California's Civil Rights Department (CRD) has announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with Activision Blizzard for a case it filed in 2021, accusing the company of systemic gender discrimination and fostering a culture that encouraged rampant misogyny and sexual harassment. The agency, which sued the developer when it was still called the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, said Activision Blizzard will have to pay $54 million to settle its allegations. Out of the total, $45.75 million will go towards a fund meant to compensate female employees and contract workers who worked for the company in California from October 12, 2015 until December 31, 2020. 

In addition, the developer is expected to retain an independent consultant to evaluate its promotion policies and training materials, as well as to make recommendations based on what they see. If you'll recall, the agency's lawsuit alleged that female employees were overlooked for promotions and were paid less than their male colleagues. According to Marketwatch, though, the settlement will also see the agency withdraw its claims that there was widespread sexual harassment at the company. The department will reportedly have to file an amended complaint that only focuses on gender-based pay gap and discrimination. 

California's original lawsuit detailed how Activision Blizzard condoned a "frat boy" culture that encouraged certain unsavory behaviors. Male employees allegedly did "cube crawls," wherein they routinely groped and sexually harassed their female colleagues at their desks. A spokesperson for the company told Marketwatch that it is "gratified that the CRD has agreed to file an amended complaint that entirely withdraws its 2021 claims alleging widespread and systemic workplace harassment at Activision Blizzard." They added: "We appreciate the importance of the issues addressed in this agreement and we are dedicated to fully implementing all the new obligations we have assumed as part of it. We are committed to ensuring fair compensation and promotion policies and practices for all our employees, and we will continue our efforts regarding inclusion of qualified candidates from underrepresented communities in outreach, recruitment, and retention."

Meanwhile, the department told the website that its announcement, which contains no reference to its earlier sexual harassment allegations, "largely speaks for itself with respect to the historic nature of this more than $50 million settlement agreement, which will bring direct relief and compensation to women who were harmed by the company’s discriminatory practices."

As The Wall Street Journal noted when it reported the settlement, this lawsuit set the stage for Microsoft to acquire the developer. After reports came out that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick kept sexual harassment allegations within the company from reaching its board of directors, the developer's shares fell, giving Microsoft the opening to offer a deal. The $68.7 billion acquisition was finalized in October after almost two years of contending with regulators trying to block the purchase. 

If you used Apple’s Family Sharing feature with at least one other person and bought a subscription to an app through the App Store between 2015 and 2019, you might just get a settlement of up to $50 from the company. MacRumors reports that Apple will pay $25 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accuses the tech giant of misleading customers over Family Sharing.

The feature lets up to six family members share app subscriptions with each other but allows individual developers to forbid people from sharing a single subscription if they wish to. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2019, accuses Apple of not being transparent about this and misleading customers by making them think they could share a subscription to every app available in the App Store. “[The] vast majority of subscription-based apps” did support Family Sharing, the lawsuit claims.

The complaint also alleges that Apple placed ads on the landing pages of some subscription-based apps that didn’t support Family Sharing. This led “millions of customers” to download subscription-based apps believing they would be able to access them through their Family Sharing subscription, it says, citing YouTube Red and a puzzle game called Brainwell as examples of apps that didn’t support sharing their subscriptions with family members. 

Apple has reportedly denied any wrongdoing and has only agreed to settle the case to avoid the potential costs associated with a jury trial. The company did not respond to a request for comment from Engadget.

Despite Elon Musk's earlier attempts to avoid further testifying for the Twitter-takeover investigation, his luck appears to have run out. Reuters reported that in a San Francisco hearing on Thursday, a federal judge shot down Musk's attorney's challenge on whether the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) officials had the power to issue subpoenas, thus ruling that the exec must therefore comply with the regulator and appear for testimony. US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler was quoted saying, "you've got one more four-hour deposition, one more day of depositions to survive and it's over." Failing that, the judge would have to issue an order.

The SEC's ongoing probe dives into Musk’s late disclosure of his stake in Twitter — a publicly-traded company back then — which went against the requirements of US securities law. This 10-day delay on the paperwork, along with some potentially misleading information within, may have earned the exec as much as $156 million, according to The Washington Post. Former Twitter shareholders also filed a class-action lawsuit against Musk over his controversial $44 billion takeover of the social media platform, which has since been renamed X.

While it's unlikely that Musk can skip future testimonies for this case, he would be better off heeding Beeler's advice, regardless. "It seems unlikely there’s going to be any more hassle," the judge added, should the world's richest man "work it out" with the SEC. Whether that would help his case is a whole different matter, of course.

Following the revelation that our mobile push notification records can be handed over to law enforcements, Apple put the blame on the Department of Justice (DOJ) for preventing tech companies from revealing such process. Meanwhile, the company also updated its Legal Process Guidelines document to state that "a subpoena or greater legal process" was required to obtain the relevant records. However, Reuters spotted that a week later, Apple quietly tweaked this particular line to match Google's stricter policy on this matter:

"The Apple ID associated with a registered APNs token and associated records may be obtained with an order under 18 U.S.C. §2703(d) or a search warrant."

In other words, law enforcement will now need a judge's consent in order to obtain push notification data from Apple — as is the case with Google all this time, according to a statement provided to Reuters. Engadget reached out to Apple, but it refused to comment on the updated guidelines.

The "push notification spying" concerns were originally brought to light by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden who, in an open letter to the DOJ, claimed that foreign governments have been demanding Google and Apple to provide push notification records. Given how push notifications go through these companies' servers, the senator is worried that "Apple and Google are in a unique position to facilitate government surveillance of how users are using particular apps."

Wyden then addressed the elephant in the room, by arguing that these two tech giants "should be permitted to be transparent about the legal demands they receive, particularly from foreign governments." Apple's response regarding the DOJ's suppression appears to align with the senator's claims, but it's unclear whether the department will take action on both tech companies' stepped-up transparency on push notification surveillance.

EU regulators have reportedly sided against Apple in its long fight against Spotify over App Store policies. The complaint centered on "anti-steering" rules that allegedly prevented platforms like Spotify from adequately promoting alternative methods of payment. While Spotify was the key opposition, the decision impacts not just music-streaming, but anyone offering software that requires a monthly subscription.

Bloomberg reports that regulators are still putting the final touches on the ruling, with a formal decision expected for early next year. Along with the ruling, the EU will likely penalize Apple for the practice and ban it outright. It’s expected that Apple will get hit with a steep fine, with some experts suggesting it could be as much as ten percent of its annual global revenue. This could add up to nearly $40 billion.

However, the fine is likely to be lower than that, as the EU tends to place more of an emphasis on actually ending abusive practices, instead of relying solely on fines as a deterrent. So the big news will be Apple being forced to play by the rules when operating in Europe, ending anti-steering practices once and for all. Of course, it’s all up in the air until the regulating body releases its judgment.

This follows a probe that started four years ago. It all began with a complaint from Spotify alleging that Apple’s anti-steering practices were forcing the music-streaming platform to raise prices to cover costs associated with appearing on the App Store. This led to an initial “statement of objections” against Apple in 2021 and a formal charge sheet this past February, as reported by The Verge.

The formal charge sheet declared in a “preliminary view” that “Apple’s anti-steering obligations” offer “unfair trading conditions.” For years, Apple didn’t allow rival streaming services like Spotify to even include links in third-party apps to their own subscription sign-ups. The company has since loosened this restriction slightly after an antitrust investigation in Japan. The EU ruling could further erode this mandate.

The European regulatory commission will address the accusation that Apple stopped companies from advertising alternative subscription methods but will not address anything related to in-app purchases. If you’ve been following this story, fees associated with in-app purchases were also part of the complaint until being dropped in February. The EU has issued a separate probe into Apple’s tap-to-pay technology and whether there are any inherent antitrust concerns. According to reports, the company’s in talks to settle that case.

How will this affect the rest of the world? There’s a similar case making its way through the US courts, via an antitrust suit brought forth by Epic Games. A judge sided with Epic, but Apple recently asked the Supreme Court for an appeal. The court granted a temporary reprieve, so Apple can still do whatever it wants in its App Store, for now. Apple is a global entity, however, so all it takes is a few countries to force a company-wide change. As an example, just look at USB-C ports.

Google faced a different outcome in a US court this week. A federal jury sided with Epic Games in a similar antitrust case against Google. The jury unanimously agreed that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices.

Gig workers in the EU will soon get new benefits and protections, making it easier for them to receive employment status. Right now, over 500 digital labor platforms are actively operating in the EU, employing roughly 28 million platform workers. The new rules follow agreements made between the European Parliament and the EU Member States, after policies were first proposed by the European Commission in 2021.

The new rules highlight employment status as a key issue for gig workers, meaning an employed individual can reap the labor and social rights associated with an official worker title. This can include things like a legal minimum wage, the option to engage in collective bargaining, health protections at work, options for paid leave and sick days. Through a recognition of a worker status from the EU, gig workers can also qualify for unemployment benefits.

Given that most gig workers are employed by digital apps, like Uber or Deliveroo, the new directive will require “human oversight of the automated systems” to make sure labor rights and proper working conditions are guaranteed. The workers also have the right to contest any automated decisions by digital employers — such as a termination.

The new rulings will also require employers to inform and consult workers' when there are “algorithmic decisions” that affect them. Employers will be required to report where their gig workers are fulfilling labor-related tasks to ensure the traceability of employees, especially when there are cross-border situations to consider in the EU.

Before the new gig worker protections can formally roll out, there needs to be a final approval of the agreement by the European Parliament and the Council. The stakeholders will have two years to implement the new protections into law. Similar protections for gig workers in the UK were introduced in 2021. Meanwhile, in the US, select cities have rolled out minimum wage rulings and benefits — despite Uber and Lyft’s pushback against such requirements.

A Senate Finance Committee inquiry revealed on Tuesday that police departments can get access to private medical information from pharmacies, no warrant needed. While HIPAA may protect some access to personally identifiable health data, it doesn't stop cops, according to a letter from Senator Ron Wyden, Representative Pramila Jayapal and Representative Sara Jacobs to the Department of Health and Human Services. None of the major US pharmacies are doing anything about it, either, the members of Congress say. 

"All of the pharmacies surveyed stated that they do not require a warrant prior to sharing pharmacy records with law enforcement agents, unless there is a state law that dictates otherwise," the letter said. "Those pharmacies will turn medical records over in response to a mere subpoena, which often do not have to be reviewed or signed by a judge prior to being issued."

The committee reached out to Amazon, Cigna, CVS Health, The Kroger Company, Optum Rx, Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreens Boots Alliance and Walmart about their practices for sharing medical data with police. While Amazon, Cigna, Optum, Walmart and Walgreen said they have law enforcement requests reviewed by legal professionals before complying, CVS Health, The Kroger Company and Rite Aid Corporation said they ask in-store staff to process the request immediately. Engadget reached out to the pharmacies mentioned in the letter about the claims. CVS said its pharmacy staff are trained to handle these inquiries and its following all applicable laws around the issue. Walgreens said it has a process in place to assess law enforcement requests compliant with those laws, too, and Amazon said while the law enforcement requests are rare, it does notify patients and comply with court orders when applicable. The others either haven't responded or refuse to comment.

The pharmacies mostly blamed the current lack of legislative protections for patient data for their willingness to comply with cop requests. Most of them told the committee that current HIPAA law and other policies let them disclose medical records in response to certain legal requests. That's why the Senate Finance Committee is targeting HHS to strengthen these protections, especially since the 2023 Dobbs decision let states criminalize certain reproductive health decisions. 

Under current HIPAA law, patients have the right to know who is accessing their health information. But individuals have to request the medical record disclosure data, instead of health care professionals being required to share it proactively. "Consequently, few people ever request such information, even though many would obviously be concerned to learn about disclosures of their private medical records to law enforcement agencies," the letter states. The letter also urges pharmacies to change their policies to require a warrant, and publish transparency reports about how data is shared. 

Apple is attempting to avoid a fine and ongoing legal battle with the European Union. The company is allegedly offering its rivals access to its Near-Field Communication (NFC) technology, used for tap-and-go payments, Reuters reports. The update follows the European Commission's May 2022 charge and ongoing probe into Apple's potential antitrust Apple Pay practices.

The Commission has been investigating Apple since 2020, with Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager previously stating there were "indications that Apple restricted third-party access to key technology necessary to develop rival mobile wallet solutions on Apple's devices." 

While Apple's current proposal could get it out of a hefty fine and settle the case against it, it's not guaranteed to move forward. The Commission will likely confer with Apple's rivals and customers in the next month or so to determine if it should accept the offer. More than 2,500 banks across Europe use Apple Pay. 

Apple also faces a lawsuit in the United States, brought in July 2022 by Iowa's Affinity Credit Union. Similarly, it accuses Apple of engaging in anti-competitive behavior by illegally restricting iOS users to Apple Pay for any contactless payments.

In September 2023, a US District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of California ruled that the case would move forward, stating: "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Apple Pay charges arbitrary and inflated fees to issuers, and that competition in the tap-and-pay iOS mobile wallet market would spur innovation and lead to lower prices." In his decision, White also explained that the plaintiffs properly demonstrated Apple's alleged and attempted monopolization.

Epic Games' lawsuit against Google has had a much different turnout from its courtroom battle with Apple. A federal jury has sided with the video game developer and has found Google to be in violation of US antitrust laws when it comes to how it runs the Play Store. According to The Verge, the jury has unanimously agreed that Google held an illegal monopoly on app distribution and in-app billing services for Android devices. Further, it found the company's distribution agreements with other video gaming companies, as well as its deals with device manufacturers to pre-install its apps on Android devices, to be anticompetitive. 

In its complaint, Epic said that Google had silently paid game developers hundreds of millions of dollars to make their titles downloadable from the Play Store in an initiative that was originally known as "Project Hug." It alleged that the company had paid Activision Blizzard $360 million to abandon its plans of creating a competing app store, which the game developer subsequently denied. Google, which Epic said came up with the incentive program after it released Fortnite outside of the Play Store, also reportedly inked deals with Nintendo, Ubisoft and Riot Games. 

The jury has come to the conclusion that Epic Games has been negatively affected by Google's actions, but we've yet to know how its victory will change the latter's practices. In a statement posted on X, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said the court will start "work[ing] on remedies" in January. Judge James Donato, who's overseeing the case, will be making the decision whether to order Google to give developers the freedom to introduce their own app stores and billing systems for Android devices. In the case of Epic's lawsuit against Apple, the court ruled that the iPhone-maker didn't violate US antitrust laws, but it ordered the company to allow App Store developers to direct customers through third-party payment systems. 

Google, however, doesn't intend to go down without a fight. Wilson White, Google VP for Government Affairs and Public Policy, told Engadget that the company plans to challenge the verdict. "Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform," White said. "The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles. We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."

Amazon filed a motion on Friday in the Western Washington district court asking a judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against it. The FTC along with 17 state attorneys general sued Amazon in September, alleging the company uses monopolistic practices that are unfair to both its competitors and consumers. Amazon is now arguing that the FTC did not provide evidence that its practices have driven up prices or harmed consumers, according to Bloomberg.

The FTC’s lawsuit claims Amazon uses illegal tactics to crush its competition — like punishing sellers who list their products for better prices elsewhere by burying them in search results, and coercing sellers into using Amazon’s own fulfillment service by tying it to Prime eligibility. It also accuses Amazon of inflating prices from 2016-2018 using an algorithmic tool codenamed Project Nessie. These increases added up to more than $1 billion, according to the suit.

In Amazon’s motion for dismissal, per AP, Amazon said it’s only engaging in “common retail practices” that “benefit consumers and are the essence of competition.” Amazon attorney Heidi Hubbard wrote that the suit “implausibly, and illogically, assumes that Amazon’s efforts to keep featured prices low on Amazon somehow raised consumer prices across the whole economy,” according to Bloomberg.