DoorDash has been charging iPhone users more than Android users for identical deliveries, according to a lawsuit seeking class action status. The court documents (PDF, via 9to5Mac) submitted for the case included screenshots showing how iPhone users are charged an extra fee for "expanded range." On the company's website, it said the fee "helps DoorDash preserve [customers'] access to the available merchants farthest from [them]." However, the lawsuit said the fee is tacked onto iPhone users' bills more often than Android users' "likely because studies reveal iPhone users earn more."

In addition, it accuses DoorDash of adding the extended range fee onto the total of DashPass subscribers as a way "to subsidize lost revenues from discounted fees." DashPass is the company's $10-a-month subscription service that delivers orders over $12 for free. A couple of screenshots in the court documents show the extended range fee only being added to the account with DashPass and not to the one without, even though they were identical orders made for the same address. 

"DoorDash uses this deceptive practice to trick consumers into believing Dashers receive the 'delivery-related' fees when, in reality, each and every 'delivery fee' is retained in total by DoorDash," the lawsuit states. Other screenshots also showed orders made from iPhones having bigger base delivery fees than orders submitted from Android devices. 

The lawsuit, filed by Ross Hecox and his minor children in the United States District Court of Maryland, is asking for monetary damages of no less than $1 billion "for all consumers who fell prey to DoorDash's illegal pricing scheme over the past four years."

A DoorDash spokesperson denied the allegations and told Insider in a statement:

"The claims put forward in the amended complaint are baseless and simply without merit. We ensure fees are disclosed throughout the customer experience, including on each restaurant storepage and before checkout. Building this trust is essential, and it's why the majority of delivery orders on our platform are placed by return customers. We will continue to strive to make our platform work even better for customers, and will vigorously fight these allegations."

This isn't the first time the delivery service's business practices have been called into question. In 2020, the company, along with GrubHub, Postmates and Uber Eats, were sued for exploiting their dominant position in restaurant deliveries to impose fees on users even during the pandemic. Chicago sued the company for advertising delivery services from restaurants that never consented to be added to its platform. The attorney general for the District of Columbia also filed a lawsuit against DoorDash, accusing it of using tips to cover part of drivers' base pay instead of adding it on top of what they're supposed to get. DoorDash agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle that lawsuit with Washington, DC. 

San Francisco authorities have opened a new investigation into Twitter after six former senior employees filed a lawsuit against the company, according to AP and the San Francisco Chronicle. The plaintiffs are accusing the company of breaking local and federal laws and of violating building codes in its effort to turn some of the rooms in its headquarters into bedrooms for employees. 

The city's authorities first launched an investigation into the company in December 2022 following a Forbes report that it converted some its conference rooms so its staff would have somewhere to rest. If you'll recall, Elon Musk asked remaining employees after a series of mass layoffs to commit to an "extremely hardcore" Twitter that expects them to work "long hours at high intensity." The employees were reportedly given no context about the bedrooms. But one could come to the conclusion, based on his ultimatum, that Musk expected employees to work very long hours that they'd need somewhere to rest in or sleep in overnight. 

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Joseph Killian, the former lead project manager of global design and construction at Twitter. He said Musk's team instructed him to violate building codes, including removing motion-sensitive lights because they were bother the staff trying to sleep. The company's landlord apparently rejected the request, but he still had to hire an electrician to disconnect the lights without permission. 

Killian also said that he was told to install cheaper locks for the sleeping quarters that don't automatically unlock in case of emergency, even though he warned the team that they'd prevent first responders from accessing the rooms. He reportedly quit that day, though somebody else installed the locks afterward. In addition, Killian accused the company of telling him not to divulge those planned changes to city inspectors visiting Twitter HQ. The inspectors only saw the beds and new furniture and had no idea about the violations, the lawsuit stated. 

Aside from Killian's complaints, the lawsuit also accuses Twitter of not paying their promised severance. The new leadership under Musk, it said, "deliberately, specifically, and repeatedly announced their intentions to breach contracts, violate laws, and otherwise ignore their legal obligations." Regarding Twitter not paying rent, for instance, Musk adviser Pablo Mendoza allegedly told former Twitter real estate division lead Tracy Hawkins: "Elon told me he would only pay rent over his dead body." Alex Spiro, Musk's personal attorney, also allegedly and "loudly opined that it was unreasonable for Twitter’s landlords to expect Twitter to pay rent, since San Francisco was a s—hole." The California Property Trust, which owns the building where Twitter's HQ is located, sued the company for failing to pay $136,250 in rent back in January. 

San Francisco previously gave Twitter 15 days to fix its building permit to be able to keep their beds after Forbes' report came out, but the Chronicle says permits haven't been granted yet. This new investigation is reportedly being conducted by the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection, though it has yet to issue an official statement. As for Twitter, the company hasn't had a communications team in a while. 

One day after Montana Governor signed the first statewide ban on TikTok into law, the measure is already facing a legal challenge. Five TikTok creators are suing in an effort to block the ban from taking effect.

In court filings, lawyers representing the TikTok creators say the ban is unconstitutional and that it violates their First Amendment rights. They also take issue with Montana’s supposed national security justification for the ban. 

“Montana has no authority to enact laws advancing what it believes should be the United States’ foreign policy or its national security interests, nor may Montana ban an entire forum for communication based on its perceptions that some speech shared through that forum, though protected by the First Amendment, is dangerous,” the suit states. “Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes.”

In an interview on Fox News, Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, said that legal challenges to the ban were expected. “There are some important issues here that I do think we probably need the federal courts to step in and answer for us here,” he said. “And that was part of our calculus in bringing this.”

The lawsuit is among the first legal challenges to the law, and will likely be closely watched as federal officials consider a nationwide ban on the app. Right now, the Montana ban is set to take effect January 1, 2024, though lawsuits challenging it could delay that timeline. TikTok itself hasn’t commented on whether it’s planning to bring its own litigation in Montana, but said in a statement following the bill’s signing that it planned “to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana.”

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has issued two rulings in favor of tech companies that will continue to shield them from liability for what users post on their platforms. In the first case, the justices unanimously agreed that Twitter will not have to contend with claims that it aided and abetted terrorism over tweets that terrorist group ISIS posted.

SCOTUS reversed a lower court decision that allowed a lawsuit against Twitter to proceed after another judge initially dismissed it. The lawsuit was filed by US relatives of Nawras Alassaf, a man who was killed in a 2017 Istanbul attack that was claimed by ISIS. The justices determined that hosting general terrorist speech doesn't create indirect legal responsibility for specific terrorist attacks, as CNN reports. That is likely to make it more difficult for victims of terrorist attacks or their relatives to make a similar case against online platforms in the future.

"To be sure, it might be that bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms like defendants’ for illegal — and sometimes terrible — ends. But the same could be said of cell phones, email or the internet generally," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's opinion. "We conclude that plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.”

The justices also dismissed the case of Gonzalez v. Google, which accused the company of violating US anti-terrorism laws. As such, they left intact a lower court decision to throw out a suit against YouTube brought by the family members of a victim of the 2015 terror attack in Paris. They argued that Section 230 protections should not apply to Google and YouTube in this case, as the latter's algorithms surfaced ISIS videos in recommendations.

"We decline to address the application of Section 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. "Instead, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case for Ninth Circuit to consider plaintiffs’ complaint in light of our decision in Twitter.”

Section 230 refers to a clause in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. In essence, it protects online platforms from being liable for what their users post as well as the ability of companies to moderate third-party material. 

The clause has faced opposition from both sides of the aisle over the years, with both Democrats and Republicans seeking to reform or scrap it. President Joe Biden claimed during his campaign that he would see Section 230 "revoked, immediately" if he were elected, but that obviously hasn't come to pass. In relation to Gonzalez vs. Google, Biden's administration argued that Section 230 protections don't extend to Google's algorithms, as the clause does not "bar claims based on YouTube’s alleged targeted recommendations of ISIS content."

Engadget has contacted Google for comment. Twitter does not have a communications team that can be reached for comment.

Digital rights groups are among those who have welcomed the SCOTUS rulings. “We are pleased that the Court did not address or weaken Section 230, which remains an essential part of the architecture of the modern internet and will continue to enable user access to online platforms," Electronic Frontier Foundation civil liberties director David Greene said in a statement to Engadget. "We also are pleased that the Court found that an online service cannot be liable for terrorist attacks merely because their services are generally used by terrorist organizations the same way they are used by millions of organizations around the globe.”

“With this decision, free speech online lives to fight another day,” Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project, said. “Twitter and other apps are home to an immense amount of protected speech, and it would be devastating if those platforms resorted to censorship to avoid a deluge of lawsuits over their users’ posts. Today’s decisions should be commended for recognizing that the rules we apply to the internet should foster free expression, not suppress it.”

Immersion Corporation has been suing companies over its rumble haptic technology since at least (checks archives) 2004, and now it has a new company in its sights. Immersion has accused Valve of infringing its patents with the Steam Deck handheld, the Valve Index VR platform, Steam VR software and games including Half-Life: Alyx, The Verge has reported.

Immersion wants an injunction against Valve "from deploying, operating, maintaining, testing and using the Accused Handheld Instrumentalities and Accused VR Instrumentalities," it stated in some fine legalese, and is asking for damages and royalties as well. It cited seven specific patents dating from 2002 to 2016.

If Valve wants to fight this, they've got a mountain of precedent to overcome. Both Sony and Microsoft ended up licensing Immersion's patents after settling lawsuits, and Apple, Google, Motorola and Fitbit did the same. Nintendo and Sony use a different form of rumble tech, but both elected to license Immersion's patents. Valve uses the same type of rumble tech as Nintendo and Sony.

It appears that Immersion didn't sue Valve for its Steam Controller, which was killed back in 2019. The Steam Deck appears to be a much bigger success in terms of sales, however, and has generally been a hit with both critics and gamers.

The US State Department has announced a reward of up to $10 million for information that leads to the arrest of a prolific hacker. On Monday, the Department of Justice filed criminal charges against Mikhail Pavlovich Matveev, a Russian national and resident with links to the infamous Hive, LockBit and Babuk ransomware gangs. Starting as early as 2020, Matveev has allegedly targeted US law enforcement and healthcare organizations on multiple occasions.

In April 2021, for instance, he was linked to a Babuk ransomware attack that saw the computer systems of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington DC locked out. Last May, Matveev, whose online pseudonyms include Wazawaka, Uhodiransomwar, m1x, and Boriselcin, was allegedly involved in a Hive ransomware attack that targeted a healthcare NGO in New Jersey.

Separately, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions against Matveev. "Matveev has been vocal about his illegal activities. He has provided insight into his cybercrimes in media interviews, disclosed exploit code to online criminals, and stated that his illicit activities will be tolerated by local authorities provided that he remains loyal to Russia," the Treasury said.

Of the ransomware gangs Matveev is allegedly affiliated with, LockBit is among the most active and destructive. As of late 2022, the group’s malware has infected the computer systems of at least 1,400 victims, including a Holiday Inn hotel in Turkey. According to the Justice Department, the gang’s affiliates have extracted at least $75 million in ransom payments. Security researchers recently found evidence that suggests that LockBit recently began targeting Mac computers.

Elon Musk has failed in his latest attempt to challenge a ruling that requires a lawyer's approval for some Tesla-related tweets. A federal appeals court in Manhattan has rebuffed Musk's claim that the 2018 consent decree with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is an unfair "prior restraint" on his speech. The CEO could have defended himself against the charges or negotiated a different deal if he'd wanted to tweet without a legal monitor, the court panel says.

Musk reached a settlement with the SEC in 2018 after the regulator claimed that he lied when he had "funding secured" for taking Tesla private. On top of requiring approval, the deal also had Musk step down as Tesla chairman. He and his company paid separate $20 million fines. The SEC wanted to find Musk in contempt when he claimed that Tesla would make 500,000 cars one year, but a judge pushed the parties involved to negotiate a 2019 arrangement that gave Musk more freedom in return for requiring legal team approval for finance-related tweets.

The tech leader has fought with the SEC in the years since, and more recently has been calling for courts to undo the settlement. Musk claims the Commission pressured him to strike a deal and overstepped its authority. The pact violated free speech rights, Musk's side claimed. A judge denied a request to cancel the deal last April, prompting the appeal.

It's not certain how Musk and Tesla will respond. Tesla disbanded its communications team years ago. If this latest decision stands, though, Musk won't have much choice but to either have his tweets screened or risk a regulatory crackdown.

Google is still taking a financial hit over allegations it misled customers with Pixel 4 ads. The company has agreed to pay Texas $8 million to settle claims it paid radio hosts for "deceptive" testimonials about the Pixel 4 even though the DJs couldn't use the phone beforehand. The ads continued even though Google was aware it was breaking the law, according to state Attorney General Ken Paxton's office.

The tech giant already reached a $9 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and six other states. Paxton argued the state settlement was important as Google has "significant influence," and no large company should expect "special treatment."

We've asked Google for comment. In a statement to Reuters, spokesperson José Castañeda said the company took advertising laws seriously and was "pleased to resolve" the dispute.

The high value of a separate Texas settlement isn't surprising. The state is already pursuing multiple legal actions against Google, including an antitrust case over advertising tech dominance and another lawsuit over face data collection practices. Texas is determined to limit Google's influence as an industry heavyweight wherever possible, including radio commercials.

Google isn't the only phone maker to be accused of trying to trick customers. Huawei and Samsung have both been caught passing off DSLR photos as phone camera samples. The Pixel 4 ad campaign may have been more problematic, however. Between the FTC and state claims, Google is accused of deliberately setting out to mislead listeners and continuing even when confronted over its behavior.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is calling for a recall of 67 million airbag inflators after a lengthy investigation over allegations that they could rupture and injure drivers and passengers. These inflators were designed by ARC Automotive, Inc. and were manufactured for the US market during the 18-year period before January 2018. They were supplied to six airbag manufacturers, which then incorporated them into the airbag modules used in vehicles by at least 12 automakers. 

In the NHTSA's letter (PDF) to ARC urging the company to issue a recall, it listed nine incidents wherein a driver (and, in some cases, a passenger) had been injured because an inflator had ruptured. Seven of those incidents happened in the US, and one had resulted in death. There was one other incident outside the US wherein the driver had sustained fatal injuries. The agency wrote in its letter: "Air bag inflators that project metal fragments into vehicle occupants, rather than properly inflating the attached air bag, create an unreasonable risk of death and injury."

ARC, however, disagrees with the agency's tentative conclusion that certain inflators manufactured by the company have a safety defect. "After nearly eight years of intensive scrutiny, none of [the manufacturers using its products] has identified a systemic or prevalent defect across this inflator population," the company wrote in a response letter (PDF) addressed to the NHTSA. It also mentioned a test on 918 inflators taken from vehicles in salvage yards. Apparently, none of them exploded when they were subjected to various testing in the lab. 

ARC said it believes the incidents wherein the inflators had ruptured resulted from "one-off" manufacturing anomalies that had already been properly addressed by automakers though lot-specific recalls. GM, for one, issued a recall (PDF) on May 10th for 1 million vehicles that "may have received a suspect airbag inflator." The NHTSA warned the company, though, that it will have to write a full explanation with "additional analysis of the problem beyond ARC's past presentations" it it decides not to issue a recall. Further, it might still decide that ARC's inflators have a safety defect, and it "may take other appropriate action."

The NHTSA has been investigating airbag rupture-related incidents over the past 15 years. Over 67 million airbags by the now defunct Japanese manufacturer Takata have already been recalled in the United States, with 100 million more recalled around the world. Like the ARC-made inflators, Takata's could also explode and unleash metal fragments inside the vehicle. Takata's airbags were involved in at least 18 deaths and more than 400 injuries, which led to numerous lawsuits, a massive settlement and, ultimately, the company's closure. 

TikTok is still fighting to remain operational in the United States, but a new lawsuit could complicate things even further for the company. A former ByteDance executive has alleged TikTok’s owner used bots and stolen content to inflate the app’s engagement.

The lawsuit, filed by former head of engineering Yintao Yu and reported byThe New York Times, claims that ByteDance wrongly fired Yu after he pushed back on company practices like stealing other apps’ material. It also claims that ByteDance acted as a “useful propaganda tool for the Chinese Communist Party,” and that China-based employees could access US users’ data.

As The New York Times points out, Yu’s allegations “describe how ByteDance operated five years ago” and come after “several years of mediation.” Still, the claims are still likely to fuel even more scrutiny for TikTok, which is facing the prospect of a nationwide ban in the United States. Lawmakers and other officials have claimed that TikTok is a national security threat and that the app can’t be trusted to protect the data of US users.

Yu’s allegations could intensify those concerns. The lawsuit details “a special unit of Chinese Communist Party members” at ByteDance offices in Beijing who “guided how the company advanced core Communist values.” He also alleges that ByteDance employees manipulated Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, to suppress content about protests in Hong Kong and “elevate content that expressed hatred for Japan.”

Some of Yu’s claims also relate directly to TikTok. Notably, he claims that ByteDance engineers stole popular content from apps like Instagram and Snapchat and put the videos onto TikTok. He also alleges that the company used bot accounts to juice the app’s engagement metrics when it was just starting out and trying to gain a foothold in the US. (Yu left the company in November 2018, shortly after ByteDance rebranded Musical.ly as TikTok.)

Spokespeople for ByteDance and TikTok didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But TikTok has repeatedly tried to downplay its ties to ByteDance and China, including in CEO Shou Zi Chew’s congressional testimony in March. The company has also dedicated more than a billion dollars into Project Texas, which aims to wall off TikTok’s US user data from the rest of ByteDance in an effort to allay the concerns of US regulators.