Last month, Hyundai agreed to pay $200 million to settle a class action lawsuit in the wake of a viral TikTok car theft challenge. The deal promised to pay out about $145 million to US Hyundai and Kia owners who had their cars stolen or damaged by a theft attempt — but the settlement didn't put the matter to rest. New York City has announced that it's now suing the automaker for negligence and being a public nuisance.

Specifically, the city accuses the automaker of choosing to "sacrifice public safety for profits" by eschewing common anti-theft technology from certain US model Kia and Hyundai vehicles. New York City alleges this was a market specific choice, noting that Hyundai and Kia vehicles sold in European and Canadian markets do, in fact, have vehicle immobilizers installed "because regulations there expressly require them."

This led to a rise in thefts after the "Kia Challenge" went viral on TikTok earlier this year — with videos demonstrating how certain Hyundai vehicles can be quickly hot-wired using a simple USB cord.

The result, the city says, was unprecedented, with a 660% increase in Hyundai and Kia vehicle thefts in the first four months of 2023 when compared to the previous year. New York City says this has resulted in not only more reports of theft, but other safety issues, including reckless driving, and violent altercations between thieves and vehicle owners, all of which it claims has made New York City less safe and caused undue burden on police resources. New York City is requesting a trial by jury and is seeking punitive and compensatory damages.

Another day, another regulatory action against a major cryptocurrency company. The Securities and Exchange Commission has sued Coinbase, the biggest crypto asset trading platform in the US. It claims that Coinbase operated as an unregistered national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency. The SEC notes that brokers, exchanges and clearing agencies are usually separated in traditional securities markets, but said Coinbase "intertwines" their services.

The agency claimed that by failing to register as a broker, national securities exchange or clearing agency, Coinbase has prevented investors from having certain protections. Those include SEC inspections, safeguards against conflicts of interest and recordkeeping requirements. The agency argued that Coinbase doesn't qualify for any applicable exemptions from registration for any of the three functions. It accused the company of having made billions of dollars from the likes of transaction fees by "unlawfully facilitating the buying and selling of crypto asset securities" since at least 2019.

"You simply can’t ignore the rules because you don’t like them or because you’d prefer different ones: the consequences for the investing public are far too great,” Gurbir S. Grewal, the director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said in a statement. "As alleged in our complaint, Coinbase was fully aware of the applicability of the federal securities laws to its business activities, but deliberately refused to follow them. While Coinbase’s calculated decisions may have allowed it to earn billions, it’s done so at the expense of investors by depriving them of the protections to which they are entitled."

It was reported last July that the SEC was investigating Coinbase as to whether the company illegally sold unregistered securities. As The New York Times notes, news of the agency's complaint comes on the same day that Coinbase’s chief legal officer, Paul Grewal, is set to testify before a congressional committee in relation to a new draft bill that aims to bring in some crypto regulations.

In March, Coinbase said it received a notice from the SEC that agency staff had found potential securities law violations, but it was not provided with much detail. The company also claimed it "provided multiple proposals to the SEC about registration over the course of months, all of which the SEC ultimately refused to respond to."

On Monday, the SEC filed 13 charges against Binance and its CEO Changpeng Zhao. The agency claimed Binance skirted its own compliance measures and lied to investors and regulators. The SEC also claimed that Coinbase mishandled customer funds. In addition, the agency is involved in the government's case against FTX founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried.

Meanwhile, Coinbase is facing regulatory action at the state level. A task force comprising state regulators from Alabama, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin resulted in a Show Cause Order being issued against the exchange. In a statement spotted by Cointelegraph, the Alabama Securities Commission accused the company of violating "the securities law by offering its staking rewards program accounts to Alabama residents without a registration to offer or sell these securities." It gave the company 28 days to show cause why it shouldn't be ordered to cease and desist from selling unregistered securities in the state.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is acting on concerns crypto giant Binance may have broken the law with its US operations. The regulator has filed 13 charges against Binance and founder Changpeng Zhao accusing the two of violating securities laws. Most notably, officials claim Binance knowingly undermined its own international compliance controls to help US investors keep trading on Binance.com when they were only supposed to rely on the separate Binance.US system. Zhao and his company also controlled Binance.US "behind the scenes," the SEC alleges.

The Commission also maintains that Binance and Zhao mixed and diverted customers' assets at will, including with the Zhao-owned Sigma Chain. The company and its US affiliate are further accused of running unregistered exchanges, broker-dealers and clearing agencies, with Zhao serving as the control. They also allegedly sold unregistered crypto assets, the SEC adds.

The SEC aims to not only force Binance to comply with the law, but to bar Zhao from helming any domestic securities issuers. It also wants the company to disgorge its financial gains from the alleged violations, and to pay additional penalties.

We've asked Binance for comment. Reuters investigators reported that Binance commingled $20 million from a corporate account with $15 million for a customer-oriented example. The company denied the allegation, saying that the relevant accounts were only used to "facilitate" cryptocurrency purchases and that the funds were exclusively corporate.

The SEC allegations come a few months after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed its own charges against Binance and Zhao. It too accused the crypto firm of skirting US regulations and offering unregistered crypto assets. Unlike the SEC, the CFTC charged former compliance officer Samuel Lim.

The action against Binance is the latest phase in a broader crackdown against the crypto industry. FTX and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried are facing numerous charges over alleged fraud and bribery. New York State has sued former Celsius chief Alex Mashinsky over purported fraud, while the SEC has charged Terraform Labs with running a "multi-billion dollar" fradulent operation. Combine this with Congress' efforts to shape crypto policy and there's intense pressure on crypto exchanges to alter their practices.

With the hype around AI reaching a fever pitch in recent months, many people fear programs like ChatGPT will one day put them out of a job. For one New York lawyer, that nightmare could become a reality sooner than expected, but not for the reasons you might think. As reported by The New York Times, attorney Steven Schwartz of the law firm Levidow, Levidow and Oberman recently turned to OpenAI’s chatbot for assistance with writing a legal brief, with predictably disastrous results.

Schwartz’s firm has been suing the Columbian airline Avianca on behalf of Roberto Mata, who claims he was injured on a flight to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. When the airline recently asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, Mata’s lawyers filed a 10-page brief arguing why the suit should proceed. The document cited more than half a dozen court decisions, including “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines,” “Martinez v. Delta Airlines” and “Miller v. United Airlines.” Unfortunately for everyone involved, no one who read the brief could find any of the court decisions cited by Mata’s lawyers. Why? Because ChatGPT fabricated all of them. Oops.

In an affidavit filed on Thursday, Schwartz said he had used the chatbot to “supplement” his research for the case. Schwartz wrote he was "unaware of the possibility that [ChatGPT’s] content could be false.” He even shared screenshots showing that he had asked ChatGPT if the cases it cited were real. The program responded they were, claiming the decisions could be found in “reputable legal databases,” including Westlaw and LexisNexis. 

Schwartz said he “greatly regrets” using ChatGPT “and will never do so in the future without absolute verification of its authenticity.” Whether he has another chance to write a legal brief is up in the air. The judge overseeing the case has ordered a June 8th hearing to discuss potential sanctions for the “unprecedented circumstance” created by Schwartz’s actions.

A US federal court this week gave final approval to the $50 million class-action settlement Apple came to last July resolving claims the company knew about and concealed the unreliable nature of keyboards on MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro computers released between 2015 and 2019. Per Reuters (via 9to5Mac), Judge Edward Davila on Thursday called the settlement involving Apple’s infamous “butterfly” keyboards “fair, adequate and reasonable.” Under the agreement, MacBook users impacted by the saga will receive settlements between $50 and $395. More than 86,000 claims for class member payments were made before the application deadline last March, Judge Davila wrote in his ruling.

Apple debuted the butterfly keyboard in 2015 with the 12-inch MacBook. At the time, former design chief Jony Ive boasted that the mechanism would allow the company to build ever-slimmer laptops without compromising on stability or typing feel. As Apple re-engineered more of its computers to incorporate the butterfly keyboard, Mac users found the design was susceptible to dust and other debris. The company introduced multiple revisions to make the mechanism more resilient before eventually returning to a more conventional keyboard design with the 16-inch MacBook Pro in late 2019.

Apple won’t have to admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement agreement. Before this week, some members of the class action lawsuit attempted to challenge the deal on the grounds that a proposed $125 payout for one group in the class was not enough, an appeal Judge Davila rejected. “The possibility that a better settlement may have been reached — or that the benefits provided under the settlement will not make class members 'whole' — are insufficient grounds to deny approval,” Davila wrote in his ruling. The judge also rejected a request for compensation from MacBook owners who experienced keyboard failures but did not get their computers serviced by Apple. There’s no word when claimants can expect their payment to be sent out, but the lawyers involved in the case said they “look forward to getting the money out to our clients.”

Valve has delisted Dolphin from Steam after receiving a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice from Nintendo. In late March, the developers of Dolphin, an open source emulator that can run most GameCube and Wii titles, said they were planning to bring the free app to Valve’s storefront later this year. In a May 26th legal notice seen by PC Gamer, Nintendo's legal team asked Valve to remove Dolphin from Steam, claiming the emulator violates the company’s intellectual property rights.

"Because the Dolphin emulator violates Nintendo’s intellectual property rights, including but not limited to its rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)’s Anti-Circumvention and AntiTrafficking provisions, 17 U.S.C. § 1201, we provide this notice to you of your obligation to remove the offering of the Dolphin emulator from the Steam store," the document states.

With the notice, the Dolphin team has two options on how to move forward. It can either file a counter-claim with Valve, arguing the emulator doesn’t violate the DMCA as claimed by Nintendo, or it can choose to comply with the takedown notice. If the team files a counter-notice, Nintendo would have two weeks to decide whether to file a lawsuit. As PC Gamer notes, it’s unclear if the company actually intends to pursue legal action against Dolphin. However, if a case were to go to court, it could have far-reaching implications for emulators. For the time being, the Dolphin team says it’s deciding what to do next.

“It is with much disappointment that we have to announce that the Dolphin on Steam release has been indefinitely postponed,” the Dolphin Emulation Project said Friday. “We were notified by Valve that Nintendo has issued a cease and desist citing the DMCA against Dolphin's Steam page, and have removed Dolphin from Steam until the matter is settled. We are currently investigating our options and will have a more in-depth response in the near future.” As of the writing of this story, you can still download the Dolphin emulator from the project’s website and GitHub page. The Dolphin team did not receive a direct takedown notice from Nintendo.

We can all agree that robocalls are the worst. While there might never be a way to get rid of them entirely (though agencies are certainly working on it), one the most prolific sources of these intrusions is finally getting hauled into court.

CBS News reports that Attorneys General from 48 states (as well as DC) are coming together to file a bipartisan lawsuit against Arizona-based Avid Telecom, its owner Michael D. Lansky and vice president Stacey S. Reeves. The 141-page suit claims that the company illegally made over 7.5 billion calls to people on the National Do Not Call Registry. Arizona Attorney General Kris Meyes claims that nearly 197 million robocalls were made to phone numbers in her state over a five-year period between December 2018 and January 2023.

The lawsuit says that Avid Telecom spoofed phone numbers, including 8.4 million that appeared to be coming from the government or law enforcement, and others disguised as originating from Amazon, DirecTV and many more. The suit alleges that Avid Telecom violated the Telephone and Consumer Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule and several other telemarketing and consumer laws. 

The AGs are asking the court to enjoin Avid Telecom from making illegal robocalls, and to pay damages and restitution to the people it called illegally. They're also pursuing several statutory avenues to make Avid cough of money on a per-violation basis, which given the enormous volume of calls it has made, could add up quickly. Sumco Panama, which was responsible for a comparatively smaller 5 billion robocalls, was fined nearly $300 million by the FCC late last year.

Earlier this month, it was reported that XCast Labs is being sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over allegedly helping other companies call those on the National Do Not Call Registry.

In 2017, Dish reached a settlement that cost them $210 million. The company allegedly made millions of calls in an attempt to sell and promote its satellite TV service. Dish ultimately had to pay a $126 million civil fine to the US government, and $84 million to residents in California, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio. Hopefully, we’ll see a similar result with Avid Telecom.

Google has just been hit with a $32.5 million penalty for infringing on a patent held by Sonos. According to Law360, a California federal jury ordered the fine after determining that Google infringed on a patent Sonos holds relating to grouping speakers so they can play audio at the same time, something the company has been doing for years. 

US District Judge William Alsup had already determined that early version of products like the Chromecast Audio and Google Home infringed on Sonos' patent; the question was whether more recent, revamped products were also infringing on the patent. The jury found in favor of Sonos, but decided a second patent — one that relates to controlling devices via a smartphone or other device — wasn't violated. They said that Sonos hadn't convincingly shown that the Google Home app infringed on that particular patent.

Still, it feels like a big win for Sonos, who originally filed suit against Google all the way back in January of 2020. Specifically, Sonos claimed that Google gained knowledge of the patent through prior collaboration between the two companies, back they collaborated to allow for integration between Sonos's speakers and Google Play Music.

Since then, Google counter-sued Sonos, claiming that Sonos had in fact infringed its own patents around smart speakers. As with any good legal battle, Sonos then expanded its own lawsuit a few months later. More recently, Google sued Sonos in 2022, saying that its new voice assistant infringed on seven patents relating to the Google Assistant. 

Whether today's decision will slow the legal battle between the two companies remains to be seen, though we'd expect the bickering to continue full-throttle in the months to come. There are plenty of suits out there between the companies that aren't yet resolved, and we'd expect Google to appeal this decision as well. We've reached out to both Sonos and Google and will update this story with anything we hear.

Amazon has been accused again of illegal anti-union behavior. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint Monday, saying the company changed its policies to squash union support at its only unionized warehouse in Staten Island, as reported byBloomberg. The complaint says Amazon changed policies to prohibit onsite union meetings while bypassing labor negotiations for providing paid leave for COVID-19 cases, among other violations. The accusations paint a picture of a corporation essentially dismissing the union, which voted to organize in 2022, as illegitimate — an image that lines up with its CEO’s public comments.

The NLRB accuses Amazon of changing a policy to prevent unionized workers from accessing the Staten Island warehouse during their time off. In addition, the agency says the company terminated two employees because of their association with the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) and changed its paid-leave policy for COVID-19 cases unilaterally — without negotiating with the workers’ organization.

The complaint also alleges that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy broke federal labor laws by saying unionized employees would be less empowered and have difficulty enjoying direct relationships with supervisors in an interview at The New York Times DealBook Summit in December. “That has a real chance to end up in federal courts,” Jassy added about the workers’ establishment of “bureaucratic” unions. Amazon has argued that the union’s establishment should be overturned because of “misconduct.”

The NLRB complaint describes Jassy’s comments as “interfering with, restraining and coercing employees,” saying his quotes about losing access to managers were an illegal threat. The NLRB filed a previous complaint in October following similar anti-union comments from Jassy. “All these Succession-style billionaires should be held accountable for unlawful actions, and that’s what we’re doing,” said ALU attorney Seth Goldstein. “[The complaint] is going to send a strong message to the union-busters and to CEOs like Jassy who think that they can say whatever they want to and they won’t be held accountable.”

In cases like this, NLRB prosecutors’ complaints are sent to agency judges, whose rulings can be appealed to labor board members in Washington and, if it stretches beyond that, to federal court. But, unfortunately, although the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows the independent agency to make employers reinstate wrongly terminated workers and change policies, it can’t issue fines to them (or individual executives like Jassy). So don’t be shocked if this saga makes its way through the courts as Amazon flexes its muscle to try to avoid meaningful consequences and prevent the lone unionized warehouse from sparking a broader movement within the corporation.

TikTok filed a lawsuit Monday to challenge Montana’s ban of the social platform, as reported byThe Wall Street Journal. The case was brought against the state attorney general Austin Knudsen.

Montana’s governor signed the bill banning the app in the state last week, one month after the state’s legislature passed it. The law is set to take effect on January 1st, 2024. The following day after the signing, a group of creators sued the state along similar grounds as TikTok’s suit today.

The law prohibits the ByteDance-owned platform from operating in the state, as well as preventing app stores from listing the app for download. Although it isn't clear how Montana plans to enforce the ban, it states that violations will tally fines of $10,000 per day.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.