An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: OpenAI is preparing to raise what could be its final defense to stop The New York Times from digging through a spectacularly broad range of ChatGPT logs to hunt for any copyright-infringing outputs that could become the most damning evidence in the hotly watched case. In a joint letter (PDF) Thursday, both sides requested to hold a confidential settlement conference on August 7. Ars confirmed with the NYT's legal team that the conference is not about settling the case but instead was scheduled to settle one of the most disputed aspects of the case: news plaintiffs searching through millions of ChatGPT logs. That means it's possible that this week, ChatGPT users will have a much clearer understanding of whether their private chats might be accessed in the lawsuit. In the meantime, OpenAI has broken down (PDF) the "highly complex" process required to make deleted chats searchable in order to block the NYT's request for broader access.

Previously, OpenAI had vowed to stop what it deemed was the NYT's attempt to conduct "mass surveillance" of ChatGPT users. But ultimately, OpenAI lost its fight to keep news plaintiffs away from all ChatGPT logs. After that loss, OpenAI appears to have pivoted and is now doing everything in its power to limit the number of logs accessed in the case -- short of settling -- as its customers fretted over serious privacy concerns. For the most vulnerable users, the lawsuit threatened to expose ChatGPT outputs from sensitive chats that OpenAI had previously promised would be deleted. Most recently, OpenAI floated a compromise, asking the court to agree that news organizations didn't need to search all ChatGPT logs. The AI company cited the "only expert" who has so far weighed in on what could be a statistically relevant, appropriate sample size -- computer science researcher Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick. He suggested that a sample of 20 million logs would be sufficient to determine how frequently ChatGPT users may be using the chatbot to regurgitate articles and circumvent news sites' paywalls. But the NYT and other news organizations rejected the compromise, OpenAI said in a filing (PDF) yesterday. Instead, news plaintiffs have made what OpenAI said was an "extraordinary request that OpenAI produce the individual log files of 120 million ChatGPT consumer conversations."

That's six times more data than Berg-Kirkpatrick recommended, OpenAI argued. Complying with the request threatens to "increase the scope of user privacy concerns" by delaying the outcome of the case "by months," OpenAI argued. If the request is granted, it would likely trouble many users by extending the amount of time that users' deleted chats will be stored and potentially making them vulnerable to a breach or leak. As negotiations potentially end this week, OpenAI's co-defendant, Microsoft, has picked its own fight with the NYT over its internal ChatGPT equivalent tool that could potentially push the NYT to settle the disputes over ChatGPT logs.

Rivian has filed a federal lawsuit in Ohio to challenge a state law preventing it from selling electric vehicles directly to consumers, arguing the rule is anti-competitive and outdated. The law currently protects legacy dealerships while allowing Tesla a special carve-out, and Rivian wants similar rights to apply for a direct-sales license in the state. TechCrunch reports: "Ohio's prohibition of Rivian's direct-sales-only business model is irrational in the extreme: it reduces competition, decreases consumer choice, and drives up consumer costs and inconvenience -- all of which harm consumers -- with literally no countervailing benefit," lawyers for the company wrote in the complaint. Rivian is asking the court to allow the company to apply for a dealership license so it can sell vehicles directly. Ohio customers have to buy from Rivian vehicles from locations in other states where direct sales are allowed. The cars are then shipped to Rivian service centers within Ohio.

Allowing Rivian to sell directly would not be treading new legal ground, the company argues in its complaint. Tesla has had a license to sell in Ohio since 2013 and can sell directly to consumers. What's stopping Rivian is a 2014 law passed by the state's legislature. That law, which Rivian says came after an intense lobbying effort by the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association (OADA), effectively gave Tesla a carve-out and blocked any future manufacturers from acquiring the necessary dealership licenses. "Consumer choice is a bedrock principle of America's economy. Ohio's archaic prohibition against the direct-sales of vehicles is unconstitutional, irrational, and harms Ohioans by reducing competition and choice and driving up costs and inconvenience," Mike Callahan, Rivian's chief administrative officer, said in a statement.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Yesterday, when Epic won its Google antitrust lawsuit for a second time, it wasn't quite clear how soon Google would need to start dismantling its affirmed illegal monopoly.

Today, Google admits the answer is: 14 days. Google has just 14 days to enact major changes to its Google Play app store, and the way it does business with phonemakers, cellular carriers, and app developers, unless it wins an emergency stay (pause) from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as it continues to appeal. It must stop forcing apps to use Google Play Billing, allow app developers to freely steer their users to other platforms, and limit the perks it can offer in exchange for preinstalled apps, among other changes.

A Brussels court has issued an unusually broad site-blocking order targeting Internet Archive's Open Library alongside shadow libraries including Anna's Archive, Libgen, and Z-Library. The order, requested by publishing and author organizations, directs an unprecedented range of intermediaries to take action beyond traditional ISP blocks.

Search engines, DNS resolvers, advertisers, domain name services, CDNs, hosting companies, and payment processors -- including Google, Microsoft, Cloudflare, Amazon Web Services, PayPal, and Starlink -- must restrict access to the targeted sites. The court found "clear and significant infringement" in the ex parte proceeding.

Financial Times: The UK's highest court has partially overturned a landmark motor finance judgment that threatened to leave banks on the hook for tens of billions of pounds in compensation for allegedly deceiving consumers with hidden commissions on car loans.

The Supreme Court's decision has been keenly awaited by investors as well as millions of consumers who were poised to claim redress from the banks. The government has been considering legislation to limit the fallout. The controversy over car finance shot to prominence after a bombshell Court of Appeal judgment in October that awarded compensation to three people who claimed they were misled by banks concealing the payment of commissions to dealerships. The $58.3 billion car finance scandal centers on hidden commissions paid by lenders to car dealers who arranged loans without disclosing the payment amounts and terms to borrowers. Under discretionary commission arrangements, dealers received larger payments when they persuaded car buyers to accept higher interest rates on loans. The practice affected roughly 90% of new car purchases and many secondhand vehicles, potentially exposing millions of motorists to mis-selling.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Efforts to introduce pirate site blocking to the United States continue with the introduction of the "Block BEARD" bill (PDF) in the Senate. The bipartisan proposal, backed by Senators Tillis, Coons, Blackburn, and Schiff, aims to create a new legal mechanism to combat foreign piracy websites. Block BEARD is similar to the previously introduced House bill "FADPA", but doesn't directly mention DNS resolvers. [...] The site-blocking proposal seeks to amend U.S. copyright law, enabling rightsholders to request federal courts to designate online locations as a "foreign digital piracy site". If that succeeds, courts can subsequently order U.S. service providers to block access to these sites.

Pirate site designation would be dependent on rightsholders showing that they are harmed by a site's activities, that reasonable efforts had been made to notify the site's operator, and that a reasonable investigation confirms the operator is not located within the United States. Additionally, rightsholders must show that the site is primarily designed for piracy, has limited commercial purpose, or is intentionally marketed by its operator to promote copyright-infringing activities. If the court classifies a website as a foreign pirate site, rightsholders can go back to court to request a blocking order. At this stage, the court will determine whether it is technically and practically feasible for ISPs to block the site, and consider any potential harm to the public interest. The granted orders would stay in place for a year with the option to extend if necessary. If blocked sites switch to new locations, the court can also amend blocking orders to include new IP addresses and domain names.

The Block BEARD bill broadly applies to service providers as defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) of the DMCA. This is a broad definition that applies to residential ISPs, but also to search engines, social media platforms, and DNS resolvers. Service providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers are explicitly excluded, and the same applies to venues such as coffee shops, libraries, and universities that offer internet access to visitors. Unlike the FADPA bill introduced by Representative Lofgren earlier this year, the Senate bill does not specifically mention DNS resolvers. Block BEARD does not mention VPNs, but its broad definition of "service provider" could be interpreted to include them. The proposal states that providers have the option to contest their inclusion in a blocking order. Once an order is issued, they would have the freedom to choose their own blocking techniques. There are no transparency requirements mentioned in the bill, so if and how the public is informed is unclear.

Google lost its appeal Thursday of a judge's order that will force the tech giant to open up its app store to competitors. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling requiring Google Play to allow rival marketplaces and billing systems, ending a legal battle that began when Epic Games sued over anticompetitive practices.

A jury sided with Epic in December 2023, finding Google paid phone makers and app developers to use its store exclusively.

Sony has filed a lawsuit in California court against Tencent, alleging the Chinese company's upcoming game Light of Motiram constitutes a "slavish clone" of Sony's Horizon series.

The complaint details extensive similarities between the games, from post-apocalyptic robot dinosaur settings to red-haired female protagonists. Tencent had approached Sony for licensing deals in 2024, which Sony rejected twice.

Earlier this month, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise settled its antitrust case with the U.S. Justice Department, "paving the way for its acquisition of rival kit maker Juniper Networks" for $14 billion. According to Axios, the deal was heavily influenced by national security concerns and a desire to bolster American competition against China's Huawei. The outlet reports that the U.S. intelligence community "intervened to persuade the Justice Department that allowing the merger to proceed was essential to helping U.S. business compete with China's Huawei Technologies, among other national-security issues." From the report: "In light of significant national security concerns, a settlement ... serves the interests of the United States by strengthening domestic capabilities and is critical to countering Huawei and China." The official said blocking the deal would have "hindered American companies and empowered" Chinese competitors. A Justice Department spokesman added that DOJ "works very closely with our partners in the IC [intelligence community] and always considers their views when deciding how best to proceed with a case."

The merger was back in the news this week with reports that two senior enforcers in the DOJ's antitrust division were fired Monday amid infighting over the department's settlement greenlighting HPE's $14 billion acquisition of Juniper. Attorney General Pam Bondi had conversations with top intelligence officials that convinced her there was a strong national interest in not driving allies to Chinese technology, a senior administration official tells us.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGATE: During the 2010s' boom in on-demand services such as Uber and DoorDash, Wag staked a claim to the market for dog walking. It became a buzzy, high-flying company, at one point gaining a valuation of around $650 million, and grew to offer a whole range of tech products for pet care. But as the years passed, struggles mounted and profits remained elusive. On July 21, Wag filed (PDF) for bankruptcy. To stay alive, the San Francisco-headquartered company is now using bankruptcy court to restructure in what's known as a Chapter 11 process. Its lines of business -- including gig-work dog walking and sitting, pet insurance, and the veterinary tool "Furscription" -- will remain open, according to a news release. If a judge approves Wag's restructuring plan, it will take the company off the public markets and into the private hands of a company called Retriever.

On the same day of the bankruptcy filing, Wag's chief financial officer, Alec Davidian, submitted a document (PDF) supporting and explaining the move. He wrote that Wag's "monthly revenues declined rapidly after March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic" and pointed to $69.5 million in losses from 2022 through 2024. The losses weren't Wag's only problem. The company had taken out debt in 2022 when it went public, and in that loan agreement, it had set a minimum level of cash Wag would need to have on hand at all times. This year, Wag dropped below that amount, Davidian wrote. Wag also failed to find a third-party deal to get more money, the CFO noted, and its debt obligations are set to mature in August, meaning the company was "facing a dire liquidity crisis." So, Wag opted for the bankruptcy proceeding, in which it plans to eliminate the 2022 debt, which is currently held by Retriever. "Through the Restructuring," Davidian wrote, "[Wag] will emerge from these Chapter 11 Cases a stronger company, with a more sustainable capital structure that is better aligned with [Wag's] present and future operating prospects."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Popular Science: On the early evening of June 22, 2010, American tennis star John Isner began a grueling Wimbledon match against Frenchman Nicolas Mahut that would become the longest in the sport's history. The marathon battle lasted 11 hours and stretched across three consecutive days. Though Isner ultimately prevailed 70-68 in the fifth set, some in attendance half-jokingly wondered at the time whether the two men might be trapped on that court for eternity. A similarly endless-seeming skirmish of rackets is currently unfolding just an hour's drive south of the All England Club -- at Google DeepMind. Known for pioneering AI models that have outperformed the best human players at chess and Go, DeepMind now has a pair of robotic arms engaged in a kind of infinite game of table tennis. The goal of this ongoing research project, which began in 2022, is for the two robots to continuously learn from each other through competition.

Just as Isner eventually adapted his game to beat Mahut, each robotic arm uses AI models to shift strategies and improve. But unlike the Wimbledon example, there's no final score the robots can reach to end their slugfest. Instead, they continue to compete indefinitely, with the aim of improving at every swing along the way. And while the robotic arms are easily beaten by advanced human players, they've been shown to dominate beginners. Against intermediate players, the robots have roughly 50/50 odds -- placing them, according to researchers, at a level of "solidly amateur human performance."

All of this, as two researchers involved noted this week in an IEEE Spectrum blog, is being done in hopes of creating an advanced, general-purpose AI model that could serve as the "brains" of humanoid robots that may one day interact with people in real-world factories, homes, and beyond. Researchers at DeepMind and elsewhere are hopeful that this learning method, if scaled up, could spark a "ChatGPT moment" for robotics -- fast-tracking the field from stumbling, awkward hunks of metal to truly useful assistants. "We are optimistic that continued research in this direction will lead to more capable, adaptable machines that can learn the diverse skills needed to operate effectively and safely in our unstructured world," DeepMind senior staff engineer Pannag Sanketi and Arizona State University Professor Heni Ben Amor write in IEEE Spectrum.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: A federal judge reprimanded lawyers with a high-priced firm defending Alabama's prison system for using ChatGPT to write court filings with "completely made up" case citations. U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco publicly reprimanded three lawyers with Butler Snow, the law firm hired to defend Alabama and other jurisdictions in lawsuits against their prison systems. The order sanctioned William R. Lunsford, the head of the firm division that handles prison litigation, along with Matthew B. Reeves and William J. Cranford. "Fabricating legal authority is serious misconduct that demands a serious sanction," Manasco wrote in the Wednesday sanctions order.

Manasco removed the three from participating in the case where the false citations were filed and directed them to share the sanctions order with clients, opposing lawyers and judges in all of their other cases. She also referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar for possible disciplinary action. [...] "In simpler terms, the citations were completely made up," Manasco wrote. She added that using the citations without verifying their accuracy was "recklessness in the extreme." The filings in question were made in a lawsuit filed by an inmate who was stabbed on multiple occasions at the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility in Jefferson County. The lawsuit alleges that prison officials are failing to keep inmates safe.

An Argentine captured naked in his yard by a Google Street View camera has been awarded compensation by a court after his bare behind was splashed over the internet for all to see. From a report: The policeman had sought payment from the internet giant for harm to his dignity, arguing he was behind a 6 1/2-foot wall when a Google camera captured him in the buff, from behind, in small-town Argentina in 2017. His house number and street name were also laid bare, broadcast on Argentine TV covering the story, and shared widely on social media.

The man claimed the invasion exposed him to ridicule at work and among his neighbors. Another court last year dismissed the man's claim for damages, ruling he only had himself to blame for "walking around in inappropriate conditions in the garden of his home." Google, for its part, claimed the perimeter wall was not high enough.

A federal court has denied requests by Ryan Rothholz to dismiss or transfer an Activision lawsuit targeting his alleged Call of Duty cheating software operation. Rothholz, who operated under the online handle "Lerggy," submitted motions in June and earlier this month seeking to dismiss the case or move it to the Southern District of New York, but both were rejected due to filing errors.

The May lawsuit alleges Rothholz created "Lergware" hacking software that enabled players to cheat by kicking opponents offline, then rebranded to develop "GameHook" after receiving a cease and desist letter in June 2023. Court filings say he sold a "master key" for $350 that facilitated cheating across multiple games. The hacks "are parasitic in nature," the complaint said, alleging violations of the game's terms of service, copyright law and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that NFTs qualify as "goods" under the Lanham Act, entitling them to trademark protection. The decision in Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps establishes that brand owners can sue NFT copycats with the same legal tools used against counterfeit sneakers or handbags.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Hacking is hard. Well, sometimes. Other times, you just call up a company's IT service desk and pretend to be an employee who needs a password reset, an Okta multifactor authentication reset, and a Microsoft multifactor authentication reset... and it's done. Without even verifying your identity. So you use that information to log in to the target network and discover a more trusted user who works in IT security. You call the IT service desk back, acting like you are now this second person, and you request the same thing: a password reset, an Okta multifactor authentication reset, and a Microsoft multifactor authentication reset. Again, the desk provides it, no identity verification needed. So you log in to the network with these new credentials and set about planting ransomware or exfiltrating data in the target network, eventually doing an estimated $380 million in damage. Easy, right?

According to The Clorox Company, which makes everything from lip balm to cat litter to charcoal to bleach, this is exactly what happened to it in 2023. But Clorox says that the "debilitating" breach was not its fault. It had outsourced the "service desk" part of its IT security operations to the massive services company Cognizant -- and Clorox says that Cognizant failed to follow even the most basic agreed-upon procedures for running the service desk. In the words of a new Clorox lawsuit, Cognizant's behavior was "all a devastating lie," it "failed to show even scant care," and it was "aware that its employees were not adequately trained."

"Cognizant was not duped by any elaborate ploy or sophisticated hacking techniques," says the lawsuit, using italics to indicate outrage emphasis. "The cybercriminal just called the Cognizant Service Desk, asked for credentials to access Clorox's network, and Cognizant handed the credentials right over. Cognizant is on tape handing over the keys to Clorox's corporate network to the cybercriminal -- no authentication questions asked." [...] The new lawsuit, filed in California state courts, wants Cognizant to cough up millions of dollars to cover the damage Clorox says it suffered after weeks of disruption to its factories and ordering systems. (You can read a brief timeline of the disruption here.)

A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases. BBC: But the judge at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands on Wednesday said that untangling who caused which part of climate change could be difficult. The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences. It will be seen as a victory for countries that are very vulnerable to climate change, who came to court after feeling frustrated about lack of global progress in tackling the problem.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A California lawmaker halted an effort to pass a law that would force Internet service providers to offer $15 monthly plans to people with low incomes. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner proposed the state law a few months ago, modeling the bill on a law enforced by New York. It seemed that other states were free to impose cheap-broadband mandates because the Supreme Court rejected broadband industry challenges to the New York law twice.

Boerner, a Democrat who is chair of the Communications and Conveyance Committee, faced pressure from Internet service providers to change or drop the bill. She made some changes, for example lowering the $15 plan's required download speeds from 100Mbps to 50Mbps and the required upload speeds from 20Mbps to 10Mbps. But the bill was still working its way through the legislature when, according to Boerner, Trump administration officials told her office that California could lose access to $1.86 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds if it forces ISPs to offer low-cost service to people with low incomes.

That amount is California's share of a $42.45 billion fund created by Congress to expand access to broadband service. The Trump administration has overhauled program rules, delaying the grants. One change is that states can't tell ISPs what to charge for a low-cost plan. The US law that created BEAD requires Internet providers receiving federal funds to offer at least one "low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers." But in new guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the agency said it prohibits states "from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO [low-cost service option] rate a subgrantee must offer." "All they would have to do to get exempted from AB 353 [the $15 broadband bill] would be to apply to the BEAD program," said Boerner. "Doesn't matter if their application was valid, appropriate, granted, or they got public money at the end of the day and built the projects -- the mere application for the BEAD program would exempt them from 353, if it didn't jeopardize from $1.86 billion to begin with. And that was a tradeoff I was unwilling to make."

Another California bill in the Senate would encourage, not require, ISPs to offer cheap broadband by making them eligible for Lifeline subsidies if they sell 100/20Mbps service for $30 or less.

The estate of Mike Lynch, who died a year ago when his superyacht sank off the coast of Sicily, and his business partner owe Hewlett-Packard more than $944 million, a court has ruled. From a report: The US technology company has been seeking damages of up to $4.55 billion from the estate of the late tycoon, once hailed as the UK's answer to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, over its disastrous takeover of his British software company Autonomy.

Lynch's estate has been estimated to be worth about $674 million and paying its share of the $944 million damages could leave it bankrupt. He and six others, including his 18-year-old daughter Hannah, died last August on a trip celebrating his acquittal on US fraud charges relating to HP's $11 billion takeover of Autonomy in 2011. However, HP won a separate six-year civil fraud case against Lynch and his former finance director Sushovan Hussain in the English high court in 2022, with Mr Justice Hildyard ruling that the US company had been induced into overpaying for the business.

Long-time Slashdot reader wattersa is a lawyer in Redwood City, California, and a Slashdot reader since 1998. In 2022 he shared the remarkable story of a three-year missing person investigation that was ultimately solved with a subpoena to Google. A murder victim appeared to have sent an email at a time which would exonerate the chief suspect. But a closer inspection of that email's IP addresses revealed it was actually sent from a hotel where the suspect was staying. ("Although Google does not include the originating IP address in the email headers, it turns out that they retain the IP address for some unknown length of time...")

Today wattersa brings this update: The case finally went to trial in July 2025, where I testified about the investigation along with an expert witness on computer networking. The jury took three hours to return a verdict against the victim's husband for wrongful death in the amount of $23.2 million, with a special finding that he caused the death of his wife.

The defendant is a successful mechanical engineer at an energy company, but is walking as a free man because he is Canadian and no one can prosecute him in the U.S., since Taiwan and the U.S. don't have extradition with each other.

It was an interesting case and I look forward to using it as a model in other missing person cases.