An appeals court has blocked a $1 billion copyright verdict from 2019 against US internet service provider Cox Communications and ordered a retrial, Arts Technica has reported. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Cox didn't profit directly from its users' piracy, rebutting claims from Sony, Universal and Warner. 

The judges did affirm the original jury's finding of willful contributory infringement from the trial, first announced back in 2018. To that effect, they ordered a new damages trial that may reduce the size of the award.

"We reverse the vicarious liability verdict and remand for a new trial on damages because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability," the panel wrote. It added that "no reasonable jury could find that Cox received a direct financial benefit from its subscribers' infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights." 

Cox allegedly refused to take "reasonable measures" to fight piracy, according to the original allegations. Internet providers are supposed to terminate the accounts of offending users, but the ISP only conducted temporary disconnections and warned some users more than 100 times. The labels claimed it even instituted a cap on accepted copyright complaints and cut back on anti-piracy staffers.

However, the judges said that Sony offered no causal connection between infringement and higher revenues for Cox. "No evidence suggest that customers chose Cox's Internet service, as opposed to a competitor's, because of any knowledge or expectation about Cox's lenient response to infringement." 

Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and EU rules, ISPs enjoy "safe harbor" protections that shield them from liability for user actions. However, that only holds if they comply with specific requirements and address copyright violations promptly — and in this case, Cox didn't do that, the judges said. 

"The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly Internet access to those users... because it wanted to avoid losing revenue," the ruling states. The case is now headed back to a US District court.

International law enforcement, led by the UK’s National Crime Agency, disrupted ransomware gang Lockbit's operation. The group behind notable hacks against aircraft manufacturer Boeing, chip giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, sandwich chain Subway and thousands more had its site taken offline on Monday while authorities arrested major players behind the gang. "This site if now under the control of law enforcement," the website reads. According to malware repository Vx-underground, law enforcement took down at least 22 Lockbit-affiliated Tor sites.

"Through our close collaboration, we have hacked the hackers; taken control of their infrastructure, seized their source code, and obtained keys that will help victims decrypt their systems," National Crime Agency Director General, Graeme Biggar, said in a statement. “As of today, LockBit are locked out. We have damaged the capability and most notably, the credibility of a group that depended on secrecy and anonymity."

Lockbit admitted defeat, too. In a statement to Vx-underground, the group said "FBI pwned me." Operation Cronos, the name law enforcement used for their efforts, also resulted in the seizure of source code and other useful data related to Lockbit's operations. At the same time, authorities in Poland, Ukraine and the US arrested key members of the ransomware operation. There are sanctions out for two more Lockbit affiliates in Russia.

There's more good news for Lockbit victims, too: the operation obtained keys from Lockbit to create a decryption tool for victims to get their data back, according to US Attorney General Merrick Garland. The free decryptors can be found via the No More Ransom project. 

Since 2019 when Lockbit first entered the scene, it's squeezed victims for more than $120 million in ransomware payments, according to acting assistant AG Nicole Argentieri.

TikTok is in the EU's crosshairs over potential Digital Services Act (DSA) breaches around the safety of minors and other matters. The formal proceedings will focus on addictive algorithms, the "rabbit hole effect," age verification issues and default privacy settings. The European Commission is also probing ad transparency and data access for researchers, it said in a press release. 

The probe is focusing on the privacy and safety of minors. The Commission will look at the potentially negative aspects of TikTok's design and algorithms, including addictive behavior and "rabbit hole effects" that can lead to harmful content. The assessment aims to "counter potential risks for the exercise of the fundamental right to the person's physical and mental well-being [and] the respect of the rights of the child," the EC wrote. 

As part of that, it's also examining TikTok's age verification tools that are supposed to prevent access by minors to inappropriate content. At the same time, it will force the social media site to ensure high levels of privacy, safety and security for minors with regard to default privacy settings — much as it did for Meta's Instagram and Facebook.

Europe is also looking into TikTok compliance with DSA obligations to "provide a searchable and reliable repository for advertisements." At the same time, it's investigating suspected shortcomings in researcher access to TikTok's publicly accessible data, as required by the DSA. 

After the proceedings open, The Commission will continue to gather evidence. The procedure allows it to take further enforcement steps including interim measures and non-compliance decisions.

TikTok (and parent ByteDance) was already forced to make large changes for EU users to meet the DSA by giving users the choice to not let algorithms power their For You Page (FYP). It also introduced new harmful content reporting options and dropped personalized ads for EU users aged 13 to 17. 

The EU is already investigating TikTok, along with Meta, to determine what they've done to mitigate illegal content and misinformation related to the ongoing violence in the Middle East. In 2022, Meta was hit with a $414 million fine for requiring personalized ads. It's rumored to be introducing a paid tier as a way to allow users to get rid of personalized ads — and TikTok may also be working on such a scheme. Civil rights groups are urging the EU to reject these plans, labelling them "pay for privacy."

Apple may be facing a fine of roughly $539 million (500 million euros) from the EU and a ban on its alleged anti-competitive App Store practices for music streaming services, according to FT. The publication, which cites five unnamed sources with knowledge of the matter, reports that the European Commission will announce its ruling early next month.

The probe stems from a 2019 antitrust complaint filed by Spotify and is focused on App Store rules that at the time prevented developers from directing customers to alternative subscription options outside the app, which could be cheaper as they wouldn’t have to compensate for Apple’s 30 percent fee. Apple later loosened these restrictions. According to FT, the Commission will say Apple broke EU antitrust law and created “unfair trading conditions” for its rivals with the App Store’s “anti-steering obligations.”

Amazon, a company that employs more than 1.54 million people, has claimed that the National Labor Relations Board Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for protecting the rights of workers, is unconstitutional. Amazon made the claim in a legal document filed on Thursday as part of a case in which prosecutors from the Board have accused the e-commerce giant of discrimination against workers at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island who had voted to unionize, according to The New York Times.

Amazon is not the first company to challenge the Board’s constitutionality. Last month, Elon Musk’s SpaceX sued the NLRB after the agency accused the company of unlawfully firing eight employees and called the agency “unconstitutional” in the lawsuit. Weeks later, grocery chain Trader Joe’s, which the NLRB accused of union-busting, said that the NLRB’s structure and organization was “unconstitutional,” Bloomberg reported. And in separate lawsuits, two Starbucks baristas have independently challenged the agency’s structure as they sought to dissolve their unions.

Amazon’s claim is similar to the existing claims filed by SpaceX and Trader Joe’s. In the lawsuit, the company’s lawyers argued that “the structure of the N.L.R.B. violates the separation of powers” by “impeding the executive power provided for in Article II of the United States Constitution.” In addition, Amazon claimed that the NLRB’s hearings “can seek legal remedies beyond what’s allowed without a trial by jury.”

Seth Goldstein, a lawyer who represents unions in the Amazon and Trader Joe’s cases told Reuters that these challenges to the NLRB increase the chances of the issue reaching the Supreme Court. And they might cause employers to stop bargaining with unions in hope that courts will finally strip the federal agency of its powers, Goldstein said. Amazon has a contentious history with the NLRB, which said the company broke federal labor laws last year. 

After designating social media as a "public health hazard" in late January, New York City is now suing Meta, Google, Snap and TikTok for "fueling nationwide youth mental health crisis." Specifically, these companies face three counts in the lawsuit: public nuisance, negligence and gross negligence. The Mayor Eric Adams administration accuses TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat and YouTube of "endangering our children's mental health, promoting addiction, and encouraging unsafe behavior."

These are allegedly achieved by way of harmful algorithms, gambling-like mechanisms and manipulation through reciprocity — making the user "feel compelled to respond to one positive action with another positive action." The city believes that there is a correlation between the increase in social media usage and the decline in local youth mental health over "more than a decade."

In response, Google and Meta told CNBC that they have always worked with youth safety experts and provided parental control tools. ByteDance's TikTok also highlighted some of its specific tools to Axios, namely age-restricted features, parental controls and an automatic 60-minute time limit for users under 18. However, none of the tech companies acknowledged the problematic features listed by the Adams administration.

This lawsuit follows a recent Senate hearing on online child safety, in which the CEOs of all the aforementioned tech companies (except Google) were present. In his opening remarks, Senator Lindsey Graham told the tech execs that "you have blood on your hands" — a reference to online child exploitations and cyberbullying that unfortunately led to deaths. 

Through this case, the Adams administration wants these tech companies to pay up for the city's youth mental health services, which apparently cost more than $100 million each year. But ultimately, it's about forcing these tech giants to stop manipulating young users into addictive behavior, as well as getting policymakers to place new federal laws that safeguard youth mental health on social platforms.

Before this New York City lawsuit, Meta already faces a similar case from 41 states back in October 2023, in which it was accused of misleading the public about the safety of its platform's "addictive" features. Meta, Snap, TikTok and Google were also sued in a multi-district litigation in 2022 for their addictive features that allegedly cause "emotional and physical harms, including death" to adolescents.

Sarah Silverman’s lawsuit against OpenAI will advance with some of her legal team’s claims dismissed. The comedian sued OpenAI and Meta in July 2023, claiming they trained their AI models on her books and other work without consent. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that the unfair competition portion of the lawsuit will proceed. Judge Martínez-Olguín gave the plaintiffs until March 13 to amend the suit.

US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín threw out portions of the complaint from Silverman’s legal team Monday, including negligence, unjust enrichment, DMCA violations and accusations of vicarious infringement. The case’s principal claim remains intact. It alleges OpenAI directly infringed on copyrighted material by training LLMs on millions of books without permission.

OpenAI’s motion to dismiss, filed in August, didn’t tackle the case’s core copyright claims. Although the suit will proceed, the judge suggested the federal Copyright Act may preempt the suit’s remaining claims. “As OpenAI does not raise preemption, the Court does not consider it,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.

The US court system has yet to determine whether training AI large language models on copyrighted work falls under the fair use doctrine. Last month, OpenAI admitted in a court filing that it would be “impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.”

The result of Silverman’s OpenAI hearing is similar to one in San Francisco in November when Silverman’s claims against Meta were also slashed down to the core copyright infringement claims. In that session, US District Judge Vince Chhabria described some of the plaintiffs’ dismissed claims as “nonsensical.”

Other groups suing OpenAI for alleged copyright-related violations include The New York Times, a collection of nonfiction authors (a group that grew after the initial lawsuit) and The Author’s Guild. The latter filed its claim alongside authors George R.R. Martin (Game of Thrones) and John Grisham.

In a followup to a tentative ruling made in December, a federal judge has ordered Elon Musk to comply with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) subpoena and testify again in its probe of his Twitter takeover, Reuters reports. Per the order, which was filed Saturday night in a California court, Musk and the SEC now have a week to work out a time and place for his appearance or it will be decided for them. The SEC has been investigating Musk’s purchase of Twitter, now X, since 2022 over concerns about his lateness in disclosing his stake in Twitter.

The order comes after Musk failed to appear for a testimony in September and later refused to attend a rescheduled interview, prompting the SEC to sue. US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler sided with the SEC after Musk tried to challenge its subpoena, which he claims is seeking irrelevant information and is harassment, as he’s already been interviewed twice. But, the SEC says it has obtained new documents in relation to the probe and has further questions for the X owner. Musk also argued that it exceeds the SEC’s authority because the subpoena was issued by an SEC staff member appointed by the SEC’s Director of Enforcement. Beeler struck these arguments down, ruling that the subpoena is valid. 

Apple has reached a possible settlement with Rivos, the Mountain View startup it accused in 2022 of poaching its employees and stealing its trade secrets. In the companies' filing seen by Bloomberg and Reuters, they told the US District Court for the Northern District of California that they have signed an agreement that "potentially settles the case." Their deal would allow Apple to conduct a forensic examination of Rivos' systems, as well as of its activities. 

When the iPhonemaker sued Rivos, it said the startup led a "coordinated campaign" to hire away employees from its chip design division. Apple also accused the defendant of instructing the employees it hired away to steal presentations and other proprietary information for unreleased iPhone chip designs that cost billions of dollars to develop. Rivos countersued Apple last year, accusing the larger company of restricting employees' ability to work elsewhere and of hindering emerging startups' growth by using anticompetitive measures. 

The court dismissed Apple's trade secret claims against Rivos in April 2023, though the company was allowed to file a revised complaint. Apple already settled with its six former employees who filed a countersuit against the iPhonemaker along with Rivos after they dropped their claims against each other last month. Both companies are now requesting the court to put their cases on hold until March 15, when they expect the settlement to be completed. 

Meta and TikTok owner ByteDance are not keen on the idea of paying the European Union to regulate them. The companies have challenged a supervisory fee set forth by EU moderators, who are now required to monitor Meta, TikTok, and other major platforms under the Digital Services Act (DSA), Politico reports. Meta first announced its action, with ByteDance following suit a day later.

Under the current arrangement, all designated companies must split the €45.2 million ($48.7 million) that EU's regulators argue is necessary to properly supervise the 20 Very Large Online Platforms and two Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs). Each regulated platform has 45 million or more users with its financial contribution based on the size of that number. They also can't owe more than 0.05 percent of its 2022 net profits. However, companies like Amazon and Pinterest that reported little to no profits won't owe anything. Meta, on the other hand, got a €11 million ($11.9 million) bill under the current arrangement. ByteDance has not publicly announced how much it owes.

Meta takes issue with the European Union regulators' methodology for choosing each company's fees. "Currently, companies that record a loss don't have to pay, even if they have a large user base or represent a greater regulatory burden, which means some companies pay nothing, leaving others to pay a disproportionate amount of the total," a Meta spokesperson remarked. Failure to comply with the fee could lead to a fine of up to six percent of a company's global revenue.

The DSA went into effect in 2023, with Meta's and ByteDance's VLOP designations came alongside other major sites, like Google and X, formerly known as Twitter. Along with the fee, VLOPs must comply with specific regulations like transparent advertising and content moderation, sharing data with the European Commission and cooperating with an annual independent audit.