Netflix has been accused of using AI-manipulated imagery in the true crime documentary What Jennifer Did, Futurism has reported. Several photos show typical signs of AI trickery, including mangled hands, strange artifacts and more. If accurate, the report raises serious questions about the use of such images in documentaries, particularly since the person depicted is currently in prison awaiting retrial. 

In one egregious image, the left hand of the documentary's subject Jennifer Pan is particularly mangled, while another image shows a strange gap in her cheek. Netflix has yet to acknowledge the report, but the images show clear signs of manipulation and were never labeled as AI-generated.

Netflix

The AI may be generating the imagery based on real photos of Pan, as PetaPixel suggested. However, the resulting output may be interpreted as being prejudicial instead of presenting the facts of the case without bias. 

A Canadian court of appeal ordered Pan's retrial because the trial judge didn't present the jury with enough options, the CBC reported. 

One critic, journalist Karen K. HO, said that the Netflix documentary is an example of the "true crime industrial complex" catering to an "all-consuming and endless" appetite for violent content. Netflix's potential use of AI manipulated imagery as a storytelling tool may reinforce that argument.

Regulators in the US, Europe and elsewhere have enacted laws on the use of AI, but so far there appears to be no specific laws governing the use of AI images or video in documentaries or other content. 

Last month, Epic Games filed a motion asking a California judge to hold Apple in contempt for what it claims are violations of a 2021 injunction relating to the company’s App Store practices. Now, Apple is asking the judge to reject Epic’s request, alleging in a new filing spotted by Reuters that the motion is an attempt to “micromanage Apple’s business operations in a way that would increase Epic’s profitability.”

The original injunction by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers required Apple to let developers provide an option for external payment methods, which would allow them to avoid fees of up to 30 percent on App Store and in-app purchases. Apple introduced new App Store guidelines for developers in January that do allow linking to external websites for purchasing alternatives, but the new rules also require they get Apple’s approval to do so and impose a commission of 12-27 percent for these transactions. Per Reuters, Epic argued that this makes alternative payment options “commercially unusable.”

Epic also said at the time that Apple’s “so-called compliance is a sham,” and accused the company of violating the injunction with its recent moves. Apple maintains that it has acted in compliance with the injunction, stating in the new filing, “The purpose of the Injunction is to make information regarding alternative purchase options more readily available, not to dictate the commercial terms on which Apple provides access to its platform, tools and technologies, and userbase.”

The first details emerged Monday from Google’s settlement of a class-action lawsuit over Chrome’s tracking of Incognito users. Filed in 2020, the suit could have required the company to pay $5 billion in damages. Instead, The Wall Street Journal reports that Google will destroy “billions of data points” it improperly collected, update its data collection disclosures and maintain a setting that blocks Chrome’s third-party cookies by default for the next five years.

The lawsuit accused Google of misleading Chrome users about how private Incognito browsing truly is. It claimed the company told customers their info was private — even as it monitored their activity. Google defended its practices by claiming it warned Chrome users that Incognito mode “does not mean ‘invisible’” and that sites could still see their activity. The settlement was first reported in December.

The suit initially asked for $5,000 in damages per user for alleged offenses related to federal wiretapping and California privacy laws. Google tried and failed to have the legal action dismissed, with Judge Lucy Koh determining in 2021 that the company “did not notify” users it was still collecting data while Incognito mode was active.

Engadget emailed Google for comment about the settlement details. We’ll update this article if we hear back.

The suit’s discovery included emails that, in late 2022, revealed publicly some of the company’s concerns about Incognito’s false privacy. In 2019, Google Chief Marketing Officer Lorraine Twohill suggested to CEO Sundar Pichai that “private” was the wrong term for Incognito mode because it risked “exacerbating known misconceptions.” In a later email exchange, Twohill wrote, “We are limited in how strongly we can market Incognito because it’s not truly private, thus requiring really fuzzy, hedging language that is almost more damaging.”

The court didn’t approve a class of plaintiffs for financial damages, so users would have to sue Google as individuals to try to collect compensation. Some didn’t waste any time: A group of 50 people already filed a separate suit in California state court on Thursday over the privacy violations.

The lawsuit’s trial was initially scheduled for February. The settlement still needs final approval from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California before it’s official.

“This settlement is an historic step in requiring honesty and accountability from dominant technology companies,” Attorney David Boies, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.

One piece of the settlement, the requirement that Google turn off third-party tracking cookies by default for the next five years, could already be a moot point. The company’s Privacy Sandbox initiative was already scheduled to disable all third-party cookies for Chrome users by the end of the year. It will replace them with the Topics API, a system that avoids cookies by categorizing browsing activity into locally stored topics. The new system lets advertisers target ads toward users without having direct access to their browsing data.

It’s also questionable how effective the destruction of the improperly collected data will be. Considering that the suit covers information stretching back to 2016, it’s reasonable to assume the company sold much of the data to third parties long ago or incorporated it into separate products not covered by the settlement.

Google will also have to rewrite its privacy disclosures over its data collection practices in Incognito mode. It told The WSJ it’s already begun applying the change.

Disgraced former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried was just sentenced to 25 years behind bars in a ruling handed forth New York's Southern District Court. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan announced the decision this morning.

As posted by CNN, Bankman-Fried expressed regret for his actions and the people he harmed. "It's been excruciating to watch," he said. "Customers don't deserve any of that pain." He also acknowledged the serious time he was likely to spend behind bars. "My useful life is probably over," he said. "It's been over for a while now."

Bankman-Fried is expected to appeal the decision. His defense team asked for a sentence of five to 6.5 years, citing his “charitable works and demonstrated commitment to others.” The team also suggested lenience on the grounds that victims would be made whole, referring to a January bankruptcy court hearing showing that customers and creditors will get their money back. Prosecutors, on the other hand, wanted something much harsher. They asked for a sentence of 40 to 50 years "to reflect the seriousness of the defendant's crimes," US Attorney Damian Williams told the court earlier this month. The maximum possible sentence was 110 years.

SBF, as he's now infamously known, was arrested in the Bahamas back in December of 2022. He faced seven charges, including wire fraud against FTX customers, wire fraud against Alameda Research lenders, conspiracy to commit wire fraud against both entities, conspiracy to commit securities and commodities fraud on FTX customers and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was found guilty of all charges.

The trial lasted one month, with prosecutors arguing that he used FTX funds to keep sibling company Alameda Research afloat. Caroline Ellison, his one-time girlfriend and CEO of Alameda, confirmed this to be true and admitted that she committed fraud on behalf of Bankman-Fried. The defendant’s lawyers, on the other hand, tried to portray him as a hapless math nerd who wrestled with “forces largely outside of his control.”

Alameda borrowed more than $8 billion from FTX, money that was taken from accounts belonging to FTX customers. Bankman-Fried claims he only learned of this in 2020 but performed no actions to safeguard the funds. He took the stand during the trial and said that he deeply regrets “not taking a deeper look into" what was going on with both companies. FTX collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in 2022. 

“Clearly, I made a lot of mistakes. There are things I would give anything to be able to do over again,” he told the New York Times before the trial started.

It never blocked competitors' apps and services, and it doesn't employ anticompetitive tactics preventing users from breaking out of its "walled garden," Apple said in response to the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by the Department of Justice. The company refuted the agency's claims in statements shared with Apple Insider, expanding upon its earlier response that the lawsuit would hinder its ability to create devices and software that made it one of the most valuable companies in the world. 

The DOJ accused Apple of illegally monopolizing the software app market by imposing limitations on iOS that degrade the compatibility of innovative apps and cloud streaming services with the mobile platform. But the company claimed it only selectively restricts the APIs app developers have access to in order to protect user privacy and security. It gave the same reason for why it implements limitations for third-party digital wallets. The company also said that it never blocked "super apps" from its platforms, pointing out that Facebook, WeChat and Line are available for iOS users. Game streaming services, it clarified, have always been welcome in the App Store, as well.

In response to the accusation that it is anticompetitive for the Apple Watch to be capable of deeper integration with the iPhone compared to rival wearables', the company explained that offering wide support for all smartwatches means having to develop products with every OS and model in mind. Most importantly, Apple denied that it's making it difficult for users to switch to competing products, whether it's because of iMessage's lack of interoperability with Android or any other reason. Users can easily transfer data from iPhone to Android devices, it reportedly said while suggesting that people may not be switching to its competitors because they simply love its products. 

Apple previously said that the lawsuit, if successful, would "set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology." It vowed to "vigorously defend against it." US Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release, however, that "Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone" and that it's "discouraging innovation" that threatens its monopoly by stifling innovation. 

TikTok, already fighting a proposed law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States, may soon also find itself in the crosshairs of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is close to wrapping up a multiyear investigation into the company, which could result in a lawsuit or major fine, Politico reports.

The investigation is reportedly centered around the app’s privacy and security practices, including its handling of children’s user data. According to Politico, the FTC is looking into potential violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), as well as “allegations that the company misled its users by stating falsely that individuals in China do not have access to U.S. user data.” TikTok could also be penalized for violating the terms of its 2019 settlement with regulators over data privacy.

While it’s not clear if the FTC’s investigation will result in a lawsuit or other action, the investigation is yet another source of pressure for the company as it tries to secure its future in its largest market.. After a quick passage in the House, the Senate is considering a bill that would force TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face an outright ban in the US. The Biden Administration, which has also tried to pressure ByteDance to divest TikTok, is backing the measure and US intelligence officials have briefed lawmakers on the alleged national security risks posed by the app.

TikTok didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit from X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that researches hate speech on the Elon Musk-owned platform. In the decision, the judge said that the lawsuit was an attempt to “punish” the organization for criticizing the company.

X sued the CCDH last summer, accusing the group of “scraping” its platform as part of a “scare campaign” to hurt its advertising business. The group had published research claiming X was failing to act on reports of hate speech, and was in some cases boosting such content.

In a ruling, federal judge Charles Breyer said that “this case is about punishing” CCDH for publishing unflattering research. “It is clear to the Court that if X Corp. was indeed motived to spend money in response to CCDH’s scraping in 2023, it was not because of the harm such scraping posed to the X platform, but because of the harm it posed to X Corp.’s image,” Breyer wrote. “X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others.”

X said it planned to appeal the decision.

In a statement, CCDH CEO Imram Ahmed said that the ruling “affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors.” He added that “it is now abundantly clear that we need federal transparency laws” that would require online platforms to make data available to independent researchers.

Uh oh. Apple, Meta and Google could be in hot water in Europe over their attempts to stand within the letter, if not exactly the spirit, of the bloc's sweeping new Digital Markets Act (DMA). 

Core to the probe are concerns Google parent Alphabet and Apple have not given sufficiently allowed "app developers to “steer” consumers to offers outside the gatekeepers' app stores, free of charge," according to the European Commission (the European Union's executive arm). As things currently stand, the new rules from these tech companies may "constrain ... developers' ability to freely communicate and promote offers and directly conclude contracts, including by imposing various charges." 

The European Commission said it also believes Alphabet's search may still engage in self-preferencing of Google-owned services, like Google Flights. Apple, it said, may not be allowing users meaningful choice in selecting alternatives to default iOS services or preferences — the ability to uninstall any pre-loaded app, for instance. Also caught up in the probe is Meta, in relation to its new EU scheme wherein users can opt out of ads, but only for a price.   

The European Commission had, in the lead up to these probes, been hinting at a possible investigation into Apple and Google. In January, Apple announced a raft of App Store changes to comply with the DMA, which required it to (among other things) enable alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the EU and to let developers direct users to third-party payment systems. Included in Apple's updates was a new "core technology fee" of €0.50 that developers will have to pay per user per year after the first 1 million installs of an app — even if a user downloads the software from a third-party marketplace. Google is also charging developers fees in the EU if they bypass the Play Store.

Many of Apple's rivals slammed the App Store changes. Some criticized the company's fees for third-party payments in the US too.

The EU, perhaps unsurprisingly, is keeping a close eye on how companies subject to DMA rules are complying (or not) with them. "There are things that we take a keen interest in, for instance, if the new Apple fee structure will de facto not make it in any way attractive to use the benefits of the DMA," antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager told Reuters on March 19. "That kind of thing is what we will be investigating."

Today's announcement also hints that Apple's "new fee structure" for alternative app stores may still be on the docket for future intervention, along with, apparently, Amazon's possible self-preferencing in its digital storefront. 

In statements to press Apple has said it's "confident our plan complies with the DMA" while Alphabet has said it will "continue to defend our approach in the coming months." A Meta spokesperson called its paid, ad-free option "a well-established business model across many industries."

News of the sweeping probe comes soon after the US Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The government and more than a dozen states accused Apple of fostering a mobile app monopoly, claiming the company makes it too difficult for rivals to compete with its own products and services. 

It might be a while before we learn the outcome of the EU probes. According to Bloomberg, EC investigators try to reach a final decision within a year of starting a formal investigation. If officials determine that these companies aren't complying with the DMA, they face hefty penalties. 

Under the law, the EU can fine a company up to 10 percent of its total annual revenue, and up to 20 percent for repeated violations. Such penalties could make the $2 billion that the EU recently fined Apple for allegedly suppressing iTunes and Apple Music competitors like Spotify look like pocket change.

The US Department of Justice and more than a dozen states have filed a lawsuit against Apple in federal court, accusing it of violating antitrust laws by making its hardware and software products largely inaccessible to competitors. Apple's "walled garden" approach to business, as it's so often called, makes it difficult for rivals to compete and for customers to switch to other companies' products. The lawsuit comes on the heels of the European Commission slapping Apple with a €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion) fine. Apple, the commission concluded, prevented music streaming developers from "informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available" outside the App Store.

"Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone," Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a press release published by CNN. "Apple exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others."

The complaint alleges that Apple has illegally monopolized the software app market, with the DOJ suggesting that the company used its control over iOS to block innovative apps and cloud streaming services from the public. The suit also suggests that Apple has made it harder for Android messages to appear on iPhones, obstructed rival payment platforms and restricted how competing smartphones integrated with iOS devices. 

"By stifling these technologies, and many others," the complaint reads, “Apple reinforces the moat around its smartphone monopoly not by making its products more attractive to users, but by discouraging innovation that threatens Apple’s smartphone monopoly."

Apple has issued a statement regarding the suit, suggesting that it would hinder its ability to make the types of gadgets and software that made it one of the most valuable companies in the world. The company also said the lawsuit, if successful, would "set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology."

The New York Times first reported that the DOJ, which was apparently approaching the conclusion of a probe into the company, could file "a sweeping antitrust case" against Apple back in January. While the department initially focused on the the strategies the company took to protect the iPhone's dominance, it reportedly expanded its investigation's scope to cover other aspects of Apple's business. According to The Times', the DOJ also looked into how the Apple Watch is capable of deeper integration with the iPhone than rival wearables' and the fact that competing operating systems can't access the company's iMessage service. 

This lawsuit against Apple is just the latest proof of the government's increasing scrutiny on the biggest players in the tech industry. The Justice Department had previously accused Google of maintaining an unfair monopoly over search and search-related advertising, and it also filed a separate antitrust lawsuit accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the digital ads market. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of certain monopolistic practices that include prohibiting merchants from offering their goods at lower prices on other platforms. The commission and more than 40 US states sued Meta in 2020, as well, for buying former rivals Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition. 

Several notable names have joined Epic Games in taking a stance against Apple's decision to charge a fee for iOS payments made outside of the App Store. Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group filed an amicus brief in the case, as The Wall Street Journal reports. That lends some heavyweight backing to Epic's cause.

Apple was forced to enable third-party payments on iOS due to the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) and a court ruling in the US. It also has to allow alternative app marketplaces on iOS in the EU. The company takes up to a 30 percent cut of App Store purchases. Perhaps fearing that it was about to lose out on a significant chunk of commission, Apple said it would charge a fee of up to 27 percent when developers process purchases outside of the App Store.

Epic this month filed a petition asking District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to enforce a permanent injunction she issued against Apple in 2021 as part of her ruling in the case between the two companies. The decision compelled Apple to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment systems.

Most of Rogers' ruling was in Apple's favor, however, and both companies appealed the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, in January, the highest court in the US declined to hear the appeals. That means Rogers' permanent injunction against Apple stood, but Epic was not happy about the way Apple implemented the third-party payment changes.

The four companies supporting Epic's petition claim that the fee Apple is charging on external payments effectively leaves the previous rules in place. "The Apple Plan comports with neither the letter nor the spirit of this Court's mandate," their brief states.

As X put it, the 27 percent fee doesn't give developers much incentive to link to external payment methods. Microsoft, which has been working on its own mobile game store, noted that Apple's latest policy limits its ability to offer users subscriptions and discounts. Match Group argued that Apple's decision will affect many developers and users, and that it stymies the court's attempt to offer consumers competition on pricing.

Meta, meanwhile, charges more for its ad-free plans and boosted posts on its iOS apps than it does on the web. (The ad-free subscription is also more expensive in the company's Android apps, as Google takes a cut of in-app payments too). Meta states in the amicus brief that it ought to be able to direct users to other payment options for boosted posts.

Apple claims to have complied with the court order. According to the Journal, the company (which is reportedly facing a Justice Department antitrust case) says its current external link policies are important to protect user privacy and security. Apple has also been dinged over its compliance with the DMA, with critics suggesting the company might be adhering to the letter of the law, but not its spirit. 

For what it's worth, Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group filed their petition one day after the EU's antitrust chief warned Apple over new fees it's charging developers (and Meta over its ad-free subscription). Margrethe Vestager told Reuters that feedback from developers would play an important factor in whether the bloc investages Apple, Meta or any other company subject to the DMA's rules. She noted that she had received "quite a lot" of comments from third parties.

Meanwhile, Epic is gearing up to debut its game store on both iOS and Android later this year. The company said at the Game Developer Conference that the store would be cross-platform between mobile, PC and macOS. The company plans to charge developers of mobile games the same 12 percent cut it takes from PC game sales.