Genetic testing company 23andMe changed its terms of service to prevent customers from filing class action lawsuits or participating in a jury trial days after reports revealing that attackers accessed personal information of nearly 7 million people — half of the company’s user base — in an October hack.

In an email sent to customers earlier this week viewed by Engadget, the company announced that it had made updates to the “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration section” of its terms “to include procedures that will encourage a prompt resolution of any disputes and to streamline arbitration proceedings where multiple similar claims are filed.” Clicking through leads customers to the newest version of the company’s terms of service that essentially disallow customers from filing class action lawsuits, something that more people are likely to do now that the scale of the hack is clearer.

“To the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, you and we agree that each party may bring disputes against the other party only in an individual capacity and not as a class action or collective action or class arbitration,” the updated terms say. Notably, 23andMe will automatically opt customers into the new terms unless they specifically inform the company that they disagree by sending an email within 30 days of receiving the firm’s notice. Unless they do that, they “will be deemed to have agreed to the new terms,” the company’s email tells customers.

23andMe did not respond to a request for comment from Engadget.

In October, the San Francisco-based genetic testing company headed by Anne Wojcicki announced that hackers had accessed sensitive user information including photos, full names, geographical location, information related to ancestry trees, and even names of related family members. The company said that no genetic material or DNA records were exposed. Days after that attack, the hackers put up profiles of hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people for sale on the internet. But until last week, it wasn’t clear how many people were impacted.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 23andMe said that “multiple class action claims” have already been against the company in both federal and state court in California and state court in Illinois, as well as in Canadian courts.

Forbidding people from filing class action lawsuit, as Axios notes, hides information about the proceedings from the public since affected parties typically attempt to resolve disputes with arbitrators in private. Experts, such as Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Nancy Kim, an online contractor expert, told Axios that changing its terms wouldn’t be enough to protect 23andMe in court.

The company’s new terms are sparking outrage online. “Wow they first screw up and then they try to screw their users by being shady,” a user who goes by Daniel Arroyo posted on X. “Seems like they’re really trying to cover their asses,” wrote another user called Paul Duke, “and head off lawsuits after announcing hackers got personal data about customers.”

Montana's unprecedented state-wide ban of Chinese short-video app, TikTok, was supposed to take effect on January 1, 2024, but as reported by Reuters, US District Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction just one month ahead to block said ban. This means that for now, ByteDance and app stores are allowed to continue serving TikTok to users within the Montana state, without being fined $10,000 daily from the start date of the ban.

The judge was quoted saying the ban "oversteps state power and infringes on the constitutional rights of users" — echoing the legal challenge filed by five TikTok creators on the day after the bill was signed back in May, as well as another lawsuit filed by the platform's owner, ByteDance, later on in the same month. It was also questionable as to whether Google and Apple could have effectively enforced such a state-wide ban on their app stores.  

The relevant bill was originally drafted based on claims that this Chinese app would share US users' personal data with the Chinese government, to which ByteDance had long denied since the presidency of Donald Trump. "TikTok US user data is stored in the US, with strict controls on employee access," the company claimed back in August 2020 — and again via a new "transparency" push earlier this year, with reference to "Project Texas" for safeguarding US user data with help from Oracle. 

To date, no other US state had passed a bill to bar TikTok. The outcome of Montana's case may hold the key to this Chinese app's fate across the rest of the country.

In a bid to comply with updated privacy rules in Europe, Meta recently gave Facebook and Instagram users in the region an ultimatum. They either had to agree to receive targeted ads or sign up for a €10 per month subscription for each app (or stop using them altogether). That would give users the choice of opting out of ad tracking, but they'd have to pay a hefty sum to do so. 

Now, an Austrian privacy group called noyb has filed a complaint against that Meta's actions on behalf of a client in financial distress. The group stated that the subscription price is out of proportion to the value Facebook receives, so it's effectively a false choice for users without the means to pay for a subscription. 

"More than 20% of the EU population are already at risk of poverty," wrote noyb founder noted EU privacy advocate Max Schrems. "For the complainant in our case, as for many others, a ‘Pay or Okay’ system would mean paying the rent or having privacy." 

Citing Meta's own data, noyb said that the company's average revenue per user in Europe was $16.79 between Q3 2022 and Q3 2023, or about €62.88 per user. However, it plans to charge a minimum of €120 per year (more if you sign up on a smartphone), or up to €251.88 ($275.88) to have both Instagram and Facebook. 

noyb notes that 3 to 10 percent of users want personalized ads, but 99.9 percent consent, due to the lack of a true choice. "EU law requires that consent is the genuine free will of the user. Contrary to this law, Meta charges a 'privacy fee' of up to €250 per year if anyone dares to exercise their fundamental right to data protection," said noyb's data protection lawyer Felix Mikolasch. 

Meta's actions are also likely to set off a "domino effect," according to noyb. "Already now, TikTok is reportedly testing an ad-free subscription outside the US. Other app providers could follow in the near future, making online privacy unaffordable." It added that if multiple apps took the same approach, data privacy would be available "only for the rich." 

Meta defended its approach, saying it follows EU laws. "The option for people to purchase a subscription for no ads balances the requirements of European regulators while giving users choice and allowing Meta to continue serving all people in the EU, EEA and Switzerland. In its ruling, the CJEU expressly recognized that a subscription model, like the one we are announcing, is a valid form of consent for an ads funded service," a spokesperson told TechCrunch, referring to a post from last month.

However, European courts have stated that any fee charged to avoid tracking on products must be "necessary" and "appropriate." It also says that consent must be freely given. noyb appears to be targeting those clauses by arguing that the relatively high fees will effectively deter free choice by EU citizens, particularly those in financial difficulty. 

"Fundamental rights are usually available to everyone. How many people would still exercise their right to vote if they had to pay €250 to do so? There were times when fundamental rights were reserved for the rich. It seems Meta wants to take us back for more than a hundred years," Schrems said. 

An unsealed complaint in a lawsuit filed against Meta by 33 states alleges the company is not only aware that children under the age of 13 use its platforms, but has also “coveted and pursued” this demographic for years on Instagram. The document, which was first spotted by The New York Times, claims that Meta has long been dishonest about how it handles underage users’ accounts when they’re discovered, often failing to disable them when reported and continuing to harvest their data.

The newly unsealed complaint, filed on Wednesday, reveals arguments that were previously redacted when attorneys generals from across the US first hit Meta with the lawsuit last month in the California federal court. It alleges the presence of under-13s is an “open secret” at Meta. While the policies on Facebook and Instagram state a person must be at least 13 years old to sign up, children can easily lie about their age — something the lawsuit says Meta is well aware of, and has done little to stop. Instead, when Meta “received over 1.1 million reports of under-13 users on Instagram” from 2019-2023, it “disabled only a fraction of those accounts and routinely continued to collect children’s data without parental consent,” the complaint says.

Meta “routinely violates” the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) by targeting children and collecting their information without parental consent, according to the complaint. The lawsuit also argues that Meta’s platforms manipulate young users into spending unhealthy amounts of time on the apps, promote body dysmorphia and expose them to potentially harmful content. When the lawsuit was first filed in October, a Meta spokesperson said the company was “disappointed” over the chosen course of action, stating, “We share the attorneys general’s commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online.”

Meta earlier this month published a blog post calling for federal legislation to put more responsibility on parents when it comes to kids’ app downloads. Meta's global head of safety, Antigone Davis, proposed a requirement for parents to have approval power over downloads for kids under the age of 16.

NVIDIA is facing a lawsuit filed by French automotive company Valeo after a screensharing blunder by one of its employees. According to Valeo's complaint, Mohammad Moniruzzaman, an engineer for NVIDIA who used to work for its company, had mistakenly showed its source code files on his computer as he was sharing his screen during a meeting with both firms in 2022. Valeo's employees quickly recognized the code and took screenshots before Moniruzzaman was notified of his mistake. 

To note, Valeo and NVIDIA are working together on an advanced parking and driving assistance technology offered by a manufacturer to its customers. Valeo used to be in charge of both software and hardware sides of the manufacturer's parking assistance tech. In 2021, however, the the bigger corporation won the contract to develop its parking assistance software. Valeo wrote in its lawsuit that its former employee, who helped it develop its parking and driving assistance systems, had realized that his exposure and access to its proprietary technologies would make him "exceedingly valuable" to NVIDIA. 

Moniruzzaman allegedly gave his personal email unauthorized access to Valeo's systems to steal "tens of thousands of files" and 6GB of source code shortly after that development. He then left Valeo a few months later and took the stolen information with him when he was given a senior position at NVIDIA, the complaint reads. He also worked on the very same project he was involved in for Valeo, which is why he was present at that video conference. 

Valeo said its former employee admitted to stealing its software and that German police found its documentation and hardware pinned on Moniruzzaman's walls when his home was raided. According to Bloomberg, he was already convicted of infringement of business secrets in a German court and was ordered to pay €14,400 ($15,750) in September. 

In a letter dated June 2022, NVIDIA's lawyers told the plaintiff's counsel that the company "has no interest in Valeo's code or its alleged trade secrets and has taken prompt concrete steps to protect [its] client’s asserted rights." Valeo still sued the company earlier this month, however, and said that NVIDIA has "saved millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars in development costs, and generated profits that it did not properly earn and to which it was not entitled" by stealing its trade secrets. 

This is but another proof that competition continues to heat up in the autonomous driving market. Back in 2017, Waymo accused Uber of colluding with its former employee, Anthony Levandowski, to steal over 14,000 confidential and proprietary design files. Levandowski was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but he was pardoned six months later by then President Donald Trump. 

OpenAI has been hit with another lawsuit, accusing it of using other people's intellectual property without permission to train its generative AI technology. Only this time, the lawsuit also names Microsoft as a defendant. The complaint was filed by Julian Sancton on behalf of a group of non-fiction authors who said they were not compensated for the use of their books and academic journals in training the company's large language model. 

In their lawsuit, the authors state how they spend years "conceiving, researching, and writing their creations." They accuse OpenAI and Microsoft of refusing to pay authors while building a business "valued into the tens of billions of dollars by taking the combined works of humanity without permission." The companies pretend copyright laws do not exist, the complaint reads, and have "enjoyed enormous financial gain from their exploitation of copyrighted material."

Sancton is the author behind Madhouse at the End of the Earth: The Belgica’s Journey Into the Dark Antarctic, which tells the true survival story of an 1897 polar expedition that got stuck in the ocean in the middle of a sunless Antarctic winter. Sancton spent five years and tens of thousands of dollars to research and write the book. "Such an investment of time and money is feasible for Plaintiff Sancton and other writers because, in exchange for their creative efforts, the Copyright Act grants them 'a bundle of exclusive rights' in their works, including 'the rights to reproduce the copyrighted work[s],'" according to the lawsuit. 

As Forbes notes, OpenAI previously said that content generated by ChatGPT doesn't constitute "derivative work" and, hence, doesn't infringe on any copyright. Sancton's lawsuit is merely the latest complaint against the company over its use of copyrighted work to train its technology. Earlier this year, screenwriter and author also Michael Chabon sued OpenAI for the same thing, as did George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult. Comedian Sarah Silverman filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Meta, as well. Sancton is now seeking damages and injunctive relief for all the proposed class action's defendants. 

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao is set to plead guilty to federal money laundering charges and step down from his position at the company he founded. Zhao and the cryptocurrency exchange have reached a plea deal with the government, which conducted a multi-year investigation into the company, CNBC reports. As part of the settlement, Binance will forfeit $2.5 billion and pay a $1.8 billion fine. Zhao is slated to personally pay $50 million.

Zhao will be prohibited from having any involvement with Binance for three years. As part of the plea deal, Zhao will plead guilty later on Tuesday to violating and causing a financial institution to violate the Bank Secrecy Act, according to Reuters.

Binance, Zhao and others were accused of failing to institute an effective anti-money laundering program. According to the Justice Department, they willfully violated economic sanctions “in a deliberate and calculated effort to profit from the US market without implementing controls required by US law." Court documents state that the lack of anti-money laundering measures led to Binance facilitating almost $900 million in financial transactions in violation of sanctions against Iran between 2018 and 2022.

In a statement, Zhao confirmed he is stepping down as CEO, with the company's former global head of regional markets Richard Teng taking over the top job. "Today, I stepped down as CEO of Binance," Zhao wrote on X. "Admittedly, it was not easy to let go emotionally. But I know it is the right thing to do. I made mistakes, and I must take responsibility. This is best for our community, for Binance, and for myself." 

Zhao now plans to take a break before perhaps getting more involved in investing. However, "I can’t see myself being a CEO driving a startup again. I am content being an one-shot (lucky) entrepreneur."

The settlement resolves criminal charges related to breaching sanctions regulations, conspiracy and conducting an unlicensed money transmitter business. Meanwhile, former compliance chief Samuel Lim will reportedly face charges as part of the deal.

This is a major settlement between the company and agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Treasury Department. The CFTC charged Binance, Zhao and Lim with violating its rules, as well as the Commodity Exchange Act, earlier this year.

“Binance turned a blind eye to its legal obligations in the pursuit of profit. Its willful failures allowed money to flow to terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers through its platform,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement. “Today’s historic penalties and monitorship to ensure compliance with US law and regulations mark a milestone for the virtual currency industry. Any institution, wherever located, that wants to reap the benefits of the US financial system must also play by the rules that keep us all safe from terrorists, foreign adversaries, and crime, or face the consequences.”

Binance will remain in operation, albeit under stricter rules. It will need to ensure it abides by anti-money laundering regulations by beefing up its compliance program. The company will also have to appoint an independent compliance monitor.

In June, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Binance and Zhao, alleging that they helped US traders bypass restrictions and violated securities laws by, among other things, mishandling funds. The SEC also claimed that (in similar allegations to those laid against rival exchange FTX) Binance commingled billions of dollars of customer money with the company's own funds. The SEC charges were not resolved in this settlement.

X has filed a lawsuit against media watchdog group Media Matters over the latter's research that showed ads on the social network appearing next to antisemitic content. The company's owner, Elon Musk, promised to file a "thermonuclear lawsuit" against the organization late last week following an advertiser exodus. In its complaint, X said Media Matters "knowingly and maliciously manufactured side-by-side images depicting advertisers' posts on X Corp.'s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white national fringe content." It added that the group portrayed the "manufactured images" as if they represented the typical user's experience in the platform. "Media Matters designed both these images and the resulting media strategy to drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X Corp," the company wrote. 

As TechCrunch notes, though, Media Matters didn't exactly "manufacture" the images it used with its research. Based on X's own investigation as it detailed in its lawsuit, the organization used an account older than 30 days to bypass the website's ad filters to follow a set of users known to produce "extreme, fringe content" along with the biggest advertisers on the platform. The group then allegedly kept on scrolling and refreshing its feed to generate "between 13 to 15 times more advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user." X said the watchdog didn't provide any context regarding the "forced, inauthentic nature" of the advertisements it saw. It also didn't say why these accounts that are known to produce "extreme, fringe content" were monetized.

In a response to Media Matters' research, X CEO Linda Yaccarino said "not a single authentic user on X saw IBM's, Comcast's, or Oracle's ads next to the content in Media Matters' article." She added that "only two users saw Apple's ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters." But Media Matters head Angelo Carusone retweeted several posts from seemingly authentic users showing ads for searches and tags such as "killjews" and "HeilHitler." We reached out to the organization about the lawsuit, and a spokesperson told Engadget: "This is a frivolous lawsuit meant to bully X's critics into silence. Media Matters stands behind its reporting and looks forward to winning in court."

Aside from X's lawsuit, Media Matters also has to grapple with an investigation by Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas. Paxton said his office is looking into Media Matters, which he called "a radical anti-free speech" organization, for potential fraudulent activity. He said he's investigating the watchdog to "ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square."

The media watchdog had published its findings after X owner Elon Musk responded to a tweet that said Jews pushed "hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them." Musk wrote: "You have said the actual truth." Several big-name advertisers had pulled their campaigns from the platform following the incidents, including IBM, Apple, Disney, Paramount and Comcast. Meanwhile, Lionsgate specifically cited Elon's tweet as the reason for pulling its ads. 

Spotify struck a special deal with Google that lets it pay no commission to Google when people sign up for subscriptions using the music streaming service’s own payment system on Android, according to new testimony in the ongoing Epic v. Google trial first reported by The Verge. As part of the same deal, Spotify paid Google just four percent commission if users signed up for the service through Google, far less than most other apps which typically pay 15 percent for subscriptions through the Google Play Store.

“Listening to music is one of [the phone’s] core purposes… if we don’t have Spotify working properly across Play services and core services, people will not buy Android phones”, Google’s partnerships head Don Harrison reportedly said in court. Both Google and Spotify also agreed to put $50 million each in a “success fund” as part of the deal.

The remarks were made as part of a lawsuit first filed against Google by Epic Games, the maker of the wildly popular Fortnite, in 2020. Epic claimed that Google’s Play Store on Android was an illegal monopoly that forced app makers to part with huge sums of cash in exchange for offering users in-app purchases through the Play Store. Epic filed a similar lawsuit against Apple in 2021, which it lost.

Spotify initially supported Epic in its fight against Google and Apple. But in 2022, the company started using a Google program called User Choice Billing that let Android apps use their own payment systems in exchange for giving a reduced cut to Google. The special deal revealed in court showed that Google was willing to carve out even more exceptions for popular apps like Spotify.

Google has had some pretty big business secrets spilled in the last few days. Last week, an economics professor testifying on behalf of the company in a separate antitrust trial that has since wrapped up, revealed that Google pays Apple 36 percent of all ad revenue it generates through Apple’s Safari browser, a figure which Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai later confirmed while he was testifying in the Epic v. Google trial.

The Verge also reported earlier this month that Google offered Netflix, another popular streaming service, a custom deal. It offered a reduced commission of 10 percent, which Netflix turned down – instead choosing to not offer users a way to sign up for Netflix directly within its Android app.

Apple has joined Meta and TikTok owner ByteDance in contesting their platforms’ definitions as part of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The legislation allows regulators to designate dominant companies’ services or platforms as “gatekeepers,” or big and powerful enough to act as a bottleneck between businesses and customers, which it can then fine for prohibited behavior. It currently targets 22 gatekeeper services run by six Big Tech companies (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet’s Google, Meta, Amazon and ByteDance’s TikTok). The law encourages consumer-friendly competition, preventing businesses from imposing unfair conditions on customers.

The EU Court of Justice (via Reuters) posted on X Friday about Apple’s formal objection, announcing that the iPhone maker had joined Meta and ByteDance in contesting its decisions. Although the complaint details aren’t public, Bloomberg News reported last week that Apple would challenge the App Store’s gatekeeper designation. The company said this week it would soon support RCS on iPhone, potentially removing one of the EU’s bones to pick with iMessage consumer lock-in. 

Microsoft and Google have reportedly accepted their DMA designations, while Meta and ByteDance contested theirs. Meta specifically questioned Messenger and Marketplace’s gatekeeper labels, seeking to clarify why they were included. (Meta didn’t challenge Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s inclusion.) The company argued Marketplace is a consumer-to-consumer service and Messenger is a chat feature on Facebook, not an online intermediary.

Meanwhile, ByteDance argues that TikTok is a challenger in the social market rather than an established gatekeeper. It claimed designating its platform as such would only serve to protect more established companies.

Like the Digital Services Act (DSA), the DMA has significant teeth. Companies failing to comply can face fines of up to 10 percent of their global turnover, up to 20 percent for repeat offenders and periodic fines of up to five percent of their average daily turnover. Other penalties, including the divestiture of parts of a business, could also be included following market investigations.