Apple has been under fire lately after current and former employees shared stories of harassment, retaliation and sexism in the company. Now, the US National Labor Relations Board is looking into cases filed against the tech giant by two of the main voices accusing the company of permitting a hostile work environment, according to Reuters and The Financial Times. The first complaint was filed by Ashley Gjøvik, the senior engineering program manager who said she spent months talking with the company about unsafe working conditions and sexism in the workplace.

In a tweet, she said that after raising her concerns, she was put on indefinite paid administrative leave while Apple looks into them. Further, she said Apple implied that the company didn't want her to use Slack, where she'd been vocal about her criticisms. Gjøvik filed a "Charge against Employer" complaint, The Times says, alleging 13 instances of alleged retaliation against her. Those instances include workplace harassment, reassigning her supervisory responsibilities to colleagues and giving her undesirable tasks

The second complaint the labor board is investigation was filed by Cher Scarlett, on behalf of herself and other employees, on September 1st. Scarlett is a security engineer at the company and is the face of the #AppleToo movement made up of current and former employees aiming to shine a light on the tech giant's workplace culture. The group said it collected over 500 stories of incidents involving discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and it recently started sharing them five stories at a time. Her case accuses Apple of suppressing workers' organizing efforts, specifically when they involve pay surveys and gender pay equity.

It's worth noting that the labor board looks into all the complaints it receives, and it will only prosecute a case if it finds merit in them. As for Apple, the company told the publications in a statement: "We are and have always been deeply committed to creating and maintaining a positive and inclusive workplace. We take all concerns seriously and we thoroughly investigate whenever a concern is raised and, out of respect for the privacy of any individuals involved, we do not discuss specific employee matters.”

WhatsApp isn't just catching flak from users over its data sharing with Facebook. The Financial Timesreports the Irish Data Protection Commission has fined WhatsApp €225 million ($266.8 million) for not sharing enough details of how it shares European Union users' data with Facebook. The messaging service allegedly failed to live up to its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) transparency obligations.

The Commission also said the data sharing itself violated GDPR. WhatsApp was merely storing "pseudonymous" phone number data, for instance, rather than truly anonymizing it. While the numbers were stored using lossy hashes, WhatsApp had the hash key needed to decrypt that info — it could tie that number to a specific person if it wanted.

The ruling asked WhatsApp to both improve its transparency and bring the data sharing in line with the GDPR. The Irish agency initially planned to fine WhatsApp €50 million ($59.3 million) for breaking GDPR, but hiked the punishment after Germany and other countries accused the Commission of being lenient on privacy violations.

WhatsApp unsurprisingly planned to appeal the decision. It claimed that it met transparency requirements in 2018 (around when the investigation began) and that the fines were "entirely disproportionate." It maintained that it strived to offer "transparent and comprehensive" information to users.

The fine is the latest in a string of penalties for tech giants over violations. Amazon faced a record $888 million fine in July over GDPR issues, and Twitter was asked to pay €450 million ($533.6 million) when it failed to report a data leak within 72 hours. WhatsApp's fine is light by comparison, then, although it's arguably grappling with a larger blowback over its data policies.

In a blow to both Apple and Google, South Korea has today passed a law requiring major app stores to allow alternative payment methods. The Wall Street Journal reports that the bill, due to be rubber-stamped by president Moon Jae-in, forces platform holders to open up their stores. In addition, the new rules will prevent unreasonable delays for app approvals, which has been described as a way to prevent retaliation against developers. Companies which fail to comply with the ruling are at risk of being fined up to three percent of their domestic revenue.

The bill could have global ramifications given the battles that Google and Apple have fought concerning their app platform dominance. Both companies have come under fire for how they run the App and Play stores, respectively, with regulators and developers scrutinizing their business practices. In July, 36 US states launched an antitrust suit against Google over concerns that it is violating antitrust law, while Apple has been engaged in well-documented skirmishes with both Epic Games and Spotify. Officials in both the US and Europe, both of which are wrestling with concerns over the future of digital payments, are likely to look at both South Korea’s law, and how both companies respond to it. 

Google has been accused of playing favorites in its treatment of Android app developers. The Vergereports a newly unsealed consumer lawsuit against Google alleges the company offered to take a "significantly reduced" cut of Netflix's Play Store revenue in order to quell the streaming giant's "displeasure." Netflix, Spotify and Tinder all supposedly tried to get around the requirement to use Play Store's in-house billing system, and deals like this were meant to keep Netflix using Google's payment platform.

The same filing also includes a claim that Google's normal revenue share is arbitrary. Where the company typically asks for a 30 percent cut of Play Store purchases, it apparently determined that it could break even with just six percent. Internal communications suggest Google chose the 30 percent share for no reason "other than copying Apple," according to the lawsuit.

We've asked Google for comment. In a statement to The Verge, a spokeswoman maintained that developers were bound to the same policies as "all other developers," and that there were efforts to back app makers with "enhanced resources and investments." These initiatives were evidence of "healthy competition" in operating systems and app stores, Google said.

If the allegations are true, though, that wouldn't be the case — Google would have given Netflix a sweetheart deal not available to other Play Store developers. The company wouldn't be alone, either. Internal emails also suggest Apple offered Netflix perks it didn't provide to others using the App Store.

Whatever the case, Google might not have much choice but to alter its practices. Apple recently softened the App Store's rules as part of a proposed settlement, going so far as to let developers pitch customers on alternative payment systems — something Google still forbids, as the attorneys behind the unsealed lawsuit point out. Between these latest revelations and other lawsuits, such as those from Epic and state attorneys general, Google faces strong pressure to follow Apple and otherwise make concessions to avoid more serious legal repercussions.

The City of Chicago has filed two separate lawsuits against DoorDash and GrubHub. While the complaints point to alleged misconduct specific to each company, they broadly accuse DoorDash and GrubHub of employing a similar set of unfair business practices.

Specifically, the city claims that both DoorDash and GrubHub have consistently advertised delivery services from restaurants that never consented to a listing on their platforms. The city also alleges they employ "bait-and-switch" tactics by using deceptively small delivery fees to lure customers before hitting them with various other expenses at the end of a transaction. Finally, it says they both hide the fact many restaurants charge less for the items on their menu when you order directly from them.

DoorDash called the lawsuit "baseless" and a "waste" of taxpayer money. "DoorDash has stood with the City of Chicago throughout the pandemic, waiving fees for restaurants, providing $500,000 in direct grants, creating strong earning opportunities and delivering food and other necessities to communities in need," a spokesperson for the company told Engadget.

GrubHub echoed the sentiments of its competitor. "Every single allegation is categorically wrong, and we will aggressively defend our business practices," a GrubHub spokesperson said. "We look forward to responding in court and are confident we will prevail."

In taking the two companies to court, the city says it seeks to mandate greater transparency from DoorDash and GrubHub, as well as financial restitution for restaurants and consumers hurt by their alleged actions.

Separately, the DoorDash lawsuit alleges the company misled customers about how it was using tips to pay its delivery workers. If that sounds familiar, it's because DoorDash agreed to pay a $2.5 million settlement toward the end of 2020 to settle allegations related to that exact same issue.

For Chicago, this is the latest effort by the city to impose additional regulations on food delivery apps. In May 2020, it implemented a policy that saw both DoorDash and GrubHub required to include an itemized breakdown that lists how much restaurants pay when you order from them using an app.

Apple has agreed to change several rules that govern its App Store as part of a settlement with developers who filed a class action lawsuit against the company. The most significant change is that Apple is “clarifying” that developers are permitted to email users “about payment methods outside of their iOS app.” The company has also agreed to publish transparency reports detailing App Store rejection rates and the app review process.

Developing...

The FCC has proposed the largest fine yet under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the subjects are two robocallers Law & Crime describes as "hard-right hoaxers." John M. Burkman and Jacob Alexander Wohl are facing a $5,134,500 fine for allegedly making 1,141 unlawful pre-recorded calls to mobile phones without the recipients' prior consent. The calls' content? Fake information designed to discourage people from voting by mail. 

According to the commission's Enforcement Bureau, the calls were made on August 26th and September 14th, 2020, prior to last year's Presidential elections in the US. The robocalls told potential voters that if they vote by mail, their personal information will be added to a public database law enforcement can use to track down old warrants. Credit card companies will also be able to access the database to collect outstanding debts, the calls said, and the CDC can issue mandatory vaccines on the people in the list. Law & Crime says the calls primarily targeted Black and Latino populations in New York, Ohio and Michigan.

The FCC started investigating the calls after receiving complaints from consumers and a non-profit organization. Its Enforcement Bureau then worked with the Ohio Attorney General's Office to identify the dialing service providers Burkman and Wojl used. The providers turned over subpoenaed call records to identify Burkman and Wohl by name, along with information on the zip codes they wanted to target. Both individuals also admitted under oath that they were involved in the creation and distribution of those particular robocalls.

In addition to facing a $5 million fine from the FCC, the pair also face a $2.75 million lawsuit from the New York Attorney General's office. Back in May, a federal judge gave the NY AG the go-ahead to join a lawsuit accusing the pair of violating the Ku Klux Klan Act, which protects Americans from political intimidation. As for the FCC fine, Burkman and Wohl will be given an opportunity to submit evidence and legal arguments before the commission takes any more step towards a resolution.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has expanded the scope of its sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against Activision Blizzard to include temporary workers. As first reported by Axios, the watchdog filed an amended complaint on Monday to redefine the group it plans to represent in the suit. The complaint now consistently references “workers” instead of “employees,” noting protections the state of California has in place to protect individuals from harassment and sexual discrimintation “exist for employees and contingent or temporary workers.”

The amended suit also alleges Activision Blizzard has used non-disclosure agreements to directly interfere with DFEH’s ability to investigate, prosecute and remedy the workplace violations that occurred at the company. Additionally, "documents related to investigations and complaints were shredded by human resource personnel," according to the agency.

We’ve reached out to Activision Blizzard for comment.

Following a two-year investigation into the company, DFEH last month accused Activision Blizzard executives of fostering a “frat boy” workplace culture. According to the agency, only 20 percent of all employees at the studio are women, and they’re consistently paid less, overlooked for promotions and fired faster than their male counterparts. Activision executives initially dismissed the lawsuit, claiming it included “distorted, and in many cases false descriptions of Blizzard’s past.”

Employees were quick to condemn the company’s response, calling it “abhorrent,” and they went on to stage a walkout at the end of July. Following the protest, Blizzard studio president J. Allen Brack, one of the executives named in the DFEH suit, stepped down, as did several other senior designers.

When Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick eventually pledged to take “swift action” to create a safe workplace, the company’s decision to bring in WilmerHale, a law firm that has a history of representing management on matters relating to unionizing, made many doubt the sincerity of his statements.

A California judge has ruled that Proposition 22, the measure that allows companies like Uber and Lyft to keep classifying app-based drivers in the state as independent contractors, is unenforceable and unconstitutional. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Alameda County Superior Court judge Frank Roesch found that Prop 22 illegally "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law."

Proposition 22 passed by a wide margin in the state when most people voted in favor of it in last year's November elections. Companies were legally obligated to classify gig workers as full-time employees under Assembly Bill 5 A (AB5), which was passed in 2019, but some (like the aforementioned ride-sharing firms) continued to treat them as contractors. Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash poured over $220 million into campaigning for Prop 22 in order to overturn AB5, and the move clearly worked. 

The measure requires gig companies to provide their contractors with healthcare subsidies and a wage floor, but it also exempts them from having to classify their workers as employees with appropriate benefits and protections. While those in favor of the proposition argue that it would allow workers to keep their independence while enjoying benefits they didn't have before, not everyone's happy with the development. A group that includes the Service Employees International Union and the SEIU California State Council sued California earlier this year to overturn the proposition. 

In his ruling, Roesch specifically singled out Section 7451 of the measure, which states that any future law related to collective bargaining for app drivers must comply with the rest of the proposition. "It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation," he wrote in his decision. He also found it unconstitutional that any amendment to the measure requires a seven-eighths vote of approval to pass in the state Legislature.

If the ruling stands, gig companies like Uber and Lyft may have to spend hundreds of millions paying for healthcare and other additional benefits for their drivers. At the moment, though, Prop 22 is still in effect, and gig companies are already planning to appeal. An Uber spokesperson told The Chronicle:

"This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law. We will appeal and we expect to win. Meanwhile, Prop. 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state."

SpaceX won't be working on its $2.9 billion lunar lander contract for a while after NASA agreed to put the project on hold. The space agency told Reuters that it temporarily ceased all work on the project after Jeff Bezos' company Blue Origin filed a complaint against it with the US Court of Federal Claims. "In exchange for this temporary stay of work, all parties agreed to an expedited litigation schedule that concludes on November 1st," the space agency said in a statement. 

Blue Origin sued NASA over its decision to award a lunar lander contract to SpaceX alone when it originally planned to award two contracts. The agency historically works with more than one contractor for each mission to ensure that it can launch in time. However, it only received a fraction of the budget it requested for the Artemis lunar lander, which will be designed to carry human astronauts to the surface of the moon from the Orion spacecraft, and chose to forgo awarding a second contract. 

Bezos' company first challenged the decision back in April and filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. As The Verge notes, that complaint put the SpaceX contract on hold for 95 days, so this is the second time NASA and Elon Musk's company have to temporarily halt the project. Blue Origin argued that the selection process was unfair, because it wasn't given the opportunity to revise its bid like SpaceX was able to. 

GAO ultimately dismissed the case, concluding that NASA's evaluation of all the proposals for the mission "was reasonable and consistent with applicable procurement law, regulation, and the announcement's terms." Before GAO revealed its decision, though, Jeff Bezos wrote an open letter to NASA, telling the agency that Blue Origin is willing to waive up to $2 billion in payments in return for a fixed-price lander contract. 

In both of the lawsuits it filed, Blue Origin said it's making "an attempt to remedy the flaws in the acquisition process found in NASA's Human Landing System." For its more recent complaint, the company explained that it "stand[s] firm in [its] belief that there were fundamental issues with NASA's decision, but the GAO wasn't able to address them due to their limited jurisdiction." We'll know soon enough which side the court will pick: A judge has set a hearing for the case on October 14th.