All of my opinions are italicized and sources are in blue.
As reported by The Verge,
Following a tumultuous few weeks for Beeper, which has been trying to provide an iMessage-compatible Android app, a group of US lawmakers are pushing for the DOJ to investigate Apple for “potentially anticompetitive conduct” over its attempts to disable Beeper’s services. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT), as well as Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Ken Buck (R-CO), said in a letter to the DOJ that Beeper’s Android messaging app, Beeper Mini, was a threat to Apple’s leverage by “creating [a] more competitive mobile applications market, which in turn [creates] a more competitive mobile device market.”
In an interview with CBS News on Monday, Beeper CEO Eric Migicovsky and 16-year-old developer James Gill talked about the fight to keep Beeper Mini alive. Migicovsky told CBS News that Beeper is trying to provide a service people want and reiterated his belief that Apple has a monopoly over its iMessage service. The company created Beeper Mini after being contacted by Gill, who said he reverse-engineered the software by “poking at it” using a “real Mac and a real iPhone.”
The lawmakers’ letter also pointed to a Department of Commerce report calling Apple a “gatekeeper,” mirroring language used in the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) that went into force earlier this year, regulating the “core” services of several tech platforms (though, notably, iMessage may not be included in this). They went on to cite Migicovsky’s December 2021 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony that “the dominant messaging services would use their position to impose barriers to interoperability” and keep companies like Beeper from offering certain services. “Given Apple’s recent actions, that concern appears prescient,” they added.
Ever since Beeper Mini rolled out on December 5th, bringing blue bubble iMessage capability to Android users, Beeper has been fighting off Apple’s attempts to shut down the app and its older server relay iMessage solution, Beeper Cloud. Outages have impacted both Beeper Cloud and Beeper Mini since December 8th, with Beeper confirming on December 13th that Apple was “deliberately blocking” iMessages from being delivered to about 5 percent of Beeper Mini users.
In a statement acknowledging the shutdown, Apple senior PR manager Nadine Haija said that Apple “took steps to protect our users by blocking techniques that exploit fake credentials in order to gain access to iMessage.” Beeper has attempted to restore its services several times over the last week. As of December 17th, Migicovsky said in a message on Beeper Cloud that over 60 percent of Beeper users are currently unable to send or receive iMessages.
There’s already pressure mounting on Apple from outside of the US to make iMessage interoperable with other messaging services. Google argued in a letter to the European Commission last month that iMessage is significant enough to be regulated as a “core” service under the DMA — something the commission is already investigating alongside Bing, Edge, and Microsoft Advertising.
As reported by Ars Technica,
Some TikTok users may have skipped reviewing an update to TikTok’s terms of service this summer that shakes up the process for filing a legal dispute against the app. According to The New York Times, changes that TikTok “quietly” made to its terms suggest that the popular app has spent the back half of 2023 preparing for a wave of legal battles.
In July, TikTok overhauled its rules for dispute resolution, pivoting from requiring private arbitration to insisting that legal complaints be filed in either the US District Court for the Central District of California or the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Legal experts told the Times this could be a way for TikTok to dodge arbitration claims filed en masse that can cost companies millions more in fees than they expected to pay through individual arbitration.
Perhaps most significantly, TikTok also added a section to its terms that mandates that all legal complaints be filed within one year of any alleged harm caused by using the app. The terms now say that TikTok users “forever waive” rights to pursue any older claims. And unlike a prior version of TikTok’s terms of service archived in May 2023, users do not seem to have any options to opt out of waiving their rights.
Lawyers told the Times that these changes could make it more challenging for TikTok users to pursue legal action at a time when federal agencies are heavily scrutinizing the app and complaints about certain TikTok features allegedly harming kids are mounting.
In the past few years, TikTok has had mixed success defending against user lawsuits filed in courts. In 2021, TikTok was dealt a $92 million blow after settling a class-action lawsuit filed in an Illinois court, which alleged that the app illegally collected underage TikTok users’ personal data. Then, in 2022, TikTok defeated a Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that the app was liable for a child’s death because its algorithm promoted a deadly “Blackout Challenge.” The same year, a bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general announced an investigation to determine whether TikTok violated consumer laws by allegedly putting young users at risk.
Section 230 shielded TikTok from liability in the 2022 “Blackout Challenge” lawsuit, but more recently, a California judge ruled last month that social media platforms—including TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube—couldn’t use a blanket Section 230 defense in a child safety case involving hundreds of children and teens allegedly harmed by social media use across 30 states.
Some of the product liability claims raised in that case are tied to features not protected by Section 230 immunity, the judge wrote, opening up social media platforms to potentially more lawsuits focused on those features. And the Times reported that investigations like the one launched by the bipartisan coalition “can lead to government and consumer lawsuits.”
As new information becomes available to consumers through investigations and lawsuits, there are concerns that users may become aware of harms that occurred before TikTok’s one-year window to file complaints and have no path to seek remedies.
However, it’s currently unclear if TikTok’s new terms will stand up against legal challenges. University of Chicago law professor Omri Ben-Shahar told the Times that TikTok might struggle to defend its new terms in court, and it looks like TikTok is already facing pushback. One lawyer representing more than 1,000 guardians and minors claiming TikTok-related harms, Kyle Roche, told the Times that he is challenging TikTok’s updated terms. Roche said that the minors he represents “could not agree to the changes” and intended to ignore the updates, instead bringing their claims through private arbitration.
TikTok has also spent the past year defending against attempts by lawmakers to ban the China-based app in the US over concerns that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may use the app to surveil Americans. Congress has weighed different bipartisan bills with names like “ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act” and “RESTRICT Act,” each intent to lay out a legal path to ban TikTok nationwide over alleged national security concerns.
So far, TikTok has defeated every attempt to widely ban the app, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers have any plans to stop trying. Most recently, a federal judge stopped Montana’s effort to ban TikTok statewide from taking effect, but a more limited TikTok ban restricting access on state-owned devices was upheld in Texas, Reuters reported.
As reported by The Guardian,
Google has agreed to pay $700 million and to allow for greater competition in its Play app store, according to the terms of an antitrust settlement with US states and consumers disclosed in a San Francisco federal court.
Google was accused of overcharging consumers through unlawful restrictions on the distribution of apps on Android devices and unnecessary fees for in-app transactions. It did not admit wrongdoing.
The company will pay $630m into a settlement fund for consumers and $70m into a fund that will be used by states, according to the settlement, which still requires a judge’s final approval.
The settlement said eligible consumers will receive at least $2 and may get additional payments based on their spending on Google Play between 16 August 2016 and 30 September 2023.
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, joined the settlement.
Lead plaintiff Utah and other states announced the settlement in September, but the terms were kept confidential ahead of Google’s related trial with “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. A California federal jury last week agreed with Epic that parts of Google’s app business were anticompetitive.
Wilson White, Google vice-president for government affairs and public policy said the settlement “builds on Android’s choice and flexibility, maintains strong security protections, and retains Google’s ability to compete with other [operating system] makers, and invest in the Android ecosystem for users and developers”.
The company said it was expanding the ability of app and game developers to provide consumers an alternative billing option for in-app purchases next to Play’s billing system. Google said it had piloted “choice billing” in the US for more than a year.
As part of the settlement, Google said it would simplify users’ ability to download apps directly from developers.
Lawyers for the states in their court filing said the settlement terms “will offer significant, meaningful, long-lasting relief for consumers throughout the country”.
The states’ attorneys said “no other US antitrust enforcer has yet been able to secure remedies of this magnitude from Google” or another major digital platform.
Google faces other lawsuits challenging its search and digital advertising practices. It has denied any wrongdoing in those cases.
As reported by The Associated Press,
Hackers accessed Xfinity customers’ personal information by exploiting a vulnerability in software used by the company, the Comcast-owned telecommunications business announced this week.
In a Monday notice to customers, Xfinity said there was unauthorized access to internal systems as a result of this vulnerability — which was previously announced by software provider Citrix — between Oct. 16 and 19.
Xfinity discovered the “suspicious activity” on Oct. 25, and in the following months determined that information was “likely acquired.” On Dec. 6, the company concluded that information included usernames and hashed passwords — and, for some customers, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, account security questions, birthdates and contact information.
Analysis of the breach is still continuing but to date, Xfinity is “not aware of any customer data being leaked anywhere, nor of any attacks on our customers,” the company said in a statement sent to The Associated Press Tuesday.
Xfinity is also requiring customers to reset their passwords, while strongly recommending two-factor or multifactor authentication.
A filing with Maine’s office of the attorney general disclosed that nearly 35.9 million people were affected by this breach. The company declined to confirm a specific number Tuesday, but noted the filing’s figure represents user IDs.
Philadelphia-based Comcast has more than 32 million broadband customers, according to a recent earnings release.
In addition to Xfinity, Citrix provides software to thousands of companies around the world. The previously-announced vulnerability, dubbed “Citrix Bleed,” has also been linked to hacks targeting the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s New York arm and a Boeing subsidiary, among others.
Under new rules that went into effect Monday, the Securities Exchange Commission now requires public companies to disclose all cybersecurity breaches that could affect their bottom lines — within four days of determining a breach is material. As of Tuesday, there were no SEC filings from Comcast about the recent data breach and the company did not immediately address it.
As reported by Engadget,
If you’d previously purchased Discovery shows from the PlayStation Store, you can breathe easily now. Sony has announced that it’s no longer removing shows from the network by December 31 like it had previously planned, thanks to updated licensing agreements. Earlier this month, the company said that it’s pulling Discovery shows from PlayStation and is even removing any purchased title from your library due to content licensing agreements with its providers. The Discovery shows available on the PlayStation Store include MythBusters, Deadliest Catch and Cake Boss.
In all, around 1,200 titles would’ve been affected by the change, and you wouldn’t have gotten a refund for any of them. The announcement came shortly after Warner Bros Discovery, the owner of Discovery Channel, had revealed in an earnings report that its flagship streaming service Max lost 2.5 million subscribers over a six month period.
Both of Sony’s announcements were brief and didn’t elaborate on its licensing troubles with the network. As The New York Times said when the company published the warning that it was going to remove any Discovery show you’d purchased in the past, though, the situation raised questions about the meaning of ownership in the age of digital goods. Supposedly, buying digital would give you access to a piece of content forever, since there’s no physical medium that could break or get lost. As this incident demonstrates, that’s not true at all, and you could only hope that networks and providers never change their licensing deals.
AI made from living human brain cells
Large AI models can now create smaller AI tools without humans
‘Avatar: Frontiers Of Pandora’ Is 40% Off 12 Days After Release
Google extends the deadline to upgrade Stadia controllers to Bluetooth by another year
VR market keeps shrinking even as Meta pours in billions of dollars
