to pay $1.2 billion, collectively settling thousands of personal and government lawsuits.

Juul will have 8 years to pay out the $462 million settlement, and it might need it. According to a 2022 valuation based on Cigarette maker Altria's investment in the company, Juul's worth has dropped dramatically since 2018. Despite the settlement, Juul is attempting to remain optimistic. "With this settlement, we are nearing total resolution of the company's historical legal challenges and securing certainty for our future," the company told ABC News. "Since our company-wide reset in the fall of 2019, underage use of JUUL products has declined by 95% based on the National Youth Tobacco Survey."

LinkedIn is making it easier to prove you are who you say you are on your profile. The platform is adding new identity verification features that will allow users to confirm their name and employer, and it doesn’t involve paid subscriptions or blue checkmarks.

With the update, LinkedIn is rolling out three ways its members can confirm their identity. The company is partnering with CLEAR — yes, the same CLEAR that can get you to the front of security lines at airports and other venues — to check that the name on your ID is the same as the one on your profile. The process is free but does require sharing a U.S phone number and government-issued I.D.

LinkedIn is also offering a feature for verifying where you work that’s a slightly less involved process. To confirm your employer, you’ll need to enter a verification code sent to your company email address. In both cases, once the verification is complete, a “verification” field will appear on your LinkedIn profile that states what details have been verified.

Alternatively, some users will be able to verify both their identity and employer at once via a partnership with Microsoft Entra, which creates workplace IDs for companies that enroll its program. LinkedIn says the Entra partnership will be rolling out at the end of the month to employees of the “dozens” of companies currently in the program.

LinkedIn previously added phone number and email verification features last year, but those checks were only visible if you tapped into a slightly hidden “about this profile” field. The latest changes add a prominent “verifications” section that will appear directly under a user’s profile details.

Notably, the company is orienting its verification around confirming its members identities, rather than checkmarks or other specialized features. And, unlike Meta and Twitter, LinkedIn is opting to keep verification separate from its paid subscriptions. That also means that having a verified profile doesn’t come with any additional advantages, at least for now. But it could offer an extra layer of protection for those wary of fake accounts, impersonators or other scammers.

Twitter faces yet another lawsuit over unpaid bills. As first reported by The New York Times, three former executives sued the company on Monday. In a complaint filed with the Delaware Chancery Court, former CEO Parag Agrawal, former CFO Ned Segal and former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde allege Twitter owes them more than $1 million in unreimbursed legal fees.

Elon Musk fired all three execs after taking control of the company last fall. The former executives allege Twitter spent months ignoring letters they sent asking it to honor a reimbursement agreement they had in place before their termination. According to the complaint, Twitter finally acknowledged the letters last month but did little else. As of Monday, the trio was still waiting on the company to repay the fees.

The former execs say they incurred the legal fees responding to shareholder lawsuits and several government investigations, including one involving the US Department of Justice. The complaint states federal officials began sending requests to Agrawal and Segal last July. Then, late last year, the Justice Department contacted Agrawal and Segal’s lawyers to discuss multiple investigations into Twitter. As CNN notes, the Justice Department has not previously disclosed an investigation into Twitter.

The lawsuit highlights Twitter’s ongoing financial challenges. At the end of last year, the owner of the building that houses Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters sued the company for failing to pay rent. Musk has eliminated more than 75 percent of the approximately 7,500-person workforce Twitter employed under Agrawal. Last month, Musk said Twitter saw a 50 percent decline in ad revenue.

Apple appears to have taken its most aggressive step yet to warn its retail employees against unionizing. According to Bloomberg, the company recently held meetings at all of its roughly 270 stores across the United States. The tone of the gatherings was “consistent” across Apple’s retail footprint. Managers reportedly opened with a prepared statement from corporate leadership before turning to the state of union negotiations in Towson, Maryland, the location of the company’s first unionized store in the US.

According to Bloomberg, Apple management cast the election at Towson, and the slow progress workers at the store have made toward securing a collective bargaining agreement “as a bit of a cautionary tale.” Managers leaned on talking points that criticized union dues and the unionization process, including the collection of authorization cards. “While Apple didn’t say it, the underlying message to the company’s tens of thousands of retail employees: if your store unionizes, you may be at a disadvantage,” according to Bloomberg.

Apple did not immediately respond to Engadget’s request for comment. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union that represents workers at the company’s Townson Town Center location in Maryland, said it would share a statement on Monday.

Bloomberg suggests some employees saw the meetings as a “scare tactic” and an attempt to “pour cold water on the idea” of unionization. Last May, Apple Store employees in Atlanta accused the company of subjecting them to anti-union captive audience meetings. For decades, companies were allowed to hold such gatherings until 24 hours before a union election begins. In 2022, however, National Labor Relations Board general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo claimed captive audience meetings were a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

"Forcing employees to listen to such employer speech under threat of discipline — directly leveraging the employees’ dependence on their jobs — plainly chills employees’ protected right to refrain from listening to this speech," Abruzzo wrote last April. At the end of the year, the agency found had Apple violated federal law with its efforts to discourage workers at its Cumberland Mall store in Atlanta from unionizing.

Back in 2021, a San Francisco court ordered Tesla to pay Owen Diaz, a former Black contract worker who accused the company of enabling a racist workplace, $137 million in damages. It was one of the highest amounts awarded to an individual suing on the basis of discrimination, but the appeals that followed had lowered it significantly. While US District Judge William Orrick affirmed the jury's original verdict, he found the original damages awarded to Diaz "excessive" and lowered the total to $15 million. Now, a San Francisco federal jury has reduced the amount even further and has ordered Tesla to pay Diaz $3.2 million only. 

The former elevator operator at Tesla’s Fremont assembly plant rejected the $15 million award Orrick had proposed and instead sought for a retrial. In the latest hearing, Diaz again recounted his experiences working for Tesla, where he said he and his fellow Black workers were subjected to racial slurs. He also said that he was made to feel unsafe at work and that other workers left drawings of swastika and racist graffiti, such as Inki the Caveman, in his workspace and the company restrooms. 

Diaz's lawyers urged the jury to penalize Tesla, a company currently worth over $600 billion, an amount that will get its attention. But Tesla's lawyer Alex Spiro reportedly argued that Diaz should only be awarded half his salary. He apparently characterized Diaz as a liar in court, who misstated how long he worked at the automaker and who exaggerated his testimonies and the abuse he suffered to gain a bigger payout. 

We may not be seeing the end to this case, though. According to the Los Angeles Times, Diaz's lawyer believes the jury decided on awarding him only $3 million in punitive damages and $175,000 in non-economic damages because he was wrongly attacked by the defense. He said Tesla's strategy to "minimize and sanitize" worked and that he has already filed a request for a new trial due to "misconduct."

The US Department of Justice has settled a lawsuit it filed Monday with Activision Blizzard over suppressed eSports wages, according toReuters. The case, submitted in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, focuses on a rule that required independently owned teams to effectively pay double if they passed a soft salary cap. A federal judge will still need to approve the settlement.

The complaint, the fruit of an investigation first reported in 2021, said that in Activision’s Overwatch and Call of Duty leagues, the “competitive balance tax” was structured to penalize teams if their compensation exceeded a threshold set by Activision. “While players in other professional sports leagues have agreed to salary restrictions as part of collective bargaining agreements, the players in Activision’s esports leagues are not members of a union and never negotiated or bargained for these rules,” the DOJ clarified in the filing.

The case states that Activision would fine teams one dollar for every dollar that exceeded the cap — and redistribute the collected fees among all non-offending teams. For example, the filing says that “if Activision set a Competitive Balance Tax threshold of $1 million, a team that spent $1.2 million on player compensation in a season would pay a $200,000 fine, which would be distributed to the other teams.”

Additionally, the Antitrust Division filed a proposed consent decree that would bar Activision from imposing any further rules that would penalize a team for exceeding a set amount of compensation. It would also require the company to certify that “it has ended all Competitive Balance Taxes in its professional esports leagues, to implement revised antitrust compliance and whistleblower protection policies, and to provide notice and an explanation of the final judgment to teams and players in its professional esports leagues.” 

According to the DOJ, the Overwatch and Call of Duty leagues have generated millions of dollars. Microsoft is trying to clear regulatory hurdles to move forward with its planned purchase of Activision Blizzard.

“Video games and esports are among the most popular and fastest growing forms of entertainment in the world today, and professional esports players—like all workers—deserve the benefits of competition for their services. Activision’s conduct prevented that from happening,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. “Today’s lawsuit makes clear that the Antitrust Division remains committed to protecting workers across all types of industries from anticompetitive conduct.”

Apple has handed the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority a major setback in its effort to regulate the tech giant. On Friday, the company won an appeal against an investigation the antitrust watchdog launched last fall. As a refresher, the CMA opened a full market probe into Apple and Google in November. At the time, the regulator said that many UK businesses felt restricted by the “stranglehold” the two tech giants had on mobile browsing. The probe also sought to determine if Apple was restricting the cloud gaming market through its App Store rules.

Per Reuters, Apple successfully argued the regulator had “no power” to investigate its position in the mobile browser market. The company said the CMA should have opened the probe at the same time it first published its report on mobile ecosystems last June. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the court that oversees CMA cases, agreed with Apple, saying the regulator gave notice of its investigation too late.

Apple said it was “pleased” with the CAT’s decision, adding it would “continue working to deliver support for developers and a safe and secure experience for users.” Naturally, the CMA was less thrilled with the case’s outcome.

“We are disappointed with today’s judgment. We made this market investigation reference to make sure that UK consumers get a better choice of mobile internet services and that UK developers can invest in innovative new apps. Our concerns, and the reasons why we launched our market investigation, were not challenged by Apple,” the regulator said in a statement. "Given the importance of today's judgment, we will be considering our options including seeking permission to appeal."

Activision Blizzard is facing yet another complaint by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The labor agency has “found merit with several elements of the unfair labor practice charges filed by the Communications Workers of America (CWA)” on behalf of the company’s workers, the union has told Engadget. This particular case pertains to the CWA’s accusations that the game developer illegally surveilled workers when they walked out in July last year to protest the lack of gender equality in the company, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, as well as Activision Blizzard’s alleged union-busting practices. 

The NLRB found after an investigation that the company broke labor laws by using managers and security staff to monitor workers during the walkout. In addition, the labor board found merit in the CWA’s accusation that the developer threatened to cut off workers’ access to an internal chatroom where they discussed their pay, hours and overall working conditions. According to IGN, though, NLRB has dismissed one charge regarding the company cutting off people’s chat access to an all-hands meeting. The publication says Activision Blizzard‘s chief administrative officer Brian Bulatao has informed workers that chat was shut down for future all-hands because that particular meeting turned toxic. Attendees used it as a chance to “disparage the work of the Diablo Immoral team and others,” he explained.

An NLRB spokesperson told Reuters that it will move forward and prosecute Blizzard if the company doesn’t settle.

The company’s labor practices were thrust into the spotlight after California filed a lawsuit against it in 2021 for fostering a “frat boy” workplace. After a two-year investigation, the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing had determined that the developer discriminated against female employees. It’s one labor issue after another for Activision Blizzard after that, mostly related to workers’ organizing efforts. To note, the company is also facing another NLRB complaint, accusing it of violating labor laws by implementing an overbroad social media policy that prevented workers from talking about their working conditions and threatening employees who were exercising their right to join a union. Activision Blizzard told Engadget that those allegations were “false.”

By the end of this week, 1,300 people who work for Lucid Motors will have known that they're going to lose their jobs. The luxury electric vehicle maker has notified (PDF) the US Securities and Exchange Commission in a filing that it's reducing its current workforce by approximately 18 percent. Lucid said it's cutting jobs to reduce operating expenses "in response to evolving business needs and productivity improvements" and that it intends to complete this restructuring plan by the end of the second quarter this year. 

Lucid CEO Peter Rawlinson told employees in a memo that the job cuts will affect both employees and contractors. In the US, nearly every division will be hit by reductions, and some executives are even included in the list of personnel the company is laying off. The EV-maker implemented other cost-cutting measures, such as reviewing its non-critical spending, after announcing its 2022 earnings results in February. But apparently, those measures weren't enough for the company to achieve its objectives. 

While Lucid experienced a sharp increase in revenue year-over-year — it had only just started the Air sedan's production in late 2021 — it still fell short of analyst forecasts. In addition, although its production goal (14,000 EVs) for 2023 is double last year's figures, it's much lower than the 21,000 units experts had expected. As Reuters previously reported, price cuts by Tesla and the availability of affordable EVs from traditional automakers had lessened demand for vehicles from startups like Lucid. Rivian, another EV startup, is similarly affected and announced that it was going to reduce its workforce by six percent in February. 

Lucid said in its filing that the layoffs will cost the company $24 million to $30 million, which will be spent on severance payments, company-paid health insurance and stock-based compensation for the affected workers. Despite its cost-cutting measures, Lucid still intends to expand globally and to continue developing more models, including the three-row Gravity electric SUV that it plans to release in 2024.