US labor regulator says Apple violated employee rights with restrictive work rules

The National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) has determined that Apple’s rules around leaks violate workers’ rights, Bloomberg has reported. Apple’s actions and statements from executives “tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees” from exercising their rights, a spokesperson said in a statement.

The decision stems from complaints by former employees Cher Scarlett and Ashley Gjøvik. Scarlett alleged that Apple work rules “prohibit employees from discussing wages, hours or other terms or conditions of employment,” in violation of labor laws. Gjøvik, meanwhile, complained that an email sent by CEO Tim Cook vowing to punish leakers violated federal laws. Apple’s policies prohibiting staff from disclosing business information, talking to reporters and other actions were also illegal, Gjøvik alleged. 

In the email in question, Cook wrote that “we do not tolerate disclosures of confidential information, whether it’s product IP or the details of a confidential meeting… people who leak confidential information do not belong here.” That was in response to the leak of a company-wide meeting that was effectively tweeted live by a journalist, as TechCrunch noted.  

The NLRB will issue a complaint against Apple unless the company settles, the spokesperson said. Apple has yet to comment, but a company attorney previously said, “Apple fosters an open and inclusive work environment whereby employees are not just permitted, but encouraged, to share their feelings and thoughts on a range of issues, from social justice topics to pay equity to anything else that they feel is an important cause to promote in the workplace.”

Gjøvik was fired by Apple in 2021 for leaking confidential information and told TechCrunch she believes she was let go in retaliation after filing an EPA report about toxic fumes in her office. She complained to the NLRB that she was let go illegally, but the board has yet to issue a ruling on that subject. 

The NLRB recently found that Apple violated federal law with anti-union meetings in Atlanta. Earlier this month, Apple agreed to review its labor practices, saying in an SEC filing that it would assess its “efforts to comply with its Human Rights Policy as it relates to workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in the United States by the end of calendar year 2023.” 

Federal prosecutors ask court to bar Sam Bankman-Fried from using Signal

US prosecutors have asked a federal court to tighten Sam Bankman-Fried’s bail conditions to prevent the disgraced entrepreneur from contacting his former colleagues. According to court documents seen by The New York Times, lawyers from the Department o…

Jail threats stop AI ‘robot lawyer’ from making its debut in court

Joshua Browder, the CEO of New York startup DoNotPay, recently announced that his company’s bot will represent a defendant fighting a traffic ticket in the courtroom on February 22nd. “DoNotPay A.I will whisper in someone’s ear exactly what to say. We will release the results and share more after it happens,” he said. We may never know how the “robot lawyer” will fare in court, though, because a few days later, Browder announced that DoNotPay is postponing its court case after reportedly receiving jail threats from state bar prosecutors if he was to go through with his plan. 

The CEO told NPR that multiple state bar associations had threatened his company, and one even said he could be imprisoned for six months. He told the media organization: “Even if it wouldn’t happen, the threat of criminal charges was enough to give it up. The letters have become so frequent that we thought it was just a distraction and that we should move on.” While the State Bar of California refused to talk about DoNoPay’s situation, it told NPR that it has a duty to investigate potential instances of unauthorized law practice. 

Browder originally created DoNoPay as a free AI-powered chatbot that can help draft letters and fill out forms for various legal matters, including appeals for parking tickets. The company’s “robot lawyer” is said to be powered by several AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci, that have been tuned to focus on law. A defendant using the technology in court would have worn smart glasses to record the court proceedings, as well as a headset that would give the AI a way to tell them what to say. 

As CBS News said in a previous report, though, the tech isn’t legal in most courtrooms. Also, in some states, all parties must consent to being recorded. DoNotPay looked at 300 cases, but only two were viable candidates. In the end, Browder reversed course and suggested the company will instead fixate on consumer rights issues, specifically lowering medical bills, cancelling subscriptions and disputing credit reports, among others.

On January 24th, Kathryn Tewson took to Twitter to share an in-depth analysis of the platform after attempting to generate a Defamation Demand Letter, Divorce Settlement Agreement and a Sue Anyone in Small Claims Court document. They found the process to be confusing, often finding DoNotPay switched focus on the action they wished to take.

“There is literally nothing AI about this. This is a straight-up plug-and-chug document wizard, and it is not well done at all,” Tewson remarked, adding: “Let me be clear: this is a terrible demand letter. Absolutely terrible. Useless or worse than useless — if an actual attorney saw this, she would instantly know that the sender was unsophisticated, unrepresented, and gullible af.”

NPR said, however, that the CEO is still hoping that artificial intelligence could eventually help people in the courtroom. “The truth is, most people can’t afford lawyers. This could’ve shifted the balance and allowed people to use tools like ChatGPT in the courtroom that maybe could’ve helped them win cases,” he told the organization.

NY AG wants answers on Madison Square Garden’s use of facial recognition against legal opponents

New York Attorney General Letitia James has sent a letter to MSG Entertainment, the owner and operator of Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall, asking for information about its use of facial recognition to deny entry to attorneys at firms re…

Elon Musk says his SpaceX shares would’ve funded his plan to take Tesla private

Elon Musk said he could’ve sold his SpaceX shares to take Tesla private when he took the witness stand again to defend his 2018 “funding secured” tweets in a lawsuit filed by the automaker’s shareholders. According to CNBC, Musk proclaimed: “SpaceX stock alone meant ‘funding secured’ by itself. It’s not that I want to sell SpaceX stock but I could have, and if you look at the Twitter transaction — that is what I did. I sold Tesla stock to complete the Twitter transaction. And I would have done the same here.” He didn’t say how many of his shares he’d have to sell, however, to be able to fund the transaction. 

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on Musk’s infamous 2018 tweets in which he said he was “considering taking Tesla private at $420.” He even said that he already had “[f]unding secured.” Musk first took the stand for this particular case last week to defend himself against the plaintiffs’ accusations that the tweets he made cost them significant financial losses. Tesla’s shares temporarily stopped trading after those tweets and remained volatile in the weeks that followed. He said at the time that just because he tweets something “does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly.”

This time, Musk reiterated his previous claim that he had an agreement with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take Tesla private. He told the court that the country was “unequivocal” in its support of the transaction, which ultimately didn’t go through. According to Bloomberg, the court discussed his communication and eventual falling out with Saudi fund governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan regarding the deal. A text exchange was reportedly presented to the jury, wherein Musk accused Al-Rumayyan of backing out of their handshake agreement. The Saudi official responded that he didn’t have sufficient information to be able to commit to the buyout and called Musk’s public announcement of their discussions “ill advised.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyer also asked Musk what many of us were probably wondering: If the $420 share price in his tweets was made as a joke in reference to marijuana. Apparently, it wasn’t a joke, and he chose it “because it reflected about a 20 percent premium on Tesla’s stock price.” Musk is expected to testify again on Tuesday, so we’ll likely hear more details about his failed bid to convert Tesla into a private entity. 

As Bloomberg notes, the judge in this case had already determined that his tweets were “objectively false and reckless.” However, the plaintiffs still have to prove that Musk knew his tweets were misleading and that his tweets caused their losses to win the case. Musk and Tesla previously had to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $20 million each to settle a separate lawsuit over the same tweets, accusing him of making “false and misleading statements” that could be constituted as fraud. The CEO said on the stand that he told the SEC about SpaceX and that the plaintiffs’ lawyer “deliberately exclud[ed] that from jurors.”

FTC asks court to hold Martin Shkreli in contempt for launching new drug company

Martin Shkreli, whom you may know as “Pharma Bro,” launched a new company last year called “Druglike, Inc.” Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has asked a federal judge to hold him in contempt for failing to cooperate with the agency in its investigation to determine whether launching the company violates his lifetime industry ban. US District Court Judge Denise Cote imposed a lifetime ban on Shkreli that prohibits him from participating in the pharmaceutical industry early last year. Cote ruled that the former pharma exec orchestrated an illegal anticompetitive scheme to gain a monopoly over Daraprim, a life-saving anti-malarial and anti-parasitic drug. 

After Shkreli’s former company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, obtained the manufacturing license for Daraprim, it raised the drug’s prices from $17.50 to $750 per tablet. Cote sided with the FTC in the antitrust lawsuit the agency filed against Shkreli in 2020 and ordered him to pay $64.6 million in damages, in addition to imposing a lifetime industry ban against him. Prior to Druglike’s launch, Shkreli tried (and failed) to convince a judge to put the ban on hold, arguing that the public could benefit from his future contributions to the industry. Shkreli challenged the ban while he was serving time in federal prison after receiving a seven-year sentence in 2017 for defrauding investors. He was released from prison in May.

The FTC said it started asking Shkreli for a compliance report and access to relevant records, as well as asking him to sit for an interview regarding Druglike, in October 2022. However, the company co-founder kept on disregarding its “repeated requests.” The agency also said that Shkreli has yet to pay any amount of his $64.6 million fine. It’s now asking the court to order Shkreli to comply with its information requests within 21 days of its decision. 

In a press release (PDF) for its launch, Druglike described itself as “a Web3 drug discovery software platform.” The company said it’s building a “decentralized computing network” that “provides resources for anyone looking to start or contribute to early-stage drug discovery projects.” In a statement, Shkreli said “Druglike will remove barriers to early-stage drug discovery, increase innovation and allow a broader group of contributors to share the rewards.”

Elon Musk defends ‘funding secured’ tweets in Tesla shareholder trial

Elon Musk said that just because he tweets something, it “does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly.” The Tesla chief took the witness stand in a San Francisco federal court to defend himself (and the tweets he made back in 2018) in a lawsuit filed by a group of the automaker’s shareholders. “I think you can absolutely be truthful but can you be comprehensive? Of course not,” he added, regarding Twitter’s character limits. If you’ll recall, Musk famously tweeted in August 2018 that he was “considering taking Tesla private at $420” and that he was already able to secure funding. “Investor support is confirmed,” he said in a follow-up tweet.

The CEO later revealed that he was in talks with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which reportedly expressed interest in Tesla as part of the country’s bid to lessen its reliance on oil. However, the deal didn’t materialize, and he later penned a lengthy post on the automaker’s website to say that it’s staying public. 

As CNBC notes, shareholders blamed those “funding secured” tweets for their significant financial losses, leading them to file a class action lawsuit against Musk. Tesla’s shares apparently remained highly volatile in the weeks that followed. The executive, however, downplayed his tweets’ impact and said that they don’t necessarily affect stock prices: “There have been many cases where I thought that if I were to tweet something, the stock price would go down. For example, at one point I tweeted that I thought that, in my opinion, the stock price was too high…and it went went higher, which was, which is, you know, counterintuitive.”

In addition to the shareholder lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Musk over his tweets, calling them “false and misleading statements” that could be constituted as fraud. Musk and Tesla paid $20 million each to settle with the SEC, and the executive had to step down as board chairman. The SEC also required company lawyers to approve any Tesla-related tweet Musk makes — a condition the CEO tried (and failed) to get out of last year. 

Aside from defending his tweets, Musk criticized short sellers during his testimony, telling the court that short-selling “should be made illegal.” He added: “It is a means for, in my opinion, bad people on Wall Street to steal money from investors. Not good.” Another piece of information to take away from his time on the witness stand is that nobody can tell Musk to stop tweeting. When lawyers asked him about the advice he got to refrain from posting on Twitter after calling a British cave diver a “pedo guy,” Musk said: “I continued to tweet, yes.”

According to Reuters, Musk only testified for less than 30 minutes and that he’s not done answering lawyers’ questions. He’s expected to take the witness stand again to explain why he wrote the funding tweets and why he insisted that he had Saudi Arabia’s backing. 

Epic and Match antitrust case against Google goes to trial November 6th

Epic Games and Match Group now have a court date for their antitrust case against Google. A Northern District of California judge has set the start of a jury trial for November 6th. Both Epic and Match accuse Google of abusing its control of Android app distribution through the Play Store by establishing unfair fees and requirements for in-app purchases. This comes alongside a lawsuit from 39 attorneys general as well as a customer class action suit demanding $4.7 billion in damages.

Epic sued Google in 2020 after the Android creator kicked Fortnite out of the Play Store for letting customers use an alternative in-app payment system. Match sued Google last year over the “exorbitant” store fee. Epic and Match consolidated their case and a filed motion last fall to expand their allegations, accusing Google of further antitrust violations by paying major developers hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their apps in the Play Store. 

Unlike Epic’s partially successful lawsuit against Apple, this case has to acknowledge that customers do have a choice. Where Apple requires that all regular app downloads go through the App Store, Android’s sideloading option lets customers install software without downloading it from Google. The issue, as you might imagine, is that those apps are both harder to install and less likely to be noticed when the Play Store is included by default on many Android phones.

Google denies misusing its power, and argues that the fees are necessary to maintain and invest in the Play Store. It maintains that the incentive program doesn’t forbid developers from launching third-party stores, and that its portal competes fairly. In December, Google called on the court to deny the expanded requests over timing and other issues.

Google has made some concessions, including a test program for Play Store billing alternatives. That pilot still gives Google a cut of each transaction, though, and it remains to be seen if moves like that will satisfy the court and regulators. As it is, the internet pioneer is facing a raft of other antitrust cases that include a Justice Department lawsuit from 2020. Even if Google prevails against Epic and Match, it may not escape unscathed.