Netflix is learning that careless dialogue in its fictional shows can have serious implications. Its bid to get a recent defamation suit dismissed has been rejected, meaning it will have to face the plaintiff — Georgian chess legend Nona Gaprindashvili — in court. 

In September, Gaprindashvili filed a suit against the streaming giant, accusing the company of defamation and "false light invasion of privacy." As the world's first female grandmaster, Gaprindashvili was mentioned in Netflix's series The Queen's Gambit — a period drama about a chess prodigy. 

In one scene during a chess match, a radio commentator says in passing "The only unusual thing about her, really, is her sex. And even that's not unique in Russia. There's Nona Gaprindashvili, but she's the female world champion and has never faced men."

According to the suit, not only is the allegation that Gaprindashvili hadn't faced men at that time "manifestly false," it's also "grossly sexist and belittling." It states that "By 1968, the year in which this episode is set, she had competed against at least 59 male chess players (28 of them simultaneously in one game), including at least ten Grandmasters of that time."

Stanley Sherman via Getty Images

The show is based on a 1983 novel by Walter Tevis that also mentions Gaprindashvili. However, the part which Netflix appears to have based this particular bit of its script on says, "The only unusual thing about her was her sex; and even that wasn't unique in Russia. There was Nona Gaprindashvili, not up to the level of this tournament, but a player who had met all these Russian Grandmasters many times before." Netflix's version is clearly different.

The streaming provider had moved to strike the case in November, saying in its filing that "the Series is a fictional work that a reasonable viewer would not construe as conveying fact." It also said that "a reasonable viewer would not draw the negative implication that Plaintiff alleges."

However, US District Judge Virginia Philips denied that motion today, writing that "the fact that the Series was a fictional work does not insulate Netflix from liability for defamation if all the elements of defamation are otherwise present."

The ruling also states that "at the very least, the line is dismissive of the accomplishments central to Plaintiff’s reputation." It also points out that, when filing its motion to dismiss, "Netflix’s own evidence demonstrates knowledge of the truth in its choice to deviate from the text of the Novel, which states that Plaintiff had faced the male Russian Grandmasters 'many times before.'"

Gaprindashvili is seeking damages of at least $5 million, as well as for Netflix to remove the statement that she never played men from the show. 

Waymo has sued the California Department of Motor Vehicles. In a case first reported by The Los Angeles Times, the Alphabet subsidiary filed a complaint with the Sacramento County Superior Court on January 21st to prevent the agency from disclosing what it believes to be trade secrets.

At the center of the lawsuit is a public records request an unidentified party made to obtain Waymo’s driverless deployment application. Before sharing the requested documents, the DMV allowed the company to redact any sections it believed would reveal its trade secrets, including questions that were asked by the agency. When the DMV eventually forwarded the package to the requester, that individual or group challenged the redactions. The agency then contacted Waymo and invited the company to sue it to resolve the matter.

Some of the information Waymo wants to prevent from entering the public domain include details on how it plans to handle emergencies involving its autonomous vehicles. Another redacted section details the abilities of its Driver software to handle San Francisco’s tricky one-way streets and hills. The company began offering taxi service to a limited number of customers in San Francisco in August. Those vehicles operate with a backup human driver.

The company contends it has publicly shared almost all of the information contained in its application with the DMV. According to Waymo, the redactions involve technical details that touch on how it achieves the safety performance it has detailed in other public venues. Waymo claims that information could give a competitor an edge on it. The suit's purpose here is to either forestall or completely prevent the disclosure of the requested information. As TheLos Angeles Times notes, resolution for these types of cases can take years.

“Every autonomous vehicle company has an obligation to demonstrate the safety of its technology, which is why we’ve transparently and consistently shared data on our safety readiness with the public,” a spokesperson for Waymo told Engadget. “We will continue to work with the DMV to determine what is appropriate for us to share publicly and hope to find a resolution soon.”

The DMV declined to comment on the case, but said it's currently reviewing the complaint. 

The National Labor Relations Board has accused Amazon of threatening, surveilling and interrogating workers at its JFK8 warehouse in New York to discourage them from unionizing. According to the board's complaint as seen by Motherboard, Amazon brought a union avoidance consultant to the facility and told employees that it "would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining representative." The consultant reportedly said that union organizing at the warehouse would fail anyway, because the organizers were "thugs."

NLRB's complaint also said that Amazon representatives interrogated workers about union activities and promised to fix their issues if they didn't support the union and didn't distribute union literature. Further, the labor board alleges that security guards confiscated union literature from workers and told them they couldn't distribute the materials without permission. If you'll recall, Amazon's warehouse workers in New York filed a petition to unionize with the board last year, but they had to withdraw it after failing to gather enough signatures to be approved. The JFK8 workers re-filed their application in December and recently reached union vote threshold.

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel denied the allegations to Motherboard, telling the publication: "These allegations are false and we look forward to showing that through this process."

These allegations come from a series of unfair labor practice charges filed by workers in May and June last year. The board investigated the incidents and found merit that they occurred. It has given Amazon February 10th to respond to the complaint and has set a hearing for it on April 5th. In addition to detailing workers' allegations in its complaint, the NLRB has also outlined a series of remedies it wants the company to follow. In particular, it wants Amazon to train its managers, supervisors, security guards and union avoidance consultants on workers' rights to organize and form unions. 

Intel has emerged triumphant (for now) in a long-running antitrust case that once saw the chipmaker slapped with a record-breaking fine by the European Commission. The General Court, Europe's second highest court, has overturned the €1.06 billion fine levied against the company way back in 2009. Back then, the Commission determined that Intel abused its dominant position in the market and harmed its rivals by offering manufacturers such as HP, Dell and Lenovo incentives for using its microprocessors instead of those from rival AMD's. 

The company, of course, appealed the decision, but the General Court upheld the fine in 2014. Intel had a game plan to shut out AMD from the market and "attempted to conceal the anti-competitive nature of (those) practices," the court said. In 2017, however, the highest court in the European Union ordered the fine to be re-examined. It sent the case back down to the General Court on the grounds that the Commission didn't consider conducting an economic assessment on how Intel's activity impacted its rival's ability to compete against it.

Now, the General Court has issued its decision, in which it confirmed that the Commission carried out an incomplete analysis of the company's rebate scheme all those years ago. As such, it's not possible to establish whether the rebates Intel offered the manufacturers were "capable of having, or were likely to have, anticompetitive effects." The General Court has also decided that it's not in a position to identify how much fine Intel has to pay, so it has scrapped both the decision and the fine levied against the chipmaker.

It's a major victory for the company that's currently trying to catch up to AMD while also dealing with the global supply chain shortage. According to The Wall Street Journal, though, the decision could still be appealed, and it would return to the Court of Justice if that happens.

Google, no stranger to lawsuits about its practices these days, is facing a fresh legal broadside from Washington DC Attorney General Karl Racine. Racine (pictured) has launched an action claiming that Google has violated the Consumer Protection Procedures act in the state, specifically about location tracking. Essentially, Racine believes that while Google says its users can opt-out of having their whereabouts identified, such tracking remains in place.

Much of this controversy was first publicized back in 2018 when an Associated Press report identified that location tracking remained active regardless of the user’s choice. The claim says that between 2014 and 2019, despite these promises, tracking data was stored in a Web and App Activity database. As our deep dive on the subject explained, Google did enable users to go in and erase their location from this file, but the process was slow and laborious.

“Google leads consumers to believe that consumers are in control of whether Google collects and retains information about their location and how that information is used,” says the complaint. “In reality, consumers who use Google products cannot prevent Google from collecting, storing and profiting from their location.” It added that the use of dark patterns to nudge a user to consenting to data collection is harmful to consumers.

This breaking news story is developing, please refresh for more information.

Even if you've never heard of a company called Plaid, they may owe you part of a multi-million dollar lawsuit settlement, Fast Company has reported. Plaid, which connects consumer bank accounts to services like Venmo, Robinhood, Coinbase and other apps, was accused of collecting excessive financial data from consumers. While denying any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $58 million to all consumers with a linked bank account to any of its approximately 5,000 client apps.

The lawsuit accused Plaid of collecting "more financial data than was needed from users." It also claimed that the company obtained users' bank login information via its own "Plaid Link" interface, "which had the look and feel of the user’s own bank account login screen," according to the settlement website. On top of the $58 million payout, the company was forced to change some of its business practices. 

Millions of people use apps linked to Plaid, so any payout might be pretty slim. Still, if you're a US resident who had a bank account connected to the app between January 1st, 2013 and November 19th, 2021, you may qualify to receive a claim. For more, see the settlement site's FAQ. 

You may have already received an email about the lawsuit, or you can check the settlement's search section to see if you've used an app that qualifies. In any case, you have until April 28th, 2022 to submit your claim.

Google has asked the High Court of Australia to overturn a 2020 ruling it warns could have a “devastating” effect on the wider internet. In a filing the search giant made on Friday, Google claims it will be forced to “act as censor” if the country’s highest court doesn’t overturn a decision that awarded a lawyer $40,000 in defamation damages for an article the company had linked to through its search engine, reports The Guardian.

In 2016, George Defteros, a Victoria state lawyer whose past client list included individuals implicated in Melbourne's notorious gangland killings, contacted Google to ask the company to remove a 2004 article from The Age. The piece featured reporting on murder charges prosecutors filed against Defteros related to the death of three men. Those charges were later dropped in 2005. The company refused to remove the article from its search results as it viewed the publication as a reputable source.

The matter eventually went to court with Defteros successfully arguing the article and Google’s search results had defamed him. The judge who oversaw the case ruled The Age’s reporting had implied Defteros had been cozy with Melbourne’s criminal underground. The Victorian Court of Appeals subsequently rejected a bid by Google to overturn the ruling.

From Google’s perspective, at issue here is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet. “A hyperlink is not, in and of itself, the communication of that to which it links,” the company contends in its submission to the High Court. If the 2020 judgment is left to stand, Google claims it will make it “liable as the publisher of any matter published on the web to which its search results provide a hyperlink,” including news stories that come from reputable sources. In its defense, the company points to a 2011 ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada that held a hyperlink by itself is never a publication of defamatory material.

We’ve reached out to Google for comment.

Google has filed a motion to dismiss most of an ad tech-focused antitrust lawsuit brought forward by a group of state attorneys general. It has requested that a federal court dismiss four of the six charges with prejudice, which would prevent them from being brought back to the same court.

"The complaint misrepresents our business, products and motives, and we are moving to dismiss it based on its failure to offer plausible antitrust claims," Adam Cohen, Google's director of economic policy, wrote in a blog post. The company says the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of wrongdoing for several of their allegations and that much of the suit "is based on outdated information that bears no correlation to our current products or business in this dynamic industry (and in any event never amounted to a violation of antitrust laws)."

The AGs, who are led by Texas AG Ken Paxton, claimed Google abused its power to shore up its position in the online ads market. They said the company agreed a "sweetheart deal" in 2018 that gave Facebook parent Meta a boost in ad header bidding (a type of tech allows publishers to solicit bids from multiple ad exchanges simultaneously) in exchange for support for Google's Open Bidding method of selling ads.

Google said the deal was above board and that it wasn't a secret, as Facebook Audience Network (FAN) was one of several partners for its Open Bidding program. Cohen said the deal "does not provide FAN with an advantage in the Open Bidding auction. FAN competes in the auction just like other bidders: FAN must make the highest bid to win a given impression, period. If another eligible network or exchange bids higher, they win the auction."

The AGs also alleged that Google harnessed at least three programs to manipulate ad auctions. The aim, according to the states, was to push publishers and advertisers into using the company's own tools.

"State Plaintiffs respond to Google’s success by seeking to compel Google to share with its competitors the fruits of its investments and innovation," Google wrote in its filing. "They criticize Google for not designing its products to better suit its rivals’ needs and for making improvements to those products that leave its competitors too far behind. They see the 'solution' to Google’s success as holding Google back, rather than letting market forces urge its competitors forward."

As Reuters notes, the two other charges in the suit are based on state law and were stayed in September. Although Google hasn't asked for those to be dismissed, it reserved the right to make that request at a later date.

A court in California has ordered Benjamin Robert Simon to pay $150,000 in damages to the creator of Roblox, reports Polygon. Roblox Corporation sued Simon in November, accusing the YouTuber of harassing its player base and repeatedly skirting its efforts to keep him off the platform. At the time, the company initially sought $1.65 million in damages from Simon.

Roblox Corporation’s allegations against Simon, who is better known as Ruben Sim on YouTube, were numerous. The company said it had originally banned him from Roblox for using homophobic and racist slurs, as well as sexually harassing other players and uploading photos of Adolf Hitler.

The court ordered Simon to stay off the platform. He has also agreed not to make or publish “false threats of terrorist activity relating to Roblox.” One of the most serious accusations the game’s developer leveled against Simon was that he posted “false and misleading terrorist threats” that led to a temporary shutdown of the 2021 Roblox Developers Conference in San Francisco. The company claims it cost $50,000 to investigate the threat and secure the venue.

Simon has also been ordered not to go near the company’s offices. In its original complaint, Roblox Corporation accused Simon of glamorizing a 2018 shooting incident at YouTube’s headquarters in San Bruno, California, and threatening a copycat act of violence at its own office in nearby San Mateo.

Simon told Polygon he plans to upload a video about the complaint on his YouTube channel sometime in the “next couple months.” The Roblox Corporation declined to comment on the outcome of the case.

Israeli police have employed NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware to extract data from phones belonging to Israeli citizens, according to an investigation by the country’s Calcalist business publication. Police reportedly used the controversial software to target a number of individuals, including politicians and members of an activist group that had called for the removal of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the report, Israeli police conducted their surveillance without court supervision, a claim both police and public officials deny.

“All police activity in this field is done in accordance with the law, on the basis of court orders and strict work procedures,” Israeli Police said. The Washington Post reports Omer Bar-Lev, the country’s country’s public security minister, said an initial investigation had found no evidence of a “secretive wiretapping” program but promised a judge would check everything “thoroughly and unequivocally.”

“We would like to clarify that the company does not operate the systems in its customers’ possession and is not involved in their operation,” NSO Group said in a statement the company shared with Israeli media. “The company sells its products under license and supervision for the use of security bodies and state law enforcement agencies, to prevent crime and terrorism legally, and according to court orders and local law in each country.”

Per The Guardian, Israeli law only allows Shin Bet, the country’s domestic intelligence agency, to hack a phone without a court order. What’s more, the only context in which the agency is allowed to carry out such an action is to prevent a terrorist attack involving Palestinians, Israeli-Arabs or Israeli-Jews. Approval from a senior Shin Bet official or the attorney general’s office is also required. No such exemption exists for the country’s police service. However, according to Calcalist, the software wasn’t directly covered by Israel’s existing laws.

The report comes a month after Reuters found the Pegasus spyware had been used to target at least nine US State Department officials. In that instance, an unknown assailant had used the software to target federal employees who were either stationed in Uganda or whose work involved the African country. NSO has claimed its software can’t target devices linked to American or Israeli phone numbers.