More than 800 Activision Blizzard employees and contractors have signed a petition calling for CEO Bobby Kotick to be removed as CEO. Workers walked out in protest earlier this week, following a report published by The Wall Street Journal, which alleged that Kotick knew about sexual misconduct claims at the company and neglected to inform the board of directors. The report also notes that Kotick has been accused of mistreating women on numerous occasions.

"We, the undersigned, no longer have confidence in the leadership of Bobby Kotick as the CEO of Activision Blizzard," the petition reads. "The information that has come to light about his behaviors and practices in the running of our companies runs counter to the culture and integrity we require of our leadership—and directly conflicts with the initiatives started by our peers."

The signees asked for Kotick to step down and for shareholders to choose a new CEO without his influence. The petition notes that Kotick "owns a substantial portion of the voting rights of the shareholders." When employee advocacy group A Better ABK shared the petition on Twitter, it said more than 500 workers had signed it. Hundreds more added their names within a couple of hours. 

Among the claims in the report are one that Kotick was the person who wrote an email sent to employees by executive vice president of corporate affairs Frances Townsend after California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against Activision Blizzard in July. "A recently filed lawsuit presented a distorted and untrue picture of our company, including factually incorrect, old and out of context stories — some from more than a decade ago," the memo read. Hundreds of Blizzard employees slammed the message and demanded "immediate corrections" from company leaders.

The report also shed some light on the departure of Jen Oneal, who was named as a co-lead of Blizzard in August but announced three months later that she was leaving her position. In a September email to the company's legal team, Oneal (who is Asian-American and gay) is said to have written that she had been "tokenized, marginalized, and discriminated against" and that she was paid less than Blizzard co-lead Mike Ybarra. IGN later reported that Ybarra and Oneal asked management for equal compensation, but Oneal said they were only offered equivalent offers after she tendered her resignation.

Following The Journal's report, the Activision Blizzard board publicly gave its backing to Kotick. However, the backlash is intensifying. Before the petition, Polygon and Eurogamer called for him to resign in editorials. A group of activist shareholders, who hold around 0.6 percent of stock and have long criticized Kotick, demanded that he step down.

On top of that, Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Jim Ryan told his employees that he was “disheartened and frankly stunned to read” The Journal's report. “We outreached to Activision immediately after the article was published to express our deep concern and to ask how they plan to address the claims made in the article,” Ryan wrote in the email, which was leaked. “We do not believe their statements of response properly address the situation.”

This week's report and ensuing pressure on Kotick follows a torrid few months for leaders at Activision Blizzard. After DFEH filed its lawsuit, it emerged that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the company. Activision Blizzard is also facing a class action lawsuit from shareholders, who claim it violated securities laws. In addition, workers and the Communication Workers of America filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the company. 

When asked for comment, Activision Blizzard directed Engadget to the statement the board of directors made on Tuesday. "The goals we have set for ourselves are both critical and ambitious," it said. "The Board remains confident in Bobby Kotick's leadership, commitment and ability to achieve these goals.”

Cher Scarlett, one of the lead organizers of the #AppleToo movement, is leaving the company on Friday. Scarlett was the face of the movement and connected with workers with grievances to air via Apple's Slack channels and on social media. The former Apple security engineer was also one of the workers who filed a complaint against the tech giant with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the company of suppressing workers' organizing efforts and interfering with surveys involving gender pay equity.

According to Bloomberg, Scarlett reached a settlement with the iPhonemaker regarding the NLRB complaint and has already requested a withdrawal. She didn't divulge the details of the settlement, but her lawyer Alek Felstiner, told Bloomberg News: "The matter was settled privately and the request for withdrawal is pending before the board. We hope the crucial organizing work at Apple will continue."

It's unclear what will happen to the #AppleToo movement with Scarlett's departure. Its website, which publishes workplace stories from Apple employees and workers, hasn't had an update over the past 10 days. That said, Scarlett isn't the only face of the movement. Most of the posts on the website are by Janneke Parrish, the other #AppleToo lead organizer who was fired by the company back in October. Apple fired its former program manager for allegedly sharing private information, something that Parrish denies. When details of a company meeting were leaked to the press, Apple investigated Parrish and confiscated her work devices. She deleted some apps and work information before doing so, which Apple interpreted as being noncompliant with its investigation. 

Aside from Scarlett, former Apple senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjøvik also filed a complaint with the NLRB. She said she spent months talking to Apple about unsafe working conditions and sexism in the workplace and was put on indefinite paid administrative leave after raising her concerns. Apple fired Gjøvik in September.

Employees at Activision Blizzard are calling for the resignation of CEO Bobby Kotick following new revelations into the role he may have played in creating the toxic workplace culture that has mired the company in controversy. On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal published a comprehensive report on Kotick's handling of the sexual harassment lawsuit California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) filed against the publisher in July. In short, the outlet claims Kotick not only knew about many of the worst instances of abuse at the company, but in some cases, he may have also acted to protect employees accused of harassment.

"We have instituted our own Zero Tolerance Policy," Activision Blizzard employee advocacy group A Better ABK said on Twitter after the report came out. "We will not be silenced until Bobby Kotick has been replaced as CEO and continue to hold our original demand for Third-Party review by an employee-chosen source." The group plans to stage a walkout today.

The claims reported by The Journal are extensive and numerous, but a handful stand out. According to documents obtained by the outlet, Kotick penned the now-infamous email Frances Townsend, executive vice president of corporate affairs at Activision Blizzard, sent to employees after DFEH filed its lawsuit. In that message, the company said the complaint presented "a distorted and untrue picture of our company, including factually incorrect, old and out of context stories — some from more than a decade ago." The response drew the ire of many Blizzard employees, who said it was "abhorrent and insulting."

The report also provides insight into the recent departure of Jennifer Oneal. One month after her appointment, Blizzard's first female leader reportedly sent an email to the company's legal team in which she said she wasn't convinced Activision Blizzard would turn its culture around. Referencing a moment earlier in her career at the company, she says in the email, "I have been tokenized, marginalized, and discriminated against."

Elsewhere, the report describes an episode involving Dan Bunting, one of the heads of Activision's Treyarch studio. In 2017, Bunting was reportedly accused of sexually harassing a female employee. Following an internal investigation, Activision's HR department recommended he be fired, but Kotick reportedly intervened to keep him at the company.

A spokesperson for Activision Blizzard disputed The Journal's reporting. The company's full statement reads as follows:

We are disappointed in the Wall Street Journal’s report, which presents a misleading view of Activision Blizzard and our CEO. Instances of sexual misconduct that were brought to his attention were acted upon. The WSJ ignores important changes underway to make this the industry’s most welcoming and inclusive workplace and it fails to account for the efforts of thousands of employees who work hard every day to live up to their — and our — values. The constant desire to be better has always set this company apart. Which is why, at Mr. Kotick’s direction, we have made significant improvements, including a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate conduct. And it is why we are moving forward with unwavering focus, speed, and resources to continue increasing diversity across our company and industry and to ensure that every employee comes to work feeling valued, safe, respected, and inspired. We will not stop until we have the best workplace for our team.

The company also commented on the impending walkout. "We are fully committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and rewarding environment for all of our employees around the world. We support their right to express their opinions and concerns in a safe and respectful manner, without fear of retaliation," a spokesperson for Activision Blizzard told Engadget.

Amid the unrest at Activision Blizzard, Kotick has presented himself as an ally of the studio's employees. "Our initial responses to the issues we face together, and to your concerns, were, quite frankly, tone-deaf," he said in an email he sent after the Townsend message. In that same message, he claimed he would take "swift action" to create a safe and inclusive working environment. When Kotick later announced the company's new zero-tolerance harassment policy, he said he would take a massive pay cut until Activision Blizzard's board of directors felt he had met the diversity and safety goals he outlined.

Even after today's report, it's hard to see Kotick resigning. He has been with Activision since the early 1990s, and he was the architect of the 2008 merger that created Activision Blizzard. The company's board of directors has also said it "remains confident" in his leadership. 

Peloton has filed fresh lawsuits against two of its rivals, iFit and Echelon. It alleges that the companies are violating up to four patents it holds related to on-demand classes, one of which it only obtained last week, as Bloomberg Law notes. Peloton is seeking a court order to block sales of the devices until the patents expire, in addition to compensation. In both suits, Peloton accuses competitors of attempting to "free ride" off its technology.

The iFit complaint concerns NordicTrack, ProForm and FreeMotion products that use the company's leaderboard and/or its ActivePulse or SmartAdjust features. "Prior to the actions giving rise to this suit, iFit Functionality never delivered live classes — i.e., classes taught by instructors and streamed to users’ devices in substantially real time — or offered its members the ability to participate in competitive classes via a leaderboard. Instead, iFit Functionality only allowed subscribers to follow along with pre-recorded exercise classes on their machines, without any sort of community engagement," Peloton wrote in the filing.

It accuses iFit of "profiting immensely from this infringement." In October, iFit paused its plan to go public due to adverse market conditions.

As for Echelon, Peloton is targeting the Smart Connect EX1, EX3, EX4s, EX5, EX5s, EX-7s, EX-Pro and GT+ bikes; Stride and Stride-5s treadmills; Row, Row-s and Row-7s rowers; and the Echelon Fit app. Peloton claims that, before it released the Tread, "it was not well-known for treadmills to offer a leaderboard" and that Echelon now has a "copycat leaderboard" with an "'Online Filter' that allows users to 'see who is taking an On Demand class at the same time.'"

Peloton has had a thorny relationship with both companies over the last few years. It has sued iFit (previously known as Icon Health and Fitness) over patent infringement in the past and vice versa. Peloton also filed suit against Echelon in 2019 for, among other things, "imitating the Peloton Bike experience." Engadget has contacted iFit and Echelon for comment.

Last year, California's supreme court ruled that Apple broke the law by failing to pay employees while they waited for mandatory bag and iPhone searches. Now, Apple has offered to pay $30 million to settle the suit and lawyers for the employees have urged them to accept it, Apple Insider has reported. "This is a significant, non-reversionary settlement reached after nearly eight years of hard-fought litigation," wrote plaintiff attorney Lee Shalov in the proposed settlement seen by Courthouse News.

Employees launched the suit way back in 2013, saying they weren't paid while being searched for stolen merchandise or trade secrets. The workers felt they were still under Apple's "control" during that five to 20 minute process and should therefore be compensated. Apple in turn argued that the employees could choose not to bring their bags or iPhones, thus avoiding a search in the first place.

Apple won an earlier battle in district court, but the case went to the California Supreme Court on appeal. There, the judges ruled that Apple workers were "clearly under Apple's control while awaiting, and during, the exit searches." The court dismissed Apple's argument that bringing a bag to work was an employee convenience, particularly that Apple felt employees didn't necessarily need to bring their iPhones to work.

"Its characterization of the iPhone as unnecessary for its own employees is directly at odds with its description of the iPhone as an 'integrated and integral' part of the lives of everyone else," the judges wrote. In that statement, the court referenced a 2017 Tim Cook interview where he stated that the iPhone was "so so integrated and integral to our lives, you wouldn't think about leaving home without it."

The settlement is still subject to approval by the plaintiffs. Nearly 12,000 current and former Apple Store employees in California involved in the lawsuit stand to receive a maximum payment of around $1,200.

Google is finishing the week with more antitrust headaches. Reutersreports a group of Texas-led US states has filed an amended version of its lawsuit against Google over alleged abuses of power in the online ad business. The updated complaint provides more detail about Google's purported efforts to stifle competition, including the secret "Project Bernanke" ad buying program.

The states said Google used Project Bernanke in 2015 to drop the second-highest bids from publishers' ad auctions, pool money and pour those those funds into only those bids using Google Ads. That gave Google Ads bidders an unfair advantage and helped them win auctions they likely would have lost, according to the revised lawsuit.

We've asked Google for comment. It previously confirmed the existence of Project Bernanke, but maintained there was no wrongdoing and that the states' lawsuit "misrepresents" its ad business. The refreshed lawsuit may pose additional challenges to Google, though. At the least, the amendment underscores the states' attitude toward Google — they're determined to curb its behavior.

The European Union's General Court in Luxembourg has upheld (PDF) the European Commission's decision to slap Google with a record €2.42 billion (US$2.8 billion) fine for an antitrust case back in 2017. Back then, the commission decided after a lengthy investigation that the tech giant favored its own comparison shopping services and unfairly directed users to its own products over those of its rivals'. That $2.8 billion fine is just a tiny fraction of Alphabet's (Google's parent company) $2 trillion valuation, but it was the biggest financial penalty the commission has ever handed out.

 The court said in a statement:

"The General Court finds that, by favoring its own comparison shopping service on its general results pages through more favorable display and positioning, while relegating the results from competing comparison services in those pages by means of ranking algorithms, Google departed from competition on the merits."

While the General Court mostly sided with the commission's findings that Google's actions had harmful effects on comparison shopping, it disagreed with one element of the EU's case. As The Wall Street Journal noted, it said that regulators weren't able to prove that the company's conduct harmed competition among general search engines.

Back when it appealed the EU's decision, Google argued that the commission ignored the competition it faces in the e-commerce sector from Amazon. The company could appeal the General Court's decision yet again by taking the case to the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice. A spokesperson told The Journal, however, that the company will still have to review the judgment more closely before deciding whether to file another appeal.

Google has escaped the risk of a lawsuit after violating the privacy of around 5.4 million iPhone users in the UK. The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot allow a US-style Class Action suit to be lobbed at the search giant after it deliberately created a workaround to track Safari users. The judgment, read by Lord Leggatt, was focused on procedural matters, like the intersection between Google, based in the US, and the UK’s data protection laws. More importantly, however, was the issue of “damage,” and the fact that the claimants — led by consumer rights champion Richard Lloyd — had not established that any material harm had been caused by Google’s workaround.

The story begins in 2017 with Lloyd, and many others, formed a group called “Google You Owe Us” to attempt to sue the company. It alleged that Google had illegally collected data on iPhone users between June 2011 and February 2012 in violation of UK law. The matter hinged on the fact that Google had deliberately created a workaround to get access to data it was not otherwise entitled to. Lloyd and crew lost at the High Court, but this initial decision was overturned by the UK’s Court of Appeal, saying that it was quite proper for Google to face a courtroom after the intentional misuse of personal data without consent.

US-style Class Action lawsuits are not common, or even really a thing in UK law, although it is possible for a large group of litigants to bring a joint action. Lloyd and his cohort were trying to establish that Google’s tracking was, in and of itself, harmful, and by extension a standard level of compensation could be calculated. This was the fact that the Supreme Court rejected most clearly — saying that a set figure (reportedly pegged around £750 (around $1,000) per affected user) was not fair redress.

David Barker of Pinsent Masons — the firm Google hired to fight this case — wrote that the decision upholds the notion that compensation can only be asked for where real harm has been caused. And that, put simply, Google’s aggregation of personal data was insufficient to cause any real-world harm or mental distress. Richard Lloyd, who brought the action, told Sky News that he was “bitterly disappointed” that the court had “failed to do enough to protect the public from Google and other Big Tech firms who break the law.” And that this ruling, in effect, is the writing of a blank check for large technology companies to keep misusing user data without fear of censure. He added that it is time for government leaders to step in and craft laws to better clamp down on the misuse of personal data.

Apple has failed to convince US District c to delay the App Store change she ordered back in September. As the judge for the Apple vs. Epic trial, Rogers ruled in favor of the tech giant for 9 out of 10 counts, but she also decided that Apple must allow developers to direct users to other payment systems within their apps by December 9th. As a response to that, Apple asked for a stay on the injunction to push back its implementation by one more year. Now, Rogers has rejected the company's appeal for a stay and called the motion "fundamentally flawed."

She wrote in the order (PDF, via CNBC):

"...Apple's motion is based on a selective reading of this Court's findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct including supercompetitive commission rates resulting in extraordinarily high operating margins and which have not been correlated to the value of its intellectual property."

Apple argued that it needed more time to establish new guidelines to protect users, developers and itself if it allows alternative payment methods. It also previously said that following the court order and allowing developers to link out to other payment methods by December 9th "would be a poor use of resources" due to the "near-inevitable litigation" from Epic regarding the scope of its compliance. In addition, it's still appealing this aspect of the case, and the Court of Appeals could take more than a year to come to a decision.

In her ruling, Rogers said that the party that would benefit most from a stay would be Apple, and that the court can "envision numerous avenues" for the tech giant to comply while still protecting its users. "Other than, perhaps, needing time to establish Guidelines, Apple has provided no credible reason for the Court to believe that the injunction would cause the professed devastation," she added.

As CNBC has noted, though, allowing developers to link out to external payment methods doesn't mean Apple won't be taking a percentage of their earnings. Google, for instance, recently announced that it will now allow the use of alternative payment systems for Play Store apps in South Korea to comply with local laws. While it lowered its commission by four percent for developers using their own payment processors, they will still have to pay the company a cut nonetheless.

Electric transport startup Rivian has been sued by one of its former employees. Per The Wall Street Journal, Laura Schwab, an executive who was a vice president of sales and marketing at the automaker until last month, filed a gender discrimination complaint with the California Superior Court in Orange County on Thursday. In the lawsuit, Schwab alleges she was fired by Rivian after she complained of a “toxic ‘bro culture’” that saw other executives exclude her from meetings and ignore her advice.

“The culture at Rivian was actually the worst I’ve experienced in over 20 years in the automotive industry,” Schwab told The Journal. A veteran of the automotive industry, Schwab held executive posts at Aston Martin Lagonda and Jaguar Land Rover before she joined Rivian in November 2020.

According to the outlet, Schwab tried to push the company to address numerous concerns while she was there. In one instance, she allegedly tried to tell the other executives on Rivian’s leadership team that the company had underpriced its vehicles. In yet another situation, she tried to raise concerns about the quality of the automaker’s manufacturing process. In the former case, the company allegedly initially dismissed her advice only to later follow through on it after a male executive raised the same issue.

The suit comes ahead of Rivian’s planned IPO next week where the company will seek to raise as much as $9.6 billion in additional investment. It also recently started producing R1T trucks for customers. More broadly, the suit comes as several other companies in the tech space face scrutiny over their gender equality practices. Most notably, there’s Activision Blizzard, which was sued by California’s fair employment regulator in July for fostering what it described as a sexist “frat boy” workplace culture. The fallout from that lawsuit has been far-reaching. Following months of pressure from employees, the company ended its policy of forced arbitration in cases involving sexual harassment and discrimination and put in place a zero-tolerance stance toward harassment.

Citing the quiet period ahead of its IPO, Rivian declined to comment on the complaint.