FTC removes posts critical of Big Tech from its website

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has removed over 300 blog posts published during the agency’s leadership under former chair Lina Khan, Wired reports. These include posts that are critical of companies like Amazon and Microsoft for their handling of customer data.

The FTC did not respond to a request for comment.

As FTC chair during the Biden years, Khan was known as a tough enforcer of antitrust law, seeking to hold mega-corporations accountable for their potential to stifle competition in American markets. In an interview with TechCrunch, she once referred to Big Tech leaders as “mob bosses.” But in the Trump era, the FTC is unlikely to be as vigilant about Big Tech.

The deletion of these blogs could potentially violate laws on how government data is handled; meanwhile, the behavior is consistent with the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to remove certain words and phrases from public and private government documents. These terms include “Black,” “disability,” “feminism,” “genders,” “Latinx,” “LGBTQ,” “transgender,” “victims,” and “women,” among others.

Source: FTC removes posts critical of Big Tech from its website | TechCrunch

Apple must allow app sideloading in Brazil within 90 days, judge orders

Brazil has ordered Apple to allow users to bypass the App Store and sideload apps within 90 days, according a report in Valor Econômico seen by 9to5Mac. The new ruling follows similar orders issued in Europe and elsewhere that were referenced by the Brazilian court. “[Apple] has already complied with similar obligations in other countries, without demonstrating a significant impact or irreparable damage to its business model,” wrote judge Pablo Zuniga.

Late last year, Brazil’s antitrust regulator CADE ordered Apple to allow users to download apps and make purchases from outside its App Store, with a 20-day deadline and fines for not complying. However, Apple appealed that ruling on the grounds that the changes would be too difficult to implement within the time frame. The court agreed, calling the injunction “disproportionate and unnecessary,” buying Apple more time but forcing it to face a public hearing in Brazil.

Following another appeal, this time by CADE, the court ordered Apple to allow sideloading and third-party app stores within the next three months or face fines.

The litigation was launched by the Latin American e-commerce firm Mercado Libre, which complained about developers being forced to pay hefty commissions through Apple’s App Store. That was followed later by other developers including Match and Epic Games.

An Apple spokesperson told Valor Econômico that it “believes in vibrant and competitive markets,” but said that the changes will “harm the privacy and security” of iOS users. Apple plans to appeal the decision.

Source: Apple must allow app sideloading in Brazil within 90 days, judge orders

GameStop CEO Scapegoats DEI for Company Troubles. So much for diamondhands then.

GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen took to X on Tuesday to blame wokeness and DEI for the retail chain’s impending exit from Canada and France. The company, which managed to survive the pandemic thanks to the infamous memestock frenzy, has closed more than 700 stores since 2020 as more game distribution moves digital.

In a release, GameStop said that “as part of an evaluation of its international assets,” the company, “intends to pursue a sale of its operations in France and Canada.” Shortly thereafter, Cohen took to X with his comments on “wokeness” and “DEI.”

“Email M&A@gamestop.com if you’re interested in buying GameStop Canada or Micromania France,” Cohen wrote. “High taxes, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Wokeness, and DEI included at no additional cost if you buy today.”

[…]

Source: GameStop CEO Scapegoats DEI for Company Troubles

Meta slashes staff and their stock options, but it’s ok: executives’ annual bonuses just went from 75% base salary to 200% and stock is around 2000% of salary

After another round of mass layoffs and reports of slashed stock options for remaining employees, Meta has like clockwork opted to reward its top executives with a substantial bonus increase.

The Facebook giant revealed in a government filing that its Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee (CNGC) approved a target annual bonus increase for its top executive officers bar CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The bonus was raised from 75 percent of base salary to a whopping 200 percent, effective with the 2025 annual performance period.

[…]

According to Meta’s April 2024 proxy statement [PDF], CTO Andrew Bosworth’s base salary was $945,000. His actual eligible earnings were slightly lower due to the timing of his raise. However, factoring in a 75 percent target bonus and Meta’s 150 percent company performance multiplier for 2023, his total bonus payout amounted to about $1.05 million.

Assuming Bosworth’s salary remains the same, and Meta’s company performance percentage stays at 150 percent in 2025, the new 200 percent target bonus would push his bonus to nearly $3 million. That’s before any stock-based compensation and other add-ons. And he’s not even the highest-paid member of Meta’s named executive team.

For balance’s sake, and some might find this hard to swallow but, $3 million annual cash compensation for a CTO in Bosworth’s position is about right for Silicon Valley; it’s nothing outrageous, relatively speaking. The vast majority of his pay package is in shares; in 2023 for instance, he was awarded more than $20 million in stock. The salary, like for many in his role, is the cherry on top of an enormous cake.

[…]

Some of that bonus cash, though, might be coming from Meta’s latest round of layoffs, which saw around 3,700 people – about five percent of its workforce – axed this month. The cut reportedly targeted low performers, and followed a year in which the biz reported a net income of $62.36 billion, a 59 percent year-over-year increase.

This comes reports surfaced this week that Meta has cut back on its yearly distribution of stock options by 10 percent to most staff, though we do note that the corp’s share price has climbed 10 percent in the past month, and 46 percent for the past year.

[…]

Source: Meta executives’ annual bonuses just got a bit bigger • The Register

The economics of greed – gut the company and grab the money. In the meantime blame people for drinking Starbucks coffee that they can’t pay their rent.

Amazon Is Making It Harder to Move Your E-Books Around

Amazon is once again demonstrating that buying things in today’s world does not mean you actually own them. The company is closing a loophole that enabled owners of Kindle books to strip them of their anti-piracy protection and take them elsewhere.

Some avid digital books enthusiasts prefer other e-reading applications to Amazon’s Kindle—perhaps because another e-reader has a better color screen or other features not present on Kindle. The “Download & transfer via USB” tool was an old Kindle feature that allowed owners of e-books purchased through Amazon to be downloaded and transferred to another Kindle without using WiFi or Bluetooth. Clever individuals found that some older e-books used a file format with security measures that are easy to circumvent, meaning they could use the tool alongside other hacks to successfully transfer their books elsewhere. Now, books purchased through Amazon are effectively stuck there.

[…]

A standard security format would enable books to be transferred while protecting copyrights, but Amazon does not have an incentive to go with that.

That has, of course, been great for Amazon. The company was early into the e-book industry and the Kindle is synonymous with e-books; it accounts for 70% of the market. If you have a large collection of books you have purchased on Kindle, you kind of have to stay in its ecosystem. Furthermore, some books are only available on Amazon’s marketplace, and the company will always match the price of competing marketplaces since it really makes its money off the ads littering the site these days. While Amazon does have a monopoly in digital books, it would likely argue it is not a monopoly in the broader book category as Barnes and Noble sees a resurgence in popularity.

Users on sites like Reddit have shared workarounds over the years to take their purchased books elsewhere, but it has been something of a cat-and-mouse game, with successive updates by Amazon closing loopholes.

[…]

 

Source: Amazon Is Making It Harder to Move Your E-Books Around

Stellantis Introduces Pop-Up Ads in Vehicles, Bombarding your Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler display every time you stop

Car technology is supposed to make driving safer, smoother, and more enjoyable. But Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, and Ram, seems to have taken a different approach—one that prioritizes ad revenue over user experience.

In a move that has left drivers both frustrated and bewildered, Stellantis has introduced full-screen pop-up ads on its infotainment systems. Specifically, Jeep owners have reported being bombarded with advertisements for Mopar’s extended warranty service. The kicker? These ads appear every time the vehicle comes to a stop

[…]

One Jeep 4xe owner recently shared their frustration on an online forum, detailing how these pop-ups disrupt the driving experience. Stellantis, responding through their “JeepCares” representative, confirmed that these ads are part of the contractual agreement with SiriusXM and suggested that users simply tap the “X” to dismiss them.

[…]

A Symptom of a Bigger Problem: Subscription Fatigue

The automotive industry is heading into murky waters with the increasing push toward subscription-based features. BMW tried charging for heated seats. Mercedes locked performance boosts behind a paywall. Now, Stellantis has decided to monetize its infotainment screens with intrusive advertising.

It’s a trend that consumers are growing increasingly tired of. New vehicles already come with a hefty price tag—averaging $48,700 in 2024—so the expectation is that premium pricing should come with a premium experience, not one riddled with ads and additional fees. Instead of making customers feel like valued buyers, automakers are making them feel like they’re merely users in an ad-supported ecosystem.

The Off-Roading Community’s Response: “AdBlock for Jeeps?”

The off-roading community has always been passionate about modifying their vehicles, but no one expected that “blocking ads” would become a must-have Jeep upgrade. Some tech-savvy drivers are already exploring ways to disable these pop-ups permanently, with discussions surfacing about potential software hacks or third-party solutions to remove intrusive in-car advertising.

[…]

Source: Stellantis Introduces Pop-Up Ads in Vehicles, Sparking Outrage Among Owners – TechStory

Buy now, pay later installment payments increase retail spending, study finds

[…]Buy now, pay later (BNPL) is an increasingly popular payment method, allowing customers to spread payment into interest-free installments over a few weeks or months. Worldwide BNPL spending was $316 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow to $450 billion by 2027. With major retailers such as Walmart and H&M partnering with BNPL providers like Affirm, Klarna, and Afterpay, over 45 million U.S. customers have adopted this payment method.

When customers choose BNPL installments at the checkout of a participating retailer, the bill is paid in full by the BNPL provider to the retailer. Customers pay the BNPL provider for the first installment at the time of purchase and repay the remaining interest-free installments over a short time period.

However, despite the growing popularity of BNPL installment payments, little is known about their impact on retail sales.

In this new study, the researchers use transactional data from a major U.S. retailer and find that BNPL installment payments boost spending. By allowing customers to pay for purchases in smaller, interest-free installments, BNPL boosts both the number of purchases and the average amount spent.

The study compares BNPL installment payments to upfront and delayed lump sum payments. BNPL consistently boosts spending across various products (e.g., party supplies, apparel, flights, mugs, coffee pods) and number of installments (e.g., three installments, four installments, six installments).

[…]

This research offers actionable insights for various stakeholders:

  • Consumers can benefit by using BNPL installments as a tool for managing expenses by making them feel more in control of their budgets and less financially constrained.
  • Retail managers should consider integrating BNPL options to boost sales. Ang says that “Retailers benefit because adoption of installment payments leads to more frequent purchases and larger basket amounts. The difference is significant, with an increase in purchase incidence of approximately 9% and a relative increase in purchase amounts of approximately 10%.”
  • Policymakers need to be aware of the significant impact BNPL has on consumer spending to ensure regulations that protect consumers while fostering financial flexibility.
  • Societal stakeholders, including consumer advocates, should monitor BNPL’s growing influence to promote responsible practices.

Understanding the benefits and potential risks associated with BNPL is crucial as this payment method continues to reshape the retail landscape.

More information: Stijn Maesen et al, Buy Now, Pay Later: Impact of Installment Payments on Customer Purchases, Journal of Marketing (2024). DOI: 10.1177/00222429241282414

Source: Buy now, pay later installment payments increase retail spending, study finds

Billion-pound lawsuit against Apple over App Store opens in UK

The complaint, filed in May 2021, accuses Apple of breaching European and UK competition laws by “its exclusion of any other app stores from iOS devices” like iPhones and iPads.

It claims that some 20 million Apple users may have been overcharged by the company “due to its ban on rival app store platforms”.

The complainants says a “30 percent surcharge” that the company “imposes” on apps purchased through Apple’s App Store comes at “expense of ordinary consumers”.

The case, which Apple has called “meritless”, has been brought by Kings College London academic Rachael Kent and the law firm Hausfeld & Co.

The trial is set to last seven weeks at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.

At the heart are accusations that Apple used the App Store to exclude competitors, forcing users to use its system and boosting profits in the process.

“The 30 percent surcharge relates to most of the applications that you’re going to be using when you’re downloading and making in-app purchases on the App Store,” Kent told AFP, citing dating platform Tinder as an example.

However, it does not apply to applications offering physical products such as the delivery services Deliveroo and Uber Eats, the academic specifies.

Any user who purchased applications or subscriptions in the British version of the App Store between 1 October 2015 and 15 November 2024 may be entitled to compensation from Apple, believes Kent, a lecturer in the digital economy.

The claim seeks total estimated damages of £1.5 billion (EUR1.8 billion).

According to British law, in this type of class action, all potentially affected persons are included in the procedure by default, and may benefit from possible compensation, unless they voluntarily opt out.

[…]

Source: Billion-pound lawsuit against Apple over App Store opens in UK – Euractiv

A 30% surcharge is ridiculous, especially when you are rabid about not allowing anyone else have a marketplace – yes, they do allow 3rd party marketplaces but the prices for that are extortionate.

2024 Open Source Software Funding Report

This report summarizes insights from the inaugural 2024 Open Source Software Funding Survey, a collaboration between GitHub, the Linux Foundation, and researchers from Harvard University. The objective of this study was to better understand how organizations fund, contribute to, and otherwise support open source software.

Key Findings
Scale
Challenges
Lessons learned
  • Leave “fingerprints” on your organization’s OSS efforts to help managers, researchers, and other observers more easily collect this information.
  • Empower employees to self report contributions made under the organization’s banner.
  • Make OSS contribution part of your monitoring pipeline by conducting brief, regular surveys within your organization to collect key metrics.
  • Consider sharing data to public OSS funding index.
Toolkit

Source: 2024 Open Source Software Funding Report

DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to help Break Search Monopoly

Top Justice Department antitrust officials have decided to ask a judge to force Alphabet Inc.’s Google to sell off its Chrome browser in what would be a historic crackdown on one of the world’s biggest tech companies.

The department will ask the judge, who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market, to require measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system, according to people familiar with the plans.

Antitrust officials, along with states that have joined the case, also plan to recommend Wednesday that federal judge Amit Mehta impose data licensing requirements, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.

[…]

Owning the world’s most popular web browser is key for Google’s ads business. The company is able to see activity from signed-in users, and use that data to more effectively target promotions, which generate the bulk of its revenue. Google has also been using Chrome to direct users to its flagship AI product, Gemini, which has the potential to evolve from an answer-bot to an assistant that follows users around the web.

[…]

Source: DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to Break Search Monopoly – Bloomberg

It’s a start.

Meta Fined €798 Million by EU Over Classified Ads Dominance in Facebook

Meta Platforms Inc. was hit with a €798 million ($841 million) fine by European Union regulators by tying its Facebook Marketplace service to the social network, the US tech giant’s first ever penalty for EU antitrust violations.

In a groundbreaking decision, the European Commission ordered Meta to stop tying its classified-ads service to Facebook’s sprawling social media platform, and refrain from imposing unfair trading conditions on rival second-hand goods platforms.

“Meta tied its online classified ads service Facebook Marketplace to its personal social network Facebook and imposed unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers,” EU antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, said. “It did so to benefit its own service Facebook Marketplace.”

[…]

The decision follows a probe into how Meta leverages Facebook’s billions of users to squeeze out rivals. EU watchdogs said Menlo Park California-based Meta also used data from rival platforms that advertised on Facebook to boost its Marketplace service.

[…]

Amazon.com Inc. dodged EU fines in a similar case in 2022, targeting how the US. ecommerce firm allegedly pillaged rivals’ sales data to unfairly favor it own products. Regulators accepted a number of proposals from Amazon, including a vow to stop using non-public data on independent sellers on its marketplace for its competing retail business.

Facebook’s Marketplace has also been targeted by other regulators. It settled a probe with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority after agreeing to a slate of concessions.

[…]

While the EU can levy fines of 10% of global sales, its penalties are usually much smaller and take into account severity of the allegations and the sub-markets involved.

That’s led to frustration among regulators and a clamor for tougher remedies, including more structural solutions. Like the US, the EU has been weighing a potential breakup of Alphabet Inc.’s Google to allay concerns over its adtech dominance.

The new Digital Markets Act bolsters traditional antitrust law by placing strict guardrails on Silicon Valley firms.

[…]

Source: Meta Fined €798 Million by EU Over Classified Ads Dominance – Bloomberg

Apple faces UK iCloud monopoly compensation claim worth $3.8B

U.K. consumer rights group ‘Which?’ is filing a legal claim against Apple under competition law on behalf of some 40 million users of iCloud, its cloud storage service.

The collective proceeding lawsuit, which is seeking £3 billion in compensation damages (around $3.8 billion at current exchange rates), alleges that Apple has broken competition rules by giving its own cloud storage service preferential treatment and effectively locking people into paying for iCloud at “rip-off” prices.

“iOS has a monopoly and is in control of Apple’s operating systems and it is incumbent on Apple not to use that dominance to gain an unfair advantage in related markets, like the cloud storage market. But that is exactly what has happened,” Which wrote in a press release announcing the filing of the claim with the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

The lawsuit accuses Apple of encouraging users of its devices to sign up for iCloud for photo storage and other data storage needs, while simultaneously making it difficult for consumers to use alternative storage providers — including by not allowing them to store or back up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider.

“iOS users then have to pay for the service once photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit,” Which noted.

The suit also accuses Apple of overcharging U.K. consumers for iCloud subscriptions owing to the lack of competition. “Apple raised the price of iCloud for UK consumers by between 20% and 29% across its storage tiers in 2023,” it wrote, saying it’s seeking damages for all affected Apple customers — and estimating that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70 (around $90), depending on how long they’ve been paying Apple for iCloud services.

A similar lawsuit — arguing Apple unlawfully monopolized the market for cloud storage — was filed in the U.S. back in March and remains pending after the company failed to get it tossed.

[…]

Source: Apple faces UK ‘iCloud monopoly’ compensation claim worth $3.8B | TechCrunch

Pakistan limits outdoor activities, market hours to curb air pollution-related illness – attacks symptom but not cause

Pakistan’s Punjab province banned most outdoor activities and ordered shops, markets and malls in some areas to close early from Monday to curb illnesses caused by intense air pollution.
The province has closed educational institutions and public spaces like parks and zoos until Nov. 17 in places including Lahore, the world’s most polluted city in terms of air quality, according to Swiss group IQAir’s live ratings.
The districts of Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad and Gujranwala have seen an unprecedented rise in patients with respiratory diseases, eye and throat irritation, and pink eye disease, the Punjab government said in an order issued late on Sunday.
The new restrictions will also remain in force until Nov. 17.
“The spread of conjunctivitis/ pink eye disease due to bacterial or viral infection, smoke, dust or chemical exposure is posing a serious and imminent threat to public health,” the Punjab government said.
[…]
Lahore’s air quality remained hazardous on Monday, with an index score of more than 600, according to IQAir, but this was significantly lower than the 1,900 that it touched in places earlier this month.
A score of 0-50 is considered good.
[…]
Punjab has blamed its toxic air this year on pollution wafting in from India, where northern parts have also been battling hazardous air, and has said it will take the issue up with the neighbouring country through its foreign ministry.
India’s Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi government to decide by Nov. 25 on imposing a perpetual ban on firecrackers, legal news portal Bar and Bench reported.
Firecrackers set off by revellers on Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights celebrated on Oct. 31 this year despite a ban, have aggravated the region’s pollution problem.

Source: Pakistan limits outdoor activities, market hours to curb air pollution-related illness | Reuters

A hint – it’s not just the firecrackers mate. Look at the horrible 2 cylinder engines on the mopeds in the pictures for a start.

Corning facing EU antitrust suit over Gorilla Glass seals

Corning’s Gorilla Glass is found in countless tech products, from smartphones and wearables to automobile windshields, and the European Commission has an inkling its success is due in part to the US-based business cutting anticompetitive deals.

The EC announced a formal antitrust investigation into Corning yesterday, accusing the company of abusing its dominant position as a maker of glass screens for mobile electronics, claiming the end result was the exclusion of rival glass manufacturers from the market.

The strategy ultimately caused consumers to pay higher prices, has made repairs tougher and reduced manufacturer innovation, the EC argued.

“It is very frustrating and costly experience to break a mobile phone screen,” said EC competition chief Margrethe Vestager. “Therefore, strong competition in the production of the cover glass used to protect such devices is crucial to ensure low prices and high-quality glass.

“We are investigating if Corning, a major producer of this special glass, may have tried to exclude rival glass producers, thereby depriving consumers from cheaper and more break-resistant glass,” Vestager added.

Gorilla Glass is Corning’s branding for its alkali-aluminosilicate (alkali-AS) glass screens, a chemical composite that’s more break-resistant than other types of glass, making it particularly suited for use on smartphones, wearables, laptops and tablets. Gorilla Glass can be found on devices from manufacturers including Google, Samsung, Sony, Apple and other globally recognized brands.

The Commission is concerned that Corning has abused its position with both mobile OEMs and companies that process raw glass, known as finishers. According to the EC, Corning’s OEM agreements included requirements that companies source their alkali-AS glass exclusively from Corning, for which they would receive rebates, and that OEMs report all competitive offers from rivals to Corning to give it a chance to match the price.

Pertaining to finishers, the EC alleges Corning pressed them into similar sourcing exclusivity obligations, as well as including clauses that prevented finishers from challenging Corning patents.

As this is just an opening of proceedings against Corning, the EC said Corning hasn’t been proven guilty yet. With Corning accused of violating Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, the business could face fines of up to 10 percent of its annual turnover if found guilty of abusing its market dominance.

Source: Corning facing EU antitrust suit over Gorilla Glass seals • The Register

Fake job postings proliferate in layoff-hit tech industry

f you didn’t hear back about that great-looking tech position you applied for, it might not be because there were too many applicants scrambling to find a job amid rolling layoffs. There’s a distinct possibility the posting was fake to begin with.

We’re talking here about “ghost jobs” a practice of posting openings for positions that are fake, already filled, or intended for internal applicants and only opened to the public for legal purposes.

[…]

According to research published in August by MyPerfectResume, 81 percent of recruiters admitted to posting ghost jobs, with 41 percent saying half or more of the jobs they post are straight-up fake. Resume Builder similarly found by speaking to more than a thousand hiring managers that 40 percent of companies posted fake jobs in the past year, and that three in ten had active fake openings posted as of June, when it published its report.

Resumes, ghost openings are the lash

According to those two reports, the reasons companies post ghost jobs are, frankly, insidious. While some ghost posts are about collating a list of outside talent for future roles or making it appear like a company is growing when it isn’t, the other justifications basically boil down to torturing employees into working harder.

Resume Builder found that 63 percent of hiring managers posted ghost jobs to signal to overworked employees that relief was on the way, while 62 percent said they did it to make employees feel replaceable. MyPerfectResume found similar justifications, in addition to maintaining a presence on job boards while not hiring, “assess how difficult it would be to replace certain employees,” and “make the company look viable during a hiring freeze.”

[…]

Legal news site Above The Law noted earlier this year that there aren’t any laws against posting ghost jobs, meaning the practice is likely to continue as more tech workers find themselves adrift from a job and frantically looking for a safe harbor.

“It’s a concerning scenario, particularly when these misleading postings originate from HR departments — the very entities entrusted with shaping accurate perceptions of their organizations,” said Stacie Haller, chief career advisor at Resume Builder. “Whether it’s to create an illusion of company expansion or to foster a sense of replaceability among employees, such practices are not acceptable.”

Creating laws to eliminate ghost job postings may be easier said than done, Above The Law noted. It’s likely a state matter, tax attorney Steven Chung wrote, but he noted that any legislation would need to toe a fine line between enforcing fair postings and leaving companies in a position to have to hire people that might not be the right fit.

“Businesses have incentives to post job openings they do not intend to fill,” Chung said. “Governments should investigate this to make sure that job seekers are not led on wild goose chases while giving enough flexibility to allow businesses to hire anyone based on good business judgment.”

[…]

Apologies to the laid-off masses in the tech industry and beyond, but it looks like you’ll end up wasting time in your job hunt applying for fake positions, and it’s all perfectly legal. ®

Source: Fake job postings proliferate in layoff-hit tech industry • The Register

American Airlines Wins $9.4 Million From ‘Skiplagged’ Site That Exploits Airlines’ Overbooking Business Model

A Texas federal jury has awarded American Airlines a whopping $9.4 million in a lawsuit filed against Skiplagged.com, a website that helps travelers get cheaper flights by booking flights with a connection and then abandoning the connecting flight to the final destination.

The airline industry loathes Skiplagged, even though there’s technically nothing illegal about the practice it’s promoting. Last week, the court awarded $4.7 million from Skiplagged’s revenue based on an estimate of lost fares and another $4.7 million for copyright infringement, as it was scraping American’s flight schedules in violation of the airline’s terms of service.

American also sued over trademark infringement, claiming that Skiplagged was using the American logo on its website to make it appear the site was endorsed by American; the judge disagreed on that one.

As of today, Skiplagged still returns fares and routes from American Airlines. It’s unclear if that will change. We have reached out for comment.

Most airlines expressly prohibit skiplagging—effectively an exploit of the airline business model—and use technology to try and detect when customers are doing it. Travelers have reported being banned from certain airlines for years after being caught.

The concept of skiplagging—and why airlines hate it—is somewhat complicated to understand. Let’s say you want to travel from Boston to San Francisco, and a search on Google Flights returns one-way trips costing $300. You could instead book a flight from Boston to Sacramento with a layover in San Francisco for $199. In essence, what Skiplagged is doing is revealing this “hidden” itinerary that gets you to San Francisco for $100 less. All you do is book the flight to Sacramento, and when you land in San Francisco (your actual intended destination), just leave the airport and abandon the connecting flight.

It seems counterintuitive — why would flying to San Francisco and taking another flight to Sacramento be cheaper than just flying to San Francisco? Essentially, major airlines work on a model in which direct flights between every city would not make sense — how many people really want to fly from Boston to Sacramento? So in the interest of efficiency, the airlines use major cities like San Francisco as central connecting hubs for flights to other destinations with less demand. The airline is charging the passenger based on demand to Sacramento, offering a reduced fare to ensure it fills those seats to Sacramento and generates at least some revenue. Airlines also feel they can charge more for direct flights because of the convenience factor for passengers.

But skiplagging messes with the business model. In the case of skiplagging, airlines use algorithms to estimate how many passengers will miss their flight, and then intentionally overbook the flight to generate extra revenue. The airline gets revenue from the person who missed the flight, and additional revenue from someone else who in turn took that seat. When a passenger makes the first leg of a flight, they have to assume that the passenger will also make their connecting flight and cannot overbook that seat. That’s potential revenue left on the table for American Airlines.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for the airlines in this case. Anyone who travels regularly knows how gate agents constantly plead with passengers to change their flight when a plane has been overbooked and too many people show up. The airlines are playing games to maximize revenue and frustrate customers—skiplagging just turns the tables on them, returning some power back to the customer. But a judge decided that American’s terms of service against unauthorized scraping are clear, and Skiplagged decided to violate them anyway. It’s not dissimilar from the way in which AI companies have decided to ignore terms of service agreements to scrape content sites.

Fortunately, you don’t actually need to use Skiplagged to find these fares. If you’re clever enough, you can do it using any other travel booking site like Google Flights or Expedia. Just don’t do it too frequently on the same airline or you may well get caught. And keep in mind that you cannot travel with checked luggage using this method, as your luggage will be sent to the final destination. Traveling light is better anyway.

Source: American Airlines Wins $9.4 Million From ‘Skiplagged’ Site That Exploits Airlines’ Business Model

This would not have gone this way in the EU – scraping is perfectly legal there.

DOJ Reveals Its Plan for Breaking Up Google’s Search Monopoly

The Department of Justice has laid out its broad-strokes plan for ending Google’s monopoly over internet search after winning its antitrust case against the company in August. The sweeping changes could end Google’s position as the default search engine on billions of devices and require the company to share key information about its search algorithms with competitors.

The regulators’ proposals, laid out Tuesday in a filing with the D.C. federal court where the antitrust case was heard, are aimed not only at rectifying Google’s past anti-competitive practices but also at preventing it from unfairly dominating emerging technologies, particularly internet searches enabled by generative AI tools.

[…]

The first step necessary to unwind Google’s illegal monopoly, according to the DOJ, will likely be to “limit or end” the company’s use of contracts and unfair revenue-sharing agreements that have enshrined Google as the pre-installed search engine on all Android devices and the Chrome browser. It could potentially also include forcing Google’s parent company, Alphabet, to split off the Android and Chrome divisions of its business.

Google’s search tools are powered by the huge amount of data its web crawlers have indexed and the ranking algorithms that prioritize which results users see first. To level the playing field for competitors, the DOJ said it might try to make the company share the indexes, search results, underlying ranking signals, and models used for Google search, including AI-powered search.

“Google’s ability to leverage its monopoly power to feed artificial intelligence features is an emerging barrier to competition and risks further entrenching Google’s dominance,” the DOJ wrote, adding that potential remedies could include prohibiting the company from signing contracts with web publishers that deny rival search engines access to their sites and forcing Google to allow publishers to opt out of having their content scraped and used to generate AI summaries at the top of search results.

The final category of remedies the DOJ proposed would aim to spread the wealth generated by advertisements attached to internet searches by making it easier for smaller competitors to enter markets without being crushed by Google’s economy of scale and by requiring Google to be more transparent with advertisers in its ad auctions.

Source: DOJ Reveals Its Plan for Breaking Up Google’s Search Monopoly

Supreme Court Snubs Martin Shkreli’s Last-Ditch Bid to Avoid $64 Million Fine over hiking unique life saving drug price from $13.50 to $750 a pill

Martin Shkreli has been fighting a $64.6 million fine he acquired in 2022 for blocking affordable alternatives to Daraprim, a lifesaving antiparasitic drug. Shockingly, it turns out nobody on the Supreme Court cares to hear about it.

No justices dissented on Monday when the court said it declined to hear an appeal by representatives of the former pharmaceutical executive. In a last-ditch effort, Shkreli’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to resolve conflicting rulings after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the $64.6 million order and a lifetime ban to block Shkreli from working in the drug business. Only, the conflicting rulings didn’t even exist, New York Attorney General Letitia James argued in an August brief. The Supreme Court had nothing to add when it snubbed Shkreli.

The so-called “pharma bro” rose to infamy as the chief of Turing Pharmaceuticals — later called Vyera. In 2015, the startup bought exclusive rights to Daraprim and jacked up its price from $13.50 to $750 a pill. At the time, there were no generic alternatives to the toxoplasmosis medication, which is used to treat a rare condition that affects pregnant people, babies, and people with HIV and cancer.

Shkreli, also temporarily the owner of a secret Wu-Tang Clan album, was convicted of securities fraud and sentenced to seven years in prison in a 2017 case unrelated to Daraprim. In a comment to Gizmodo at the time, Shkreli said he planned to “make paper from inside” while serving time. Two years later, the former executive reportedly faced solitary confinement for trying to run a company with a contraband phone.

Shkreli got out of prison in 2022 and promptly announced a Web3-based drug discovery venture called Druglike. His other recent projects include launching a medical chatbot called Dr. Gupta and taking credit for a cryptocurrency named after former President Donald Trump.

Turing filed for bankruptcy and moved to sell the rights to Daraprim in 2023.

Source: Supreme Court Snubs Martin Shkreli’s Last-Ditch Bid to Avoid $64 Million Fine

Epic judge orders Google to let rivals set up app stores

A US court has ordered Google to refrain from a wide variety of business practices the web giant uses to bolster its Play Store, as a consequence of its December 2023 antitrust defeat against Epic Games.

In that case, Epic argued that Google’s Play Store rules and contractual agreements with developers and partners violated the federal Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). And the jury agreed.

On Monday, US District Court judge James Donato issued a permanent injunction [PDF] that forbids Google from eight behaviors deemed unlawful as a result of the case.

“The jury found that Google’s conduct violated the antitrust laws and substantially harmed competition in the relevant markets, and directly injured Epic,” judge Donato wrote, explaining the injunction. “The jury rejected Google’s proffered procompetitive justifications for its conduct. Consequently, the Court concludes that Epic has prevailed on the UCL claim against Google under the unlawful and unfair prongs.”

Noting that Google had “fired a blunderbuss of comments and complaints that are underdeveloped and consequently unhelpful in deciding the issues,” judge Donato put an end to the extensive input afforded to both sides about the specifics of the injunction that follows from the verdict.

Google, in a blog post, unsurprisingly disagreed – it is appealing the verdict and will ask the courts to pause the injunction until its appeal is heard.

“These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple – even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading,” wrote Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of regulatory affairs at Google.

Mulholland argues that the court-ordered changes would hinder Google’s – and the wider Android ecosystem’s – ability to compete with Apple’s ecosystem.

The injunction is set to take effect starting November 1, 2024, only in the US, for a period of three years. During this time:

  • Google may not share revenue generated by the Google Play Store with any person or entity that distributes Android apps, or has stated that it will launch or is considering launching an Android app distribution platform or store.
  • Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service …
    • on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first or exclusively in the Google Play Store;
    • on an agreement by an app developer not to launch on a third-party Android app distribution platform or store a version of an app that includes features not available in, or is otherwise different from, the version of the app offered on the Google Play Store;
    • on an agreement with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or carrier …
      • to preinstall the Google Play Store on any specific location on an Android device;
      • not to preinstall an Android app distribution platform or store other than the Google Play Store.
  • Google may not …
    • require the use of Google Play Billing in apps distributed on the Google Play Store, or prohibit the use of in-app payment methods other than Google Play Billing;
    • prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability of a payment method other than Google Play Billing;
    • require a developer to set a price based on whether Google Play Billing is used;
    • prohibit a developer from …
      • communicating with users about the availability or pricing of an app outside the Google Play Store;
      • providing a link to download the app outside the Google Play Store.
  • Google will permit third-party Android app stores to access the Google Play Store’s catalog of apps so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users. [Along with other distribution fairness requirements, Google has eight-months to implement this, at which point the three-year clock will begin for this provision.]
  • Google may not prohibit the distribution of third-party Android app distribution platforms or stores through the Google Play Store.

The injunction also gives Epic and Google a 30-day deadline to form a three-person Technical Committee, comprising one representative from each party and a mutually agreed upon third member, to resolve disputes over the implementation of the injunction’s provisions.

Epic Games did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ®

Source: Epic judge orders Google to let rivals set up app stores • The Register

Google’s AI enshittifies search summaries with ads

Google is rolling out ads in AI Overviews, which means you’ll now start seeing products in some of the search engine’s AI-generated summaries.

Let’s say you’re searching for ways to get a grass stain out of your pants. If you ask Google, its AI-generated response will offer some tips, along with suggestions for products to purchase that could help you remove the stain. […]

Google’s AI Overviews could contain relevant products.

 

Source: Google’s AI search summaries officially have ads – The Verge

Juicy licensing deals with AI companies show that publishers don’t really care about creators

One of the many interesting aspects of the current enthusiasm for generative AI is the way that it has electrified the formerly rather sleepy world of copyright. Where before publishers thought they had successfully locked down more or less everything digital with copyright, they now find themselves confronted with deep-pocketed companies – both established ones like Google and Microsoft, and newer ones like OpenAI – that want to overturn the previous norms of using copyright material. In particular, the latter group want to train their AI systems on huge quantities of text, images, videos and sounds.

As Walled Culture has reported, this has led to a spate of lawsuits from the copyright world, desperate to retain their control over digital material. They have framed this as an act of solidarity with the poor exploited creators. It’s a shrewd move, and one that seems to be gaining traction. Lots of writers and artists think they are being robbed of something by Big AI, even though that view is based on a misunderstanding of how generative AI works. However, in the light of stories like one in The Bookseller, they might want to reconsider their views about who exactly is being evil here:

Academic publisher Wiley has revealed it is set to make $44 million (£33 million) from Artificial Intelligence (AI) partnerships that it is not giving authors the opportunity to opt-out from.

As to whether authors would share in that bounty:

A spokesperson confirmed that Wiley authors are set to receive remuneration for the licensing of their work based on their “contractual terms”.

That might mean they get nothing, if there is no explicit clause in their contract about sharing AI licensing income. For example, here’s what is happening with the publisher Taylor & Francis:

In July, authors hit out another academic publisher, Taylor & Francis, the parent company of Routledge, over an AI deal with Microsoft worth $10 million, claiming they were not given the opportunity to opt out and are receiving no extra payment for the use of their research by the tech company. T&F later confirmed it was set to make $75 million from two AI partnership deals.

It’s not just in the world of academic publishing that deals are being struck. Back in July, Forbes reported on a “flurry of AI licensing activity”:

The most active area for individual deals right now by far—judging from publicly known deals—is news and journalism. Over the past year, organizations including Vox Media (parent of New York magazine, The Verge, and Eater), News Corp (Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Times (London)), Dotdash Meredith (People, Entertainment Weekly, InStyle), Time, The Atlantic, Financial Times, and European giants such as Le Monde of France, Axel Springer of Germany, and Prisa Media of Spain have each made licensing deals with OpenAI.

In the absence of any public promises to pass on some of the money these licensing deals will bring, it is not unreasonable to assume that journalists won’t be seeing much if any of it, just as they aren’t seeing much from the link tax.

The increasing number of such licensing deals between publishers and AI companies shows that the former aren’t really too worried about the latter ingesting huge quantities of material for training their AI systems, provided they get paid. And the fact that there is no sign of this money being passed on in its entirety to the people who actually created that material, also confirms that publishers don’t really care about creators. In other words, it’s pretty much what was the status quo before generative AI came along. For doing nothing, the intermediaries are extracting money from the digital giants by invoking the creators and their copyrights. Those creators do all the work, but once again see little to no benefit from the deals that are being signed behind closed doors.

Source: Juicy licensing deals with AI companies show that publishers don’t really care about creators – Walled Culture

LG Has Started Showing Screensaver Ads on Their Smart TVs | Lifehacker

Like them or not, ads run the world. They’re the reason so much content out there is free of charge—or, at least, less expensive. But while it’s one thing to watch an ad before jumping into a YouTube video, or to see ads surrounding an article, it’s another thing entirely to be forced to see ads even when you’re not engaging with the product.

That, apparently, is what’s going on with LG TVs right now. While anyone with a smart TV may be familiar with seeing more ads throughout their television experience, LG is taking things up a notch” Now, the company is displaying ads during screensavers. I guess leaving your TV idle isn’t “free” anymore.

FlatpanelsHD made the discovery when reviewing LG’s G4 OLED TV. These ads display in full-screen before reverting back to the screensaver you expect to see. FlatpanelsHD saw full-screen ads for LG Channels, LG’s free streaming service that includes ads, but confirmed through LG there can be advertisements from third-party partners as well.

While FlatpanelsHD may have been among the first to see these ads in the wild, they aren’t a secret. In fact, LG Ad Solutions announced the initiative on Sept. 5, in a post titled “Idle Time Isn’t Wasted Time — LG Ad Solutions Finds that Screensaver Ads Are In Fact Effective.” The program even has a name, “Native Screensaver Ads,” and runs across the Home Screen, LG Channels, and Content Store on LG Smart TVs. According to the announcement, Native Screensaver Ads turn “what may be perceived as a period of downtime into a valuable engagement opportunity.” Cool.

[…]

I didn’t buy my LG TV to encourage me to buy stuff: I purposefully watch shows and movies on it (and play the occasional game). It’s insulting to think I want to leave my TV running in the background at all times, and be fine with constant, targeted ads in my space. If you feel the same, the good news is there’s a way to block these ads in the first place.

How to disable LG screensaver ads

If you have an LG smart TV, head to your device’s Settings, then choose Additional Settings. If your TV is affected, you should see a Screen Saver Promotion option. Disable it, and you should be spared from idle encouragements to shop.

Source: LG Has Started Showing Screensaver Ads on Their Smart TVs | Lifehacker

Google’s 2.4 billion euro shopping comparison fine upheld by Europe’s top court

Europe’s top court on Tuesday upheld a 2.4 billion euro ($2.65 billion) fine imposed on Google

for abusing its dominant position by favoring its own shopping comparison service.

[….]

The fine stems from an antitrust investigation by the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, which concluded in 2017.

The commission said at the time that Google had favored its own shopping comparison service over those of its rivals.

Google appealed the decision with the General Court, the EU’s second-highest court, which also upheld the fine. Google then brought the case before the European Court of Justice, the EU’s top court.

The ECJ on Tuesday dismissed the appeal and upheld the commission’s fine.

[…]

Source: Google’s 2.4 billion euro fine upheld by Europe’s top court

Apple Ordered to Pay $14 Billion in Back Taxes to EU

Apple will be required to pay $14 billion in back taxes to Ireland after Europe’s top court released a new ruling on Tuesday, according to a report from the Financial Times. Apple CEO Tim Cook has previously called the case “total political crap” but the judgment is final and Apple will not be able to appeal.

The European Commission’s executive vice president, Margrethe Vestager, first brought the case against Apple alleging that Ireland had given the tech company a deal that “constituted illegal State aid,” by waiving so much in taxes. Apple is now on the hook to pay those taxes, which have been sitting in an escrow account for the past six years, according to the Financial Times. Oddly enough, the original €14.3 billion set aside has fallen in value after first being set aside in 2018 because it was invested in European government bonds.

[…]

Source: Apple Ordered to Pay $14 Billion in Back Taxes

Peloton to charge $95 activation fee for used bikes

Peloton on Thursday said it will start charging new subscribers a one-time $95 activation fee if they bought their hardware on the secondary market as more consumers snag lightly used equipment for a fraction of the typical retail price.

[…]

During its fiscal fourth quarter, which ended June 30, Peloton said it saw a “steady stream of paid connected fitness subscribers” who bought hardware on the secondary market. The company said the segment grew 16% year over year.

“We believe a meaningful share of these subscribers are incremental, and they exhibit lower net churn rates than rental subscribers,” the company said in a letter to shareholders.

“It’s also worth highlighting that this activation fee will be a source of incremental revenue and gross profit for us, helping to support our investments in improving the fitness experience for our members,” interim co-CEO Christopher Bruzzo later added on a call with analysts.

[…]

Bruzzo said that those who buy a used Bike or Bike+ have access to a virtual custom fitting ahead of their first ride, as well as a history summary that shows how many rides those bikes had before they were resold.

“We’re also offering these new members discounts on accessories such as bike shoes, bike mats and spare parts,”

[…]

Source: Peloton to charge $95 activation fee for used bikes

corporate greed at its best – notice that what you get for this extra fee is basically nothing or the ability to buy more stuff.