The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed new antitrust charges against Facebook. The amended complaint comes after a federal judge threw out the agency's initial suit back in June. In dismissing the case, Judge James Boasberg said the FTC had failed to provide enough evidence Facebook had a monopoly in the social media market. Boasberg gave the FTC 30 days to amend its case, later extending that deadline to August 19th.   

The new complaint is approximately two dozen pages longer than the original but put forwards many of the same core arguments. Specifically, the FTC alleges Facebook used the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 to secure its position in the market. The agency says the amended complaint includes additional data and evidence to support its claims that Facebook is a monopolist.  

"Facebook has maintained its monopoly position in significant part by pursuing Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg’s strategy, expressed in 2008: 'it is better to buy than compete,'" the FTC says in the document. "True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats."

In July, the company, following the lead of Amazon, petitioned the FTC to recuse Commissioner Lina Khan from discussions on whether or not the regulator should push forward with another antitrust case against the company. In a press release, the FTC said the agency's "Office of General Counsel carefully reviewed Facebook’s petition to recuse Chair Lina M. Khan. As the case will be prosecuted before a federal judge, the appropriate constitutional due process protections will be provided to the company. The Office of the Secretary has dismissed the petition."

On Twitter, Facebook said it would have more to say about the amended complaint soon. The company has until October 4th to respond to the suit.  

Huawei is once again facing claims that it's placing backdoors in networks. The Wall Street Journalreports that American contractor Business Efficiency Solutions (BES) has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Huawei of not only stealing technology, but pressuring the firm into installing a data backdoor for a law enforcement safer-cities project in Lahore, Pakistan. The system supposedly gave Huawei access to a database that helped it collect sensitive citizen and government data "important to Pakistan's national security."

BES alleged that Huawei insisted on creating a duplicate version of the Lahore network in Suzhou, China, that would provide direct access to the Pakistan data. While BES wanted permission from Pakistani officials before going forward, Huawei reportedly claimed it didn't need permission and initially threatened to cut off the deal if BES didn't move forward. The Chinese company later said it obtained permission, but apparently refused to provide evidence of this when asked.

The situation may not be clear-cut. Huawei told the WSJ there was "no evidence" it had installed backdoors in any products. In a statement from earlier in the dispute, the company acknowledged the duplicate system in China but maintained that it was strictly a test version "physically isolated" from the real network, making it impossible to extract data. An overseer for the Lahore effort, Muhammad Kamran Khan, said an investigation was underway but that there wasn't any evidence of data theft "so far."

Whoever is telling the truth, the lawsuit highlights the ongoing concerns that Huawei might be aiding China's surveillance goals. The company has long denied the allegations, and there isn't yet "smoking gun" evidence that it has used backdoors to snoop on other countries. However, that hasn't allayed suspicions that have led the US, UK and others to blacklist its technology. This case might only exacerbate Huawei's situation, even if BES' assertions don't hold up in court.

Apple will have to pay another company a handsome amount to keep using certain wireless tech. Bloomberg and The Register report that a Texas jury has determined that Apple must pay patent firm Optis $300 million for allegedly violating patents covering LTE cellular service in devices like the iPhone and iPad. A jury had awarded Optis just over $506 million in 2020, but the judge in the case ordered a damages-only trial over concerns the earlier jurors hadn't considered whether the demand was fair for standards-based patents.

Optis is also chasing Apple in the UK, where it hopes to set a global royalty rate that could net up to $7 billion. Its patents come from other companies, including LG, Panasonic and Samsung.

Apple still intends to fight back. The tech giant accused Optis of being a patent troll in a statement, noting that the firm exists solely to sue companies using purchased patents. Apple would keep resisting Optis' efforts to obtain "unreasonable payments" for patents, the iPhone maker said.

As The Register notes, the $300 million payout will barely make a mark on Apple's finances. The company made $21.7 billion in net income just in its latest quarter — the Optis payment will represent slightly over one day's profits. The concern, of course, is that Optis will succeed in getting regular payments that could add to Apple's costs and drive hardware prices upward.

Sonos has won an early victory in its ongoing legal battle with Google. On Friday, a federal judge with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) made a preliminary decision related to a complaint the company had filed against Google in early 2020, alleging the search giant had infringed on five of its patents. Validating all five claims, the judge said Google should not be allowed to import devices that violate the intellectual property of Sonos.

"Today the ALJ has found all five of Sonos' asserted patents to be valid and that Google infringes on all five patents. We are pleased the ITC has confirmed Google's blatant infringement of Sonos' patented inventions," said Sonos chief legal officer Eddie Lazarus. "This decision re-affirms the strength and breadth of our portfolio, marking a promising milestone in our long-term pursuit to defend our innovation against misappropriation by Big Tech monopolies."

As The New York Times notes, the judge's decision isn't final. The entire ITC body has to make a final ruling before it mandates any remedial measures. With a meeting scheduled for December 13th, that won't happen for another few months.

"We do not use Sonos' technology, and we compete on the quality of our products and the merits of our ideas," said Google spokesperson José Castañeda. "We disagree with this preliminary ruling and will continue to make our case in the upcoming review process."

Sonos first sued Google in early 2020. It accused the company of copying some of the technologies most critical to its speakers, including its Trueplay tuning tool. In patent disputes, companies typically use simultaneous ITC complaints to force the hand of their opponent since the body tends to resolve matters faster than a traditional court. Google subsequently countersued Sonos, claiming the company had been using its search, software, networking and audio processing technologies without paying the proper licensing fees. The feud escalated later that same year when Sonos filed a second suit. 

AlgorithmWatch, a group of researchers who had been studying how Instagram’s opaque algorithms function, say they were recently forced to halt their work over concerns Facebook planned to take legal action against them. In a post spotted by The Verge, AlgorithmWatch claims the company accused it of breaching Instagram’s terms of service and said it would move to take “more formal engagement” if the project did not “resolve” the issue.

AlgorithmWatch’s research centered around a browser plugin more than 1,500 individuals downloaded. The tool helped the team to collect information it says allowed it to make some inferences about how Instagram prioritizes specific photos and videos over others.

Most notably, the team found the platform encourages people to show skin. Before publishing its findings, AlgorithmWatch said it had reached out to Facebook for comment, only for the company not to respond initially. However, in May 2020, Facebook told the researchers their work was “flawed in a number of ways” after it said earlier in the year it found a list of issues with the methodology AlgorithmWatch had employed.

When Facebook accused AlgorithmWatch of breaching its terms of service, the company pointed to a section of its rules that prohibits automated data collection. It also said the system violated GDPR, the European Union’s data privacy law. “We only collected data related to content that Facebook displayed to the volunteers who installed the add-on,” AlgorithmWatch said. “In other words, users of the plugin [were] only accessing their own feed, and sharing it with us for research purposes.” As for Facebook’s allegations related to GDPR, the group said, “a cursory look at the source code, which we open-sourced, shows that such data was deleted immediately when arriving at our server.”

Despite the belief they had done nothing wrong, the researchers eventually decided to shutter the project. “Ultimately, an organization the size of AlgorithmWatch cannot risk going to court against a company valued at one trillion dollars,” they said.

When Engadget reached out to Facebook for comment on the situation, the company denied it had threatened to sue the researchers. Here’s the full text of what it had to say:

We believe in independent research into our platform and have worked hard to allow many groups to do it, including AlgorithmWatch — but just not at the expense of anyone’s privacy. We had concerns with their practices, which is why we contacted them multiple times so they could come into compliance with our terms and continue their research, as we routinely do with other research groups when we identify similar concerns. We did not threaten to sue them. The signatories of this letter believe in transparency — and so do we. We collaborate with hundreds of research groups to enable the study of important topics, including by providing data sets and access to APIs, and recently published information explaining how our systems work and why you see what you see on our platform. We intend to keep working with independent researchers, but in ways that don’t put people’s data or privacy at risk.

This episode with AlgorithmWatch has worrisome parallels with actions Facebook took earlier in the month against a project called NYU Ad Observatory, which had been studying how political advertisers target their ads. Facebook has some tools in place to assist researchers in their work, but for the most part, its platforms have been a black box since the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. That’s a significant problem, as AlgorithmWatch points out.

“Large platforms play an oversized, and largely unknown, role in society, from identity-building to voting choices,” it said. “Only if we understand how our public sphere is influenced by their algorithmic choices, can we take measures towards ensuring they do not undermine individuals’ autonomy, freedom, and the collective good.”

Disney has apparently found "ways to fairly compensate" talent, even if it continues its hybrid release strategy. Company CEO Bob Chapek said during an earnings call that Disney has "entered hundreds of talent arrangements with [its] talent and by and large, they've gone very very smoothly." Chapek's statement comes in the wake of the lawsuit Black Widow star Scarlett Johansson filed against the company over its streaming strategy. 

Johansson's salary was tied to the movie's box office success, and her original contract didn't cover earnings from a hybrid release. According to her complaint, she could lose over $50 million due to the company's decision to simultaneously launch Black Widow in theaters and on Disney+, where it made $60 million during its opening weekend. Back then, Disney released a statement calling the lawsuit "especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic." 

Now, Chapek said Disney is "trying to do the best thing for all [its] constituents and make sure that everybody who's in the value chain... feels like they're having their contractual commitments honored both from a distribution and a compensation standpoint." He didn't talk about specifics, however, or Johansson's lawsuit in particular. In Johansson's complaint, she said her camp tried to renegotiate her deal with the company upon learning about the simultaneous release. However, Disney and Marvel were allegedly unresponsive.

Chapek also talked about implementing an experimental release strategy for Shang-Chi. Unlike Black Widow, it will be a theater-exclusive for 45 days before making its way to Disney+. Further, subscribers may be able to watch it for free instead of having to pay extra for it like they've had to do with Mulan. 

Apple has settled its 2019 lawsuit with Corellium, a company that build virtual iOS devices used security researchers to find bugs in iPhones and other iOS devices, the Washington Post has reported. The terms of the settlement weren't disclosed, but the agreement comes after Apple suffered a major court loss in the dispute in late 2020.

Corellium’s software allows users to run virtual iPhones on a computer browser, giving them deep access to iOS without the need for a physical device. In addition to accusing Corellium of infringing on its copyright, Apple said the company was selling its product indiscriminately, thereby compromising the platform’s security.

Specifically, Apple accused the company of selling its products to governments that could have probed its products for flaws. When he was employed by another company, Corellium co-founder David Wang helped the FBI unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist responsible for the San Bernardino attacks. 

However, a judge dismissed the copyright claims, calling them "puzzling, if not disingenuous." He wrote in his ruling that “the Court finds that Corellium has met its burden of establishing fair use," adding that its use of iOS in that context was permissible. 

Corellium started offering its platform to individual subscribers earlier this year, after previously only making it available to enterprise users. Each request for access is vetted individually so that it won't fall into the wrong hands for malicious purposes, according to the company. 

Amazon is updating its return policy to make it easier for customers to file complaints over defective products from third party marketplace sellers. Starting September 1st, you'll be able to contact Amazon directly with a property damage or personal injury claim, and then Amazon will connect you with the seller. If it determines a complaint is valid, Amazon will directly pay out any claims under $1,000, the company wrote in a blog post. 

"Claims under $1,000 account for more than 80 percent of cases in our store, and Amazon will bear these costs and not seek reimbursement from sellers who abide by our policies and hold valid insurance," the company wrote. "Sellers will be kept informed at every step so they can continue to ensure their products are safe." 

Amazon noted that it may also step in for claim over $1,000 if the seller is unresponsive. It may also address customer concerns if a claim is rejected by the seller, though "sellers will continue to have the opportunity to defend their product against the claim," it said. The company will vet the claims using independent insurance fraud experts and its own fraud and abuse detection systems.

Currently, Amazon encourages customers to contact third-party sellers directly with complaints about products. That left users to fend mostly for themselves following accidents caused by faulty or dangerous products. A short list of those includes defective carbon monoxide detectors, hair dryers without required shock protection and flammable clothing for kids, according to a complaint from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

The new policy comes after complaints from lawmakers and consumer organizations about the proliferation of counterfeit, faulty and even dangerous products sold on Amazon's sprawling third-party marketplace. Last month, the CPSC sued Amazon to force it to recall faulty items that posed safety risks. Regulators said they had warned Amazon about the hazardous items on its site, but deemed its response insufficient.

Amazon and GoPro have filed a joint lawsuit against a group of Chinese nationals and businesses they allege sold counterfeit GroPro products on Amazon. In newly unsealed court documents, the two companies say the fraudsters made knockoffs of some of GoPro's most popular accessories that blatantly used its branding to try and trick potential buyers.

Among the products the counterfeiters saw to pass off as authentic include GoPro's signature "3-Way" and "The Handler" grips. The knockoffs were often hard to spot, with subtle differences between them and their real GoPro counterparts. For instance, some had foam handles that were a slightly different color from the one you'll find on tripods from the company.

"When counterfeiters attempt to sell in our store, they not only violate the intellectual property rights of companies like GoPro, they also mislead consumers and harm Amazon's reputation as a place to buy authentic goods," said Kebharu Smith, director of Amazon's recently formed Counterfeit Crimes Unit.

Amazon and GoPro aren't the first companies to take legal action against fraudsters using the platform to sell counterfeit goods. Back in 2016, Apple alleged that about 90 percent of the Lightning cables and chargers marked "Fulfilled by Amazon" were fake.

However, Amazon contends the problem isn't widespread. In 2020, the company says less than 0.01 percent of all products sold on its marketplace were the subject of a counterfeit complaint from customers. As The Verge points out, what we don't know is how many items the company sold last year.

At the scale Amazon does business, 0.01 percent could represent tens of thousands of complaints. It's also not clear how many people bought a counterfeit product, and either didn't think to contact the company about their purchase or were none the wiser about what they had in their possession. Either way, the issue of fake GoPro products was pressing enough for Amazon to team up with the company to take it on.

Charter Communications has been sued by a group of major record labels who claim it has failed to address "flagrant and serial" music copyright infringement, The Verge has reported. It's the second time over the last several years that the group has sued Charter over song piracy. 

The labels said that they sent around 150,00 notices of infringement to Spectrum, Charter's internet service, including the IP addresses of "tens of thousands" of alleged infringers. They claim that the company turned a "blind eye" to the downloading, which occurred from July 2018 until recently. 

"Charter insisted on doing nothing despite receiving thousands of notices that detailed the illegal activity of its subscribers, despite its clear legal obligation to address the widespread, illegal downloading of copyrighted works on its Internet services, and despite being sued previously by Plaintiffs for similar conduct," the claim states.

The same labels sued Charter in 2019, claiming subscribers were using torrent services for music pirating between March 2013 and May 2016. "Charter persisted in contributing to and profiting from its subscribers’ infringement... even after receiving Plaintiffs’ March and April 2016 notices of claims and, remarkably, even after Plaintiffs filed the 2019 lawsuit," according to the latest lawsuit. 

The music industry has attacked multiple internet providers over the last few years. In June, ISP Frontier was sued by record labels over similar piracy claims. Internet service provider Cox, meanwhile, lost a $1 billion judgement in December of 2019, and vowed to appeal the settlement at the time.