Utah has sued TikTok over child safety issues and the company's China-based ownership, CNBC has reported. In the complaint, attorney general Sean Reyes called the app "an addictive product" and accused it of misleading users about its relationship with China-based parent company ByteDance. The state recently enacted some of the strictest social media laws in the country, requiring parental permission for teens to use social media. 

The lawsuit compares TikTok to a slot machine that provides "dopamine manipulation" trigged by swiping up on videos. That addictive nature is particularly harmful for the "not-yet-fully-developed" brain of young users and can create a dependence on the app, the state claims. It noted that the US Surgeon General has warned about mental health harms around social media, and cited excessive TikTok usage based around the company's own (redacted) figures. 

"What these children (and their parents) do not know is that TikTok is lying to them about the safety of its app and exploiting them into checking and watching the app compulsively, no matter the terrible effects it has on their mental health, their physical development, their family, and their social life," the complaint states. 

The lawsuit also delves into TikTok's links to China. "To avoid scrutiny from its users (and regulators), TikTok has also misled Utah consumers about the degree to which TikTok remains enmeshed with and under the control of ByteDance, it's China-based parent company." 

TikTok previously said that it has dedicated more than $1.5 billion on data security, and has rejected allegations that it's spying for the Chinese government. The company also recently opened a Transparency and Accountability Center in an effort to fend off regulators and potential bans.

The federal government has yet to take any concrete action against social media platforms, but states have been more active. Utah recently passed a law requiring parents to get permission before teens can create accounts on TikTok, Snap and other platforms. It also mandates curfew, parental controls and age verification features. The state didn't go as far as Montana, however, which outright banned the use of TikTok. Tomorrow, a judge will hear arguments in TikTok's lawsuit seeking to overturn that ban — a case that could open the company up to more scrutiny and set precedent around the US.

If you have several Google Nest speakers, Chromecast and smart displays, you can add each of them to several different groups in the Google Home app again. The company implemented changes last month, which would allow certain devices to be added to only one speaker group at a time in response to Sonos' patent lawsuit. This development, announced by the Nest team, undoes that change. If you'll recall, Sonos sued the company back in 2020, accusing it of infringing on several patents it holds, including ones related to managing groups of speakers.

In May, a California federal jury determined that Google had infringed on Sonos' intellectual property and ordered the tech giant to pay a $32.5 million fine. However, US District Judge William Alsup has just tossed out the verdict after finding that Sonos' patents were unenforceable. Alsup ruled that Sonos had improperly linked its multi-room audio patents to a 2006 patent application, which didn't disclose the actual invention. He also concluded that Sonos didn't file applications for the patents involved in the lawsuit until 2019, years after Google presented it with a plan to use multi-room audio technology while exploring a collaboration.

Sonos told Reuters that the judge's ruling was "wrong on both the facts and law" and that it intends to lodge an appeal. Google has decided to roll back its previous changes despite Sonos' plan, though, which means you "will no longer run into an error when trying to add a device to additional groups." The update has already started rolling out and is currently making its way to the Home app on Android. Google says the change is also "coming soon" to the Home app on iOS devices.

Google has successfully convinced a California federal judge that it did not infringe on Sonos' multi-room audio patents. As Reuters reports, US District Judge William Alsup has thrown out a previous verdict that slapped the tech giant with a $32.5 million fine for infringing on patents held by Sonos related to managing groups of speakers. 

The judge explained that Sonos' patents for the lawsuit "ostensibly descended from [a] 2006 provisional application." However, the company apparently didn't file the applications for the patents in question until 2019, and it didn't roll out the technology to its own products until 2020. That's years after Google, in 2014, presented Sonos with a plan to use multi-room audio technology while exploring a collaboration. 

Since Sonos connected its patents to a 2006 provisional application, they appeared to have predated Google's products. But Judge Alsup said that the early application failed to disclose the actual invention, and that in 2019, Sonos amended the specification of its patent application to insert new matter. "This was not a case of an inventor leading the industry to something new," Alsup wrote in his decision. "This was a case of the industry leading with something new and, only then, an inventor coming out of the woodwork to say that he had come up with the idea first — wringing fresh claims to read on a competitor’s products from an ancient application."

Sonos sued Google in federal court in early 2020, accusing it of violating five of its speaker patents. Patrick Spence, the company's CEO, said back then that Google had been "blatantly and knowingly" duping Sonos tech and refusing to cooperate on a "mutually beneficial solution." Earlier this year, a California federal jury had ruled that Google did infringe on a patent Sonos holds and ordered the tech giant to pay $32.5 million in penalty. Alsup also served as the judge for those proceedings, but in his newer decision, he said "trial brought to light what happened here."

In a statement, a Sonos spokesperson told Reuters that the new ruling was "wrong on both the facts and the law." Based on that, Sonos is clearly not going to accept the newer verdict: The spokesperson said that the company is planning to appeal the decision. 

Elon Musk is once again in the crosshairs of the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC). The regulator, which has been investigating Musk’s Twitter takeover, is now suing the owner of X after he failed to appear for previously-scheduled testimony, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The SEC’s investigation dates back to 2022, when it opened a probe into Musk’s delayed disclosure of his stake in Twitter, which was at the time a publicly-traded company. Musk was 10 days late in filing paperwork, required under US securities law, disclosing his investment in Twitter. The delay may have earned him as much as $156 million, and also made him the target of a class-action lawsuit from former Twitter shareholders.

Musk had been scheduled to testify in the SEC investigation into the matter last month, The Wall Street Journal reports. But Musk failed to appear at a scheduled meeting in San Francisco, and later gave a “blanket refusal to appear for testimony” when the SEC tried to reschedule. The regulator is now asking a San Francisco federal court to force Musk to comply with its subpoena.

It’s hardly the first time Musk has found himself on the wrong side of the SEC, which he has repeatedly ridiculed over the years. The Tesla CEO was charged with securities fraud over a now-infamous 2018 tweet claiming he had “funding secured” to take the electric car maker private. Musk eventually settled with the SEC, paying a $20 million fine and giving up his position as chairman of Tesla’s board. Musk is, however, still fighting a provision of that SEC settlement requiring a so-called “Twitter-sitter” to sign-off on some of Musk’s Tesla-related tweets.

X didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Elon Musk's X Corp is facing what could be the first of several lawsuits related to its name. A Florida-based company called X Social Media has accused X Corp. of trademark and service mark infringement, obviously for the use of the letter "X." Musk rebranded Twitter in July, renamed the social network as "X" and replaced its iconic bird logo with the letter. The executive is known for having an affinity for the letter X, so it didn't really come as a surprise, but as trademark attorney Josh Gerben told Reuters back then, there's "about a 100 percent probability that Twitter/X will be sued by both opportunistic and legitimate plaintiffs over the new name." Today, Gerben's firm represents the plaintiff in this case. 

X Social Media described itself in the lawsuit (PDF) as a company that has "offered its advertising and social media services connecting law firms and those in need of advocates since 2016." While its logo looks vastly different from the logo used by the social network formerly known as Twitter, it argued in its complaint that it "frequently emphasizes the 'X' portion of its mark throughout its advertising, blogs, and newsletters highlighting its work." 

The Florida-based company also said that the media coverage Elon Musk's X got when it rebranded caused confusion and had led consumers to believe that its advertising services are being offered by or are associated with X Corp. "As 'X' is a social media platform, consumers naturally conflate 'X SocialMedia' as an X Corp.'s social media platform," it explained. The plaintiff told the court that it has already suffered losses in revenue due to Twitter's rebranding, and that it's highly probable that the confusion will continue to its "financial detriment." Especially since X Corp appears at the top of search results when you look for "x social media" — or at least it used to before news about the lawsuit came out. 

Further, it accused Musk's company for filing multiple trademark applications for business data analysis, promotional services, business consulting and information services, as well as business, consumer and market research, which are comparable to its offerings, even though it allegedly knew about X Social Media. Apparently, X Social Media sent Musk's company a cease-and-desist letter in August 2023, but X Corp. refused to stop using the letter. It's now asking the court for an injunction, prohibiting Musk's company from marketing, offering, selling or distributing services bearing the mark "X." The plaintiff is also asking for damages equivalent to three times of its losses or the defendant's profits. 

On Friday, the US Supreme Court agreed to take on two landmark social media cases with enormous implications for online speech, as reported by The Washington Post. The conservative-dominated court will determine if laws passed by Texas and Florida are violating First Amendment rights by requiring social platforms to host content they would otherwise block.

Tech industry groups, including Meta, X (formerly Twitter) and Google, say the laws are unconstitutional and violate private companies’ First Amendment rights. “Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” Matt Schruers of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), one of the trade associations challenging the legislation, told The Washington Post. The CCIA called the order “encouraging.”

The groups representing the tech companies contesting the laws say platforms would be at legal risk for removing violent or hateful content, propaganda from hostile governments and spam. However, leaving the content online could be bad for their bottom lines as they would risk advertiser and user boycotts.

Supporters of the Republican-sponsored state laws claim that social media companies are biased against conservatives and are illegally censoring their views. “These massive corporate entities cannot continue to go unchecked as they silence the voices of millions of Americans,” said TX Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who recently survived an impeachment trial accusing him of abuses of office, bribery and corruption. Appeals courts (all with Republican-appointed judges) have issued conflicting rulings on the laws.

The US Supreme Court voted five to four in 2022 to put the Texas law on hold while the legal sparring continued. Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to prevent the law from taking effect. Meanwhile, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the temporary hold. Alito (joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) said he hadn’t decided on the law’s constitutionality but would have let it stand in the interim. The dissenting Kagan didn’t sign off on Alito’s statement or provide separate reasoning.

The Biden administration is against the laws. “The act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar said to the justices. “And especially because the covered platforms’ only products are displays of expressive content, a government requirement that they display different content — for example, by including content they wish to exclude or organizing content in a different way — plainly implicates the First Amendment.”

Tesla has been tolerating racial harassment at its factory in Fremont, California since at least 2015 until today, according to the lawsuit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The automaker has violated federal law by tolerating the "widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees," the agency said. Further, affected workers who raised concerns about the abuse they were getting were apparently subjected to various forms of retaliation: They were transferred, their duties were changed, or they were terminated. 

The EEOC's lawsuit says Black employees were regularly called variations of the N-word, "monkey," "boy" and "black b*tch" throughout the factory, even in hubs were workers gathered. These employees also encountered drawings of racial graffiti, including swastikas and nooses, on desks, as well as on the walls of bathroom stalls and elevators throughout the factory. If these allegations sound familiar, it's because they're identical to the complaints filed by plaintiffs who previously sued Tesla for racial harassment. 

One of those plaintiffs was Melvin Berry, who accused Tesla supervisors of using racial slurs against him. And there was Owen Diaz, who said he was subjected to racial slurs and was made to feel unsafe at work with racist graffiti on his workspace, such as drawings of Inki the Caveman. Diaz was originally granted $137 million in damages, which was one of the highest amounts awarded to an individual suing on the basis of discrimination. However, it was significantly lowered following several appeals, until it was reduced to $3.2 million earlier this year. 

The EEOC filed its lawsuit after doing an investigation on the automaker and trying to reach pre-litigation settlement through conciliation. Now, it's seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as backpay for all affected workers. It's also asking the court for an injunction "designed to reform Tesla's employment practices to prevent such discrimination in the future."

As expected, Apple is making a last-ditch effort to get the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling that would force it to open up its App Store to third-party payments. The iPhone maker filed a petition with the Court Thursday, arguing that the lower court injunction was “breathtakingly broad” and “unconstitutional.”

It’s the latest beat in a long-simmering feud between Cupertino and the Fortnite developer that’s seen both sides ask the Supreme Court to reverse parts of a lower court ruling. But Apple's latest petition could have far-reaching consequences for all developers, should the Supreme Court decide to take up the case.

That’s because Apple is asking the Supreme Court to reverse an injunction that would require the company to allow app developers to offer payments that circumvent its App Store, and the fees associated with it. Such a move would be a major blow to the App Store’s business, which has used the rule to maintain strict control over in-app payments.

The rule, often referred to as an “anti-steering” policy, has long been controversial and a major gripe for developers. It not only prohibits app makers from providing links to web-based payments, it bars them from even telling their customers that a cheaper rate was available somewhere else.

Fortnite developer Epic made the issue a central part of its antitrust lawsuit against Apple in 2020, and the judge in the case ruled in Epic’s favor on the issue in 2021. Apple has spent the last two years fighting that part of the ruling.

Separately, Epic has also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider part of the lower court’s ruling in its bid to keep its antitrust claims against Apple alive.

Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub won’t be able to get out of paying minimum wage to their New York City delivery workers after all, following a judge’s decision to reject their bid to skirt the city’s new law. The upcoming law, which is still pending due to the companies’ ongoing lawsuit, aims to secure better wage protections for app-based workers. Once the suit settles, third-party delivery providers will have to pay delivery workers a minimum wage of roughly $18 per hour before tips, and keep up with the yearly increases, Reuters reports.

The amount, which will increase April 1 of every year, is slightly higher than the city’s standard minimum wage, taking into account the additional expenses gig workers face. At the moment, food delivery workers make an estimated $7-$11 per hour on average.

New York Acting Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Moyne put the law on pause back in July, when the three companies and the smaller delivery service, Relay Delivery, sued the city, arguing that the raised rates will have a negative impact on their services. With Moyne's latest decision, it’ll now move forward. While Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub will have to comply once it takes effect, Relay will be given more time to renegotiate its contracts with restaurants, according to Reuters.

The move makes NYC the first US city to require a minimum wage for app-based deliveries, and others are likely to follow suit. The city previously pushed ride hailing apps to raise their minimum rates for drivers, forcing Uber and Lyft to raise their per-mile rates by just over 5 percent in 2022.

The alleged Sony data breach just got messier. On Monday, relatively new hacking group Ransomed.vc made the lofty claim that it had successfully compromised "all" of the company's systems, as reported by Cybersecurity Connect. Now a second threat actor has leaked the data believed to be in Ransomed.vc's possession, claiming the former are "scammers" trying to "chase influence." How either group obtained this data, or the extent of the breach, remain unknown but Sony has confirmed to Engadget it's investigating the situation.

Ransomed.vc said it wouldn't ransom Sony, and instead would be selling the data "due to Sony not wanting to pay." It posted a sampling of files as "proof" of their claims. Ransomed.vc gave a deadline of September 28. On Tuesday, a threat actor under the name "MajorNelson," claimed that Ransomed.vc lied about the breach, and leaked the data that Ransomed.vc claimed to have, according to malware repository vx-underground. Engadget could not independently verify the claims.

"We are currently investigating the situation," a Sony spokesperson told Engadget. 

Ransomed.vc emerged as attackers and a ransomware-as-a-service organization that lets others pay to launch attacks. The group threatens victims with data protection fines under laws like the GDPR if they do not pay the ransom. In other words, pay us a few hundred thousand dollar ransom, or we'll report you to pay up a million dollar fine. MajorNelson appears to be an independent threat actor motivated by a disdain for Ransomed.vc, calling the reports about their efforts lies.

"RansomedVCs are scammers who are just trying to scam you and chase influence," MajorNelson wrote. "Enjoy the leak." According to MajorNelson, the leak includes credentials for internal systems, incident response policies and more. 

In 2011, a threat actor exposed personally identifiable information from 77 million PlayStation network accounts. Sony took the network offline for 23 days as it mitigated the damage, and in 2019, it agreed to pay a £250K fine in the UK for its failure to adequately prepare for the attack.