A proposed class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of payment card issuers accuses Apple of illegally profiting from Apple Pay and breaking antitrust laws. Iowa's Affinity Credit Union is listed as the plaintiff in the complaint, filed today in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that by restricting contactless payments on iOS devices to Apple Pay and charging payment card issuers fees to use the mobile wallet, the iPhone maker is engaging in anti-competitive behavior.

While Android users have options for contactless mobile wallets, iOS users can only use tap-to-pay technology through Apple Pay. In other words, while iPhone users can download the Google Pay app, they can’t use it to make contactless payments in stores. Android doesn’t charge payment card issuers for use of any supported mobile wallet. But it’s a different story for Apple Pay, which charges card issuers a 0.15% fee on credit transactions and half of a cent on debit transactions. These fees have brought in up to $1 billion annually for Apple, the lawsuit alleges.

“In the Android ecosystem, where multiple digital wallets compete, there are no issuer fees whatsoever, ” said the complaint. “The upshot is that card issuers pay a reported $1 billion annually in fees on Apple Pay and $0 for accessing functionally identical Android wallets. If Apple faced competition, it could not sustain these substantial fees.”

The suit alleges that by restricting iOS users to only Apple Pay for contactless payments, Apple is blocking competing mobile wallets from the market. Payment card issuers are essentially forced to pay Apple’s transaction fees if they want to offer their service to iPhone users.

Apple is facing a similar challenge over its payment system in the EU, where an antitrust commission in May said that the tech giant is illegally blocking third-party developers from enabling contactless payments. Apple has denied the EU’s allegations, arguing that giving third-party developers access would be a security risk. This is an argument that Apple has used before as a reason why it doesn't open up its platform, such as in the case of third-party app stores.

Engadget has reached out to Apple for comment on the lawsuit and will update if we hear back.

Elon Musk’s lawyers allege Twitter is pushing for an unreasonably fast trial over allegations the Tesla and SpaceX CEO improperly ended his $44 billion bid to buy the social media platform, reports Bloomberg. “Twitter’s sudden request for warp speed after two months of foot-dragging and obfuscation is its latest tactic to shroud the truth about spam accounts long enough to railroad defendants into closing,” Musk’s legal team wrote in a complaint filed Friday in response to Twitter’s July 12th lawsuit.

The two sides are pushing for the case to be considered on dramatically different timelines. Noting the deal has an October 24th “drop-dead date,” Twitter asked for a four-day trial that would conclude before the end of September. Meanwhile, Musk’s team says the case should go to trial no sooner than February 13th, 2023. 

“The core dispute over false and spam accounts is fundamental to Twitter’s value,” Musk’s lawyers wrote, reiterating the billionaire’s claim that Twitter falsely represented the volume of bots on its platform. “It is also extremely fact and expert intensive, requiring substantial time, requiring substantial time for discovery.”

Thankfully, neither side will have to wait long to find out when proceedings start. On Friday, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick scheduled a 90-minute hearing for July 19th. The session will see McCormick hear arguments for a September trial.

Twitter won't have to wait long to take Elon Musk to court, in a limited fashion. Reutersreports that Delaware Court of Chancery chancellor Kathaleen McCormick has scheduled the first hearing for Twitter's lawsuits on July 19th at 11AM Eastern. The 90-minute session will have a judge hear arguments relating to Twitter's request for a September trial.

The social network sued Musk earlier this week, days after the Tesla chief filed to kill the $44 billion deal. The executive claimed that Twitter falsely represented the volume of bots and other fake accounts on its platform, withholding details to make sure the acquisition goes through. Twitter has denied the allegations. It maintained that it shared the full data pipeline, and that Musk broke the terms of the agreement by backing out with "unreasonable requests" and insults to the company.

There's still no word of a countersuit from Musk as of this writing. Even if it doesn't materialize, though, the outcome of Twitter's lawsuit will have far-reaching implications. If the court sides with Twitter, it could force Musk to either complete the purchase or pay the breakup costs associated with the agreement.

Joshua Schulte, the former CIA engineer arrested for what's being called the biggest theft of classified information in the agency's history, has been convicted by a federal jury. Schulte was arrested in relation to the large cache of documents that Wikileaks had published throughout 2017. That string of CIA leaks known as "Vault 7" contained information on the tools and techniques the agency used to hack into iPhones and Android phones for overseas spying. It also had details on how the CIA broke into computers and how it turned smart TVs into listening devices. A federal jury has found Schulte guilty on nine counts, including illegally gathering national defense information and then transmitting it.

According to The New York Times, Schulte was arrested after investigators traced the leaks to him. The former CIA engineer worked with a team in a secret building protected by armed guards to create tools, like malware, that were used to target the devices of suspected terrorists. In 2018, he was formally charged with 13 counts that included theft of classified information, obstruction of justice, as well as possessing and sending images and videos with child pornography. He's still awaiting trial on charges of possessing child pornography, which he allegedly downloaded from 2009 until March 2017. 

Schulte's original trial back in 2020 was declared a mistrial after jurors couldn't come to an agreement regarding some of hist most serious charges, illegally gathering and transmitting national defense information included. After that event, the former CIA engineer had decided to represent himself. As part of his closing arguments, he told the jurors that the CIA and the FBI made him a scapegoat for their embarrassing failure, repeating what his side had been saying from the time he was arrested.

While the judge, AP said, was impressed with his closing arguments, they weren't enough to get the jury on his side. In court, he argued that the government's case is full of holes and that he didn't even have motive to leak the CIA's hacking tools. Prosecutors, however, accused him of being a disgruntled employee who felt that he was disrespected when the agency ignored his complaints about his work environment. As retaliation, he allegedly tried "to burn [the CIA] to the ground." US Attorney Damian Williams said his actions rendered the "most valuable intelligence-gathering cyber tools used to battle terrorist organizations and other malign influences around the globe" essentially useless. Williams also accused Schulte of trying to leak more classified materials against the government while he was behind bars. 

Schulte will have to face the court again to face charges related to possession of child pornography before a sentencing date can be set. The nine counts he was convicted of, however, are enough to keep him in prison for up to 80 years.

Uber is facing a lawsuit filed by more than 500 women who allege they were assaulted by drivers, CNBC has reported. The complaint states that "women passengers in multiple states were kidnapped, sexually assaulted, sexually battered, raped, falsely imprisoned, stalked, harassed, or otherwise attacked," by Uber drivers. The San Francisco law firm that filed the suit said it has about 550 clients with at least another 150 claims being investigated. 

Earlier this month, Uber released its second safety report showing that sexual assault reports in the five most severe categories fell 38 percent from 5,981 in 2017 and 2018 to 3,824 for the years 2019 and 2020. However, that may be correlated with the COVID-19 pandemic which saw a severe drop in ridership from 2020-2021. "We’re constantly innovating and investing in the safety of our platform," Uber chief legal officer Tony West wrote in the report.

However, the law firm said that safety is not the company's highest priority. "Uber's whole business model is predicated on giving people a safe ride home, but rider safety was never their concern – growth was, at the expense of their passengers' safety," said Slater Slater Schulman LLP founding partner Adam Slater. "While the company has acknowledged this crisis of sexual assault in recent years, its actual response has been slow and inadequate, with horrific consequences."

The law firm criticized Uber for lax policies related to driver background checks and enforcement. It noted that Uber has "opted to hire drivers without fingerprinting them or running their information through FBI databases... [and] has a longstanding policy that it will not report any criminal activity – even assaults and rape – to law-enforcement authorities." 

Uber has yet to respond to the lawsuit, but Engadget has reached out for comment. An Uber spokesperson told Fox Business that it can't comment on pending litigation, but that the company "takes reports of this nature very seriously and has worked closely with advocates to develop a survivor-centric approach to handling such cases when they arise." 

Uber has a history of settlements and complaints related to passenger and driver safety. In 2016, The Guardian reported that Uber had paid out $161.9 million in safety-related lawsuits since 2009. In 2017, it faced a class-action lawsuit accusing it of "giving perpetrators of sexual assault, sexual harassment and physical violence access to thousands of 'vulnerable victims' nationwide." And in 2019, the company was sued for $10 million by a woman who was sexual assaulted by an Uber driver, saying the company put her in harm's way. 

As of July 1st of this year, Amazon has provided Ring footage to US law enforcement 11 times without user consent or a court order, according to a disclosure shared by Senator Edward Markey on Wednesday. The Massachusetts Democrat sent Amazon a letter last month with questions about the company’s policies related to Ring and its relationships with police. Amazon responded to the letter at the start of July.

The disclosure marks the first time Amazon has shared this kind of information with the public. In its law enforcement guidelines, Ring says it reserves the right to “immediately” respond to police requests in cases where someone could die or suffer serious injury.

“In each instance, Ring made a good-faith determination that there was an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requiring disclosure of information without delay,” wrote Brian Huseman, Amazon’s vice-president of public policy, of the 11 videos. Huseman didn’t say the specific footage Ring shared with police.

In his letter, Markey asked Amazon to agree not to accept financial contributions from police or participate in sting operations. The company did not agree to those restrictions. In the past, Ring has actively courted partnerships with law enforcement and even gone so far as to author statements shared by police.

“It’s simply untrue that Ring gives anyone unfettered access to customer data or video, as we have repeatedly made clear to our customers and others,” a Ring spokesperson told Engadget. “The law authorizes companies like Ring to provide information to government entities if the company believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person, such as a kidnapping or an attempted murder, requires disclosure without delay. Ring faithfully applies that legal standard.” 

The news that Amazon shared footage with police without user consent at least 11 times this year is likely to add to the concerns many privacy experts have about the company. In 2021, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the Los Angeles Police Department requested footage from Ring of Black Lives Matter protests captured by residential cameras. 

Markey used the disclosure to call on lawmakers to pass the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act, a bill he introduced alongside Senator Jeff Merkley and Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Ayanna Pressley. “As my ongoing investigation into Amazon illustrates, it has become increasingly difficult for the public to move, assemble, and converse in public without being tracked and recorded,” said Markey. “We cannot accept this as inevitable in our country.”

Google has counter-sued Match seeking monetary damages and a judgement that would let it kick Tinder and the group's other dating apps out of the Play Store, Bloomberg has reported. Earlier this year, Match sued Google alleging antitrust violations over a decision requiring all Android developers to process "digital goods and services" payments through the Play Store billing system. 

Following the initial lawsuit in May, Google and Match reached a temporary agreement allowing Match to remain on the Play Store and use its own payments system. Google also agreed to make a "good faith" effort to address Match's billing concerns. Match, in turn, was to make an effort to offer Google's billing system as an alternative. 

However, Google parent Alphabet claims that Match Group now wants to avoid paying "nothing at all" to Google, including its 15 to 30 percent Play Store fees, according to a court filing. "Match Group never intended to comply with the contractual terms to which it agreed... it would also place Match Group in an advantaged position relative to other app developers," the document states.

Match group said that Google's Play Store policies violate federal and state laws. "Google doesn’t want anyone else to sue them so their counterclaims are designed as a warning shot," Match told Bloomberg in a statement. “We are confident that our suit, alongside other developers, the US Department of Justice and 37 state attorneys general making similar claims, will be resolved in our favor early next year."

Match is referring to an antitrust action launched last year by States and the federal government probing Google's Play Store fees. Shortly before that, Google dropped its fee on app developer revenue to 15 percent on the first $1 million, and 30 percent after that. At the same time, it announced it would enforce a policy requiring all developers to process payments through the Play Store's billing system. Earlier this year, a Senate bill moved forward targeting in-app payments in both Google and Apple's stores. 

Apple and Jony Ive are breaking up — and this time, according to The New York Times, it's for real. Ive left the tech giant in 2019 after over two decades and formed his own company called LoveFrom, which counted Apple as its first and primary client. The publication said that both parties agreed not to extend their contract in the weeks leading up to its renewal and to stop working together for the first time since the 90's. 

Ive was a close collaborator of Steve Jobs and is credited with designing the translucent, candy-colored plastic cases older Mac computers were known for. He also helped design the iPod, its white earbuds, the iPhone, the iPad, as well as the Apple Watch. Ive even reportedly contributed ideas to Apple's upcoming mixed reality headset. In 2015, he was named Apple's first Chief Design Officer, though his role shifted again over the years. The reports that came out after Ive left Apple claimed that he felt "dispirited" by Tim Cook's lack of interest in design and the CEO's decision to focus on selling software and services. Cook called those reports "absurd."

The Times said LoveFrom's multi-year contract with Apple was worth $100 million and prohibited the firm from taking on any project that the tech giant considered to be in competition with its products. Ive reportedly wanted the freedom to take on new clients without needing to ask permission from Apple. Meanwhile, the company's executives had apparently been questioning the amount Apple was paying LoveFrom and had grown frustrated over employees quitting to join the design firm instead.

Back when Ive left Apple and LoveFrom signed a deal with the company, Cook said that he looked "forward to working with Jony long into the future." Whether that means there's a possibility of them working together again remains to be seen. Unless, of course, one or both parties are taking a leaf from the great Taylor Swift's book and swearing that they are never, ever getting back together.

Twitter’s lawyers have hit back at Elon Musk for his attempt to bail on his $44 billion takeover of the company. The company said Friday, immediately following Musk’s official notice that he wanted to terminate the deal, that it was prepared to pursue legal action against him. Now, in a new filing with the SEC, Twitter goes further, calling Musk’s actions “invalid and wrongful.”

Musk and his lawyers previously accused the company of making “false and misleading” statements about the number of bots and fake accounts on its platform. They claimed, without offering evidence, that number of bots could be “wildly higher” than what Twitter has stated.

Now, Twitter’s lawyers have responded. In a letter to Musk’s attorneys, Twitter denies that it has reneged on its side of the agreement. In fact, it goes on to state that Musk himself has “knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and materially breached the Agreement.” It cites, among other provisions, the clause that stipulates Musk is barred from disparaging Twitter or its employees.

The filing is the latest sign that Twitter is gearing up for what could be a drawn out legal battle with Musk. The company’s board, which is facing a multi-billion dollar hit to Twitter’s share price since the saga with Musk began, has said it will sue Musk in an effort to force him to comply with the deal. The company has even hired a new law firm that specializes in corporate mergers. But whether a legal battle will result in Musk actually owning Twitter is still very much unclear.

As of September 1st, New York residents who want to carry concealed handguns will need to submit their social media accounts as part of their permit application. They'll need to provide details of active and inactive accounts from the previous three years, along with at least four references.

The accounts will be used to review the applicant's “character and conduct,” according to the Associated Press. Those seeking a permit need to show that they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.” Local sheriffs' staff, judges and country clerks will be tasked with looking at social media accounts for warning signs.

The measure was included in legislation that Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law last week. The legislation was passed to enact some gun restrictions following a Supreme Court ruling determining that most people have the right to carry a handgun for their own protection.

Hochul acknowledged that shooters often share details or hints of plans to harm others online. The person accused of killing 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas in May reportedly harassed and threatened to hurt girls and young women on social media apps. Suspects of other mass shootings have posted manifestos online before attacks took place.

Critics have taken issue with the social media provision of the legislation. It's unclear how the state will address concerns over privacy and free speech, and how it will assess the intent of applicants' social media posts.

Peter Kehoe, the executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association, argued that the law infringes rights under the Second Amendment and suggested local officials may not actually review an applicant's social media accounts. “I don’t think we would do that,” Kehoe told the AP. “I think it would be a constitutional invasion of privacy.” Others have expressed concern about the law in relation to surveillance of people of color.