Posts with «company legal & law matters» label

Grindr sued for allegedly sharing users' HIV status and other info with ad companies

Grindr has been sued for allegedly sharing personal information with advertising companies without users' consent. A lawsuit filed in London claims that the data included HIV statuses and test dates, ethnicity and sexual orientation, Bloomberg reports.

According to the class action-style suit, the alleged data sharing involved adtech companies Localytics and Apptimize. Grindr is said to have supplied the companies with user info before April 2018 and then between May 2018 and April 2020. Engadget has asked Grindr for comment.

In April 2018, Grindr admitted it had shared HIV data with Apptimize and Localytics following an investigation by BuzzFeed News and Norwegian non-profit SINTEF. It said it would stop the practice.

This isn't the only time Grindr has been accused of sharing users' personal information. A 2022 report from The Wall Street Journal indicated that precise location data on Grindr users was up for sale for at least three years. In addition, Norway's data protection agency fined Grindr $6 million in 2021 for violating the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation. The agency said Grindr had unlawfully shared "personal data with third parties for marketing purposes."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/grindr-sued-for-allegedly-sharing-users-hiv-status-and-other-info-with-ad-companies-141748725.html?src=rss

Google fired 28 workers who protested Israeli government cloud contract

Google has fired 28 employees involved in protests against the company's "Project Nimbus" cloud contract with the Israeli government, according to an internal memo seen by The Verge. That follows the arrest and suspension of nine employees on April 16 and a previous firing related to the same project last month. 

Some of the fired workers were forcibly removed after occupying the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian. Google head of global security Chris Rackow said that the company "will not tolerate" such incidences and warned that the company could take further action. 

"If you’re one of the few who are tempted to think we’re going to overlook conduct that violates our policies, think again," he told employees in a letter. "The company takes this extremely seriously, and we will continue to apply our longstanding policies to take action against disruptive behavior — up to and including termination."

Behavior like this has no place in our workplace and we will not tolerate it. It clearly violates multiple policies that all employees must adhere to — including our Code of Conduct and Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation, Standards of Conduct, and Workplace Concerns.

However, workers in the "No Tech for Apartheid" group organizing the protests called the dismissals "a flagrant act of retaliation." It added that the Google saying protests largely involve people not working at the company is "insulting," adding that the push to drop Project Nimbus is supported by "thousands" of their colleagues. 

"In the three years that we have been organizing against Project Nimbus, we have yet to hear from a single executive about our concerns,” it wrote in a Medium post. "Google workers have the right to peacefully protest about terms and conditions of our labor. These firings were clearly retaliatory.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-fired-28-workers-who-protested-israeli-government-cloud-contract-084444878.html?src=rss

Netflix true crime documentary may have used AI-generated images of a real person

Netflix has been accused of using AI-manipulated imagery in the true crime documentary What Jennifer Did, Futurism has reported. Several photos show typical signs of AI trickery, including mangled hands, strange artifacts and more. If accurate, the report raises serious questions about the use of such images in documentaries, particularly since the person depicted is currently in prison awaiting retrial

In one egregious image, the left hand of the documentary's subject Jennifer Pan is particularly mangled, while another image shows a strange gap in her cheek. Netflix has yet to acknowledge the report, but the images show clear signs of manipulation and were never labeled as AI-generated.

Netflix

The AI may be generating the imagery based on real photos of Pan, as PetaPixel suggested. However, the resulting output may be interpreted as being prejudicial instead of presenting the facts of the case without bias. 

A Canadian court of appeal ordered Pan's retrial because the trial judge didn't present the jury with enough options, the CBC reported. 

One critic, journalist Karen K. HO, said that the Netflix documentary is an example of the "true crime industrial complex" catering to an "all-consuming and endless" appetite for violent content. Netflix's potential use of AI manipulated imagery as a storytelling tool may reinforce that argument.

Regulators in the US, Europe and elsewhere have enacted laws on the use of AI, but so far there appears to be no specific laws governing the use of AI images or video in documentaries or other content. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/netflix-true-crime-documentary-may-have-used-ai-generated-images-of-a-real-person-090024761.html?src=rss

Apple claims Epic is trying to ‘micromanage’ its business operations in a new court filing

Last month, Epic Games filed a motion asking a California judge to hold Apple in contempt for what it claims are violations of a 2021 injunction relating to the company’s App Store practices. Now, Apple is asking the judge to reject Epic’s request, alleging in a new filing spotted by Reuters that the motion is an attempt to “micromanage Apple’s business operations in a way that would increase Epic’s profitability.”

The original injunction by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers required Apple to let developers provide an option for external payment methods, which would allow them to avoid fees of up to 30 percent on App Store and in-app purchases. Apple introduced new App Store guidelines for developers in January that do allow linking to external websites for purchasing alternatives, but the new rules also require they get Apple’s approval to do so and impose a commission of 12-27 percent for these transactions. Per Reuters, Epic argued that this makes alternative payment options “commercially unusable.”

Epic also said at the time that Apple’s “so-called compliance is a sham,” and accused the company of violating the injunction with its recent moves. Apple maintains that it has acted in compliance with the injunction, stating in the new filing, “The purpose of the Injunction is to make information regarding alternative purchase options more readily available, not to dictate the commercial terms on which Apple provides access to its platform, tools and technologies, and userbase.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-claims-epic-is-trying-to-micromanage-its-business-operations-in-a-new-court-filing-171011659.html?src=rss

Google says it will destroy browsing data collected from Chrome’s Incognito mode

The first details emerged Monday from Google’s settlement of a class-action lawsuit over Chrome’s tracking of Incognito users. Filed in 2020, the suit could have required the company to pay $5 billion in damages. Instead, The Wall Street Journal reports that Google will destroy “billions of data points” it improperly collected, update its data collection disclosures and maintain a setting that blocks Chrome’s third-party cookies by default for the next five years.

The lawsuit accused Google of misleading Chrome users about how private Incognito browsing truly is. It claimed the company told customers their info was private — even as it monitored their activity. Google defended its practices by claiming it warned Chrome users that Incognito mode “does not mean ‘invisible’” and that sites could still see their activity. The settlement was first reported in December.

The suit initially asked for $5,000 in damages per user for alleged offenses related to federal wiretapping and California privacy laws. Google tried and failed to have the legal action dismissed, with Judge Lucy Koh determining in 2021 that the company “did not notify” users it was still collecting data while Incognito mode was active.

Engadget emailed Google for comment about the settlement details. We’ll update this article if we hear back.

The suit’s discovery included emails that, in late 2022, revealed publicly some of the company’s concerns about Incognito’s false privacy. In 2019, Google Chief Marketing Officer Lorraine Twohill suggested to CEO Sundar Pichai that “private” was the wrong term for Incognito mode because it risked “exacerbating known misconceptions.” In a later email exchange, Twohill wrote, “We are limited in how strongly we can market Incognito because it’s not truly private, thus requiring really fuzzy, hedging language that is almost more damaging.”

The court didn’t approve a class of plaintiffs for financial damages, so users would have to sue Google as individuals to try to collect compensation. Some didn’t waste any time: A group of 50 people already filed a separate suit in California state court on Thursday over the privacy violations.

The lawsuit’s trial was initially scheduled for February. The settlement still needs final approval from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California before it’s official.

“This settlement is an historic step in requiring honesty and accountability from dominant technology companies,” Attorney David Boies, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.

One piece of the settlement, the requirement that Google turn off third-party tracking cookies by default for the next five years, could already be a moot point. The company’s Privacy Sandbox initiative was already scheduled to disable all third-party cookies for Chrome users by the end of the year. It will replace them with the Topics API, a system that avoids cookies by categorizing browsing activity into locally stored topics. The new system lets advertisers target ads toward users without having direct access to their browsing data.

It’s also questionable how effective the destruction of the improperly collected data will be. Considering that the suit covers information stretching back to 2016, it’s reasonable to assume the company sold much of the data to third parties long ago or incorporated it into separate products not covered by the settlement.

Google will also have to rewrite its privacy disclosures over its data collection practices in Incognito mode. It told The WSJ it’s already begun applying the change.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-says-it-will-destroy-browsing-data-collected-from-chromes-incognito-mode-172121598.html?src=rss

Sam Bankman-Fried just got sentenced to 25 years in prison

Disgraced former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried was just sentenced to 25 years behind bars in a ruling handed forth New York's Southern District Court. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan announced the decision this morning.

As posted by CNN, Bankman-Fried expressed regret for his actions and the people he harmed. "It's been excruciating to watch," he said. "Customers don't deserve any of that pain." He also acknowledged the serious time he was likely to spend behind bars. "My useful life is probably over," he said. "It's been over for a while now."

Bankman-Fried is expected to appeal the decision. His defense team asked for a sentence of five to 6.5 years, citing his “charitable works and demonstrated commitment to others.” The team also suggested lenience on the grounds that victims would be made whole, referring to a January bankruptcy court hearing showing that customers and creditors will get their money back. Prosecutors, on the other hand, wanted something much harsher. They asked for a sentence of 40 to 50 years "to reflect the seriousness of the defendant's crimes," US Attorney Damian Williams told the court earlier this month. The maximum possible sentence was 110 years.

SBF, as he's now infamously known, was arrested in the Bahamas back in December of 2022. He faced seven charges, including wire fraud against FTX customers, wire fraud against Alameda Research lenders, conspiracy to commit wire fraud against both entities, conspiracy to commit securities and commodities fraud on FTX customers and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was found guilty of all charges.

The trial lasted one month, with prosecutors arguing that he used FTX funds to keep sibling company Alameda Research afloat. Caroline Ellison, his one-time girlfriend and CEO of Alameda, confirmed this to be true and admitted that she committed fraud on behalf of Bankman-Fried. The defendant’s lawyers, on the other hand, tried to portray him as a hapless math nerd who wrestled with “forces largely outside of his control.”

Alameda borrowed more than $8 billion from FTX, money that was taken from accounts belonging to FTX customers. Bankman-Fried claims he only learned of this in 2020 but performed no actions to safeguard the funds. He took the stand during the trial and said that he deeply regrets “not taking a deeper look into" what was going on with both companies. FTX collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in 2022. 

“Clearly, I made a lot of mistakes. There are things I would give anything to be able to do over again,” he told the New York Times before the trial started.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/sam-bankman-fried-just-got-sentenced-to-25-years-in-prison-155021840.html?src=rss

Apple refutes every claim made in DOJ's antitrust lawsuit

It never blocked competitors' apps and services, and it doesn't employ anticompetitive tactics preventing users from breaking out of its "walled garden," Apple said in response to the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by the Department of Justice. The company refuted the agency's claims in statements shared with Apple Insider, expanding upon its earlier response that the lawsuit would hinder its ability to create devices and software that made it one of the most valuable companies in the world. 

The DOJ accused Apple of illegally monopolizing the software app market by imposing limitations on iOS that degrade the compatibility of innovative apps and cloud streaming services with the mobile platform. But the company claimed it only selectively restricts the APIs app developers have access to in order to protect user privacy and security. It gave the same reason for why it implements limitations for third-party digital wallets. The company also said that it never blocked "super apps" from its platforms, pointing out that Facebook, WeChat and Line are available for iOS users. Game streaming services, it clarified, have always been welcome in the App Store, as well.

In response to the accusation that it is anticompetitive for the Apple Watch to be capable of deeper integration with the iPhone compared to rival wearables', the company explained that offering wide support for all smartwatches means having to develop products with every OS and model in mind. Most importantly, Apple denied that it's making it difficult for users to switch to competing products, whether it's because of iMessage's lack of interoperability with Android or any other reason. Users can easily transfer data from iPhone to Android devices, it reportedly said while suggesting that people may not be switching to its competitors because they simply love its products. 

Apple previously said that the lawsuit, if successful, would "set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology." It vowed to "vigorously defend against it." US Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release, however, that "Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone" and that it's "discouraging innovation" that threatens its monopoly by stifling innovation. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-refutes-every-claim-made-in-dojs-antitrust-lawsuit-123223870.html?src=rss

The FTC might sue TikTok over its handling of users’ privacy and security

TikTok, already fighting a proposed law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States, may soon also find itself in the crosshairs of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is close to wrapping up a multiyear investigation into the company, which could result in a lawsuit or major fine, Politico reports.

The investigation is reportedly centered around the app’s privacy and security practices, including its handling of children’s user data. According to Politico, the FTC is looking into potential violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), as well as “allegations that the company misled its users by stating falsely that individuals in China do not have access to U.S. user data.” TikTok could also be penalized for violating the terms of its 2019 settlement with regulators over data privacy.

While it’s not clear if the FTC’s investigation will result in a lawsuit or other action, the investigation is yet another source of pressure for the company as it tries to secure its future in its largest market.. After a quick passage in the House, the Senate is considering a bill that would force TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face an outright ban in the US. The Biden Administration, which has also tried to pressure ByteDance to divest TikTok, is backing the measure and US intelligence officials have briefed lawmakers on the alleged national security risks posed by the app.

TikTok didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-ftc-might-sue-tiktok-over-its-handling-of-users-privacy-and-security-224911806.html?src=rss

Judge dismisses X's lawsuit against anti-hate group

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that researches hate speech on the Elon Musk-owned platform. In the decision, the judge said that the lawsuit was an attempt to “punish” the organization for criticizing the company.

X sued the CCDH last summer, accusing the group of “scraping” its platform as part of a “scare campaign” to hurt its advertising business. The group had published research claiming X was failing to act on reports of hate speech, and was in some cases boosting such content.

In a ruling, federal judge Charles Breyer said that “this case is about punishing” CCDH for publishing unflattering research. “It is clear to the Court that if X Corp. was indeed motived to spend money in response to CCDH’s scraping in 2023, it was not because of the harm such scraping posed to the X platform, but because of the harm it posed to X Corp.’s image,” Breyer wrote. “X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others.”

X said it planned to appeal the decision.

In a statement, CCDH CEO Imram Ahmed said that the ruling “affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors.” He added that “it is now abundantly clear that we need federal transparency laws” that would require online platforms to make data available to independent researchers.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/judge-dismisses-xs-lawsuit-against-anti-hate-group-173048754.html?src=rss

The EU is investigating Apple, Meta and Google over fees and self-preferencing

Uh oh. Apple, Meta and Google could be in hot water in Europe over their attempts to stand within the letter, if not exactly the spirit, of the bloc's sweeping new Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Core to the probe are concerns Google parent Alphabet and Apple have not given sufficiently allowed "app developers to “steer” consumers to offers outside the gatekeepers' app stores, free of charge," according to the European Commission (the European Union's executive arm). As things currently stand, the new rules from these tech companies may "constrain ... developers' ability to freely communicate and promote offers and directly conclude contracts, including by imposing various charges." 

The European Commission said it also believes Alphabet's search may still engage in self-preferencing of Google-owned services, like Google Flights. Apple, it said, may not be allowing users meaningful choice in selecting alternatives to default iOS services or preferences — the ability to uninstall any pre-loaded app, for instance. Also caught up in the probe is Meta, in relation to its new EU scheme wherein users can opt out of ads, but only for a price.   

The European Commission had, in the lead up to these probes, been hinting at a possible investigation into Apple and Google. In January, Apple announced a raft of App Store changes to comply with the DMA, which required it to (among other things) enable alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the EU and to let developers direct users to third-party payment systems. Included in Apple's updates was a new "core technology fee" of €0.50 that developers will have to pay per user per year after the first 1 million installs of an app — even if a user downloads the software from a third-party marketplace. Google is also charging developers fees in the EU if they bypass the Play Store.

Many of Apple's rivals slammed the App Store changes. Some criticized the company's fees for third-party payments in the US too.

The EU, perhaps unsurprisingly, is keeping a close eye on how companies subject to DMA rules are complying (or not) with them. "There are things that we take a keen interest in, for instance, if the new Apple fee structure will de facto not make it in any way attractive to use the benefits of the DMA," antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager told Reuters on March 19. "That kind of thing is what we will be investigating."

Today's announcement also hints that Apple's "new fee structure" for alternative app stores may still be on the docket for future intervention, along with, apparently, Amazon's possible self-preferencing in its digital storefront. 

In statements to press Apple has said it's "confident our plan complies with the DMA" while Alphabet has said it will "continue to defend our approach in the coming months." A Meta spokesperson called its paid, ad-free option "a well-established business model across many industries."

News of the sweeping probe comes soon after the US Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The government and more than a dozen states accused Apple of fostering a mobile app monopoly, claiming the company makes it too difficult for rivals to compete with its own products and services. 

It might be a while before we learn the outcome of the EU probes. According to Bloomberg, EC investigators try to reach a final decision within a year of starting a formal investigation. If officials determine that these companies aren't complying with the DMA, they face hefty penalties. 

Under the law, the EU can fine a company up to 10 percent of its total annual revenue, and up to 20 percent for repeated violations. Such penalties could make the $2 billion that the EU recently fined Apple for allegedly suppressing iTunes and Apple Music competitors like Spotify look like pocket change.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-eu-is-investigating-apple-meta-and-google-over-fees-and-self-preferencing-124147179.html?src=rss