ReportWire

Tag: Laws

  • Google Search Is an Illegal Monopoly, US Judge Rules

    Google Search Is an Illegal Monopoly, US Judge Rules

    [ad_1]

    Google is now 0 for 2 in antitrust trials. United States District judge Amit Mehta ruled on Monday that Google has unlawfully maintained its dominance in search by using anticompetitive deals to keep rivals from gaining traction. And without fear of pressure from competitors, Google has been able to charge whatever it wants for search ads, he said.

    “The trial evidence firmly established that Google’s monopoly power, maintained by the exclusive distribution agreements, has enabled Google to increase text ads prices without any meaningful competitive constraint,” Mehta wrote in a 286-page ruling. “Unconstrained price increases have fueled Google’s dramatic revenue growth and allowed it to maintain high and remarkably stable operating profits.”

    His findings are arguably the most comprehensive modern examination of Google’s search business, which over the past 26 years has become a $175 billion annual revenue behemoth that accounts for much of parent company Alphabet’s profits. Google will appeal, as it risks losing its prominent placement on iPhones and other gateways to the web.

    Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said in a statement that the company would fight the ruling because it “recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available.”

    United States Attorney General Merrick Garland called the decision “an historic win.” Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter said it “paves the path for innovation for generations to come.”

    The ruling follows a weeks-long trial in Mehta’s courtroom last year in Washington, DC, in which the US Department of Justice alleged that Google had become the world’s most used search engine by paying partners such as Apple and Samsung to promote it on their devices and software. Google had attributed its success to providing the best service and argued that it faced significant competition from the likes of Microsoft and others.

    Mehta sided with Google on some issues but rejected its overall argument that the company held no illegal monopoly whatsoever. Last year, a jury in federal court in San Francisco ruled Google’s Play app store an illegal monopolist.

    The ways in which Google will have to adjust its business in light of the judgments in San Francisco and Washington are yet to be determined. Mehta will hold a separate trial to determine remedies in the search case, and a judge is mulling proposed penalties in the Play litigation. But some changes Google has made in response to antitrust scrutiny in recent years have been costly.

    First Trial

    The case before Mehta traced back to the increased oversight of the tech industry under then president Donald Trump. The Justice Department sued Google in 2020 before Trump left office, and the lawsuit became the first of several against Big Tech companies to go to trial.

    Mehta ruled that Google, with about 90 percent market share, has monopoly power in both general search and general search text ads. He found that Google’s deals with partners harm competition and that Google hadn’t shown otherwise.

    [ad_2]

    Paresh Dave

    Source link

  • California Supreme Court Rules That Uber and Lyft Drivers Will Remain Independent Contractors

    California Supreme Court Rules That Uber and Lyft Drivers Will Remain Independent Contractors

    [ad_1]

    The California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that drivers for app-based companies including Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash will remain independent contractors, as opposed to employees. The decision, upholding a state ballot measure called Proposition 22, was considered a major victory for the gig-economy companies.

    The question of whether those who drive for the companies should be treated as employees or contractors has spurred a yearslong legal battle in the state. In 2020, California voters approved Proposition 22, allowing app-based companies to continue to treat their workers as independent contractors. That vote reversed an earlier court ruling that found such companies controlled too many of their drivers’ working conditions to treat them as contractors. The ballot measure campaign cost its advocates, including Uber, Lyft, Postmates, Instacart, and DoorDash, some $200 million, breaking state records for spending.

    Driver advocates have long argued that those behind the wheel were due the same sort of benefits offered to full-time employees, including health care, sick pay, and workers’ compensation. The companies have said that gig work is an entirely new and flexible form of work, and that treating drivers as employees would reshape their businesses. One 2020 analysis suggested that treating drivers as employees in California would cost Uber and Lyft nearly $800 million annually in just payroll taxes and benefits.

    The 2020 ballot measure required the app-based companies to institute a wage floor, at least for the time drivers spend with passengers in the car, and to pay out health care stipends for workers who drive enough monthly hours.

    “Today’s decision was supposed to bring justice, to confirm that even as workers who are managed by apps on our phone, by algorithms, by AI, that we are indeed workers with robot managers,” Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United and a part-time driver in Los Angeles, said during a briefing with reporters following the decision. “And we deserve the same rights and benefits as all other workers in our state. But that did not happen today.” Moore called on lawmakers in the state to find a “creative pathway” to ensure that drivers are protected and paid fairly.

    In a statement, Uber said the ruling put “an end to misguided attempts to force [drivers] into an employment model that they overwhelmingly do not want.” Lyft also praised the decision: “We are pleased to continue to bring Californians closer to their friends, family, and neighbors, and provide drivers with access to flexible earnings opportunities and benefits while preserving their independence.”

    On a call for reporters hosted by proponents of Proposition 22, some drivers said they were glad that app-based companies would maintain their flexibility. “I’m just so grateful right now,” said driver Stephanie Whitfield, who works in the Coachella Valley.

    The ruling won’t have a direct effect on other states’ gig worker laws, but could influence policy in other places. Minnesota and Colorado both recently passed laws instituting better pay standards for app-based drivers, though neither resolved whether workers should be treated as contractors or employees. The Biden administration has taken aim at worker misclassification in the gig economy through new labor rules, though app-based companies say those rules don’t affect their businesses.

    [ad_2]

    Aarian Marshall, Amanda Hoover

    Source link

  • Alec Baldwin ‘Rust’ manslaughter case dismissed by judge

    Alec Baldwin ‘Rust’ manslaughter case dismissed by judge

    [ad_1]

    US actor Alec Baldwin participates in a pretrial hearing in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on July 8, 2024. 

    Ross D. Franklin | AFP | Getty Images

    A New Mexico judge on Friday dismissed the criminal involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin on the third day of the actor’s trial, after ruling that prosecutors improperly kept evidence about live ammunition potentially related to the case secret from defense lawyers.

    Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer tossed the case against Baldwin, which related to the October 2021 accidental shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of his movie “Rust,” with prejudice. That means prosecutors cannot retry the “30 Rock” actor.

    Baldwin wept as the decision was announced, on what was the third day of trial in the case in state court in Santa Fe. He soon after embraced his wife Hilaria.

    “There is no way for the court to right this wrong,” Sommers said, referring to the prosecution’s actions. “The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy.”

    Under U.S. criminal law, prosecutors must turn over evidence to defense lawyers if that evidence is potentially helpful to a defendant.

    A defense lawyer for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who served as the armorer on the “Rust” production, in a statement said he will seek her immediate release from prison, where she is currently serving an 18-month prison sentence after being convicted in March of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death.

    Guitierrez-Reed’s lawyer, Jason Bowels, said the prosecution in Baldwin’s and his client’s case had engaged in an “absolutely shocking” pattern of misconduct.

    Baldwin in an Instagram post on Saturday morning wrote, “There are too many people who have supported me to thank just now.”

    “To all of you, you will never know how much I appreciate your kindness toward my family,” Baldwin wrote.

    Brian Parrish, a lawyer for Hutchins’ widower Matthew Hutchins, in a statement, said, “We respect the court’s decision,” but vowed to pursue civil claims against Baldwin.

    US actor Alec Baldwin and his wife Hilaria Baldwin embrace during his trial on involuntary manslaughter at Santa Fe County District Court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on July 12, 2024. 

    Ramsay De Give | AFP | Getty Images

    Hours before she dismissed the case on Friday, Sommer sent jurors home for the weekend after receiving a motion from Baldwin’s attorneys asking her to toss the charges.

    The judge then conducted a hearing on the defense’s claims, which cited the ammunition in the possession of prosecutors, which had not been previously disclosed to Baldwin’s team by prosecutors.

    “We don’t know if it’s a live ammunition match or not,” Baldwin’s attorney Luke Nikas told Sommer, according to the Associated Press. “But we do know that the state had it, and it’s disclosable.”Prosecutors in turn claimed that the ammo was not related to the case.

    On Friday night, Erlinda Johnson Ocampo, who had been a special prosecutor on the team in Baldwin’s case, said she quit the team midday Friday after learning a day earlier that ammunition had been given to law enforcement on the heels of the shooting which had not been disclosed to defense lawyers.

    “We have an obligation as prosecutors, we have an obligation not only to the people, but to the defendant and our obligation is to make sure that all the evidence is turned over,” Ocampo told Chris Cuomon on NewsNation. “We don’t get to decide what the defense is going to be. Our job is to ensure transparency, and to ensure that the defendant has everything that the prosecution has gathered.”

    The dismissal comes 16 months after the charges against Baldwin were first tossed out by prosecutors after they said “new facts” had emerged that required further investigation.

    The case was refiled against him earlier this year.

    Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer speaks during a pretrial hearing in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on July 8, 2024. US actor Alec Baldwin is facing a single charge of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a cinematographer.

    Ross D. Franklin | ADP | Getty Images

    Baldwin was rehearsing a scene when a revolver he was handling fired, killing the 42-year-old Hutchins.

    Since the shooting, Baldwin has denied that he pulled the trigger of the weapon and said that he had been told the gun was unable to be fired when it was handed to him.

    He had faced the possibility of being sentenced to 18 months in prison if convicted in the case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Three senators introduce bill to protect artists and journalists from unauthorized AI use

    Three senators introduce bill to protect artists and journalists from unauthorized AI use

    [ad_1]

    Three US Senators introduced a bill that aims to rein in the rise and use of AI generated content and deepfakes by protecting the work of artists, songwriters and journalists.

    The Content Original Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media (COPIED) Act was introduced to the Senate Friday morning. The bill is a bipartisan effort authorized by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), according to a press alert issued by Blackburn’s office.

    The COPIED ACT would, if enacted, create transparency standards through the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) to set guidelines for “content provenance information, watermarking, and synthetic content detection,” according to the press release.

    The bill would also prohibit the unauthorized use of creative or journalistic content to train AI models or created AI content. The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general would also gain the authority to enforce these guidelines and individuals who had their legally created content used by AI to create new content without their consent or proper compensation would also have the right to take those companies or entities to court.

    The bill would even expand the prohibition of tampering or removing content provenance information by internet platforms, search engines and social media companies.

    A slew of content and journalism advocacy groups are already voicing their support for the COPIED Act to become law. They include groups like SAG-AFTRA, the Recording Industry Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Songwriters Guild of America and the National Newspaper Association.

    This is not the Senate’s first attempt to create guidelines and laws for the rising use of AI content and it certainly won’t be the last. In April, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) submitted a bill called the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act that would force AI companies to list their copyrighted sources in their datasets. The bill has not moved out of the House Committee on the Judiciary since its introduction, according to Senate records.

    [ad_2]

    Danny Gallagher

    Source link

  • Apple to Allow Rivals to Access ‘Tap and Go’ Technology

    Apple to Allow Rivals to Access ‘Tap and Go’ Technology

    [ad_1]

    Apple will allow rival companies to operate wallet technology on its iPhones free-of-charge for a decade, European Union regulators said on Thursday, in the latest overhaul prompted by local rules.

    Apple’s mobile wallet allows iPhone users to pay for products in-store and online using its own-brand Apple Pay. Until now, Apple has not made its near-field communication (NFC) technology, which allows phones to communicate with payment terminals, available to rival developers—causing the EU to warn in 2022 that restricting access to this technology qualifies as an abuse of market power.

    Apple’s concession ends a two-year dispute between the Big Tech giant and the European Commission over the company’s payment technology. This change, first proposed by Apple in December, means the smartphone maker will avoid billions of dollars in fines and a formal declaration by Brussels that it has broken EU rules.

    “[Apple’s commitment] opens up competition in this crucial sector, by preventing Apple from excluding other mobile wallets from the iPhone’s ecosystem,” EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager said in a statement.

    “From now on, competitors will be able to effectively compete with Apple Pay for mobile payments with the iPhone in shops. So consumers will have a wider range of safe and innovative mobile wallets to choose from.” The changes will last for at least 10 years and apply only to users who live in the European Union, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

    Apple’s decision to widen access to NFC will mean developers in Europe will be able to deploy the technology inside iOS apps for uses including car keys, corporate badges, hotel keys, and event tickets, Apple spokesperson Julien Trosdorf told WIRED.

    “Apple Pay and Apple Wallet will continue to be available in the EEA for users and developers,” he added.

    For years, Apple has kept a tight grip on the technology available to the millions of people using its devices. But intense scrutiny in the EU and new rules have caused the smartphone maker to make several significant changes to the way it operates.

    In response to EU complaints, the company will now have to allow alternative app stores onto iPhones and iPads, creating competition for the Apple App Store for the first time. The company will also have to offer “choice screens” when users buy a new Apple device, giving them an option to install Apple’s own-brand apps or third-party alternatives. The company is also appealing an almost $2 billion fine which focuses on the rules and restrictions imposed on third-party developers building iOS apps.

    [ad_2]

    Morgan Meaker

    Source link

  • Epic Games Lashes Out at Apple Over App Store Rejection

    Epic Games Lashes Out at Apple Over App Store Rejection

    [ad_1]

    Fortnite maker Epic Games publicly lashed out at Apple on Friday, after its latest proposal for a rival iOS App Store was rejected by the smartphone maker. The company said on X that this rejection was triggered after Apple argued the design of Epic’s app store too closely resembled its own.

    This decision follows Epic’s attempt to submit an iOS version of the Epic Games Store last week, a move that would make it possible for iPhone and iPad users to download games onto their device without visiting Apple’s App Store.

    “Apple’s rejection is arbitrary, obstructive, and in violation of the DMA [Digital Markets Act],” Epic said on Friday in a statement released on X, adding that the company had already shared its concerns with the European Commission. Apple has rejected Epic’s Game Store notarization submission—a process where apps are submitted to the company for review—twice in the past week, Epic spokesperson Elka Looks told WIRED.

    The case is part of a wider battle over who gets to control the apps available to hundreds of millions of people. In a blow to the U giant, Apple has been compelled by the Digital Markets Act, new EU rules, to allow alternatives to its own brand app store on European iPhones and iPads since March.

    Apple’s App store

    Courtesy of Apple

    Image may contain Electronics Phone Mobile Phone and Person

    Epic’s proposed rival app store submission

    Courtesy of Epic

    “Apple has rejected our Epic Games Store notarization submission twice now, claiming the design and position of Epic’s ‘Install’ button is too similar to Apple’s ‘Get’ button and that our ‘In-app purchases’ label is too similar to the App Store’s ‘In-App Purchases’ label,” the company said.

    Epic explained its naming conventions echoed Apple’s because it was “trying to build a store that mobile users can easily understand.” Apple did not reply to WIRED’s request for comment.

    There are more than 100 million people who use Apple’s App Store in the EU. The launch of the Epic Games Store would, for the first time, give those users a choice of where they want to download apps.

    That moment is eagerly awaited by lawmakers who argue that the tech giants are repressing competition by blocking rivals’ access to their users. “The launch of an alternative app store within the Apple system would create a huge proof, that the DMA can stimulate competition and thereby bring down prices for consumers,” Andreas Schwab, a member of the European Parliament who helped negotiate the DMA, told WIRED.

    Epic and Apple are longtime rivals. In 2020, Epic filed a lawsuit against Apple in California, arguing the company’s grip over the iOS market was “unreasonable and unlawful.” Apple came out of the US case (mostly) victorious. But in Europe, Epic has become part of a vocal community of developers who are seething about the power they perceive Apple’s App Store to wield over their businesses and the commission the company charges on in-app purchases.

    “Apple holds app providers ransom like the Mafia,” Matthias Pfau, CEO and cofounder of Tuta, an encrypted email provider, told WIRED earlier this year. Epic’s alternative app store proposal is a test case for the possibility of other alternative app stores that could reshape the relationship between Apple and developers.

    The Epic Games Store is already available on PC, Mac, and Android, but not on Google Play. Now, the company plans to continue seeking approval for its iOS version, it said: “Barring further roadblocks from Apple, we remain ready to launch in the Epic Games Store … on iOS in the EU in the next couple of months.”

    [ad_2]

    Morgan Meaker

    Source link

  • New law will require California bars, nightclubs provide date rape drug testing kits

    New law will require California bars, nightclubs provide date rape drug testing kits

    [ad_1]

    As of Monday, establishments that sell alcohol to consumers across the state will be required to provide on-site drug testing kits to those that ask.

    The law, formerly Assembly Bill 1310, would allow consumers to request the kits to test if there is the presence of “roofies”, substances used to spike drinks, which are often associated with the intent to commit sexual assault.

    With the law in place, it gives some peace of mind.

    “Its security for those coming out to drink,” said Brittany Halsell of Redwood City. “Sometimes you get carried away in a conversation and you turn your head and well, people are slick out here. You always have to be careful. It’s a wonderful idea”

    The test works by applying a few drops of the drink onto a designated spot of the card. If the card turns blue or green, the drink has likely been tampered with.

    Tests can also detect the presence of Ketamine and GHB.

    However, only establishments with a Type 48 license, or those that do not serve food, will be required to provide tests. Though, the law did not stipulate that tests have to be free.

    Establishments can choose to sell the kits at a reasonable price, however

    “It’s a great idea to protect the public and to give them a voice so they feel part of it,” said Ja’vonn Williams, the assistant general manager of San Pedro Social.

    Williams said San Pedro Social will have bartenders and security offers giving the cards to those that request it.

    The law will also require establishments to post signs at public entrances, bathrooms and exits explaining the kits are available.

    “I have to watch my drink so much… knowing I can come out to a bar and check my drink right here instead of thinking I have to say home to stay safe,” said Halsell.

    The law is expected to impact close to 2,400 licensed establishments across the state, according to the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.

    [ad_2]

    Marianne Favro

    Source link

  • Credit Suisse bondholders sue Switzerland in the U.S. over $17 billion writedown of AT1 debt

    Credit Suisse bondholders sue Switzerland in the U.S. over $17 billion writedown of AT1 debt

    [ad_1]

    The Credit Suisse Group AG headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland, on Thursday, Aug. 31, 2023.

    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    A group of Credit Suisse bondholders filed a lawsuit against the Swiss government, seeking full compensation over the contentious decision to write down the failed bank’s Additional Tier 1 (AT1) debt.

    As part of Credit Suisse’s emergency sale to UBS last year, which was orchestrated by the Swiss government, Swiss regulator Finma wiped out roughly $17 billion of the bank’s AT1s, writing them down to to zero.

    The bank’s common shareholders received payouts when the sale was completed.

    The move angered bondholders and was seen to have upended the usual European hierarchy of restitution in the event of a bank failure under the post-financial crisis Basel III framework, which typically places AT1 bondholders above stock investors.

    Law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which represents the plaintiffs, said Thursday that it had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It described Switzerland’s decision to write down the plaintiffs’ AT1 value to zero as “an unlawful encroachment on the property rights of the AT1 Bondholders.”

    A spokesperson for the Swiss Finance Ministry declined to comment.

    Finma previously defended its decision to instruct Credit Suisse to write down its AT1 bonds in March last year as a “viability event.”

    “Through its actions, Switzerland needlessly wiped out $17 billion in AT1 instruments, unjustly violating the property rights of the holders of those instruments,” Dennis Hranitzky, partner and head of Quinn Emanuel’s Sovereign Litigation practice, said in a statement.

    The face value of the AT1 bonds held by the plaintiffs in the suit was over $82 million, Reuters reported, citing the filing.

    This photograph taken on March 24, 2023 in Geneva, shows a sign of Credit Suisse bank.

    Fabrice Coffrini | AFP | Getty Images

    AT1s are bank bonds that are considered a relatively risky form of junior debt. They date back to the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, when regulators tried to shift risk away from taxpayers and increase the capital held by financial institutions to protect them against future crises.

    One of the key attributes of AT1 bonds is that they are designed to absorb losses. This happens automatically when the capital ratio falls below the previously agreed threshold, and AT1s are converted into equity.

    — CNBC’s Sophie Kiderlin contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. ignored evidence major U.K. bank was helping fund sanctioned Iranian groups, whistleblower says

    U.S. ignored evidence major U.K. bank was helping fund sanctioned Iranian groups, whistleblower says

    [ad_1]

    Standard Chartered Plc bank branch in Hong Kong

    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Recent documents submitted to a U.S. federal court allege that major British bank Standard Chartered helped finance sanctioned Iranian entities and terrorist groups, and that relevant evidence was ignored by American authorities.

    London-based Standard Chartered, which primarily serves clients in emerging markets, was previously punished with more than a combined $1.7 billion in fines after admitting in 2012 and 2019 to violating sanctions on Iran and other blacklisted countries.

    The bank denies it ran transactions for any organizations designated as terrorists.

    The latest court filings, provided by former Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) employee turned whistleblower Julian Knight, claim that U.S. officials lied by denying that he provided them with evidence of far greater wrongdoing by the bank. The officials then applied to dismiss his whistleblower case against the bank as “meritless” in 2019 in order to shield it, Knight alleged. He has now asked a U.S. federal court in New York to reinstate the case.

    Knight, who led a Standard Chartered transaction services unit between 2009 and 2011, was one of two whistleblowers who gave U.S. investigators confidential bank statements in 2012 and 2013. The statements documenting transactions that he says contained proof of further sanctions breaches, including violations beyond 2007, when the bank said it had stopped any dealings with Iran.

    Knight’s court filing alleges that the U.S. government committed a “colossal fraud” against the legal system by denying he had presented “damning evidence” that Standard Chartered “facilitated many billions of dollars in banking transactions for Iran, numerous international terror groups, and the front companies for those groups,” according to a report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

    Some of that evidence, the court filing says, showed that the bank’s clients included front companies for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Palestinian militant group Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Iran-linked entities in the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Germany and other countries. 

    The two whistleblowers alleged that U.S. authorities who investigated Standard Chartered “made false statements to a court in order to have their [Knight’s and his colleague’s] claim for a whistleblower’s reward dismissed” in 2019, the BBC reported.

    The authorities in question, including an FBI agent, said that the whistleblowers’ claims “did not lead to the discovery of any new … violations.” The court then dismissed the case as “meritless.” CNBC has contacted the U.S. Department of Justice for comment.

    The ICIJ report says Knight’s latest claim alleges that the U.S. government “lied that it had conducted ‘a lengthy, costly, and substantial investigation’ into his claims or it was “fully aware” of the transactions he had provided “and simply lied to conceal them,” adding: “The Government’s own statements support the latter scenario.”

    In response to a CNBC request for comment, a Standard Chartered spokesperson described Knight’s court filing as “another attempt to use fabricated claims against the bank, following previous unsuccessful attempts” and said that the “false allegations underpinning it have been thoroughly discredited by the U.S. authorities who undertook a comprehensive investigation into the claims and said they were ‘meritless’ and did not show any violations of U.S. sanctions.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • D.C. ethics board recommends Rudy Giuliani be disbarred

    D.C. ethics board recommends Rudy Giuliani be disbarred

    [ad_1]

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani departs the U.S. District Courthouse after he was ordered to pay $148 million in his defamation case in Washington, U.S., December 15, 2023.

    Bonnie Cash | Reuters

    The D.C. Bar’s Board on Professional Responsibility on Friday recommended that Rudy Giuliani be barred from practicing law in the nation’s capital.

    In its report, the board cited Giuliani’s work in Pennsylvania following the 2020 presidential election in which he sought to have the state’s election results thrown out in favor of his former client Donald Trump.

    “The Board agrees with the Hearing Committee that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct,” the report says. “With respect to sanction, we agree with the Hearing Committee that Respondent should be disbarred.”

    This report follows one from last year in which a disciplinary board for the D.C. Bar also recommended disbarment for Giuliani. Now, the case heads to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will decide whether Giuliani, who formerly served as the mayor of New York City, will be disbarred.

    In a statement provided to NBC News, Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, blamed the findings in the report on “partisan Democrats” and said the decision would discourage attorneys from taking on Trump as a client.

    “This recommendation comes as no surprise as partisan Democrats continue to destroy the credibility of the American justice system all in an effort to beat President Trump and to hold onto power,” Goodman said.

    “Taking away the mayor’s law license is meant to discourage lawyers from representing clients like President Donald Trump or anyone else who is willing to take on the prevailing political establishment,” he added.

    Goodman also called “on rank-and-file members of the D.C. Bar Association to speak out against this irresponsible and anti-American recommendation — whether you agree with the mayor’s politics or not.”

    Giuliani has already had his law license suspended in New York, where a New York court ruled that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” following the 2020 presidential election.

    Another former attorney for Trump, Jenna Ellis, is barred from practicing law in Colorado for three years following the work she did for Trump after the last election.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Know Your Game Plan

    Know Your Game Plan

    [ad_1]

    I have often found myself wrestling with the concepts and realities of good and evil. It stands to reason that if you believe in God And His goodness, power and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, then you must also believe in the existence of Satan and his earth bound inherent ‘evilness.’ So that I don’t become too esoteric, allow me to explain. It is the height of hypocrisy or wanton ignorance that we as human beings follow a course of action consistent with one belief and act,at the same time, totally contrary to that same belief.We concede to the reality that evil exists. Our laws and subsequent penalties are there to protect us against criminal, abhorrent and even demonic behavior.

    The recognition, the counterbalance then should be a professed belief that confirms the existence of God. It’s  supposed  to  be  the  good  stuff.

    There are also laws put in place to protect us on that front too.Unfortunately, it seems that evil demands actions while goodness gets a whole lot of lip service. I believe this is true because we humans, with all of our own flaws and faults (or should I say sinfulness), have gotten used to functioning in a world that Satan does have power in. Thanks to him many of us have become somewhat numb to his brand of life. Fortunately when we come to Christ, we are able to see the contrast between good and evil/sin in our own lives.That’s when we finally get it. By putting ourselves in relationship with the righteousness of Christ, it becomes clear to us where we fit in this struggle between good and evil. We then recognize, we are the prize in this game. To the victor we go. Again, fortunately for us, we have some say in the clubhouse celebration. Once you accept the concept of good and evil in the context of God and the devil, the rules of engagement become clear. In this game the ball has a say in who actually participates in the game. We are that ball in this high stakes game for our very own souls. Imagine that.Wecan stack the deck. But it can’t be by happenstance. It must be deliberate and we must be constant in making sure the ball takes favorable bounces throughout the game.

    [ad_2]

    James Washington

    Source link

  • Citi fined $79 million by British regulators over fat-finger trading and control errors

    Citi fined $79 million by British regulators over fat-finger trading and control errors

    [ad_1]

    People walk by a CitiBank location in Manhattan on March 01, 2024 in New York City. 

    Spencer Platt | Getty Images

    LONDON — British regulators on Wednesday dished out a combined £61.6 million ($79 million) in fines to U.S. investment bank Citi for failings in its trading systems and controls.

    The fines were issued by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, whose investigation focused on the period between April 1, 2018, and May 31, 2022. Citi qualified for a 30% reduction in the amount of the penalty after agreeing to resolve the matter.

    “Firms involved in trading must have effective controls in place in order to manage the risks involved. CGML [Citigroup Global Markets Limited] failed to meet the standards we expect in this area, resulting in today’s fine,” Sam Woods, deputy governor for prudential regulation and the chief executive officer of the PRA, said in a statement Wednesday.

    The regulators said that certain system and control issues persisted during the probe period and led to trading incidents, such as so-called fat-finger trading blunders. The main incident highlighted took place on May 2. 2022, when an experienced trader incorrectly inputted an order, which resulted in $1.4 billion “inadvertently being executed on European exchanges.”

    “Deficiencies in CGML’s trading controls contributed to this incident, in particular the absence of certain preventative hard blocks and the inappropriate calibration of other controls,” the statement read.

    In a statement to CNBC, a Citi spokesperson said that the bank was pleased to resolve the matter from more than two years ago, “which arose from an individual error that was identified and corrected within minutes.”

    “We immediately took steps to strengthen our systems and controls, and remain committed to ensuring full regulatory compliance.” the spokesperson said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Automakers Want AM Radios Out of Cars. Congress Is About to Require Them

    Automakers Want AM Radios Out of Cars. Congress Is About to Require Them

    [ad_1]

    A controversial bill that would require all new cars to be fitted with AM radios looks set to become a law in the near future. Yesterday, Senator Edward Markey revealed that the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act now has the support of 60 US Senators, as well as 246 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, making its passage an almost sure thing. Should that happen, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be required to ensure that all new cars sold in the US have AM radios at no extra cost.

    “Democrats and Republicans are tuning in to the millions of listeners, thousands of broadcasters, and countless emergency management officials who depend on AM radio in their vehicles. AM radio is a lifeline for people in every corner of the United States to get news, sports, and local updates in times of emergencies. Our commonsense bill makes sure this fundamental, essential tool doesn’t get lost on the dial. With a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, Congress should quickly take it up and pass it,” said Markey and his cosponsor, Senator Ted Cruz.

    About 82 million people still listen to AM radio, according to the National Association of Broadcasters, which, as you can imagine, was rather pleased with the congressional support for its industry.

    “Broadcasters are grateful for the overwhelming bipartisan support for the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act in both chambers of Congress,” said NAB president and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. “This majority endorsement reaffirms lawmakers’ recognition of the essential service AM radio provides to the American people, particularly in emergency situations. NAB thanks the 307 members of Congress who are reinforcing the importance of maintaining universal access to this crucial public communications medium.”

    Why Are They Dropping AM, Anyway?

    The reason there’s even a bill in Congress to mandate AM radios in all new vehicles is that some automakers have begun to drop the option, particularly in electric vehicles. A big reason for that is electromagnetic interference from electric motors—rather than risk customer complaints from poor-quality audio, some automakers decided to remove it.

    But it’s not exclusively an EV issue; last year we learned the revised Ford Mustang coupe would also arrive sans AM radio, which Ford told us was because radio stations were modernizing “by offering internet streaming through mobile apps, FM, digital, and satellite radio options,” and that it would continue to offer those other audio options in its vehicles.

    In response to congressional questioning, eight automakers told a Senate committee that they were quitting AM: BMW, Ford, Mazda, Polestar, Rivian, Tesla, Volkswagen, and Volvo. This “undermined the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s system for delivering critical public safety information to the public,” said Senator Markey’s office last year, and AM radio’s role as a platform for delivering emergency alerts to the public is given by supporters of the legislation as perhaps the key reason for its necessity.

    Tech and Auto Industries Aren’t Happy

    But critics of the bill—including the Consumer Technology Association—don’t buy that argument. In October 2023, FEMA and the Federal Communications Commission conducted a nationwide test of the emergency alert system. According to the CTA, which surveyed 800 US adults, of the 95 percent of US adults that heard the test, only 6 percent did so via radio, and just 1 percent on AM radio specifically. Instead, 92 percent received the alert pushed to their smartphone.

    “Requiring the installation of analog AM radios in automobiles is an unnecessary action that would impact EV range, efficiency, and affordability at a critical moment of accelerating adoption,” said Albert Gore, executive director of ZETA, a clean vehicle advocacy group that opposes the AM radio requirement. “Mandating AM radio would do little to expand drivers’ ability to receive emergency alerts. At a time when we are more connected than ever, we encourage Congress to allow manufacturers to innovate and produce designs that meet consumer preference, rather than pushing a specific communications technology,” Gore said in a statement.

    This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan M. Gitlin, Ars Technica

    Source link

  • This Is the Beginning of the End of TikTok

    This Is the Beginning of the End of TikTok

    [ad_1]

    On Tuesday, the Senate passed a massive foreign aid package that included an ultimatum for TikTok: Divest or be banned from operating within the US. The package was approved by the House of Representatives on Saturday, and President Joe Biden said that he intends to sign the bill on Wednesday.

    “Even as our social media platforms have fumbled in their response to foreign influence operations, there was never any concern that these platforms are operating at the direction of foreign adversaries,” Mark Warner, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said ahead of the vote on Tuesday. “I cannot say the same for TikTok.”

    For more than four years, Congress has threatened to ban TikTok, citing potential risks to national security. Last month, the House approved a separate divestiture bill, but the measure stalled out in the Senate after lawmakers like Senator Maria Cantwell argued that giving TikTok six months to find a new owner was too little time. The new bill extends the deadline for up to an additional six months, giving TikTok a year to sell.

    “It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign aid and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans,” TikTok said in a statement shortly after Saturday’s vote. The company did not immediately respond to the Senate’s vote on Tuesday.

    The effort to ban TikTok has become politically fraught, especially as more politicians join the platform to campaign in the 2024 election. For years, the Biden administration and campaign avoided creating their own accounts on the app, opting to build out a network of influencers to fill the void. But in February, Biden’s reelection campaign joined TikTok. In March, Biden told reporters that he would sign the bill.

    Responding to this revived divestment effort, former president Donald Trump blamed Biden for attacks against the app. “Just so everyone knows, especially the young people, Crooked Joe Biden is responsible for banning TikTok,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday. “He is the one pushing it to close, and doing it to help his friends over at Facebook become richer and more dominant, and able to continue to fight, perhaps illegally, the Republican Party.”

    The Trump administration was the first to go after TikTok. In 2020, Trump signed a series of executive orders banning apps like TikTok, Alipay, and WeChat. Court challenges prevented these orders from going into place. Last year, Montana lawmakers voted to ban the app, but a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect, saying that it “likely violates the First Amendment.” After the bill passed the House on Saturday, the company’s head of public policy, Michael Beckerman, told staff in an email that if the bill were signed into law, “we will move to the courts for a legal challenge.”

    Many lawmakers have cited national security and data privacy concerns as their primary motivation for supporting the bill.

    “Congress is not acting to punish ByteDance, TikTok or any other individual company,” Democratic senator Maria Cantwell, said in a floor speech on Tuesday. “Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.”

    Critics of a ban have long argued that passing a sweeping data privacy bill could satisfy most of the complaints lawmakers have over TikTok’s security, as well as those posed by US-based companies.

    “Congress could pass comprehensive consumer privacy legislation, which would, I think, take more meaningful steps toward addressing a lot of the data privacy concerns that have been raised about TikTok,” says Kate Ruane, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project. “And I do not think that there is public evidence that is currently available to demonstrate that extreme, serious, immediate harm exists.”

    [ad_2]

    Vittoria Elliott, Makena Kelly

    Source link

  • Study: U.S. Medical Cannabis Laws Increase Patient’s Mental Health

    Study: U.S. Medical Cannabis Laws Increase Patient’s Mental Health

    [ad_1]

    Researchers from the University of Basel in Switzerland recently published a study on April 2 to analyze how medical cannabis legalization in the U.S. has affected the country and its patients’ well-being.

    Entitled “Medical marijuana laws and mental health in the United States,” researchers wanted to determine the effects of medical cannabis policies on patients over time. “The consequences of legal access to medical marijuana for individuals’ well-being are controversially assessed,” researchers wrote. “We contribute to the discussion by evaluating the impact of the introduction of medical marijuana laws across U.S. states on self-reported mental health considering different motives for cannabis consumption.”

    Researchers analyzed the responses of 7.9 million people who participated in phone surveys between 1993-2018. This information was collected through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which focuses on data collection regarding “mental well-being.” In addition to this, researchers also utilized data collected by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

    Participants were placed in specific groups, such as those who were “highly likely to abstain from using marijuana, to use marijuana as a recreational drug, or to use it for medical reasons” in order to determine the overall affect of medical cannabis legalization on their mental health. Additionally, researchers took into account the use of cannabis specifically for overall chronic pain.

    Mental health was measured by asking participants to self-assess themselves by recording how many days they encountered mental health problems during the month prior to the assessment.

    Ultimately, researchers found that medical cannabis legalization had no effect on either recreational consumers or youth. “We find weak evidence of positive effects on mental health due to the liberalisation of medical marijuana for the U.S. population overall,” researchers wrote in their conclusion. “While the estimated overall reduction in poor mental health days is not statistically significant, the result still implies an absence of evidence for the critical perspectives that highlight the risk of aggravated mental health problems due to MML [medical marijuana laws] introductions.”

    “Easier access improves the mental health of individuals who use marijuana for medical reasons,” stated a University of Basel press article. “The same applies to people who are very likely to suffer from pain. The study authors estimate that these two groups spend 0.3 days less per month in poor mental health due to the change in the law.”

    Professor Alois Stutzer summarized these findings in his own statement as well. “Overall, our results show that medical cannabis legislation in the USA benefits the people it is intended for without harming other groups,” Stutzer said. He explained that recreational cannabis consumers aren’t worse off after legalization, either, and ultimately there is “a clear relationship between liberalization and mental well-being.”

    Both the U.S. and Switzerland both share a federal government structure. While Stutzer calls the most recent study an “experimental article” because it can help pave the way toward more studies that analyze Switzerland’s future cannabis industry.

    The most recent study only extended to data collected prior to 2018, so it would be interesting to see a future study analyze even more recent data that accompanies the many other states that have legalized medical and/or adult-use cannabis within the past five years.

    Switzerland has been conducting isolated cannabis pilot programs to analyze consumer trends, sales patterns, and more. Recently at the end of March, the first data connected to one of these programs was released.

    The ZüriCan study includes 1,928 people who have been approved to purchase cannabis for the study (a total of 2,100 individuals can participate). The newest data shared that of current participants, 80.7% are men, 18% are women, and 1% are nonbinary people. The demographic disparity was not a surprise, however, as researchers expected there to be a vast difference in gender-related consumers.

    Additionally, researchers found that participants between the ages of 28-32 represented the highest percentage among all age groups (the average age of consumers is currently 35 years old). “Participation in the study seems to be particularly attractive for people who consume frequently,” researchers wrote. “However, people who only use cannabis a few times a month also take part in the study. This will allow us to compare people with different consumption habits in our study.”

    The program data also showed that 6,500 sales have been made so far, with approximately 309 pounds of cannabis sold (individual packs were available only in five gram amounts).

    Tobias Viegener, the head of marketing Cannavigia, a company that is working directly with the Swiss Federal Office on Public Health, told Forbes about the significance of this early data. “The initial data from the ‘ZüriCan’ pilot, published this month, reveals promising insights into the regulated cannabis market’s functionality and its acceptance among participants,” Viegener said. “This level of engagement indicates a positive reception and an effective distribution system, setting a solid foundation for informing future cannabis policy and regulation.”

    [ad_2]

    Nicole Potter

    Source link

  • Oregon’s Breakthrough Right-to-Repair Bill Is Now Law

    Oregon’s Breakthrough Right-to-Repair Bill Is Now Law

    [ad_1]

    Oregon governor Tina Kotek yesterday signed the state’s Right to Repair Act, which will push manufacturers to provide more repair options for their products than any other state so far.

    The law, like those passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, will require many manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools, and documentation to individuals and repair shops that they provide to their own repair teams.

    But Oregon’s bill goes further, preventing companies from implementing schemes that require parts to be verified through encrypted software checks before they will function, known as parts pairing or serialization. Oregon’s bill, SB 1596, is the first in the nation to target that practice. Oregon state senator Janeen Sollman and representative Courtney Neron, both Democrats, sponsored and pushed the bill in the state senate and legislature.

    “By eliminating manufacturer restrictions, the Right to Repair will make it easier for Oregonians to keep their personal electronics running,” said Charlie Fisher, director of Oregon’s chapter of the Public Interest Research Group, in a statement. “That will conserve precious natural resources and prevent waste. It’s a refreshing alternative to a ‘throwaway’ system that treats everything as disposable.”

    Oregon’s law isn’t stronger in every regard. For one, there is no set number of years for a manufacturer to support a device with repair support. Parts pairing is prohibited only on devices sold in 2025 and later. And there are carve-outs for certain kinds of electronics and devices, including video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC systems, motor vehicles, and—as with other states—“electric toothbrushes.”

    Apple opposed the Oregon repair bill for its parts-pairing ban. John Perry, a senior manager for secure design at Apple, testified at a February hearing in Oregon that the pairing restriction would “undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices.”

    Apple surprised many observers with its support for California’s repair bill in 2023, though it did so after pressing for repair providers to mention when they use “non-genuine or used” components and to bar repair providers from disabling security features.

    According to Consumer Reports, which lobbied and testified in support of Oregon’s bill, the repair laws passed in four states now cover nearly 70 million people.

    This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Purdy, Ars Technica

    Source link

  • Feds seek seizure of two New York apartments worth $14 million tied to former Mongolia leader in alleged mining scheme

    Feds seek seizure of two New York apartments worth $14 million tied to former Mongolia leader in alleged mining scheme

    [ad_1]

    Batbold Sukhbaatar of Mongolia addresses the Millennium Development Goals Summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York, September 22, 2010.

    Emmanuel Dunand | AFP | Getty Images

    Federal prosecutors on Tuesday sued to seize two New York City apartments worth $14 million that were allegedly bought with proceeds from a corrupt scheme involving Mongolia’s huge copper mine, a former prime minister of that nation, and his Harvard Business School graduate son.

    The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn details a total of $128 million in allegedly unlawful contracts granted by a Mongolian state-owned mining company to shell companies, which benefited then Prime Minister Sukhbaatar Batbold and his family, including his oldest son.

    “During Batbold’s tenure as Prime Minister, Erdenet Mining Corporation inserted a middleman with ties to Batbold into the relationship with [the commodity trading firm] Ocean Partners, allowing Batbold to siphon off millions of dollars for his personal use and benefit, which included the purchase of the” luxury apartments in Manhattan, the suit alleges.

    Batbold served as prime minister from 2009 through 2012. He currently is a member of the Mongolian parliament.

    Money linked to another allegedly illegal contract for $30 million from Erdernet Mining went into a bank account in the United States controlled by the eldest son, Battushig Batbold, via wire transfers referencing “car payment,” trips and travel,” “school payment,” and “interior designer payment,” the suit said.

    Batbold’s son, Battushig Batbold, a Harvard Business School graduate, is a member of the International Olympic Committee.

    Battushig Batbold also worked as a summer associate at Blackstone in 2014, and as a mining analyst at Morgan Stanley from 2009 through 2011, according to his LinkedIn page.

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    Orin Snyder, an attorney at the Gibson Dunn firm which is representing Sukhbaatar Batbold and Battushig Batbold, in an email statement to CNBC said, “The claims filed today echo allegations our clients defeated two years ago in courts around the world.”

    “In those cases, we proved the claims against Mr. Batbold were the product of a misinformation campaign designed to manipulate Mongolian democracy — a campaign secretly directed by Mr. Batbold’s opponents.”

    “Mr. Batbold looks forward to his day in court, when he will have the opportunity to defend himself against these unfounded claims,” the attorney said.

     CNBC has reached out to Mongolia’s United Nations mission in New York for comment on the allegations in the suit.

    Don’t miss these stories from CNBC PRO:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden signs $1.2 trillion spending package for government funding until October

    Biden signs $1.2 trillion spending package for government funding until October

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris meet with (L-R) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), on February 27, 2024 at the White House in Washington, DC.

    Roberto Schmidt | Getty Images

    President Joe Biden on Saturday signed Congress‘ $1.2 trillion spending package, finalizing the remaining batch of bills in a long-awaited budget to keep the government funded until Oct. 1.

    Almost halfway into the fiscal year, the president’s signature ends a months-long saga of Congress struggling to secure a permanent budget resolution and instead passing stopgap measures, nearly averting government shutdowns.

    “The bipartisan funding bill I just signed keeps the government open, invests in the American people, and strengthens our economy and national security,” Biden said in a Saturday statement. “This agreement represents a compromise, which means neither side got everything it wanted.”

    The weekend budget deal slid in just under the wire before the Friday midnight funding deadline, as has been typical this fiscal year with eleventh-hour disagreements derailing near-complete deals.

    The Senate passed the budget in a 74-24 vote at roughly 2 a.m. ET Saturday morning, technically two hours after the deadline due to last-minute disagreements. However, the White House said that it would not begin official shutdown operations since a deal had ultimately been secured and only procedural actions remained.

    The House passed its own vote Friday morning after a week of scrambling to reconcile a lingering sticking point: funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which the White House took issue with last weekend. The White House’s qualms delayed the negotiation process further, just as lawmakers were preparing to release the legislative text of the budget proposal.

    This trillion-dollar tranche of six appropriation bills will fund agencies related to defense, financial services, homeland security, health and human services and more. Congress approved $459 billion for the first six appropriations bills earlier in March, which related to agencies that were less partisan and easier to negotiate.

    With the government finally funded for the rest of the fiscal year, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has cleared his plate of at least one looming issue.

    But in so doing, he may have created another.

    Hours before the House passed the spending package Friday morning, hardline House Republicans held a press conference to lambast the bill. Moments after the House narrowly passed the bill, far-right Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a motion to oust Johnson.

    If ousting a House speaker for budget disagreements feels like a familiar story, that’s because it is.

    In October, after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy struck a deal with Democrats to avert a government shutdown, the House voted to remove him, making him the first Speaker in history to be removed from that position. Johnson has been trying to appease the hardline Republican wing of the House, called the Freedom Caucus, to avoid meeting a similar fate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 7 Ways the Apple Antitrust Case Could Change Your iPhone

    7 Ways the Apple Antitrust Case Could Change Your iPhone

    [ad_1]

    If Apple opened this up, you could use a cross-platform digital wallet of your choice, making it easier to switch smartphones. You could also use digital car keys in your car manufacturer’s cross-platform app.

    Cloud Gaming

    The DOJ alleges that Apple resists cloud gaming services and apps because it perceives them as a threat to the “high-performance local compute” that sets iPhones apart from competitors. The idea is that the hardware doesn’t matter if you offload the processing to the cloud. All you need is a fast internet connection and a cheap device (such as a budget Android phone).

    The suit also criticizes Apple for insisting that cloud-streaming games be submitted as stand-alone apps for its approval, and for forcing the cloud games it does allow to use its proprietary payment system.

    Perhaps in a preemptive move, Apple announced it would open the App Store for game streaming apps and services in January.

    We should see services such as Xbox Cloud Gaming and Nvidia GeForce Now with their own iPhone apps soon, but how subscriptions and game services within those apps will work on iPhones is not yet clear.

    If developers could create a single cloud app to run across platforms, it would significantly cut their costs compared with Apple’s current system, and make many more games available on iPhones.

    Better Smartwatches

    Apple wants you to buy an Apple Watch to go with your iPhone. To that end, the lawsuit points out that Apple only allows third-party smartwatches to access a subset of the application programming interfaces (APIs) that the Apple Watch has access to.

    Only the Apple Watch can respond to messages, accept calendar invites, or stay connected to your iPhone when the battery-saving Low Power Mode is on.

    Without these restrictions, using third-party smartwatches with an iPhone could be a far better experience.

    Apple Watch on Android

    The long-reigning champion of every Best Smartwatches guide, including ours, is the Apple Watch. This excellent wearable boasts all kinds of slick integrations with Apple’s wares and services, but you must own an iPhone to use the Apple Watch.

    The suit points out that this makes it harder for folks who own both to switch away from Apple (because they’ll need a new phone and a new watch), but it also drives iPhone sales. I would love to use my Apple Watch with my Android phone, but of all the possibilities presented by this suit, this may be the unlikeliest.

    Super Apps

    The lawsuit talks about Apple’s alleged suppression of “super apps” a lot. Super apps provide multiple functions or mini apps all in one—so they might combine an app store, messaging functionality, and a payment system (like WeChat, for example).

    The suit claims that super apps would be good for users and developers, reducing dependence on the iPhone, making it easier to switch to another smartphone, and creating a homogenous experience across platforms. The EU is already forcing Apple to allow third-party app stores in Europe, among other changes, so it might cede some ground here.

    Ultimately, Apple will continue to fight this in court, and we may never see some of these proposed changes. An emailed Apple statement said, “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart … We will vigorously defend against it.”

    After its mostly victorious battle with Epic, we would not bet against an Apple win. But many of these changes would be welcome for ordinary iPhone users. Ironically, they may even make the iPhone more attractive for folks who currently use an Android phone.

    [ad_2]

    Simon Hill

    Source link

  • Trump can’t secure $454 million appeal bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say

    Trump can’t secure $454 million appeal bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a news story about New York Attorney General Letitia James as he speaks to the media at one of his properties at 40 Wall Street following closing arguments at his civil fraud trial on January 11, 2024 in New York City.

    Spencer Platt | Getty Images

    Donald Trump does not have enough cash to obtain an appeal bond that would prevent New York’s attorney general from seizing his real estate assets to satisfy a $454 million civil fraud judgment, his lawyers indicated in a court filing Monday.

    Trump’s lawyers in the filing said it has proved “impossible” for the former president to get a bond that would secure the full judgment he faces while he appeals the verdict ordering him to pay it.

    The filing asks a panel of five Manhattan appeals court judges to let Trump avoid having to post a bond while he challenges a judge’s verdict that he, the Trump Organization and other defendants committed business fraud.

    If the panel does not approve that request, Attorney General Letitia James could begin a process to seize Trump’s properties on March 25.

    James, who had successfully sued Trump in the case, previously said she would take that step if he did not post an appeal bond or pay off the judgment.

    The filing in Manhattan Supreme Court’s appellate division says Trump’s team contacted about 30 surety companies but did not find one willing to underwrite the bond.

    Trump’s lawyer wrote that obtaining a bond of that size would require “cash reserves approaching $1 billion,” which neither the former president nor the Trump Organization company has.

    Under New York court rules, Trump must post an appeal bond to avoid James moving to collect on the fraud judgment.

    More news on Donald Trump

    Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung in a statement said, “A bond of this size would be an abuse of the law, contradict bedrock principals of our Republic, and fundamentally undermine the rule of law in New York.”

    Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump and his co-defendants to pay a total of $464 million in damages and interest for violating a New York anti-fraud statute.

    Engoron ruled that Trump, his two adult sons, the Trump Organization, and the company’s top executives had fraudulently inflated the value of real estate assets for years to boost his net worth and get better loan terms and other financial benefits.

    Trump was ordered to pay the lion’s share of the judgment: $454 million. Post-judgment interest on Trump’s share of the damages continues to accrue at a rate of nearly $112,000 a day.

    Trump, who has secured the Republican presidential nomination, in a deposition last year claimed to have “substantially in excess of $400 million in cash.”

    Despite that, Monday’s nearly 5,000-page court filing by his lawyers detailed his inability to get a bond to secure the full judgment.

    The filing includes an affirmation from Gary Giulietti, president of the Northeast division of the Lockton Companies, which he describes as the largest privately held insurance brokerage firm in the world.

    Giulietti, who was hired by Trump to help him get a bond, wrote, “Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our effort … for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented.”

    Only a handful of bond surety companies are approved by the Treasury Department to underwrite a bond that large, and many of those firms will only issue a single bond to a maximum of $100 million, Giulietti wrote.

    He also said that none of those companies will accept non-liquid assets — such as real estate — as collateral.

    “Simply put, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen,” Giulietti wrote. “In the unusual circumstance that a bond of this size is issued, it is provided to the largest public companies in the world, not to individuals or privately held businesses.”

    The Trump Organization is privately held.

    Giulietti wrote that it would be unattainable for a private company to obtain a bond to secure the $464 million total judgment unless it had around $1 billion in cash or cash equivalents to offer as collateral, while still being able to satisfy its other business obligations.

    “While it is my understanding that the Trump Organization is in a strong liquidity position, it does not have $1 billion in cash or cash equivalents,” he wrote.

    Trump’s attorneys also noted in the filing that bond issuers often will demand collateral totaling 120% of the judgment, which equates to over $557 million.

    Those issuers are also likely to demand a two-year advance on a 2% annual bond premium, which would require the defendants to pay more than $18 million upfront, the lawyers wrote.

    The defendants had previously offered to post a $100 million bond to prevent James from collecting on the judgment while Trump appealed Engoron’s verdict.

    An appellate division judge rejected that proposal but allowed the defendants to continue doing business in New York and lifted Engoron’s three-year ban on Trump seeking loans in New York. That order is temporarily in effect before a full appeals court panel hears the motion for a stay.

    Trump earlier this month obtained a $91.6 million bond from insurance company Chubb to secure a civil defamation judgment against him in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll as he appeals that verdict. According to Monday’s filing, Chubb was one of the companies that Trump contacted in trying to obtain the bond for the business fraud case.

    Carroll had successfully sued Trump in federal court for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of raping her in the mid-1990s in a Manhattan department store.

    [ad_2]

    Source link