LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft, faces a class-action lawsuit from its Premium customers who allege that the platform improperly shared their private messages with third parties to train AI models. The lawsuit alleges that LinkedIn introduced a new privacy setting last August that allowed users to control the sharing of their data, yet failed to adequately inform them about the use of their messages for AI training.
Customers claim that a stealthy update to LinkedIn’s privacy policy on 18 September outlined this data usage, while also stating that opting out of data sharing would not prevent past training from being utilised.
The plaintiffs, representing millions of Premium users, seek damages for breaches of contract and violations of California’s unfair competition laws. In addition, they demand compensation of $1,000 for each individual affected by alleged violations of the federal Stored Communications Act. The lawsuit highlights concerns over the potential misuse of customer data, asserting that LinkedIn deliberately obscured its practices to evade scrutiny regarding user privacy.
LinkedIn has denied the allegations, stating that the claims lack merit. The legal action arose just hours after President Donald Trump announced a significant AI investment initiative, backed by Microsoft and other major companies. In San Jose, California, the case has been filed as De La Torre v. LinkedIn Corp in the federal district court.
With privacy becoming an increasingly crucial issue, the implications of this lawsuit could resonate throughout the tech industry. Customers are scrutinising platforms’ commitments to safeguarding personal information, especially in the context of rapidly evolving AI technologies.
OpenAI has told an Indian court that removing training data used for its ChatGPT service would conflict with its legal obligations in the United States. The company, backed by Microsoft, is defending a copyright lawsuit filed by Indian news agency ANI, which accuses OpenAI of using its content without permission and demands the deletion of ANI’s data from ChatGPT’s memory.
In a January 10 filing, OpenAI argued that Indian courts lack jurisdiction as the company has no physical presence or data servers in India. It also emphasised its legal obligation in the US to preserve training data while litigation is ongoing. OpenAI denied wrongdoing, asserting its systems make fair use of publicly available data, a stance it has maintained in similar copyright disputes globally.
ANI insists the Delhi court has the authority to rule on the case, citing concerns over unfair competition and alleging that ChatGPT reproduces its content verbatim. OpenAI, however, countered that ANI manipulated prompts to elicit such responses. The court is set to hear the case on January 28, marking a key moment in India’s scrutiny of AI and copyright law.
Indonesia is on the verge of resolving a dispute with Apple that has banned iPhone 16 sales. The ban, implemented last year, arose after Apple failed to meet a requirement mandating that smartphones sold locally include at least 40% Indonesian-made components.
Rosan Roeslani, Indonesia’s investment minister, expressed optimism in an interview at Davos, predicting the issue could be resolved within weeks. A proposed investment plan from Apple appears to be the key to breaking the impasse, although the tech company has not commented on the developments.
Indonesia, home to 280 million people, represents a significant market for Apple. While the company has no manufacturing facilities in the country, it has operated application developer academies since 2018, fostering local tech talent.
The outcome of the negotiations could open the door for iPhone 16 sales in the region, signalling a potential end to the year-long ban.
The European Commission has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China, accusing the country of ‘unfair and illegal’ practices regarding worldwide royalty rates for European standard essential patents (SEPs). According to the Commission, China has empowered its courts to set global royalty rates for the EU companies, particularly in the telecoms sector, without the consent of the patent holders.
The case focuses on SEPs, which are crucial for technologies like 5G, used in mobile phones. European companies such as Nokia and Ericsson hold many of these patents. The Commission claims that China’s actions force European companies to reduce their royalty rates globally, providing Chinese manufacturers with unfairly low access to European technologies.
The European Union has requested consultations with China, marking the first step in WTO dispute resolution. If a resolution is not reached within 60 days, the EU can request the formation of an adjudicating panel, which typically takes about a year to issue a final report. This case is linked to a previous EU dispute at the WTO concerning China’s anti-suit injunctions, which restrict telecom patent holders’ ability to enforce intellectual property rights in courts outside China.
Mark Zuckerberg has defended Meta’s use of a dataset containing copyrighted e-books to train its AI models, Llama. The statement emerged from a deposition linked to the ongoing Kadrey v. Meta Platforms lawsuit, which is one of many cases challenging the use of copyrighted content in AI training. Meta reportedly relied on the controversial dataset LibGen, despite internal concerns over potential legal risks.
LibGen, a platform known for providing unauthorised access to copyrighted works, has faced numerous lawsuits and shutdown orders. Newly unsealed court documents suggest that Zuckerberg approved using the dataset to develop Meta’s Llama models. Employees allegedly flagged the dataset as problematic, warning it might undermine the company’s standing with regulators. During questioning, Zuckerberg compared the situation to YouTube’s efforts to remove pirated content, arguing against blanket bans on datasets with copyrighted material.
Meta’s practices are under heightened scrutiny as legal battles pit AI companies against copyright holders. The deposition indicates that Meta considered balancing copyright concerns with practical AI development needs. However, the company faces mounting allegations that it disregarded ethical boundaries, sparking broader debates about fair use and intellectual property in AI training.
Mistral, a Paris-based AI company, has entered a groundbreaking partnership with Agence France-Presse (AFP) to enhance the accuracy of its chatbot, Le Chat. The deal signals Mistral’s determination to broaden its scope beyond foundational model development.
Through the agreement, Le Chat will gain access to AFP’s extensive archive, which includes over 2,300 daily stories in six languages and records dating back to 1983. While the focus remains on text content, photos and videos are not part of the multi-year arrangement. By incorporating AFP’s multilingual and multicultural resources, Mistral aims to deliver more accurate and reliable responses tailored to business needs.
The partnership bolsters Mistral’s standing against AI leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic, who have also secured similar content agreements. Le Chat’s enhanced features align with Mistral’s broader strategy to develop user-friendly applications that rival popular tools such as ChatGPT and Claude.
Mistral’s co-founder and CEO, Arthur Mensch, emphasised the importance of the partnership, describing it as a step toward offering clients a unique and culturally diverse AI solution. The agreement reinforces Mistral’s commitment to innovation and its global relevance in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
Triplegangers, was forced offline after a bot from OpenAI relentlessly scraped its website, treating it like a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. The AI bot sent tens of thousands of server requests, attempting to download hundreds of thousands of detailed 3D images and descriptions from the company’s extensive database of digital human models.
The sudden spike in traffic crippled Ukrainian Triplegangers’ servers and left CEO Oleksandr Tomchuk grappling with an unexpected problem. The company, which sells digital assets to video game developers and 3D artists, discovered that OpenAI’s bot operated across hundreds of IP addresses to gather its data. Despite having terms of service that forbid such scraping, the company had not configured the necessary robot.txt file to block the bot.
After days of disruption, Tomchuk implemented protective measures by updating the robot.txt file and using Cloudflare to block specific bots. However, he remains frustrated by the lack of transparency from OpenAI and the difficulty in determining exactly what data was taken. With rising costs and increased monitoring now necessary, he warns that other businesses remain vulnerable.
Tomchuk criticised AI companies for placing the responsibility on small businesses to block unwanted scraping, comparing it to a digital shakedown. “They should be asking permission, not just scraping data,” he said, urging companies to take greater precautions against AI crawlers that can compromise their sites.
A group of authors, including Ta-Nehisi Coates and Sarah Silverman, has accused Meta Platforms of using pirated books to train its AI systems with CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s approval. Newly disclosed court documents filed in California allege that Meta knowingly relied on the LibGen dataset, which contains millions of pirated works, to develop its large language model, Llama.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2023, claims Meta infringed on copyright by using the authors’ works without permission. The authors argue that internal Meta communications reveal concerns within the company about the dataset’s legality, which were ultimately overruled. Meta has not yet responded to the latest allegations.
The case is one of several challenging the use of copyrighted materials to train AI systems. While defendants in similar lawsuits have cited fair use, the authors contend that newly uncovered evidence strengthens their claims. They have requested permission to file an updated complaint, adding computer fraud allegations and revisiting dismissed claims related to copyright management information.
US District Judge Vince Chhabria has allowed the authors to file an amended complaint but expressed doubts about the validity of some new claims. The outcome of the case could have broader implications for how AI companies utilise copyrighted content in training data.
Elon Musk’s AI company, xAI, has launched a standalone iOS app for its chatbot, Grok, marking a major expansion beyond its initial availability to X users. The app is now live in several countries, including the US, Australia, and India, allowing users to access the chatbot directly on their iPhones.
The Grok app offers features such as real-time data retrieval from the web and X, text rewriting, summarising long content, and even generating images from text prompts. xAI highlights Grok’s ability to create photorealistic images with minimal restrictions, including the use of public figures and copyrighted material.
In addition to the app, xAI is working on a dedicated website, Grok.com, which will soon make the chatbot available on browsers. Initially limited to X’s paying subscribers, Grok rolled out a free version in November and made it accessible to all users earlier this month. The launch marks a notable push by xAI to establish Grok as a versatile, widely available AI assistant.
Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging its Siri voice assistant violated users’ privacy. The lawsuit claimed that Apple recorded users’ private conversations without consent when the ‘Hey, Siri’ feature was unintentionally triggered. These recordings were allegedly shared with third parties, including advertisers, leading to targeted ads based on private discussions.
The class period for the lawsuit spans from 17 September 2014 to 31 December 2024 and applies to users of Siri-enabled devices like iPhones and Apple Watches. Affected users could receive up to $20 per device. Apple denied any wrongdoing but settled the case to avoid prolonged litigation.
The settlement amount is a small fraction of Apple’s annual profits, with the company making nearly $94 billion in net income last year. While the company and plaintiffs’ lawyers have yet to comment on the settlement, the plaintiffs may seek up to $28.5 million in legal fees and expenses. A similar lawsuit involving Google’s Voice Assistant is also underway in a California federal court.
