Tag: Lawsuit

  • OpenAI Accused of Deleting Evidence in Copyright Lawsuit

    OpenAI Accused of Deleting Evidence in Copyright Lawsuit

    In recent legal documents submitted by The New York Times regarding its lawsuit against OpenAI, it has been claimed that the AI company unintentionally erased crucial evidence. This evidence was gathered by the newspaper’s legal team over a span of more than 150 hours.

    Data Recovery Issues

    The documents indicate that OpenAI was able to retrieve most of the data, however, the folder organization and file names were irretrievably lost. Consequently, the data that was recovered does not allow for an understanding of how the news articles from the plaintiffs were incorporated into the training sets for the AI model.

    OpenAI’s Response

    Jason Deutrom, a representative from OpenAI, communicated to Wired that the company does not agree with the claims made in the lawsuit. He mentioned that they will be providing a formal response shortly. The New York Times initiated the lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in December of the previous year, claiming that the AI firm utilized its articles to enhance its AI models.

    Accusations of Copyright Infringement

    The lawsuit asserts that millions of articles from The New York Times were used to train automated chatbots, which now rival the news organization as a trusted source of information. It argues that both companies should be held liable for "billions of dollars" due to the "illegal copying and use of The Times’ uniquely valuable works."

    Source: Link,Link,Link,Link

    Tags: , ,
  • Apple Sued by Ex-Employees Over Gender Pay Disparity

    Apple Sued by Ex-Employees Over Gender Pay Disparity

    Two women have initiated a class-action lawsuit against Apple in California, alleging that the tech company has been systematically underpaying female employees for the past four years. The lawsuit, which could include up to 12,000 current and former female employees, claims that Apple's compensation and performance evaluation systems discriminate against women.

    Nearly 12,000 Female Employees Represented

    Central to the complaint is Apple’s past practice of determining starting salaries based on previous salary history, a method that was discontinued in late 2017. The lawsuit contends that this practice perpetuated existing gender pay disparities, as women generally earn less than men in the tech industry.

    This method was replaced by asking job applicants for their salary expectations, which the lawsuit argues also has a discriminatory impact. Research has indicated that employees often base their salary expectations on their current or past earnings, which can lead women to undervalue themselves during salary negotiations.

    Allegations of Bias in Performance Evaluations

    Beyond the issue of pay disparity, the lawsuit alleges bias within Apple’s performance evaluation system. The complaint suggests that subjective criteria like "teamwork" and "leadership" are applied differently to men and women. According to the lawsuit, behaviors rewarded in men might be penalized when exhibited by women, thereby affecting their earning potential.

    The plaintiffs are seeking financial compensation for damages linked to alleged pay discrepancies. They are also asking for "declaratory relief," which would be a court order mandating Apple to revise its pay and evaluation practices to ensure fairness. Additionally, they are requesting a jury trial to hear the case.

    Previous Allegations Against Apple

    These accusations follow similar reports from 2022, where female Apple employees spoke out about experiences of sexual harassment, bullying, and retaliation after filing complaints with HR. One alarming case involved a former legal director who claimed a colleague hacked her devices and issued death threats. Despite reporting the incident to HR, she alleges that no action was taken and that she was ultimately fired.

    With this lawsuit, Apple faces significant pressure to address potential systemic gender bias within the company. It remains to be seen how the company will navigate these legal challenges.

    Tags: , ,
  • Three Authors File Lawsuit Against Nvidia in Unusual AI Copyright Dispute

    Three Authors File Lawsuit Against Nvidia in Unusual AI Copyright Dispute

    Three writers have initiated legal action against chipmaker Nvidia, disrupting the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) by alleging that their copyrighted works were utilized without permission in Nvidia's AI platform, NeMo. Brian Keene, Abdi Nazemian, and Stewart O’Nan have raised concerns about their books being part of a dataset containing nearly 200,000 books that NeMo used for language generation training purposes.

    Lawsuit Highlights

    The authors claim that Nvidia's removal of the dataset in October 2023 following copyright infringement assertions is an implicit admission of wrongdoing. This incident sets a precedent that might lead to similar legal battles emerging as AI technologies become increasingly prevalent.

    In their class-action lawsuit filed in a San Francisco federal court, the trio seeks unspecified damages on behalf of US authors whose copyrighted material may have contributed to the training of NeMo's language models over the past three years. Specific works such as Keene’s “Ghost Walk” (2008), Nazemian’s “Like a Love Story” (2019), and O’Nan’s “Last Night at the Lobster” (2007) were highlighted in the lawsuit as examples of allegedly misappropriated content.

    Industry Implications

    This legal dispute places Nvidia among a growing list of companies confronting legal challenges from content creators and major media entities like the New York Times. The core issue revolves around generative AI technology, which can generate new content by learning from existing text, images, and audio sources.

    Nvidia has refrained from commenting on the matter as of the most recent reports, while the authors' legal representatives have yet to provide additional details in response to inquiries.

    Tags: , ,
  • Victory for Apple in Lawsuit Concerning Tim Cook’s and Other Executives’ Compensation

    Victory for Apple in Lawsuit Concerning Tim Cook’s and Other Executives’ Compensation

    A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit brought against Apple, alleging improper compensation to CEO Tim Cook and other top executives. The lawsuit, filed by a pension fund affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, accused Apple of overpayment due to miscalculations in the value of performance-based stock awards.

    Allegations of Overpayment

    The crux of the allegations revolved around claims that Apple had overpaid Tim Cook and four other executives by tens of millions of dollars, with payments exceeding the intended amounts as specified by the compensation committee. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the fair value of performance-based restricted stock units (RSUs) had been incorrectly calculated, potentially misleading shareholders.

    Judge’s Ruling in Favor of Apple

    However, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon found in favor of Apple, highlighting that the company had adequately disclosed its compensation methods in its 2023 proxy statement, thereby complying with securities laws and regulations set forth by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Judge Rochon also emphasized the absence of evidence indicating improper actions by Apple’s board of directors in determining executive pay.

    Timing of Legal Action

    One of the focal points of the case was the timeframe within which the plaintiff pursued legal action. Allegations surfaced that the pension fund did not afford Apple’s board sufficient opportunity to address its objections before filing the lawsuit, a contention that likely influenced the judge’s decision.

    Details of Tim Cook’s Compensation

    According to details revealed in Apple’s proxy filings, Tim Cook received substantial compensation, totaling approximately $99 million annually for both 2021 and 2022, with a significant portion attributed to stock awards. However, his total pay saw a decline in 2023, amounting to $63.2 million.

    Apple’s Legal Victory

    The lawsuit’s dismissal represents a legal victory for Apple, underscoring the company’s adherence to regulatory requirements and corporate governance standards in its executive compensation practices. It also serves as a reaffirmation of the transparency and compliance measures implemented by Apple in disclosing its compensation methodologies to shareholders.

    Importance of Transparency and Accountability

    While this ruling provides clarity on the matter, it also highlights the importance of thorough due diligence and adherence to procedural requirements in corporate governance disputes. As companies continue to navigate complex regulatory landscapes, cases such as these underscore the significance of transparency and accountability in executive compensation practices.


    Tags: , ,
  • Consumer Protection in the Spotlight as Apple Resolves Lawsuit Involving iTunes Gift Card Scam

    Consumer Protection in the Spotlight as Apple Resolves Lawsuit Involving iTunes Gift Card Scam

    Tech giant Apple has reached a settlement in a lawsuit that accused the company of being complicit in iTunes gift card scams. The terms of the settlement, which were submitted to a federal court in San Jose, California, are currently awaiting preliminary approval from US District Judge Edward Davila.

    The Allegations

    The lawsuit centers around Apple's alleged involvement in allowing scammers to exploit iTunes gift cards. The scam involved pressuring victims into purchasing Apple gift cards for various fabricated reasons, such as taxes, medical bills, bail, or debt collection. Despite warnings against it, victims were then instructed to provide the scammers with the card codes.

    Accusations Against Apple

    Apple is accused of depositing 70% of the stolen funds into the scammers' bank accounts while keeping the remaining 30% as a "commission" for knowingly converting the stolen codes into monetary assets. The lawsuit estimates that the scam has caused victims to lose "hundreds of millions of dollars."

    Lawsuit Details

    The lawsuit covers individuals in the United States who purchased gift cards redeemable on iTunes or the App Store between 2015 and July 31, 2020. These individuals allege that they provided their card codes to fraudsters and did not receive refunds from Apple.

    The legal proceedings gained momentum in June 2022 when Judge Davila rejected Apple's attempt to have the case dismissed. The judge deemed Apple's denial of liability, even after victims reported being scammed, as unconscionable.

    Importance of Accountability

    This lawsuit highlights the increasing importance of holding tech giants accountable for consumer protection and financial security. It also serves as a warning about the potential risks associated with digital transactions and the use of gift cards.

    Settlement Process

    While Apple and the plaintiffs' lawyers have not yet responded to requests for comment, the mediation process played a crucial role in reaching the settlement terms. The formal settlement is currently being drafted and awaits preliminary approval from the judge. This is a significant step in addressing the aftermath of the iTunes gift card scam.

    Tags: , ,
  • Preliminary Settlement Reached by Google in Lawsuit Over Incognito Mode

    Preliminary Settlement Reached by Google in Lawsuit Over Incognito Mode

    Google Reaches Preliminary Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit Over Chrome’s Incognito Mode

    Google has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2020 over its Chrome browser’s Incognito mode. The lawsuit, which originated in the Northern District of California, accused Google of secretly tracking, collecting, and identifying users’ browsing data in real-time, even when using Incognito mode.

    Accusations and Violations

    The legal action, led by Florida resident William Byatt and Californians Chasom Brown and Maria Nguyen, alleged that Google violated wiretap laws. It claimed that websites using Google Analytics or Ad Manager gathered information from browsers in Incognito mode, including web page content, device data, and IP addresses. The lawsuit also accused Google of linking users’ private browsing activity with their existing profiles.

    Dismissal Attempt and Judge’s Ruling

    Google initially tried to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that the warning displayed when activating Incognito mode should serve as sufficient notice to users. However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected this argument in August. The judge emphasized that Google had not explicitly informed users about the continued data collection during private browsing.

    Settlement Agreement

    After negotiations, Google and the plaintiffs have agreed to terms that will ultimately lead to the dismissal of the litigation. The finalized agreement is expected to be presented to the court by the end of January, and court approval is anticipated by the end of February.

    Trial Cancellation and Damages

    This development effectively halts a scheduled February 5, 2024 trial. The lawsuit sought at least $5 billion in damages, claiming that Google’s analytics, cookies, and apps allowed tracking even when users believed they were browsing privately. The specific terms of the settlement remain undisclosed until court approval is obtained by February 24, 2024.

    Tags: , ,
  • Check if you qualify for a share of Apple’s $25M settlement in Family Sharing lawsuit

    Check if you qualify for a share of Apple’s $25M settlement in Family Sharing lawsuit

    Apple Settles Lawsuit Over App Subscription Sharing

    Apple has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the company of misleading users about sharing app subscriptions with their Family Sharing groups. The lawsuit, filed in 2019 in the Superior Court of California, alleged that Apple falsely promised users the ability to share any app subscription with their family members, leading them to purchase subscriptions that couldn't actually be shared.

    Settlement Details

    Apple maintains that it did nothing wrong, but it chose to settle the case to avoid a potentially costly legal battle. The $25 million settlement will be distributed among eligible users who meet specific criteria outlined in the lawsuit settlement.

    According to the settlement, eligible users are defined as "All persons who initiated the purchase of a subscription to an app through the Apple App Store, excluding subscriptions to first-party Apple apps, during the period June 21, 2015, through January 30, 2019, while enrolled in a Family Sharing group that had at least one other member at the time of the purchase, and who Apple’s records indicate were resident in the United States at the time of the purchase."

    Claiming Your Share

    To claim a share of the settlement, you must meet the following criteria:

    1. You were part of a Family Sharing group with at least one other person between June 2015 and January 2019.
    2. You lived in the US during that time.
    3. You purchased a non-Apple app subscription through the App Store during that period.

    The exact amount of compensation will depend on the number of individuals who file claims, but it could be up to $50 per person.

    Filing a Claim

    Eligible users have until March 1, 2024, to file a claim. The process is straightforward and can be done easily on the Family Sharing Plan lawsuit website. A final hearing is scheduled for April 2, 2024, to finalize the settlement.

    If you believe you meet the eligibility criteria, it is advised to visit the website and file your claim before the deadline. This is an opportunity to potentially receive a refund for the app subscription that you were unable to share with your family.

    Tags: , ,