Policy

at&t-rebuked-over-misleading-ad-for-nonexistent-satellite-phone-calling

AT&T rebuked over misleading ad for nonexistent satellite phone calling

Remember 5GE? —

AT&T reluctantly adds disclaimer: “Satellite calling is not currently available.”

A gloved hand holds a phone while making a call. The screen shows an AT&T logo and the text,

Enlarge / Screenshot from AT&T commercial featuring Ben Stiller making a satellite call to Jordan Spieth.

AT&T has been told to stop running ads that claim the carrier is already offering cellular coverage from space.

AT&T intends to offer Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) and has a deal with AST SpaceMobile, a Starlink competitor that plans a smartphone service from low-Earth-orbit satellites. But AST SpaceMobile’s first batch of five satellites isn’t scheduled to launch until September.

T-Mobile was annoyed by AT&T running an ad indicating that its satellite-to-cellular service was already available, and filed a challenge with the advertising industry’s self-regulatory system run by BBB National Programs. The BBB National Advertising Division (NAD) ruled against AT&T last month and the carrier appealed to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), which has now also ruled against AT&T.

“It was not disputed that AT&T does not currently offer SCS coverage to its cellular customers… Therefore, the NARB panel recommended that AT&T discontinue the claim that SCS service is presently available to consumers or modify the claim to clearly and conspicuously communicate that SCS is not available at this time,” the NARB said in an announcement yesterday.

AT&T, which is also famous for renaming its 4G service “5GE,” reluctantly agreed to comply with the recommendation and released a new version of the satellite-calling commercial with more specific disclaimers. “AT&T supports NARB’s self-regulatory process and will comply with NARB’s decision… However, we respectfully disagree with NARB’s conclusion recommending that the commercial be discontinued or modified,” AT&T said in its statement on the decision.

The challenged advertisement, titled “Epic Bad Golf Day,” features actor Ben Stiller looking for a golf ball in various remote locations.

“The commercial near the end shows Mr. Stiller having finally caught up with his golf ball in a desert wasteland… He then places a cellular phone call to champion golfer Jordan Spieth, shown standing on a golf green, presumably so that Mr. Spieth can offer golfing advice,” the NARB ruling said. “An image in the commercial shows the call from Mr. Stiller to Mr. Spieth connecting through a satellite relay. Another visual shows Mr. Stiller’s phone stating that it is ‘Making satellite connection.'”

AT&T: Commercial shouldn’t be taken literally

AT&T’s appeal “points to a number of fanciful/ludicrous features of the commercial in Mr. Stiller’s golf ball odyssey to argue that reasonable consumers will not receive a message that satellite service is currently available, but will understand that AT&T is burnishing its brand by pointing to technological features currently under development,” the panel wrote.

T-Mobile countered “that the use of humor does not shield an advertiser from its obligation to ensure that claims are truthful and non-misleading,” and the NARB agreed.

“The panel views the humorous/fanciful nature of Mr. Stiller’s antics as a means of attracting the attention of viewers, but also as a means of emphasizing the utility of SCS technology—allowing for calls to be placed from remote locations not currently accessible to mobile service,” the industry self-regulatory group said. “The humor associated with Mr. Stiller’s golf misadventures does not cancel out the consumer communication that SCS service is currently available. In addition, the panel does not accept AT&T’s argument that the panel’s decision (or NAD’s decision being appealed) will interfere with the use of humor in advertising.”

The ad originally included small text that described the depicted satellite call as a “demonstration of evolving technology.” The text was changed this week to say that “satellite calling is not currently available.”

“Even assuming consumers will read [the disclaimer], one reasonable interpretation of ‘evolving technology’ is that the technology is currently available, albeit expected to improve in the future,” the NARB said.

The original version also had text that said, “the future of help is an AT&T satellite call away.” The NARB concluded that this “statement can be interpreted reasonably as stating that ‘future’ technology has now arrived. The next visual reinforces that message, as it shows Mr. Stiller communicating on a cell phone call while in a remote location, and the accompanying visual states ‘connecting changes everything,’ a message addressing the present, not the future.”

In the updated version of the ad, AT&T changed the text to say that “the future of help will be an AT&T satellite call away.”

AT&T rebuked over misleading ad for nonexistent satellite phone calling Read More »

dozens-injured,-pets-killed-in-fires-causing-samsung-to-recall-1.1m-stoves

Dozens injured, pets killed in fires causing Samsung to recall 1.1M stoves

Only you can prevent cooktop fires —

Samsung is currently offering free knob locks and covers to prevent fires.

US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of 1.1 million Samsung Slide-in Electric Ranges due to hundreds of reported fires.

Enlarge / US Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of 1.1 million Samsung Slide-in Electric Ranges due to hundreds of reported fires.

After hundreds of reports of fires causing dozens of injuries and several pet deaths, Samsung is recalling more than a million electric stoves sold in the US between 2013 and 2024.

In a press release, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reported that the voluntary recall was due to “front-mounted knobs” on Samsung’s slide-in electric ranges. The faulty knobs “can be activated by accidental contact by humans or pets, posing a fire hazard”—particularly when people leave objects on the stove.

The stoves impacted by the recall were widely sold in Costco, Home Depot, Best Buy, Lowe’s, and other appliance stores nationwide. Their knobs can be easily triggered by accident, heating up the cooktop and increasing the risks of fires, the CPSC said. Since 2013, Samsung has received “over 300 reports of unintentional activation.” According to the CPSC:

“These ranges have been involved in approximately 250 fires. At least 18 fires caused extensive property damage. Approximately 40 injuries have been reported, eight of which required medical attention, and there have been reports of seven fires involving pet deaths.”

Luckily, there’s an easy solution recently devised that can prevent this safety hazard in homes across America, Samsung said. Customers concerned about unintentional activations can request free knob locks and covers that Samsung confirmed made it much harder to accidentally turn on the stove.

Whereas the problematic electric ranges’ knobs require users to push the knob and turn, “precision knobs” that Samsung rolled out in April introduce a new safety measure that requires users to pinch the knob before pushing and turning knobs to activate the stove.

“A simple pinching motion” releases a pin that otherwise would remain locked and prevent stoves from accidental activation when knobs are unintentionally bumped or perhaps twisted by a young child or knocked around by a pet, Samsung said.

Consumers who bought one of the 30 affected models listed here can contact Samsung online or by phone or email to receive free knob locks and covers and implement this new “pinching” safety measure, even if their warranty is expired. They can also check if their model has been affected here. If the serial number is no longer readable, customers should call or chat online with a Samsung agent.

Once Samsung receives a request for free knob locks and covers, repair kits “should arrive within five business days,” an FAQ said. And customers will receive tracking information once the knob locks and covers ship. Instructions to install will be provided and are also available online.

Until knob locks and covers are installed, customers can continue using their stoves, Samsung said. But the CPSC advised people to “keep children and pets away from the knobs,” “check the range knobs to ensure they are off before leaving the home or going to bed,” and avoid leaving “objects on the range when the range is not in use.”

Additionally, customers with Wi-Fi-enabled ranges can enable notifications in their Samsung SmartThings app to receive alerts when the stove is on.

Samsung noted that parents in particular seemed to appreciate the precision knobs, with one review calling it a “favorite feature,” because “we have two young girls in the house and not having to worry about one of them playing with the knobs and starting the stove… is a huge plus.”

Fire hazards go beyond Samsung—and can be fatal

Samsung’s recall is part of a worrying trend where front-mounted knobs on both gas and electric ranges from many different manufacturers have caused hundreds of fires in the US. In June, the CPSC’s Joint Gas and Electric Range Knob Working Group hosted a meeting with leading stove manufacturers and other stakeholders to confront the industry-wide problem.

During the meeting, the CPSC shared data showing that across 338 incidents between January 1, 2018, and May 30, 2024, stoves from “ten specific manufacturers” were involved in fires causing 31 injuries and two deaths. Additionally, the CPSC had recorded “two other fatal incidents where a range was accidentally turned on when a knob was bumped, but the manufacturer is unknown.”

According to the CPSC, manufacturers were “interested to learn the events that lead to the ranges accidentally activating, including whether pets were involved, unsupervised children were at fault, or there were unusual circumstances.” Companies said the CPSC data would help them “fully understand the issues” and “make sure that reasonable and foreseeable circumstances would be addressed” without impacting compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Samsung attended the meeting, saying that it joined other “major brands across the appliance industry” to “discuss how to revisit knob safety standards for all ranges to address inadvertent activation.”

The working group’s meetings are expected to continue, but a deadline to reconvene approximately a month after the June meeting has since passed without any further discussion.

A few months prior to the meeting, Samsung introduced the precision knobs as a novel solution in its ranges, as well as an additional safety feature now available in “its most premium Bespoke Slide-In electric and gas ranges,” which illuminates the knobs when they’re turned on. This provides a “visual cue when the knobs are activated,” Samsung said.

As manufacturers like Samsung continue to tweak knobs to improve safety, the CPSC this week issued a safety alert warning the public of fire hazards of gas and electric ranges.

The safety notice advises customers to use safety locks and covers to prevent accidental activation, keep kids and pets away from cooktops with front-mounted knobs, and take care when leaning over the stove to avoid bumping into knobs.

For anyone concerned about safety issues with a gas or electric range, the CPSC provides a database to search additional recalls or otherwise recommends contacting manufacturers directly.

“Consumers who have experienced or have concerns about accidental activation of the front-mounted control knobs on their cooktop should immediately contact the manufacturer of the range to ask if there is a solution or remedy available from the manufacturer,” the CPSC safety alert said.

Dozens injured, pets killed in fires causing Samsung to recall 1.1M stoves Read More »

ad-industry-initiative-abruptly-shuts-down-after-lawsuit-filed-by-elon-musk’s-x

Ad industry initiative abruptly shuts down after lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X

Lawsuit fallout —

Global Alliance for Responsible Media disputes X lawsuit but stops operations.

The X logo displayed on a smartphone next to Elon Musk's profile picture

Getty Images | SOPA Images

An advertising industry initiative targeted by an Elon Musk lawsuit is “discontinuing” its activities and has deleted the member list from its website.

On Tuesday, Musk’s X Corp. sued the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) over what X claims is an illegal boycott spearheaded by a WFA initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The WFA isn’t disbanding but is halting GARM’s activities, and the GARM member page now produces a 404 error. An archived version of the page from yesterday shows the initiative members, including X.

X’s antitrust lawsuit has drawn skeptical responses from law professors, who say it will be difficult to prove that companies violated antitrust laws by stopping advertisements. But while X may never obtain financial damages from the advertising group or corporations like CVS and Unilever that it also named as defendants, fighting the lawsuit could be costly.

Business Insider reported on the GARM shutdown today:

The advertising trade group The World Federation of Advertisers told its members on Thursday that it was “discontinuing” activities for its Global Alliance for Responsible Media initiative following an antitrust lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X against the company earlier this week.

Stephan Loerke, the CEO of the WFA, wrote in an email to members, seen by Business Insider, that the decision was “not made lightly” but that GARM is a not-for-profit organization with limited resources. Loerke said that the WFA and GARM intended to contest the allegations in X’s suit in court and were confident the outcome of the case would “demonstrate our full adherence to competition rules in all our activities.”

A WFA spokesperson told Ars that the group plans to issue a statement, and we’ll update this article when the statement is available.

The GARM shutdown was also confirmed by a New York Times report. The NYT paraphrased Loerke’s email as saying that “GARM would shut down its operations immediately.”

Group says work is being misrepresented

The WFA was founded in 1953 and is headquartered in Belgium. The WFA started the GARM initiative in 2019. GARM has two full-time staff members, Business Insider wrote. The WFA was also sued by Rumble, the maker of a video platform that is popular with conservatives.

A GARM webpage that was still online today, and which responds to recent criticism, said the group was created “to help the industry address the challenge of illegal or harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising.” Members can “use GARM’s resources and information about best practices to learn where their advertising investments go, and to avoid placement next to illegal or harmful content that could damage their brands’ reputation,” the page says.

GARM says it provides “voluntary frameworks” to help brands make advertising decisions and “does not interfere with a member’s decision as to whether or not to invest advertising resources on a particular website or channel.”

“Suggestions that GARM practices may impinge on free speech are a deliberate misrepresentation of GARM’s work. GARM is not a watchdog or lobby. GARM does not participate in or advocate for boycotts of any kind,” the group says.

X has had an on-again, off-again relationship with GARM. Musk’s social network rejoined GARM little more than a month ago, but the reunion didn’t last long. “X is committed to the safety of our global town square and proud to be part of the GARM community!” X wrote on July 1.

House Republicans celebrate

GARM has also faced attacks from congressional Republicans. The House Judiciary Committee issued a report last month claiming that “the extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms.”

Today, the House Judiciary GOP’s official account on X called GARM being discontinued a “big win for the First Amendment” and a “big win for oversight.” X CEO Linda Yaccarino also applauded the news.

“No small group should be able to monopolize what gets monetized,” she wrote. “This is an important acknowledgement and a necessary step in the right direction. I am hopeful that it means ecosystem-wide reform is coming.”

X’s lawsuit against the WFA objected to GARM’s attempt to enforce “brand safety standards.”

“This is an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States… Concerned that Twitter might deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising on social media platforms set through GARM, the conspirators collectively acted to enforce Twitter’s adherence to those standards through the boycott,” X’s lawsuit said.

An advertising industry watchdog group called the Check My Ads Institute predicted that X will only lose more advertisers after the lawsuit and its fallout.

“The reality is today’s decision [by GARM] means even more advertisers will flee X, and quickly so they’re not targeted in the future. Everyone can see that advertising on X is a treacherous business relationship for advertisers,” Check My Ads co-founder Claire Atkin said in a statement emailed to reporters.

Ad industry initiative abruptly shuts down after lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X Read More »

amazon-defends-$4b-anthropic-ai-deal-from-uk-monopoly-concerns

Amazon defends $4B Anthropic AI deal from UK monopoly concerns

Amazon defends $4B Anthropic AI deal from UK monopoly concerns

The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has officially launched a probe into Amazon’s $4 billion partnership with the AI firm Anthropic, as it continues to monitor how the largest tech companies might seize control of AI to further entrench their dominant market positions.

Through the partnership, “Amazon will become Anthropic’s primary cloud provider for certain workloads, including agreements for purchasing computing capacity and non-exclusive commitments to make Anthropic models available on Amazon Bedrock,” the CMA said.

Amazon and Anthropic deny there’s anything wrong with the deal. But because the CMA has seen “some” foundational model (FM) developers “form partnerships with major cloud providers” to “secure access to compute” needed to develop models, the CMA is worried that “incumbent firms” like Amazon “could use control over access to compute to shape FM-related markets in their own interests.”

Due to this potential risk, the CMA said it is “considering” whether Amazon’s partnership with Anthropic “has resulted in the creation of a relevant merger situation under the merger provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 and, if so, whether the creation of that situation has resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets” in the UK.

It’s not clear yet if Amazon’s partnership with Anthropic is problematic, but the CMA confirmed that after a comment period last April, it now has “sufficient information” to kick off this first phase of its merger investigation.

By October 4, this first phase will conclude, after which the CMA may find that the partnership does not qualify as a merger situation, the UK regulator said. Or it may determine that it is a merger situation “but does not raise competition concerns,” clearing Amazon to proceed with the deal.

However, if a merger situation exists, and “it may result in a substantial lessening of competition” in a UK market, the CMA may refer the investigation to the next phase, allowing a panel of independent experts to dig deeper to illuminate potential risks and concerns. If Amazon wants to avoid that deeper probe potentially ordering steep fines, the tech giant would then have the option to offer fixes to “resolve the CMA’s concerns,” the CMA said.

An Amazon spokesperson told Reuters that its “collaboration with Anthropic does not raise any competition concerns or meet the CMA’s own threshold for review.”

“Amazon holds no board seat nor decision-making power at Anthropic, and Anthropic is free to work with any other provider (and indeed has multiple partners),” Amazon’s spokesperson said, defending the deal.

Anthropic’s spokesperson agreed that nothing was amiss, telling Reuters that “our strategic partnerships and investor relationships do not diminish our corporate governance independence or our freedom to partner with others. We intend to cooperate with the CMA and provide them with a comprehensive understanding of Amazon’s investment and our commercial collaboration.”

Amazon defends $4B Anthropic AI deal from UK monopoly concerns Read More »

all-the-possible-ways-to-destroy-google’s-monopoly-in-search

All the possible ways to destroy Google’s monopoly in search

All the possible ways to destroy Google’s monopoly in search

Aurich Lawson

After US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google has a monopoly in two markets—general search services and general text advertising—everybody is wondering how Google might be forced to change its search business.

Specifically, the judge ruled that Google’s exclusive deals with browser and device developers secured Google’s monopoly. These so-called default agreements funneled the majority of online searches to Google search engine result pages (SERPs), where results could be found among text ads that have long generated the bulk of Google’s revenue.

At trial, Mehta’s ruling noted, it was estimated that if Google lost its most important default deal with Apple, Google “would lose around 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming that it could retain some users without the Safari default.”

Experts told Ars that disrupting these default deals is the most obvious remedy that the US Department of Justice will seek to restore competition in online search. Other remedies that may be sought range from least painful for Google (mandating choice screens in browsers and devices) to most painful (requiring Google to divest from either Chrome or Android, where it was found to be self-preferencing).

But the remedies phase of litigation may have to wait until after Google’s appeal, which experts said could take years to litigate before any remedies are ever proposed in court. Whether Google could be successful in appealing the ruling is currently being debated, with anti-monopoly advocates backing Mehta’s ruling as “rock solid” and critics suggesting that the ruling’s fresh takes on antitrust law are open to attack.

Google declined Ars’ request to comment on appropriate remedies or its plan to appeal.

Previously, Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, confirmed in a statement that the tech giant would be appealing the ruling because the court found that “Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search,’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.'”

“Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal,” Walker said. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

But Mehta found that Google was wielding its outsize influence in the search industry to block rivals from competing by locking browsers and devices into agreements ensuring that all searches went to Google SERPs. None of the pro-competitive benefits that Google claimed justified the exclusive deals persuaded Mehta, who ruled that “importantly,” Google “exercised its monopoly power by charging supra-competitive prices for general search text ads”—and thus earned “monopoly profits.”

While experts think the appeal process will delay litigation on remedies, Google seems to think that Mehta may rule on potential remedies before Google can proceed with its appeal. Walker told Google employees that a ruling on remedies may arrive in the next few months, The Wall Street Journal reported. Ars will continue monitoring for updates on this timeline.

As the DOJ’s case against Google’s search business has dragged on, reports have long suggested that a loss for Google could change the way that nearly the entire world searches the Internet.

Adam Epstein—the president and co-CEO of adMarketplace, which bills itself as “the largest consumer search technology company outside of Google and Bing”—told Ars that innovations in search could result in a broader landscape of more dynamic search experiences that draw from sources beyond Google and allow searchers to skip Google’s SERPs entirely. If that happens, the coming years could make Google’s ubiquitous search experience today a distant memory.

“By the end of this decade, going to a search engine results page will seem quaint,” Epstein predicted. “The court’s decision sets the stage for a remedy that will dramatically improve the search experience for everyone connected to the web. The era of innovation in search is just around the corner.”

The DOJ has not meaningfully discussed potential remedies it will seek, but Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, celebrated the ruling.

“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” Kanter said. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”

All the possible ways to destroy Google’s monopoly in search Read More »

microsoft-says-delta’s-ancient-it-explains-long-outage-after-crowdstrike-snafu

Microsoft says Delta’s ancient IT explains long outage after CrowdStrike snafu

Your bad —

“Delta, unlike its competitors… has not modernized its IT infrastructure.”

Delta Air Lines customers looking for missing bags wait in line in an airport baggage claim area.

Enlarge / Delta Air Lines customers looking for missing bags wait in line at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on July 24, 2024.

Getty Images | Patrick T. Fallon

Microsoft says that Delta Air Lines’ ancient IT infrastructure is to blame for the airline’s inability to quickly recover from last month’s CrowdStrike debacle.

With Delta threatening to sue Microsoft and CrowdStrike, both companies issued responses saying that Delta refused repeated calls for help. A Microsoft letter to Delta yesterday said the Windows maker is starting to figure out why Delta took longer than other airlines to recover.

“Microsoft continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding the CrowdStrike incident to understand why other airlines were able to fully restore business operations so much faster than Delta, including American Airlines and United Airlines,” the letter from Microsoft attorney Mark Cheffo said. “Our preliminary review suggests that Delta, unlike its competitors, apparently has not modernized its IT infrastructure, either for the benefit of its customers or for its pilots and flight attendants.”

On July 19, a faulty update from security firm CrowdStrike crashed millions of Windows PCs. In a July 29 letter, Delta attorney David Boies said the airline has “reason to believe Microsoft has failed to comply with contractual requirements and otherwise acted in a grossly negligent, indeed willful, manner in connection with the Faulty Update,” according to CNBC.

Cheffo’s response to Boies said that “Microsoft empathizes with Delta and its customers regarding the impact of the CrowdStrike incident.” But the Boies letter “and Delta’s public comments are incomplete, false, misleading, and damaging to Microsoft and its reputation,” Cheffo wrote.

“Given Delta’s false and damaging public statements, Microsoft will vigorously defend itself in any litigation if Delta chooses to pursue that path,” Cheffo wrote. The letter demanded that Delta preserve documents related to the outage.

Delta allegedly refused offers to help

CrowdStrike previously wrote to Delta on Sunday. “CrowdStrike’s CEO personally reached out to Delta’s CEO to offer onsite assistance, but received no response. CrowdStrike followed up with Delta on the offer for onsite support and was told that the onsite resources were not needed,” the letter said.

Microsoft’s letter on Tuesday provided a similar description. “Even though Microsoft’s software had not caused the CrowdStrike incident, Microsoft immediately jumped in and offered to assist Delta at no charge following the July 19 outage,” the letter said. “Each day that followed from July 19 through July 23, Microsoft employees repeated their offers to help Delta. Each time, Delta turned down Microsoft’s offers to help, even though Microsoft would not have charged Delta for this assistance.”

The letter said that after one Microsoft outreach on July 22, a “Delta employee replied, saying ‘all good. Cool will let you know and thank you.’ Despite this assessment that things were ‘all good,’ public reports indicate that Delta canceled more than 1,100 flights on July 22 and more than 500 flights on July 23.”

Senior executives repeatedly reached out to Delta executives “with similar results,” the letter said. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella emailed Delta CEO Ed Bastian on July 24, but Bastian never replied, according to the letter.

Microsoft says it has a pretty good idea of why Delta refused its help. “In fact, it is rapidly becoming apparent that Delta likely refused Microsoft’s help because the IT system it was most having trouble restoring—its crew-tracking and scheduling system—was being serviced by other technology providers, such as IBM, because it runs on those providers’ systems, and not Microsoft Windows or Azure,” the letter said.

We contacted Delta today and will update this article if the company provides a response.

Microsoft says Delta’s ancient IT explains long outage after CrowdStrike snafu Read More »

elon-musk-declares-“it-is-war”-on-ad-industry-as-x-sues-over-“illegal-boycott”

Elon Musk declares “it is war” on ad industry as X sues over “illegal boycott”

Elon vs. advertisers —

“We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war,” Musk writes.

Illustration of a shovel being used to bury the Twitter logo

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Elon Musk’s X Corp. today sued the World Federation of Advertisers and several large corporations, claiming they “conspired, along with dozens of non-defendant co-conspirators, to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from the social network formerly known as Twitter.

“We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war,” Musk wrote today, a little over eight months after telling boycotting advertisers to “go fuck yourself.”

X’s lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas targets a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The other defendants are Unilever PLC; Unilever United States; Mars, Incorporated; CVS Health Corporation; and Ørsted A/S. Those companies are all members of GARM. X itself is still listed as one of the group’s members.

“This is an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States… Concerned that Twitter might deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising on social media platforms set through GARM, the conspirators collectively acted to enforce Twitter’s adherence to those standards through the boycott,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit seeks treble damages to be calculated based on the “actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial.” X also wants “a permanent injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, enjoining Defendants from continuing to conspire with respect to the purchase of advertising from Plaintiff.”

The lawsuit came several weeks after Musk wrote that X “has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket,” and called for “criminal prosecution.” Musk’s complaints were buoyed by a House Judiciary Committee report claiming that “the extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms.”

Yaccarino claims “illegal boycott” is stain on industry

We contacted all of the organizations named as defendants in the lawsuit and will update this article if any provide a response.

An advertising industry watchdog group called the Check My Ads Institute, which is not involved in the lawsuit, said that Musk’s claims should fail under the First Amendment. “Advertisers have a First Amendment right to choose who and what they want to be associated with… Elon Musk and X executives have the right, protected by the First Amendment, to say what they want online, even when it’s inaccurate, and advertisers have the right to keep their ads away from it,” the group said.

X CEO Linda Yaccarino posted an open letter to advertisers claiming that the alleged “illegal boycott” is “a stain on a great industry, and cannot be allowed to continue.”

“The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars… To those who broke the law, we say enough is enough. We are compelled to seek justice for the harm that has been done by these and potentially additional defendants, depending what the legal process reveals,” Yaccarino wrote.

Yaccarino also sought to gain support from X users in a video message. “These organizations targeted our company and you, our users,” she said.

Musk followed up with a post encouraging other companies to sue advertisers and claimed that advertisers could face “criminal liability via the RICO Act.” X previously filed lawsuits against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and Media Matters for America, blaming both for advertising losses.

X doesn’t provide public earnings reports because Musk took the company private after buying Twitter. A recent New York Times article said that “in the second quarter of this year, X earned $114 million in revenue in the United States, a 25 percent decline from the first quarter and a 53 percent decline from the previous year.”

Elon Musk declares “it is war” on ad industry as X sues over “illegal boycott” Read More »

illinois-changes-biometric-privacy-law-to-help-corporations-avoid-big-payouts

Illinois changes biometric privacy law to help corporations avoid big payouts

Biometric Information Privacy Act —

Possible damages payments dramatically lowered by change to 2008 Illinois law.

Illustration of a woman's face being scanned for a facial recognition system.

Getty Images | imaginima

Illinois has changed its Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to dramatically limit the financial penalties faced by companies that illegally obtain or sell biometric identifiers such as eye scans, face scans, fingerprints, and voiceprints.

The 2008 law required companies to obtain written consent for the collection or use of biometric data and allowed victims to sue for damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. But an amendment enacted on Friday states that multiple violations related to a single person’s biometric data will be counted as only one violation.

The amendment, approved by the Illinois Legislature in May and signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on August 2, provides “that a private entity that more than once collects or discloses a person’s biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person in violation of the Act has committed a single violation for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery.”

As Reuters reports, the “changes to the law effectively overturn a 2023 Illinois Supreme Court ruling that said companies could be held liable for each time they misused a person’s private information and not only the first time.” That ruling came in a proposed class action brought against the White Castle restaurant chain by an employee.

Change lowers potential for big settlements

The change to the privacy law “will significantly reduce the potential damages and lower the settlement value of BIPA claims. The amendment also provides that an e-signature satisfies the written requirements for the release,” Squire Patton Boggs lawyer Alan Friel wrote in National Law Review yesterday.

In 2020, Facebook agreed to a $650 million settlement after being sued by users who alleged violations of the Illinois law. Settlement class members received over $400 each.

The Illinois law is unique in letting individuals sue for damages, Friel wrote. “Colorado recently enacted a BIPA-like biometrics law, but like other states except only Illinois, it does not have a privacy right of action and can only be enforced by the state,” he wrote. “However, states are active in enforcing their privacy laws as illustrated by a recent Texas settlement with a social media company for biometric consent claims that included a 9-figure civil penalty payment.”

Friel was referring to Facebook-owner Meta agreeing to a $1.4 billion settlement with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The Texas AG alleged that Meta “unlawfully captur[ed] the biometric data of millions of Texans without obtaining their informed consent as required by Texas law.” The claim was over Facebook using facial recognition for a feature that makes it easier to tag people in photographs.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a research group funded by various corporations, said the change to BIPA “makes a bad law slightly better.”

“BIPA is a prime example of privacy legislation gone too far,” ITIF Senior Policy Manager Ash Johnson said. “With steep fines for even minor violations and a private right of action that has gone out of control, with multiple multi-million-dollar settlements. This has led companies to limit the technology available to Illinois consumers or even pull out of the state entirely.”

Illinois changes biometric privacy law to help corporations avoid big payouts Read More »

return-to-office-mandates-hurt-employee-retention,-productivity,-survey-says

Return-to-office mandates hurt employee retention, productivity, survey says

RT-Oh No —

Survey of 4,400 US employees who are at least 18 years old.

Businessman leaning on corridor wall

US workers who work remotely are 27 percent more likely to look forward to doing their job, according to a survey of over 4,400 employees aged 18 and older.

The survey from Great Place to Work took place in July 2023, which was “the third year of an ongoing market study of US workplaces,” according to the report entitled “Return-to-Office Mandates and the Future of Work” (PDF). Of the participants, 51 percent were female, 49 percent were male, and less than 1 percent were “non-binary or other gender,” according to Great Place to Work. In terms of roles, half were “individual contributors,” 25 percent were “frontline managers,” 20 percent were mid-level managers, and 5 percent were executives. Eighty-eight percent were full-time workers versus part-time.

The survey also found that remote workers were 23 percent more likely to say they have “a psychologically and emotionally healthy workplace,” 19 percent were more likely to cite “high levels of cooperation,” and 18 percent were more likely to say that people avoid office politics and backstabbing.

Notably, however, survey respondents were unevenly on-site (65 percent) versus people who work remote all the time (16 percent) or sometimes (20 percent). When Ars Technica asked about this, a Great Place to Work spokesperson said that the report uses a confidence interval of 95 percent. They added: “Because of the overall size of our sample with 4,400 responses, we are still able to have statistically significant findings that illustrate the different needs of these two groups.”

The report says:

One explanation for the gap between remote and on-site workers: Employees of color reported finding a reprieve from unconscious bias and code switching when working remotely.

That doesn’t mean that companies must embrace fully remote work to be inclusive. Instead, great workplaces are finding ways to meet the needs of their employees and provide support to all workers regardless of where they work.

A theme of the report is highlighting the benefits of workplaces working with employees to understand their views on remote work and whether remote work options fit specific needs within the company. It’s also important to consider why people want to work remotely; if it’s due to factors like a toxic work environment, there are other ways to address worker concerns besides remote work, the authors said.

Earlier this year, another survey pointed to return-to-office (RTO) mandates hurting company morale. The survey of some companies on the S&P 500 list by University of Pittsburgh researchers found that RTO policies hurt employee satisfaction while failing to boost company value.

RTO mandates hurt employee retention

Great Place to Work’s report encourages companies to ensure that workers without remote work options “find special meaning in their work.” Companies should talk with in-person workers “about how their efforts are delivering on your brand mission” and hold valued in-person activities, the report said. Cisco, which the report notes doesn’t have an RTO mandate, tries to lure people to the office with things like hackathons, career coaching, and team gatherings, for example.

The report also says RTO mandates can hurt employee retention:

When employees have a say in where they work, retention improves.

Employees who report being able to decide where they work are more likely to stay with their company long-term.

More specifically, the report’s authors concluded that employees who are allowed to choose between in-person, remote, or hybrid work are three times more likely to want to stay at their company. They also found that workers who aren’t facing RTO mandates are 14 times less likely to “quit and stay.”

Great Place to Work

This isn’t the first survey we’ve seen suggesting that RTO mandates have driven workers away. In May, a study published by University of Chicago and University of Michigan researchers examining a reported 260 million résumés from People Data Labs reported that mandates requiring workers to return to the office either full or part-time led to a higher rate of employees, particularly of a senior level, leaving Apple, Microsoft, and SpaceX. (In 2022, numerous prominent Apple staff publicly resigned over RTO mandates.) A March survey of 1,504 full-time employees, including 504 HR workers, found that some firms have issued RTO mandates in the hopes of making people quit.

Return-to-office mandates hurt employee retention, productivity, survey says Read More »

parody-site-clownstrike-refused-to-bow-to-crowdstrike’s-bogus-dmca-takedown

Parody site ClownStrike refused to bow to CrowdStrike’s bogus DMCA takedown

Parody site ClownStrike refused to bow to CrowdStrike’s bogus DMCA takedown

Doesn’t CrowdStrike have more important things to do right now than try to take down a parody site?

That’s what IT consultant David Senk wondered when CrowdStrike sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice targeting his parody site ClownStrike.

Senk created ClownStrike in the aftermath of the largest IT outage the world has ever seen—which CrowdStrike blamed on a buggy security update that shut down systems and incited prolonged chaos in airports, hospitals, and businesses worldwide.

Although Senk wasn’t personally impacted by the outage, he told Ars he is “a proponent of decentralization.” He seized the opportunity to mock “CrowdStrike’s ability to cause literal billions of dollars of damage” because he viewed this as “collateral from the incredible amount of ‘centralization’ in the tech industry.”

Setting up the parody site at clownstrike.lol on July 24, Senk’s site design is simple. It shows the CrowdStrike logo fading into a cartoon clown, with circus music blasting throughout the transition. For the first 48 hours of its existence, the site used an unaltered version of CrowdStrike’s Falcon logo, which is used for its cybersecurity platform, but Senk later added a rainbow propeller hat to the falcon’s head.

“I put the site up initially just to be silly,” Senk told Ars, noting that he’s a bit “old-school” and has “always loved parody sites” (like this one).

It was all fun and games, but on July 31, Senk received a DMCA notice from Cloudflare’s trust and safety team, which was then hosting the parody site. The notice informed Senk that CSC Digital Brand Services’ global anti-fraud team, on behalf of CrowdStrike, was requesting the immediate removal of the CrowdStrike logo from the parody site, or else Senk risked Cloudflare taking down the whole site.

Senk immediately felt the takedown was bogus. His site was obviously parody, which he felt should have made his use of the CrowdStrike logos—altered or not—fair use. He immediately responded to Cloudflare to contest the notice, but Cloudflare did not respond to or even acknowledge receipt of his counter notice. Instead, Cloudflare sent a second email warning Senk of the alleged infringement, but once again, Cloudflare failed to respond to his counter notice.

This left Senk little choice but to relocate his parody site to “somewhere less-susceptible to DMCA takedown requests,” Senk told Ars, which ended up being a Hetzner server in Finland.

Currently on the ClownStrike site, when you click a CSC logo altered with a clown wig, you can find Senk venting about “corporate cyberbullies” taking down “content that they disagree with” and calling Cloudflare’s counter notice system “hilariously ineffective.”

“The DMCA requires service providers to ‘act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the infringing material,’ yet it gives those same ‘service providers’ 14 days to restore access in the event of a counternotice!” Senk complained. “The DMCA, like much American legislation, is heavily biased towards corporations instead of the actual living, breathing citizens of the country.”

Reached for comment, CrowdStrike declined to comment on ClownStrike’s takedown directly. But it seems like the takedown notice probably never should have been sent to Senk. His parody site likely got swept up in CrowdStrike’s anti-fraud efforts to stop bad actors attempting to take advantage of the global IT outage by deceptively using CrowdStrike’s logo on malicious sites.

“As part of our proactive fraud management activities, CrowdStrike’s anti-fraud partners have issued more than 500 takedown notices in the last two weeks to help prevent bad actors from exploiting current events,” CrowdStrike’s statement said. “These actions are taken to help protect customers and the industry from phishing sites and malicious activity. While parody sites are not the intended target of these efforts, it’s possible for such sites to be inadvertently impacted. We will review the process and, where appropriate, evolve ongoing anti-fraud activities.”

Parody site ClownStrike refused to bow to CrowdStrike’s bogus DMCA takedown Read More »

google-loses-doj’s-big-monopoly-trial-over-search-business

Google loses DOJ’s big monopoly trial over search business

Huge loss for Google —

Google’s exclusive deals maintained monopolies in two markets, judge ruled.

Google loses DOJ’s big monopoly trial over search business

Google just lost a massive antitrust trial over its sprawling search business, as US district judge Amit Mehta released his ruling, showing that he sided with the US Department of Justice in the case that could disrupt how billions of people search the web.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his opinion. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

The verdict will likely come as a shock to Google, which had long argued that punishing Google for being the best in search would be “unprecedented” and frequently pointed to the DOJ’s lack of direct evidence. However, Mehta found the limited direct evidence compelling, especially “Google’s admission that it does not ‘consider whether users will go to other specific search providers (general or otherwise) if it introduces a change to its Search product.'”

“Google’s indifference is unsurprising,” Mehta wrote. “In 2020, Google conducted a quality degradation study, which showed that it would not lose search revenue if were to significantly reduce the quality of its search product. Just as the power to raise price ‘when it is desired to do so’ is proof of monopoly power, so too is the ability to degrade product quality without concern of losing consumers.”

He also wrote that the DOJ’s indirect evidence “easily establishes Google’s monopoly power in search” and concluded that “the fact that Google makes product changes without concern that its users might go elsewhere is something only a firm with monopoly power could do.”

Google didn’t lose every battle in this big fight with the DOJ. Mehta ruled that Google did not have monopoly power in search advertising, agreed that there was no market for general search advertising, and declined to sanction Google for allegedly destroying evidence by “failing to preserve its employees’ chat messages.”

Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, provided a statement to Ars, confirming that Google plans to appeal.

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker said. “We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search,’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

Google monopolizes two markets, judge ruled

Mehta ruled that Google spending billions on exclusive distribution agreements with companies like Apple helped the tech giant maintain monopolies in two markets, general search services and general text advertising.

The US government had argued that Google used these exclusive deals to block out competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo, “by ensuring that all of Android and Apple and mobile users are offered Google, either as the default general search engine or the only general search engine, Google’s deals with Android and Apple clearly have a significant effect in preserving its monopoly.” The DOJ successfully argued that blocks rivals from reaching the “critical level necessary” to “pose a real threat to Google’s monopoly.”

Mehta noted that Google’s dominance had “gone unchallenged for well over a decade,” partly due to a “largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution.” He found that Google’s exclusive distribution deals foreclosed a “substantial share” of the markets and allowed Google to earn more revenues. Google then shared spiking revenues with device and browser developers—spending up to $26 billion in 2021 alone for exclusive deals, the trial revealed.

Google did all this, Mehta said, to ensure that “most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google” and to force “Google’s rivals to find other ways to reach users.” The DOJ successfully argued that this posed “significant barriers that protect Google’s market dominance in general search,” with rivals having to overcome “high capital costs—”to the tune of billions of dollars,” Mehta wrote—”Google’s control of key distribution channels, brand recognition, and scale.”

Barriers to entry in general text advertising are similarly “high,” Mehta said, with new entrants facing “the same major obstacles as would the developer of a new” search engine.

One of the most scrutinized exclusive deals was between Google and Apple, which was estimated at $20 billion in 2022. “This is nearly double the payment made in 2020,” Mehta noted, suggesting that Google increasingly valued the deal locking its search engine as the default in Safari as a way to shore up its search dominance.

“Google has long recognized that, if Apple were to develop and deploy its own search engine as the default” search tool “in Safari, it would come at great cost to Google,” Mehta wrote. Without the deal, Google “would lose around 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming that it could retain some users without the Safari default” placement. But “Apple has decided not to enter general search,” Mehta said, likely because it “would forego significant revenues” and potentially face user backlash if it stopped partnering with Google. Similarly high revenue loss would occur if “Google were to lose the Android defaults,” Mehta said.

None of the pro-competitive benefits that Google claimed justified the exclusive deals persuaded Mehta, who ruled that “importantly,” Google “exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads”—and thus earned “monopoly profits.”

“That Google makes changes to its text ads auctions without considering its rivals’ prices is something that only a firm with monopoly power is able to do,” Mehta wrote. And “Google in fact has profitably raised prices substantially above the competitive level. That makes ‘the existence of monopoly power” “clear.”

Ultimately, Mehta ruled that “Google has no true competitor” in general search and without any “genuine” competition, “over the last decade, Google’s grip on the market has only grown stronger.” Further, he found that “Google understands there is no genuine competition for the defaults because it knows that its partners cannot afford to go elsewhere,” disagreeing with Google’s arguments that the default deals were not exclusive.

“The key question then is this: Do Google’s exclusive distribution contracts reasonably appear capable of significantly contributing to maintaining Google’s monopoly power in the general search services market?” Mehta wrote. “The answer is ‘yes.'”

This is a developing story and is being updated.

Google loses DOJ’s big monopoly trial over search business Read More »

court-blocks-net-neutrality,-says-isps-are-likely-to-win-case-against-fcc

Court blocks net neutrality, says ISPs are likely to win case against FCC

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel speaks outside in front of a sign that says

Enlarge / Federal Communication Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, then a commissioner, rallies against repeal of net neutrality rules in December 2017.

Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla

The Federal Communications Commission’s hopes of enforcing net neutrality rules was dealt a major setback last week. A panel of appeals court judges blocked the regulations on Thursday in a ruling that said broadband providers are likely to win the case on the merits.

The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit previously issued an administrative stay that delayed enforcement of the rules for a few weeks, which didn’t necessarily indicate much about the judges’ view of the lawsuit. But on Thursday, the judges issued an order that stays the net neutrality rules until the court makes a final ruling, and judges made it clear they believe the Internet service providers have a stronger case than the FCC.

“Because the broadband providers have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits and that the equities support them, we grant the stay,” a panel of three judges wrote in the unanimous ruling.

The FCC in April voted to revive net neutrality rules that were previously discarded by the Trump-era commission. To get the rules upheld, the FCC must convince judges that it has authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, a necessary step for imposing Title II common-carrier regulations.

The FCC’s task got harder when the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned the 40-year-old Chevron precedent that gave agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws as long as the agency’s conclusion was reasonable. Even before that, ISPs were hoping that the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to what are deemed “major questions” would prevent the FCC from defining broadband as telecommunications without explicit instructions from Congress.

ISPs likely to succeed on the merits

The 6th Circuit panel found that broadband providers “are likely to succeed on the merits because the final rule implicates a major question, and the Commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations.”

Net neutrality, the judges wrote, “is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization,” and the “Communications Act likely does not plainly authorize the Commission to resolve this signal question. Nowhere does Congress clearly grant the Commission the discretion to classify broadband providers as common carriers. To the contrary, Congress specifically empowered the Commission to define certain categories of communications services—and never did so with respect to broadband providers specifically or the Internet more generally.”

Although the ISPs now have a clear advantage in the case, net neutrality supporters say there is still hope.

“The grant of a stay definitely gives the edge to the ISPs. That said, the outcome is far from certain. The case goes to a different set of judges, which means that it may get a fresh look,” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor for the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, told Ars today.

The three 6th Circuit judges who ruled against the FCC last week are Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, Judge Eric Clay, and Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis. Sutton was appointed by George W. Bush, while Clay is a Clinton appointee, and Davis was appointed by Biden.

New panel of judges on the way

The current case is Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC. Oral arguments may be held as early as October 28, but a different set of judges will hear the arguments and make a ruling on the merits. “The clerk is directed to schedule this case for oral argument at the court’s fall sitting, October 28-November 1, 2024, so that a randomly drawn merits panel may consider the case,” the Thursday ruling said.

Which three judges will decide the case on the merits hasn’t been announced. Even after that panel rules, the losing side could seek an en banc rehearing with all the court’s judges, and the case could eventually go to the Supreme Court.

Schwartzman, who is involved in the 6th Circuit case on the pro-net neutrality side, told Ars that there are “some factual mistakes in the stay order; once they are properly explained, the merits panel might see things differently.” The judges who granted the stay “seem to think [of] ISPs’ offering of DNS and caching as essential elements of their offerings; that was true in 2005, but not today,” Schwartzman said.

Schwartzman was referring to a passage in the ruling that said “broadband providers offer data processing and storage to users through DNS and caching services.” The judges’ panel said that because DNS and caching “provide users with a comprehensive capability for manipulating information,” broadband seems to be more accurately described as an information service than a telecommunications service.

Court blocks net neutrality, says ISPs are likely to win case against FCC Read More »