This week, Devindra and Senior Writer Sam Rutherford dive into the Supreme Court’s latest EPA ruling, which severely limits the agency’s ability to curtail power plant emissions. Devindra also chats with ProPublica reporter Lisa Song about what this means for the EPA and other federal agencies. (Basically, it makes fighting climate change much harder.) Also, we discuss Apple’s new lockdown mode, which adds an extreme layer of security to your devices, and why Gen Z is so Minion crazy.

Listen above, or subscribe on your podcast app of choice. If you've got suggestions or topics you'd like covered on the show, be sure to email us or drop a note in the comments! And be sure to check out our other podcasts, the Morning After and Engadget News!

Subscribe!

• iTunes

• Spotify

• Pocket Casts

• Stitcher

• Google Podcasts

• RSS

Topics

Luke Brooks/Engadget

• How bad is the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling? – 1:49

• Apple is building a lockdown mode for an “extreme” level of security – 27:43

• Axie Infinity hack was traced back to a fake LinkedIn job offer – 32:39.359

• Toyota has run out of EV tax credits in the US – 37:51

• God of War Ragnarok will be released on November 9, 2022 – 46:14

• WTF is going on with all the Minions memes? – 48:02

• Working on – 51:32

• Picks – 1:03:49

Livestream

Credits
Hosts: Devindra Hardawar and Sam Rutherford
Guest: Lisa Song from ProPublica
Producer: Ben Ellman
Music: Dale North and Terrence O'Brien
Livestream producers: Julio Barrientos
Graphic artists: Luke Brooks and Brian Oh

Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, Theranos’ former chief operating officer, has been found guilty of all charges in his criminal trial. Balwani, whose trial began in March, was charged with ten counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He could face up to 20 years in prison for defrauding investors and Theranos patients.

The verdict comes nearly six months after Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty of defrauding Theranos investors. She also faces up to 20 years in prison, but hasn’t yet been sentenced. During her trial, Holmes testified that Balwani had been controlling and abusive during their relationship. Balwani’s attorneys denied the allegations.

The case against Balwani was similar to the one against Holmes. Like Holmes, Balwani was charged with defrauding Theranos investors as well as patients. Holmes was found guilty on just four of the 11 fraud charges she faced, all of which related to Theranos investors. She was acquitted on charges of defrauding patients. 

Unlike Holmes, Balwani did not take the stand during his three-month trial. His lawyers argued that “he did not control Theranos” and that Holmes was ultimately in charge of running the company. Prosecutors maintained he worked hand-in-hand with Holmes to mislead investors, and that he was the executive responsible for erroneous financial projections claiming the startup would bring in $1 billion in revenue by 2015.

Balwani’s trial didn’t attract the same level of media attention as Holmes’, but his relationship with Holmes played a major role in the widespread fascination surrounding Theranos. Balwani joined Theranos as COO in 2009 and oversaw much of the day-to-day operations of the company’s lab. The two executives hid their longtime romantic relationship from other Theranos employees, as well as the company’s investors and board members. More recently, their relationship was a major focus of The Dropout, a Hulu miniseries about the rise and downfall of Holmes and Theranos.

Developing...

Meta is taking legal action against two prolific data scrapers. On Tuesday, the company filed separate federal lawsuits against a company called Octopus and an individual named Ekrem Ateş. According to Meta, the former is the US subsidiary of a Chinese multinational tech firm that offers data scraping-for-hire services to individuals and companies.

Octopus also sells software people can use to carry out their own data collection campaigns. According to Meta, this program first compromises the Facebook and Instagram accounts of the user by providing their authentication information to Octopus before proceeding to scrape all the data accessible to that individual’s accounts. The software can then obtain phone numbers, dates of birth and other personal information about every Facebook and Instagram friend connected to a particular Octopus customer. Meta alleges Octopus violated its terms of service and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by offering an automated scraping service and attempting to avoid detection by the company.

“Companies like Octopus are part of an emerging scraping industry that provides automation services to any customer — regardless of who they target and for what purpose they scrape,” Meta said. “This industry makes scraping available to individuals and companies that otherwise would not have the capabilities.”

As for Ekrem Ateş, the individual Meta sued, the company says he used automated Instagram accounts to collect information on more than 350,000 Instagram users and later published that data on a series of clone sites where one could view the data of those individuals without their consent. Since the start of 2021, Meta says it has taken multiple enforcement actions against Ateş, including sending him a cease and desist letter and revoking his access to its services. This isn’t the first time Meta has used legal action to try and stop data scraping. In 2020, for instance, the company sued a Turkish national who scraped more than 100,000 Instagram profiles. 

Vegan meal kit startup Daily Harvest has been hit with two lawsuits by customers alleging they needed gallbladder removals after eating one of the company's products, reportedCNN. Last month the company issued a voluntary recall of its “French Lentil + Leek Crumbles” dish following multiple claims of gastrointestinal and liver from consumers. The first lawsuit was filed by Carol Ann Ready, an Oklahoma woman who is suing the company in the federal court for the Southern District of New York. Ready purchased and ate lentil crumbles from Daily Harvest on two separate occasions in May, both of which both of which resulted in trips to the emergency room. The second of these was a four-day stay, which ended with Ready's physician recommending gallbladder removal. 

Attorneys for Ready are asking for a jury trial, alleging that damages for the case exceed what the court normally allows. “Plaintiff has sustained serious personal injuries; suffered, and will continue to suffer, significant pain and other physical discomfort; incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial medical expenses; have missed, and will likely miss in the future, work and time necessarily dedicated to advancement in her profession; and remains at risk for future health complications with damages far in excess of $75,000, the jurisdictional threshold of this court,” says the complaint, obtained by Food Safety News.

Earlier this week, an Oregon-based content creator who claimed he also consumed the lentils and subsequently had to have his gallbladder removed filed a personal injury lawsuit against Daily Harvest. In a video posted to Twitter on June 21, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Luke Wesley Pearson, warned his followers not to eat the lentil crumbles.

Daily Harvest still hasn’t pinpointed what may have caused the adverse reactions. "All pathogen and toxicology results have come back negative so far, but we're continuing to do extensive testing so we can get to the bottom of this. Everyone who has been affected deserves an answer, and we are committed to making this right,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

Yesterday the FDA announced a formal investigation into the outbreak, in an effort to determine the cause. In a blog post, Daily Harvest said it received approximately 470 reports from customers who suffered adverse reactions after eating the product.

Tesla is facing another lawsuit by a group of former and current workers at its Fremont factory who allege that it knew about but failed to stop racist slurs, harassment and more, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The employees were "subjected to offensive racist comments and offensive racist behavior and discipline by colleagues, leads, supervisors, managers, and/or human resources personnel on a daily basis," the complaint states. 

One plaintiff named in the suit, Jasmine Wilson, worked as a quality inspector from August 2021 to March 2022. She alleges that she was the victim of racial epithets and sexual harassment from supervisors. In addition, they assumed she was a production associate because she was African-American, and berated her for not doing that job and wearing the wrong uniform, according to the suit. When she informed human resources, it was skeptical of her claims and never launched a promised investigation. 

Other employees also alleged racial slurs and graffiti on Tesla restroom walls, and said they were retaliated against after complaining. Some said they were given more strenuous positions than non-minority workers and passed over for promotions. 

Late last year, Tesla was sued by six women who accused it of "rampant" sexual harassment at the Fremont factory with catcalling, inappropriate touching, sexual comments and more. In December, a jury awarded former elevator operator Owen Diaz $137 million over racial abuse. The award was later reduced to $15 million, but that was rejected by Diaz and a federal judge ordered a new damages trial. Tesla has yet to comment on the latest lawsuit and eliminated its press relations department in 2020. 

Europe and its member states have provisionally agreed on new crypto regulations that aim to protect consumers and service providers, the European Parliament announced. Called "MiCA" (markets in crypto-assets), it's designed to guard against things like fraud, criminal activity, climate impact and more. 

"In the Wild West of the crypto-world, MiCA will be a global standard setter," said Germany's MEP Stefan Berger in a statement. "MiCA will ensure a harmonised market, provide legal certainty for crypto-asset issuers, guarantee a level playing field for service providers and ensure high standards for consumer protection." 

A new legal framework is designed to protect market integrating by regulating public crypto offerings. A key provision is a public register administered by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to address money laundering concerns. Major crypto-asset service provider (CASPs) will also have to disclose energy consumption and declare environmental and climate impact data to their national authority, which will in turn inform ESMA. 

This new regulation strengthens the European framework to fight money-laundering, reduces the risks of fraud and makes crypto-asset transactions more secure. The EU travel rule will ensure that CASPs can prevent and detect sanctioned addresses and that transfers of crypto-assets are fully traceable.

The law covers cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether, but NFTs (nonfungible tokens) including "cinema tickets, digital collectibles from clothing brands or in-game items in computer games" will be exempt. However, those could later be re-classified as financial instruments or crytpo assets subject to MiCA, according to the rules. 

The law is still provisional, with key details like whether CASPs will need to be located in the EU still being debated, according to Bloomberg. Earlier version of the draft, first proposed in 2020, included a provision to ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that used energy-intensive mining processes. However, those were subsequently removed following industry complaints. 

The news follows a a bad run for crypto, with the collapse of TerraUSD and other tokens, the freezing of withdrawals at Celsius and a general decline in the market. The US has yet to implement its own rules on crypto, but US senators recently introduced a bipartisan bill designed to do just that. 

In yet another historic reversal of long standing precedent, the US Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6 - 3 along party lines to severely limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in regulating carbon emissions from power plants, further hamstringing the Biden administration's ability to combat global warming. 

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, centered both on whether the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to issue regulations for the power industry and whether Congress must "speak with particular clarity when it authorizes executive agencies to address major political and economic questions," a theory the court refers to as the “major questions doctrine.”

Developing...

Apple and Qualcomm may have ended most of their feuding in 2019, but the fight might not be over just yet. The Vergereports that the Supreme Court has denied Apple's request for a hearing to potentially invalidate two Qualcomm patents that played key roles in 2017 attempts to ban Apple Watch, iPad and iPhone sales over allegedly infringing modem technology. The court didn't explain why it rejected the request, but a Justice Department amicusbrief from May argued that there was no evidence to indicate the patents were harming Apple's business.

While the companies struck a six-year licensing deal to settle their main dispute, the agreement let a US Patent and Trademark Office case continue involving the two patents. Apple lost an attempt to invalidate the patents with the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and again failed when a Federal Circuit court tossed out Apple's appeal request based on the settlement. When Apple went to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department filed its supporting brief opposing the request.

Apple claimed in its request that Qualcomm might use the patents to sue again once the licensing deal expires in 2025 or (if extended) 2027. It's not certain what either company will do next. We've asked both Apple and Qualcomm for comment. The landscape may change significantly within the next few years, however. Apple is rumored to be ditching Qualcomm in favor of using its own 5G modems as soon as 2023, and it's not yet clear how that might affect the current truce.

Pinterest must now face a lawsuit from a former friend of one of its founders who claims she helped create the platform. Bloombergreported that Alameda County Superior Court Judge Richard Seabolt on Thursday denied the company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Christine Martinez, the plaintiff, claims she was asked by co-founder Ben Silbermann to help revive the app. The digital market strategist claims to have developed features tied to Pinterest’s Boards and created a marketing plan to enlist bloggers to promote the platform, among other contributions. 

Martinez filed a lawsuit against the company in September, and Pinterest filed the motion to dismiss in December. The company argued that Martinez’s claims are too old to fall within the statute of limitations. Seabolt disagreed with this and said Martinez “sufficiently alleges” that she and the Pinterest founders agreed to deferred compensation. Pinterest went public in 2019, an event that Seabolt deemed “transformative” and in his view sealed the company's obligation to pay Martinez.

In a statement to Engadget, Pinterest's chief communications officer LeMia Jenkins Thompson noted that the court dismissed several of Martinez's claims. Thompson also stated that, "as the facts come out, we are confident the evidence will confirm that Plaintiff’s claims are meritless and that the rest of this baseless lawsuit should be dismissed." 

According to the New York Times, Martinez was never formally employed at nor did she ever sign a written contract with the San Francisco-based company. Instead, Martinez argues that the agreement was implied, based on her discussions with Sciarra and Silbermann.

Martinez, who is a former lifestyle blogger and founder of an eccomerce startup, told the Times she was eager to help friends. “[...The Pinterest co-founders] had no marketing background or expertise in creating a product for women.”

Last year Owen Diaz, a former contracted elevator operator at Tesla’s Fremont assembly plant, successfully sued the automaker for creating a hostile, racially abusive work environment, and was awarded $137 million by the jury. That award was winnowed down to just $15 million by a judge who gave Diaz two weeks to accept or reject the new amount. As reported by Bloomberg, lawyers for Diaz have taken the latter option.

“In rejecting the court’s excessive reduction by asking for a new trial, Mr. Diaz is again asking a jury of his peers to evaluate what Tesla did to him and to provide just compensation for the torrent of racist slurs that was directed at him,” wrote Diaz’s lawyers in a statement to NBC News.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2017, described a work environment where Black workers were regularly subjected to racial slurs and other abuse, with at least one supervisor allegedly telling Diaz to "go back to Africa" — issues which he also claims the company was negligent in addressing. Tesla has pushed back against some of Diaz’s claims, arguing that it took timely action to stop the harassment, as well as claiming these racial slurs were "used in a “friendly” manner and usually by African-American colleagues." It also argued that it was not liable for how Diaz was treated given his status as a contractor.

Last year a jury awarded Diaz a total of $6.9 million of compensatory damages and $130 million of punitive damages, which likely would have amounted to one of the largest payouts in a corporate racial discrimination lawsuit. US District Judge William Orrick, in an opinion filed in April, rejected Tesla’s claims that it was not liable for a contract employee, but also slashed the award amount, calling it “excessive.” He reduced the amount of compensatory damages to $1.5 million and punitive damages to $13.5 million. Since Diaz's lawyers have now rejected the award, the case will proceed to a new trial.

The automaker is also facing another lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing on the behalf of more than 4,000 former and current Black Tesla employees. According to three former Tesla workers interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, Black workers at the Fremont facility were segregated, given the most difficult tasks and subject to more discipline than other workers.