It seems that Apple will be able to bypass an import ban on Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 devices and once again sell those products in the US after dropping a key feature. According to a letter to an appeals court judge from Masimo, a company that's been involved in a patent dispute against Apple, the latter can skirt the ban by removing the Blood Oxygen app from Apple Watch units it sells in the US going forward.

Per the letter, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined that "Apple’s redesign falls outside the scope" of the International Trade Commission's (ITC) import ban on the two devices. Apple told CBP that its "Redesigned Watch Products definitively do not contain pulse oximetry functionality.” Other details related to the CBP decision are confidential and, as things stand, "no public version of the decision exists," Masimo's letter states.

According to Reuters, however, the CBP decision may be upended if the ITC disagrees. Apple is said to already have shipped modified Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 units to its US locations, but stores were reportedly told not to open or sell the new versions until getting the green light from higher ups.

Photo by Cherlynn Low / Engadget

In October, the ITC upheld a prior ruling that Apple violated Masimo patents concerning blood oxygen functions on the Apple Watch. The ruling led Apple to pause sales of the Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the US through its own website and Apple Stores by Christmas Eve. An emergency interim stay of the ITC ruling in late December enabled Apple to start selling the wearables again in the US.

According to 9to5 Mac, Apple's concession won't affect those who already have an Apple Watch with pulse oximetry features. Apple has offered the Blood Oxygen app on its wearables since it released the Apple Watch Series 6 in 2020. It's possible that Apple will roll out a new version of the Blood Oxygen app to affected units once it resolves the patent problem.

Soon after Apple said it would stop selling the Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 to adhere to the ITC's order, it was reported that the company's engineers were working feverishly on a software update. Those efforts were said to focus on changes to the Blood Oxygen app and its algorithms to ensure the devices violated Masimo's patents.

That said, according to Bloomberg, nixing the app altogether was seen as the quickest (and likely easiest) way to avoid having the ban reinstated, though removing what was once a highly touted feature of the Apple Watch is a significant concession. A federal appeals court could hear an Apple motion to extend the stay (which was granted pending an appeal) on the ban as early as this week.

Masimo has claimed that Apple hired its former employees and used its pulse oximetry tech in Apple Watch devices. Apple countersued Masimo, arguing that the company's own smartwatch copies patented Apple Watch features.

The US attorney's office in Massachusetts says eBay will pay a $3 million penalty to resolve criminal charges following a harassment campaign conducted by several former executives. Several ex-employees targeted a couple who wrote a newsletter that was critical of the company.

The Justice Department charged eBay with two counts of stalking through interstate travel, two counts of stalking through electronic communications services, one count of witness tampering and one count of obstruction of justice. The $3 million fine was the statutory maximum for the felonies. As part of a deferred prosecution agreement with authorities, eBay also needs to improve its compliance program and retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for three years.

The US attorney's office says eBay "admitted to a detailed recitation of all the relevant facts about its conduct." In August 2019, the company's former senior director of safety and security Jim Baugh and six others carried out a harassment campaign against Ina and David Steiner of Massachusetts. The couple wrote about litigation involving eBay and higher-ups at the company were said to have been frustrated about the negative coverage.

Baugh and his co-conspirators harassed the couple by, among other things, sending them a fetal pig, a funeral wreath and live spiders and cockroaches. According to prosecutors, three of the former eBay employees traveled to the Steiners' home in the aim of planting a GPS tracking device on their car. The campaign also involved sending harassing messages via Twitter (now X).

Baugh and several others were convicted and sent to prison. One other has admitted to their part in the campaign but has yet to be sentenced.

In a victim impact statement published on their website, the Steiners wrote that "eBay's actions against us had a damaging and permanent impact on us — emotionally, psychologically, physically, reputationally, and financially — and we strongly pushed federal prosecutors for further indictments to deter corporate executives and board members from creating a culture where stalking and harassment is tolerated or encouraged."

The pair and Steiner Associates, the publisher of their EcommerceBytes newsletter, have filed a civil lawsuit against eBay and the former employees. A trial has been scheduled for March next year.

In November, a group of non-fiction authors filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of using other people's intellectual property without permission to train the former's generative AI technology. Now, more non-fiction writers are suing the companies for using their work to train OpenAI's GPT large language models (LLM). Journalists Nicholas A. Basbanes and Nicholas Gage are accusing the defendants of "massive and deliberate theft of copyrighted works" by writers like them in a proposed class action lawsuit. 

Professional writers "have limited capital to fund their research" and "typically self-fund their projects," they said in their complaint. Meanwhile, the defendants have "ready access to billions in capital" and "simply stole" the plaintiffs' "copyrighted works to build another billion+ dollar commercial industry," they allege. Using copyrighted works is a "deliberate strategy" by the companies, the complaint reads, and not paying writers give the defendants "an even higher profit margin." The plaintiffs added that the companies could've explored alternative financing options, such as profit sharing, but have "decided to steal" instead. 

Basbanes and Gage are seeking "to represent a class of writers whose copyrighted work has been systematically pilfered" by the defendants. They're seeking up to $150,000 per infringed work in damages, as well as a permanent injunction "to prevent these harms from recurring." Basbanes is a "renowned authority on the history of books and book culture." Gage, according to the CNBC, had previously worked for the Times and The Wall Street Journal.

OpenAI is contending with a growing list of lawsuits filed by creatives accusing it of using their work without permission to train its LLMs, including one by fiction authors George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult. In late December 2023, The New York Times sued the company and its biggest backer, Microsoft, for using the newspaper's articles for AI training. An OpenAI representative told us at the time that both parties were engaged in "productive conversations" and that the lawsuit was unexpected.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently accused SpaceX of unlawfully firing eight employees who wrote an open letter criticizing Elon Musk's behavior on social media, as well as the company's response to it. Now, according to Bloomberg, SpaceX is trying to stall the complaint's progress by suing the labor board. The company reportedly argues in its lawsuit that the complaint should be dismissed because the NLRB's structure is "unconstitutional." 

SpaceX's lawsuit attacks the way the labor board conducts its hearings. The NLRB uses its own administrative judges for its proceedings, and the company says that deprives it of its "constitutional right to trial by jury." Companies can appeal rulings by agency judges to NLRB members in Washington, and they could even go as far as to escalate their appeal to federal court. SpaceX apparently told the court that the case against it should be put on hold to prevent the company from having to go through "protracted administrative proceedings before an unconstitutionally structured agency."

The open letter at the center of this case called Musk's behavior on social media "a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment." It called out the executive's "harmful Twitter behavior," including a tweet wherein he made a joke about the sexual misconduct allegation made against him. The letter asked the company to hold all leadership accountable for their actions and to condemn harmful behavior. SpaceX fired a total of nine employees over the letter, the NLRB's complaint said, which means they were illegally fired for "engaging in protected concerted activity at work."

In its lawsuit, SpaceX said the open letter "caused significant distraction to SpaceX employees around the country" and that it fired the employees involved "for violating numerous company policies." As Reuters notes, the private space corporation used a similar tactic in the past to block the US Department of Justice from pursuing an administrative case that accused the company of discriminatory hiring practices. SpaceX also filed a lawsuit protesting the fact that the Justice Department's administrative judges have powers reserved for President-appointed officials even though they were only appointed by the US attorney general. The company successfully convinced the judge to pause the administrative case against it while its own lawsuit was ongoing. 

Vizio TVs’ “effective” refresh rates have been confusing customers for years, and the company may now owe payments to some buyers who were misled by the term. As spotted by The Verge, Vizio recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California over what plaintiffs claim is “false and misleading” advertising. While some Vizio TVs are marketed as having a “120Hz Effective Refresh Rate” or “240Hz Effective Refresh Rate,” that describes a result achieved using motion clarity technology. Their actual, native refresh rate in most cases is 60Hz.

Vizio has denied any wrongdoing on its part, but agreed to a $3 million settlement covering all Vizio TVs purchased in California that were advertised with the above descriptions, going back to April 30, 2014 and up until the final court judgment. The final approval hearing is right now set for June 20, 2024. People may be entitled to payments of up to $50, but claims must be in by March 30, 2024. The claim form can be found here. Vizio also agreed to stop marketing its TVs this way and to “provide enhanced services and a limited one-year warranty to all Settlement Class Members.”

Donald Trump’s former “fixer,” Michael Cohen, used Google Bard to cite made-up legal cases that ended up in a federal court. The New York Times reported Friday that Cohen admitted in unsealed court papers that he passed on documents referencing bogus cases to his lawyer, who then relayed them to a federal judge. Cohen reportedly wrote in the sworn declaration he hadn’t stayed on top of “emerging trends (and related risks) in legal technology.”

Cohen’s legal team filed the paperwork in a motion asking for an early end to court supervision from his 2018 campaign finance case, for which he served three years in prison. After Cohen’s attorney, David M. Schwartz, presented the legal documents to the federal court, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Federal District Court said he was having trouble finding the three decisions cited by Schwartz (via Cohen).

Judge Furman told Schwartz that if he couldn’t provide documentation of the cases, the attorney needed to provide “a thorough explanation of how the motion came to cite cases that do not exist and what role, if any, Mr. Cohen played in drafting or reviewing the motion before it was filed.” Schwartz must also explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned “for citing nonexistent cases to the court.” Cohen is a former lawyer who was disbarred after pleading guilty to multiple felonies.

Enter Bard. Cohen said he didn’t realize the AI bot “was a generative text service that, like ChatGPT, could show citations and descriptions that looked real but actually were not.” Cohen also blamed his lawyer, saying he didn’t realize Schwartz “would drop the cases into his submission wholesale without even confirming that they existed.”

Although lawyers using AI chatbots to cite hallucinated cases makes for easy comedy, this flub could have profound implications for a critical case with potential political ramifications. Cohen is expected to be the star witness in the Manhattan criminal case against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records. The Bard flub gives Trump’s lawyers new ammunition to discredit the onetime fixer.

Cohen joins the company of ChatGPT Lawyer Steven Schwartz, who cited made-up cases (sourced through OpenAI’s chatbot) in a civil case earlier this year. He was allegedly joined by the attorney for Fugees rapper Pras Michel. In October, the artist accused his lawyer of using an AI program he may have had a financial stake in to produce his closing arguments.

A federal judge in California has shot down Elon Musk’s attempt to invalidate a state social media law, first reported by The Verge. The state’s AB 587 requires social companies to publish their content moderation policies, something Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) claimed violated the First Amendment. US District Judge William Shubb wrote on Thursday, “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

X’s lawyers had argued the law was unconstitutional and would lead to censorship. AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in its lawsuit, filed in September. The company claimed the law’s “true intent” was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

Judge Shubb saw things differently. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual,” he wrote. “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories.”

He continued, “The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”

Shubb concluded that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta met the burden of demonstrating the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

It’s been a rocky year for X in Musk’s first year of ownership. The company changed its name, hired a new CEO, launched a snarky AI chatbot, brought back a notorious conspiracy theorist and bled money as the ad industry got cold feet about brands sitting next to content from Nazi sympathizers. Oh, and the EU has opened formal infringement proceedings against the company formerly known as Twitter.

In 2020, Google was hit with a lawsuit that accused it of tracking Chrome users' activities even when they were using Incognito mode. Now, after a failed attempt to get it dismissed, the company has agreed to settle the complaint that originally sought $5 billion in damages. According to Reuters and The Washington Post, neither side has made the details of the settlement public, but they've already agreed to the terms that they're presenting to the court for approval in February. 

When the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, they said Google used tools like its Analytics product, apps and browser plug-ins to monitor users. They reasoned that by tracking someone on Incognito, the company was falsely making people believe that they could control the information that they were willing to share with it. At the time, a Google spokesperson said that while Incognito mode doesn't save a user's activity on their device, websites could still collect their information during the session. 

The lawsuit's plaintiffs presented internal emails that allegedly showed conversations between Google execs proving that the company monitored Incognito browser usage to sell ads and track web traffic. Their complaint accused Google of violating federal wire-tapping and California privacy laws and was asking up to $5,000 per affected user. They claimed that millions of people who'd been using Incognito since 2016 had likely been affected, which explains the massive damages they were seeking from the company. Google has likely agreed to settle for an amount lower than $5 billion, but it has yet to reveal details about the agreement and has yet to get back to Engadget with an official statement. 

A federal appeals court in Washington D.C. has allowed Apple to continue importing the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 models on Wednesday. The court’s decision comes a day after Apple filed an appeal against a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC) to ban imports of both models of the Apple Watch, which are at the heart of a patent dispute.

The court’s ruling is temporary. It has given the ITC until January 10 to respond to Apple’s motion for a longer-term pause on the ban during the appeals process, Reuters reported. This means that Apple should be able to resume Apple Watch sales on its website and in Apple Stores in the US, something that the company had stopped doing last week. Both models of the Watch were still unavailable on Apple’s website at the time of publishing. Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment from Engadget.

The Watch side of Apple's business generates about $17 billion a year, according to Bloomberg. In October, the ITC determined that Apple violated two patents belonging to another California-based company called Masimo. Both patents revolved around the blood-oxygen sensor that Apple has included in most models of the Watch since 2020. The ITC denied Apple’s appeal against its decision, sending the case all the way to the White House for a Presidential Review. President Biden, however, did not veto the ITC’s decision, which meant that the ban officially went into effect last week.

In its appeal filed on Tuesday, Apple claimed that the company will “suffer irreparable harm” if the ban continued. The company is currently exploring redesigning the blood oxygen sensors in its smartwatch after both the ITC and Masimo agreed that a software fix, which the company was initially scrambling to issue, would be insufficient to resolve the patent dispute.

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for using published news articles to train its artificial intelligence chatbots without an agreement that compensates it for its intellectual property. The lawsuit, which was filed in a Federal District Court in Manhattan, marks the first time a major news organization has pursued the ChatGPT developers for copyright infringement. The NYT did not specify how much it seeks in payout from the companies but that “this action seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages.”

The NYT claims that OpenAI and Microsoft, the makers of Chat GPT and Copilot, “seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism” without having any licensing agreements. In one part of the complaint, the NYT highlights that its domain (www.nytimes.com) was the most used proprietary source mined for content to train GPT-3.

It alleges more than 66 million records, ranging from breaking news articles to op-eds, published across the NYT websites and other affiliated brands were used to train the AI models. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants in the case have used “almost a century’s worth of copyrighted content,” causing significant harm to the Times’ bottom line. The NYT also says that OpenAI and Microsoft’s products can “generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.” This mirrors other complaints from comedians and authors like Sarah Silverman and Julian Sancton who claim OpenAI has profited off their works.

If the lawsuit makes any headway, it could create opportunities for other publishers to pursue similar legal action and make training AI models for commercial purposes more costly. Competitors in the space, like CNN and BBC News have already tried limiting what data AI web crawlers can scrape for training and development purposes.

While it’s unclear if NYT is open to a licensing agreement after its earlier negotiations failed, leading to the lawsuit, OpenAI has reached a few deals recently. This month, it agreed to pay publisher Axel Springer for access to its content in a deal projected to be worth millions. And articles from Politico and Business Insider will be made available to train OpenAI’s next gen AI tools as part of a three year deal. It also previously made a deal with the AP to use its archival content dating back to 1985. Microsoft and OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.