Apple has been under fire lately after current and former employees shared stories of harassment, retaliation and sexism in the company. Now, the US National Labor Relations Board is looking into cases filed against the tech giant by two of the main voices accusing the company of permitting a hostile work environment, according to Reuters and The Financial Times. The first complaint was filed by Ashley Gjøvik, the senior engineering program manager who said she spent months talking with the company about unsafe working conditions and sexism in the workplace.

In a tweet, she said that after raising her concerns, she was put on indefinite paid administrative leave while Apple looks into them. Further, she said Apple implied that the company didn't want her to use Slack, where she'd been vocal about her criticisms. Gjøvik filed a "Charge against Employer" complaint, The Times says, alleging 13 instances of alleged retaliation against her. Those instances include workplace harassment, reassigning her supervisory responsibilities to colleagues and giving her undesirable tasks

The second complaint the labor board is investigation was filed by Cher Scarlett, on behalf of herself and other employees, on September 1st. Scarlett is a security engineer at the company and is the face of the #AppleToo movement made up of current and former employees aiming to shine a light on the tech giant's workplace culture. The group said it collected over 500 stories of incidents involving discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and it recently started sharing them five stories at a time. Her case accuses Apple of suppressing workers' organizing efforts, specifically when they involve pay surveys and gender pay equity.

It's worth noting that the labor board looks into all the complaints it receives, and it will only prosecute a case if it finds merit in them. As for Apple, the company told the publications in a statement: "We are and have always been deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace. We take all concerns seriously and we thoroughly investigate whenever a concern is raised and, out of respect for the privacy of any individuals involved, we do not discuss specific employee matters.”

In a blow to both Apple and Google, South Korea has today passed a law requiring major app stores to allow alternative payment methods. The Wall Street Journal reports that the bill, due to be rubber-stamped by president Moon Jae-in, forces platform holders to open up their stores. In addition, the new rules will prevent unreasonable delays for app approvals, which has been described as a way to prevent retaliation against developers. Companies which fail to comply with the ruling are at risk of being fined up to three percent of their domestic revenue.

The bill could have global ramifications given the battles that Google and Apple have fought concerning their app platform dominance. Both companies have come under fire for how they run the App and Play stores, respectively, with regulators and developers scrutinizing their business practices. In July, 36 US states launched an antitrust suit against Google over concerns that it is violating antitrust law, while Apple has been engaged in well-documented skirmishes with both Epic Games and Spotify. Officials in both the US and Europe, both of which are wrestling with concerns over the future of digital payments, are likely to look at both South Korea’s law, and how both companies respond to it. 

Google has been accused of playing favorites in its treatment of Android app developers. The Vergereports a newly unsealed consumer lawsuit against Google alleges the company offered to take a "significantly reduced" cut of Netflix's Play Store revenue in order to quell the streaming giant's "displeasure." Netflix, Spotify and Tinder all supposedly tried to get around the requirement to use Play Store's in-house billing system, and deals like this were meant to keep Netflix using Google's payment platform.

The same filing also includes a claim that Google's normal revenue share is arbitrary. Where the company typically asks for a 30 percent cut of Play Store purchases, it apparently determined that it could break even with just six percent. Internal communications suggest Google chose the 30 percent share for no reason "other than copying Apple," according to the lawsuit.

We've asked Google for comment. In a statement to The Verge, a spokeswoman maintained that developers were bound to the same policies as "all other developers," and that there were efforts to back app makers with "enhanced resources and investments." These initiatives were evidence of "healthy competition" in operating systems and app stores, Google said.

If the allegations are true, though, that wouldn't be the case — Google would have given Netflix a sweetheart deal not available to other Play Store developers. The company wouldn't be alone, either. Internal emails also suggest Apple offered Netflix perks it didn't provide to others using the App Store.

Whatever the case, Google might not have much choice but to alter its practices. Apple recently softened the App Store's rules as part of a proposed settlement, going so far as to let developers pitch customers on alternative payment systems — something Google still forbids, as the attorneys behind the unsealed lawsuit point out. Between these latest revelations and other lawsuits, such as those from Epic and state attorneys general, Google faces strong pressure to follow Apple and otherwise make concessions to avoid more serious legal repercussions.

The City of Chicago has filed two separate lawsuits against DoorDash and GrubHub. While the complaints point to alleged misconduct specific to each company, they broadly accuse DoorDash and GrubHub of employing a similar set of unfair business practices.

Specifically, the city claims that both DoorDash and GrubHub have consistently advertised delivery services from restaurants that never consented to a listing on their platforms. The city also alleges they employ "bait-and-switch" tactics by using deceptively small delivery fees to lure customers before hitting them with various other expenses at the end of a transaction. Finally, it says they both hide the fact many restaurants charge less for the items on their menu when you order directly from them.

DoorDash called the lawsuit "baseless" and a "waste" of taxpayer money. "DoorDash has stood with the City of Chicago throughout the pandemic, waiving fees for restaurants, providing $500,000 in direct grants, creating strong earning opportunities and delivering food and other necessities to communities in need," a spokesperson for the company told Engadget.

GrubHub echoed the sentiments of its competitor. "Every single allegation is categorically wrong, and we will aggressively defend our business practices," a GrubHub spokesperson said. "We look forward to responding in court and are confident we will prevail."

In taking the two companies to court, the city says it seeks to mandate greater transparency from DoorDash and GrubHub, as well as financial restitution for restaurants and consumers hurt by their alleged actions.

Separately, the DoorDash lawsuit alleges the company misled customers about how it was using tips to pay its delivery workers. If that sounds familiar, it's because DoorDash agreed to pay a $2.5 million settlement toward the end of 2020 to settle allegations related to that exact same issue.

For Chicago, this is the latest effort by the city to impose additional regulations on food delivery apps. In May 2020, it implemented a policy that saw both DoorDash and GrubHub required to include an itemized breakdown that lists how much restaurants pay when you order from them using an app.

Apple has agreed to change several rules that govern its App Store as part of a settlement with developers who filed a class action lawsuit against the company. The most significant change is that Apple is “clarifying” that developers are permitted to email users “about payment methods outside of their iOS app.” The company has also agreed to publish transparency reports detailing App Store rejection rates and the app review process.

Developing...

The sexual harassment lawsuit against Activision Blizzard will have more repercussions for game content. Blizzard is changingOverwatch character Jesse McCree's name now that his real-life namesake has left the company. The developer wants a name that "better represents" Overwatch ideals, according to a statement.

The company had planned a story arc for September that would have featured McCree, but is delaying that narrative until later in 2021 to reflect the name change. Players will instead get a new free-for-all map that month. Blizzard also promised that it would no longer name characters after employees, and said it would be more "thoughtful and discerning" about referencing the real world in Overwatch.

The real Jesse McCree left Blizzard earlier in August, just weeks after his name surfaced in a California lawsuit over sexual discrimination and harassment at the gaming giant. McCree was reportedly spotted in photos of BlizzCon's notorious "Cosby Suite" hotel room where Blizzard workers allegedly harassed women.

This isn't the first time Blizzard has altered content following the lawsuit. It pulled World of Warcraft's references to Alex Afrasiabi, directly accused of harassment, soon after the suit emerged. However, this might be more noticeable. McCree is one of the best-known characters in Overwatch — the name change could easily draw attention to the lawsuit and the "frat boy" culture that reportedly persisted for years.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has expanded the scope of its sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against Activision Blizzard to include temporary workers. As first reported by Axios, the watchdog filed an amended complaint on Monday to redefine the group it plans to represent in the suit. The complaint now consistently references “workers” instead of “employees,” noting protections the state of California has in place to protect individuals from harassment and sexual discrimintation “exist for employees and contingent or temporary workers.”

The amended suit also alleges Activision Blizzard has used non-disclosure agreements to directly interfere with DFEH’s ability to investigate, prosecute and remedy the workplace violations that occurred at the company. Additionally, "documents related to investigations and complaints were shredded by human resource personnel," according to the agency.

We’ve reached out to Activision Blizzard for comment.

Following a two-year investigation into the company, DFEH last month accused Activision Blizzard executives of fostering a “frat boy” workplace culture. According to the agency, only 20 percent of all employees at the studio are women, and they’re consistently paid less, overlooked for promotions and fired faster than their male counterparts. Activision executives initially dismissed the lawsuit, claiming it included “distorted, and in many cases false descriptions of Blizzard’s past.”

Employees were quick to condemn the company’s response, calling it “abhorrent,” and they went on to stage a walkout at the end of July. Following the protest, Blizzard studio president J. Allen Brack, one of the executives named in the DFEH suit, stepped down, as did several other senior designers.

When Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick eventually pledged to take “swift action” to create a safe workplace, the company’s decision to bring in WilmerHale, a law firm that has a history of representing management on matters relating to unionizing, made many doubt the sincerity of his statements.

Walmart has announced a delivery service for local businesses, which should be up and running by the end of the year. It plans to use drones and self-driving cars as part of the Walmart GoLocal infrastructure. Earlier this year, Walmart invested in Cruise after previously running a delivery pilot with GM's autonomous vehicle startup.

Local retailers might be able to keep using their current commerce platform and hook it into GoLocal. It's a white-label service, so deliveries won't be made by Walmart-branded vehicles. Associates, members of the Spark Driver program and other delivery companies will handle orders, according to CNBC. 

Walmart says it will be able to offer delivery within two hours in certain markets. There's a two-day delivery option as well. The company claims shipping will be priced competitively and that it can handle everything from groceries to kiddie pools and oversize items.

GoLocal is a key part of Walmart's strategy and it should help the company to diversify revenue streams. There might be some advantages for small businesses as well. It could slightly level the playing field with the likes of Amazon, which is largely moving its delivery network in-house and promising same-day or next-day delivery in many cases.

A group of current and former Apple employees are calling on their colleagues to publicly share stories of discrimination, harassment and retaliation they experienced while working at the company. The call to action went up on Monday when the collective started a Twitter account called Apple Workers. 

"For too long, Apple has evaded public scrutiny," the group says on its website. "When we press for accountability and redress to the persistent injustices we witness or experience in our workplace, we are faced with a pattern of isolation, degradation and gaslighting."

The protesting workers say they've exhausted all internal avenues for a remedy from the company, which is why they're going public with their complaints. "We've talked with our leadership. We've gone to the People team. We've escalated through Business Conduct. Nothing has changed," they say. "It's time to Think Different."

According to The Verge, about 15 individuals were involved in organizing the effort. Earlier today, they shared the news on a 200-person Discord server for Apple employees and contractors. We've reached out to Apple for comment.

The action comes as Apple faces questions over its handling of sexism in the workplace. In August, the company put Ashley Gjøvik, a senior engineering program manager, on paid administrative leave. In a series of tweets, Gjøvik shared several interactions with the company's employee relations team. One of those details is an episode in which a manager referred to her "tone" in presentations and said, "I didn't hear you going up an octave at the end of your statements." Apple is currently investigating Gjøvik's allegations.

"There is much more information about my story and my concerns about Apple work conditions that I have not made public yet," Gjøvik says on a website she created to chronicle her experience at the company. "I only resorted to this because everything I tried internally has failed."

A California judge has ruled that Proposition 22, the measure that allows companies like Uber and Lyft to keep classifying app-based drivers in the state as independent contractors, is unenforceable and unconstitutional. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Alameda County Superior Court judge Frank Roesch found that Prop 22 illegally "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law."

Proposition 22 passed by a wide margin in the state when most people voted in favor of it in last year's November elections. Companies were legally obligated to classify gig workers as full-time employees under Assembly Bill 5 A (AB5), which was passed in 2019, but some (like the aforementioned ride-sharing firms) continued to treat them as contractors. Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash poured over $220 million into campaigning for Prop 22 in order to overturn AB5, and the move clearly worked. 

The measure requires gig companies to provide their contractors with healthcare subsidies and a wage floor, but it also exempts them from having to classify their workers as employees with appropriate benefits and protections. While those in favor of the proposition argue that it would allow workers to keep their independence while enjoying benefits they didn't have before, not everyone's happy with the development. A group that includes the Service Employees International Union and the SEIU California State Council sued California earlier this year to overturn the proposition. 

In his ruling, Roesch specifically singled out Section 7451 of the measure, which states that any future law related to collective bargaining for app drivers must comply with the rest of the proposition. "It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation," he wrote in his decision. He also found it unconstitutional that any amendment to the measure requires a seven-eighths vote of approval to pass in the state Legislature.

If the ruling stands, gig companies like Uber and Lyft may have to spend hundreds of millions paying for healthcare and other additional benefits for their drivers. At the moment, though, Prop 22 is still in effect, and gig companies are already planning to appeal. An Uber spokesperson told The Chronicle:

"This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law. We will appeal and we expect to win. Meanwhile, Prop. 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state."