Your Tech Story

Lawsuit

EU Finalizes World’s First Major Law Governing Artificial Intelligence

In a landmark decision, European Union member states on Tuesday gave their final approval to the AI Act, the world’s first major legislative framework designed to regulate artificial intelligence. This pioneering law sets comprehensive rules for the use and development of AI technologies, aiming to balance innovation with essential safeguards.

“The adoption of the AI Act is a significant milestone for the European Union,” stated Mathieu Michel, Belgium’s Secretary of State for Digitization. “With the AI Act, Europe emphasizes the importance of trust, transparency, and accountability when dealing with new technologies while ensuring that this fast-changing technology can flourish and boost European innovation.”

The AI Act introduces a risk-based regulatory approach, categorizing AI applications according to the level of risk they pose. Applications deemed “unacceptable,” such as social scoring systems, predictive policing, and emotional recognition in schools and workplaces, are outright banned. High-risk AI systems, including those used in autonomous vehicles, medical devices, financial services, and education, will undergo stringent scrutiny to protect public safety and fundamental rights.

Impact on U.S. Tech Giants

The new regulations are expected to have profound implications for companies worldwide, especially for major U.S. tech firms that operate within the EU. Matthew Holman, a partner at the law firm Cripps, highlighted the unprecedented nature of the AI Act. “The EU AI Act is unlike any law anywhere else on earth,” he explained. “It establishes a detailed regulatory regime for AI for the first time.”

Holman noted that U.S. technology companies have been closely monitoring the development of this legislation. “There has been substantial investment in public-facing generative AI systems, and these companies will need to ensure compliance with the new, sometimes onerous, requirements,” he added.

The EU Commission will enforce the law, with potential fines for non-compliance reaching up to 35 million euros ($38 million) or 7% of a company’s annual global revenue, whichever is higher. The necessity for updated legislation became clear after the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022, which exposed gaps in existing laws concerning advanced AI capabilities and the use of copyrighted material.

Implementation Process

Despite its adoption, the AI Act’s stringent requirements will not be implemented immediately. Dessi Savova, a partner at Clifford Chance, pointed out that the restrictions on general-purpose AI systems, which include generative AI technologies, will begin 12 months after the Act comes into force. Furthermore, currently available generative AI systems, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Microsoft’s Copilot, will benefit from a 36-month transition period to achieve full compliance.

“Agreement has been reached on the AI Act, and now the focus must shift to its effective implementation and enforcement,” Savova commented. This phased approach aims to give companies sufficient time to adapt to the new regulations, ensuring a smooth transition while maintaining the integrity and safety of AI innovations within the EU.

This new legislative framework marks a significant step in global efforts to regulate AI, setting a precedent that could influence future policies worldwide.

Google

Google wins appeal of $20 mln US patent verdict

Search Engine Giant, Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, successfully persuaded an appeals court in the United States on Tuesday to invalidate three anti-malware copyrights that were at the center of a Texas court’s twenty million-dollar infringing acts decision against the firm.

Google
Image Source: communicationstoday.co.in

Alfonso Cioffi & Allen Rozman’s copyrights, according to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, were found to be inapplicable because they covered ideas that were not covered by a prior version of the claim.

Also Read: Twitter Clashes With Brazil Over School Violence Posts

Google welcomed the choice, according to spokesman José Castada. An inquiry for comment was not immediately answered by the inventors’ attorneys.

In 2013, Cioffi along with the daughters of the late Rozman filed a lawsuit against Google in the Federal court in East Texas, claiming that Chrome’s malware protection features violated their patents for a system that stops malware from gaining access to sensitive information on a computer.

A jury found that Google violated the patents in 2017 and granted the complainants a total of 20 million USD in addition to continuing payments, which according to the plaintiff’s representative at that point in time were anticipated to reach approximately seven million dollars yearly for the following nine years.

However, the Federal Circuit declared all of the patents invalid on Tuesday. The three-judge bench reached a unanimous conclusion that the three claims had been reissued from a previous anti-malware claim and that federal law needed the newly issued patents to encompass the same idea as the first.

The new patents described web browser-specific technology that was absent from the original patent, according to the appeals court.

Contrary to popular belief, the defendants in Big Tech’s latest patent litigation argue that bigger firms utilize their clout to squeeze rivals.

The British competition regulator declared that Alphabet’s child firm Google’s measures to permit app developers to bypass Google Play’s invoicing mechanism appeared to be adequate to allay its reservations about in-app purchases.

Also Read: Scan.com raises $12m for US and UK expansion

The entire monopoly Google has over in-app purchases has, according to the Competition and Markets Authorities (CMA) of Britain, unjustly constrained developers by requiring them to adopt Google Play’s charging system, decreasing competition and harming users.

According to the CMA, Google’s suggestions would let app creators provide another means of payment of their choice or give customers the option of choosing from that method and Google Play’s payment system.

Meta

Why is Meta being sued by its home county, San Mateo?

The school board in Meta Platforms Inc.’s home county filed a lawsuit against the business for allegedly encouraging student addiction to its social media networks and causing a crisis of mental health.

Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook has been named in a lawsuit by the San Mateo County Board of Education filed against Google, TikTok, and Snap-on March 13. The distance between Redwood City, the county seat, and Meta’s offices in Menlo Park, California, is roughly four miles.

Meta
Image Source: reuters.com

The complaint is comparable to a first-of-its-kind lawsuit brought by the Seattle school district in January, which claims that the companies deliberately created their social media platforms to be alluring and to send harmful content to children and teenagers.

Also Read: What’s behind bitcoin’s latest surge?

Numerous other school systems, as well as numerous children and their parents, have filed lawsuits in places like Florida and Arizona. According to the complaint, San Mateo’s board of education claims it is allocating “unprecedented resources” to help children harmed by excessive time spent on screens and diverting funds from traditional educational objectives to deal with psychological issues that “have no historic analog,” such as increased suicide rates.

According to Antigone Davis, the global head of safety at Meta, the company wants teenagers to stay secure online and provides over 30 safety tools for children and families, including age verification technology and parental control.

In a statement, Davis said, “We automatically set teens’ accounts to private when they join Instagram, and we send notifications encouraging them to take regular breaks.

We don’t allow content that promotes suicide, self-harm, or eating disorders, and of the content we remove or take action on, we identify over 99% of it before it’s reported to us.”

The billionaire CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, has previously supported the educational change, contributing $120 million to San Francisco Bay Area schools almost ten years ago.

Also Read: Why Google suspended China’s Pinduoduo app?

But in the 116-page lawsuit, Facebook and Instagram are referred to as a public nuisance, and Meta and the other businesses are charged with racketeering, gross negligence, conspiracy, and unfair competition.

At a Congressional hearing on Thursday, issues related to social media addiction were brought up as TikTok CEO Shou Chew fought back against efforts by US legislators and the Biden administration to compel the business’s Chinese parent firm, ByteDance, to forfeit its shares of the unit or shut it in the US.

The meeting was attended by the parents of a 16-year-old boy who committed suicide after using TikTok. The pair filed a lawsuit against ByteDance, claiming that TikTok sent their son over 1,000 videos about self-harm, suicide, and hopelessness.

Google

DOJ poised to sue Google over digital ad market dominance

According to Bloomberg News, the US Justice Department is preparing to file a lawsuit against Alphabet Inc’s Google as shortly as Tuesday above its dominant position in the market for digital advertising referencing individuals with knowledge of the situation.

The dispute would be Google’s second federal antitrust complaint, accusing antitrust infringements in the way the technology giant obtains or retains its dominant position. The Justice Department’s 2020 civil suit against Google emphasizes its browse monopolization and is set to proceed to a sentencing hearing in September.

Google
Image Source: nypost.com

The Justice Department didn’t respond instantly to a request for information from Reuters, and Google turned down to address the report.

The lawsuit we have filed today seeks to hold Google to account for what we allege is its longstanding monopolies in digital advertising technologies that content creators use to sell ads and advertisers use to buy ads on the open Internet,” said the Justice Department’s antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter in a news conference Tuesday announcing the suit.

Source: bloomberglaw.com

Also Read: Netflix founder Reed Hastings stepping down as co-CEO

The lawsuit is predicted to target Google’s ad business, which accounts for roughly 80 percent of its earnings. Google generates revenue from its interrelated ad technology firms, which link up advertisers to publications, websites, as well as other businesses looking to broadcast them, furthermore adding its well-known free search.

Advertising agencies as well as website publishers have voiced concerns that Google has not been forthcoming about where advertising dollars are spent, particularly how much ends up going to publishing companies and what is the amount that goes to Google.

Also Read: Google Parent Alphabet cuts 12000 Jobs

The tech behemoth made several takeovers, such as DoubleClick in 2008 as well as AdMob in 2009, to help position itself as a dominant player in online ads.

The search engine giant previously claimed that the advertising tech ecosystem battled with Facebook Inc, Comcast, AT&T, and others.

When Google stays by far the industry leader, its proportion of digital ad revenue in the United States has already been diminishing, dropping from 36.7 percent in 2016 to 28.8 percent last year, as per Insider Intelligence.

Google said in a blog post that the lawsuit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector. The case largely duplicates an unfounded lawsuit by the Texas Attorney General, much of which was recently dismissed by a federal court. DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”

Source: bloomberglaw.com
PriceRunner

PriceRunner Sues Google For 2.1 Billion Euros.

Sweden’s price comparison website on Monday, PriceRunner filed a lawsuit against Google for EUR 2.1 billion (roughly Rs. 17,930 crores) for promoting its own shopping comparisons in search results.

In recent years, Europe has tightened regulations on Big Tech’s business practices, and the EU is working on legislation to do so. US behemoths are facing fines and legal challenges in a number of European countries.

The Swedish tech startup expects the “final damages amount of the lawsuit to be significantly higher” because “the violation is still ongoing.”

According to CEO Mikael Lindahl, the lawsuit is also a fight “for consumers who have suffered tremendously for the past fourteen years and still today from Google’s infringement of competition law.”

PriceRunner
Image source: dw.com

The Swedish tech startup filed its lawsuit with the Patent and Market Court in Stockholm after the European Union General Court ruled that Google “breached EU antitrust laws by manipulating search results in favor of their own comparison shopping services.”

The European Commission imposed a EUR-2.4 billion (roughly Rs. 20,490 crores) fine on Google in 2017, claiming that results from Google’s own comparison service were “displayed in a more eye-catching manner.” An EU court upheld the fine in November, claiming that results from Google’s own comparison service were “displayed in a more eye-catching manner.”

PriceRunner said it was pursuing restitution for profits lost in the UK since 2008, as well as Sweden and Denmark since 2013.

Google has a “monopoly-like position” in the European Economic Area (EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway), according to PriceRunner, with more than 90% of the market share for internet search engines.

The price comparison website is headquartered in Sweden, with offices in Denmark, Norway, and the United Kingdom. It has previously stated its intention to expand into additional countries.

PriceRunner was bought by Swedish fintech Klarna in November for an undisclosed sum, though media reports put the price at over $1 billion (roughly Rs. 8,540 crores).

About PriceRunner

PriceRunner is a product and price comparison service with a global user base of 18.2 million people. The website is completely free to use and contains 2.2 million products from 5 900 shops. Users can compare prices on a wide range of items. In addition to price and product comparison, there are hundreds of product tests and guides available. The company operates in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, among other countries.

PriceRunner’s mission is to make online shopping more convenient for consumers by assisting them in finding the best products and deals available. PriceRunner offers hundreds of product reviews and comparisons from a variety of retailers, as well as the ability to compare products, prices, and delivery options. Product experts carry out the tests over a long period of time in order to simulate the product’s intended use.

PriceRunner does not sell products; rather, it makes money by sending traffic to online stores and by displaying banner ads. PriceRunner currently employs 175 people in Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Nicklas Storkers has been the company’s CEO since 2016. In October 2021, PriceRunner acquired the Norwegian price comparison site Prisguiden, expanding its operations to Norway.

NSO Group

Apple Filed A Lawsuit Against NSO Group For Allegedly Targeting Over A Billion iPhone Users.

Apple has now joined WhatsApp and its parent company Meta (formerly known as Facebook) in suing NSO Group, the maker of Pegasus spyware. Apple says it’s “seeking a permanent injunction to ban NSO Group from using any Apple software, services, or devices,” along with promising new information about how NSO Group infected targeted iPhones via a zero-click exploit that researchers later dubbed ForcedEntry.

“State-sponsored actors like the NSO Group spend millions of dollars on sophisticated surveillance technologies without effective accountability,” says Senior Vice President of Software Engineering Craig Federighi in a statement.

Source: www.theverge.com

That must be changed… Apple products are the safest consumer electronics on the market, but private companies that create state-sponsored spyware have become even more dangerous.” Apple and WhatsApp aren’t alone in their legal battle with NSO Group; last year, Microsoft and Google joined Apple and WhatsApp in supporting Facebook’s lawsuit.
According to Apple’s press release, Pegasus spyware is designed to allow governments to remotely access a phone’s microphones, cameras, and other data on both iPhones and Androids. According to reports from a journalistic coalition called the Pegasus Project and Apple’s complaint from earlier this year, it’s also designed to infect phones without requiring any action from the user and without leaving a trace.

NSO Group
Image source: investing.com

Forced Entry Exploit By NSO Group

Despite NSO’s claims that its governmental clients are prohibited from using the spyware against journalists, activists, and politicians, Apple cites reports that the spyware has been used against them. It’s understandable that Apple, the company that says “what happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone,” would be irritated by its devices and services being used to commit “human rights abuses.”
In a statement to The New York Times, Apple’s senior director of commercial litigation Heather Grenier says the lawsuit is a “stake in the ground” meant to send a “clear signal” that the company will not tolerate “this type of abuse.” Apple claims that NSO violated Apple’s terms of service by creating “more than one hundred” Apple IDs to help it send data to targets, according to the complaint (PDF).
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, according to information and belief, they created over one hundred Apple IDs to carry out their attacks and also agreed to Apple’s iCloud Terms and Conditions (“iCloud Terms”), which include a mandatory and enforceable forum selection and exclusive jurisdiction clause that constitutes express consent to this Court’s jurisdiction.
Apple’s complaint explains how the attack worked: NSO would send data to a target via iMessage (after determining that they were using an iPhone) that was maliciously crafted to turn off the iPhone’s logging using the Apple IDs it created. This would allow NSO to install the Pegasus spyware invisibly and control the data collected on the phone. According to Apple, the vulnerability that NSO was exploiting was fixed in iOS 14.8, which you can learn more about here. In short, NSO was sending files that took advantage of a flaw in the way iMessage handled GIFs and PDFs.
“We have not observed any evidence of successful remote attacks against devices running iOS 15 and later versions,” Apple says in a press release, citing improvements to iOS 15 security. Amnesty International stated in July when the Pegasus Project released its reports, that the latest versions of iOS (at the time, iOS 14.6) were vulnerable to attack.

Apple’s Persistent Efforts to Protect Its Customers

A number of new security features are included in iOS 15, including significant improvements to the BlastDoor security mechanism. While the NSO Group spyware is still evolving, Apple has yet to see any evidence of successful remote attacks on iOS 15 and later devices. Apple encourages all iPhone users to update their devices and always use the most up-to-date software.
In addition to the lawsuit against NSO, Apple says it will financially and technically support “organizations pursuing cyber-surveillance research and advocacy.” Citizen Lab, a group of researchers who were involved with the Pegasus Project and helped Apple discover and patch NSO’s exploits, has pledged to give free “technical, threat intelligence, and engineering assistance” to Apple in exchange for $10 million (plus any damages it wins from its lawsuit). Apple also says that “where appropriate,” it will do the same for other organizations.
NSO was recently added to the US Entity List, limiting the ways in which American companies can sell or provide technology to NSO. According to a report by the MIT Technology Review, the sanction has had a significant negative impact on NSO Group’s employee morale as well as its ability to conduct business. According to the report, the company must obtain permission from the US government to purchase items such as Windows laptops and iPhones, and the government has stated that its default decision is to deny such requests.