Spotify hit by AI band hoax controversy

A band called The Velvet Sundown has gone viral on Spotify, gaining over 850,000 monthly listeners, yet almost nothing is known about the people behind it.

With no live performances, interviews, or social media presence for its supposed members, the group has fuelled growing speculation that both it and its music may be AI-generated.

The mystery deepened after Rolling Stone first reported that a spokesperson had admitted the tracks were made using an AI tool called Suno, only to later reveal the spokesperson himself was fake.

The band denies any connection to the individual, stating on Spotify that the account impersonating them on X is also false.

AI detection tools have added to the confusion. Rival platform Deezer flagged the music as ‘100% AI-generated’, although Spotify has remained silent.

While CEO Daniel Ek has said AI music isn’t banned from the platform, he expressed concerns about mimicking real artists.

The case has reignited industry fears over AI’s impact on musicians. Experts warn that public trust in online content is weakening.

Musicians and advocacy groups argue that AI is undercutting creativity by training on human-made songs without permission. As copyright battles continue, pressure is mounting for stronger government regulation.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

xAI gets Memphis approval to run 15 gas turbines

xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company, has secured permits to operate 15 natural gas turbines at its Memphis data centre, despite facing legal threats over alleged Clean Air Act violations.

The Shelby County Health Department approved the generators, which can produce up to 247 megawatts, provided specific emissions controls are in place.

Environmental lawyers say xAI had already been running as many as 35 generators without permits. The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), acting on behalf of the NAACP, has accused the company of serious pollution and is preparing to sue.

Even under the new permit, xAI is allowed to emit substantial pollutants annually, including nearly 10 tons of formaldehyde — a known carcinogen.

Community concerns about the health impact remain strong. A local group pledged $250,000 for an independent air quality study, and although the City of Memphis carried out its own tests, the SELC questioned their validity.

The tests missed ozone levels and were reportedly conducted in favourable wind conditions, with equipment placed too close to buildings.

Officials previously argued that the turbines were exempt from regulation due to their ‘mobile’ status, a claim the SELC refuted as legally flawed. Meanwhile, xAI has recently raised $10 billion, split between debt and equity, highlighting its rapid expansion, even as regulatory scrutiny grows.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Europe must break free from US tech giants

For years, a few US tech giants have dominated Europe’s digital infrastructure, threatening both its economy and democracy. Despite talk of ‘tech sovereignty,’ leaked reports suggest EU enforcement may be weakened in trade talks, risking public backing.

Surveys show strong support across the EU for tougher regulation of Big Tech, even at the cost of US tensions. The Digital Markets Act provides tools to challenge monopolies like Google, but enforcement remains slow and under-resourced.

Europe must take coordinated action: break up monopolies harming local media and jobs, strengthen enforcement, and invest in homegrown digital platforms. Redirecting funds from tech giants could empower startups and businesses dependent on these platforms.

Decisive political will is essential to turn tech sovereignty from rhetoric into reality. Effective regulation and strategic investment can restore Europe’s control over its digital future.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Canada’s telecoms face a key choice between competition and investment

Canada is preparing to finalise a critical policy decision regarding internet affordability and competition. The core policy, reaffirmed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), mandates that the country’s three major telecom providers, Bell, Telus, and Rogers, must grant wholesale access to their fibre optic networks to smaller internet service providers (ISPs).

The ruling aims to increase consumer choice and stimulate competition by allowing smaller players to use existing infrastructure rather than building their own. The policy also notably expands Telus’s ability to enter new markets, such as Ontario and Quebec, without additional infrastructure investment.

Following concerns raised by major telecom companies, the federal government has been asked to review and potentially overturn the decision. The CRTC warns that reversing the policy could undo competition gains and limit future ISP options.

Meanwhile, Telus and other supporters argue that maintaining the ruling protects regulatory independence and encourages further investment by creating market certainty. Major telecom companies in Canada argue that this policy discourages investment and creates unfair competition, with Bell reporting significant cuts to planned infrastructure spending.

Smaller providers worry about losing market share as big players expand using shared networks. The decision will strongly influence Canada’s future internet competition and investment landscape.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Judge allows US antitrust case against apple to proceed

A US federal judge has rejected Apple’s attempt to dismiss a major antitrust lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward. The ruling, issued Monday by District Judge Xavier Neals in New Jersey, marks a significant step in the Justice Department’s ongoing challenge to Apple’s business practices.

The lawsuit, filed 15 months ago, accuses Apple of building an illegal monopoly around the iPhone by erecting barriers that prevent competition and inflate profits. Neals’ 33-page opinion found the case strong enough to proceed to trial, which could begin as early as 2027.

Apple had argued the case was flawed, claiming the government misunderstood the smartphone market and distorted legal standards. But Judge Neals ruled there was sufficient evidence for the Justice Department’s claims to be tested in court.

At the heart of the lawsuit is Apple’s so-called ‘walled garden’ — a tightly controlled ecosystem of hardware and software. While Apple says this approach enhances user experience, the government claims it stifles innovation and raises prices.

The court agreed the case contained ‘several allegations of technological barricades that constitute anticompetitive conduct.’ Neals also warned of the ‘dangerous possibility’ that Apple’s control over the iPhone has crossed into illegal monopoly territory.

In response, Apple maintained its position, stating: ‘The DOJ’s case is wrong on the facts and the law.’
The company pledged to continue defending itself in court against the accusations.

The lawsuit is one of several legal threats confronting Apple, whose 2023 profits totalled $94 billion on $295 billion in revenue. In April, another judge barred Apple from charging fees on in-app purchases processed through alternative payment methods.

That ruling could cost the company billions in commission revenue, previously collected at rates of 15% to 30%. Additionally, a separate antitrust case may impact Apple’s agreement with Google, which is worth over $20 billion per year.

Under that deal, Google is the default search engine on Apple devices — a setup under scrutiny for its alleged anticompetitive effects. A Washington, DC judge is now considering whether to outlaw the arrangement as part of a broader case against Google.

On the same day as Neals’ ruling, Apple was also hit with a new lawsuit by app developer Proton.
The case seeks class-action status and accuses Apple of monopolistic behaviour that harms smaller developers and app creators.

Proton’s suit demands punitive damages and a court order to dismantle the walled garden approach central to Apple’s ecosystem. Combined with the DOJ case, the new lawsuit deepens Apple’s mounting legal pressures over its dominance in the digital economy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI training with pirated books triggers massive legal risk

A US court has ruled that AI company Anthropic engaged in copyright infringement by downloading millions of pirated books to train its language model, Claude.

Although the court found that using copyrighted material for AI training could qualify as ‘fair use’ under US law when the content is transformed, it also held that acquiring the content illegally instead of licensing it lawfully constituted theft.

Judge William Alsup described AI as one of the most transformative technologies of our time. Still, he stated that Anthropic obtained millions of digital books from pirate sites such as LibGen and Pirate Library Mirror.

He noted that buying the same books later in print form does not erase the initial violation, though it may reduce potential damages.

The penalties for wilful copyright infringement in the US could reach up to $150,000 per work, meaning total compensation might run into the billions.

The case highlights the fine line between transformation and theft and signals growing legal pressure on AI firms to respect intellectual property instead of bypassing established licensing frameworks.

Australia, which uses a ‘fair dealing’ system rather than ‘fair use’, already offers flexible licensing schemes through organisations like the Copyright Agency.

CEO Josephine Johnston urged policymakers not to weaken Australia’s legal framework in favour of global tech companies, arguing that licensing provides certainty for developers and fair payment to content creators.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU urged to pause AI act rollout

The digital sector is urging the EU leaders to delay the AI act, citing missing guidance and legal uncertainty. Industry group CCIA Europe warns that pressing ahead could damage AI innovation and stall the bloc’s economic ambitions.

The AI Act’s rules for general-purpose AI models are set to apply in August, but key frameworks are incomplete. Concerns have grown as the European Commission risks missing deadlines while the region seeks a €3.4 trillion AI-driven economic boost by 2030.

CCIA Europe calls for the EU heads of state to instruct a pause on implementation to ensure companies have time to comply. Such a delay would allow final standards to be established, offering developers clarity and supporting AI competitiveness.

Failure to adjust the timeline could leave Europe struggling to lead in AI, according to CCIA Europe’s leadership. A rushed approach, they argue, risks harming the very innovation the AI Act aims to promote.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

OpenAI and io face lawsuit over branding conflict

OpenAI and hardware startup io, founded by former Apple designer Jony Ive, are now embroiled in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by iyO, a Google-backed company specialising in custom headphones.

The legal case prompted OpenAI to withdraw promotional material linked to its $6.005 billion acquisition of io, raising questions about the branding of its future AI device.

Court documents reveal that OpenAI and io had previously met with iyO representatives and tested their custom earbud product, although the tests were unsuccessful.

Despite initial contact and discussions about potential collaboration, OpenAI rejected iyO’s proposals to invest, license, or acquire the company for $200 million. The lawsuit, however, does not centre on an earbud or wearable device, according to io’s co-founders.

Io executives clarified in court that their prototype does not resemble iyO’s product and remains unfinished. It is neither wearable nor intended for sale within the following year.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman described the joint project as an attempt to reimagine hardware interfaces. At the same time, Jony Ive expressed enthusiasm for the device’s early design, which he claims captured his imagination.

Court testimony and emails suggest io explored various technologies, including desktop, mobile, and portable designs. Internal communications also reference possible ergonomic research using 3D ear scan data.

Although the lawsuit has exposed some development details, the main product of the collaboration between OpenAI and io remains undisclosed.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Banks and tech firms create open-source AI standards

A group of leading banks and technology firms has joined forces to create standardised open-source controls for AI within the financial sector.

The initiative, led by the Fintech Open Source Foundation (FINOS), includes financial institutions such as Citi, BMO, RBC, and Morgan Stanley, working alongside major cloud providers like Microsoft, Google Cloud, and Amazon Web Services.

Known as the Common Controls for AI Services project, the effort seeks to build neutral, industry-wide standards for AI use in financial services.

The framework will be tailored to regulatory environments, offering peer-reviewed governance models and live validation tools to support real-time compliance. It extends FINOS’s earlier Common Cloud Controls framework, which originated with contributions from Citi.

Gabriele Columbro, Executive Director of FINOS, described the moment as critical for AI in finance. He emphasised the role of open source in encouraging early collaboration between financial firms and third-party providers on shared security and compliance goals.

Instead of isolated standards, the project promotes unified approaches that reduce fragmentation across regulated markets.

The project remains open for further contributions from financial organisations, AI vendors, regulators, and technology companies.

As part of the Linux Foundation, FINOS provides a neutral space for competitors to co-develop tools that enhance AI adoption’s safety, transparency, and efficiency in finance.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU adviser backs Android antitrust ruling against Google

An adviser to the Court of Justice of the European Union has supported the EU’s antitrust ruling against Google, recommending the dismissal of its appeal over a €4.1bn fine. The case concerns Google’s use of its Android mobile system to limit competition through pre-installed apps and contractual restrictions.

The original €4.34bn fine was imposed by the European Commission in 2018 and later reduced by the General Court.

Google then appealed to the EU’s top court, but Advocate-General Juliane Kokott concluded that Google’s practices gave it unfair market advantages.

Kokott rejected Google’s argument that its actions should be assessed against an equally efficient competitor, noting Google’s dominance in the Android ecosystem and the robust network effects it enjoys.

She argued that bundling Google Search and Chrome with the Play Store created barriers for competitors.

The final court ruling is expected in the coming months and could shape Google’s future regulatory obligations in Europe. Google has already incurred over €8 billion in the EU antitrust fines across several investigations.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!