Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, has filed a motion to dismiss a New Mexico lawsuit accusing it of enabling child sexual exploitation on its platform. The lawsuit, brought by Attorney General Raul Torrez in September, claims Snapchat exposed minors to abuse and failed to warn parents about sextortion risks. Snap refuted the allegations, calling them ‘patently false,’ and argued that the state’s decoy investigation misrepresented key facts.
The lawsuit stems from a broader push by US lawmakers to hold tech firms accountable for harm to minors. Investigators claimed a decoy account for a 14-year-old girl received explicit friend suggestions despite no user activity. Snap countered that the account actively sent friend requests, disputing the state’s findings.
Snap further argued that the lawsuit violates Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content. It also invoked the First Amendment, stating the company cannot be forced to provide warnings about subjective risks without clear guidelines.
Defending its safety efforts, Snap highlighted its increased investment in trust and safety teams and collaboration with law enforcement. The company said it remains committed to protecting users while contesting what it views as an unjustified legal challenge.
OpenAI is under scrutiny after engineers accidentally erased key evidence in an ongoing copyright lawsuit filed by The New York Times and Daily News. The publishers accuse OpenAI of using their copyrighted content to train its AI models without authorisation.
The issue arose when OpenAI provided virtual machines for the plaintiffs to search its training datasets for infringed material. On 14 November 2024, OpenAI engineers deleted the search data stored on one of these machines. While most of the data was recovered, the loss of folder structures and file names rendered the information unusable for tracing specific sources in the training process.
Plaintiffs are now forced to restart the time-intensive search, leading to concerns over OpenAI’s ability to manage its own datasets. Although the deletion is not suspected to be intentional, lawyers argue that OpenAI is best equipped to perform searches and verify its use of copyrighted material. OpenAI maintains that training AI on publicly available data falls under fair use, but it has also struck licensing deals with major publishers like the Associated Press and News Corp. The company has neither confirmed nor denied using specific copyrighted works for its AI training.
US prosecutors have urged a federal judge to impose sweeping changes on Google to dismantle its alleged monopoly on online search and advertising. Proposed remedies include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, share search data with competitors, and possibly divest its Android operating system. These measures could remain in place for up to a decade, overseen by a court-appointed technical committee.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and state antitrust enforcers argued that Google’s dominance, with a 90% share of US searches, has stifled competition by controlling critical distribution channels. The DOJ aims to end deals where Google pays companies like Apple billions annually to make its search engine the default on their devices. Prosecutors also want restrictions on Google’s acquisitions in search, AI, and advertising technology, as well as provisions for websites to opt out of training Google’s AI systems.
Google has called the proposals extreme, warning they would harm consumers and the economy. Alphabet’s legal chief, Kent Walker, said the measures represent “unprecedented government overreach.” Google will present alternative proposals in December, while a trial to decide the remedies is scheduled for April.
If implemented, the proposals could reshape the tech landscape, lowering barriers for competitors like DuckDuckGo. The case highlights broader global efforts to curb the power of tech giants and promote fair competition.
The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) is awaiting guidance from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) on handling AI-related privacy issues under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Data protection commissioners Des Hogan and Dale Sunderland emphasised the need for clarity, particularly on whether personal data continues to exist within AI training models. The EDPB is expected to provide its opinion before the end of the year, helping harmonise regulatory approaches across Europe.
The DPC has been at the forefront of addressing AI and privacy concerns, especially as companies like Meta, Google, and X (formerly Twitter) use EU users’ data to train large language models. As part of this growing responsibility, the Irish authority is also preparing for a potential role in overseeing national compliance with the EU’s upcoming AI Act, following the country’s November elections.
The regulatory landscape has faced pushback from Big Tech companies, with some arguing that stringent regulations could hinder innovation. Despite this, Hogan and Sunderland stressed the DPC’s commitment to enforcing GDPR compliance, citing recent legal actions, including a €310 million fine on LinkedIn for data misuse. With two more significant decisions expected by the end of the year, the DPC remains a key player in shaping data privacy in the age of AI.
Gary Wang, a former FTX executive, has avoided prison after cooperating extensively with prosecutors in the case against cryptocurrency exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried. Judge Lewis Kaplan acknowledged Wang’s lesser role in the $8 billion fraud and commended his efforts to accept responsibility. Wang had pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges but argued he was initially unaware of the scale of the misconduct.
Wang, a former chief technology officer at FTX, admitted to altering the platform’s software under Bankman-Fried’s direction, granting Alameda Research special access to customer funds. Despite realising the fraud later, Wang continued maintaining the system but expressed regret in court, vowing to dedicate his life to making amends. Prosecutors highlighted his assistance in uncovering the fraud and his current work on tools to combat market manipulation.
The two met during a summer math camp in their youth and later studied at MIT before founding FTX. Wang was part of the close-knit group living with Bankman-Fried in a luxury Bahamian penthouse before the exchange’s collapse in 2022. The company’s failure exposed the misappropriation of customer funds, leading to Bankman-Fried’s 25-year prison sentence, which he is currently appealing.
Wang’s sentencing marks the conclusion of legal actions against Bankman-Fried’s inner circle. Others implicated included Nishad Singh, who also avoided jail, and Caroline Ellison, sentenced to two years. Prosecutors emphasised Wang’s unique skill set and role in aiding investigations, describing his cooperation as pivotal in holding the former FTX leadership accountable.
Five individuals, alleged members of the hacking group Scattered Spider, face criminal charges in the US. Prosecutors accuse the group of orchestrating phishing schemes to steal sensitive data and cryptocurrency. Victims include at least 12 companies from industries such as gaming and telecommunications, alongside individual cryptocurrency holders.
The suspects, aged in their teens or 20s during the offences, allegedly deceived employees into sharing login details through fraudulent messages. These actions enabled them to access corporate systems and drain millions from personal accounts. The group’s notoriety grew following high-profile hacks of casino operators in 2023, though connections to those incidents remain unclear.
Officials claim Scattered Spider operates as a loose collective of cybercriminals, often collaborating temporarily for specific crimes. Industry experts have long called for stronger enforcement against such groups. Recent arrests signal intensified efforts, with cybersecurity professionals warning young hackers of severe consequences if caught.
The defendants, including individuals from Scotland, Texas, and North Carolina, face charges of conspiracy, identity theft, and wire fraud. Arrests have taken place in the US and Spain, with extradition proceedings underway. Investigations continue as authorities pursue other suspected members of the group.
Australia’s government introduced a bill to parliament aiming to ban social media use for children under 16, with potential fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for platforms that fail to comply. The law would enforce age verification, possibly using biometrics or government IDs, setting the highest global age limit for social media use without exemptions for parental consent or existing accounts.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the reforms as a response to the physical and mental health risks social media poses, particularly for young users. Harmful content, such as body image issues targeting girls and misogynistic content aimed at boys, has fueled the government’s push for strict measures. Messaging services, gaming, and educational platforms like Google Classroom and Headspace would remain accessible under the proposal.
While opposition parties support the bill, independents and the Greens are calling for more details. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland emphasised that the law places responsibility on platforms, not parents or children, to implement robust age-verification systems. Privacy safeguards, including mandatory destruction of collected data, are also part of the proposed legislation. Australia’s policy would be among the world’s strictest, surpassing similar efforts in France and the US.
Privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo has urged the European Commission to launch three new investigations into Google’s compliance with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). DuckDuckGo argues that the rules, designed to curb Big Tech dominance, have not yet delivered meaningful change in the search market.
The Digital Markets Act, adopted in 2022, requires major tech firms to ensure users can switch services easily and prohibits practices that favour their own products. DuckDuckGo’s senior vice-president, Kamyl Bazbaz, claimed in a blog post that Google’s measures fall short of the law’s requirements, calling for formal probes to drive compliance.
Google is already under two DMA-related investigations concerning its app store rules and alleged discrimination against third-party services. A spokesperson for the company stated that Google is cooperating with the Commission and has made significant adjustments to its services. They emphasised consumer choice and data protection as key priorities while rejecting claims of non-compliance.
DuckDuckGo also accused Google of proposing to share anonymised search data with competitors that excludes the vast majority of search queries, rendering it ineffective. Additional allegations include failing to make switching search engines straightforward. Companies breaching the DMA could face fines up to 10% of their global annual revenue.
EU antitrust regulators are expected to announce their decision on Nvidia’s proposed acquisition of Israeli AI startup Run by 20 December. The European Commission has flagged concerns that the $700 million deal, announced in April, could harm competition in the AI and chip sectors. Nvidia must gain regulatory approval before proceeding.
The watchdog will either approve the deal, with or without conditions, or open a four-month investigation if concerns persist. The scrutiny reflects broader fears about ‘killer acquisitions’, where large firms acquire startups to stifle innovation.
Nvidia‘s processors are crucial for AI applications, including tools like ChatGPT, making this acquisition significant for the tech and AI industries. The decision will have implications for competition in rapidly evolving AI markets.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is reportedly pushing for Alphabet’s Google to divest its Chrome browser, escalating efforts to curb the company’s alleged monopolistic practices in digital markets. This follows a prior ruling that Google illegally dominated the search market. The DOJ also plans to address Google’s control over AI and the Android operating system.
Google, which commands two-thirds of the global browser market, denies the claims, arguing that its success stems from user preference and robust competition. It also criticises the DOJ’s proposals as extreme and potentially harmful to consumers. Prosecutors have suggested a range of remedies, including ending exclusive search agreements with companies like Apple or enforcing Chrome’s divestiture if market competition does not improve.
A trial to finalise the remedies is set for April, with a ruling expected by August 2025. Google intends to appeal any decision to divest Chrome, citing the browser’s integral role in its ad revenue and user experience.
