Cerence Inc. has filed formal complaints against Sony Group Corporation and TCL Technology Group Corporation, alleging that the companies infringed on its patented voice technology. The complaints were submitted to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

According to Cerence, select smart TV models from Sony and TCL incorporate voice interaction features that rely on its proprietary technology without authorization. The company is seeking a limited exclusion order from the ITC that would block the import of these products into the U.S. It is also pursuing monetary damages through its district court filings.

Court documents specifically name TCL models like the TCL50 QM5K and TCL55 F35 as examples of the allegedly infringing products. However, the complete list of affected Sony and TCL models has not been disclosed.

Jennifer Salinas, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel at Cerence, said the company views intellectual property enforcement as a strategic priority. “We will take strong, decisive action to protect our IP rights and prevent the unauthorized use of our technology,” she said.

Cerence emphasized that its patented voice solutions are the result of sustained innovation and years of development. The company said it aims to protect not only its technologies but also its customer base and long-term investments.

Cerence has built a strong presence in the automotive sector, with its voice and AI platforms integrated into over 525 million vehicles worldwide. The company said that voice technology has growing relevance in consumer electronics, including smart TVs and home entertainment systems.

As of now, neither Sony nor TCL has issued a public statement in response to the allegations. It is common for companies to withhold comments during ongoing litigation.

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Stay ahead in tech! Join our Telegram community and sign up for our daily newsletter of top stories!

(Via)

The post Cerence sues Sony and TCL over voice tech in smart TVs, seeks import ban appeared first on Gizmochina.

Samsung has filed a new lawsuit in a Texas federal court accusing Chinese smartphone maker TCL and its affiliates of infringing three patents related to OLED display technology. The case also names two US-based companies, Ultimate Eshop LLC and eTech Parts Plus LLC, which Samsung says sell or import replacement OLED displays covered by the disputed patents.

According to the complaint, Samsung alleges that TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co. and Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co. (a subsidiary of TCL CSOT) are producing OLED screens that violate patents covering OLED pixel circuits and driving methods. The company cites U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593, No. 7,414,599, and No. 11,594,578 in the lawsuit.

Samsung states that it informed TCL in July 2022 about the alleged patent violations but claims the infringement has continued. The lawsuit targets OLED displays used in several TCL smartphones sold in the U.S., including the TCL 10 Pro, TCL 20 Pro 5G, TCL 30, TCL 30 5G, and TCL 30+ models.

The legal action builds on a previous case at the U.S. International Trade Commission. In that case, the ITC ruled that Samsung’s patents were valid and found that certain respondents, including eTech Parts Plus, infringed them. TCL had attempted to intervene in the ITC case after some replacement OLED displays it manufactured appeared in the U.S. market.

Samsung also points to challenges TCL filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board last year. The PTAB upheld the validity of two of the patents, further strengthening Samsung’s position.

This case comes amid a broader legal push by Samsung to defend its OLED technology. Earlier this year, Samsung Display filed a trade secret lawsuit against China’s BOE and seven affiliates in the same Texas court, accusing BOE of using its technical drawings to build an OLED plant in Chengdu. Samsung is seeking damages and punitive compensation, partly due to BOE’s reported role as an OLED panel supplier for Apple’s iPhone 16e.

In response, BOE filed a separate patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Display, claiming that OLED panels with under-display cameras used in Galaxy Z Fold devices infringe four of its patents. Industry sources see BOE’s suit as a countermeasure to Samsung’s earlier action and an effort to highlight its OLED advancements. The legal process is expected to take years, with no immediate impact on Galaxy Z Fold production.

Samsung declined to comment on the TCL lawsuit. TCL and the U.S.-based companies named in the case have not responded to requests for comment.

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Stay ahead in tech! Join our Telegram community and sign up for our daily newsletter of top stories!

(Source, Via: TCLCentral)

The post Samsung files lawsuit against TCL over OLED display patents appeared first on Gizmochina.

LG Electronics and Samsung have filed lawsuits against the Indian government, challenging the “minimum recycling payment standard” clause in the E-Waste Management Amendment Regulations 2024. This regulation mandates electronics manufacturers to pay a minimum of ₹22 per kilogram for recycling consumer electronics and ₹34 per kilogram for smartphones.​

Both companies claim the new rates sharply raise their recycling costs. Samsung says the fees are five to fifteen times higher than before. LG argues that the policy puts an unfair financial load on manufacturers while mostly benefiting recyclers. They also say the regulation ignores the informal sector, which still handles around 80% of India’s e-waste.

India produced 3.8 million metric tons of e-waste in 2024, making it the third-largest generator globally. But only 43% of that waste was formally recycled. The rest is processed by unregulated recyclers who often use harmful methods. To shift this balance, the government introduced the fixed payment system to draw more formal players into the market and push investment in better infrastructure.

Other companies, including Daikin, Havells, Voltas, and Blue Star, have also challenged the regulation in court, citing increased compliance costs and potential impacts on product pricing. The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear these cases on Tuesday.

The outcome of these legal challenges could have significant implications for India’s e-waste management policies and the electronics industry’s operational costs.​

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Stay ahead in tech! Join our Telegram community and sign up for our daily newsletter of top stories!

Source: Reuters, Redseer Strategy Consultants, via: Policy Wire

The post Samsung and LG Sue Indian Government Over E-Waste Recycling Fees appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple has once again triumphed in a high-stakes patent battle, securing a crucial win against AliveCor in a fight that could have led to an import ban on the Apple Watch. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today upheld the invalidation of AliveCor’s patents, closing a chapter in a years-long legal saga that has pitted the Cupertino giant against a smaller medical tech company claiming Apple unfairly leveraged its innovations.

Federal Court Sides with Apple, Invalidating AliveCor’s ECG Patents

The dispute dates back to 2020, when AliveCor accused Apple of infringing its patents related to ECG technology, which was integrated into the Apple Watch starting with the Series 4. AliveCor, best known for its KardiaBand accessory that brought FDA-cleared electrocardiogram capabilities to the Apple Watch before Apple introduced its own version, claimed the tech giant copied its innovations while simultaneously blocking third-party developers like AliveCor from operating freely on its platform. The company sought an import ban at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which initially ruled in AliveCor’s favor, determining that Apple had indeed infringed its patents.

But Apple wasn’t going down without a fight. The company took the matter to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which ultimately ruled in Apple’s favor, stating that AliveCor’s patents were unpatentable due to prior art. That decision weakened AliveCor’s case, and today’s ruling from the Federal Circuit cements the outcome: AliveCor’s patents won’t stand, and there will be no Apple Watch import ban.

AliveCor, unsurprisingly, isn’t happy. The company expressed disappointment over the decision, stating that it threatens smaller innovators by allowing corporate giants to dominate the industry unchecked. But for Apple, this is yet another victory in its battle to maintain the Apple Watch’s position as the go-to wearable for health tracking. Meanwhile, a separate Apple Watch import ban over Masimo’s blood oxygen technology remains in effect—at least for now.

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Stay ahead in tech! Join our Telegram community and sign up for our daily newsletter of top stories!

(Source, Via)

The post Apple scores major legal victory over AliveCor, dodging Apple Watch import ban appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple has finally agreed to settle the lawsuit regarding some early generations of Apple Watches suffering from the battery swelling issue. The company has agreed to pay out $20 million for the settlement of this class action lawsuit.

Apple agrees to a $20 million settlement for Apple Watch lawsuit

If you’re an owner of some of the early Apple Watch modes, you might be eligible for a payment from $20 million Cupertino based giant has agreed to pay. The iPhone maker is settling the case revolving around its Apple Watches Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3 models. For those unaware, these Apple Watches were suffering from an issue that caused their batteries to swell up, leading to damage to the wearable device.

Despite Apple agreeing to settle this lawsuit, it has officially stated that it strongly disagrees with the claims made in the lawsuit. But the company “agreed to settle to avoid further litigation.” Furthermore, the exact amount of payments made varies since it depends on the number of people who come forward with their claims. However, we can expect early Apple Watch users to get around $20 to $50.

For those interested, you can click here to get a detailed breakdown of eligibility and deadlines. Keep in mind that users should’ve reported the issue to Apple in the US between 4th April 2015 and 6th February 2024. The website linked above also adds that the “Settlement Class Members will receive a payment without the need to submit a claim form”. Once a claim is submitted, those eligible will get notices via mail or email.

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Tech enthusiast? Get the latest news first! Follow our Telegram channel and subscribe to our free newsletter for your daily tech fix!

The post Apple to pay out $20 million over Apple Watch battery swelling lawsuit appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple has officially addressed the class-action lawsuit alleging that some Apple Watch bands contain harmful levels of “forever chemicals” known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The company firmly stated that all its watch bands undergo strict quality testing and meet regulatory safety standards, assuring users that they are safe for everyday wear.

Apple Responds to PFAS Concerns in Watch Bands

In a statement shared by Macrumors, Apple emphasized its commitment to user safety: “Users can wear Apple Watch bands with confidence and safety. Before the Apple Watch leaves the factory, it undergoes rigorous testing. Additionally, we collaborate with independent laboratories to conduct thorough analysis of the materials used in our products, including Apple Watch bands.”

This response comes amid rising scrutiny following a lawsuit filed in California, which claims that Apple’s Sport Band, Ocean Band, and Nike Sport Band contain hazardous levels of PFAS. Often referred to as “forever chemicals,” PFAS are widely used for their resistance to water and oils but are linked to severe health risks, including cancer, immune system suppression, and developmental harm.

Research from the University of Notre Dame in 2024 identified elevated PFAS levels in multiple smartwatch bands, including some from Apple. The study highlighted the potential for these chemicals to penetrate the skin during exercise, with sweat and open pores increasing absorption risks.

Apple previously pledged in 2022 to eliminate PFAS from its products and acknowledged the challenges involved in finding alternatives that meet its stringent performance requirements. Despite this pledge, the lawsuit accuses the company of knowingly selling bands containing PFAS while failing to inform consumers about the potential dangers.

The legal battle has prompted Apple to reiterate its commitment to safety and transparency. Critics have continued to call for tighter regulations and safer manufacturing practices. Consumers seeking alternatives may want to explore PFAS-free or silicone bands for added safety.

You can also read our article on how smartphone chips are transforming on-device AI, with advancements like Neural Processing Units (NPUs) enabling faster, energy-efficient AI tasks while enhancing privacy and security. Leading manufacturers like Apple, Qualcomm, MediaTek, and Samsung are driving innovations in performance, thermal management, and localized data processing.

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Don’t miss a thing! Join our Telegram community for instant updates and grab our free daily newsletter for the best tech stories!

(Via)

The post Apple defends product safety amid allegations of harmful chemicals in watch bands appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple is under fire for allegedly selling Apple Watch bands containing high levels of harmful “forever chemicals,” known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).

According to the Register, a newly filed class-action lawsuit in the Northern District of California accuses the tech giant of failing to disclose the presence of hazardous substances in three types of bands: the Sport Band, Ocean Band, and Nike Sport Band.

Lawsuit Highlights Health Risks of PFAS in Wearable Tech

PFAS, commonly found in consumer products like nonstick cookware and apparel, are prized for their durability and resistance to sweat and oils. However, they are linked to severe health risks, including cancer, immune suppression, and developmental harm in unborn children. Known for their persistence in the environment, PFAS can also accumulate in the human body over time, earning them the “forever chemicals” label.

The lawsuit cites a 2024 study by the University of Notre Dame, which found elevated PFAS levels in multiple smartwatch bands, including those from Apple. Researchers detected high concentrations of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) in certain bands using advanced testing methods.

While the study did not specify which bands were tested, it shows the risks associated with prolonged skin contact during activities like exercise, when sweat and open pores may facilitate chemical absorption.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple knowingly sold these bands despite its 2022 commitment to eliminate PFAS from its products. It accuses the company of fraud, negligence, and violating California consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, financial compensation, and a court order to halt the sale of the affected bands.

As concerns about PFAS grow, consumers are urged to opt for safer alternatives, like silicone or PFAS-free bands, while awaiting clearer regulations and manufacturer accountability. Apple has yet to comment on the lawsuit.

For more daily updates, please visit our News Section.

Don’t miss a thing! Join our Telegram community for instant updates and grab our free daily newsletter for the best tech stories!

(Via)

The post Apple sued over “forever chemicals” found in watch bands appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple recently updated a blog post regarding the MacBook Butterfly Keyboard class action lawsuit. The court approved the settlement on May 25th, 2023, after completing their review of claims. An order for payments was issued on June 27th, 2024, with eligible claimants receiving payouts by the end of August 2024.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in the US by May 2018

In March 2015, Apple introduced the ultra-thin 12-inch MacBook with a new butterfly keyboard design. While achieving a slim profile, this keyboard was plagued by issues like sticking keys, missed inputs, and letter repetitions. October 2016 saw the introduction of the second-generation butterfly keyboard in 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Pro models. Users once again reported problems with sticky and unresponsive keys.

By May 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the US, accusing Apple of being aware of the keyboard’s defects. In June 2018, Apple acknowledged a “small number” of users experiencing these issues and launched a worldwide keyboard service program for affected MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro models.

The compensation depends on the extent of repairs needed:

• Up to $395 for those who had their entire butterfly keyboard replaced more than twice.
• Up to $125 for users who replaced their butterfly keyboard once.
• Up to $50 for users who only needed keycap replacements.

(Via)

The post Apple Paid Up to $395 per Claimant in Class Action Lawsuit over the MacBook Butterfly Keyboard appeared first on Gizmochina.

Two women have filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple in California, accusing the tech giant of systematically underpaying female employees for the past four years. The lawsuit, representing potentially 12,000 current and former female employees, alleges Apple’s pay practices and performance evaluation system discriminate against women.

The lawsuit represents nearly 12,000 current and former female Apple employees

The core of the complaint centers around Apple’s past practice of basing starting salaries on previous salary history, a practice discontinued in late 2017. The lawsuit argues this approach perpetuated existing gender pay gaps, as women typically earn less than men in the tech industry.

The practice was replaced with a policy of asking job applicants for their salary expectations, which the lawsuit argues has a similar discriminatory effect. Studies have shown that employees tend to base their salary expectations on their current or past salaries, potentially leading to women undervaluing themselves during negotiations.

The lawsuit goes beyond pay disparity, alleging bias within Apple’s performance evaluation system. The complaint claims that subjective criteria, such as “teamwork” and “leadership,” are applied differently to men and women. According to the lawsuit, men are rewarded for behaviors that might be penalized for women, further impacting their earning potential.

The lawsuit seeks financial compensation for damages suffered by female employees due to alleged pay discrepancies. Additionally, the plaintiffs are requesting “declaratory relief,” a court order requiring Apple to change its pay and evaluation practices to ensure fairness. They are also asking for a jury trial to hear the case.

These accusations come on the heels of similar reports in 2022, where female Apple employees came forward alleging experiences of sexual harassment, bullying, and retaliation for filing complaints with HR. One particularly concerning example involved a former legal director who claims a colleague hacked her devices and issued death threats. Despite reporting the incident to HR, she alleges they failed to take action and ultimately terminated her employment.

With this lawsuit, Apple has a lot of pressure to address potential systemic gender bias within the company. Let’s see how the company finds its way through these legal proceedings.

(Via)

The post Apple Faces Gender Pay Gap Lawsuit Filed by Former Employees appeared first on Gizmochina.

Tech giant Huawei is taking a strong stance against trademark infringement, filing a lawsuit against two individuals, Gao and Li, in Beijing’s Haidian District People’s Court. The lawsuit accuses them of illegally using the “Huawei” trademark and engaging in unfair competition, potentially misleading consumers.

Huawei Demands 750,000 Yuan in Compensation for Trademark

According to court documents, Huawei is seeking compensation of 750,000 yuan (roughly $1,03,541) for economic losses and litigation expenses. The lawsuit demands a complete halt to the defendants’ infringing activities and any actions that create consumer confusion about their products’ connection to Huawei.

This isn’t the first time Huawei has had to defend its trademark. Earlier this year, they successfully sued Hanmai Cosmetics and Jixi Clothing in Shanghai for a similar offense. The defendants were found to be operating a “Kubalo Flagship Store” on Tmall, a popular Chinese e-commerce platform, and using “Huawei” for promotional purposes. The court ruled in favor of Huawei, awarding them 10 million yuan (roughly $1.4 million) in compensation for economic losses and applying punitive damages.

The current lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle tech companies face against trademark infringement. Counterfeit products and misleading marketing tactics can damage a brand’s reputation and potentially lead to customer dissatisfaction. Huawei’s decisive action sends a clear message that they will not tolerate such activities.

The lawsuit details require the defendants to submit their response within 15 days after the notice period expires, followed by a 30-day window for evidence presentation.

This case serves as a reminder for both consumers and businesses. Consumers should be vigilant when shopping online or offline, carefully checking brand names and product details to avoid unknowingly purchasing counterfeits. Businesses, on the other hand, need to be mindful of trademark laws and ensure their marketing practices are ethical and compliant.

(Via)

The post Huawei sues two individuals for trademark infringement, seeking more than $100k in compensation appeared first on Gizmochina.

A US jury hit Microsoft with a hefty $242 million (around ¥1.75 billion) fine for patent infringement. The verdict, reached in Delaware on May 10, stems from a lawsuit filed by IPA Technologies in 2018.

Microsoft is planning to appeal the jury’s decision

The lawsuit claimed Microsoft’s Cortana voice assistant infringed on IPA’s patent for voice recognition technology used in computer communication software. Originally, the case involved multiple IPA patents, but ultimately focused on just one. Microsoft argued they didn’t infringe and the patent itself was invalid.

IPA Technologies, a subsidiary of Wi-LAN, acquired the patent in question from SRI International’s Siri Company. Apple then acquired Siri Company and its technology in 2010, using it for their Siri voice assistant.

Microsoft plans to appeal the decision. “We firmly believe we did not infringe,” a spokesperson said. IPA and Wi-LAN haven’t commented publicly yet.

This isn’t IPA’s first rodeo. They’ve sued Google and Amazon over similar patents. Amazon successfully defended itself in 2021, while the Google case remains ongoing.

RELATED:

• Microsoft’s Leaked Internal Emails Shed Light on the Company’s Competition with Google AI and More
• Microsoft Windows 10 Updates will Get Smaller in Size, Company is Streamlining the Update Process
• Xiaomi 13 Ultra Premium Camera Phone is now only $799
• REDMAGIC Magnetic VC Cooler 5 Pro now available at a discounted price at GeekWills
• HyperOS Update Is Available for These Xiaomi, Redmi, and Poco Devices in India

(Via)

The post Jury Hammers Microsoft with $242 Million Patent Fine for Cortana Tech appeared first on Gizmochina.

Are you tired of Facebook’s endless scroll? A new lawsuit challenges Meta‘s (formerly Facebook) control over user feeds. The battleground? A browser tool called “Unfollow Everything” that lets users unfollow everyone at once. This lets them curate their feed intentionally, instead of being bombarded by an algorithm.

Facebook banned the original creator after he took control of his facebook feed

The original tool’s creator saw a dramatic decrease in Facebook use after taking control. Naturally, Facebook wasn’t a fan and banned him. Now, a researcher wants to study a new version of the tool’s impact but needs it accessible. They’ve sued Meta, arguing a section of the Communications Decency Act protects users’ right to control their online experience, including the tools they use.

The lawsuit hinges on a subsection allowing control of unwanted content. The researcher argues this extends to social media, giving users the right to “opt out of the algorithm.” Will the courts side with users? This case could set a precedent, potentially giving us the power to break free from the endless scroll and curate our own social media experience.

RELATED:

• Meta is Down: Instagram, Facebook, Messenger, and Threads Struggle with Accessibility
• Meta Tightens Safety Measures for Teens on Instagram and Facebook
• Get $100 OFF on Xiaomi 14 Pro at Giztop (1TB Variant)
• REDMAGIC Magnetic VC Cooler 5 Pro now available at a discounted price at GeekWills
• 6 Amazing One UI 6.1 AI Features You Can’t Ignore

(Via)

The post What is “Unfollow Everything” and Why did Facebook Ban the Original Creator of this Tool? appeared first on Gizmochina.

The US government is joining the European Union in taking a huge bite out of Apple, accusing it of holding an illegal smartphone monopoly over the market. The Justice Department (DOJ), backed by 16 states, filed a lawsuit challenging Apple’s practices that lock down the iPhone ecosystem. The feds claim Apple stifles competition by limiting app functionality, restricting communication between iPhones and Android devices, and hindering third-party smartwatches and digital wallets. This, they argue, keeps users trapped in the iPhone world, inflating prices for consumers and developers.

The US wants Apple to stop using functionality-limiting tactics for the competition

The lawsuit seeks to pull these practices apart, pushing for a more open mobile landscape. They aim to prevent Apple from restricting app distribution that could lead users to switch platforms. Ultimately, they want to stop the company from using tactics that limit functionality on competing devices – breaking Apple’s grip on the app store.

This David vs. Goliath battle seems to overlook Apple’s immense resources, instead, it emphasizes protecting competition and innovation. It follows similar actions against Google and reflects a renewed focus on regulating tech giants. App developers have long criticized Apple’s control of the iOS marketplace, particularly its app store fees. This lawsuit aligns with a 2020 Congressional report that found Apple holds a monopoly in iOS app distribution.

With Europe already taking steps to regulate Big Tech, this lawsuit is a significant move. The coming months will be crucial as the DOJ fights to create a more open mobile landscape, potentially paving the way for similar US regulations. And a few of these regulations might be enough to force Apple into a tight corner.

RELATED:

• Apple’s GenAI Plans Take A Twist, Gemini AI Could Arrive On iPhones
• Apple Sets Ambitious Production Targets For AirPods 4, Two Models Expected To Debut Later This Year
• Get Redmi K70 Pro for discounted price of $499
• Get the Realme GT5 Pro phone on Giztop for $599
• How to add/remove someone in a WhatsApp group (with screenshots)

(Via)

The post The US Files a Lawsuit Against Apple on the Grounds of Ecosystem Lockdown appeared first on Gizmochina.

Amazon finds itself at the center of a legal storm as two of its customers have taken to the courts, accusing the retail giant of manipulating prices to its advantage. The core of the dispute lies in Amazon’s “Buy Box” feature, a staple on product pages that suggests a preferred seller and price for items. The lawsuit, filed in Washington, sheds light on the potential misleading nature of the Buy Box, suggesting it may not always present the best deal available.

The accusation suggests that expensive items overshadow cheaper alternatives

The controversy revolves around Amazon’s algorithmic selection of featured suppliers in the Buy Box. Often, this spot is reserved for Amazon itself or third-party vendors enrolled in Amazon’s Fulfillment By Amazon (FBA) program. The contention? That cheaper alternatives are overshadowed by more expensive options in the Buy Box, leading consumers to unwittingly pay more.

Amazon’s Buy Box is accused of creating an illusion of the best deal, when, in reality, better prices from other sellers are tucked away beneath the primary recommendation. This system, critics argue, prioritizes Amazon’s profits over consumer savings, exploiting the trust shoppers place in the platform’s pricing mechanisms.

The implications of this lawsuit are far-reaching. Sellers not participating in the FBA program, despite offering lower prices, find their products less visible, potentially missing out on crucial sales. This has sparked a debate on fair competition and the transparency of online retail practices. The lawsuit, seeking class-action status, aims to rally Amazon customers who’ve used the Buy Box since 2016, arguing that Amazon’s practices violate Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. This act condemns deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

RELATED:

• AI Chip Boom will soon push NVIDIA past Amazon in market value
• Redmi Buds 5 Amazon Availability Confirmed, Key Specs Revealed
• Big Discount: AOOSTAR R1 N100 NAS Mini PC Only For $159
• Best of CES 2024 – Products that stood out this year!

(Via)

The post Another Lawsuit as Amazon is Accused of Artificially Inflating Prices appeared first on Gizmochina.

Katie Ellen Puris used to be one of the top women working at TikTok, but now she’s suing the company and its owner, ByteDance. She says they fired her unfairly because of her age and because she’s a woman.

She also mentioned that TikTok preferred younger employees

Puris joined TikTok in 2019, bringing her big-time marketing skills from places like Google and Facebook. She did well quickly, helping to start TikTok for Business, which helped companies use the platform better. But even with her success, she ran into big problems.

She claims that ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, started to take over more control from its office in Beijing. The big issue, according to Puris, came from ByteDance’s chairman, Lidong Zhang. He supposedly didn’t like how Puris did her job, saying she wasn’t quiet or humble enough, which he unfairly expected from women at the company.

Puris also says that the company preferred younger employees, thinking they’d bring more new ideas and be easier to manage. She felt pushed aside because of her age and her willingness to speak up.

Her lawsuit talks about how she tried to deal with these problems, like reporting sexual harassment, but TikTok didn’t help her out. Instead, things got worse for her at work, leading to her losing her job. This lawsuit isn’t just about Puris losing her job; it’s shedding some much-needed light on some serious issues at TikTok and ByteDance. It’s about how companies treat their employees, especially when it comes to fairness and respect.

RELATED:

• Say Goodbye to Top Hits? TikTok’s Battle with Universal Could Change Everything
• TikTok is Testing an Auto-Detect Shopping Feature in Videos
• Get the Realme GT5 Pro phone on Giztop for $599
• OnePlus partners with Pixelworks to Elevate Mobile Gaming Experience on the OnePlus 12

(Via)

The post Former TikTok Executive Sues Over Alleged Age and Gender Discrimination appeared first on Gizmochina.

Genshin Impact, the popular open-world action RPG, has been plagued by cheaters who use unauthorized tools to gain an unfair advantage. Developer HoYoverse is taking a stand against these practices by suing cheat creators Joaquin Soarin and others in a Canadian court.

Legal Battle Begins: HoYoverse Takes Cheat Creators to Court

The lawsuit alleges that Soarin and his associates infringed HoYoverse’s copyright by creating and distributing cheating tools like Akebi GC, Acrepi, and Genshin XYZ. These tools offered various advantages, such as rapid in-game progress and bypassing purchase prompts, giving their users an edge over legitimate players.

HoYoverse claims that these cheats not only harm the game’s balance and competitive integrity but also damage their reputation and finances. The company invests heavily in detecting and banning cheaters, as well as developing patches to counter their exploits. This lawsuit seeks to recover over $50,000 in damages from Soarin and the other defendants.

This isn’t the first time HoYoverse has taken action against cheaters. In the past, they’ve implemented stricter anti-cheat measures and issued waves of bans. However, this lawsuit signifies a more aggressive approach, targeting the creators of these tools directly.

The case raises important questions about intellectual property rights in the gaming industry. While players generally accept certain limitations on modding and customization, creating and distributing tools that grant unfair advantages through copyright infringement is a different matter.

This lawsuit could have broader implications for the online gaming landscape. If HoYoverse prevails, it could set a precedent for other developers to pursue similar legal action against cheat creators. This could deter future attempts to develop and distribute unauthorized cheating tools, promoting a fairer and more enjoyable gaming experience for everyone.

It’s worth noting that legal outcomes can be unpredictable, and this case is still ongoing. However, the message from HoYoverse is clear: they will not tolerate cheaters and are willing to take legal action to protect their intellectual property and the integrity of their game.

RELATED:

• Genshin Impact 4.5 leak reveals Chiori’s gameplay and kit
• Genshin Impact 4.5 update to bring quality of life features: leak reveals
• Xiaomi Band 8 Genshin Impact custom edion get a huge discount.
• Unlock Savings: Discount on Every Giztop Product under the New Year Sale
• Best Smartphones Awards 2023 – Gizmochina

(Via)

The post Genshin Impact devs sue cheat creators for copyright infringement and damages appeared first on Gizmochina.

Tesla has agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle claims that it didn’t handle hazardous waste correctly at its California sites, including the main Fremont factory. This case sheds light on the environmental challenges faced by companies aiming to be eco-friendly.

Tesla plans to check its waste more carefully in the future

The legal action brought by 25 counties in California accused Tesla of not following rules for hazardous waste, like sending materials that could harm the environment, such as old batteries and paint, to places that weren’t set up to deal with them properly. This situation has sparked a conversation about how companies that make technology to help the planet must also make sure their own operations don’t harm it.

Tesla has decided to make changes without admitting it did anything wrong. It’s planning to check its waste more carefully and has hired an outside company to watch over its waste management practices for the next five years. This move shows Tesla’s willingness to improve how it deals with environmental issues.

This isn’t the first time Tesla has been in hot water over environmental matters in California. In 2021, it had to settle for $1 million because of issues with air pollution at its Fremont paint shop. These incidents highlight the difficulties in making and maintaining green technologies without causing other environmental problems. A statement from San Francisco’s District Attorney pointed out that even though electric cars are better for the planet, making and taking care of them still produces a lot of waste that needs to be handled properly.

RELATED:

• Tesla rolls out advanced Hardware upgrade for Model Y in China
• Elon Musk’s $56 Billion Tesla Pay Package That Surpasses Reserves of 100 Countries Central Banks Rejected by Court
• Get the Realme GT5 Pro phone on Giztop for $599
• OnePlus partners with Pixelworks to Elevate Mobile Gaming Experience on the OnePlus 12

(Via)

The post Tesla Settles for $1.5 Million Over Waste Management Issues appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple, a household name in technology, is currently navigating turbulent waters in the United Kingdom. The core of the storm? A hefty lawsuit that’s putting the tech giant’s App Store policies under the microscope. The lawsuit, demanding a whopping $1 billion, represents more than 1,500 app developers who believe they’ve been wronged by Apple’s fee structure.

Apple App Store is a necessity for app developers to reach their audience

Here’s the crux of the issue: these developers argue that Apple’s commission fees, which can be as high as 30% on app purchases, are unfair. They feel Apple, using its strong market position, is overcharging them for the privilege of being on the App Store. This is a significant concern because, for many developers, being on the Apple App Store isn’t just a choice, it’s a necessity to reach a broad audience.

But Apple isn’t taking this lying down. Their defense hinges on an interesting point: most of their developers, about 85%, don’t pay any commission. This is because these developers offer free apps or apps that don’t have in-app purchases. Apple’s lawyers are pushing hard to dismiss the case, arguing that it’s baseless and that claims can only be made by those who were charged via the UK App Store.

The case, filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in London, isn’t just a standalone battle. It’s part of a broader narrative where Apple is facing several legal challenges over its App Store practices. This includes another massive lawsuit involving around 20 million UK users over App Store commissions and a separate case about iPhone batteries.

What does this mean for Apple and app developers? It’s a complex dance of power, legalities, and market dynamics. For Apple, it’s about defending its business model and practices, which have been a cornerstone of its success. For the developers, it’s a fight for fairer terms and a more level playing field. As these cases progress, they won’t just impact the involved parties; they could reshape how tech giants operate and interact with smaller players in the industry. With trials not expected until 2025, the tech world watches and waits to see how this legal drama unfolds.

RELATED:

• Samsung in a race with Apple to develop needle-free blood sugar monitor
• Apple Vision Pro’s Massive Retail Box Revealed! What’s in the Box?
• Get Redmi K70 Pro for discounted price of $499
• OnePlus partners with Pixelworks to Elevate Mobile Gaming Experience on the OnePlus 12

(Via)

The post Apple’s Legal Battles in the UK: A Look at the $1 Billion App Store Fee Dispute appeared first on Gizmochina.

Snapchat, faces a significant legal challenge in California. The company, Snap, is being sued by families alleging that their children used the app to buy fentanyl, leading to fatal overdoses. This case, overseen by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff, could have profound implications for how social media platforms operate and are held accountable.

The California judge has let the lawsuit proceed this time

Traditionally, tech companies like Snap have been shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This legal immunity has been a cornerstone in the development of the modern internet, allowing platforms to grow without the constant threat of lawsuits over user-generated content. However, Judge Riff’s decision to let the lawsuit proceed signals a potential shift. The case isn’t targeting Snapchat for the content posted by third-party drug dealers but rather focuses on the platform’s product and business decisions.

This lawsuit is part of a growing trend where tech companies are being scrutinized for their role in public safety and wellbeing. For instance, Google, Meta, Snap, and TikTok are currently facing a lawsuit alleging they contributed to a youth mental health crisis. These cases bring to light the increasing concern over how social media platforms influence users, especially the younger demographic, and the responsibilities these platforms should bear.

Snap’s response to the lawsuit has been to highlight their cooperation with law enforcement and the use of technology to detect and prevent illegal activities on their platform. However, the core issue remains: how much responsibility should social media companies have for the actions of their users, and where is the line drawn between protecting users and censoring content?

RELATED:

• Snapchat users cross the 400 million mark
• Snapchat will Now Let Users Embed Content, also Introduces AI-Powered Fill Features
• Get $100 OFF on Xiaomi 14 Pro at Giztop (1TB Variant)
• Best Mini PCs of 2023 – Gizmochina

(Via)

The post Snapchat is Being Accused by Families, Alleging their Kids Bought Fentanyl on the Platform appeared first on Gizmochina.

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

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

Google’s initial attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the warning displayed when activating Incognito mode, was rejected by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in August. The judge highlighted that Google had not explicitly informed users about continued data collection during private browsing.

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

This development halts a scheduled February 5, 2024 trial. The lawsuit, seeking at least $5 billion in damages, claimed that Google’s analytics, cookies, and apps allowed tracking even when users believed they were browsing privately. The settlement terms remain undisclosed, pending court approval by February 24, 2024.

RELATED:

• Xiaomi Smart Plug 2 with Google Home support, overcurrent and overheating protection launched in the EU
• Google Nearby Share might be getting a makeover, taking cues from Samsung Quick Share
• Google Chrome Receives New Security and Performance Features for a Seamless Browsing Experience
• Best iPhone 15 Pro cases for 2023: Dbrand, Spigen, RhinoShield & More
• Alldocube iWork GT 12: AMD 2-in-1 laptop, $100 off and free keyboard
• Lenovo Legion Y700 2023: Save $100 on this 8-inch gaming Android tablet
• Giztop’s Christmas Holiday Savings: Unwrap Joy with Exclusive Discount

(via)

The post Google Reaches Preliminary Settlement in Incognito Mode Lawsuit appeared first on Gizmochina.

When it comes to intellectual property rights, theft is a much more complex issue than the physical theft of an object. Therefore, courts have often become a battlefield where seemingly simple cases can turn into years-long struggles. Nevertheless, many companies find themselves frequently in the position of either defendant or plaintiff in court.

Currently, a similar development is unfolding between Xiaomi and Huawei. The two companies are engaged in a legal battle, appearing before a judge in a copyright infringement case, with Xiaomi accusing a Huawei executive of misrepresenting facts in their smartphone patent dispute. Here are the details….

Huawei Takes Legal Action Against Xiaomi Over Foldable Smartphone Patents

Huawei recently filed a lawsuit against Xiaomi, claiming that the patents related to foldable smartphone hinges had been violated. However, Xiaomi denied the allegations, instead accusing the plaintiff’s representative of misrepresenting facts and politely making false accusations. The patent in question, known as the “dragon bone” technology in foldable phones, is claimed by the defendant to have been independently developed and patented.

In its defense, Xiaomi emphasized significant differences between the two patents, stating that there are substantial distinctions. They even went on to say, “We urge Yu to follow ‘basic scientific and rigorous standards’ and stop unfairly criticizing competitors or misleading the public in the future.” This technology made its debut in the Xiaomi Mix Fold 3 model, with its hinge mechanism particularly drawing attention. It seems that this innovation caught Huawei’s attention.

Unfortunately, the outcome of the patent dispute between the two companies remains uncertain for now. While it’s challenging to determine the truth and who is right in such cases, as mentioned earlier, patent lawsuits are complex processes. Especially in situations like these, they can drag on for years and lead to significant legal expenses. Hence, parties involved often prefer to reach an agreement in such cases. This could also be the case for Xiaomi and Huawei, but without following developments, it’s impossible to say anything definitive.

RELATED:

• Best smart luggage of 2023: Modobag, Weego, Incase & More
• Alldocube iWork GT 12: AMD 2-in-1 laptop, $100 off and free keyboard
• Aoostar R1 N100:  Intel N100 NAS / Mini PC with Windows 11 for $219
• Lenovo Legion Y700 2023: Save $100 on this 8-inch gaming Android tablet

(via)

The post Xiaomi Accuses Huawei Executive of Lying and Misrepresenting Facts appeared first on Gizmochina.

Patent cases are an essential foundation of the technology industry. Today, almost 100% of the companies we mention on Gizmochina have been involved in a patent case in one way or another. The latest example of this is a legal dispute between Lenovo and Asus. The Chinese tech giant has filed a lawsuit against its Taiwanese rival for patent infringement. The filed documents in court include allegations related to software, hardware, and connectivity in multiple products. Here are the details…

Lenovo Seeks US Ban on Asus ZenBook Laptops

Lenovo claims that Asus has been using its patented technologies without permission. These technologies include a method for reducing data transmission steps, a wireless wake-on LAN power management technique, a two finger diagonal scrolling feature, and a hinge design that allows a laptop to convert into a tablet.

In response, Lenovo has filed a lawsuit against Asus in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking damages for lost profits and an injunction preventing Asus from further using its patented technologies. Lenovo has also requested the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to issue a limited exclusion order barring the import of Asus products that infringe on its patents into the United States.

Asus has not yet responded to Lenovo’s lawsuit, but Lenovo has stated that it is willing to negotiate a cross-licensing agreement with Asus to resolve the dispute. However, Asus has so far declined this offer. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for both companies. If Lenovo prevails, Asus will be forced to either stop using the disputed technologies or pay Lenovo royalties for their use. This could potentially damage Asus’s reputation and market position.

On the other hand, if Asus wins, it will be able to continue using the technologies without any restrictions. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to wait to see who will win.

RELATED:

• Download the best GCam APK for Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra
• Get $100 Discount on Alldocube iWork GT 12 at Geekwills (Coupon)
• Get the latest Xiaomi 14 smartphone for $599 at Geekwills
• Get $100 OFF on Lenovo Legion Y700 2023 Gamin Tablet at Giztop

(via)

The post Lenovo’s Patent War with Asus Could Lead to Ban on ZenBook Laptops appeared first on Gizmochina.

Google is making a U-turn one more time. If you have Google Nest speakers, Chromecast, or smart displays, you can now add them to more than one speaker group in the Google Home app. This change comes after a legal battle with Sonos, a speaker company. Last month, Google had to limit these devices to just one speaker group each. This was because of a lawsuit from Sonos, which claimed Google stole its ideas for managing groups of speakers. A California court even told Google to pay $32.5 million for this.

Google was asked for $32.5 Million as a settlement amount

But here’s the twist: A judge just threw out that ruling. The judge said Sonos didn’t properly set up its patents and waited too long to file them. Because of this, Google is taking back its previous change.

Sonos is not happy. They told Reuters they plan to appeal, saying the judge got it wrong. But Google is going ahead and removing the one-group limit. The update is already out for Android and will be coming to iOS soon.

So, if you were annoyed by the limit, you’ve got your freedom back to group your devices any way you want. Lawsuits are tricky, and those involving ideas and execution pertaining to technology are even trickier. This right here is a prime example. We’ll keep you updated regarding any future updates to this story. Stay tuned!

RELATED:

• Google’s Project Green Light is Successfully Solving Traffic Issues, Thanks to AI
• Don’t Miss Out on This Prime Day Deal: Get the Google Pixel 7 at $488 instead of the Usual $599!
• Download the best GCam APK for OnePlus Nord CE 3 Lite 5G

(Via)

The post You can Add your Google Home Devices to More than One Speaker Group – Again appeared first on Gizmochina.

Google has agreed to pay $93 million to settle claims with California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, putting to rest allegations that the company misused location data for advertising. This comes after similar legal issues in Arizona and Washington last year, where Google faced comparable accusations. But what does this actually mean?

Google was allegedly collecting location data even after users turned their location history off

The central issue at hand was Google’s alleged collection of user location data, even after users had turned off the “location history” feature. According to the California Department of Justice, this violated consumer protection laws.

While $93 million may sound like a significant penalty, it’s worth noting that this amount is a fraction of Google’s overall revenue—most of which comes from advertising. Moreover, location-based advertising is a key component of Google’s business model. The settlement, therefore, raises questions about its long-term impact on tech giants and data privacy.

As part of the agreement, Google is not just parting with money but has also committed to “deter future misconduct.” Specifically, the company is required to offer clearer information about how it collects and uses location data. Users will also be provided with disclaimers that their location information could be used for personalized ads.

The settlement could serve as a warning to other tech companies about the increasing scrutiny around data privacy. Yet, the relatively small financial hit for Google suggests that whether this case will instigate genuine change in the industry remains uncertain. One thing is clear: the conversation around data privacy and corporate accountability is far from over.

RELATED:

• Google won’t repair cracked Pixel Watch screens, leaving owners frustrated
• Google says it’s the leading search engine because users prefer it over others in antitrust trial defense
• Best 1440p Monitors 2023 – Dell, Asus, LG, & More

(Via)

The post How Significant is Google’s $93 Million Settlement for Consumer Protection? appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple is battling the ongoing Batterygate Lawsuit, where the customers sued the company after facing performance throttling issues on the devices with the iOS updates. The lawsuit might have reached a settlement where Apple will soon be paying money to its roughly 3 million iPhone owners who filed the claim.

What is the Batterygate Lawsuit?

For those unaware, iPhone users started facing performance throttling issues on their phones after the iOS update back in 2017. Apple responded by admitting that the performance is throttling in iPhones as the battery life degrades. Since customers were not notified about this before the purchase, iPhone users sued the company for not being transparent about the device’s performance changes. They felt forced to buy the latest iPhone for a stable performance and battery life. This was later on called the Batterygate Lawsuit.

Who is Eligible for the claim?

Owners of the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, and the first-generation iPhone SE running on iOS 10.2.1 or above, who submitted the claim back in 2020 will be eligible for the compensation.

How much is Apple paying?

For those wondering, the amount the company will pay out to its roughly 3 million individuals who filed the claims will be around $65 each. It can be higher, as much as $90, depending upon the number of claims submitted.

It is still unclear how the people will get the settlement money or when they can expect to receive it. We will have to wait for Apple to make an official statement. So stay tuned.

RELATED:

• Apple to pay $500 million to settle lawsuit over throttling iPhone performance
• Apple ‘batterygate’ victims in the United States can now claim $25 settlement
• Apple paying $113 million to settle iPhone ‘batterygate’ investigation
• Apple faces a new set of “batterygate” related lawsuits in Europe

(Via)

The post Apple’s Batterygate Lawsuit, company agrees to pay $65 to each eligible iPhone customer appeared first on Gizmochina.

ByteDance, the parent company behind the popular TikTok app, was recently hit with a lawsuit that claimed that it is non-consensually collecting users’ biometric data. The lawsuit alleged that the illegal data privacy breach was from the company’s CapCut app.

Yet another data privacy breach from ByteDance

For those unaware, CapCut is a video editing application that has over 200 million active users. But apparently, this platform is collecting their sensitive private information without their consent. The lawsuit was filed in Illinois and claims that CapCut is violating the state’s Biometric Information Act. This breach is from collecting data like face scans and voice prints without informing the users.

Apart from biometrics, the app was reportedly collecting other private information like user location, gender, date of birth, and even gaining access to photos and videos. The primary focus of this invasive data collection is likely in regard to targeted ads. The lawsuit adds that the app is capable of even gaining access to the MAC address and SIM serial number as well. Apparently, CapCut’s privacy policy was intentionally designed to make it harder for users to understand.

In other words, the CapCut users aren’t giving their consent in a proper manner. ByteDance is also behind TikTok, which has faced various accusations over data privacy. Some reports have claimed that it is even harvesting user data in the US, in service of the Chinese government.

RELATED:

• ByteDance Buys Enough Nvidia GPUs for All of China in Order to Secure Its Future
• TikTok’s E-Commerce Ambitions: How the Social Media Giant Plans to Take on the Internet
• TikTok is Under Scrutiny again in the US for Fraudulent Data Practices & Privacy Issues
• TikTok’s AI Chatbot in Testing Phase, may Compete with ChatGPT & Bard
• OnePlus 11 vs Nothing Phone (2): Specs Comparison
• Best 360 degree cameras in 2023 – Insta360, GoPro, & More

(Via)

The post TikTok’s parent company ByteDance sued for collecting face scans & other sensitive data on CapCut appeared first on Gizmochina.

Massively popular YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson, known as MrBeast, has lodged a lawsuit against Virtual Dining Concepts (VDC), the firm behind his delivery-only fast food chain, MrBeast Burger. The issue stems from an alleged disregard for quality in favour of rapid expansion by VDC, ruining the popular YouTuber’s brand that sells burgers throughout the States.

The lawsuit states that VDC was capitalizing on MrBeast to lure in other clients without focusing on MrBeast Burger

Reports suggest that the company’s focus on swift growth led to substandard food that negatively impacted the brand’s image. The suit filed by MrBeast aims to dissolve the licensing agreement and shut down the operation altogether, citing egregious flaws in food quality and service.

Negative reviews of the brand abound, with customers labelling the burgers as “inedible” and “revolting.” A multitude of customer complaints revolve around raw meat, cold fries, missing ingredients, and orders that never materialized. Some of the ghost kitchen locations botched the branding aspect, delivering food in generic packaging or even 7-11 bags.

The YouTube star’s legal team asserts that VDC failed to rectify these quality issues despite being approached. Further, they contend that MrBeast has not been compensated despite being owed royalties. Adding fuel to the fire, the suit also alleges that VDC often registers trademarks and uses branding without prior approval.

The lawsuit indicates that VDC is exploiting the MrBeast brand to lure in other celebrities while neglecting support for new brick-and-mortar establishments that could potentially slice into its profits.

In 2020, the collaboration was initiated as a pandemic response strategy to boost delivery services and aid fans and restaurants when dining in wasn’t viable. Unfortunately, the business model’s weaknesses have been exposed as ghost kitchens aren’t held to the same regulatory standards as traditional restaurants.

RELATED:

• YouTuber gets GTA 5 running on an overclocked Nintendo Switch
• YouTube Premium gets a price increase to $13.99 in the US
• Best TVs for Bright Rooms in 2023 – Samsung, Hisense, & More

(Via)

The post MrBeast Files Lawsuit Against his own Fast-food Chain, MrBeast Burger appeared first on Gizmochina.

In a recent legal battle, Alphabet’s Google has been found guilty of violating a software developer’s patent rights related to remote-streaming technology. A federal jury in Waco, Texas, handed down the verdict on Friday, ordering Google to pay $338.7 million in damages to Touchstream Technologies, a New York-based software company also known as Shodogg.

The lawsuit was filed by Touchstream Technologies from New York, which is now $338.7 million richer

The lawsuit, filed in 2021, alleged that Google’s popular Chromecast and other devices infringed upon Touchstream’s patents, which pertain to the technology that allows users to stream videos from one screen to another. The technology was reportedly invented by Touchstream’s founder, David Strober, in 2010, with the goal of seamlessly “moving” videos from small devices like smartphones to larger screens like televisions.

According to Touchstream’s complaint, Google had a meeting with the company in December 2011 to discuss their technology but later showed no interest. Surprisingly, Google introduced its Chromecast media-streaming devices in 2013, which Touchstream claimed were copied from their innovations and infringed upon three of their patents. Additionally, Touchstream alleged that Google’s Home and Nest smart speakers, as well as third-party televisions and speakers with Chromecast capabilities, also infringed upon their patents.

Google’s spokesperson, Jose Castaneda, responded to the verdict, stating that the company will appeal and firmly asserting that Google has always developed its technology independently and competed based on the merits of its ideas. On the other side, Touchstream’s attorney, Ryan Dykal, expressed satisfaction with the verdict, affirming that they believe in the strength of their case.

This legal battle is not an isolated incident for Touchstream, as earlier this year, they filed similar complaints against major cable providers, including Comcast, Charter, and Altice, also in Texas. Those cases are still pending resolution.

As the legal drama unfolds, industry experts and technology enthusiasts alike are keeping a close eye on the outcome. The ruling may have significant implications for the tech giant, potentially affecting the development and release of future products, and could also set a precedent for future patent infringement cases in the technology sector.

The appeal process will undoubtedly be closely monitored, and both companies will prepare to defend their positions vigorously. In the end, the final verdict may shape the landscape of intellectual property rights in the sector of digital streaming.

RELATED:

• Google Pixel Watch 2 could be lighter but less durable with an aluminum case
• Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI Unite for Responsible AI Development
• Best Lenovo Ideapad Slim 3 alternatives in 2023

(Via)

The post Google Found Guilty of Patent Infringement, Faces $338.7 Million in Damages appeared first on Gizmochina.

In recent news, a group of former Twitter executives has filed a court document claiming that the social media giant owes them over $1.6 million in legal fees. Led by former CEO Parag Agrawal, the executives are demanding that Twitter promptly pay the outstanding amount. The lawsuit, filed in April of this year, alleges that Twitter owes them more than $1 million in legal fees, primarily related to Department of Justice investigations and shareholder lawsuits, and an additional $500,000 in other assets. The legal fees were incurred during their tenure at Twitter and resulted from various lawsuits and government investigations the company faced. The former executives argue that Twitter’s refusal to fulfill its payment obligations violates the company’s own rules and regulations.

Twitter’s current CEO, Linda Yaccarino has her work cut out for her

Lawyers representing the ex-executives stated in a court filing that they have been attempting to obtain payment from Twitter for the past year, but the company has provided various reasons for stalling the process. Consequently, Agrawal, along with former Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde and former Chief Financial Officer Ned Segal, are seeking an order from Delaware Chancery Chief Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick to compel Twitter to pay the outstanding costs without the need for a trial.

Twitter is currently confronted with multiple lawsuits accusing the company, under the leadership of CEO Elon Musk, of failing to fulfill financial obligations to former employees, suppliers, and landlords. Furthermore, Musk’s X Company, Twitter’s parent company, has recently sued law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, seeking the recovery of $90 million in legal fees. The former Twitter executives had engaged the law firm to facilitate Musk’s attempted $44 billion acquisition of the social media platform. Twitter’s current CEO, Linda Yaccarino, aims to recover the legal fees on the grounds that the lawsuit is based on false statements made to Twitter.

Although Twitter has reportedly paid approximately $600,000 of the owed amount, the company has withheld $115,842 in attorney fees and over $500,000 in other legal-related costs. In addition to the legal fee dispute, Twitter is facing investor lawsuits alleging that Musk’s actions caused instability in the company’s stock price during his attempted acquisition of Twitter. Several former employees have also filed lawsuits, claiming that Twitter failed to honor their equity commitments following their termination.

As the legal battle ensues, the outcome will determine whether Twitter will be compelled to fulfil its payment obligations to the former executives and resolve the ongoing disputes related to financial commitments. The company just started paying their creators their shares of ad-revenue, so it might not be looking to incur any new losses right now.

RELATED:

• Twitter Launches Ad-Revenue Sharing Program for Creators
• The Original TweetDeck’s Revival is a Surprising yet Welcome Move by Twitter
• Best Sony Earbuds 2023 – XM4, C500, LinkBuds & more

(Via)

The post Former Twitter Executives are Seeking Legal Fees from Twitter Amounting $1.6 Million appeared first on Gizmochina.

Samsung and Best Buy are facing a class action lawsuit in the US over allegations that certain Samsung QLED 4K TVs do not possess advertised features. The lawsuit, filed by Ray Kim Law in California Central District Court, claims that Motion Xcelerator Turbo+, FreeSync, and HDMI 2.1 ports are missing from some of the TVs sold by the company and the retailer.

The Missing Features: Motion Xcelerator Turbo+, FreeSync, and HDMI 2.1 Ports

The lawsuit highlights the absence of Motion Xcelerator Turbo+ in select QLED TVs, which is a feature designed to enhance the frame rate of content by inserting new frames between existing ones. This feature ensures smoother playback and a more fluid viewing experience. Additionally, the missing FreeSync technology, developed by AMD, which synchronizes the refresh rate of the display with the content’s frame rate to eliminate screen tearing and juddering, has also been cited.

Another advertised feature absent from some models is HDMI 2.1, the latest version of HDMI. HDMI 2.1 supports higher resolution and frame rates, allowing for the transmission of content with up to 4K resolution at 120 frames per second or 8K resolution at 60 frames per second. Even TVs with a 60Hz refresh rate typically come equipped with HDMI 2.1 ports, as it has become a common industry standard.

As of now, specific details regarding the affected Samsung QLED 4K TV models have not been disclosed. It is expected that further information will emerge in the coming days as the story unfolds. For prospective Samsung TV buyers, it is advisable to verify the presence of advertised features before making a purchase.

RELATED:

• Samsung Galaxy Tab S9+ surfaces on NBTC ahead of its late July launch
• Samsung Galaxy M34 5G Appears On Google Play Console Ahead Of Launch
• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 5 likely to lack IP58 rating
• Best Ultra Budget Smartphones of 2023

(Source, Via)

The post Samsung faces class action lawsuit over 4K QLED TVs in the US appeared first on Gizmochina.

A team of the biggest global music publishers, including Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner Chappell Music, and Sony Music Publishing, has launched a joint lawsuit against Twitter, alleging “massive copyright infringement” involving their music catalogues. The lawsuit, filed in Tennessee federal court, involves seventeen music publishers seeking over $250 million in damages. This legal action highlights the growing concerns of music publishers and their ask for fair compensation for the use of copyrighted music on social media platforms.

Twitter may also have knowingly allowed leaked media to circulate on the platform

The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) CEO, David Israelite, emphasized Twitter’s refusal to obtain licenses for the millions of songs present on its platform. Unlike other major social media platforms, Twitter has not taken the necessary steps to prevent copyright infringement or compensate songwriters and music publishers. Despite being protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which shields social media platforms from copyright strikes related to user-uploaded content, Twitter is accused of failing to adequately address copyright violations and repeated infringements.

The lawsuit further states that Twitter has knowingly allowed leaked music, copyrighted music videos, and other copyrighted material to circulate on its platform. While Twitter claims to remove infringing content whenever it shows up, the music publishers argue that the company frequently ignores repeat infringers and known instances of infringement. Twitter’s alleged failure to take basic measures to prevent specific instances of infringement, despite being aware of them, is a major part of the publishers’ case filed against the Elon Musk-owned company.

Seventeen music publishers have come together to hold Twitter accountable for copyright infringement. These publishers represent a vast array of popular artists, including Drake, Taylor Swift, and Adele. The coalition comprises ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Concord, Hipgnosis, Kobalt, Mayimba, Peer, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, the Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Universal Music Group Publishing, Warner Chappell, and Wixen.

The current lawsuit is not the first time Twitter has faced criticism from the music industry regarding copyright infringement. Even before Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform in October 2022, Twitter was never in the good books of music publishers.

RELATED:

• Twitter could soon limit the number of DMs users can send without Twitter Blue subscription
• Linda Yaccarino Tweets about First Day as Twitter CEO
• Best Free Video Editing Software 2023

(Via)

The post Twitter Slapped with $250 Million Lawsuit by Music Publishers appeared first on Gizmochina.

In a legal clash, Sonos has dealt a decisive blow to tech giant Google, resulting in a whopping $32.5 million penalty for infringing on Sonos’ patent. The case was built around Sonos’ patent that enables synchronized audio playback across multiple speakers, a core feature of Sonos’ technology for years.

The court, however, dismissed four other Patent Infringement Claims against Google

US District Judge William Alsup had previously ruled against Google, stating that early versions of their products, such as Chromecast Audio and Google Home, violated Sonos’ patent. However, the recent trial assessed whether Google’s later products continued to infringe on Sonos’ patent. To Sonos’ delight, the jury sided firmly with the audio technology company. Nevertheless, the jury found no violation regarding a second patent concerning device control via smartphones or other devices, as Sonos failed to convincingly establish that the Google Home app infringed upon it. Notably, the court dismissed four other patent infringement claims filed by Sonos.

Google responded by highlighting that the dispute focused on specific features with limited usage. The tech giant clarified that out of the six patents initially asserted by Sonos, only one was deemed infringed, while the remaining patents were either invalidated or found non-infringing. Google reiterated its commitment to independent technological development and fair competition based on idea merit. The company is currently evaluating its options and considering the next steps to take.

Sonos expressed profound gratitude for the jury’s decision, recognizing their dedication in upholding the validity of Sonos’ patents and acknowledging the value of Sonos’ pioneering invention of zone scenes. Sonos portrayed Google as a serial infringer of their patent portfolio, citing a previous ruling by the International Trade Commission that found Google in violation of five other Sonos patents. Sonos contends that Google infringes on over 200 of their patents, with the damages awarded in this case emphasizing the value of their intellectual property. Sonos remains resolute in seeking a fair royalty from Google for the use of their inventions.

The outcome of the Sonos vs. Google lawsuit represents a significant victory for Sonos. The ongoing legal battle between the two companies is likely to continue, with unresolved lawsuits and potential appeals on the horizon. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities and high stakes involved in intellectual property disputes within the tech industry. Earlier this month, Google had to pay $39.9 million for a location-tracking lawsuit as well.

RELATED:

• Google is Killing the Feature from Instagram That It Stole from Snapchat
• Google already ran out of 512GB Pixel Fold in the US
• Best Play Store Deals – Apps and Games on Sale this Week

(Via)

The post Google Slapped with $32.5 Million Fine for Patent Infringement against Sonos appeared first on Gizmochina.

Technology continues to develop and simplify our lives in every aspect. As a result, we incorporate the products and services we purchase into every facet of our daily routine. However, this situation also brings along certain security concerns. Many companies, including giant names like Samsung and Apple, are frequently involved in lawsuits due to violations of personal data security. Google, of course, is one of these companies. The tech giant is set to pay $39.9 million to settle a location tracking lawsuit. Here are the details…

What the Settlement Means for Consumers

Google has agreed to pay $39.9 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company misled consumers about its location tracking practices. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2020 by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, claimed that Google continued to track users’ locations even after they had disabled location tracking in their settings.

Google has denied wrongdoing, but agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the cost of a trial. As part of the settlement, Google will be required to make changes to its location tracking practices, including providing more transparency about how it collects and uses location data. Google will also be required to pay $39.9 million to Washington state, which will be used to fund consumer privacy education and enforcement programs.

This settlement is a victory for consumer privacy advocates, who have long been concerned about Google’s location tracking practices. It is also a reminder that even the largest tech companies are not above the law. The lawsuit alleged that Google violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by misleading consumers about its location tracking practices. The lawsuit claimed that Google made it difficult for users to disable location tracking, and that Google continued to track users’ locations even after they had disabled location tracking.

The settlement also requires Google to pay $39.9 million to Washington state. The money will be used to fund consumer privacy education and enforcement programs. This settlement considers is a victory for consumer privacy advocates

RELATED:

• OPPO Reno8 T 5G vs Vivo Y78+ 5G: Specs Comparison
• Samsung and Google Partner to Create Laptop That Turns Your Phone into a Powerful PC
• Google Pixel 7a Durability Test Reveals Surprising Result
• Google’s New Accessibility-focused Features Include Live Captions, Lookout & More
• Google assures fair implementation of in-app payments policy in India after CCI probe

(via)

The post Google to Pay $39.9 Million to Settle Location Tracking Lawsuit appeared first on Gizmochina.

In a surprising turn of events, DoorDash, the popular food delivery service, is finding itself in the midst of a legal battle over alleged discriminatory pricing. The company has been hit with a lawsuit filed by Maryland resident Ross Hecox, who claims that iPhone users are being unfairly charged more than their Android counterparts. This perplexing situation revolves around an obscure fee called the “expanded range fee,” which DoorDash conveniently fails to mention on its website, raising concerns about transparency.

The extra fee is also applied to the DashPass subscription service in some cases

According to the lawsuit, iPhone users are bearing the brunt of the expanded range fee more frequently than Android users, often coupled with higher delivery charges. Hecox argues that DoorDash is basing its pricing decisions on the assumption that iPhone users have deeper pockets compared to their Android counterparts. In essence, if users want to avoid paying extra for the privilege of being an iOS user, it seems they are better off placing their order with an Android device.

The lawsuit also claims that DoorDash is slapping an additional fee on orders made through their DashPass subscription service. DashPass is supposed to be a method for savings on delivery and service fees, but this alleged extra charge undermines the very essence of the service.

The lawsuit reveals a frustrating lack of transparency surrounding the expanded range fee. Even customers and Dashers (the hardworking delivery drivers) are left scratching their heads, clueless about the fee’s purpose. It appears that the fee is intended for deliveries outside the usual range, but the lawsuit argues that it’s applied even when the delivery location is just a stone’s throw away from the pickup spot.

Hecox’s lawsuit demands a hefty $1 billion fine against DoorDash for their alleged unfair pricing scheme. Naturally, DoorDash denied these claims, asserting that their fees are adequately disclosed during the customer journey. A DoorDash spokesperson states, “The claims put forward in the amended complaint are baseless and simply without merit. We ensure fees are disclosed throughout the customer experience… Building this trust is essential… We will continue to strive to make our platform work even better for customers and will vigorously fight these allegations.”

As this legal drama unfolds, all eyes are on DoorDash to see how they address these accusations and whether they’ll make any changes to their pricing practices. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for the company and the wider food delivery industry, potentially triggering a closer examination of pricing policies across various platforms.

RELATED:

• Montana Faces Lawsuit from TikTok Creators, One Day After TikTok Ban
• Microsoft Faces Gamers’ Lawsuit Over Activision Blizzard Acquisition
• Best Microphones for Podcasting and Streaming in 2023

(Via)

The post DoorDash Facing Lawsuit for Charging iPhone Users more than Android Users appeared first on Gizmochina.

Montana’s recent move to ban TikTok within the state has ignited a legal challenge, raising constitutional questions and highlighting the ongoing national debate surrounding the popular social media app. The lawsuit filed by TikTok creators argues that the ban infringes upon their First Amendment rights and questions the state’s national security justification. This legal battle could have far-reaching implications.

The company stated its commitment towards defending its Users’ Rights

Montana’s ban on TikTok, signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte, faces legal opposition from five TikTok creators. They argue that the ban is unconstitutional, violating their freedom of speech. The lawsuit challenges the state’s authority to advance foreign policy or national security interests and questions the notion of banning an entire communication platform. As the lawsuit unfolds, it will serve as a test case for the balance between state regulations and First Amendment rights.

Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, anticipates that the legal challenges to the TikTok ban will require federal court intervention. The lawsuit’s outcome will influence the ongoing debate surrounding TikTok’s presence in the United States and potential nationwide bans. With the ban slated to take effect in 2024, the litigation may impact the timeline or even lead to the law being struck down. The case holds significance for the protection of user rights and app restrictions.

While TikTok has not commented on bringing its own litigation in Montana, the company stated its commitment to defending its users’ rights both inside and outside the state. The legal challenge in Montana serves as a microcosm of the larger national conversation surrounding TikTok, its Chinese ownership, and data security concerns. The outcome of this lawsuit could potentially shape the future landscape of app restrictions, user rights, and government regulation regarding technology companies operating in the United States.

Montana’s TikTok ban has set the stage for a legal battle that raises fundamental constitutional questions. As the case unfolds, it will influence the nationwide discourse on app restrictions, user rights, and national security concerns.

RELATED:

• TikTok Introduces New Search Widgets for Smartphones
• TikTok’s Pulse Premiere brings together Advertisers & Creators
• Best Smartwatch May 2023 – Apple, Samsung, Huawei & More

(Via)

The post Montana Faces Lawsuit from TikTok Creators, One Day After TikTok Ban appeared first on Gizmochina.

In a David versus Goliath scenario, IBM employee Ian Clifford has taken on his employer in a battle over wages. After being on sick leave since 2008 due to illness, Clifford has recently come to the realization that his current wages are failing to keep up with the ever-increasing inflationary pressures. Frustrated by unsuccessful negotiations with IBM for a salary increase, he has taken the drastic step of taking his employer to court.

Clifford was not required to work at all for the past 15 Years

Clifford’s annual salary of £72,037 (approximately $89,671) seems substantial on the surface. However, when considering IBM’s health plan, which entitles him to 75% of his salary, his actual take-home pay amounts to £54,028 (around $67,254). What’s more, Clifford, who has remained an IBM employee for the past 15 years under the health plan, has not been required to perform any work during this time.

In his lawsuit, Clifford contends that he has not received a raise since 2013. With the ever-rising inflation rates, he argues that his current income is fast becoming inadequate, stating, “It will soon be beyond our means.” The median salary for full-time employees stands at £33,000 ($41,078) per year, while for all employees, it is £27,756 ($34,550).

According to IBM’s health plan, Clifford is entitled to this payment until the age of 65, which amounts to a total of £1.5 million (approximately $1.86 million). While the figures may seem substantial, Clifford’s argument lies in the erosion of his purchasing power over time. However, the judge dismissed his case, stating that “Even if the value of the £50,000 ($62,240) a year halved over 30 years, it is still a very substantial benefit.”

RELATED:

• IBM plans to expand chip business in Canada
• IBM and Rapidus Partner to Unleash the Power of 2 nm Technology in Japan
• Best Budget-friendly Drawing Tablets in 2023

(Via)

The post IBM Employee on Sick Leave for Past 15 Years Sues Employer for Unfair Wages appeared first on Gizmochina.

Apple is trying to defend itself against a $2 billion mass lawsuit filed in London, where the tech giant stands accused of concealing defective batteries in millions of iPhones. The company has called the lawsuit “baseless” and is seeking its dismissal in the UK court.

Apple denies battery defects in response to UK class action lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed by consumer advocate Justin Gutmann on behalf of UK iPhone users, alleges that Apple hid battery issues in certain phone models by “throttling” them with software updates. The company is said to have “surreptitiously” installed a power management tool that limited performance. Apple, however, denies that its iPhone batteries were defective, except for a small number of iPhone 6s models, for which it offered free battery replacements.

Apple maintains that the power management update it introduced in 2017 was designed to manage demands on older batteries or those with a low level of charge. According to the company, the update only reduced an iPhone 6’s performance by an average of 10%. Gutmann has requested that London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal certify the case, allowing it to proceed toward trial.

The company’s defense is bolstered by its 2020 agreement to settle a US class action and regulatory action by US states over iPhone battery issues. Gutmann’s lawyer, Philip Moser, cites this as evidence that Apple is not “saying this never happened.” Additionally, Apple committed to being “clearer and more upfront” about battery health with iPhone users, as agreed with Britain’s competition watchdog in 2019.

Despite these agreements, Apple denies allegations that it misled customers about iPhone battery issues. The company has pointed to a public apology it issued in 2017, in which it offered cheaper battery replacements to affected customers as proof of its transparency.

In court filings, Apple’s lawyer David Wolfson argues that the lawsuit effectively alleges that “not all batteries could deliver the peak power demanded in all circumstances at all times”, a claim that he says is common to all battery-powered devices. The tech giant is determined to fight the accusations and seeks to have the case dismissed in the UK court.

RELATED:

• Apple’s 14-inch iPad Pro Tipped To Be Equipped With A Powerful M3 Pro SoC
• Samsung investing billions to enhance OLED production for future Apple devices
• Apple teams up with Google to deal with the AirTags stalking issue
• iPhone 14 Deal Price Revealed During Upcoming Amazon Summer Sale In India

(Source)

The post Apple claims “baseless” $2 billion iPhone battery lawsuit, seeks dismissal in UK court appeared first on Gizmochina.

Elon Musk took to Twitter to threaten legal action against Microsoft for dropping Twitter from its Smart Campaigns advertising platform. The move by Microsoft comes after Twitter announced plans to charge companies between $42,000 and $210,000 per month for accessing its API, which allows third-party apps to interface with the social media service.

Musk has accused Microsoft of illegally mining Twitter’s data to train its AI-powered programs, demanding compensation for the use of the data. While it is unclear if ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI, was among the programs mentioned by Musk, it is known that ChatGPT was trained on public internet data, including data from platforms like Twitter.

The dispute between Microsoft and Twitter raises concerns over access to social media data, with companies having to pay significant amounts to access information that was previously available for free. It also highlights the potential for legal disputes over the use of such data, as companies seek to monetize their access to social media platforms.

In response to the dispute, Musk has announced the launch of his AI platform, TruthGPT, which is aimed at competing with Microsoft’s OpenAI. The move is likely to intensify competition in the AI market, with companies seeking to gain an edge by accessing data from social media platforms like Twitter.

The ongoing dispute between Microsoft and Twitter is likely to have far-reaching implications for the use and monetization of social media data, with companies seeking to gain access to such data through various means. As the world becomes increasingly reliant on AI-powered technologies, the importance of access to data is likely to become even more significant, leading to more legal disputes over its use and ownership.

RELATED:

• Elon Musk Reportedly Purchased 100,000 GPUs for Twitter’s AI Research
• Twitter is now ‘Titter’? Musk Paints Over ‘W’ on Company Logo outside San Francisco HQ
• Elon Musk Lashes Out at New York Times for not Paying for Twitter Blue Verification
• Twitter will only allow verified accounts to vote on its polls: Elon Musk
• Twitter’s Valuation Drops from $44 Billion to $20 Billion, as per Elon Musk
• Redmi Note 12s vs Redmi Note 12 Pro 4G: Specs Comparison

(Via)

The post Elon Musk threatens legal action against Microsoft over the use of Twitter data appeared first on Gizmochina.

OpenAI is possibly facing the world’s first ever defamation lawsuit over its ChatGPT generated content. The company is facing the lawsuit by an Australian Mayor after seeing false information on the popular AI based chat bot. So here are all the details.

A regional Australian mayor stated that he is considering suing OpenAI, the company behind the massively popular platform, it it fails to correct ChatGPT’s false claims. For those unaware, the platform has falsely claimed that the Australian mayor had served time in prison for bribery. If he follows through with the lawsuit, then the company will face the first ever defamation lawsuit against the AI chat bot.

The mayor in question is Brian Hood, who was elected in Hepburn Shire last November. However, he became concerned with his online reputation when it was revealed to him that ChatGPT had falsely included his name as a part of the guilty party in a foreign bribery scandal involving a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia back in the early 2000s. During this time, Hood did work for the subsidiary but was actually the person who notified authorities about the said bribes and never faced any criminal charges himself.

OpenAI has yet to respond to this news or reply to Hood’s legal letter. But if the mayor follows through with the lawsuit, he will be the first person that has sued the owner of ChatGPT for claims against its language based AI platform. So stick around for more updates regarding this matter.

RELATED:

• Samsung’s introduction of ChatGPT backfires with leaks of confidential data
• Google Bard Gets a Major Upgrade to Compete with ChatGPT and GPT-4
• Italy Bans ChatGPT Over Privacy Concerns
• Best Front and Rear Dash Cam 2023
• Best Mouse for iPad to improve productivity in 2023
• Here’s Probably Why You Should Avoid Buying Samsung ACs in India

(Via)

The post OpenAI may face world’s first defamation lawsuit over ChatGPT by Australian Mayor appeared first on Gizmochina.

Amazon is apparently being sued over allegations of biometric tracking in New York from its Go stores. The company is facing a proposed class action lawsuit that is accusing the company of failing to inform customers at its cashierless Go stores.

For those unaware, New York city passed a law in 2021 that required businesses to post signs of whether they are collecting customer’s biometric information. This includes the likes of facial scans and fingerprints. Amazon Go stores basically let’s shoppers choose whatever product hey want off of shelves and simply walk out. All one requires is to scan a code from the Amazon app with a connected credit card.

Thus, the e-commerce giant is now being sued by Alfredo Alberto Rodriguez Perez who is arguing that the Go stores are making great use of the customer’s biometric data “by canning [their palms] to identify them and by applying computer vision, deep learning algorithms, and sensor fusion that measure the shape and size of each customer’s body to identify customers, track where they move in the stores, and determine what they have purchased.”

The lawsuit document argues that the Go stores only put up signs regarding this biometric tracking process over a year after the lay was officially passed. Some Go stores also utilize biometric data via Amazon One. This basically uses palm based identity and initiates payment service. When signing up for this service, the company claims that it will not be collecting their biometrics. However, “Amazon Go stores do collect biometric identifier information on every single customer, including information on the size and shape of every customers body,” as per the complaint.

RELATED:

• Gizmore partners with Amazon India to sell its smartwatches
• SpaceX vs Amazon: The Battle for Space Internet Dominance Heats Up
• Rivian Seeks to Remove Exclusivity Clause from Its Deal with Amazon for Electric Delivery Trucks
• Best OnePlus 11 Case 2023 – Sandstone, Silicone, Hybrid & More
• Best UltraWide Gaming Monitors 2023

(Via)

The post Amazon is being sued for Biometric Tracking at Go stores in New York appeared first on Gizmochina.