An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Facebook may have to overhaul its entire ad-targeting system after a California court ruled (PDF) last month that the platform's practice of routinely targeting ads by age, gender, and other protected categories violates a state anti-discrimination law. The decision came after a 48-year-old Facebook user, Samantha Liapes, fought for years to prove that Facebook had discriminated against her as an older woman using the platform's ad-targeting system to shop for life insurance policies.

Liapes filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in 2020. In her complaint, Liapes alleged that "Facebook requires all advertisers to choose the age and gender of its users who will receive ads, and companies offering insurance products routinely tell it to not send their ads to women or older people." Further, she alleged that Facebook's ad-delivery algorithm magnifies the problem by using these required inputs to serve the ads to "lookalike audiences." Through its algorithm, Liapes alleged that she found that Facebook "discriminates against women and older people," by intentionally excluding them from seeing certain life insurance ads. This, Liapes alleged, caused harm by preventing her from signing up for deals that "often change and may expire" -- deals which she said were disproportionately being advertised on Facebook to younger and/or male audiences. As evidence, Liapes pointed to ads that Facebook did not serve to her -- allegedly because advertisers used the platform's Audience Selection and Lookalike Audience tools to exclude her -- as an older woman [...]. "As a result, she had a harder time learning about those products or services," Liapes' complaint alleged. [...]

Initially, a court agreed with Facebook's arguments that Liapes had not provided sufficient evidence establishing Facebook's intent or demonstrating harms caused, but rather than amend her complaint, Liapes appealed. Then, in what tech law expert Eric Goldman on his blog called a "shocking conclusion," a California court last month reversed that initial decision, finding instead that Facebook's ad-targeting tools are not neutral, discriminate against users by age and gender, and are not immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Goldman -- who joked that Liapes wanting more Facebook ads is "a desire shared by almost no one" -- said that the potential impact of this ruling goes beyond possibly shaking up Facebook's ad system. It also seemingly implicates every other ad network by finding that "any gender- or age-based ad targeting for any product or service (and targeting based on any other protected characteristics) could violate the Unruh Act." If the ruling is upheld, that could "have devastating effects on the entire Internet ecosystem," Goldman warned. "The court's single-minded determination to find a valid discrimination claim under these conditions casts a long and troubling shadow over the online advertising industry," Goldman wrote in his blog. "Who needs new privacy laws if the Unruh Act already bans most ad targeting?"

"The opinion never expressly says that the Unruh Act regulates ad targeting," Goldman told Ars. "It takes some reading between the lines to reach that conclusion."

Amy Hawkins reports via The Guardian: A programmer in northern China has been ordered to pay more than 1 million yuan to the authorities for using a virtual private network (VPN), in what is thought to be the most severe individual financial penalty ever issued for circumventing China's "great firewall." The programmer, surnamed Ma, was issued with a penalty notice by the public security bureau of Chengde, a city in Hebei province, on August 18. The notice said Ma had used "unauthorised channels" to connect to international networks to work for a Turkish company. The police confiscated the 1.058m yuan ($145,092) Ma had earned as a software developer between September 2019 and November 2022, describing it as "illegal income," as well as fining him 200 yuan ($27). Charlie Smith (a pseudonym), the co-founder of GreatFire.org, a website that tracks internet censorship in China, said: "Even if this decision is overturned in court, a message has been sent and damage has been done. Is doing business outside of China now subject to penalties?"

As the FCC leans towards reinstating net neutrality and regulating ISPs under Title II, the broadband sector is set to challenge the move. Previously, courts have upheld FCC's decisions. However, legal experts believe the Supreme Court's current stance may hinder the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service. ArsTechnica: The major question here is whether the FCC has authority to decide that broadband is a telecommunications service, which is important because only telecommunications services can be regulated under Title II's common-carrier framework. "A Commission decision reclassifying broadband as a Title II telecommunications service will not survive a Supreme Court encounter with the major questions doctrine. It would be folly for the Commission and Congress to assume otherwise," two former Obama administration solicitors general, Donald Verrilli, Jr. and Ian Heath Gershengorn, argued in a white paper last month. According to Verrilli and Gershengorn, "There is every reason to think that a majority of the Supreme Court" would vote against the FCC.

Verrilli and Gershengorn express their view with a striking level of certainty given how difficult it usually is to predict a Supreme Court outcome -- particularly in a case like this, where the agency decision isn't even finalized. While litigation in lower courts is to be expected, it's not even clear that the Supreme Court will take up the case at all. The certainty expressed by Verrilli and Gershengorn is less surprising when you consider that their white paper was funded by USTelecom and NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association, two broadband industry trade groups that sued the Obama-era FCC in a failed attempt to overturn the net neutrality rules. The groups -- which represent firms like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter -- eventually got their way when then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led a repeal of the rules in 2017. But the industry-funded white paper has gotten plenty of attention, and the FCC is keenly aware of the so-called "major questions doctrine" that it describes. The FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is pending a commission vote, will seek public comment on how the major questions doctrine might affect Title II regulation and net neutrality rules that would prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

An economist testified that Google made billions of dollars in extra ad revenue starting in 2017 — by making a secret change to its auction algorithm that bumped their revenues up 15%. Bloomberg reports: Michael Whinston, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Friday that Google modified the way it sold text ads via "Project Momiji" — named for the wooden Japanese dolls that have a hidden space for friends to exchange secret messages. The shift sought "to raise the prices against the highest bidder," Whinston told Judge Amit Mehta in federal court in Washington.

Google's advertising auctions require the winner to pay only a penny more than the runner-up. In 2016, the company discovered that the runner-up had often bid only 80% of the winner's offer. To help eliminate that 20% between the runner-up and what the winner was willing to pay, Google gave the second-place bidder a built-in handicap to make their offer more competitive, Whinston said, citing internal emails and sealed testimony by Google finance executive Jerry Dischler earlier in the case...

About two-thirds, more than 60%, of Google's total revenue comes from search ads, Dischler said previously, amounting to more than $100 billion in 2020.
In 2021 Google was also accused of running "a secret program to track bids on its ad-buying platform," according to the New York Post (citing reporting by the Wall Street Journal). A Texas-led antitrust suit accused Google "of using the information to gain an unfair market advantage that raked in hundreds of millions of dollars annually, according to a report."

And the Post's article also mentioned "an alleged hush-hush deal in which Google allegedly guaranteed that Facebook would win a fixed percentage of advertising deals."

The Street argues that Satya Nadella "has transformed Microsoft since taking over for former CEO Steve Ballmer. Instead of closing the company off from its rivals, Nadella has been open to working with companies that are also competitors like Apple." But they added that Nadella "remains at odds" with Google's parent company Alphabet, even testifying in the antitrust lawsuit against the company.

They highlight another example from Nadella's testimony (first spotted by GeekWire). Nadella also believes that Alphabet sells a false narrative that OEM partners have a choice when in reality they don't. "Google has carrots and it has massive sticks...'We'll remove Google Play if you don't have us as the primary browser.' And without Google Play, an Android phone is a brick. And so that is the type of stuff that is impossible to overcome. No OEM is going to do that," he said.
GeekWire also notes Nadella's comments about the U.S. government's antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998: "Google exists because of two things. One is because of our consent decree, where we had to put a lot of limits on what we could distribute and not distribute by default. And, second, because [of] the fact that you could distribute anything you wanted on Windows, and it's still the case, right, it's not just Google. ... The largest marketplace on Windows happens to be not from Microsoft, it's Steam. And so it's an open platform on which anybody can distribute anything."

Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto may or may not be businessman Craig Wright, who in 2015 founded the blockchain-tech company nChain.

But nChain's recently-departed CEO Christen Ager-Hanssen's thinks Wright is not Satoshi — and that's just the beginning. According to Forbes Ager-Hanssen went as far as "to leak emails suggesting former gambling billionaire Calvin Ayre, who has heavily backed the company doesn't believe Wright, nChain's chief scientist, is Satoshi Nakamoto.

The alleged email from Ayre begins by citing Wright's "litigation disaster"...' I have been operating under the assumption that you and Ramona have the keys and that you were simply pretending not to have them as part of some strategy that you have trapped yourself in. But now that we are looking at a situation where continuing to deny you have them ruins your life and damages your supporters, I am forced to make a tough decision... There is zero reason to continue to pretend you do not have the keys if you really have them... So either you are a moron for intentionally losing this case, or you are a moron for actually not having the keys... either way, I am not following you over the cliff...
But Ager-Hanssen also shared some thoughts of his own: I can confirm I have departed from nChain Global as its Group CEO with immediate effect after reporting several serious issues to the board of nChain Group including what I believe is a conspiracy to defraud nChain shareholders orchestrated by a significant shareholder. I also had concerns about the ultimate beneficiary shareholder and the real people behind DW Discovery fund registered in Cayman. The chairman also took instructions from shadow directors which I didn't accept.

I have also reported that I have found compelling evidence that Dr Craig Wright has manipulated documents with the aim to deceive the court he is Satoshi. I'm today myself convinced that Dr Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi and I'm persuaded he will lose all his legal battles. The board didn't take action and my job becomes clearly untenable. One of the things I recommended the Chairman of the board was to sack Dr Craig Wright.

I feel sorry for all the great people that work in the company but I don't want to be part of something I clearly don't believe in. #faketoshi
Forbes also notes an X (Twitter) account calling itself "Satoshi Nakamoto" with the handle @Satoshi has posted for the first time since 2018 — though X's community notes feature added: "This isn't the real Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of bitcoin. Its an account related to Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi with no material proof."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader UnknowingFool for sharing the news.

PayPal has been hit with a class action lawsuit by consumers represented by law firm Hagens Berman alleging that the fintech giant's anti-steering rules stifle competition against lower-cost payment platforms such as Stripe and Shopify. From a report: Specifically, according to an investigation conducted by the firm's consumer rights attorneys, PayPal has subjected consumers to excess charges when purchasing from online merchants that accept PayPal or Venmo. The suit states that PayPal's merchant agreements, which all merchants must sign to accept payments via its platform, leads to consumers paying more to make purchases. The attorneys charge that "if PayPal's agreements were transparent, consumers would quickly see a price difference between PayPal and Venmo and its competitors."

Specifically, per PayPal's anti-steering rules, if a retailer accepts PayPal or Venmo payments, they agree not to offer any discounts or inducements to persuade consumers to use other payment options that have a lower cost. These discounts are treated as a "surcharge" on PayPal transactions and prohibited by PayPal's anti-steering rules. Merchants also cannot tell customers that other payment methods are more cost-effective or preferred, according to the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Merchants are also not allowed to present other forms of payment earlier in the checkout process.

James Hunt reports via The Block: A group of FTX U.S.-based employees stumbled across a backdoor for its affiliated trading firm Alameda Research months before the crypto exchange collapsed in Nov. 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. The backdoor allowed Alameda to have a negative balance of up to $65 billion using customer funds, according to previous court filings revealing code buried in FTX's systems. Negative balances were not possible for other FTX users, who would be automatically liquidated if they fell into the red.

The employees reportedly alerted their division boss to the discovery, who discussed it with former FTX CEO Sam Bankman Fried's lieutenant Nishad Singh, but the issue was never resolved. Instead, the leader of the team who raised the concern was sacked, the WSJ said. [...] The backdoor forms a key part of the prosecution's case in Bankman-Fried's trial. Bankman-Fried faces multiple fraud charges and could serve decades in prison. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Ian Freeman, a New Hampshire man in his 40s, has been sentenced to eight years in prison for running an unlicensed bitcoin exchange business. He will also be fined at least $40,000, although the exact amount still has to be determined in a hearing. The Associated Press reports: Ian Freeman was taken away in handcuffs following his sentencing in U.S. District Court in Concord. Prosecutors said Freeman, a libertarian activist and radio show host, created a business that catered to fraudsters who targeted elderly women with romance scams, serving as "the final step in permanently separating the victims from their money." Freeman, who is in his 40s, said in court he did not believe he broke the law. He said he was trying to get people to adopt bitcoin. He said there were times he detected fraud and protected many potential scam victims. He apologized for not being able to help them all. "I don't want people to be taken advantage of," said Freeman, who said he cooperated with law enforcement to help some people get their money back.

Freeman said he devised a series of questions for customers, including whether a third party was putting them up to their transactions or if they were under duress. Some victims lied about their circumstances, he said. Freeman also said he didn't learn about scam victims until he saw their stories in the news. "It didn't matter how strict I was or how many questions I asked," he said. After a two-week trial, he was convicted of eight charges in December, although his conviction on a money laundering charge was later overturned by the judge. The prosecution is appealing it to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Freeman was sentenced on the remaining charges, which include operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and conspiracy to commit money laundering and wire fraud. Freeman's lawyers said they planned to appeal and asked that he remain free on bail for now, but U.S. District Court Judge Joseph LaPlante didn't allow it. The sentencing guidelines called for much longer term, ranging from about 17 years to nearly 22 years in prison.

dcblogs writes: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge against the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows STEM graduates to work in the U.S. for up to three years on a student F-1 visa. John Miano, the attorney representing WashTech, the labor group that brought the appeal, called the decision "staggering." He said it "strips Congress of the ability to control nonimmigrant programs," such as OPT, the H-1B program, and other programs designed to provide temporary guest workers. In the most extreme example of what the decision may allow, Miano said it theoretically enables the White House to let people on tourist visas work. The decision "gives more authority to the federal government to do what it wants," he said.

The OPT program permits STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) graduates to work for up to three years under a student F-1 visa. Critics of the program said it brought unfair competition to the U.S. labor market. Ron Hira, an associate professor of Public Policy at Howard University, said the U.S. administration of the OPT program is so poor that "the program has effectively no controls, accountability, or worker protections."

A group of Senate Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, argued in briefs filed with the court that the federal government was using the OPT program to sidestep the annual H-1B visa cap. More than 30 Republican House members also filed a brief in support.

Bill Omar Carrasquillo, better known by his YouTube name Omi In a Hellcat, has been arrested after the feds found Carrasquillo had amassed a $30 million fortune with a large-scale piracy scheme in which he was buying and reselling copyrighted material from cable TV. Jalopnik reports: He was sentenced to five years in prison for "piracy of cable TV, access device fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of copyright infringement," along with having to forfeit his millions and pay $15 million in restitution. Those millions helped pay for the car collection now going up for auction.

[Road & Track reports Omi In A Hellcat's entire 57 vehicle collection is up for auction.] As of this writing, the auction features 32 cars and 25 bikes and off road vehicles. Despite his crimes, the man had decent taste in cars. There's good stuff to be had like.

America's Department of Justice "has finally posted what judge Amit Mehta described at the Google search antitrust trial as an 'embarrassing' exhibit that Google tried to hide from the public," reports Ars Technica: The document in question contains meeting notes that Google's vice president for finance, Michael Roszak, "created for a course on communications," Bloomberg reported. In his notes, Roszak wrote that Google's search advertising "is one of the world's greatest business models ever created" with economics that only certain "illicit businesses" selling "cigarettes or drugs" "could rival."

At trial, Roszak told the court that he didn't recall if he ever gave the presentation. He said that the course required that he tell students "things I don't believe as part of the presentation." He also claimed that the notes were "full of hyperbole and exaggeration" and did not reflect his true beliefs, "because there was no business purpose associated with it." According to Bloomberg, Google repeatedly objected to the document being shared in court, claiming it was irrelevant to the DOJ's case. Then, after Mehta allowed the DOJ to present the document as evidence, Google tried to seal off Roszak's testimony on the document...

Beyond likening Google's search advertising business to illicit drug markets, Roszak's notes also said that because users got hooked on Google's search engine, Google was able to "mostly ignore the demand side" of "fundamental laws of economics" and "only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales." This was likely the bit that actually interested the DOJ. "We could essentially tear the economics textbook in half," Roszak's notes said. Part of the DOJ's case argues that because Google has a monopoly over search, it's less incentivized to innovate products that protect consumers from harm like invasive data collection.

A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that Roszak's statements "don't reflect the company's opinion" and "were drafted for a public speaking class in which the instructions were to say something hyperbolic and attention-grabbing." The spokesman also noted that Roszak "testified he didn't believe the statements to be true."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: What I felt was fear," says Claudia Duarte Agostinho as she remembers the extreme heatwave and fires that ripped through Portugal in 2017 and killed more than 100 people. "The wildfires made me really anxious about what sort of future I would have." Claudia, 24, her brother Martim, 20, and her sister Mariana, 11, are among six young Portuguese people who have filed a lawsuit against 32 governments, including all EU member states, the UK, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Turkey. They accuse the countries of insufficient action over climate change and failing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions enough to hit the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5C. The case is the first of its kind to be filed at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. If it is successful, it could have legally-binding consequences for the governments involved. The first hearing in the case is being held on Wednesday.

Aged from 11 to 24, the six claimants argue that the forest fires that have occurred in Portugal each year since 2017 are a direct result of global warming. They claim that their fundamental human rights -- including the right to life, privacy, family life and to be free from discrimination -- are being violated due to governments' reluctance to fight climate change. They say they have already been experiencing significant impacts, especially because of extreme temperatures in Portugal forcing them to spend time indoors and restricting their ability to sleep, concentrate or exercise. Some also suffer from eco-anxiety, allergies and respiratory conditions including asthma. None of the young applicants is seeking financial compensation.

Lawyers representing the six young claimants are expected to argue in court that the 32 governments' current policies are putting the world on course for 3C of global warming by the end of the century. [...] In separate and joint responses to the case, the governments argue that the claimants have not sufficiently established that they have suffered as a direct consequence of climate change or the Portuguese wildfires. They claim there is no evidence to show climate change poses an immediate risk to human life or health, and also argue that climate policy is beyond the scope of the European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction. "These six young people from Portugal, who are ordinary individuals concerned about their future, will be facing 32 legal teams, hundreds of lawyers representing governments whose inaction is already harming them," says Gearoid O Cuinn, director of Global Legal Action Network (GLAN).

"So this is a real David vs Goliath case that is seeking a structural change to put us on a much better track in terms of our future."

Aaron Gordon writes via Motherboard: Kia and Hyundai say it is not their fault that their cars are being stolen in an unprecedented theft surge made possible by the vehicles lacking a basic anti-theft technology virtually every other car has, according to a recent court filing. Instead, the companies point the finger at social media companies, such as TikTok and Instagram, where instructions on how to steal the cars have been widely shared and thieves show off their stolen cars.

The lawyers representing the two corporations -- which are owned by the same parent company -- are not subtle about this argument. The filing (PDF) -- in which the company is arguing a roughly $200 million class-action settlement ought to be approved by the court -- includes an entire section heading titled "Social Media and Intervening Third-Party Criminals Caused An Unprecedented Increase In Thefts." The lawyers argue in that section that because Kia and Hyundai vehicles have "not been the subject of significant theft" before the Kia Boys social media trend, social media and the people who steal the cars -- and not the car companies -- are to blame for the thefts. This argument is summarized in the section titled "Social Media Incited Unprecedented Rise In Thefts." The filing broadly reflects both the public communications strategy Kia and Hyundai have used throughout this crisis and some of the national news headlines that have covered the story,

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution. The justices will review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent the social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints. The court's announcement, three days before the start of its new term, comes as the justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world.

The justices had already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts [...]. Separately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials' communications with social media companies about controversial online posts. The new social media cases follow conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida's statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues.

Jude Karabus writes via The Register: Norway has told the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) it believes a countrywide ban on Meta harvesting user data to serve up advertising on Facebook and Instagram should be made permanent and extended across Europe. The Scandinavian country's Data Protection Authority, Datatilsynet, had been holding back Facebook parent Meta from scooping up data on its citizens with the threat of fines of one million Kroner (about $94,000) per day if it didn't comply.

In August, it said Meta hadn't been playing ball and started serving up the daily fines. However, the ban that resulted in these fines, put into place in July, expires on November 3 â" hence Norway's request for a "binding decision." The July order came after a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling [PDF] earlier that month stating Meta's data processing operation was also hauling in protected data â" race and ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation etc. â" when it cast its behavioral ads net.

Norway is not a member of the EU but is part of the European single market, and the CJEU, as Europe's top court, has the job of making sure the application and interpretation of law within the market is compliant with European treaties (this part would apply to Norway) as well as ensuring that legislation adopted by the EU is applied the same way across all Member States. Datatilsynet's ruling said the central processing of that data by the American company was putting Meta in violation of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. A spokesperson for Meta said it was "surprised" by the Norwegian authority's actions, "given that Meta has already committed to moving to the legal basis of consent for advertising in the EU/EEA."

It added: "We remain in active discussions with the relevant data protection authorities on this topic via our lead regulator in the EU, the Irish Data Protection Commission, and will have more to share in due course."

Three Arrows Capital co-founder Su Zhu was apprehended in Singapore while trying to leave the country on Friday. From a report: Teneo, which is liquidating the defunct firm's estate, said it received a committal order against Zhu after he failed to comply with an earlier Singapore court order compelling him to cooperate with the liquidation investigation. The order sentenced Zhu to four months in prison, according to a statement by Teneo. Zhu was apprehended at Singapore's Changi Airport on Friday afternoon, Teneo said, adding that the Sept. 25 order also saw Zhu's co-founder Kyle Davies receive the same sentence. Zhu didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: New York state banned the use of facial recognition technology in schools Wednesday, following a report that concluded the risks to student privacy and civil rights outweigh potential security benefits. Education Commissioner Betty Rosa's order leaves decisions on digital fingerprinting and other biometric technology up to local districts. The state has had a moratorium on facial recognition since parents filed a court challenge to its adoption by an upstate district.

[A]n analysis by the Office of Information Technology Services issued last month "acknowledges that the risks of the use of (facial recognition technology) in an educational setting may outweigh the benefits." The report, sought by the Legislature, noted "the potentially higher rate of false positives for people of color, non-binary and transgender people, women, the elderly, and children." It also cited research from the nonprofit Violence Project that found that 70% of school shooters from 1980 to 2019 were current students. The technology, the report said, "may only offer the appearance of safer schools."

Biotechnology would not stop a student from entering a school "unless an administrator or staff member first noticed that the student was in crisis, had made some sort of threat, or indicated in some other way that they could be a threat to school security," the report said. The state report found that the use of digital fingerprinting was less risky and could be beneficial for school lunch payments and accessing electronic tablets and other devices. Schools may use that technology after seeking parental input, Rosa said. "Schools should be safe places to learn and grow, not spaces where they are constantly scanned and monitored, with their most sensitive information at risk," said Stefanie Coyle, deputy director of the NYCLU's Education Policy Center.

According to Bloomberg's Jason Schreier, Epic games is laying off 16 percent of its current workforce, which amounts to almost 900 employees losing their jobs. Kotaku reports: A memo was shared this morning at the North Carolina company, seen by Kotaku, informing staff of the bad news. It explains that alongside 16 percent of staff being laid off, the company is also selling Bandcamp, and "spinning off" most of marketing company SuperAwesome.

"For a while now, we've been spending way more money than we earn," says the memo, sent to staff by CEO Tim Sweeney. "I have long been optimistic we could power through this transition without layoffs, but in retrospect I see that this was unrealistic." It seems that Fortnite's failure to continue growing was part of the problem. Sweeney reports that it's "starting to grow again," but this is driven by creator content "with significant revenue sharing."

Despite efforts to reduce spending, Sweeney says "we still ended up far short of financial sustainability." These layoffs, he hopes, will "stabilize our finances." "Laid-off Epic employees will receive six months severance and health benefits," Schreier said on X, adding that an "all-hands meeting [is] happening shortly." Further reading: Apple Asks Supreme Court To Reverse App Store Ruling Won by Epic

Microsoft weighed investing multiple billions in a deal with Apple in 2016 to make its Bing search engine the default on the Safari browser and better compete with Alphabet's dominant Google search, a Microsoft vice president testified Thursday in court. From the report: Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella met with Apple CEO Tim Cook as part of the talks, said Jon Tinter, a Microsoft business development vice president who is on the stand during the US Justice Department's antitrust trial in Washington against Alphabet. Microsoft would have taken a multi-billion dollar loss on the terms of the deal, Tinter said, but it would have bolstered Bing, eventually gaining more share and revenue. Microsoft had secured a deal for Apple to use Bing in Siri and Spotlight, an Apple feature to help find apps on iPhones from 2013 to 2017, but wanted to expand to Safari. Instead, Google wound up expanding its own deal with Apple to the products that had used Bing.