Google and Meta reportedly teamed up for ads targeting young teens

Google worked with Meta to roll out ads that targeted young teens even if it's against the former's rules, according to the Financial Times. Based on the documents seen by the publication, Google worked on a marketing project designed to advertise Instagram to YouTube users within the 13- to 17-year-old age range. Google had blocked age-based ad targeting for users under 18 years ago, but the company reportedly found and used a loophole. 

Since they couldn't go for the demographic they wanted to reach, they instead targeted a group of users Google had labeled as "unknown." Google's staff proposed the group to Meta, The Times said, because the company had data points to prove that a large number of users under the label are below 18 years in age. The company even reportedly told Meta that the daily engagement it gets from 13- to 17-year-old users exceeds TikTok's and Instagram's. The Information says using this loophole is against Google's rules, as well, since it has policies against proxy targeting. 

Meta and Google worked with media agency Spark Foundry to launch the marketing program in Canada between February and April, according to the report. When it did well, they kicked off a trial in the US in May and had made plans to expand it to other regions, as well as to include other Meta apps in the campaign. 

However, Google had investigated and ultimately cancelled the project after being contacted by the Times. "We prohibit ads being personalized to people under-18, period," the company told the publication. It said that its safeguards worked properly in this case because it didn't directly target registered YouTube users know to be 18. That said, it didn't outright deny using the loophole and only said that it will take "additional action to reinforce with sales representatives that they must not help advertisers or agencies run campaigns" that attempt to work around its policies.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/google-and-meta-reportedly-teamed-up-for-ads-targeting-young-teens-130024683.html?src=rss

X accused of using EU user data to train Grok without consent

Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) is taking Elon Musk's X to court. According to Irish broadcaster RTE, the commission has launched High Court proceedings against Twitter International over concerns on how Europeans' public posts on X are being used to train the company's artificial intelligence tools. The data protection watchdog is especially worried that European users' data is being used to train the next version of Grok that Musk previously said will be released sometime this month. 

In July, X rolled out a change that automatically activated a setting for all users, allowing the website to use their public posts on the platform to train its AI chatbot further. The commission told TechCrunch that it was surprised by X's decision, seeing as it has been in contact with the company on the matter for months. X has had a help page instructing users on how to opt out of their data being used for AI training since at least May, but it didn't exactly tell them that it's switching on its access to people's data by default. 

The DPC has acknowledged that X had given people the mechanism to opt out. However, it reportedly isn't enough for the agency, which argued that there's still a significant number of European-based X users whose data had been processed without being afforded the protection of those mitigation measures. X's use of people's data to train Grok violates its obligations under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), according to the commission. Not offering users an opt-out mechanism in a timely manner also violates the GDPR, it added. 

As TechCrunch notes, there must be at least one legal basis for a European user's data to be lawfully processed under the GDPR. If a company wants to legally process a user's data, for instance, it must get their express consent, or it must be because the user needs to fulfill contractual obligations. There are other lawful purposes wherein a person's data could be used, but the DPC's complaint indicates that it doesn't believe X has any legal basis for its actions. 

Twitter International, X's Irish division, also reportedly refused to stop processing users' data and to delay the launch of the next version of Grok as the commission had requested. That's why the DPC has decided to push through with its complaint — so that it can ask the court to suspend or completely prohibit the company from training any AI system with X users' data. If the court determines that X has indeed violated GDPR rules, the company could be fined up to 4 percent of its annual worldwide turnover. 

After the DPC brought its complaint to court, though, X agreed to stop using some European users' data for training, at least for the moment. In particular, it agreed not to use public posts made by Europe-based users gathered between May 7 and August 1. The "developments will help us to continue protecting the rights and freedoms of X users across the EU and [the European Economic Area]," Data Protection Commissioner Des Hogan said. The agency isn't withdrawing its lawsuit, however, and the DPC will continue investigating whether X's actions had violated the GDPR. 

Update, August 09, 2024, 9:39AM ET: This posted was updated to reflect new information that X agreed to pause the use of some European users' data for Grok training. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/x-accused-of-using-eu-user-data-to-train-grok-without-consent-133042114.html?src=rss

X sues advertisers for ‘illegal boycott’ of the platform

X, whose top executives have long railed against advertisers who fled the platform amid concerns over hate speech, is now also suing them. X has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and several of its members, including Mars, Unilever and CVS Health, CEO Linda Yaccarino said in an open letter shared on X.

According to Yaccarino, the group engaged in an “illegal boycott” of X. “The consequence - perhaps the intent - of this boycott was to seek to deprive X’s users, be they sports fans, gamers, journalists, activists, parents or political and corporate leaders, of the Global Town Square,” she wrote.

As Axios points out, GARM is part of the World Federation of Advertisers (which is also named in the lawsuit) and was created to come up with brand safety guidelines for online advertisers. The lawsuit alleges that the group “conspired, along with dozens of non-defendant co-conspirators, to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue from Twitter.”

GARM didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s not the first time X has filed a lawsuit against a group that Musk has accused of stoking an advertiser exodus from the platform. The company previously sued the Center Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an anti-hate group that published research showing that X failed to take down hateful posts shared by premium subscribers. That lawsuit was later dismissed by a judge who said X was trying to “punish” the group for sharing unflattering research. X is also suing Media Matters, a watchdog group that published a report showing X had displayed ads alongside anti-Semitic content.

“We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words,” Musk, who nearly a year ago publicly told advertisers to “go fuck themselves," wrote in a post on Tuesday. “Now, it is war.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/x-sues-advertisers-for-illegal-boycott-of-the-platform-173100888.html?src=rss

Google ‘is a monopolist’ in search, US judge rules in antitrust case

Google is in deep trouble after a federal judge ruled that the company illegally abused a monopoly over the search industry. The ruling follows a 10-week trial held in 2023 that stemmed from a 2020 lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice and several states. 

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in the ruling. "It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act."

Mehta has not imposed any remedies on Google at the time of writing. The judge may order Google to change how it operates or even sell parts of its business. 

The lawsuit claimed that Google illegally acted to maintain its dominant position in search through a number of actions, such as paying the likes of Apple, Samsung and Mozilla billions of dollars per year to be the default search engine on their phones and web browsers. The DOJ argued that Google facilitates almost 90 percent of web searches and that by paying to be the default option, it prevented rivals from achieving the kind of scale needed to compete. As such, Google is deemed to benefitted in terms of both revenue and data collection.

"Those search access points are preset with a 'default' search engine," the ruling reads. "The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points. Google derives extraordinary volumes of user data from such searches. It then uses that information to improve search quality."

According to Mehta, Google has acknowledged that losing its position as the default search engine on various platforms would harm its bottom line. "For instance, Google has projected that losing the Safari default would result in a significant drop in queries and billions of dollars in lost revenues," the ruling states. 

Google released the following statement from Kent Walker, President of Global affairs, on X regarding the judge's decision:

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

During the trial, Google argued that its significant slice of market share was due to having a better product that consumers appreciated. 

In addition, the DOJ claimed that Google held a monopoly over ads that appear in search results. It argued that Google artificially inflated the prices of ads beyond what they'd cost in a free market.

In his ruling, Mehta agreed that "Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits." However, the judge added that Google does not hold monopoly power in the broader market of search advertising.

Meanwhile, Mehta declined to impose sanctions on Google for failing to preserve employee chat messages that may have been pertinent to the case. The ruling notes that, since 2008, Google deletes chat messages between its employees by default after 24 hours.

"The court’s decision not to sanction Google should not be understood as condoning Google’s failure to preserve chat evidence," Mehta wrote. "Any company that puts the onus on its employees to identify and preserve relevant evidence does so at its own peril. Google avoided sanctions in this case. It may not be so lucky in the next one."

Google and the DOJ are set to return to federal court in September over an ad tech case.

Update, August 5 2024, 4:40PM ET: This story was updated to include Google's statement on the ruling.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-is-a-monopolist-in-search-us-judge-rules-in-antitrust-case-193358356.html?src=rss

Elon Musk drags OpenAI into federal court

Here we go again. Elon Musk has filed another lawsuit against OpenAI and the company's CEO Sam Altman, two months after withdrawing a previous one. Musk once again alleges that OpenAI breached its founding commitments by putting commercial concerns ahead of the public good.

This time around, though, the suit has been filed in federal court rather than in a state court. That's because the new filing alleges that OpenAI violated federal racketeering laws by conspiring to defraud Musk, according to his lawyer, Marc Toberoff. “The previous suit lacked teeth — and I don’t believe in the tooth fairy,” Toberoff told The New York Times. “This is a much more forceful lawsuit.”

The latest suit claims that Altman and fellow OpenAI founder Greg Brockman knowingly misled Musk when the trio (and others) formed the company. It alleges that Altman and Brockman walked back on their pledge to open source OpenAI's tech by instead granting Microsoft an exclusive license to it. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars into OpenAI's for-profit subsidiary and holds a 49 percent stake (the FTC is said to be investigating those business dealings).

Furthermore, Musk has asked the court to determine whether OpenAI has achieved artificial general intelligence (AGI), a form of AI that's the equivalent of a human brain. Altman said in January that AGI could be developed in the “reasonably close-ish future.”

Per the suit, Microsoft's contract with OpenAI stipulates that once the latter has reached AGI, it can no longer use the company's tech. If OpenAI has reached AGI in the eyes of the court, then its pact with Microsoft should be declared null and void, according to the filing.

Musk filed the original suit in February. He withdrew it in June, one day before a judge was set to rule on OpenAI's request to dismiss it, but did not provide a reason for doing so.

In a response to the original suit, which it claimed was "incoherent," OpenAI says it aimed to serve the public good by creating AGI. It claims that it needed far more resources than initially thought to do so. The company added that it (and Musk) agreed that a for-profit arm was required to accrue enough resources. However, the parties disagreed on how to go about this, according to OpenAI. The company said Musk wanted full control or for OpenAI to merge with Tesla. Musk ultimately left OpenAI and eventually went on to start his own AI company, xAI.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-drags-openai-into-federal-court-152709507.html?src=rss

The Morning After: Meta is reportedly offering millions to get Hollywood voices into its AI projects

According to Bloomberg and The New York Times, Meta is in talks with the likes of Keegan-Michael Key, Awkwafina and Dame Judi Dench, among others, for its AI projects. The company apparently intends to incorporate their voices into a conversational generative AI-slash-digital assistant called MetaAI, which is rumored to be like Siri and Google Assistant, which could live within Facebook, Meta hardware, and all the other parts of the multimillion-dollar social network company.

The actors’ representatives are still negotiating for stricter limits, though SAG-AFTRA has reportedly agreed on terms with Meta. SAG-AFTRA, if you recall, fought for provisions to protect actors from the threat of job loss due to AI.

Didn’t Meta already do something like this? Yes. During its Connect event last year, the company also introduced a chatbot platform with 28 “characters” voiced by celebrities, including Snoop Dogg, Paris Hilton, Dwyane Wade and Kendall Jenner. However, those celebrity chatbots’ pages have since disappeared, and The Information reports that Meta has just quietly scrapped that project.

This appears to be more central to Meta’s AI ambitions.

— Mat Smith

What to expect from Google’s Pixel 2024 event

Apple apologizes for another ad that missed the mark

OpenAI is looking into text watermarking for ChatGPT, which could expose cheating students

Nintendo profits fall 55 percent as people save their cash for the Switch 2

Say goodbye to Boomerang, the streaming service dedicated to classic cartoons

​​You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

Payments relating to a class action lawsuit filed in 2018 over Apple’s butterfly MacBook keyboards have reportedly begun. The settlement website now states that payments for approved claims will go out in August, and claimants will receive checks. For some, it could mean a check of up to $395.

After Apple introduced the butterfly keyboard in 2015, complaints arose over “sticky” and unresponsive keys. A lawsuit filed in 2018 accused Apple of knowing its keyboards had problems and concealing this from consumers. While Apple denied the lawsuit’s allegations of defective keyboards, it agreed to pay $50 million as part of a settlement. It also started phasing out the keyboard design in 2019.

Continue reading.

A guest who appeared on a podcast to boast about a hack-and-payback scheme involving his victims’ social media accounts is now facing the wrath of the FBI. It received a tip about Qibaa’s alleged extortion scheme on April 1, pointing to his appearance on the No Jumper podcast. Qibaa outlined a financial scheme using over 200 victims’ social media accounts, in which he would lock them out of their pages and charge them to regain access. He added he made about $600,000 a month.

Continue reading.

TMA
Game Informer

Game Informer announced its parent company, GameStop, is shutting the magazine after 33 years in the business. The entire website and its archives are gone, redirecting to the magazine’s final statement of thanks to its readers. The publication’s content director, Kyle Hilliard, said on X the bad news about the mass staff layoffs landed right when they were in the middle of creating an issue. Game Informer launched in August 1991 with Sonic the Hedgehog sprinting across its cover.

Continue reading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-meta-is-reportedly-offering-millions-to-get-hollywood-voices-into-its-ai-projects-111549125.html?src=rss

Apple has finally started sending out payments from its butterfly keyboard settlement

Payments relating to a class action lawsuit filed in 2018 over Apple’s butterfly MacBook keyboards have reportedly begun to arrive. The settlement website now states that payments for approved claims will go out in August — and sure enough, 9to5Mac’s Michael Burkhardt reports that he received two settlement checks in the mail on Saturday. Just how much eligible MacBook owners will get varies depending on the extent of the repairs their devices needed. But for some, it could mean a check (or multiple) of up to $395.

After Apple introduced the butterfly keyboard in 2015, complaints arose over “sticky” and unresponsive keys, susceptibility to debris and other major issues. The company ultimately started phasing out the design in 2019. The lawsuit filed in 2018 accused Apple of knowing that its keyboards had problems and concealing this from consumers. While Apple denied the lawsuit’s allegations of defective keyboards and did not admit to any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $50 million as part of a settlement.

Per the settlement website, people who got two or more topcase replacements within four years of purchasing one of the affected MacBooks are expected to get between $300-$395. MacBook owners who got just one topcase replacement could get up to $125. Claimants who only needed keycap replacements will get a maximum of $50. Of course, to receive a payment, you’d need to have filed any claims by the deadlines outlined in the settlement. And, when the settlement was first reached in 2022, Reuters reported that it will only apply to customers who bought the affected laptops in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Washington. You can find the full details in the case’s FAQ.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apple-has-finally-started-sending-out-payments-from-its-butterfly-keyboard-settlement-210754935.html?src=rss

PowerWash Simulator’s developers accidentally gave Steam players a free update

The surprise 2022 hit PowerWash Simulator has already seen loads of extra content like a DeLorean car washing DLC and even a special edition to aid mental health research. However, the latest update gave users more than developer FuturLab bargained for, according to a recent post on X.

The company released a cruise ship DLC yesterday (Summer Seasonal 2024), but multiple users on Steam complained that they couldn't play it. While a fix was being readied, an upcoming level called "Muckingham Files 4" was somehow released for free onto Steam. Consequently, users on that platform (and no others) can now play both levels.

The Summer Seasonal release lets you make a rusty, grubby cruise ship sparkle again. Meanwhile, Muckingham Files 4 lets users blast graffiti off the vandalized mansion of crypto enthusiast Devon King or clean the firefighting plane of Floraine Perez following a flight over "Mount Rushless."

Much like certain YouTube videos, PowerWash Simulator provides the simple but satisfying experience of blasting gunk off of different objects and... nothing else, really. Folks on Steam get to double up the fun this month, but FuturLab apparently doesn't want them to rub it in the faces of other platforms' users. "Just pretend it didn't happen," the developer advised. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/powerwash-simulators-developers-accidentally-gave-steam-players-a-free-update-120056355.html?src=rss

The Morning After: What we’re expecting at Google’s 2024 Pixel event

Thanks to a string of leaks and Google’s own teases — usually following said leaks — we know we’ll get the official reveal of the Pixel 9 lineup. 

The Pixel 9 and 9 Pro will be straight-up successors to the Pixel 8 and 8 Pro but rumors suggest Google will add a Pixel 9 Pro XL, with a larger screen. All three of the phones are expected to have a redesigned, chonky camera module and possibly even a new chipset.

TMA
Engadget

Alongside all those phones, we’re expecting a lot more news on Gemini, Google’s flavor of AI powered assistant, and Android 15. Yep, we’re on no. 15 already. More leaks and rumors point to updated smartwatches and wireless buds too. And, dare I say, a new streaming box. The Made by Google event kicks off August 13 at 1PM ET. Plenty of time for more leaks, right?

— Mat Smith

Intel will cut over 15,000 jobs in a sweeping cost-cutting effort

I really want to like Star Wars Outlaws

Meta’s Threads has 200 million users

Don Lemon is suing Elon Musk and X

Boeing eats another $125 million loss over Starliner woes

​​You can get these reports delivered daily direct to your inbox. Subscribe right here!

In June, music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group sued music AI startups Udio and Suno, claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the internet. In today’s court filing, Suno acknowledged its neural networks do, in fact, scrape copyrighted material. It argued the scraping was all part of a backend tech process to create “non infringing” new products. These don’t contain samples, so where’s the problem? Well, everywhere according to the RIAA, which represents music labels and initiated the lawsuit.

Continue reading.

TMA
Fortnite

A new DLC pack for Fortnite offered players a chance to drive the Tesla Cybertruck in-game. Now, a week later, several players have posted videos of a glitch when they used the Cybertruck during a match. Art imitates life: Tesla’s real world Cybertruck is contending with issues with its windshield wiper that could reduce the driver’s visibility. Then there was the stuck accelerator pedal recall from April.

Continue reading.

A federal judge dismissed a case brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC) against Google over its Gmail service. The suit alleged that Google’s email platform labeled GOP fundraising emails as spam at a higher rate than those from the other side of the aisle. The ruling marks the second case the RNC has lost over allegations of unfair filtering by Gmail. The RNC filed a lawsuit in the same court in 2022. This dismissal with prejudice means it cannot bring the case to another court — but it can still file an appeal against Calabretta’s decision. That is unless the RNC is busy with other things, like, perhaps, a presidential election.

Continue reading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-what-were-expecting-at-googles-2024-pixel-event-111538002.html?src=rss

AI startup argues scraping every song on the internet is ‘fair use’

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business' actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: "It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case." And that's because its training data "includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet," which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. "It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product," the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don't include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn't a problem.

Calling the defendants' actions "evading and misleading," the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. "Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals," a spokesperson for the organization said. "Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases."

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/ai-startup-argues-scraping-every-song-on-the-internet-is-fair-use-233132459.html?src=rss