Juul will pay $1.2 billion to settle multiple youth-vaping lawsuits

Juul has faced numerous lawsuits over the past few years, accusing the company of targeting underage users with its marketing and sales tactics. Now, according to Bloomberg, Juul has agreed to pay $1.2 billion in settlement, which will resolve around 10,000 lawsuits — including 8,500 personal injury cases, over 1,400 cases by government entities and school districts, as well as 32 tribal cases. California, for instance, sued Juul in 2019, accusing the company of targeting minors in the state, failing to verify the age of its customers and failing to warn users of their exposure to chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects. 

The San Francisco Unified School District, which also filed a lawsuit against Juul over its marketing practices, reportedly said it was “very pleased” with the settlement. Who can actually participate in the settlement and how much each plaintiff will get are still under discussion. The plaintiffs’ lawyers said people eligible to sign onto the deal will receive a minimum gross amount of $1,000 before attorney fees and other deductions. They also said that most people are expected to receive “substantially higher settlements.” Plaintiffs who sued the company over personal injury will learn how much they’ll get in February, according to the lawyers. US District Judge William Orrick will still have to approve this proposed settlement before it can be finalized.

Juul has been under scrutiny since 2018 after the US Food And Drug Administration ordered e-cigarette brands to stop selling flavored pods if they can’t prove that they can keep them out of minors’ hands. It’s been facing one lawsuit after another since then. In addition to this particular deal, the company also agreed to pay $439 million to settle a two-year investigation by multiple states and Puerto Rico that accuse Juul of marketing products to teens. 

Uber files lawsuit to block NYC driver pay increase

Back in November, New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) voted to increase the pay rates of Uber and Lyft drivers to make up for the rise in inflation and and operational costs. The new rates were supposed to be implemented on December 19th, but now Uber has sued the commission to block the new rates from taking effect. According to Bloomberg, Uber said in its lawsuit that it would have to spend an additional $21 million to $23 million a month if the new rates are implemented and that it wouldn’t be able to recover those costs without raising fares.

To note, drivers’ per-minute rates are going up by 7.18 percent and per-mile rates by 16.11 percent under the new rules. That means for a 7.5-mile trip that takes 30 minutes, a driver would earn at least $27.15, which is $2.50 more than current rates. The drivers are also getting another pay bump in March 2023, based on inflation rates comparing December’s to September’s this year. A company spokesperson told Engadget that by increasing drivers’ pay this December, TLC is locking in “this summer’s high gas prices in perpetuity.” 

Freddi Goldstein, Uber spokesperson told us:

“With this latest rulemaking, on top of the annual inflation adjustment, the TLC is choosing to invent a new methodology that locks in this summer’s high gas prices in perpetuity with a ‘mid-year’ adjustment that takes place 12 days before the end of the year. The TLC should have followed its usual annual adjustment and instituted a temporary gas surcharge when gas prices were actually elevated.”

The company’s lawsuit seems to indicate that it intends to pass the costs associated with drivers’ pay increase to riders. “Such a significant fare hike, right before the holidays, would irreparably damage Uber’s reputation, impair goodwill, and risk permanent loss of business and customers,” its lawsuit said. In a strongly worded response to the lawsuit, TLC said acknowledged that Uber already charges 37 percent more today compared to 2019, but it said that the company is keeping money earned from fare hikes over the past few years to itself. 

The commission’s statement reads: “Just in time to steal Christmas from New York families, Uber is suing to stop the raise the TLC enacted for app drivers after months of public hearings, years of stalled wages, and the pandemic decimating incomes. Uber’s Grinch move is on top of denying a fuel surcharge to only NYC drivers when costs skyrocketed due to record high inflation, forcing drivers in one of their most profitable markets to choose between groceries and fueling up. 

Uber is already charging passengers 37% more today compared to 2019 AND KEEPING IT FOR THEMSELVES but says this modest raise for drivers is what will break the company. Shame on you, Dara Khosrowshahi. We call on the City to stand firm and defend the rights of drivers to labor with dignity. Uber seeks chaos. We seek dignity. We are confident we will prevail.”

The ride-hailing giant is now asking the court to declare the new pay rates as invalid and to prevent the first increase’s implementation this month while the lawsuit is ongoing. 

UPDATE 12/10/22 10:53AM: Uber clarified that it’s had rate hikes over the past years and that the per-minute increase is 7.18 percent, while the per-mile is 16.11 percent. We also added the company’s official statement. 

Apple and Ericsson call truce in years-long fight over cellular patents

Apple is ending another battle over wireless patents. The iPhone maker and Ericsson have struck a licensing deal that settles all the legal disputes between the two companies, including civil lawsuits and a US International Trade Commission complaint. While the exact terms remain under wraps, the multi-year pact includes cross-licensing for “standard-essential” cellular technology as well as other patent rights.

The tech giants have a long history of fighting over cell tech. Apple sued Ericsson in 2015 to get more favorable terms for LTE patents, but Ericsson responded with a lawsuit of its own claiming that the iPhone and iPad infringed on its patented ideas. The two achieved peace with a seven-year agreement. As that arrangement neared its renewal time, however, the animosity returned. Ericsson sued in October 2021 over Apple’s attempts to shrink royalty rates, while Apple countersued in December that year over allegations Ericsson was using unfair pressure tactics for the renewal. Ericsson filed another lawsuit this January over 5G licenses.

We’ve asked Apple for comment. In announcing the deal, Ericsson’s IP chief Christina Petersson said the ceasefire would let the two companies “focus on bringing the best technology” to the world. Ericsson is one of the world’s largest wireless patent holders, and said the Apple agreement would help boost its licensing revenue for the fourth quarter to the equivalent of $532 million or more.

The timing may be significant. Apple is reportedly developing 5G iPhone modems to replace Qualcomm’s chips, having bought most of Intel’s modem business and even launching not-so-subtle recruitment efforts in Qualcomm’s backyard. The Ericsson truce may help clear the path for those modems by reducing the chances of legal dust-ups over whatever Apple builds. And time might be in short supply — rumors have circulated that Apple could use its own components as soon as 2023.

FTC sues to block Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard merger

The Federal Trade Commission has filed an antitrust complaint in a bid to block Microsoft’s planned $68.7 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard. The FTC started looking into the deal and its potential impact on the video game market soon after it was announced in January. Evidently, the agency was concerned enough to try and pump the brakes on the buyout. The FTC said that, were the deal to go through, it “would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.”

“Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” Holly Vedova, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a press release. “Today, we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and using it to harm competition in multiple dynamic and fast-growing gaming markets.”

The FTC’s commissioners voted in favor of the lawsuit along party lines, with the three Democratic members approving it. The lone Republican Commissioner Christine S. Wilson voted against the suit in a closed-door meeting.

“The FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer),” the agency said in a press release. “Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda’s titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles.”

While the lawsuit doesn’t necessarily kill the deal, it’s unlikely to be resolved by July, as Politico, which had reported that an FTC bid to block the merger was likely, recently noted. That was the deadline Microsoft and Activision set for closing the deal. If the acquisition hasn’t closed by then, the companies will have to renegotiate the agreement or even walk away from the merger. Regulators in other jurisdictions have been taking a close look at the deal, including in the UK and the European Union (which should complete its investigation by late March). 

Sony is the merger’s most prominent opponent. It has expressed concern that Microsoft would make games such as Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox platforms, which could cost Sony hundreds of millions of dollars a year. However, Microsoft has said it wants to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation and it claims to have offered Sony a 10-year agreement to that effect.

Just ahead of the FTC’s vote, Microsoft said it struck a deal with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty games to the company’s systems if the merger closes. Call of Duty will also remain on Steam as part of a separate pact with Valve.

Microsoft and Activision have been downplaying the significance of the deal in an attempt to appease regulators and push it through. For one thing, Microsoft has claimed that Sony has more exclusive games, “many of which are better quality,” in a filing with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It also said Activision Blizzard doesn’t have any “must-have” games, despite having some of the most popular titles in the world (including Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, Overwatch 2 and World of Warcraft) under its umbrella.

The FTC refuted those suggestions in its complaint. The agency claimed that Activision is “one of only a very small number of top video game developers in the world that create and publish high-quality video games for multiple devices.” It noted that between franchises such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch, Activision has more than 154 million monthly active users.

Microsoft has suggested that the acquisition the deal is more about gaining a foothold in the mobile gaming market, where Activision’s King division is a major player. For instance, Candy Crush Saga has had more than 3 billion downloads.

Ultimately, the FTC believes that the merger would likely harm competition in the video game market. “With control over Activision’s blockbuster franchises, Microsoft would have both the means and motive to harm competition by manipulating Activision’s pricing, degrading Activision’s game quality or player experience on rival consoles and gaming services, changing the terms and timing of access to Activision’s content, or withholding content from competitors entirely, resulting in harm to consumers,” the agency said.

Noting that the FTC is suing to block the merger, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick wrote in a note to employees that “This sounds alarming, so I want to reinforce my confidence that this deal will close. The allegation that this deal is anti-competitive doesn’t align with the facts, and we believe we’ll win this challenge.” 

Kotick added that “a combined Microsoft-[Activision Blizzard King] will be good for players, good for employees, good for competition and good for the industry. Our players want choice, and this gives them exactly that.”

“We continue to believe that our deal to acquire Activision Blizzard will expand competition and create more opportunities for gamers and game developers,” Microsoft president Brad Smith wrote on Twitter. “We have been committed since Day One to addressing competition concerns, including by offering earlier this week proposed concessions to the FTC. While we believe in giving peace a chance, we have complete confidence in our case and welcome the opportunity to present it in court.”

Update 12/8 2:58PM ET: Added comments from Bobby Kotick and Brad Smith.

EU’s ‘right to be forgotten’ now extends to inaccurate claims about people

Your “right to be forgotten” (or rather, right to erasure) in the European Union now extends to bogus claims about you. The EU’s Court of Justice has ruled that Google and similar providers must remove search results on request when they’re “manifestly inaccurate.” People making the demands will have to prove that there are significant falsehoods, but they’ll only have to provide evidence that can be “reasonably” required. They won’t have to obtain a judicial ruling, in other words. The search engine creator can’t be forced to actively participate in the investigation.

The judgment is a response to a case where two investment managers asked Google to delist search results for their names that linked to articles criticizing their business model. The managers argued the claims were false, and also objected to thumbnail images that were allegedly taken out of context. Google declined to honor the request, contending that it didn’t know if the information was accurate.

In a statement to Politico, Google said it “welcome[d]” the ruling and would review the Court of Justice’s decision. It stressed that the affected search results and thumbnails haven’t been available for a long while.

The determination could help shape interpretations of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). You’ll not only have the right to remove search data on privacy grounds (such as reports of an old conviction), but to pull content that’s demonstrably false. This could theoretically help European residents reduce access to misinformation and slander, even if they’re uninterested in filing lawsuits.

There are questions that remain. Notably, the court decision doesn’t directly address parody. It’s not clear if someone could ask Google and other search engines to delete content that’s fake, but intended as a joke. It’s also unknown if this could be used to hide content that’s largely accurate, but includes a glaring error. A complainant could theoretically use this to minimize criticism by targeting less-than-perfect stories. However, the ruling at least lays a groundwork that could be used for future disputes.

Indiana sues TikTok over alleged security and child safety issues

TikTok is now facing its first state lawsuit over data security. Indiana’s Attorney General has sued TikTok for allegedly misleading users about China’s data access and violating child safety. The social media service supposedly broke state consumer la…

Amazon is being sued for allegedly ‘stealing’ driver tips in DC

Amazon is facing more legal trouble for allegedly robbing delivery drivers of their tips. The District of Columbia has sued Amazon over claims the company was “stealing” tips from Flex drivers. As the Federal Trade Commission argued last year, DC claims Amazon changed its policies in 2016 so that it would use large portions of drivers’ tips to cover base pay and operational costs. The company not only used “misleading” language in its response to worried couriers but falsely told customers that 100 percent of tips would go drivers, according to the District’s Office of the Attorney General.

DC acknowledged that Amazon had paid $61.7 million as part of a settlement with the FTC. However, it said the federal deal helped Amazon elude “appropriate accountability” that included punishment for the damage done to consumers. The Attorney General’s office is asking for civil penalties for every violation of the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act as well as a court order barring Amazon from implementing similar practices in the future.

In a statement to Engadget, Amazon maintained that the lawsuit is “without merit” and reflects policies changed in 2019. The tech giant already paid the tips to drivers as part of the FTC deal, according to a spokesperson.

Legal battles like this aren’t unique to Amazon. DoorDash faced a DC lawsuit in 2019 over comparable accusations. The food delivery service reportedly used tips under $10 to replace couriers’ guaranteed pay, but still implied that these were bonuses. DoorDash revised its rules earlier that year to address the complaints.

The timing of the lawsuit is less than ideal for Amazon, to put it mildly. The company just launched a “thank my driver” feature that lets Alexa users in the US share their appreciation for the courier who dropped off their latest package. While it’s supposed to motivate drivers, the gratitude will only be verbal in most cases — Amazon is only handing out $5 rewards to drivers for the first 1 million “thank yous.” As you might imagine, that might not go over well at a time when Amazon has been accused of shortchanging drivers and imposing difficult working conditions.

NLRB says Apple violated federal law with anti-union meetings in Atlanta

Apple’s attempts to quell employees’ unionization efforts violated federal law, according to the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB’s Atlanta regional director concluded that Apple held mandatory “captive audience” meetings and made coercive sta…