Walmart apparently doesn't want to be left out of the crypto rush. CNBC has learned Walmart filed several trademark applications with the USPTO in late December for selling virtual goods, and in another filing said it would provide a cryptocurrency as well as NFTs. While the documents don't necessarily guarantee action, trademark attorney Josh Gerben told CNBC the trademarks were highly detailed — Walmart was clearly thinking about how it would tackle digital currencies and products.
We've asked Walmart for comment. The company was purposefully all-encompassing with its virtual goods trademark, effectively giving it the option to sell NFT counterparts to the physical items it sells.
It wouldn't be strange for Walmart to dip into cryptocurrencies or NFTs. After Facebook changed its name to Meta and signaled its intention to foster metaverses, there has been a rush among major brands to enter the space with currencies, NFTs or both. Adidas, Nike, Gap and other well-known names have started selling NFTs and hinted at intentions to create virtual spaces. Walmart might not want to risk missing out if this trend lasts, even if it's not in a hurry to join early adopters.
Apple is facing another lawsuit over Powerbeats battery trouble. New York resident Alejandro Vivar has filed a potential class action lawsuit over allegations Powerbeats Pro design defects prevents the wireless earbuds from charging properly. As it's reportedly too easy to lose contact between the buds and their charging case, one of the earpieces either won't charge "consistently" or quickly drain its charge. Apple committed fraud by misrepresenting battery life and failing to address issues it supposedly knew about, the plaintiff said.
Vivar's attorneys suggest a combination of the case design and an insufficiently sturdy ear "gasket" (the piece that goes into your ear) may be responsible. Customers have had to resort to inserting a "wedge" to keep the charging pins in contact, according to the lawsuit. The lawyers also reject Apple's claims the Powerbeats Pro are sweat- and water-resistant, arguing that sweat corrodes the charging contacts.
The lawsuit calls for Apple to "correct" the situation, compensate affected users and pay unspecified damages. If the lawsuit is fully certified as a class action, it would cover both New York customers as well as those in Georgia, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Virginia.
We've asked Apple for comment. As with many such lawsuits, there's no certainty it will reach class action status or lead to compensation. And don't expect a windfall even if the case succeeds — with some exceptions, class actions tend to result in small payouts. If anything, the lawsuit may do more to affect design choices than Powerbeats Pro buyers' bank accounts.
Google may have to rethink its non-disclosure agreements following a long-running lawsuit from an anonymous worker. According to The Washington Post, a California Superior Court judge has ruled that Google's employee confidentiality agreements violate state labor laws. Terms banning the employee from discussing his job with potential employers amounted to a non-compete clause and were thus illegal in the state, the judge said.
The internet company originally persuaded a judge to toss out most of the worker's claims in the belief federal law overrode California legislation. An appeals court overturned that decision, however, noting that state laws did more to protect free speech rights that included work experience. Google has declined to comment on either the verdict or any plans to appeal.
The outcome wouldn't let Google employees discuss trade secrets if it was upheld. It would let people discuss work experience, though, and could make it easier for job-seekers to switch roles without fear of lawsuits. It might also provide more opportunities for sexual assault and harassment victims to discuss their reasons for leaving a company, although California legislation has already tackled non-disclosure agreements that bar victims from talking about incidents.
This ruling might also have wider repercussions for California's tech sector. QH Law partner Ramsey Hanafi told the Post that many large tech companies have similar gag rules. Like it or not, Silicon Valley firms might have to revamp their agreements and accept that it will be easier for staff to leave or identify toxic work cultures.
A legal expert has teamed with a litigation firm to sue Meta on behalf of 44 million Facebook users in the UK, claiming that they had their data exploited in violation of competition laws, TechCrunch has reported. The firm is seeking £2.3 billion ($3.1 billion) in damages for UK Facebook users.
The lawsuit was filed by competition law specialist Dr. Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, and is being funded by Innsworth, a law firm that takes on cases in exchange for a share of damages won. It claims that even though users don't pay to use Facebook, they surrender data that has considerable value.
"They are exploiting users by taking their personal data without properly compensating them for taking that data," Lovdahl Gormsen said in a statement. "I don’t think the users are entirely clear when they click on the terms and conditions how unfair that deal is."
She added that Facebook has become "the sole social network in the UK where you could be sure to connect with friends and family in one place." And even as it locked users into its ecosystem (which includes WhatsApp and Instagram), it was tracking users across other websites as well. "It abused its market dominance to impose unfair terms and conditions on ordinary Britons giving it the power to exploit their personal data," according to Lovdahl Gormsen.
The lawsuit covers the period from October 2015 to December 31st, 2019. It's an "opt-out" class action lawsuit, meaning that users will not need to take any action to receive damages in the case, unless they decide to opt out.
"People access our service for free. They choose our services because we deliver value for them and they have meaningful control of what information they share on Meta’s platforms and who with. We have invested heavily to create tools that allow them to do so," a Meta spokesperson told The Guardian in a statement.
Facebook already had a hit of bad news this week in the US, as a Federal judge said an antitrust suit by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Facebook could move forward. The FTC wants to force Meta to sell Instagram and WhatsApp, accusing it of engaging in "anti-competitive conduct" against rivals.
Three PayPal users who've allegedly had their accounts frozen and funds taken by the company without explanation have filed a federal lawsuit against the online payment service. The plaintiffs — two users from California and one from Chicago — are accusing the company of unlawfully seizing their personal property and violating racketeering laws. They're now proposing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all other users who've had their accounts frozen before and are seeking restitution, as well as punitive and exemplary damages.
Lena Evans, one of the plaintiffs who'd been a PayPal user for 22 years, said the website seized $26,984 from her account six months after it got frozen without ever telling her why. Evans had been using PayPal to buy and sell clothing on eBay, to exchange money for a poker league she owns and for a non-profit that helps women with various needs.
Fellow plaintiff Roni Shemtov said PayPal seized over $42,000 of her money and never got an acceptable reason for why her account was terminated. She received several different explanations when she contacted the company: One customer rep said it was because she used the same IP and computer as other Paypal users, while another said it was because she sold yoga clothing at 20 to 30 percent lower than retail. Yet another representative allegedly said it was because she used multiple accounts, which she denies.
Shbadan Akylbekov, the third plaintiff, said PayPal seized over $172,000 of his money without giving him any explanation why the account got limited in the first place. Akylbekov used the account of a company his wife owns to sell Hyaluron pens, which are needle-less pens that inject hyaluronic acid into the skin. After the money disappeared from the account following a six-month freeze, PayPal allegedly sent his wife a letter that says she "violated PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) by accepting payments for the sale of injectable fillers not approved by the FDA." It also said that the money was taken from her account "for its liquidated damages arising from those AUP violations pursuant to the User Agreement."
PayPal has long angered many a user for limiting accounts and freezing their funds for six months or more. One high-profile case was American poker player Chris Moneymaker's who had $12,000 taken from his account after six months of being limited. Moneymaker was already in the process of asking people to join him in a class action lawsuit before his funds were "mysteriously returned."
Part of the complaint reads:
"Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendant PAYPAL, INC. ("PayPal") to recover damages and other relief available at law and in equity on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf of the members of the class defined herein... This action stems from Defendant’s widespread business practice of unilaterally seizing funds from its clients’ financial accounts, without cause and without any fair or due process.
PayPal places a "hold" on Plaintiffs' own funds in their own PayPal accounts. PayPal has failed to inform Plaintiffs and members of the class of the reason(s) for the actions PayPal has taken, even telling Plaintiffs and members of the class that they will "have to get a subpoena" to learn the simple information as to why PayPal was holding, and denying Plaintiffs, access to their own money."
When you're the progenitor of an entire gaming genre and holding the reigns of a billion dollar intellectual property, imitation, it turns out, is not the sincerest form of flattery. It's the sort of thing that gets you dragged into US federal court. And that's exactly what Krafton, maker of PUBG Mobile, is doing to Garena Online over accusations that the Singapore-based game developer has once again infringed its battle royale IP. What's more, Krafton has named Google and Apple in its complaint.
This isn't the first time that Krafton has sued Garena Online. In 2017, Krafton filed suit in Singapore over the sale of Free Fire: Battlegrounds, Garena's suspiciously PUBG-like mobile shooter, but ended up settling that case. Now, Krafton is suing Garena again, over Free Fire again, but this time in US federal court.
Krafton alleges that after settling in 2017, Garena immediately resumed selling Free Fire on both Google Play and the Apple App Store without entering into any sort of licencing agreement to use the litigated game content. Additionally, Garena started selling of another battle royale game of questionable copyright pedigree, Free Fire Max, this past September. As such, Krafton is suing Garena for copyright infringement claiming that “Garena has earned hundreds of millions of dollars from its global sales of the infringing apps," and holding both the Google and Apple marketplaces liable for damages for hosting the content. Krafton, which is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, has not specified damages outside of a statutory $150,000 per infringement.
The long-running lawsuit Apple faced over off-the-clock bag searches of its employees in California is almost over. While its final approval hearing won't take place until July, the tech giant has detailed the terms of the $29.9 million settlement it agreed to and provided claimants (and everyone else) access to documents related to the case on its legal website. The list of documents includes everything from the original class action complaint to notices of the settlement to different types of class members. It also includes information on how to get in contact with the settlement administrator.
A group Apple employees sued the company in 2013 for not paying them for the time it took to check their bags during their shifts or when they're leaving for work, which took between five to 20 minutes. They claimed Apple was violating California law by doing so. Apple said bag checks were necessary to ensure workers weren't leaving with stolen goods or trade secrets and tried to argue in court that those who didn't like the policy could simply not bring their bags or their iPhones to work. The company stopped searching employees' bags in 2015.
While a district court originally tossed the lawsuit, it went to the California Supreme Court on appeal, wherein the judge sided with the plaintiffs. As previously revealed in a court filing, the lawsuit covers 14,683 workers in 52 Apple Stores in California who were subjected to bag checks from July 25th, 2009 until August 10th, 2015. They'll each get $1,286 from the settlement amount.
Lawsuits are weighing heavily on the Bitcoin ecosystem, and former Twitter chief Jack Dorsey thinks he can help fend them off. Coindeskreports Dorsey, Chaincode's Alex Morcos and academic Martin White have proposed a nonprofit legal defense fund for Bitcoin developers to protect them against lawsuits and similar "legal pressure." The fund's board (currently Dorsey, Morcos and White) would choose cases to support, with part-time and volunteer lawyers providing the initial defense counsel for free.
The fund will initially take over coordination for the defense against the Tulip Trading lawsuit targeting developers over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the long-dead Mt. Gox Bitcoin exchange. Dorsey didn't say how much money the fund had to start, but noted it wasn't looking for additional money "at this time."
Dorsey has direct incentives to establish a legal defense fund, of course. His company Block is heavily involved in Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies and the blockchain, and the flurry of lawsuits could tarnish his business as much as anyone else's. However, Dorsey noted that many Bitcoin developers are independents that have little choice but to give up when facing lawsuits they don't have the resources to fight. The nonprofit might prove vital if it strengthens the Bitcoin community as a whole, whether or not Dorsey directly benefits from its actions.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can move forward with its latest antitrust lawsuit against Meta, a US district judge ruled on Tuesday. The decision is a significant win for the regulator, which had seen its first complaint thrown out by Judge James Boasberg last June.
PerThe Washington Post, Boasberg now says the agency can move forward with its complaint thanks to the “more robust and detailed” evidence it presented with its amended suit, which the FTC filed in August. “Although the agency may well face a tall task down the road in proving its allegations, the Court believes that it has now cleared the pleading bar and may proceed to discovery,” the judge said.
In October, Meta asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing the FTC had failed yet again to present a “factual basis for alleging monopoly power.” The agency’s amended complaint is approximately two dozen pages longer than its original one, but it puts forward many of the same arguments. Specifically, the FTC alleges Facebook used the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 to secure its dominant position in the social media market.
“It is unfortunate that despite the court's dismissal of the complaint and conclusion that it lacked the basis for a claim, the FTC has chosen to continue this meritless lawsuit,” the company said at the time. “The FTC's claims are an effort to rewrite antitrust laws and upend settled expectations of merger review, declaring to the business community that no sale is ever final.”
As CES wraps up, we’re still pulling together our favorite picks of the show. That includes finger-nibbling robots, smart beds and all kinds of TVs, laptops and gadgets. Yes, we’ve been able to see some of the products while not attending the show, but it has meant a lot of spec-sheet perusing and a fair dose of skepticism without getting a lot of the announcements in the flesh.
For things like TVs, that’s usually months later, but for tablets, phones and wearables, you can expect Engadget to be reviewing and stress-testing many of them sooner rather than later. We’re already trying out the Galaxy S21 FE.
Have a great weekend and see you back here Monday.
Nikola Corp. is reportedly dropping its $2 billion patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla Inc. as Nikola company founder, Trevor Milton, faces a criminal indictment on fraud charges. Both companies have agreed to withdraw all claims and counterclaims against each other. Nikola accused Tesla of copying several patented designs for a windshield, fuselage and side door. Tesla denied this and countersued.
Nikola unveiled the hydrogen-powered Nikola One semi-truck in 2016. However, it was accused by the SEC of deceiving investors, in one instance via a video that appeared to show the truck moving under power when it was simply rolling down a hill.
Timed to coincide with what would have been David Bowie’s 75th birthday, all of his post-2000 studio albums (Heathen, Reality, The Next Day and Blackstar) and a live album (A Reality Tour) have been remixed in Sony's 360 Reality Audio for release on Amazon Music Unlimited, Deezer and Tidal on January 21st.
The company is accusing Lululemon of patent infringement.
Back in June 2020, Lululemon bought home fitness startup Mirror for $500 million. Now, Nike has filed a lawsuit against the company over Mirror, accusing it of patent infringement. Nike's lawsuit alleges that Mirror uses technologies that it invented.
Nike sent Lululemon a list of patents it allegedly infringed back on November 3rd. As you'd expect, the company more known for making yoga pants and other types of gym clothes disagreed with Nike's assessment. A spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal in a statement that the patents "in question are overly broad and invalid." They also said Lululemon is confident in its position and "look forward to defending it in court."
The agency says the term is too generic to trademark.
Snap has sued the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for rejecting an application the company had filed to trademark the word “spectacles” in relation to its wearable of the same name. The USPTO said Snap’s use of Spectacles had failed to acquire the “distinctiveness” necessary for a trademark.
Sleep Number’s newest bed adapts to your changing needs. You can raise or lower it if you are pregnant, have an injury or simply need a hand getting in and out of bed as you get older. This comes on top of existing features like temperature controls and snoring detection. The company also announced some smart furniture designed to complement the bed. Features include mobility aids, individual noise reduction tech, ambient lighting and a built-in charging and storage pocket. The company will start shipping the new bed and furniture next year.
For the third straight year, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted E3. The event will once again be an online-only affair amid the Omicron surge.
“Due to the ongoing health risks surrounding COVID-19 and its potential impact on the safety of exhibitors and attendees, E3 will not be held in person in 2022,” the Entertainment Software Association told GamesBeat. The ESA canceled the 2020 edition of E3 shortly after the pandemic took hold in the US, and last year a virtual version of the event took place.
