The parents of a Massachusetts high school senior are suing Hingham High School and its district after their son received a “D” grade and detention for using AI in a social studies project. Jennifer and Dale Harris, the plaintiffs, argue that their son was unfairly punished, as there was no rule in the school’s handbook prohibiting AI use at the time. They claim the grade has impacted his eligibility for the National Honor Society and his applications to top-tier universities like Stanford and MIT.
The lawsuit, filed in Plymouth County District Court, alleges the school’s actions could cause “irreparable harm” to the student’s academic future. Jennifer Harris stated that their son’s use of AI should not be considered cheating, arguing that AI-generated content belongs to the creator. The school, however, classified it as plagiarism. The family’s lawyer, Peter Farrell, contends that there’s widespread information supporting their view that using AI isn’t plagiarism.
The Harrises are seeking to have their son’s grade changed and his academic record cleared. They emphasised that while they can’t reverse past punishments like detention, the school can still adjust his grade and confirm that he did not cheat. Hingham Public Schools has not commented on the ongoing litigation.
A new independent body in Ireland will allow social media users in the European Union to challenge content moderation decisions made by platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube. Established under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), this Appeals Centre aims to provide users with an alternative to the courts when disputing content decisions. Supported by Meta’s Oversight Board Trust and certified by Ireland’s media regulator, the centre is expected to begin operations by the end of the year. It will expand to include more platforms over time.
Thomas Hughes, CEO of the Appeals Centre, emphasised the body’s independence from governments and companies, ensuring that social media content policies are applied fairly. The centre’s team of experts will review cases within 90 days to determine if the platforms’ actions align with their stated policies. The European Commission has expressed support for the initiative, with spokesperson Thomas Regnier highlighting the importance of uniform development across the EU to strengthen online user rights.
Located in Dublin, the Appeals Centre will operate on a funding model that charges social media companies fees for each case. At the same time, users will incur a nominal fee that is refundable if their appeal is successful. However, platforms are not obligated to participate, as the centre lacks the power to enforce binding settlements. The centre will be governed by a board of seven non-executive directors.
Hewlett Packard announced it will continue legal proceedings in the United Kingdom to claim up to $4 billion in damages from the estate of British billionaire Mike Lynch. The case stems from HP’s acquisition of British software company Autonomy in 2011, which was later marred by allegations of fraud. Lynch, who co-founded Autonomy, had been accused of inflating the company’s value ahead of the $11.1 billion deal but denied any wrongdoing.
In 2022, HP won a civil case against Lynch, though a UK High Court judge ruled that damages would be less than the $5 billion HP initially sought. Despite Lynch’s death in August when his yacht sank off Sicily, the company remains committed to pursuing the legal process. HP maintains that the fraud caused substantial financial losses and is seeking compensation from Lynch’s estate.
Lynch’s family has not issued a statement following HP’s latest announcement. HP had originally filed the lawsuit against both Lynch and Sushovan Hussain, Autonomy’s former chief financial officer, over the accounting scandal discovered in 2012.
The legal battle is one of the largest corporate fraud cases in the UK, centring on HP’s claim that it was misled during one of the country’s biggest tech deals. HP is determined to see the case through to its conclusion.
At the recent World AI Conference in Shanghai, SenseTime introduced its latest model, SenseNova 5.5, showcasing capabilities comparable to OpenAI’s GPT-4o. This unveiling coincided with OpenAI’s decision to block its services in China, leaving developers scrambling for alternatives.
OpenAI’s move, effective from July 9th, blocks API access from regions where it does not support service, impacting Chinese developers who relied on its tools via virtual private networks. The decision, amid US-China technology tensions, underscores broader concerns about global access to AI technologies.
The ban has prompted Chinese AI companies like SenseTime, Baidu, Zhipu AI, and Tencent Cloud to offer incentives, including free tokens and migration services, to lure former OpenAI users. Analysts suggest this could accelerate China’s AI development, challenging US dominance in generative AI technologies.
The development has sparked mixed reactions in China, with some viewing it as a move to bolster domestic AI independence amidst geopolitical pressures. However, it also highlights challenges in China’s AI industry, such as reliance on US semiconductors, impacting capabilities like Kuaishou’s AI models.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has reached agreements with Telstra and Optus regarding Google’s search services following an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices. The ACCC found that Google had arrangements with Telstra and Optus since at least 2017, ensuring its search services were pre-installed as the default on Android devices supplied by these telecom companies. These agreements restrict competition by limiting the visibility of rival search engines.
Telstra and Optus have cooperated with the ACCC and agreed that, as of 30 June 2024, they will not renew or enter into any new agreements with Google that mandate its search services as the exclusive default option on devices they distribute. These undertakings aim to promote competition and consumer choice in Australia’s digital market.
ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver emphasised the importance of these undertakings in enhancing consumer choice and fostering competition in digital platforms. She noted that practices such as exclusivity agreements can stifle innovation and limit options for consumers, highlighting the need for digital platforms to adhere to Australia’s competition laws.
The ACCC’s broader investigation into Google’s practices continues, focusing on potential competition concerns raised by these agreements and their impact on the digital economy. The commission plans to submit further reports on its findings, including recommendations for regulatory reforms aimed at promoting fair competition among digital platforms in Australia.
On 16 November 2022, the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into force. The DSA applies to digital services connecting consumers to goods, services, or content. Online platforms will have until 17 February 2023 to report the number of active end users.
The European Commission suggests all online platforms notify it regarding these numbers. Then, the Commission will determine if the platform is a large online platform or a search engine. Following this determination, the platform will have four months to comply with the DSA. EU members will have until 17 February 2024 to accredit their Digital Services Coordinators.
