US prosecutors have asked a federal court to tighten Sam Bankman-Fried’s bail conditions to prevent the disgraced entrepreneur from contacting his former colleagues. According to court documents seen by The New York Times, lawyers from the Department of Justice allege Bankman-Fried tried messaging the general counsel of FTX's US arm over Signal and email earlier this month. The communication was “suggestive of an effort to influence Witness-1's potential testimony,” the filing states. 

“I would really love to reconnect and see if there’s a way for us to have a constructive relationship, use each other as resources when possible, or at least vet things with each other,” says one message Bankman-Fried sent, according to the Justice Department. The DOJ has asked the judge overseeing Bankman-Fried’s criminal case to bar him from contacting current and former FTX employees, as well as using Signal or any other encrypted or ephemeral messaging app. Following the request, SBF’s legal team accused federal prosecutors of trying to paint their client in the “worst possible light.” They claim Bankman-Fried tried contacting the general counsel of FTX US and CEO John Ray to offer “assistance,” not to interfere with his criminal case. His lawyers also claim a Signal ban isn’t necessary since Bankman-Fried is not using the app’s auto-delete feature.

Prosecutors allege SBF’s use of Signal is consistent with “a history” of using the app to hide his dealings at FTX. Prior to FTX’s implosion in November, Bankman-Fried and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison were reportedly part of a secret “Wirefraud” group chat on Signal. During his tenure at the exchange, SBF also allegedly directed employees to enable Signal’s disappearing messages feature.

Joshua Browder, the CEO of New York startup DoNotPay, recently announced that his company's AI will represent a defendant fighting a traffic ticket in the courtroom on February 22nd. "[H]istory will be made," Browder wrote in his tweet. "DoNotPay A.I will whisper in someone's ear exactly what to say. We will release the results and share more after it happens," he added. We may never know how the "robot lawyer" will fare in court, though, because a few days later, Browder announced that DoNotPay is postponing its court case after he received threats of jail time from state bar prosecutors if he goes through with his plan. 

The CEO told NPR that multiple state bar associations had threatened his company, and one even said he could be imprisoned for six months. He told the media organization: "Even if it wouldn't happen, the threat of criminal charges was enough to give it up. The letters have become so frequent that we thought it was just a distraction and that we should move on." While the State Bar of California refused to talk about DoNoPay's situation, it told NPR that it has a duty to investigate potential instances of unauthorized law practice. 

Browder originally created DoNoPay as a free AI-powered chatbot that can help you draft letters and fill out forms for various legal matters. The company's "robot lawyer" is powered by several AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci, re-trained to know the law. A defendant using the technology in court would have worn smart glasses to record the court proceedings, as well as a headset that would give the AI a way to tell them what to say. 

As CBS News said in a previous report, though, the tech isn't legal in most courtrooms. Also, in some states, all parties must consent to being recorded. That's why of the 300 cases DoNotPay looked at, only two were viable candidates. In the end, Browder decided to put off the company's court ambitions and to focus on using AI to help people with issues related to consumer rights, specifically lowering medical bills, cancelling subscriptions and disputing credit reports, among others.

NPR said, however, that the CEO is still hoping that artificial intelligence could eventually help people in the courtroom. "The truth is, most people can't afford lawyers. This could've shifted the balance and allowed people to use tools like ChatGPT in the courtroom that maybe could've helped them win cases," he told the organization.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has sent a letter to MSG Entertainment, the owner and operator of Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall, asking for information about its use of facial recognition to deny entry to attorneys at firms representing its legal opponents. James’s letter warns that the Orwellian policy may violate local, state and federal human rights laws, including those prohibiting retaliation.

MSG Entertainment’s facial recognition has been identifying and denying entry to lawyers from firms representing clients suing the company — whether or not those attorneys are directly involved in the cases. The company, led by CEO James Dolan (who also owns the New York Knicks and Rangers), has defended the policy, framing it as an attempt to prevent evidence collection “outside proper litigation discovery channels.” However, lawyers have called that rationale “ludicrous,” criticizing the ban as a “transparent effort” to punish attorneys for suing them.

The company has removed at least four lawyers from events at its venues since October — including at Knicks and Rangers games, concerts and Christmas shows. When passing through a metal detector, the arena’s facial recognition matched the attorneys with photos from their firms’ websites. James’s office says the policy impacts all lawyers working at more than 90 firms.

In the letter, James warns MSG Entertainment that blocking people from venues may violate New York’s civil and human rights laws while causing other attorneys to think twice about taking on legitimate cases against the company. “MSG Entertainment cannot fight their legal battles in their own arenas,” said AG James. “Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall are world-renowned venues and should treat all patrons who purchased tickets with fairness and respect. Anyone with a ticket to an event should not be concerned that they may be wrongfully denied entry based on their appearance, and we’re urging MSG Entertainment to reverse this policy.”

USA TODAY USPW / reuters

The Attorney General isn’t alone in taking on Dolan and MSG Entertainment. New York state lawmakers Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Liz Krueger and Tony Simone introduced a bill on Monday to outlaw the policy. It would amend a previous state civil rights law prohibiting venues from denying entry to anyone with a legitimate ticket, adding “sporting events” to the list of qualifying events.

Madison Square Garden has used facial recognition for security since at least 2018. James’s letter calls on MSG Entertainment to justify its use of the tech and report its steps to comply with New York civil and human rights laws to ensure the tech won’t lead to further discrimination. “Discrimination and retaliation against those who have petitioned the government for redress,” reads the letter, “have no place in New York.”

Alongside eight states, the US Department of Justice is suing Google to break up the company’s advertising business. In a complaint filed Tuesday with a federal court in Virginia, the agency accused Google of illegally monopolizing the digital advertising market. “Google’s anticompetitive behavior has raised barriers to entry to artificially high levels, forced key competitors to abandon the market for ad tech tools, dissuaded potential competitors from joining the market, and left Google’s few remaining competitors marginalized and unfairly disadvantaged,” the Justice Department alleges.

"Today’s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector,” a Google spokesperson told Engadget. “It largely duplicates an unfounded lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General, much of which was recently dismissed by a federal court. DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow."

As Bloomberg notes, the lawsuit represents the Biden administration’s first significant attempt to challenge the power of one of the nation’s largest tech firms. The agency previously sued Google in 2020. At the time, the Justice Department, under Attorney General William Barr, said the company had a monopoly over search and search-related advertising. It also took issue with the terms around Android, which the Justice Department said unfairly advantage Google by forcing manufacturers to preload their devices with the company’s applications and search engine.

Google faces intense government scrutiny over its hold on the digital advertising market. In 2020, Texas filed a multi-state lawsuit accusing the company of using its "monopolistic power to control" ad pricing. One year later, the European Commission opened a probe into the company’s advertising business, a move that seems to have forced Google to reconsider how it handles ads on YouTube. Last year, the Senate also introduced legislation designed to prevent companies like Google from participating in more than one part of the digital advertising ecosystem.

“Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” the Justice Department says in its most recent complaint. It accuses Google of using acquisitions to take out both “actual or potential” competitors, in addition to abusing its marketplace dominance to prevent publishers and advertisers from using competing products effectively. “Whenever Google’s customers and competitors responded with innovation that threatened Google’s stranglehold over any one of these ad tech tools, Google’s anticompetitive response has been swift and effective,” the Justice Department alleges.

One estimate suggests Google controls as much as 26.5 percent of the US digital ads market. The company’s ad unit is expected to generate about $73.8 billion in US ad revenue over the next year, with much of that money coming from search advertisements.

Elon Musk said he could've sold his SpaceX shares to take Tesla private when he took the witness stand again to defend his 2018 "funding secured" tweets in a lawsuit filed by the automaker's shareholders. According to CNBC, Musk proclaimed: "SpaceX stock alone meant 'funding secured' by itself. It's not that I want to sell SpaceX stock but I could have, and if you look at the Twitter transaction — that is what I did. I sold Tesla stock to complete the Twitter transaction. And I would have done the same here." He didn't say how many of his shares he'd have to sell, however, to be able to fund the transaction. 

The plaintiffs' lawsuit is based on Musk's infamous 2018 tweets in which he said he was "considering taking Tesla private at $420." He even said that he already had "[f]unding secured." Musk first took the stand for this particular case last week to defend himself against the plaintiffs' accusations that the tweets he made cost them significant financial losses. Tesla's shares temporarily stopped trading after those tweets and remained volatile in the weeks that followed. He said at the time that just because he tweets something "does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

This time, Musk reiterated his previous claim that he had an agreement with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund to take Tesla private. He told the court that the country was "unequivocal" in its support of the transaction, which ultimately didn't go through. According to Bloomberg, the court discussed his communication and eventual falling out with Saudi fund governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan regarding the deal. A text exchange was reportedly presented to the jury, wherein Musk accused Al-Rumayyan of backing out of their handshake agreement. The Saudi official responded that he didn't have sufficient information to be able to commit to the buyout and called Musk's public announcement of their discussions "ill advised."

The plaintiffs' lawyer also asked Musk what many of us were probably wondering: If the $420 share price in his tweets was made as a joke in reference to marijuana. Apparently, it wasn't a joke, and he chose it "because it reflected about a 20 percent premium on Tesla's stock price." Musk is expected to testify again on Tuesday, so we'll likely hear more details about his failed bid to convert Tesla into a private entity. 

As Bloomberg notes, the judge in this case had already determined that his tweets were "objectively false and reckless." However, the plaintiffs still have to prove that Musk knew his tweets were misleading and that his tweets caused their losses to win the case. Musk and Tesla previously had to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $20 million each to settle a separate lawsuit over the same tweets, accusing him of making "false and misleading statements" that could be constituted as fraud. The CEO said on the stand that he told the SEC about SpaceX and that the plaintiffs' lawyer "deliberately exclud[ed] that from jurors."

Martin Shkreli, whom you may know as "Pharma Bro," launched a new company last year called "Druglike, Inc." Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has asked a federal judge to hold him in contempt for failing to cooperate with the agency in its investigation to determine whether launching the company violates his lifetime industry ban. US District Court Judge Denise Cote imposed a lifetime ban on Shkreli that prohibits him from participating in the pharmaceutical industry early last year. Cote ruled that the former pharma exec orchestrated an illegal anticompetitive scheme to gain a monopoly over Daraprim, a life-saving anti-malarial and anti-parasitic drug. 

After Shkreli's former company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, obtained the manufacturing license for Daraprim, it raised the drug's prices from $17.50 to $750 per tablet. Cote sided with the FTC in the antitrust lawsuit the agency filed against Shkreli in 2020 and ordered him to pay $64.6 million in damages, in addition to imposing a lifetime industry ban against him. Prior to Druglike's launch, Shkreli tried (and failed) to convince a judge to put the ban on hold, arguing that the public could benefit from his future contributions to the industry. Shkreli challenged the ban while he was serving time in federal prison after receiving a seven-year sentence in 2017 for defrauding investors. He was released from prison in May.

The FTC said it started asking Shkreli for a compliance report and access to relevant records, as well as asking him to sit for an interview regarding Druglike, in October 2022. However, the company co-founder kept on disregarding its "repeated requests." The agency also said that Shkreli has yet to pay any amount of his $64.6 million fine. It's now asking the court to order Shkreli to comply with its information requests within 21 days of its decision. 

In a press release (PDF) for its launch, Druglike described itself as "a Web3 drug discovery software platform." The company said it's building a "decentralized computing network" that "provides resources for anyone looking to start or contribute to early-stage drug discovery projects." In a statement, Shkreli said "Druglike will remove barriers to early-stage drug discovery, increase innovation and allow a broader group of contributors to share the rewards."

Elon Musk said that just because he tweets something, it "does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly." The Tesla chief took the witness stand in a San Francisco federal court to defend himself (and the tweets he made back in 2018) in a lawsuit filed by a group of the automaker's shareholders. "I think you can absolutely be truthful but can you be comprehensive? Of course not," he added, regarding Twitter's character limits. If you'll recall, Musk famously tweeted in August 2018 that he was "considering taking Tesla private at $420" and that he was already able to secure funding. "Investor support is confirmed," he said in a follow-up tweet.

The CEO later revealed that he was in talks with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which reportedly expressed interest in Tesla as part of the country's bid to lessen its reliance on oil. However, the deal didn't materialize, and he later penned a lengthy post on the automaker's website to say that it's staying public. 

As CNBC notes, shareholders blamed those "funding secured" tweets for their significant financial losses, leading them to file a class action lawsuit against Musk. Tesla's shares apparently remained highly volatile in the weeks that followed. The executive, however, downplayed his tweets' impact and said that they don't necessarily affect stock prices: "There have been many cases where I thought that if I were to tweet something, the stock price would go down. For example, at one point I tweeted that I thought that, in my opinion, the stock price was too high...and it went went higher, which was, which is, you know, counterintuitive."

In addition to the shareholder lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Musk over his tweets, calling them "false and misleading statements" that could be constituted as fraud. Musk and Tesla paid $20 million each to settle with the SEC, and the executive had to step down as board chairman. The SEC also required company lawyers to approve any Tesla-related tweet Musk makes — a condition the CEO tried (and failed) to get out of last year. 

Aside from defending his tweets, Musk criticized short sellers during his testimony, telling the court that short-selling "should be made illegal." He added: "It is a means for, in my opinion, bad people on Wall Street to steal money from investors. Not good." Another piece of information to take away from his time on the witness stand is that nobody can tell Musk to stop tweeting. When lawyers asked him about the advice he got to refrain from posting on Twitter after calling a British cave diver a "pedo guy," Musk said: "I continued to tweet, yes."

According to Reuters, Musk only testified for less than 30 minutes and that he's not done answering lawyers' questions. He's expected to take the witness stand again to explain why he wrote the funding tweets and why he insisted that he had Saudi Arabia's backing. 

Epic Games and Match Group now have a court date for their antitrust case against Google. A Northern District of California judge has set the start of a jury trial for November 6th. Both Epic and Match accuse Google of abusing its control of Android app distribution through the Play Store by establishing unfair fees and requirements for in-app purchases. This comes alongside a lawsuit from 39 attorneys general as well as a customer class action suit demanding $4.7 billion in damages.

Epic sued Google in 2020 after the Android creator kicked Fortnite out of the Play Store for letting customers use an alternative in-app payment system. Match sued Google last year over the "exorbitant" store fee. Epic and Match consolidated their case and a filed motion last fall to expand their allegations, accusing Google of further antitrust violations by paying major developers hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their apps in the Play Store. 

Unlike Epic's partially successful lawsuit against Apple, this case has to acknowledge that customers do have a choice. Where Apple requires that all regular app downloads go through the App Store, Android's sideloading option lets customers install software without downloading it from Google. The issue, as you might imagine, is that those apps are both harder to install and less likely to be noticed when the Play Store is included by default on many Android phones.

Google denies misusing its power, and argues that the fees are necessary to maintain and invest in the Play Store. It maintains that the incentive program doesn't forbid developers from launching third-party stores, and that its portal competes fairly. In December, Google called on the court to deny the expanded requests over timing and other issues.

Google has made some concessions, including a test program for Play Store billing alternatives. That pilot still gives Google a cut of each transaction, though, and it remains to be seen if moves like that will satisfy the court and regulators. As it is, the internet pioneer is facing a raft of other antitrust cases that include a Justice Department lawsuit from 2020. Even if Google prevails against Epic and Match, it may not escape unscathed.

Your international money transfers might not be as discreet as you think. Senator Ron Wyden and The Wall Street Journal have learned that US law enforcement can access details of money transfers without a warrant through an obscure surveillance program the Arizona attorney general's office created in 2014. A database stored at a nonprofit, the Transaction Record Analysis Center (TRAC), provides full names and amounts for larger transfers (above $500) sent between the US, Mexico and 22 other regions through services like Western Union, MoneyGram and Viamericas. The program covers data for numerous Caribbean and Latin American countries in addition to Canada, China, France, Malaysia, Spain, Thailand, Ukraine and the US Virgin Islands. Some domestic transfers also enter the data set.

The program exists to help agencies collect evidence of fraud and money laundering, as transfer services aren't required to know customers like banks. This has led to busts for drug cartels and other criminals, TRAC director Rich Leber explained to The Journal. The $500 threshold exists to prevent the system from collecting most data for immigrants remitting money to family in their home countries. Money transfer apps like Apple Cash, Cash App, PayPal, Venmo and Zelle haven't provided data to TRAC, Wyden says.

You need to be a member of law enforcement with an active government email account to use the database, which is available through a publicly visible web portal. Leber told The Journal that there haven't been any known breaches or instances of law enforcement misuse. However, Wyden noted that the surveillance program included more states and countries than previously mentioned in briefings. There have also been subpoenas for bulk money transfer data from Homeland Security Investigations (which withdrew its request after Wyden's inquiry), the DEA and the FBI.

The concern, of course, is that officials can obtain sensitive transaction details without court oversight or customers' knowledge. An unscrupulous officer could secretly track large transfers. Wyden adds that the people in the database are more likely to be immigrants, minorities and low-income residents who don't have bank accounts and already have fewer privacy protectoins. The American Civil Liberties Union also asserts that the subpoenas used to obtain this data violate federal law. Arizona issued at least 140 of these subpoenas between 2014 and 2021.

The Arizona attorney general's office hasn't responded to requests for comment. However, Wyden is already drafting legislation that would bolster privacy for money transfer services and effectively neuter the database. The ACLU, meanwhile, is unequivocal — it says the surveillance system "must be shut down." If nothing else, the findings could draw attention to privacy issues surrounding money transfers.

Apple has agreed to review its labor practices in the US after regulators and employees accused the company of union busting. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission ahead of its annual shareholders meeting, Apple said it would carry out an assessment of its "efforts to comply with its Human Rights Policy as it relates to workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in the United States by the end of calendar year 2023."

The company will bring in a third-party firm to conduct the audit, according to The New York Times. A group of investors, including five New York City public worker pension funds, that controls around $7 billion worth of Apple stock called for the assessment in a September shareholder proposal. New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who started talks with Apple on behalf of the city pension funds, told the Times that Apple agreed to the audit if the investors withdrew the proposal.

“Workers organizing at Apple for a collective voice in their workplace have reported strong pushback from the company — that flies in the face of Apple’s stated human rights commitment to workers’ freedom of association,” Lander said in a statement. “I’m grateful to Apple’s board of directors for listening to the concerns of shareholders regarding worker rights and hope the company will heed the findings of the third-party assessment and take concrete steps to adopt a genuine commitment to non-interference that respects the rights of its workers."

In a letter to Apple chairman Arthur Levinson, the investor group urged Apple to hire a firm with expertise in labor (and that has not advised clients on how to prevent workforces from unionizing) to carry out the review. The investors also brought Microsoft's neutral stance on labor organizing to Levinson's attention and urged Apple to include its global supply chain and non-US operations as part of the audit.

"Apple has made commitments to worker rights globally as well as in its supply chain, and while much of the current organizing activity has occurred in the US, there are Apple worker organizing efforts occurring around the world, including in Australia and the UK," they wrote. "Addressing these topics at a global level can add credibility to the assessment and address other potential areas of concern proactively and efficiently."

News of the assessment comes amid talks between Apple and unionized workers at a store in Towson, Maryland over their first union contract. Workers in at least a half-dozen stores have accused Apple of violating labor laws, claiming that the company has clamped down on attempts to organize. The Communications Workers of America, which represents a collective of Apple Store workers in Oklahoma City, said in a National Labor Relations Board filing that the company set up an illegal union controlled by management at a store in Columbus, Ohio to thwart support for an independent employee union.

"While a credible, independent assessment by individuals or organizations with the appropriate expertise on workers' freedom of association could uncover important information about Apple's response to worker organizing, including its use of union busting consultants, workers need concrete solutions now. Apple must commit to a true policy of neutrality toward union organizing efforts," the Communications Workers of America told Engadget in a statement. "Apple's workers deserve respect and a voice on the job, not just another self-congratulatory exercise in corporate image management. We support investor advocates’ efforts to ensure this is a credible audit."