A California jury has found that Tesla was not at fault for a fatal 2019 crash that allegedly involved its Autopilot system, in the first US trial yet for a case claiming its software directly caused a death. The lawsuit alleged Tesla knowingly shipped out cars with a defective Autopilot system, leading to a crash that killed a Model 3 owner and severely injured two passengers, Reuters reports.

Per the lawsuit, 37-year-old Micah Lee was driving his Tesla Model 3 on a highway outside of Los Angeles at 65 miles per hour when it turned sharply off the road and slammed into a palm tree before catching fire. Lee died in the crash. The company was sued for $400 million plus punitive damages by Lee’s estate and the two surviving victims, including a boy who was 8 years old at the time and was disemboweled in the accident, according to an earlier report from Reuters.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Tesla sold Lee defective, “experimental” software when he bought a Model 3 in 2019 that was billed to have full self-driving capability. The FSD system was and still is in beta. In his opening statement, their attorney Jonathan Michaels also said that the “excessive steering command is a known issue at Tesla.”

Tesla’s defense argued that there was no such defect, and that an analysis cited by the plaintiffs’ lawyers identifying a steering issue was actually looking for problems that were theoretically possible. A fix to prevent it from ever happening was engineered as a result of that analysis, according to the company. Tesla blamed human error for the crash, pointing to tests that showed Lee had consumed alcohol before getting in the car, and argued that there’s no certainty Autopilot was in use at the time.

The jury ultimately found there was no defect, and Tesla was cleared on Tuesday. Tesla has faced lawsuits over its Autopilot system in the past, but this is the first involving a fatality. It’s scheduled to go on trial for several others in the coming months, and today's ruling is likely to set the tone for those ahead.

On Thursday, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) upheld a judge’s earlier ruling that the Apple Watch violated patents from medical technology company Masimo, as reported by Reuters. Although the ITC’s order could theoretically lead to an eventual import ban on Apple Watch models, the iPhone maker still has ample opportunity to avoid that outcome.

The decision stems from a lawsuit Masimo filed in 2021, accusing Apple of infringing on the smaller company’s patents related to light-based blood-oxygen monitoring. Apple introduced the feature in the Apple Watch Series 6, its 2020 flagship smartwatch. Its 2023 models, including the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, still include blood-oxygen sensors.

Masimo’s filing focuses on the Apple Watch Series 6, which the iPhone maker discontinued in 2021 following the launch of its successor. It isn’t clear whether or to what degree a hypothetical import ban would affect Apple’s latest versions of its flagship wearable. A federal jury took up Masimo’s allegations earlier this year, ending in a mistrial.

The case now moves to the White House as the Biden administration has 60 days to decide whether to veto the import ban based on policy concerns. Reuters notes that US Presidents have rarely rejected bans historically. If Biden opts not to veto, Apple can appeal the ban to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the White House’s review period expires. Other options for the $2.6 trillion company include settling with Masimo or issuing software updates that skirt the patent.

Masimo paints the scenario as a victory for David vs. Goliath. “Today’s ruling by the USITC sends a powerful message that even the world’s largest company is not above the law,” Joe Kiani, Masimo’s CEO, wrote on Thursday. “This important determination is a strong validation of our efforts to hold Apple accountable for unlawfully misappropriating our patented technology,” added Mr. Kiani.

In a statement to Reuters, Apple framed the move as putting lives at risk to boost Masimo’s product portfolio. “Masimo has wrongly attempted to use the ITC to keep a potentially lifesaving product from millions of U.S. consumers while making way for their own watch that copies Apple,” an Apple spokesperson said. “While today’s decision has no immediate impact on sales of Apple Watch, we believe it should be reversed, and will continue our efforts to appeal.”

Robocalls are rampant, using AI and other tools to disrupt day-to-day life and scam Americans out of their money through impersonations of family members, phone providers and more. On October 24, the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband heard the latest issue and solution floating around: AI.

Currently, bad actors are using AI to steal people's voices and repurpose them in calls to loved ones — often presenting a state of distress. This advancement goes beyond seemingly real calls from banks and credit card companies, providing a disturbing and jarring experience: not knowing if you're speaking to someone you know.

The financial repercussions (not to mention potential mental distress) are tremendous. Senator Ben Ray Luján, chair of the subcommittee, estimates that individuals nationwide receive 1.5 billion to 3 billion scam calls monthly, defrauding Americans out of $39 billion in 2022. This figure is despite the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement (TRACED) Act of 2019, which expanded the government's power to prosecute callers and for individuals to block them.

In fact, much of the blame for this continued issue has been collectively placed on government agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). "FCC enforcement actions are not sufficient to make a meaningful difference in these illegal calls. U.S.-based providers continue to spurn the Commission's requirements to respond to traceback requests," Margot Saunders, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said in her testimony to the subcommittee. "The fines issued against some of the most egregious fraudsters have not been recovered, which undermines the intended deterrent effect of imposing these fines. Yet the Commission has referred only three forfeiture orders to the Department of Justice related to unwanted calls since the FCC began TRACED Act reporting in 2020."

Saunders called on the FCC to issue clearer guidance on existing regulations and harsher penalties (namely suspension) on complicit voice service providers. She further expressed the need for explicit consent requirements in order for individuals to be contacted.

Mike Rudolph, chief technology officer at robocall-blocking firm YouMail, pitched the idea of using AI to flag insufficient information in the FCC's Robocall Mitigation Database. Instead of properly completing and filing the required information, some phone providers avoid accountability for their (lack of) action and submit blank or irrelevant papers.

Google will have to pay over $1 million to an executive who alleged the company discriminated against her based on her gender and later retaliated when she spoke up about it. Ulku Rowe, a Google Cloud engineering director, accused the company of hiring her at a lower level, lower paid position than men with less experience who were hired for similar roles at the same time, according to Bloomberg Law. She also claimed she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified male colleague.

A New York jury on Friday decided that Google did commit gender-based discrimination, and now owes Rowe a combined $1.15 million for punitive damages and the pain and suffering it caused. Rowe had 23 years of experience when she started at Google in 2017, and the lawsuit claims she was lowballed at hiring to place her at a level that paid significantly less than what men were being offered.

It comes nearly five years after some 20,000 Google employees organized a walkout to demand changes around the company’s handling of sexual misconduct and discrimination. While the company pledged to do better on sexual harassment, its response still left a lot to be desired on the topics of bias. According to Bloomberg Law, the Rowe lawsuit is the first such case Google has faced since the protests.

As expected, the Supreme Court will weigh in on a controversial case attempting to limit contact between federal officials and social media companies. The case could have sweeping implications for how social media companies make policy and content moderation decisions.

The case stems from a lawsuit, brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, that alleges Biden Administration officials, the CDC and FBI overreached in their dealings Meta, Google and Twitter as the companies responded to pandemic and election-related misinformation. A lower court previously issued an injunction that severely limited government officials’ ability to communicate with social media companies, though some restrictions were later relaxed.

Now, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the government’s appeal in the case, the entire lower court order remains on hold. As The New York Times notes, three justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, calling the decision to allow the lower court order to remain paused “highly disturbing.”

It’s not the only case involving free speech and social media on the Supreme Court docket this term. The court will also take on two landmark cases that could reshape how social media platforms enforce content moderation rules. Those cases involve two state laws, in Texas and Florida, that would prevent social media companies from removing certain types of posts.

Rapper “Pras” Michel, one-third of the legendary hip-hop group The Fugees, accused his lawyer from a recent federal criminal case of using AI in his closing arguments. Ars Technica reports that the “Ghetto Supastar” artist claims his one-time attorney, David Kenner, used an AI program with which the lawyer potentially had a financial interest. Pras, whose legal name is Prakazrel Samuel Michel, was found guilty in April of 10 counts of conspiring and acting as an unregistered foreign government agent and faces up to 20 years in prison. The rapper is seeking a new trial.

Pras’ motion for a new trial says Kenner “used an experimental artificial intelligence (AI) program to draft the closing argument, ignoring the best arguments and conflating the charged schemes, and he then publicly boasted that the AI program ‘turned hours or days of legal work into seconds.’” That quote was pulled from a promotional article for EyeLevel.AI, “litigation assistance technology” that lists an entity called CaseFile Connect as a launch partner. The motion says CaseFile Connect’s principal address is the same as Kenner’s law firm.

“It is now apparent that Kenner and his co-counsel appear to have had an undisclosed financial stake in the AI program, and they experimented with it during Michel’s trial so they could issue a press release afterward promoting the program—a clear conflict of interest,” Pras’ motion alleges.

Kevin Dietsch via Getty Images

The Fugee claims Kenner’s use of the AI tool led him to make embarrassing musical misattributions in his closing arguments. It accuses the lawyer of attributing the lyrics “Every single day, every time I pray, I will be missing you” to Pras’ group, The Fugees. (That line was from Puff Daddy and Faith Evans’s 1997 Biggie Smalls tribute “I’ll Be Missing You.”) The motion also alleges Kenner credited Michel’s 1998 solo hit “Ghetto Supastar (That Is What You Are)” to The Fugees.

In addition to the AI accusations, the motion alleges that Kenner was “ineffective” and that his actions “severely prejudiced the defense.” It says the attorney “failed to familiarize himself with the charged statutes, causing him to overlook critical weaknesses in the Government’s case.” In addition, it accuses Kenner of failing to understand the facts or allegations while outsourcing trial prep and strategy to contract attorneys at a friend’s e-discovery company (among other allegations).

Pras was found guilty in April of funneling money from Malaysian financier Low Taek Jho to Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign. Prosecutors insisted Pras donated the money for Low, while the rapper argued he was only trying to help the businessman take a photo with Obama. Pras then allegedly tried to quash a DOJ investigation and influence an extradition case.

If Pras’ complaint sounds familiar, it parallels the “ChatGPT lawyer” Steven Schwartz, who cited fictional cases as an erroneous precedent in a legal document. Schwartz, his associate Peter LoDuca and their law firm Levidow, Levidow and Oberman were fined $5,000 for having “abandoned their responsibilities” in the case. Schwartz claimed he used the chatbot to “supplement” his research while insisting he was “unaware of the possibility that [ChatGPT’s] content could be false.”

Gemini Trust Company, a cryptocurrency exchange helmed by the infamous Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, just got hit with a lawsuit alleging that it defrauded investors. The suit was brought forth by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the same AG currently prosecuting former president Donald Trump on sweeping charges of fraud.

This isn’t solely directed at Gemini, as cryptocurrency firms Digital Currency Group (DGC) and Genesis Global Capital are also named in the suit. All told, the civil lawsuit alleges that the three companies collectively defrauded 230,000 investors to the tune of more than $1 billion, as reported by Axios. The AG also charged former Genesis CEO Soichiro "Michael" Moro and DCG founder and chief Barry Silbert for trying to conceal the true financial condition of its lending unit.

As for the Winklevoss twins and Gemini, the suit alleges that the digital asset platform didn’t properly disclose the financials of Genesis before partnering with the crypto exchange to form an investment platform called Gemini Earn in 2021. The suit alleges that Gemini announced that Genesis was a “trusted company” despite internal risk analyses to the contrary.

It goes on to allege that in February 2022, Gemini revised its estimate of Genesis’ credit rating, lowering it from the investment-grade BBB to the junk-grade CCC, all without publicly revealing this change to investors and continuing to advertise correlated investments as “low-risk.” Additionally, it’s been alleged that many of the company’s risk assessors took their own money out of Gemini Earn without informing investors.

There are even allegations that more than 60 percent of Genesis’ financials were tied to Sam Bankman-Fried’s disgraced hedge fund Alameda Research. To that end, the connection between Gemini and Genesis is eerily similar to the ties between FTX and Alameda Research, and we all know what happened there.

Gemini took to the preferred social media platform for crypto-enthusiasts, X/Twitter, to refute the allegations, writing that it was simply the victim of fraud on the part of Genesis and DCG. It’s notable the firm didn’t comment on what they knew about Genesis’s poor financial condition and when they knew it, placing the onus of blame on Genesis CEO Moro and DCG founder Silbert.

“Blaming a victim for being defrauded and lied to makes no sense and we look forward to defending ourselves against this inconsistent position,” Gemini wrote.

For his part, DCG founder Barry Silbert penned a statement that completely refuted his side of the allegations, writing that he is “shocked by the baseless allegations in the Attorney General’s complaint” going on to say that he intends to “fight these claims in court.” Cameron Winklevoss hasn’t issued his own statement, but did retweet Gemini’s post on the matter.

Genesis ceased all cryptocurrency trading last month, as reported by CoinDesk, after filing for bankruptcy protection back in January. Today’s lawsuit seeks to recoup the $1 billion in losses and hopes to ban all three companies from the financial industry in New York.

X’s firing of an employee who pushed back against a return-to-office policy imposed by Elon Musk last year was illegal, the National Labor Relations Board alleges. In what Bloomberg reports is the NLRB’s first formal complaint against X Corp., filed on Friday, the labor board accused the company of retaliating against software engineer Yao Yue for attempting to organize workers in the wake of the new policy. After Musk gave then-Twitter employees an ultimatum in November 2022 to return to the office, Yue urged others not to resign in response but instead “let him fire you.”

Musk at the time had told employees, “If you can physically make it to an office and you don’t show up, resignation accepted.” Yue was fired five days after tweeting about it and writing a similar post on Slack. In terminating her, the complaint filed by a San Francisco branch of the NLRB alleges the company violated federal labor law by “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” exercising protected rights, according to CNBC. A hearing is now set for January 30.

The formal NLRB complaint may be a first for X, but accusations of retaliation against employees are nothing new for a Musk-helmed company. In early 2023, Tesla workers in Buffalo, New York accused the company of firing them for unionizing, and eight SpaceX employees filed a complaint with the NLRB in 2022 claiming they were terminated for criticizing Musk.

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has reached a settlement with Apple and Broadcom over Wi-Fi chips, ending a billion-dollar patent dispute that started in 2016, Reuters has reported. In a filing, Caltech said that it's dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning it can't be filed again.

The saga has taken several turns. Caltech initially alleged that millions of iPhones, iPads, Watches and other Apple devices with Broadcom chips infringed its Wi-Fi based patents. The institute initially won a $1.1 billion jury award, with Apple ordered to pay Caltech $837.8 million and Broadcom to pay an additional $270.2 million. 

However, Apple appealed, and a federal appeals court overturned the decision, calling the award "legally unsupportable." Specifically, the judge rejected Caltech's argument that it could have negotiated licenses with both Broadcom and Apple for the same chips.

The jury then ordered a new trial — though it also upheld the original jury's findings that Apple and Broadcom infringed two Caltech patents. That trial was supposed to take place this June, but was postponed indefinitely. The parties told the court last August that they had reached a "potential settlement," but didn't disclose any other information. 

The technology is vital to the 802.11n and 802.11ac WiFi standards, though its inventor said that the patents (related to data transmission tech), weren't originally designed for WiFi. Broadcom remains a major Apple supplier, having recently signed a $15 billion agreement to furnish chips for upcoming iPhones and other products. Caltech recently settled a similar lawsuit against Samsung, and still has Wi-Fi patent cases pending with Microsoft, Dell and HP. 

You could be entitled to a small chunk of a $16 million class action settlement against anime streaming service Crunchyroll. The Sony-owned company settled a data privacy lawsuit this week that will result in about $30 settlements for individuals impacted, according to firm behind the class action. 

The complaint, filed in September 2022, claims that Sony shared individual Crunchyroll viewing information with third-party sites without user's permission. That means Google or Facebook might have seen your anime watch history without your knowledge. It's a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, which makes it illegal to video streaming services to disclose personally identifiable information without the individual's consent. Crunchyroll denies wrongdoing. 

Anyone in the US who used Crunchyroll services between September 8, 2020 and September 20, 2023 could be eligible for the settlement. Claim forms can be submitted online, and must be turned in by December 12 to receive payment. Or, if you don't agree with the settlement, you can object by November 27 and attend the hearing on December 19. If you do nothing, you forfeit your right to any settlement amount. 

The settlement coincided with Crunchyroll news that it would be launching a 24-hour news channel.