A Texas federal jury has ordered Samsung Electronics to pay $118M to Netlist, a US-based computer memory company, for patent infringement. The case centers on Netlist’s patented technology that boosts power efficiency and accelerates data processing in high-performance memory products used in cloud computing and data-intensive systems.
This ruling marks another major win for Netlist, which previously secured a $303M verdict against Samsung last year and $445M against Micron in May. The jury also determined Samsung’s actions were willful, leaving open the possibility of higher penalties.
Samsung denies the claims, asserting that the patents are invalid and that its technology operates differently from Netlist’s. Meanwhile, the legal battle continues with Samsung filing a countersuit in US, Delaware, accusing Netlist of failing to license the patents on fair terms.
Apple and Google face growing scrutiny in the UK over allegations of stifling competition in mobile web browsers. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) claims that both companies use their dominant positions to restrict consumer choice, citing Apple’s limits on progressive web apps as a barrier to innovation on iOS devices. Progressive web apps could bypass app stores and their fees, offering faster and more secure browsing.
The CMA’s report also points to a revenue-sharing deal between Apple and Google that discourages competition in mobile ecosystems. Both companies have responded, with Apple defending its privacy and security measures and Google emphasising the openness of its Android platform.
This investigation is part of a broader crackdown on Big Tech, with regulators in the US and UK aiming to curb monopolistic practices. The CMA plans to finalise its report in March and use upcoming digital competition laws to address these concerns.
A Brighton tradesman lost £75,000 to a fake bitcoin scheme that used a deepfake video of Martin Lewis and Elon Musk. The kitchen fitter, Des Healey, shared his experience on BBC Radio 5 Live, revealing how AI manipulated Martin’s voice and image to create a convincing endorsement. Des admitted he was lured by the promise of quick returns but later realised the devastating scam had emptied his life savings and forced him into debt.
He explained that the fraudsters, posing as financial experts, gained his trust through personalised calls and apparent success in his fake investment account. Encouraged to invest more, he took out £70,000 in loans across four lenders. Only when his son raised concerns about suspicious details, such as background music on calls, did Des begin to suspect foul play and approach the police.
Martin Lewis, Britain’s most impersonated celebrity in scams, described meeting Des as emotionally challenging. He commended Des for bravely sharing his ordeal to warn others. Martin emphasised that scams prey on urgency and secrecy, urging people to pause and verify before sharing personal or financial details.
Although two banks cancelled loans taken by Des, he still owes £26,000 including interest. Des expressed gratitude for the chance to warn others and praised Martin Lewis for his continued efforts to fight fraud. Meanwhile, Revolut reaffirmed its commitment to combating cybercrime, acknowledging the challenges posed by sophisticated scammers.
The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for a multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, over its role in the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. Investors claim Meta failed to fully disclose the risks of user data misuse, which caused Facebook’s stock value to drop sharply in 2018 when the scandal became public.
Cambridge Analytica, a firm tied to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, accessed data from 87M Facebook users to influence voter targeting. While Meta has already paid over $5B in fines and settlements for privacy violations, this lawsuit focuses on alleged failures in investor disclosures.
The US Supreme Court dismissed Meta’s appeal to halt the lawsuit, leaving a prior appellate ruling intact. As legal challenges mount for tech giants, the court is also considering another class action against Nvidia over claims of misleading investors about cryptocurrency-related revenues.
India’s Competition Commission has rejected Apple’s request to pause an antitrust investigation, clearing the way for the case to progress. The investigation alleges Apple breached competition laws by exploiting its dominant app store position. Apple disputes these claims, arguing its market share in India is minor compared to Android devices.
The controversy began in 2021 when the non-profit Together We Fight Society (TWFS) accused Apple of anti-competitive practices. In August, the commission ordered investigation reports to be recalled, following Apple’s claims of sensitive information being leaked to rivals. Revised reports were issued after redaction disputes, but Apple requested a suspension, citing non-compliance by TWFS.
Regulator in India dismissed Apple’s concerns, calling its request to halt proceedings ‘untenable.’ The commission has now instructed Apple to submit audited financial records for three fiscal years to assess potential penalties. Apple has yet to respond publicly to these developments.
Senior officials at the Competition Commission are reviewing the evidence and will issue a final ruling. The case highlights broader scrutiny of major tech companies’ market behaviour, particularly regarding app store operations and developer relations.
A Massachusetts judge upheld disciplinary measures against a high school senior accused of cheating with an AI tool. The Hingham High School student’s parents sought to erase his record and raise his history grade, but the court sided with the school. Officials determined the student violated academic integrity by copying AI-generated text, including fabricated citations.
The student faced penalties including detention and temporary exclusion from the National Honor Society. He later gained readmission. His parents argued that unclear rules on AI usage led to confusion, claiming the school violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found the plagiarism policy sufficient.
Judge Paul Levenson acknowledged AI’s challenges in education but said the evidence showed misuse. The student and his partner had copied AI-generated content indiscriminately, bypassing proper review. The judge declined to order immediate changes to the student’s record or grade.
The case remains unresolved as the parents plan to pursue further legal action. School representatives praised the decision, describing it as accurate and lawful. The ruling highlights the growing complexities of generative AI in academic settings.
Elon Musk has spoken out against Australia’s proposed law to ban social media use for children under 16, calling it a “backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians.” The legislation, introduced by Australia’s centre-left government, includes fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for systemic breaches by platforms and aims to enforce an age-verification system.
Australia’s plan is among the world’s strictest, banning underage access without exceptions for parental consent or existing accounts. By contrast, countries like France and the US allow limited access for minors with parental approval or data protections for children. Critics argue Australia’s proposal could set a precedent for tougher global controls.
Musk, who has previously clashed with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government, is a vocal advocate for free speech. His platform, X, has faced tensions with Australia, including a legal challenge to content regulation orders earlier this year. Albanese has called Musk an “arrogant billionaire,” underscoring their rocky relationship.
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.
