T-Mobile says millions more people have been impacted by its recent data breach than initially believed. In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the company said an additional 6 million or so accounts were affected, taking the total to more than 54 million.

On Wednesday, T-Mobile disclosed that data from around 40 million former or potential customers had been compromised in a cyberattack. The data included names, birth dates, social security numbers, driver’s licenses and information from other types of identification. The company now says another 667,000 accounts of former customers were accessed, with attackers obtaining some personal data from those, but no SSNs or ID details.

In the previous disclosure, T-Mobile said approximately 7.8 million current holders of T-Mobile postpaid accounts were impacted, with attackers gaining at least some customers' personal data. The company now says phone numbers and IMEI and IMSI details (identifiers for mobile devices and SIM cards respectively) were compromised as well.

On top of that, T-Mobile has identified another 5.3 million affected postpaid accounts. No SSNs or driver’s license/identification details were compromised from those, the company said, but the attackers accessed other identifiable information.

Around 850,000 active T-Mobile prepaid customers have been impacted as well. The attackers may have garnered up to 52,000 names connected to current Metro by T-Mobile accounts too. Accounts of former Sprint prepaid and Boost Mobile customers are unaffected.

Other data was stolen in the cyberattack, including additional phone numbers and IMEI and IMSI numbers, but the company claims there was no personally identifiable information in those files. Meanwhile, T-Mobile still has "no indication" that customer financial details, such as credit card data, were affected.

A member of an underground forum claimed over the weekend to have data for more than 100 million T-Mobile customers. They reportedly attempted to sell information of around 30 million of those for about $270,000 worth of Bitcoin.

T-Mobile's investigation into the breach is ongoing and it will provide more details if it finds more affected accounts. The company says it's "confident that we have closed off the access and egress points the bad actor used in the attack" and that it has taken steps to mitigate the impact on customers. For instance, it has offered two years of identity protection service to anyone who thinks they might have been affected.

SpaceX won't be working on its $2.9 billion lunar lander contract for a while after NASA agreed to put the project on hold. The space agency told Reuters that it temporarily ceased all work on the project after Jeff Bezos' company Blue Origin filed a complaint against it with the US Court of Federal Claims. "In exchange for this temporary stay of work, all parties agreed to an expedited litigation schedule that concludes on November 1st," the space agency said in a statement. 

Blue Origin sued NASA over its decision to award a lunar lander contract to SpaceX alone when it originally planned to award two contracts. The agency historically works with more than one contractor for each mission to ensure that it can launch in time. However, it only received a fraction of the budget it requested for the Artemis lunar lander, which will be designed to carry human astronauts to the surface of the moon from the Orion spacecraft, and chose to forgo awarding a second contract. 

Bezos' company first challenged the decision back in April and filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. As The Verge notes, that complaint put the SpaceX contract on hold for 95 days, so this is the second time NASA and Elon Musk's company have to temporarily halt the project. Blue Origin argued that the selection process was unfair, because it wasn't given the opportunity to revise its bid like SpaceX was able to. 

GAO ultimately dismissed the case, concluding that NASA's evaluation of all the proposals for the mission "was reasonable and consistent with applicable procurement law, regulation, and the announcement's terms." Before GAO revealed its decision, though, Jeff Bezos wrote an open letter to NASA, telling the agency that Blue Origin is willing to waive up to $2 billion in payments in return for a fixed-price lander contract. 

In both of the lawsuits it filed, Blue Origin said it's making "an attempt to remedy the flaws in the acquisition process found in NASA's Human Landing System." For its more recent complaint, the company explained that it "stand[s] firm in [its] belief that there were fundamental issues with NASA's decision, but the GAO wasn't able to address them due to their limited jurisdiction." We'll know soon enough which side the court will pick: A judge has set a hearing for the case on October 14th.

Apple has again pushed back its planned return to the office for US workers due to a surge in COVID-19 cases. Bloomberg reports that the company has shifted its October date to January, though the schedule remains tentative for now. 

Apple reportedly told employees in a memo that it would confirm the re-opening deadline one month before staff are expected to return to corporate workplaces. Like many employers, the iPhone maker is also preparing for a hybrid work routine. Apple apparently expects staff to attend the office at least three days a week — Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays — with the option to work remotely on Wednesday and Friday.

The delay is the latest bout of disruption to Apple's business. Its previous return to work deadline of September was met with resistance by some employees, who claimed their voices were being ignored. The same subset of workers also demanded a full-time remote work option. 

On the retail side, Apple has repeatedly been forced to shutter its stores alongside the rise and fall of the virus. Just this week, it closed its store in Charleston, South Carolina, after more than 20 staff members were exposed to COVID-19. The decision reflected the risks Apple is facing in resuming normal operations. 

Apple re-opened its retail stores earlier this year and has not indicated whether it plans to close them again, despite the spread of COVID-19 fueled by the Delta variant. Though, it quickly backtracked on its plan to restore in-store educational classes. Apple also recently reinstated its mask mandate for staff and store visitors in July after dropping the requirement in June for vaccinated customers. While its hardware business is facing the same chip shortage problem that has entangled the rest of the tech industry.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed new antitrust charges against Facebook. The amended complaint comes after a federal judge threw out the agency's initial suit back in June. In dismissing the case, Judge James Boasberg said the FTC had failed to provide enough evidence Facebook had a monopoly in the social media market. Boasberg gave the FTC 30 days to amend its case, later extending that deadline to August 19th.   

The new complaint is approximately two dozen pages longer than the original but put forwards many of the same core arguments. Specifically, the FTC alleges Facebook used the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 to secure its position in the market. The agency says the amended complaint includes additional data and evidence to support its claims that Facebook is a monopolist.  

"Facebook has maintained its monopoly position in significant part by pursuing Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg’s strategy, expressed in 2008: 'it is better to buy than compete,'" the FTC says in the document. "True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats."

In July, the company, following the lead of Amazon, petitioned the FTC to recuse Commissioner Lina Khan from discussions on whether or not the regulator should push forward with another antitrust case against the company. In a press release, the FTC said the agency's "Office of General Counsel carefully reviewed Facebook’s petition to recuse Chair Lina M. Khan. As the case will be prosecuted before a federal judge, the appropriate constitutional due process protections will be provided to the company. The Office of the Secretary has dismissed the petition."

On Twitter, Facebook said it would have more to say about the amended complaint soon. The company has until October 4th to respond to the suit.  

Huawei is once again facing claims that it's placing backdoors in networks. The Wall Street Journalreports that American contractor Business Efficiency Solutions (BES) has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Huawei of not only stealing technology, but pressuring the firm into installing a data backdoor for a law enforcement safer-cities project in Lahore, Pakistan. The system supposedly gave Huawei access to a database that helped it collect sensitive citizen and government data "important to Pakistan's national security."

BES alleged that Huawei insisted on creating a duplicate version of the Lahore network in Suzhou, China, that would provide direct access to the Pakistan data. While BES wanted permission from Pakistani officials before going forward, Huawei reportedly claimed it didn't need permission and initially threatened to cut off the deal if BES didn't move forward. The Chinese company later said it obtained permission, but apparently refused to provide evidence of this when asked.

The situation may not be clear-cut. Huawei told the WSJ there was "no evidence" it had installed backdoors in any products. In a statement from earlier in the dispute, the company acknowledged the duplicate system in China but maintained that it was strictly a test version "physically isolated" from the real network, making it impossible to extract data. An overseer for the Lahore effort, Muhammad Kamran Khan, said an investigation was underway but that there wasn't any evidence of data theft "so far."

Whoever is telling the truth, the lawsuit highlights the ongoing concerns that Huawei might be aiding China's surveillance goals. The company has long denied the allegations, and there isn't yet "smoking gun" evidence that it has used backdoors to snoop on other countries. However, that hasn't allayed suspicions that have led the US, UK and others to blacklist its technology. This case might only exacerbate Huawei's situation, even if BES' assertions don't hold up in court.

Apple will have to pay another company a handsome amount to keep using certain wireless tech. Bloomberg and The Register report that a Texas jury has determined that Apple must pay patent firm Optis $300 million for allegedly violating patents covering LTE cellular service in devices like the iPhone and iPad. A jury had awarded Optis just over $506 million in 2020, but the judge in the case ordered a damages-only trial over concerns the earlier jurors hadn't considered whether the demand was fair for standards-based patents.

Optis is also chasing Apple in the UK, where it hopes to set a global royalty rate that could net up to $7 billion. Its patents come from other companies, including LG, Panasonic and Samsung.

Apple still intends to fight back. The tech giant accused Optis of being a patent troll in a statement, noting that the firm exists solely to sue companies using purchased patents. Apple would keep resisting Optis' efforts to obtain "unreasonable payments" for patents, the iPhone maker said.

As The Register notes, the $300 million payout will barely make a mark on Apple's finances. The company made $21.7 billion in net income just in its latest quarter — the Optis payment will represent slightly over one day's profits. The concern, of course, is that Optis will succeed in getting regular payments that could add to Apple's costs and drive hardware prices upward.

Sonos has won an early victory in its ongoing legal battle with Google. On Friday, a federal judge with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) made a preliminary decision related to a complaint the company had filed against Google in early 2020, alleging the search giant had infringed on five of its patents. Validating all five claims, the judge said Google should not be allowed to import devices that violate the intellectual property of Sonos.

"Today the ALJ has found all five of Sonos' asserted patents to be valid and that Google infringes on all five patents. We are pleased the ITC has confirmed Google's blatant infringement of Sonos' patented inventions," said Sonos chief legal officer Eddie Lazarus. "This decision re-affirms the strength and breadth of our portfolio, marking a promising milestone in our long-term pursuit to defend our innovation against misappropriation by Big Tech monopolies."

As The New York Times notes, the judge's decision isn't final. The entire ITC body has to make a final ruling before it mandates any remedial measures. With a meeting scheduled for December 13th, that won't happen for another few months.

"We do not use Sonos' technology, and we compete on the quality of our products and the merits of our ideas," said Google spokesperson José Castañeda. "We disagree with this preliminary ruling and will continue to make our case in the upcoming review process."

Sonos first sued Google in early 2020. It accused the company of copying some of the technologies most critical to its speakers, including its Trueplay tuning tool. In patent disputes, companies typically use simultaneous ITC complaints to force the hand of their opponent since the body tends to resolve matters faster than a traditional court. Google subsequently countersued Sonos, claiming the company had been using its search, software, networking and audio processing technologies without paying the proper licensing fees. The feud escalated later that same year when Sonos filed a second suit. 

Charter Communications has been sued by a group of major record labels who claim it has failed to address "flagrant and serial" music copyright infringement, The Verge has reported. It's the second time over the last several years that the group has sued Charter over song piracy. 

The labels said that they sent around 150,00 notices of infringement to Spectrum, Charter's internet service, including the IP addresses of "tens of thousands" of alleged infringers. They claim that the company turned a "blind eye" to the downloading, which occurred from July 2018 until recently. 

"Charter insisted on doing nothing despite receiving thousands of notices that detailed the illegal activity of its subscribers, despite its clear legal obligation to address the widespread, illegal downloading of copyrighted works on its Internet services, and despite being sued previously by Plaintiffs for similar conduct," the claim states.

The same labels sued Charter in 2019, claiming subscribers were using torrent services for music pirating between March 2013 and May 2016. "Charter persisted in contributing to and profiting from its subscribers’ infringement... even after receiving Plaintiffs’ March and April 2016 notices of claims and, remarkably, even after Plaintiffs filed the 2019 lawsuit," according to the latest lawsuit. 

The music industry has attacked multiple internet providers over the last few years. In June, ISP Frontier was sued by record labels over similar piracy claims. Internet service provider Cox, meanwhile, lost a $1 billion judgement in December of 2019, and vowed to appeal the settlement at the time. 

When California’s fair employment agency sued Activision Blizzard, one of the largest video game studios in the world, on July 20th, it wasn't surprising to hear the allegations of systemic gender discrimination and sexual harassment at the company. It wasn't a shock to read about male executives groping their female colleagues, or loudly joking about rape in the office, or completely ignoring women for promotions. What was surprising was that California wanted to investigate Activision Blizzard at all, considering these issues have seemingly been present since its founding in 1979.

Activision Blizzard is a multibillion-dollar publisher with 9,500 employees and a roster of legendary franchises, including Call of Duty, Overwatch, Diablo and World of Warcraft. On July 20th, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, alleging executives had fostered an environment of misogyny and frat-boy rule for years, violating equal pay laws and labor codes along the way. This is about more than dirty jokes in the break room — the lawsuit highlights clear disparities in hiring, compensation and professional growth between men and women at Activision Blizzard, and it paints a picture of pervasive sexism and outright abuse in the workplace.

Here’s a rundown of some of the allegations:

• Just 20 percent of all Activision Blizzard employees are women.

• Top leadership roles are filled solely by white men.

• Across the company, women are paid less, promoted slower and fired faster than men.

• HR and executives fail to take complaints of harassment seriously.

• Women of color in particular are micromanaged and overlooked for promotions.

• A pervasive frat-boy culture encourages behavior like “cube crawls,” where male employees grope and sexually harass female co-workers at their desks.

It’s been a few weeks since the lawsuit was filed, and employees, executives and players have all had a chance to respond. Meanwhile, additional reports of longstanding harassment and sexism at Activision Blizzard have continued to roll out, including photos and stories of the “Cosby Suite,” which was specifically named in the filing. According to the lawsuit, this was a hotel room where male employees would gather to harass women at company events, named after the rapist Bill Cosby. 

Days after the filing, Kotaku published photos of the supposed Cosby Suite, showing male Activision Blizzard developers posing on a bed with a framed photo of Bill Cosby at BlizzCon 2013. Screenshots of conversations among the developers discussed gathering “hot chixx for the Coz” and other insulting, immature things (especially when you remember these are middle-aged men, not middle-schoolers).

One of the only executives actually named in the suit was Blizzard head J. Allen Brack, and it alleges he routinely ignored systemic harassment and failed to punish abusers. Brack called the allegations “extremely troubling,” but this line was thrown back in his face on Twitter when independent developer Nels Anderson compared it to a video out of BlizzCon 2010, featuring Brack on the far left. 

In the video, a young woman asks the panel of World of Warcraft developers, all six of whom are white men, whether they'll ever create a female character that doesn't look like she just stepped out of a Victoria's Secret catalog. The panelists laugh and one responds, "Which catalog would you like them to step out of?" They proceed to essentially dismiss her question. At the end of the exchange, Brack piles on and makes a joke about one of the new characters coming from a sexy cow catalog.

On August 3rd, just two weeks after California filed its lawsuit, Brack stepped down from his role as the president of Blizzard. In his place will be GM Mike Ybarra and executive development VP Jen Oneal. Oneal will be the first woman in a president role since Activision’s founding in 1979; the lawsuit notes that there has never been a non-white president or CEO of Activision Blizzard.

Activision Blizzard’s initial response to the lawsuit was tragic, with one leader calling the allegations meritless and distorted. Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, who regularly gets into fights with shareholders over the ridiculous fortune he’s amassed, published his own response to the lawsuit, where he essentially promised to listen better. Unsurprisingly, this didn’t alleviate many employees’ concerns. A petition in support of the lawsuit ended up gathering more than 2,000 employee signatures, and workers organized a walk-out just eight days after the filing, calling for systemic change at the studio.

Shareholders weren't bolstered by Kotick's response, either. Investors filed an additional class-action lawsuit against Activision Blizzard on August 3rd, alleging the company failed to raise potential regulatory issues stemming from its discriminatory culture. Blizzard's head of HR, Jesse Meschuk, also left the company in the weeks following the initial lawsuit.

Meanwhile, other major game developers have rallied behind the suit, and former Activision Blizzard leaders have shared their support for employees, apologizing for their parts in sustaining a toxic company culture.

None of this is new. As evidenced by the photos, videos, stats and personal stories flowing out of Activision Blizzard, the company has operated on a bro-first basis for decades, and honestly, it’s been sustained by an industry that largely functions the same way.

In 2019, a wave of accusations against prominent male developers crashed over the industry, and AAA studios like Ubisoft and Riot Games made headlines for fostering toxic workplace environments. California is currently suing Riot over allegations of sexual harassment and gender discrimination in hiring and pay practices.

But even that’s not new. Women, non-binary people and marginalized folks in the video game industry have been speaking up about systemic harassment and discrimination for literal decades. Sexism is apparent in the hiring and pay habits of many major studios, and it’s also clear in the games themselves, which feature an overabundance of straight, white, male protagonists.

What is surprising, this time around, is that the lawsuit against Activision Blizzard kind of came out of nowhere. It took a blockbuster media report to make California sue Riot in 2020, but the lawsuit against Activision Blizzard appeared on its own, after years of quiet investigation by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. If sexism is systemic in the video game industry, it feels like the system is finally fighting back.

A harassment and discrimination lawsuit from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) isn’t the only legal battle Activision Blizzard has to worry about anymore. Ahead of the company’s Q2 earnings call on Tuesday, a firm called Rosen Law filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors who traded in Activision Blizzard securities between August 4th, 2016 and July 27th, 2021.

The firm, the same one that’s behind a similar lawsuit against CD Projekt RED over the disastrous launch of Cyberpunk 2077, accuses Activision Blizzard of intentionally failing to disclose its ongoing problems with sexual harassment and discrimination. In doing so, Rosen Law alleges the company put itself at greater risk of regulatory legal scrutiny and enforcement. The suit names Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, as well as several other executives, as defendants and seeks to recover damages for investors under federal securities laws.

The suit comes on the same day the company announced J. Allen Brack was “stepping down” from his role as president of Blizzard Entertainment. In its lawsuit, the State of California accuses Brack of taking “no effective remedial measures” to curb the “bro culture” that enabled individuals like Alex Afrasiabi to harass the company’s female employees. Taking his place are Jen Oneal and former Xbox executive Mike Ybarra, who will oversee the studio as co-leaders.