DoorDash is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Uber in February, calling it meritless and a "cynical and calculated scare tactic." Uber sued the biggest food delivery provider in the US earlier this year, accusing it of putting pressure on restaurants to exclusively use its services. At the time, Uber said that it heard from "restaurants across the country" that DoorDash was charging higher commission rates from restaurants that also sell their food on Uber Eats. It also accused DoorDash of threatening to demote restaurants in its listings if they're also available on the Uber Eats app. But in its motion for dismissal, DoorDash said Uber's lawsuit isn't about protecting competition but avoiding it.

The food delivery provider asserted that Uber "has been unable to offer merchants, consumers, and couriers the high-quality services" that it provides, so Uber "resorted to asserting baseless legal claims" instead of competing on its own merits. It wrote in its motion that Uber's complaint is "rooted in the misguided notion" that it has to change its business practices, which it argued are pro-competitive, to give way to Uber's business. The company explained, however, that the law is "concerned with the protection of competition, not competitors."

Meanwhile, Uber told TechCrunch that DoorDash was "having a hard time understanding" its complaint. "When restaurants are forced to choose between unfair terms or retaliation, that’s not competition — it’s coercion," its spokesperson said. The Superior Court of San Francisco County, California is scheduled to hear Uber's lawsuit on July 11. 

Google has been paying Samsung tons of cash every month to pre-install the AI app Gemini on its smartphones, according to a report by Bloomberg. This information comes to us as part of a pre-existing antitrust case against Google.

Peter Fitzgerald, Google’s VP of platforms and device partnerships, testified in federal court that it began paying Samsung for this service back in January. The pair of companies have a contract that’s set to run at least two years.

Fitzgerald told Judge Amit Metha, who is overseeing the case, that Google provides Samsung with a monthly payout. The monetary figures are unknown, but DOJ lawyer David Dahlquist called it an "enormous sum of money in a fixed monthly payment."

This antitrust case started with an accusation that Google had been illegally abusing a monopoly over the search engine industry. Part of the testimony surrounding that case involved Google paying Apple, Samsung and other companies to ensure it was the default search engine on its devices.

Judge Mehta agreed and found that this practice constitutes a violation of antitrust law. He’s currently hearing additional testimony to decide what measures Google must take to remedy the illegal behavior, which is where this Gemini reveal comes from.

Testimony from another case involving Epic Games indicated that Google handed over $8 billion from 2020 to 2023 to ensure that Google Search, the Play Store and Google Assistant were used by default on Samsung mobile devices. A California federal judge later ruled that the company must lift restrictions that prevent rival marketplaces and billing systems. Google is in the process of appealing that ruling.

As an aside, if Google is hellbent on handing out Scrooge McDuck-sized bags of money to increase adoption rates of its generative AI app, why not give the regular people who have to actually use the bloatware some of that cash? Just saying.

Update, April 22 2025, 10:15AM ET: This story has been updated to reflect today's testimony that noted that Gemini doesn't offer advertising. 

An ex-employee has accused Amazon of breaching UK sanctions by selling facial recognition technology to Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine, The Financial Times reported. 

Charles Forrest alleged that he was unfairly dismissed in 2023 after accusing Amazon of wrongdoing on a number of issues between November 2022 and May 2023, according to the article. The allegations were presented to a London employment tribunal as part of a hearing this week. 

Forrest said that Amazon closed a deal with Russian firm VisionLabs to provide access to its Rekognition facial recognition technology. It did that "through what appears to be a shell company based in the Netherlands," according to the tribunal filings. He also accused the company of breaking its self-imposed moratorium on police use of facial recognition tech implemented after the murder of George Floyd.

Amazon denied the allegations. "We believe the claims lack merit and look forward to demonstrating that through the legal process," a spokesperson told the FT. "Based on available evidence and billing records, AWS did not sell Amazon Rekognition services to VisionLabs."

Forrest was let go for "gross misconduct" after refusing to work his contractual hours and failed to respond to emails or attend meetings, Amazon alleged. It denied that Forrest made the sorts of disclosures that would entitle him to whistleblower protections. 

Amazon appeared to acknowledge that it had breached its ban on police use of facial recognition tech, while adding that it didn't break any laws. "A self-imposed moratorium does not amount to a legal obligation," it said.

Microsoft is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission over its deal with Inflection AI, according to The Wall Street Journal. Back in March, the company hired almost all of Inflection AI's employees, including founders Karén Simonyan and Mustafa Suleyman, who was also a DeepMind cofounder. In addition, Microsoft paid Inflection AI $650 million to license its artificial intelligence technology. Now, the FTC wants to know whether the companies deliberately structured the deal to avoid being the subject of regulatory antitrust review. 

As The Journal notes, companies are required to report any acquisition that's valued at $119 million or more to federal antitrust agencies. The FTC or the Justice Department could then investigate whether the deal stifles competition in the industry and then sue to block the merger or the investment that it deems to be anti-competitive. When companies want to hire all the talent in another firm, they typically buy the other out in an "acquihire." But Microsoft didn't buy Inflection, which denied that the bigger company has any power over it. Ted Shelton, its new COO, told the publication that it still operates as an independent company under new leadership. 

The FTC has already sent out subpoenas to both Microsoft and Inflection, asking for relevant documents over the past two years. If it does determine that the companies entered into an agreement in a way that would give Microsoft control over the other while dodging regulatory review, then Microsoft could be fined, and the transaction could be suspended pending a more in-depth investigation. 

US federal agencies have been cracking down on monopolistic practices by the world's largest tech companies over the past few years. To be even more efficient in conducting antitrust investigations involving the current biggest players in artificial intelligence, the agencies have also just struck a deal on how they're dividing their responsibilities. The Justice Department will take the lead in investigations involving NVIDIA, while the FTC will take charge of antitrust probes involving Microsoft and OpenAI.

Ferras Hamad, who used to be an engineer working with Meta's machine learning team, has accused the company of firing him over his handling of Palestine-related Instagram posts in a lawsuit. According to Reuters, he is accusing the company of discrimination, wrongful termination and showing a pattern of bias against Palestinians. Hamad said he noted procedural irregularities on how the company handled restrictions on content from Palestinian Instagram personalities, which prevented them from appearing in feeds and searches. One particular case that involved a short video showing a destroyed building in Gaza seemingly led to his dismissal in February. 

Hamad discovered that the video, which was taken by Palestinian photojournalist Motaz Azaiza, was misclassified as pornographic. He said he received conflicting guidance on whether he was authorized to help resolve the issue but was eventually told in writing that helping troubleshoot it was part of his tasks. A month later, though, Hamad was reportedly notified that he was the subject of an investigation. He filed an internal discrimination complaint in response, but he was fired days later and was told that it was because he violated a policy that prohibits employees from working on issues involving accounts of people they personally know. Hamad, who is Palestinian-American, has denied that he personally knew Azaiza. 

In addition to detailing the events that led to his firing in the lawsuit, Hamad also accused the company of deleting internal communication between employees talking about deaths of their relatives in Gaza. Employees that use the Palestinian flag emoji were investigated, as well, whereas those who've previously posted the Israeli or the Ukrainian flags in similar contexts weren't subjected to the same scrutiny. 

Meta has been accused of suppressing posts that support Palestine even before the October 7 Hamas attacks against Israel. Late last year, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote Mark Zuckerberg a letter raising concerns about how numerous Instagram users were accusing the company of "shadowbanning" them for posting about the conditions in Gaza. Meta's Oversight Board ruled last year that the company's tools mistakenly removed a video posted on Instagram showing the aftermath of a strike on the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza during Israel’s ground offensive. More recently, the board opened an investigation to review cases involving Facebook posts that used the phrase "from the river to the sea." We've asked Meta for a statement on Hamad's lawsuit, and we'll update this post when we hear back.

Samsung has filed a lawsuit against Oura to try to head off intellectual property disputes as the Galaxy Ring launch draws near. The suit notes that Oura has used its patent portfolio to sue smaller wearable tech competitors and has hinted it may do the same against the much larger Samsung. Welcome to the weird modern world of mega-corporations suing startups to prevent them from filing suits of their own.

“Oura’s actions and public statements demonstrate that Oura will continue asserting patent infringement against other entrants into the U.S. smart ring market, including Samsung,” the lawsuit, first reported on by The Verge, reads. “Oura’s immediate response to the announcement of the Galaxy Ring was to point to the purported strength of its intellectual property portfolio.”

The lawsuit claims the Galaxy Ring doesn’t infringe on Oura’s patents. However, in justifying its suit, it lays out a pattern of what it frames as aggressive IP protection by the Finnish startup. It lists cases where Oura sued smaller competitors like Ultrahuman, Circular and RingConn “as soon as, or even before, they entered the U.S. market.”

The document also cites Oura embarking on a media tour immediately following the Galaxy Ring announcement, touting the company’s “over 150 patents.” It specifically calls out patent-related quotes published by TechCrunch and a CNBC interview where Oura CEO Tom Hale hinted the company may use its IP portfolio against Samsung.

Daniel Cooper for Engadget

Samsung’s legal filing essentially tries to paint Oura as a patent troll, claiming many of the Finnish company’s patent disputes have been for features common to the entire category of smart rings, like electronics, sensors, a battery and scores that weigh health metrics. That approach conjures memories of Samsung’s old patent disputes with Apple. A common theme in those decade-old courtroom battles was Samsung accusing the iPhone maker of holding bogus patents that should never have been granted because they used obvious technologies or methods shared by the entire industry. (It worked with mixed results in those cases.)

Samsung filed its new lawsuit against Oura in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Oura is based in Finland but has a US wing of its operations based in Delaware, including offices in San Francisco with more than 50 employees.

The lawsuit reveals extra detail about Samsung’s Galaxy Ring, which the company first showed off in a render in January before revealing physical models at the Mobile World Congress in February. The document says Samsung only finalized the Galaxy Ring’s design in “mid-May 2024” and plans to enter mass production in mid-June.

It adds that the Galaxy Ring will arrive in the US “in or around August of this year,” which aligns with expectations that the company will launch it at a summer Unpacked event.

TikTok will face off with the Justice Department this fall in its bid to stop a law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set a September date for oral arguments in two cases challenging a law that requires ByteDance to sell the app or face a ban.

TikTok filed a lawsuit claiming that the law was unconstitutional earlier this month. The company has said that divesting from ByteDance is “simply not possible” and that it had already negotiated with the US government to address national security concerns. Separately, a group of TikTok creators are also challenging the law. They claim that the law violates their First Amendment rights because they would lose their ability to communicate on the platform. TikTok is reportedly paying the creators’ legal fees in the case.

In September, the appeals court will hear challenges in both cases, which have been consolidated. As Reuters notes, the September date lines up with TikTok’s desire for a “fast-track” schedule in the case, which could eventually end up before the Supreme Court.

The families of the shooting victims at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas have sued Call of Duty publisher Activision and Meta. They alleged that the companies "knowingly exposed the shooter to the weapon [he used], conditioned him to see it as the solution to his problems, and trained him to use it." The plaintiffs also accused the companies of "chewing up alienated teenage boys and spitting out mass shooters." 

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs explained that the Uvalde shooter played Call of Duty, which featured an assault-style rifle made by gunmaker Daniel Defense. They also mentioned that he frequently visited Instagram, which advertised the gunmaker's products. The lawsuit claimed, as well, that Instagram gives gunmakers "an unsupervised channel to speak directly to minors, in their homes, at school, even in the middle of the night." It argued that the shooter was "a poor and isolated teenager" from small town Texas who only learned about AR-15s and set his sights on it, because he was exposed to the weapon from playing Call of Duty and visiting Instagram. In addition, it accused Meta of being more lenient towards firearms sellers than other users who break its rules. Meta prohibits the buying the selling of weapons and ammunition, but users can violate the policy 10 times before they're banned from its platforms. 

"The truth is that the gun industry and Daniel Defense didn’t act alone. They couldn’t have reached this kid but for Instagram," the plaintiffs' lawyer, Attorney Josh Koskoff, said at a news conference. "They couldn’t expose him to the dopamine loop of virtually killing a person. That's what Call of Duty does." Koskoff's law firm was the same one who reached a $73 million settlement with rifle manufacturer Remington for the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims. 

An Activision spokesperson told The Washington Post and Bloomberg Law that the "Uvalde shooting was horrendous and heartbreaking in every way," and that the company expresses its deepest sympathies to the families, but "millions of people around the world enjoy video games without turning to horrific acts."

Apple has formally challenged a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) antitrust fine issued by the European Union, according to a report. The bloc handed down the penalty in March after determining that Apple had constrained competing music streaming services on the App Store following a 2019 complaint from Spotify.

At the time, Apple pledged to appeal the decision, arguing that the EU failed to "uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm." Bloomberg reports that Apple has now filed a suit in an attempt to overturn the ruling.

Along with the fine, the EU instructed Apple to stop blocking rival music-streaming platforms from telling users that they could sign up for their services at a lower cost away from the App Store. Spotify claimed it had to increase subscription prices to cover costs related to how Apple runs the App Store. That's despite Spotify not making it possible to upgrade to Premium directly through its iOS app — doing so would mean having to fork over a commission to Apple. For its part, Apple maintains that Spotify doesn't pay it anything, even though the latter taps into its APIs, beta testing tools and more.

Spotify's complaint predated the Digital Markets Act coming into force. That law stops defined gatekeepers — including Apple and Play Store operator Google — banning developers from telling users about cheaper ways to pay for their products outside of their app marketplaces. The EU is currently investigating both companies over their compliance with that aspect of the law.

A group of TikTok creators have joined the legal fight to keep the app from being banned in the United States. Eight creators have sued the US government in an effort to block a law requiring TikTok's parent company ByteDance to sell the service. 

The lawsuit claims that the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of the creators who depend on the platform. “They have found their voices, amassed significant audiences, made new friends, and encountered new and different ways of thinking—all because of TikTok’s novel way of hosting, curating, and disseminating speech,” it states. “The Act’s ban of TikTok threatens to deprive them, and the rest of the country, of this distinctive means of expression and communication.”

The lawsuit comes one week after TikTok filed its own lawsuit against the government. According to The Washington Post, the company is “covering” the legal fees for the creators participating in the latest suit. It’s also strategy that has worked for the company in the past. A group of Montana-based TikTok creators sued the state over an attempted statewide ban last year. That effort was ultimately successful and the ban never went into effect. The Montana creators were represented by the same law firm currently repping the eight creators involved in the latest suit.