The Internet Archive is facing another lawsuit over one of its conservation projects. Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and a handful of other music labels have filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit organization, accusing it of copyright infringement for digitizing, "willfully upload[ing], distribut[ing] and digitally transmitt[ing]" pre-1972 sound recordings. In particular, the labels are suing Internet Archive for the Great 78 Project, which seeks to preserve music recorded on 78rpm discs. 

The labels call Internet Archive's efforts "blatant infringement," involving music by artists that include Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong. They also listed a few examples of "iconic recordings" available through the Great 78 Project, such as White Christmas, Sing, Sing, Sing, and The Christmas Song. 

The companies said the the songs preserved on the project website are already available through streaming and other music services, so they "face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed." But the organization explained on the project portal that there's "still research value in the artifacts and usage evidence in the often rare 78rpm discs and recordings." 

The plaintiffs disagree, writing in their complaint that Internet Archive's activities "far exceed" the limited purposes of preservation and research. "Internet Archive unabashedly seeks to provide free and unlimited access to music for everyone, regardless of copyright," they added. The labels are asking statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each protected sound recording, and that could add up to $372 million for the listed recordings, according to Bloomberg.

Internet Archive is also embroiled in a legal battle with a group of US publishers led by Hachette Book Group over the National Emergency Library. The organization lent out digitally scanned copies of books through the program during the height of the pandemic, which the publishers described as "willful mass copyright infringement." A federal judge ruled against Internet Archive for that particular case, though the organization is planning to appeal that decision.

FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) was sent to jail Friday after the judge overseeing his case revoked his bail. US District Judge Lewis Kaplan found probable cause that the disgraced former CEO repeatedly tampered with witnesses. In addition, Kaplan rejected Bankman-Fried’s attorneys’ request to delay his detention pending appeal.

Prosecutors argued that Bankman-Fried tried to harass a crucial witness last month when he showed a New York Times reporter the personal writings of his former partner Caroline Ellison, a cooperating witness who pleaded guilty in December to criminal charges related to defrauding FTX investors. The prosecution said SBF’s actions were an attempt to damage her reputation and influence prospective jurors. Meanwhile, SBF’s defense team accused prosecutors of using evidence laden with “innuendo, speculation, and scant facts.” Judge Kaplan sided with prosecutors, saying Bankman-Fried attempted to “tamper with witnesses at least twice.”

Reutersreports that the 31-year-old former FTX boss was ushered out of the court by US Marshals “after removing his shoelaces, jacket and tie and emptying his pockets.” The former CEO had been under house arrest in California (at his parents’ home in Palo Alto) since he was extradited in December following his arrest in the Bahamas last December. His $250 million bail package tightly controlled his internet usage.

As a potential FTC antitrust lawsuit looms in the background, Amazon plans to reduce its in-house brands. According toThe Wall Street Journal, the retailer will eliminate 27 of its 30 clothing brands and all of its private-label furniture lines. It isn’t clear how many other areas the cuts could affect, but the Amazon Basics brand appears to remain largely, if not wholly, intact. The retailer told the WSJ that it looks to eliminate products that “aren’t resonating with customers.”

Among the Amazon clothing labels reportedly being phased out are Lark & Ro, Daily Ritual and Goodthreads. (Amazon Essentials, Amazon Collection and Amazon Aware will reportedly remain.) Meanwhile, the retailer is allegedly dropping its Rivet and Stone & Beam furniture brands once their current stock is depleted. “We always make decisions based on what our customers want, and we’ve learned that customers seek out our biggest brands — like Amazon Basics and Amazon Essentials — for great value with high quality products at great price points,” Matt Taddy, VP of Amazon Private Brands, said in a statement to the WSJ.

Although Amazon didn’t explicitly connect the changes to the expected FTC lawsuit, the timing seems unlikely to be coincidental. Company representatives will reportedly sit down next week with FTC chair Lina Khan and commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The chat is viewed as a “last rites” meeting, giving the company one final chance to sway the government agency to back down before a filing decision. The anticipated lawsuit culminates a four-year investigation into the company’s alleged anticompetitive practices. It also faces a separate FTC lawsuit related to tricking customers into Prime subscriptions.

Part of the FTC’s interest reportedly lies in Amazon’s dealings with third-party sellers, a longstanding point of focus in antitrust arguments. The WSJ reported in 2020 that Amazon employees used internal data about third-party sellers to create in-house products. That led to the company agreeing to stop boosting its in-house brands in search results, making them harder to sell.

Epic Games has lost an attempt to force Apple to change its App Store payment practices sooner rather than later. The Fortnite maker asked the Supreme Court to overturn a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that delayed an injunction against Apple over App Store rules. However, Justice Elena Kagan denied the request without providing an explanation, as Bloomberg reports.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals originally upheld the injunction in April. However, it suspended the injunction in July so Apple could take the case to the Supreme Court. 

Following a blockbuster trial between Apple and Epic Games in 2021, a lower-court judge ruled that Apple violated California's Unfair Competition law by blocking third-party developers from directing users to alternative payment options. The judge issued the injunction to stop that practice.

For the last three years, the companies have been battling over the issue of in-app payments on iOS. Epic raised the ire of Apple (and Google) when it told mobile Fortnite players they'd get a discount on the in-game V-Bucks currency if they bypassed the iOS and Android payment systems. Apple and Google take up to a 30 percent cut of in-app transactions on iOS and Android.

The mobile platform holders swiftly yanked Fortnite from their respective app stores, Epic sued them both and the legal battles are still rumbling on. The Google case (in which Match Group is involved as a plaintiff) is set to go to trial this November.

Regardless of what happens in the US, Apple and Google are already being forced to open up their platforms to third-party payments systems in certain markets, such as South Korea and the Netherlands. It has also been reported that Apple plans to allow third-party app stores on the iPhone as soon as next year, in large part to comply with incoming European Union rules. Epic is already prepared for that, as its own mobile app store is ready to go.

Federal regulatory agencies have fined 11 financial institutions a combined $549 million for using “off-channel” messaging apps (WhatsApp, iMessage, Signal and text messages) for conversations about trades and other business. Securities laws require investment firms and banks to preserve communications records and ensure employees only carry out business through authorized channels. “The firms did not maintain or preserve the substantial majority of these off-channel communications, in violation of the federal securities laws,” the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) wrote in a statement today.

The Wall Street firms were fined over half a billion dollars in penalties for using messaging apps instead of email, approved messaging platforms or other easily archived channels. Firms penalized by the SEC include Wells Fargo ($125 million), BNP Paribas ($35 million), SG Americas Securities ($35 million), BMO Capital Markets ($25 million), Mizuho Securities ($25 million), Houlihan Lokey Capital ($15 million), Moelis & Company ($10 million), Wedbush Securities ($10 million) and SMBC Nikko Securities America ($9 million). Meanwhile, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined Wells Fargo ($75 million), BNP Paribas ($75 million), Société Générale ($75 million) and Bank of Montreal ($35 million).

“Recordkeeping failures such as those here undermine our ability to exercise effective regulatory oversight, often at the expense of investors,” said Sanjay Wadhwa, the SEC’s Deputy Director of Enforcement. “The Commission’s message could not be more clear — recordkeeping and supervision requirements are fundamental, and registrants that fail to comply with these core regulatory obligations do so at their own peril,” said CFTC Director of Enforcement Ian McGinley.

Federal regulators said all firms admitted to the facts about unapproved communications in agreeing to the penalties. “As described in the SEC’s orders, the firms admitted that from at least 2019, their employees often communicated through various messaging platforms on their personal devices, including iMessage, WhatsApp, and Signal, about the business of their employers,” the SEC wrote in a statement. “The firms did not maintain or preserve the substantial majority of these off-channel communications, in violation of the federal securities laws. By failing to maintain and preserve required records, certain of the firms likely deprived the Commission of these off-channel communications in various SEC investigations.”

Both government agencies stressed that the problem was pervasive and not limited to entry-level employees and junior staff. “The failures involved employees at multiple levels of authority, including supervisors and senior executives,” the SEC said.

The Apple TV+ film Tetris was copied from a book written years ago, according to a lawsuit filed against the tech giant and the Tetris Company. Dan Ackerman, the editor-in-chief of Gizmodo, has accused the plaintiffs of ripping off his book The Tetris Effect, which tells the history of the game in the form of a Cold War-era thriller. In his lawsuit (PDF, via Reuters), Ackerman said he sent the Tetris Company and its CEO Maya Rogers a pre-publication copy of his book back in 2016. Later that year, his agent received a "strongly worded Cease and Desist letter" to stop him from pursuing film and TV opportunities. 

Ackerman accused Rogers of working with screenwriter Noah Pink to develop a screenplay using content taken from his book without his knowledge or consent. Apparently, numerous producers showed interest in adapting his book, but the Tetris Company refused to license its IP for the project. "This was done at the direction and behest of Ms. Rogers so that she and the Tetris Company could pursue their own project and opportunities based on Mr. Ackerman's book without compensating him," the lawsuit reads. 

In his complaint, Ackerman explained that for writers, the option to license their work for film and TV is typically a major source of revenue. That's why he takes the Tetris Company's actions not as a means to prevent the unauthorized use of its IP, but as an "economic attack" on his business. To drive the point home, Ackerman included quite a lengthy list of "glaring similarities" between his book and the film in his lawsuit. Several items in the list explain how scenes in the movie mirrored his versions of events. That said, those events were based on scenarios that happened in real life, so it remains to be seen if the court will agree with him. Ackerman is asking for actual, compensatory and punitive damages equivalent to 6 percent of the film's $80 million production budget. 

Amazon will reportedly meet with the FTC next week before the filing of a possible antitrust lawsuit against the online retailer. The New York Timesreports that FTC chair Lina Khan and commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya will sit down with Amazon representatives as the government agency nears a decision on whether to sue the company for antimonopoly laws. The scheduled conversation is viewed as a “last rites” meeting: Amazon’s final chance to persuade the FTC to back off before filing a suit.

The FTC began investigating Amazon in 2019 for using its influence to hurt competition. Investigators reportedly began the probe by interviewing third-party marketplace vendors, asking how their earnings on Amazon compared to those on competing platforms like eBay and Walmart. Politicoreported in July that the potential lawsuit “will likely challenge a host of Amazon’s business practices” and “could lead to a court-ordered restructuring of the $1.3 trillion empire.” This suit is separate from one the FTC filed in June against the retailer, accusing it of tricking customers into Prime subscriptions and making it hard to cancel the service.

Khan has been a longtime Amazon critic. While a law student at Yale, she wrote a paper suggesting the rethinking of antitrust laws in response to the company’s dominance. Her report criticized US antitrust laws for focusing too much on consumer prices while dismissing other ways companies can break the law to gain competitive advantages. “As consumers, as users, we love these tech companies,” she toldThe New York Times in 2018. “But as citizens, as workers, and as entrepreneurs, we recognize that their power is troubling. We need a new framework, a new vocabulary for how to assess and address their dominance.” Amazon has argued for Khan’s recusal from the case based on her academic work and previous statements.

The Biden administration has reportedly “grown increasingly concerned” about the influence of Big Tech companies. Bloombergdescribes the executive branch as “seeking to reverse what it has viewed as decades of lax oversight over corporate consolidation and market power.” The DOJ has sued Meta and Google multiple times (although a federal judge recently narrowed the scope of one of those cases).

Google just won a partial reprieve in one of the antitrust cases leveled against the company. Federal Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and key states can't claim that Google is protecting a monopoly by promoting its own products in search results over alternatives. The plaintiffs haven't proved there's an "anticompetitive effect," according to the decision. Judge Mehta also tossed antitrust allegations regarding Android's compatibility and anti-fragmentation agreements, Google Assistant, internet of things devices and the Android Open Source Project.

The DOJ can still make its remaining arguments, Judge Mehta says. Notably, officials claim Google is abusing its power through deals that require Android manufacturers to both pre-load Google apps and make Google the default search engine in their mobile browsers. The DOJ and states are concerned this prevents rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo from gaining significant adoption.

In a statement to Engadget, Google President of Global Affairs Kent Walker says the company welcomes the judge's "careful consideration" when dismissing the search issues. He maintains that people choose Google only "because it's helpful," and that the firm would show at trial that its other practices are both competitive and lawful. We've asked the DOJ for comment and will let you know if we hear back.

The DOJ and partner states filed the lawsuit in 2020. They didn't advocate for specific penalties at the time, but punishments could include fines, business restrictions and splitting divisions into separate companies. At the time, Google defended itself by arguing that it still had to negotiate partnerships and had competitions from services like Twitter (now X) and Expedia.

This isn't the only antitrust case against Google, including in the US. An alliance of states sued Google in 2020 over allegedly anticompetitive ad pricing. However, the narrowed scope might make the case more difficult, not to mention limit the potential damages.

Coinbase has filed a motion to dismiss a Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit in which the agency accused the company of illegally running an unregistered national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency. Coinbase claims that, because it doesn't deal in securities, the SEC has no authority over its operations.

"Our core argument is simple — we do not offer 'investment contracts' as that term has been construed by decades of Supreme Court and other binding precedent," Coinbase's chief legal officer Paul Grewal wrote in a series of tweets. "By ignoring that precedent, the SEC has violated due process, abused its discretion and abandoned its own earlier interpretations of the securities laws. By ignoring that precedent, the SEC has trampled the strict boundaries on its basic authority set by Congress."

The SEC filed its lawsuit in June. It said Coinbase raked in billions of dollars since at least 2019 by "unlawfully facilitating the buying and selling of crypto asset securities."

In its motion to dismiss, Coinbase cited a separate SEC case. A judge ruled in July that Ripple Labs’ XRP was not considered a security when sold on exchanges (though institutional sales of XRP fell under securities regulations, the judge determined).

However, that particular point may not work in Coinbase's favor. This week, a different judge disagreed with the Ripple ruling and said the SEC could proceed with a case against Terraform Labs and its CEO Do Kwon. That includes claims involving sales made on exchanges and allegations of a multi-billion dollar fraud. As Bloomberg notes, neither the Ripple nor the Terraform suit is a controlling precedent in the Coinbase case.

Intriguingly, Coinbase has argued the cryptocurrencies that are sold on its platform are more like baseball cards than securities. It makes the case that baseball cards are commodities that people buy and sell in the hope they will grow in value.

After a months-long investigation, the FCC has decided to go ahead with its proposed record-setting $300 million fine against “the largest illegal robocall operation” the agency has ever encountered. This is the heftiest fine ever issued by the FCC, due to the massive scope and illegality of the robocalling operation.

The agency issued the fine to an “international network of companies” that executed a scheme to make more than five billion robocalls to 500 million phone numbers during a three-month span in 2021. There are only 330 million people in the USA, so it’s likely you received one or many of these auto warranty scam calls. Additionally, the FCC concluded that the criminal enterprise violated federal spoofing laws by using more than a million different caller ID numbers to trick victims into answering the phone. In related news, answering the phone sucks.

The list of violations keep coming. The operation, run by Roy Cox, Jr. and Michael Aaron Jones via their Sumco Panama company, skirted prohibitions by sending pre-recorded voice calls to mobile phones without consent, placing telemarketing calls without consent and even dialing numbers included on the National Do Not Call Registry. The nefarious group also failed to identify callers at the start of conversations and voice messages and refused to provide call-back numbers to allow consumers to opt out of future communications. They basically turned 500 million smartphones into scam machines.

The FCC originally proposed the monumental fine because the robocalling met the criteria for “egregious violations” of current laws. Consumers have described the calls as “incessant” and “harassment.” To that end, Sumco Panama even participated in practices like calling health care workers from spoofed hospital numbers. It also changed its name when needed, to keep the subterfuge going, using company monikers like Virtual Telecom, Davis Telecom, Geist Telecom, Tech Direct, Posting Express and many more. 

As previously mentioned, the enterprise had been selling fake auto warranties since 2018. In addition to the fine, Cox and Jones were issued lifetime bans against making telemarketing calls. Last year, the FCC directed all United States voice service providers to cease carrying traffic associated with the pair and its entities. The agency gave the parties a chance to defend themselves, but they haven’t responded. If they don’t pay the gigantic fine in a timely fashion, the whole matter will be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.