xAI's Grok chatbot, the Elon Musk-helmed company's answer to OpenAI's ChatGPT, will be available to X's Premium subscribers later this week. Musk has announced Grok's expanded availability in a tweet, along with an instructional video on how to post a conversation with the chatbot directly on the X website. Grok has been available to X's Premium+ subscribers since it exited early beta, but that paid tier on the social network costs $16 a month or $168 for the full year when billed annually. Since the Premium tier costs half that much at $8 a month or $84 a year, this rollout makes Grok a bit more accessible. 

Musk's xAI open sourced its Grok-1 model, which powers its chatbot, in mid-March. Just a couple of weeks before that, the executive sued OpenAI and Sam Altman, accusing them of chasing profits and abandoning their non-profit mission. Musk was one of OpenAI's earliest supporters and funded its operations when it was just starting out. In his lawsuit, he claimed that OpenAI was developing generative artificial intelligence "to maximize profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity." That, he said, was a "stark betrayal of the Founding Agreement."

But in a rebuttal of his claims, OpenAI said that there "is no Founding Agreement, or any agreement at all with Musk" to open source its technology. The company said that Musk did not only know that it was going to transition into a for-profit entity, he was also involved in its planning and originally wanted majority equity, control of the initial board of directors and the CEO position. 

TikTok, already fighting a proposed law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States, may soon also find itself in the crosshairs of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is close to wrapping up a multiyear investigation into the company, which could result in a lawsuit or major fine, Politico reports.

The investigation is reportedly centered around the app’s privacy and security practices, including its handling of children’s user data. According to Politico, the FTC is looking into potential violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), as well as “allegations that the company misled its users by stating falsely that individuals in China do not have access to U.S. user data.” TikTok could also be penalized for violating the terms of its 2019 settlement with regulators over data privacy.

While it’s not clear if the FTC’s investigation will result in a lawsuit or other action, the investigation is yet another source of pressure for the company as it tries to secure its future in its largest market.. After a quick passage in the House, the Senate is considering a bill that would force TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face an outright ban in the US. The Biden Administration, which has also tried to pressure ByteDance to divest TikTok, is backing the measure and US intelligence officials have briefed lawmakers on the alleged national security risks posed by the app.

TikTok didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that researches hate speech on the Elon Musk-owned platform. In the decision, the judge said that the lawsuit was an attempt to “punish” the organization for criticizing the company.

X sued the CCDH last summer, accusing the group of “scraping” its platform as part of a “scare campaign” to hurt its advertising business. The group had published research claiming X was failing to act on reports of hate speech, and was in some cases boosting such content.

In a ruling, federal judge Charles Breyer said that “this case is about punishing” CCDH for publishing unflattering research. “It is clear to the Court that if X Corp. was indeed motived to spend money in response to CCDH’s scraping in 2023, it was not because of the harm such scraping posed to the X platform, but because of the harm it posed to X Corp.’s image,” Breyer wrote. “X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others.”

X said it planned to appeal the decision.

In a statement, CCDH CEO Imram Ahmed said that the ruling “affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors.” He added that “it is now abundantly clear that we need federal transparency laws” that would require online platforms to make data available to independent researchers.

Uh oh. Apple, Meta and Google could be in hot water in Europe over their attempts to stand within the letter, if not exactly the spirit, of the bloc's sweeping new Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Core to the probe are concerns Google parent Alphabet and Apple have not given sufficiently allowed "app developers to “steer” consumers to offers outside the gatekeepers' app stores, free of charge," according to the European Commission (the European Union's executive arm). As things currently stand, the new rules from these tech companies may "constrain ... developers' ability to freely communicate and promote offers and directly conclude contracts, including by imposing various charges." 

The European Commission said it also believes Alphabet's search may still engage in self-preferencing of Google-owned services, like Google Flights. Apple, it said, may not be allowing users meaningful choice in selecting alternatives to default iOS services or preferences — the ability to uninstall any pre-loaded app, for instance. Also caught up in the probe is Meta, in relation to its new EU scheme wherein users can opt out of ads, but only for a price.   

The European Commission had, in the lead up to these probes, been hinting at a possible investigation into Apple and Google. In January, Apple announced a raft of App Store changes to comply with the DMA, which required it to (among other things) enable alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the EU and to let developers direct users to third-party payment systems. Included in Apple's updates was a new "core technology fee" of €0.50 that developers will have to pay per user per year after the first 1 million installs of an app — even if a user downloads the software from a third-party marketplace. Google is also charging developers fees in the EU if they bypass the Play Store.

Many of Apple's rivals slammed the App Store changes. Some criticized the company's fees for third-party payments in the US too.

The EU, perhaps unsurprisingly, is keeping a close eye on how companies subject to DMA rules are complying (or not) with them. "There are things that we take a keen interest in, for instance, if the new Apple fee structure will de facto not make it in any way attractive to use the benefits of the DMA," antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager told Reuters on March 19. "That kind of thing is what we will be investigating."

Today's announcement also hints that Apple's "new fee structure" for alternative app stores may still be on the docket for future intervention, along with, apparently, Amazon's possible self-preferencing in its digital storefront. 

In statements to press Apple has said it's "confident our plan complies with the DMA" while Alphabet has said it will "continue to defend our approach in the coming months." A Meta spokesperson called its paid, ad-free option "a well-established business model across many industries."

News of the sweeping probe comes soon after the US Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The government and more than a dozen states accused Apple of fostering a mobile app monopoly, claiming the company makes it too difficult for rivals to compete with its own products and services. 

It might be a while before we learn the outcome of the EU probes. According to Bloomberg, EC investigators try to reach a final decision within a year of starting a formal investigation. If officials determine that these companies aren't complying with the DMA, they face hefty penalties. 

Under the law, the EU can fine a company up to 10 percent of its total annual revenue, and up to 20 percent for repeated violations. Such penalties could make the $2 billion that the EU recently fined Apple for allegedly suppressing iTunes and Apple Music competitors like Spotify look like pocket change.

The US Department of Justice and more than a dozen states have filed a lawsuit against Apple in federal court, accusing it of violating antitrust laws by making its hardware and software products largely inaccessible to competitors. Apple's "walled garden" approach to business, as it's so often called, makes it difficult for rivals to compete and for customers to switch to other companies' products. The lawsuit comes on the heels of the European Commission slapping Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) fine. Apple, the commission concluded, prevented music streaming developers from "informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available" outside the App Store.

"Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone," Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release published by CNN. "Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others."

The complaint alleges that Apple has illegally monopolized the software app market, with the DOJ suggesting that the company used its control over iOS to block innovative apps and cloud streaming services from the public. The suit also suggests that Apple has made it harder for Android messages to appear on iPhones, obstructed rival payment platforms and restricted how competing smartphones integrated with iOS devices. 

"By stifling these technologies, and many others," the complaint reads, “Apple reinforces the moat around its smartphone monopoly not by making its products more attractive to users, but by discouraging innovation that threatens Apple’s smartphone monopoly."

Apple has issued a statement regarding the suit, suggesting that it would hinder its ability to make the types of gadgets and software that made it one of the most valuable companies in the world. The company also said the lawsuit, if successful, would "set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology."

The New York Times first reported that the DOJ, which was apparently approaching the conclusion of a probe into the company, could file "a sweeping antitrust case" against Apple back in January. While the department initially focused on the the strategies the company took to protect the iPhone's dominance, it reportedly expanded its investigation's scope to cover other aspects of Apple's business. According to The Times', the DOJ also looked into how the Apple Watch is capable of deeper integration with the iPhone than rival wearables' and the fact that competing operating systems can't access the company's iMessage service. 

This lawsuit against Apple is just the latest proof of the government's increasing scrutiny on the biggest players in the tech industry. The Justice Department had previously accused Google of maintaining an unfair monopoly over search and search-related advertising, and it also filed a separate antitrust lawsuit accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the digital ads market. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of certain monopolistic practices that include prohibiting merchants from offering their goods at lower prices on other platforms. The commission and more than 40 US states sued Meta in 2020, as well, for buying former rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition. 

Intel is getting a huge boost from the US government under the CHIPS and Science Act. The company could get up to $8.5 billion in direct funding from the government, according to the preliminary agreement it has reached with the Department of Commerce. That money will go towards the chipmaker's efforts to expand its manufacturing facilities in the United States, particularly plants designed to make leading-edge semiconductor chips meant for use in AI and other advanced applications.

The government's investment is expected to support Intel projects across four states, including the construction of two new leading-edge logic fabrication facilities and the modernization of another one in Chandler, Arizona, as well as the construction of two more fabs in New Albany, Ohio. It will also help Intel modernize two existing fabs in Rio Rancho, New Mexico and expand its facilities in Hillsboro, Oregon. The government's $8.5 billion funding will augment the company's $100 billion investment in US manufacturing over the next five years. And in case the company needs more money, it can borrow up to $11 billion from the US under the agreement. 

The Biden administration signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law back in 2022 in hopes of fostering domestic semiconductor research and manufacturing and of lessening American companies' reliance in Chinese suppliers. This is the administration's fourth CHIPS investment, and it's largest yet. If you combine Intel's own money with the government's funding, this is one of the biggest investments announced in US semiconductor manufacturing overall. In February, the government also announced that it was granting GlobalFoundries with $1.5 billion in funding under the CHIPS Act to help the AMD spinoff build new fab facilities. 

Intel's projects in those aforementioned regions are expected to create 20,000 construction and 10,000 manufacturing jobs. To help ensure that the local population can benefit from those projects, the government will also earmark $50 million in dedicated funding to train and develop the local workforce. The parties have agreed to these terms under a preliminary agreement only, though, and the Department of Commerce might change them, depending on the results of a comprehensive due diligence process on the proposed projects and any future renegotiations. 

A San Francisco judge has ruled that Apple must face a lawsuit accusing the company of negligence over the potential stalking risks created by its AirTags, Bloomberg reports. While the bulk of the roughly three dozen claims in the class-action suit were dismissed, US District Judge Vince Chhabria denied Apple’s bid to have the suit thrown out based on three plaintiffs’ claims alleging that “when they were stalked, the problems with the AirTag’s safety features were substantial, and that those safety defects caused their injuries.”

While the suit argues that Apple was warned of the potential for its Bluetooth item trackers to be misused and thus should be held liable under California law, Apple disagrees, according to Bloomberg. After it released AirTags, Apple later rolled out safety features designed to thwart stalking attempts, like an update that made it so AirTags would emit a loud sound when they get a certain distance from their owner and notifications about unknown trackers. Apple and Google also last year announced that they’re working together on developing industry standards to proactively fight the misuse of tracking devices.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit argues that AirTags have “become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers,” Bloomberg reports. The case was filed in the Northern California district court.

Owen Diaz's lengthy court battle against Tesla is officially over, now that both parties have agreed on a settlement. Attorney Lawrence Organ, Diaz's lawyer, told CNBC that that the "parties have reached an amicable resolution of their disputes," but that the "terms of the settlement are confidential." If you've been following this case for a while now, that means you won't get to find out how much Diaz is getting after the massive $137 million in damages he was originally awarded got dramatically lowered to $3.2 million. 

The former elevator operator famously sued the automaker for enabling a racist workplace, saying that he faced discrimination "straight from the Jim Crow era" as a Black individual. He said his fellow workers left left drawings of swastika and racist graffiti, such as ones of Inki the Caveman, on his workspace and around Tesla's Fremont assembly plant. Diaz also said that he and other Black workers were subjected to racial slurs, and that the company failed to address thes behaviors despite repeated complaints. 

In 2021, a San Francisco court ordered Tesla to pay $137 million in damages to its former worker, which was one of the highest amounts awarded to a plaintiff suing on the basis of discrimination. However, a judge during the appeals that followed found the amount excessive and lowered it to $15 million, even though he upheld the original jury's verdict. The parties went back into trial after Diaz refused the lowered amount, but a jury lowered the damages Tesla must pay even further to $3.2 million. At the time, Diaz's lawyer said he was wrongly attacked by the defense and that they had already requested a new trial due to misconduct. It looks like both parties have since agreed to negotiate behind closed doors. 

While Diaz's case is done, Organ also represents Marcus Vaughn, who filed another lawsuit against the automaker for racial harassment. Vaughn called Tesla's Fremont plant a "hotbed for racist behavior" and petitioned the court last year to give his lawsuit class action status so that he could add 240 Black colleagues to his complaint. 

It can be quite annoying to click through an Amazon ad in your results only to find out that the product you want can't be shipped to your place. Now, imagine you're the small business owner being charged for those ads. (Forget corporations and drop shippers, I know you all hate them.) There you are, thinking you're going to make a killing based on how much ad action you're getting. Except those ads don't translate to sales, because Amazon has been serving them to people who can't even buy your products. That's apparently what happened to at least one seller who told Bloomberg that he was charged between $200,000 and $300,000 for ads served to California residents, where he can't sell his advanced gaming computer items. 

The seller stopped shipping to California due to the state's personal computer power consumption regulations, which would require him to get costly lab reports for his products. But Amazon's automated system apparently continued advertising his products there and allegedly denied that there was an issue when he flagged the problem and followed up for several weeks. Since he was being charged thousands, the seller, who employs 80 people in Virginia to assemble custom computers, reportedly made zero profit in November, December and January. 

Amazon has acknowledged the issue in a statement sent to Engadget. It told us that it had investigated the matter and found that it only affected "a tiny fraction" of sellers. It also said that it had already apologized to the seller who talked to Bloomberg and that the company is in the process of refunding him $15,000. That's a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands the seller said he'd lost, but Amazon says it only served "a very small portion" of his listings to California residents. "We will similarly contact and refund any affected sellers, and are updating our processes to ensure any such ads are not charged going forward," the spokesperson said. 

The company's advertising system generally can't geo-target advertisements like Google ads can, because it focuses on matching buyers to certain brands or products they may be interested in. It also can't ensure that the product it's advertising complies with state regulations and, hence, can be shipped to its residents. As Bloomberg notes, this is far from the first time Amazon faced an issue regarding its advertisements. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company, and one of the regulator's accusations was that it was "deliberately increasing junk ads that worsen search quality." A report that came out after the lawsuit revealed that Amazon can strike deals with other companies to make sure their listings are devoid of junk ads, though, which is why Apple's official product pages might look cleaner and less cluttered compared to its competitors'.

In case you need another reason to shout "tax the rich" from the rooftops, it's here, and it's going to make you angry. A study found that 35 major US companies paid their top five executives more than they paid in federal income taxes between 2018 and 2022, the Guardian reports. The findings, which come from The Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness, are even less shocking when you learn the worst offender: Tesla.

Elon Musk's company earned $4.4 billion during those five years and gave its executives $2.5 billion. Despite that, Tesla not only didn't pay any federal taxes, but it received $1 million in refunds from the government. Musk himself is the second richest person in the world, with Forbes reporting he had a net worth of $207.9 billion at the start of March.

Tesla is one of 35 companies that paid less federal income tax than they paid their top five executives during that period. In total, the well-deserving and not-at-all greedy execs of these companies raked in $9.5 billion over these years, while cumulatively those same companies received $1.8 billion back from the government. Eighteen of these businesses reported net profits over the five years but didn't pay a cent of federal income tax. (All but one got refunds).

The study lists other notable companies like T-Mobile, Netflix, Ford Motor and Match Group alongside Tesla. T-Mobile made $17.9 billion, paid executives $675 million and received $80 million in refunds. The mobile provider has spent an incredible amount of money on lobbying Congress for tax breaks, spending $9 million in 2022 alone. Netflix actually did pay some taxes, but the $236 million was just 1.6 percent of its $15.1 billion in earnings — and just over a third of what it paid those top five executives. The statutory rate for federal income tax is 21 percent, so yeah, feel free to scream.