Back in November, New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) voted to increase the pay rates of Uber and Lyft drivers to make up for the rise in inflation and and operational costs. The new rates were supposed to be implemented on December 19th, but now Uber has sued the commission to block the new rates from taking effect. According to Bloomberg, Uber said in its lawsuit that it would have to spend an additional $21 million to $23 million a month if the new rates are implemented and that it wouldn't be able to recover those costs without raising fares.

To note, drivers' per-minute rates are going up by 7.4 percent and per-mile rates by 24 percent under the new rules. That means for a 7.5-mile trip that takes 30 minutes, a driver would earn at least $27.15, which is $2.50 more than current rates. The drivers are also getting another pay bump in March 2023, based on inflation rates comparing December's to September's this year. A company spokesperson told the news publication that by increasing drivers' pay this December, TLC is locking in "this summer's high gas prices in perpetuity." They added that TLC "should have followed its usual annual adjustment and instituted a temporary gas surcharge when gas prices were actually elevated" instead. 

The company's lawsuit seems to indicate that it intends to pass the costs associated with drivers' pay increase to riders. "Such a significant fare hike, right before the holidays, would irreparably damage Uber’s reputation, impair goodwill, and risk permanent loss of business and customers," its lawsuit said. In a strongly worded response to the lawsuit, TLC said acknowledged that Uber already charges 37 percent more today compared to 2019, but it said that the company is keeping money earned from fare hikes over the past few years to itself. 

The commission's statement reads: "Just in time to steal Christmas from New York families, Uber is suing to stop the raise the TLC enacted for app drivers after months of public hearings, years of stalled wages, and the pandemic decimating incomes. Uber's Grinch move is on top of denying a fuel surcharge to only NYC drivers when costs skyrocketed due to record high inflation, forcing drivers in one of their most profitable markets to choose between groceries and fueling up. 

Uber is already charging passengers 37% more today compared to 2019 AND KEEPING IT FOR THEMSELVES but says this modest raise for drivers is what will break the company. Shame on you, Dara Khosrowshahi. We call on the City to stand firm and defend the rights of drivers to labor with dignity. Uber seeks chaos. We seek dignity. We are confident we will prevail."

The ride-hailing giant is now asking the court to declare the new pay rates as invalid and to prevent the first increase's implementation this month while the lawsuit is ongoing. 

Apple is ending another battle over wireless patents. The iPhone maker and Ericsson have struck a licensing deal that settles all the legal disputes between the two companies, including civil lawsuits and a US International Trade Commission complaint. While the exact terms remain under wraps, the multi-year pact includes cross-licensing for "standard-essential" cellular technology as well as other patent rights.

The tech giants have a long history of fighting over cell tech. Apple sued Ericsson in 2015 to get more favorable terms for LTE patents, but Ericsson responded with a lawsuit of its own claiming that the iPhone and iPad infringed on its patented ideas. The two achieved peace with a seven-year agreement. As that arrangement neared its renewal time, however, the animosity returned. Ericsson sued in October 2021 over Apple's attempts to shrink royalty rates, while Apple countersued in December that year over allegations Ericsson was using unfair pressure tactics for the renewal. Ericsson filed another lawsuit this January over 5G licenses.

We've asked Apple for comment. In announcing the deal, Ericsson's IP chief Christina Petersson said the ceasefire would let the two companies "focus on bringing the best technology" to the world. Ericsson is one of the world's largest wireless patent holders, and said the Apple agreement would help boost its licensing revenue for the fourth quarter to the equivalent of $532 million or more.

The timing may be significant. Apple is reportedly developing 5G iPhone modems to replace Qualcomm's chips, having bought most of Intel's modem business and even launching not-so-subtle recruitment efforts in Qualcomm's backyard. The Ericsson truce may help clear the path for those modems by reducing the chances of legal dust-ups over whatever Apple builds. And time might be in short supply — rumors have circulated that Apple could use its own components as soon as 2023.

Elon Musk has yet another class action lawsuit to contend with over his handling of mass layoffs at Twitter. The latest comes from two former employees who allege “women were significantly affected more than men” in the November layoffs that cut nearly half its workforce.

According to the lawsuit, a total of 57% of women employees were laid off, compared with just 47 percent of men. It goes on to note that the disparity can’t be explained “based upon a justification that Musk intended to retain more employees in engineering-related roles” because women engineers were also cut at a higher rate than their male counterparts.

It states that “63% of females in engineering-related roles were laid off on November 4, 2022, while 48% of male employees in engineering-related [roles] were laid off.” For non-engineering roles, there was also a “great disparity” between men and women who lost jobs, with 51% of women and 42% of men affected by the cuts.

The lawsuit also cites numerous tweets from Musk that show his “discriminatory animus against women,” and claims that his requirements for employees to work up to 12-hour days as part of an “extremely hardcore” Twitter 2.0 is also has a “a disproportionate impact on women, who are more often caregivers for children and other family members, and thus not able to comply with such demands.”

The lawsuit is at least the fourth class action suit brought against the company following mass layoffs in November. Former employees and contractors are also suing the company over violations of the US Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which stipulates companies with more than 100 employees must provide at least 60 days notice ahead of mass job cuts. Another former employee has brought a suit against the company, alleging that Musk’s demand forcing all workers back to the office discriminates against people with disabilities.

Elsewhere, Musk is also facing an investigation from San Francisco city officials in the wake of reports that Twitter has set up hotel-like bedrooms inside of its offices for employees. 

Your "right to be forgotten" (or rather, right to erasure) in the European Union now extends to bogus claims about you. The EU's Court of Justice has ruled that Google and similar providers must remove search results on request when they're "manifestly inaccurate." People making the demands will have to prove that there are significant falsehoods, but they'll only have to provide evidence that can be "reasonably" required. They won't have to obtain a judicial ruling, in other words. The search engine creator can't be forced to actively participate in the investigation.

The judgment is a response to a case where two investment managers asked Google to delist search results for their names that linked to articles criticizing their business model. The managers argued the claims were false, and also objected to thumbnail images that were allegedly taken out of context. Google declined to honor the request, contending that it didn't know if the information was accurate.

In a statement to Politico, Google said it "welcome[d]" the ruling and would review the Court of Justice's decision. It stressed that the affected search results and thumbnails haven't been available for a long while.

The determination could help shape interpretations of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). You'll not only have the right to remove search data on privacy grounds (such as reports of an old conviction), but to pull content that's demonstrably false. This could theoretically help European residents reduce access to misinformation and slander, even if they're uninterested in filing lawsuits.

There are questions that remain. Notably, the court decision doesn't directly address parody. It's not clear if someone could ask Google and other search engines to delete content that's fake, but intended as a joke. It's also unknown if this could be used to hide content that's largely accurate, but includes a glaring error. A complainant could theoretically use this to minimize criticism by targeting less-than-perfect stories. However, the ruling at least lays a groundwork that could be used for future disputes.

TikTok is now facing its first state lawsuit over data security. Indiana's Attorney General has sued TikTok for allegedly misleading users about China's data access and violating child safety. The social media service supposedly broke state consumer law by failing to warn that the Chinese government could theoretically obtain sensitive data. The ByteDance-owned firm also supposedly tricked customers by giving its app a "12+" age rating on the App Store and Google Play, even though kids could readily find drug- and sex-related content.

Indiana wants fines of up to $5,000 for every violation. It's also asking a state Superior Court to order an end to the purportedly deceptive claims about data handling, and to stop marketing the app toward young teens.

We've asked TikTok for comment. The social network has repeatedly denied sharing US user data with the Chinese government and has taken steps to reassure politicians and critics, such as storing American account data stateside by default. It also says there are "robust" approval processes and controls for ByteDance workers who might access data outside the US. TikTok has also limited teens' access to more mature content, including age gates for some videos.

The lawsuit compounds problems that have emerged for TikTok in recent weeks. Maryland's governor banned use of the app on state government devices over security concerns, echoing a similar move by South Dakota in late November. The Wall Street Journalsources also claim a potential national security deal with the Biden administration has stalled yet again. While TikTok had a tentative agreement this summer, some officials are concerned the deal didn't go far enough to limit China's access.

The lawsuit's chances are uncertain. Potential access to data doesn't mean TikTok is being lax, and it's notable that apps like Facebook and Instagram are also rated 12+ despite the potential to see more adult-oriented material (Twitter is rated 17+). However, the Indiana case puts further pressure on TikTok to explain and potentially modify its practices.

Amazon is facing more legal trouble for allegedly robbing delivery drivers of their tips. The District of Columbia has sued Amazon over claims the company was "stealing" tips from Flex drivers. As the Federal Trade Commission argued last year, DC claims Amazon changed its policies in 2016 so that it would use large portions of drivers' tips to cover base pay and operational costs. The company not only used "misleading" language in its response to worried couriers but falsely told customers that 100 percent of tips would go drivers, according to the District's Office of the Attorney General.

DC acknowledged that Amazon had paid $61.7 million as part of a settlement with the FTC. However, it said the federal deal helped Amazon elude "appropriate accountability" that included punishment for the damage done to consumers. The Attorney General's office is asking for civil penalties for every violation of the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act as well as a court order barring Amazon from implementing similar practices in the future.

In a statement to Engadget, Amazon maintained that the lawsuit is "without merit" and reflects policies changed in 2019. The tech giant already paid the tips to drivers as part of the FTC deal, according to a spokesperson.

Legal battles like this aren't unique to Amazon. DoorDash faced a DC lawsuit in 2019 over comparable accusations. The food delivery service reportedly used tips under $10 to replace couriers' guaranteed pay, but still implied that these were bonuses. DoorDash revised its rules earlier that year to address the complaints.

The timing of the lawsuit is less than ideal for Amazon, to put it mildly. The company just launched a "thank my driver" feature that lets Alexa users in the US share their appreciation for the courier who dropped off their latest package. While it's supposed to motivate drivers, the gratitude will only be verbal in most cases — Amazon is only handing out $5 rewards to drivers for the first 1 million "thank yous." As you might imagine, that might not go over well at a time when Amazon has been accused of shortchanging drivers and imposing difficult working conditions.

Apple violated federal law by holding mandatory "captive audience" meetings and making coercive statements with anti-union messaging, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) Atlanta regional director has concluded. The workers at Apple's Cumberland Mall store filed for a union election with the NLRB earlier this year in a bid to join the Communications Workers of America (CWA). In May, however, they withdrew their petition, and the CWA submitted an Unfair Labor Practice complaint on their behalf. 

The CWA said in its complaint at the time that Apple had "conducted mandatory 'captive audience' meetings with bargaining unit employees regarding the upcoming election." In a newer statement sent to Bloomberg, the organization said that holding meetings like that is "not only union-busting, but an example of psychological warfare." As the news organization notes, the NLRB had previously allowed companies to require employees to attend mandatory meetings prior to union elections. But Jennifer Abruzzo, the labor board's current general counsel, sees them as coercive and in violation of the law. 

The NLRB said that it will issue a complaint if the tech giant doesn't settle. While the labor board's regional director has sided with the workers and with CWA, it's still up in the air whether Apple will be required to change its policies or suffer any sort of punishment. Complaints issued by regional directors will have to go through the board's judges, and companies could approach the NLRB's board members in Washington to appeal rulings they hand down. The case could go to federal court after that. 

Apple is facing another complaint by the NLRB, which found enough merit in a report also filed by the CWA on behalf of the company's World Trade Center workers in NYC. For that particular case, Apple was accused of surveilling staff, limiting their access to pro-union fliers and forcing them to listen to anti-union speeches. If Apple doesn't settle, a judge will hear the case on December 13th. 

Slack co-founder and CEO Stewart Butterfield is leaving the company in January. Lidiane Jones, currently an executive VP at parent company Salesforce, will succeed Butterfield as CEO.

The move comes just days after Salesforce announced that its CEO, Bret Taylor, will also leave in early 2023. However, Butterfield says the actions are unrelated. “FWIW: This has nothing to do with Bret’s departure. Planning has been in the works for several months! Just weird timing,” he wrote in an internal Slack channel today, viewed by Business Insider.

Slack launched in 2013 and quickly established itself as the predominant work-chat app. But today, it faces stiff competition from Microsoft Teams, which has nearly doubled its daily users in each of the past two years. In 2020, Slack filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the European Commission, claiming its bundling of Teams with the Office suite gave it an unfair advantage (echoing antitrust cases against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows). Later that year, Salesforce announced it was buying Slack for $27.7 billion, its biggest acquisition to date.

A Salesforce spokesperson told in a company statement to TechCrunch today, “Stewart is an incredible leader who created an amazing, beloved company in Slack. He has helped lead the successful integration of Slack into Salesforce and today Slack is woven into the Salesforce Customer 360 platform.”

A group of anonymous plaintiffs who filed their taxes online in 2020 using H&R Block has sued Meta, accusing the company of violating users' trust and privacy. If you'll recall, a recent Markup investigation revealed that H&R Block, along with other popular tax-filing websites like TaxAct and TaxSlayer, have been sending users' sensitive financial information to Meta through its Pixel tracking tool. 

Pixel is a piece of code companies can embed on their websites so they can track visitors' activities and identify Facebook and Instagram users to target with ads. Apparently, the aforementioned tax prep websites had been transmitting personal information, such as income data, filing statuses, refund amounts and dependents' tuition grants, to Meta through that code. The tax-filing services had already changed their Pixel settings to stop sending information or had been reevaluating how they used Pixel by the time Markup's report came out. 

In a statement sent to Engadget when the news first came out, Meta said that advertisers are prohibited from sharing personal information and that it uses an automated system that can filter out sensitive content sent through Pixel. The plaintiffs acknowledged in their complaint (PDF, courtesy of The Markup) that Meta does require businesses that use Pixel to "have lawful rights to collect, use and share" user data before providing the company with any information. However, the plaintiffs argue that Meta makes no effort to enforce that rule and instead relies on a "broken honor-system" that has resulted in "repeated, documented violations."

According to The Markup, the lawsuit is seeking class action status for people who used the tax prep services mentioned in the publication's report. The services themselves, however, were not named as defendants in the case. 

You're not the only one wondering if that social media star really used a hot new phone. The Federal Trade Commission and seven states have sued Google and iHeartMedia for running allegedly "deceptive" Pixel 4 ads. Promos aired between 2019 and 2020 featured influencers that extolled the features of phones they reportedly didn't own — Google didn't even supply Pixels before most of the ads were recorded, officials said.

iHeartMedia and 11 other radio networks ran the Pixel 4 ads in ten large markets. They aired about 29,000 times. It's not clear how many people listened to the commercials.

The FTC aims to bar Google and iHeartMedia from making any future misleading claims about ownership. It also asks both companies to prove their compliance through reports. The states, including Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Texas, have also issued judgments demanding the firms pay $9.4 million in penalties.

Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Engadget in a statement that the company was "pleased" to address the situation and took advertising laws "seriously." He added that Google didn't see this as a lawsuit (it's technically a proposed FTC order and state judgments), and that the tech giant was only settling with six out of the seven states.

Misrepresentative phone ads are far from new. Huawei and Samsung have both been caught passing off stock DSLR photos as representative of their phone cameras. There's also a history of celebrities marketing phones it's not clear they use. Gal Gadot had to defend herself against claims she pitched Huawei phones while posting on Twitter from an iPhone, for instance (it was her publicist).

However, the accusations here are more serious. The FTC and participating states are contending that Google set out to use false testimonials. It had a "blatant disrespect" for truth-in-ads rules, according to FTC consumer protection director Samuel Levine. While the punishment is tiny compared to the antitrust penalties Google has faced so far, it could damage trust in the company's campaigns for newer Pixels and other hardware.