OnlyFans is facing a pair of lawsuits over claims it conspired with Facebook to disable adult entertainer accounts by placing their content on a terrorism database, the BBC has reported. One was launched earlier this week by a rival platform called FanCentro, and the other is a class action lawsuit made on behalf of three adult entertainers. Both Facebook and OnlyFans were named as defendants in the latter complaint. 

The class action suit claims performers' content was placed on the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) website despite not being terrorist in nature. That reportedly led to a decline in traffic to websites that compete with OnlyFans. Similar claims were made by FanCentro in its lawsuit. Both say that the problem is happening on Instagram more than any other platform. 

OnlyFans told the BBC that the legal claim has "no merit," while Facebook parent Meta said "these allegations are without merit and we will address them in the context of the litigation as needed." A GIFCT spokesperson said: "We are not aware of any evidence to support the theories presented in this lawsuit between two parties with no connection to GIFCT."

OnlyFans is best known for hosting pornography, but it was in the news last summer after saying it would ban "sexually explicit conduct." It said the request was made by "banking partners and payout providers," but it subsequently backtracked after receiving "secured assurances" required to support its adult creators.

However, the move shook the trust of some sex workers and other OnlyFans creators, since a potential ban threatened a key source of their income. Some likely decided to move to rival sites, only to now be allegedly facing a shadow-ban on social media.  

Most Apple Stores in the US won't require customers to wear masks anymore. The tech giant has dropped its mask mandate and is also preparing for the return of in-person classes at its stores, according to Bloomberg. Apple has reportedly told employees about the changes in its mask requirements this week, and it has also updated its website to note each store's rules. 

There are a handful of locations that still require masks, particularly those in areas where stricter guidelines remain in place. Apple changed the rules for stores in locations that had already dropped their mask mandates, though, including Kansas, North Carolina and Ohio. Most New York locations don't require customers to wear masks anymore, so long as they've been fully vaccinated. Even so, Apple recommends wearing masks and will provide them to customers who ask for one. Store staff members will also continue wearing them. 

As for Apple's in-store classes for those who want to get tips on how to use its products from the company's employees, Bloomberg says some stores will start offering them again within the week. However, most stores are preparing to resume classes in March.

Apple first lifted its mask requirements in the US in November 2021 but reinstated it in December following a resurgence in COVID—19 cases across the country. Based on data from Johns Hopkins, the US is now reporting fewer than 100,000 cases a day, down from a record high of 1.36 million cases on a single day in January. Several states have started lifting their mask requirements, and the changes in Apple's rules merely reflect the shift in local regulations. 

The US Copyright Office has once again denied an effort to copyright a work of art that was created by an artificial intelligence system. Dr. Stephen Thaler attempted to copyright a piece of art titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, claiming in a second request for reconsideration of a 2019 ruling that the USCO's “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional.

In its latest ruling, which was spotted by The Verge, the agency accepted that the work was created by an AI, which Thaler calls the Creativity Machine. Thaler applied to register the work as "as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”

However, the office said that current copyright law only offers protections to "the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind.” As such, a copyrighted work "must be created by a human being” and the office says it won't register works “produced by a machine or mere mechanical process” that lack intervention or creative input from a human author.

The agency said Thaler failed to provide evidence that A Recent Entrance to Paradise is the result of human authorship. It also stated he was unable to convince the USCO's "to depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence" — in other words, to change the rules. 

The ruling notes that courts at several levels, including the Supreme Court, have "uniformly limited copyright protection to creations of human authors" and that lower courts have "repeatedly rejected attempts to extend copyright protection to non-human creations," such as for photos taken by monkeys.

Thaler has put copyright and patent laws to the test in a number of countries. He has attempted to have an AI called DABUS recognized as the inventor of two products in patent applications. The US Patent and Trademark Office, UK Intellectual Property Office and European Patent Office rejected the applications because the credited inventor wasn't human. Appeals have been filed against those rulings and ones in Australia and Germany.

However, a judge in Australia ruled last year that AI-created inventions can qualify for patent protection. South Africa granted Thaler a patent for one of the products last year and noted "the invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence."

When Microsoft announced it would spend $68.7 billion to buy Activision Blizzard to bolster its Xbox gaming division, the news came as a surprise to many. For months, the troubled publisher had been in headlines stemming from the workplace sexual harassment lawsuit filed by California’s fair employment agency in July. The bad press hit a fever pitch on November 16th after The Wall Street Journal published a report that asserted Activision CEO Bobby Kotick had not only known about many of the incidents of sexual harassment that had occured at the company but had also acted to protect those who were responsible for the abuse.

Days after that article came out, Xbox chief Phil Spencer reportedly told employees he was “distributed and deeply troubled by the horrific events and actions” that allegedly took place at Activision Blizzard and that Microsoft would re-evaluate its relationship with the publisher. It’s one day after that email that Spencer called Kotick to start the process that would end with Microsoft announcing plans to buy Activision Blizzard some two months later, according to a US Securities and Exchange Commission filing first spotted by CNBC.

Starting on page 31 of the document, Microsoft devotes nearly 10 pages detailing the timeline of its talks with Activision. According to the filing, Spencer told Kotick during their November 19th phone call that “Microsoft was interested in discussing strategic opportunities” between the two companies and asked if he had time to talk to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella the following day. That Saturday, November 20th, Nadella made it clear Microsoft hoped to purchase the publisher, stating the company was “interested in exploring a strategic combination with Activision Blizzard.”

It turns out the quick pace at which the talks moved was mainly due to all the other companies interested in buying up Activision Blizzard after its stock dived in November. At least four other companies contacted the publisher about a possible acquisition. None of them are named in the SEC filing. However, one notably wanted to just buy Blizzard. Activision didn’t move forward with that option because the company’s board of directors deemed the sale would have been too difficult to pull off.

The document also details the terms of the purchase agreement. If the deal doesn’t go through due to antitrust complications, Microsoft has agreed to pay Activision Blizzard a termination fee of up $3 billion. A few years ago, that’s a possibility Microsoft probably wouldn’t have had to worry about too much, but 2022 finds the company in a very different regulatory environment. At the start of the month, NVIDIA abandoned a $40 billion bid to buy ARM after the Federal Trade Commission sued to block the purchase. President Biden appointed Lina Khan, the Commission’s current chair, to the position on the strength of her experience in antitrust law. When the NVIDIA-ARM deal fell through, the agency specifically noted it was "significant" because it "represents the first abandonment of a litigated vertical merger in many years." 

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has responded to Elon Musk’s harassment allegations. In a letter it filed on Friday with a New York federal judge, the SEC said its frequent check-ins with Tesla were consistent with expectations from the court overseeing the company’s 2018 settlement.

At the time, Tesla had agreed its lawyers would preclear some of Musk’s tweets after one of his messages drew the attention of the SEC. The specific tweet saw Musk say that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 a share. Following an investigation, the SEC alleged the message constituted fraud, with Tesla and Musk eventually agreeing to settle the case for $40 million.

But within less than a year later, the SEC suspected Musk of not complying with his part of the agreement, according to The Wall Street Journal. In 2019 and 2020, the agency’s lawyers wrote to Tesla to ask why some of Musk’s tweets about the company’s production numbers and stock price weren’t cleared by its lawyers. Tesla claimed those statements weren’t covered by the settlement policy.

Tesla accused the SEC this week of using its resources to conduct “endless, unfounded investigations” into the company and its CEO. It also alleges the regulator broke its promise to distribute the $40 million settlement to Tesla shareholders, a claim the SEC disputes. In the letter it filed on Friday, the agency said it was working on a plan to pay shareholders and would have more details to share by March. As for the “endless” investigations, the agency said it has “sought to meet and confer with counsel for Tesla and Mr. Musk to address any concerns regarding Tesla and Mr. Musk’s compliance.”

It’s unclear what happens next now that the SEC has responded to Tesla’s allegations. The Journal reports US District Judge Alison Nathan has asked the two sides to work through their dispute rather than push for the court to intervene in the matter.

Salesforce employees aren't happy with the company's plans to enter the non-fungible token (NFT) market. According to the Thomson Reuters Foundation, over 400 employees around the world have signed an open letter raising concerns about the environmental impact of NFTs, as well as their "unregulated, highly speculative" nature as financial assets. "The amount of scams and fraud in the NFT space is overwhelming," the employees reportedly wrote.

The company, the San Francisco cloud-based software firm that owns Slack, told its employees in early February that it's planning a series of NFT-related initiatives. They include launching an NFT Cloud that could help people create NFTs and list them on marketplaces. NFTs have blown up in popularity over the past year, and big companies have been cashing in on the craze. While not all ventures have been successful, some have made big money: Adidas, for instance, made $23 million during its first NFT drop.

That said, NFTs remain controversial for several reasons, including their environmental impact. It takes a lot of energy to sustain the blockchain activities associated with the tokens. One estimate backed by researchers put an average NFT's footprint at over 200 kilograms of carbon, which is equivalent to driving 500 miles in a gas-powered car. Salesforce employees' concerns about the environmental impact of the tokens come from the fact that the company positions itself as a leader in sustainable business — it even released a Superbowl ad starring Matthew McConaughey emphasizing its commitment to sustainability.

A Salesforce spokesperson told Thomson Reuters that the company welcomes "employees' feedback and [is] proud to foster a culture of trust that empowers them to raise diverse points of view." They also said that the company is holding a listening session with employees next week. 

If you thought Elon Musk was upset about frequent attention from the SEC... you guessed correctly. Musk and Tesla have written to a Southern District of New York court accusing the SEC of conducting a "harassment campaign." The regulator allegedly broke a promise to pay Tesla shareholders $40 million as part of its 2018 settlement with Musk over his tweets about taking the EV maker private, and instead devoted its resources to "endless, unfounded investigations" into the CEO and his company.

The two maintained the SEC was sending subpoenas "unilaterally" and that the court, not just the Commission, was to monitor his compliance with the consent decree from the settlement. The SEC was supposedly retaliating against Musk for being an "outspoken critic of the government," and more interested in stifling his First Amendment right to free speech than fairly enforcing the law. There haven't been any findings of wrongdoing, according to the complaint.

Musk and Tesla asked the court for a "course correction" including a conference to discuss the SEC's alleged failure to pay as well as the frequent investigations. They hoped the court would put the claimed harassment "to an end" while forcing the SEC to pay shareholders.

We've asked the SEC for comment. The government body has made repeated inquiries into Musk's tweets in the years since the settlement, writing Tesla in 2019 and 2020 over posts it found concerning. While it's true the SEC hasn't found Musk at fault for those tweets, officials still claimed Musk was discussing key financial topics (such as production levels and stock valuations) without the pre-approval required under the 2018 agreement. Tesla argued these tweets weren't covered under the terms of the deal, but it's safe to say the situation isn't entirely clear-cut.

Meta is once again settling a privacy complaint, but this one reaches back — way back. As Varietyreports, the company has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a 2012 class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating users' privacy. Facebook allegedly overstepped its bounds in 2010 and 2011 by using tracking cookies that monitored browsing after users signed out, despite promises to the contrary.

The settlement is still pending approval in a Northern District of California court. Attorneys at DiCello Levitt Gutzler were confident, however, following a 2020 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that turned the case in their favor. Facebook needed consent for the data collection, the appeals court said, and unlawful use of personal data created "economic harm" even when the data's value remained intact. Meta had succeeded three times in court before the 2020 opinion. The Supreme Court declined to hear Meta's appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling.

A Meta spokesperson emphasized the age of the case in a statement to Variety, saying it was in the company's "best interest" to settle and "move past this issue." This is the seventh largest privacy- or breach-related in the US, according to the law firm, with another Facebook case (a $650 million payout over facial recognition) topping the chart.

The settlement won't materially affect your privacy when the issues are long in the past. You also shouldn't expect a significant reward if you can make a claim — class actions like this rarely lead to windfalls for affected users, especially when Facebook has so many members. With that said, the outcome is a reminder that Facebook's privacy issues have existed for a long time, and continue to this day.

Meta’s past use of facial recognition technology has once again landed the company in potential legal trouble. On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging it had collected the biometric data of millions of Texans without obtaining their informed consent to do so. At the center of the case is Facebook’s now discontinued use of facial recognition technology. The platform previously employed the technology as part of its “tag suggestions” feature, which used image recognition to scan photos and automatically tag users in them.

Last November, Meta shut down that system, citing, among other reasons, “uncertainty” about how the technology would be regulated in the future. The year before, the company paid $650 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged it had violated an Illinois privacy law that requires companies to obtain “explicit” consent before collecting biometric data from users.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Texas sent a civil subpoena to Meta after the outcome of the Illinois lawsuit was announced. The state is reportedly seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in civil penalties. The Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act stipulates Texas can levy a penalty of up to $25,000 per violation of the law. According to the attorney general’s complaint, at least 20 million Texans used Facebook in 2021.

“Facebook will no longer take advantage of people and their children with the intent to turn a profit at the expense of one’s safety and well-being,” Attorney General Paxton said. “This is yet another example of Big Tech’s deceitful business practices and it must stop. I will continue to fight for Texans’ privacy and security.”

“These claims are without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a spokesperson for Meta told Engadget.

Meta isn’t the only big tech company that’s in a court battle with Texas. In 2020, Paxton’s office filed a multi-state lawsuit against Google centered on the company’s ad business. Last month, Google asked a judge to dismiss that suit. “AG Paxton’s allegations are more heat than light, and we don’t believe they meet the legal standard to send this case to trial,” Adam Cohen, Google’s director of economic policy, said at the time. “The complaint misrepresents our business, products and motives, and we are moving to dismiss it based on its failure to offer plausible antitrust claims.”

Apple is reportedly handing out raises to many of its retail employees in the US. According to Bloomberg, the company has increased the pay of some of its retail workers, including sales staff, Genius Bar support personnel and senior hourly workers, by as much as 10 percent. The exact number depends on the store where each employee works and their specific role. According to the outlet, the hikes don’t apply to all employees, and some have only seen their compensation increase by about two percent.

The pay hikes come in the same week Apple reportedly expanded benefits for all of its US retail employees. Per Bloomberg, the company will offer both full-time and part-time staff at all of its 270 stores nationwide increased sick days, paid parental leave and more starting April 4th. The moves are a response to a tight labor market. Like many other businesses, Apple has struggled to recruit and retain hourly workers during the pandemic. Staffing shortages due to COVID-19 exposures and infections have led to multiple store closures in recent months. Retail staff have also complained of poor working conditions that involve low pay and stressful workloads. Over the same time period, Apple has recorded multiple record-breaking fiscal quarters.