Cher Scarlett, one of the lead organizers of the #AppleToo movement, is leaving the company on Friday. Scarlett was the face of the movement and connected with workers with grievances to air via Apple's Slack channels and on social media. The former Apple security engineer was also one of the workers who filed a complaint against the tech giant with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the company of suppressing workers' organizing efforts and interfering with surveys involving gender pay equity.

According to Bloomberg, Scarlett reached a settlement with the iPhonemaker regarding the NLRB complaint and has already requested a withdrawal. She didn't divulge the details of the settlement, but her lawyer Alek Felstiner, told Bloomberg News: "The matter was settled privately and the request for withdrawal is pending before the board. We hope the crucial organizing work at Apple will continue."

It's unclear what will happen to the #AppleToo movement with Scarlett's departure. Its website, which publishes workplace stories from Apple employees and workers, hasn't had an update over the past 10 days. That said, Scarlett isn't the only face of the movement. Most of the posts on the website are by Janneke Parrish, the other #AppleToo lead organizer who was fired by the company back in October. Apple fired its former program manager for allegedly sharing private information, something that Parrish denies. When details of a company meeting were leaked to the press, Apple investigated Parrish and confiscated her work devices. She deleted some apps and work information before doing so, which Apple interpreted as being noncompliant with its investigation. 

Aside from Scarlett, former Apple senior engineering program manager Ashley Gjøvik also filed a complaint with the NLRB. She said she spent months talking to Apple about unsafe working conditions and sexism in the workplace and was put on indefinite paid administrative leave after raising her concerns. Apple fired Gjøvik in September.

Peloton has filed fresh lawsuits against two of its rivals, iFit and Echelon. It alleges that the companies are violating up to four patents it holds related to on-demand classes, one of which it only obtained last week, as Bloomberg Law notes. Peloton is seeking a court order to block sales of the devices until the patents expire, in addition to compensation. In both suits, Peloton accuses competitors of attempting to "free ride" off its technology.

The iFit complaint concerns NordicTrack, ProForm and FreeMotion products that use the company's leaderboard and/or its ActivePulse or SmartAdjust features. "Prior to the actions giving rise to this suit, iFit Functionality never delivered live classes — i.e., classes taught by instructors and streamed to users’ devices in substantially real time — or offered its members the ability to participate in competitive classes via a leaderboard. Instead, iFit Functionality only allowed subscribers to follow along with pre-recorded exercise classes on their machines, without any sort of community engagement," Peloton wrote in the filing.

It accuses iFit of "profiting immensely from this infringement." In October, iFit paused its plan to go public due to adverse market conditions.

As for Echelon, Peloton is targeting the Smart Connect EX1, EX3, EX4s, EX5, EX5s, EX-7s, EX-Pro and GT+ bikes; Stride and Stride-5s treadmills; Row, Row-s and Row-7s rowers; and the Echelon Fit app. Peloton claims that, before it released the Tread, "it was not well-known for treadmills to offer a leaderboard" and that Echelon now has a "copycat leaderboard" with an "'Online Filter' that allows users to 'see who is taking an On Demand class at the same time.'"

Peloton has had a thorny relationship with both companies over the last few years. It has sued iFit (previously known as Icon Health and Fitness) over patent infringement in the past and vice versa. Peloton also filed suit against Echelon in 2019 for, among other things, "imitating the Peloton Bike experience." Engadget has contacted iFit and Echelon for comment.

Last year, California's supreme court ruled that Apple broke the law by failing to pay employees while they waited for mandatory bag and iPhone searches. Now, Apple has offered to pay $30 million to settle the suit and lawyers for the employees have urged them to accept it, Apple Insider has reported. "This is a significant, non-reversionary settlement reached after nearly eight years of hard-fought litigation," wrote plaintiff attorney Lee Shalov in the proposed settlement seen by Courthouse News.

Employees launched the suit way back in 2013, saying they weren't paid while being searched for stolen merchandise or trade secrets. The workers felt they were still under Apple's "control" during that five to 20 minute process and should therefore be compensated. Apple in turn argued that the employees could choose not to bring their bags or iPhones, thus avoiding a search in the first place.

Apple won an earlier battle in district court, but the case went to the California Supreme Court on appeal. There, the judges ruled that Apple workers were "clearly under Apple's control while awaiting, and during, the exit searches." The court dismissed Apple's argument that bringing a bag to work was an employee convenience, particularly that Apple felt employees didn't necessarily need to bring their iPhones to work.

"Its characterization of the iPhone as unnecessary for its own employees is directly at odds with its description of the iPhone as an 'integrated and integral' part of the lives of everyone else," the judges wrote. In that statement, the court referenced a 2017 Tim Cook interview where he stated that the iPhone was "so so integrated and integral to our lives, you wouldn't think about leaving home without it."

The settlement is still subject to approval by the plaintiffs. Nearly 12,000 current and former Apple Store employees in California involved in the lawsuit stand to receive a maximum payment of around $1,200.

Google is finishing the week with more antitrust headaches. Reutersreports a group of Texas-led US states has filed an amended version of its lawsuit against Google over alleged abuses of power in the online ad business. The updated complaint provides more detail about Google's purported efforts to stifle competition, including the secret "Project Bernanke" ad buying program.

The states said Google used Project Bernanke in 2015 to drop the second-highest bids from publishers' ad auctions, pool money and pour those those funds into only those bids using Google Ads. That gave Google Ads bidders an unfair advantage and helped them win auctions they likely would have lost, according to the revised lawsuit.

We've asked Google for comment. It previously confirmed the existence of Project Bernanke, but maintained there was no wrongdoing and that the states' lawsuit "misrepresents" its ad business. The refreshed lawsuit may pose additional challenges to Google, though. At the least, the amendment underscores the states' attitude toward Google — they're determined to curb its behavior.

A lack of technical knowledge may have just influenced an important court case. The New York Timesreports the defense for shooter Kyle Rittenhouse incorrectly claimed that an iPad's pinch-to-zoom function could modify footage of the incident, "creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there." That sparked a debate between lawyers and Judge Schroeder, who maintained the burden was on the prosecution to show the imagery remained in its "virginal state," not on the defense to prove manipulation.

The judge may have accepted the argument. He denied the prosecution's request for an adjournment and instead called for a 15-minute recess, suggesting the team could find an expert to support their claim in that space of time. They didn't, and The Vergenoted that the trial resumed with the jury watching zoom-free video on a Windows PC connected to the courtroom TV.

As you might imagine, the defense's claim played fast and loose with the truth. Pinch-to-zoom on all devices may use algorithms, but only to scale the image — it doesn't change the content itself. This was an attempt to prevent the jury from getting a clearer view of the action, not a genuine challenge to the integrity of the video.

The court scene underscored a recurring problem with technical inexperience in criminal cases. When judges and law enforcement don't understand how technology works, they may set unrealistic expectations or even skew the outcome of a case. Police have repeatedly asked for Alexa recordings on the unfounded assumption that smart speakers are always recording, for instance. While it's not clear if the inaccurate pinch-to-zoom claim will significantly affect Rittenhouse's fate, it certainly didn't help jurors.

The US Department of Justice has sued Uber for allegedly discriminating against passengers with disabilities. In a complaint filed with the US District Court for Northern California, the agency claims Uber violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by implementing a policy that has seen the company charge “wait time” fees to passengers who, as a result of their disabilities, need more time to enter a car. The law prohibits discrimination of individuals with disabilities by private companies.

According to the Justice Department, the policy has been in place since 2016 when Uber implemented it in a number of US cities before eventually expanding its use nationwide. Anytime a passenger needs more than two minutes to enter an UberX car or more than five minutes in the case of an Uber Black or SUV vehicle, the company charges that individual a wait time fee. Uber contends most users pay, on average, less than $0.60 when that’s the case. However, passengers with disabilities, including those with wheelchairs and walkers, often need more time to enter a vehicle than those without.

“People with disabilities deserve equal access to all areas of community life, including the private transportation services provided by companies like Uber,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

A spokesperson for Uber called the lawsuit “surprising” and “disappointing.” The full statement reads:

Wait time fees are charged to all riders to compensate drivers after two minutes of waiting, but were never intended for riders who are ready at their designated pickup location but need more time to get into the car. We recognize that many riders with disabilities depend on Uber for their transportation needs, which is why we had been in active discussions with the DOJ about how to address any concerns or confusion before this surprising and disappointing lawsuit.

It has been our policy to refund wait time fees for disabled riders whenever they alerted us that they were charged. After a recent change last week, now any rider who certifies they are disabled will have fees automatically waived. We fundamentally disagree that our policies violate the ADA and will keep improving our products to support everyone’s ability to easily move around their communities.

The company also pointed to the fact it does not, by default, charge a wait time fee when someone requests a wheelchair accessible or Uber Assist ride. This isn’t the first time Uber has been sued for allegedly violating Title III of the ADA. In 2017, disability advocates in New York City filed a class action complaint against the company. At the time, the group said Uber was inaccessible to 99.9 percent of people with mobility disabilities.

The European Union's General Court in Luxembourg has upheld (PDF) the European Commission's decision to slap Google with a record €2.42 billion (US$2.8 billion) fine for an antitrust case back in 2017. Back then, the commission decided after a lengthy investigation that the tech giant favored its own comparison shopping services and unfairly directed users to its own products over those of its rivals'. That $2.8 billion fine is just a tiny fraction of Alphabet's (Google's parent company) $2 trillion valuation, but it was the biggest financial penalty the commission has ever handed out.

 The court said in a statement:

"The General Court finds that, by favoring its own comparison shopping service on its general results pages through more favorable display and positioning, while relegating the results from competing comparison services in those pages by means of ranking algorithms, Google departed from competition on the merits."

While the General Court mostly sided with the commission's findings that Google's actions had harmful effects on comparison shopping, it disagreed with one element of the EU's case. As The Wall Street Journal noted, it said that regulators weren't able to prove that the company's conduct harmed competition among general search engines.

Back when it appealed the EU's decision, Google argued that the commission ignored the competition it faces in the e-commerce sector from Amazon. The company could appeal the General Court's decision yet again by taking the case to the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice. A spokesperson told The Journal, however, that the company will still have to review the judgment more closely before deciding whether to file another appeal.

Google has escaped the risk of a lawsuit after violating the privacy of around 5.4 million iPhone users in the UK. The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot allow a US-style Class Action suit to be lobbed at the search giant after it deliberately created a workaround to track Safari users. The judgment, read by Lord Leggatt, was focused on procedural matters, like the intersection between Google, based in the US, and the UK’s data protection laws. More importantly, however, was the issue of “damage,” and the fact that the claimants — led by consumer rights champion Richard Lloyd — had not established that any material harm had been caused by Google’s workaround.

The story begins in 2017 with Lloyd, and many others, formed a group called “Google You Owe Us” to attempt to sue the company. It alleged that Google had illegally collected data on iPhone users between June 2011 and February 2012 in violation of UK law. The matter hinged on the fact that Google had deliberately created a workaround to get access to data it was not otherwise entitled to. Lloyd and crew lost at the High Court, but this initial decision was overturned by the UK’s Court of Appeal, saying that it was quite proper for Google to face a courtroom after the intentional misuse of personal data without consent.

US-style Class Action lawsuits are not common, or even really a thing in UK law, although it is possible for a large group of litigants to bring a joint action. Lloyd and his cohort were trying to establish that Google’s tracking was, in and of itself, harmful, and by extension a standard level of compensation could be calculated. This was the fact that the Supreme Court rejected most clearly — saying that a set figure (reportedly pegged around £750 (around $1,000) per affected user) was not fair redress.

David Barker of Pinsent Masons — the firm Google hired to fight this case — wrote that the decision upholds the notion that compensation can only be asked for where real harm has been caused. And that, put simply, Google’s aggregation of personal data was insufficient to cause any real-world harm or mental distress. Richard Lloyd, who brought the action, told Sky News that he was “bitterly disappointed” that the court had “failed to do enough to protect the public from Google and other Big Tech firms who break the law.” And that this ruling, in effect, is the writing of a blank check for large technology companies to keep misusing user data without fear of censure. He added that it is time for government leaders to step in and craft laws to better clamp down on the misuse of personal data.

Apple has failed to convince US District c to delay the App Store change she ordered back in September. As the judge for the Apple vs. Epic trial, Rogers ruled in favor of the tech giant for 9 out of 10 counts, but she also decided that Apple must allow developers to direct users to other payment systems within their apps by December 9th. As a response to that, Apple asked for a stay on the injunction to push back its implementation by one more year. Now, Rogers has rejected the company's appeal for a stay and called the motion "fundamentally flawed."

She wrote in the order (PDF, via CNBC):

"...Apple's motion is based on a selective reading of this Court's findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct including supercompetitive commission rates resulting in extraordinarily high operating margins and which have not been correlated to the value of its intellectual property."

Apple argued that it needed more time to establish new guidelines to protect users, developers and itself if it allows alternative payment methods. It also previously said that following the court order and allowing developers to link out to other payment methods by December 9th "would be a poor use of resources" due to the "near-inevitable litigation" from Epic regarding the scope of its compliance. In addition, it's still appealing this aspect of the case, and the Court of Appeals could take more than a year to come to a decision.

In her ruling, Rogers said that the party that would benefit most from a stay would be Apple, and that the court can "envision numerous avenues" for the tech giant to comply while still protecting its users. "Other than, perhaps, needing time to establish Guidelines, Apple has provided no credible reason for the Court to believe that the injunction would cause the professed devastation," she added.

As CNBC has noted, though, allowing developers to link out to external payment methods doesn't mean Apple won't be taking a percentage of their earnings. Google, for instance, recently announced that it will now allow the use of alternative payment systems for Play Store apps in South Korea to comply with local laws. While it lowered its commission by four percent for developers using their own payment processors, they will still have to pay the company a cut nonetheless.

The Department of Justice has unsealed charges against a Ukrainian national over a ransomware attack against IT company Kaseya in July. Authorities in Poland arrested Yaroslav Vasinskyi last month and proceedings are underway to extradite him to the US. 

He has been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and related activity in connection with computers, several counts of damage to protected computers and conspiracy to commit money laundering. If convicted on all charges, Vasinskyi faces a maximum sentence of 115 years in prison.

According to the indictment, Vasinskyi used a Kaseya product to distribute ransomware. As many as 1,500 businesses and organizations around the world were affected. REvil, the ransomware group Vasinskyi is linked to, originally demanded $70 million in exchange for unlocking victims' systems. Three weeks after the attack took place, Kaseya deployed a decryption key, which allowed its customers to regain access to their computers.

The DOJ also revealed it has seized $6.1 million in alleged ransom payments obtained by Russian national Yevgeniy Polyanin, another alleged member of REvil. Polyanin, who remains at large, has been accused of carrying out Sodinokibi/REvil ransomware attacks against several targets, including businesses and government departments in Texas, in August 2019. Polyanin faces similar charges to Vasinskyi. If convicted, Polyanin is looking at a maximum prison sentence of 145 years.

“Cybercrime is a serious threat to our country: to our personal safety, to the health of our economy, and to our national security,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “Our message today is clear. The United States, together with our allies, will do everything in our power to identify the perpetrators of ransomware attacks, to bring them to justice, and to recover the funds they have stolen from their victims.”