The Verge reports that Sony "has agreed to a 10-year deal for Call of Duty with Microsoft to keep the franchise on PlayStation after the proposed Activision Blizzard acquisition." Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer says Sony and Microsoft have agreed to a "binding agreement" to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. This ends a bitter battle between the companies that has been waged both privately and publicly over the past year after Microsoft announced its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard in January 2022...

Kari Perez, head of global communications at Xbox, confirmed the 10-year commitment to The Verge. Perez later confirmed to The Verge that the deal is only for Call of Duty, though. That makes the deal similar to a 10-year agreement between Microsoft and Nintendo, but not the various deals Microsoft has struck with Nvidia and other cloud gaming platforms to bring Call of Duty and other Xbox / Activision games to rival services...

Microsoft has always maintained it would keep Call of Duty on PlayStation, arguing it doesn't make financial sense to pull the game from Sony's consoles. Xbox chief Spencer tried to settle the argument in November before appearing in court last month and reiterating, under oath, that Call of Duty would remain on PlayStation 5. All eyes are now on the regulatory situation in the UK, after Microsoft's proposed deal was blocked there earlier this year.
The Financial Times writes that the Sony-Microsoft agreement "signalled a truce between the two gaming giants after a bruising 18-month battle that had seen the Japanese company become the biggest opponent to the acquisition. It follows regulatory breakthroughs for Microsoft on both sides of the Atlantic last week that have left it on brink of clinching victory for a deal that is expected to reshape the gaming industry."

The Verge also shares this interesting detail: Tensions over the fate of Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal really came to a head when [Sony's] Jim Ryan spoke to Activision CEO Bobby Kotick on February 21st, 2023 — the same day Microsoft, Activision, Sony, and others were meeting with EU regulators. Ryan said to Kotick, "I don't want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger." Jim Ryan confirmed the meeting during testimony in the FTC v. Microsoft hearing. "I told him [Bobby Kotick] that I thought the transaction was anti-competitive, I hoped that the regulators would do their job and block it."

The Washington Post begins a recent article with the story of an 18-year-old drug dealer with mental health issues named Zachary Burkard, who shot two unarmed 17-year-olds with a "ghost gun" he built from a kit bought online.

The father of one of those 17-year-olds thinks "They've just made it entirely too easy to get these guns... A child can buy one. There's no background checks. You don't even need a bank account. You can go to 7-Eleven and get a debit card, put money on it and buy a gun." The families of the two teens, with the help of the anti-gun-violence group Everytown for Gun Safety, are now suing the distributor of the parts Burkard used to make his ghost gun, 80P Builder of Florida, and the manufacturer, Polymer80 of Nevada, for gross negligence in providing a teenager with a weapon when he was not legally able to buy a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. The case, those who track the weapons say, demonstrates a frightening phenomenon... Teenagers have discovered the ease with which they can acquire the parts for a ghost gun, and they have been buying, building and shooting the homemade guns with alarming frequency. Everytown for Gun Safety compiled a list of more than 50 incidents involving teens and ghost guns since 2019. Among them:

- In Brooklyn Park, Minn., police arrested two teens with ghost guns in December after authorities said one of them attempted to shoot someone outside their car but instead killed their friend inside it.
- In New Rochelle, N.Y., a 16-year-old created a "ghost gun factory" in his bedroom last year, police said, before killing another 16-year-old...

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimated that Polymer80 was responsible for more than 88 percent of the ghost guns recovered by police between 2017 and 2021, though there are nearly 100 manufacturers selling parts, or full kits, which can be made into unserialized guns, a list compiled by Everytown shows. Teens are hardly the only users. Last year, police departments seized at least 25,785 ghost guns nationwide, the Justice Department said recently, and those are just the weapons submitted by police to ATF for tracing, even though they don't have serial numbers and largely cannot be traced. In 2021, the number of guns recovered was 19,344, meaning seizures rose 33 percent the following year.

ATF has linked ghost guns to 692 homicides and nonfatal shootings through 2021, including mass killings and school shootings...

[This May] in Baltimore, authorities arrested three 14-year-olds after armed robberies and an armed carjacking. Police said one of them had a ghost gun. And in Valdosta, Ga., authorities said, a 16-year-old bought a ghost gun kit online in 2021 and assembled her own Glock-style pistol. One day while some friends were at her house, the teen accidentally shot a 14-year-old in the head, leaving him partially paralyzed, with severe brain damage and permanent physical and cognitive issues, his family's lawyer Melvin Hewitt said.
While some states have passed regulations, last year America's national firearm-regulating agency also declared parts of ghost guns to be firearms, according to the article, in an attempt to close a commonly-cited loophole. The parts makers challenged the new rule in court, lost twice, then won in a conservative federal court in Texas. The U.S. Justice Department may now appeal that decision to the higher Fifth Circuit court, and if it loses there "could appeal to the Supreme Court." Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, said he is against all regulation of privately made firearms, calling the practice of building weapons a "long and storied tradition in America."

Long-time Slashdot reader hackingbear quotes the South China Morning Post: After a 13-year legal tussle, semiconductor equipment giant Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment of China (AMEC) has won an intellectual property infringement case against US competitor Lam Research Corp in a Shanghai court, as US-China technology rivalry in the semiconductor field rages on. The Shanghai People's High Court gave a final ruling requiring Lam Research to destroy "one technical document and two photographs" relating to an AMEC plasma etching machine that Lam illegally obtained, according to a statement by AMEC on Tuesday.

The court has also banned two individual defendants from Lam from using AMEC's proprietary trade secrets. The court ordered Lam Research to pay damages and legal fees to AMEC for the infringement.

VanMoof ebikes is currently "exploring all possible routes out of its debt" after rumors of a pending bankruptcy. But the blog 9to5Mac highlights another concern.

"If the company goes under, and the servers go offline, that could leave ebike owners unable to even unlock their bikes." While unlocking is activated by Bluetooth when your phone comes into range of the bike, it relies on a rolling key code — and that function in turn relies on access to a VanMoof server. If the company goes bust, then no server, no key code generation, no unlock.

A rival ebike company, Belgian company Cowboy, has stepped in to offer a solution. TNW reports that it has created an app which allows VanMoof owners to generate and save their own digital key, which can be used in place of one created by a VanMoof server. If you have a VanMoof bike, grab the app now, as it requires an initial connection to the VanMoof server to fetch your current keycode.
"We don't capture any data," explains the app's page in the Apple store. "Everything is saved securely on your phone so you can have a direct connexion to your bike if VanMoof services are down. Just generate your local key and enjoy peace of mind again." (They add that the app was developed during a one-day hackathon, "as we share the belief that every single bike deserves to be on the road.")

But 9to5Mac also suggests a longer-term solution. "Perhaps there should be a legal requirement for essential software to be automatically open-sourced in the event of bankruptcy, so that there would be the option of techier owners banding together to host and maintain the server-side code?"

"The Biden administration announced Friday that 804,000 borrowers will have their student debt wiped away, totaling $39 billion worth of debt, in the coming weeks..." reports CNN.

That's an average of $48,507 per borrower, each of whom has "been paying down their debts for 20 years or more and should qualify for relief," according to a statement from the administration Friday's action addresses "historical failures" and administrative errors that miscounted qualifying payments made by borrowers, according to the Department of Education...

Since Biden took office, his administration has approved $116.6 billion in student debt relief for more than 3.4 million Americans, according to the Department of Education... Despite the Supreme Court last month striking down Biden's loan forgiveness program to provide millions of borrowers up to $20,000 in one-time federal student debt relief, his administration has continued to pursue other avenues to cancel debt and make it easier for borrowers to receive loan forgiveness...

While not part of today's actions, the Department of Education is also moving ahead with a separate and significant change to the federal student loan system that will enable Americans to enroll in a new income-driven repayment plan... Once the plan is fully implemented, people will see their monthly bills cut in half and remaining debt canceled after making at least 10 years of payments.
Last month the administration described student debt relief as "good for the economy... [G]ood for the country."

The Internet Archive has taken the rather unusual step of sending a DMCA notice to protect the copyrights of book publishers and authors. The non-profit organization asked GitHub to remove a tool that can strip DRM from books in its library. The protective move is likely motivated by the ongoing legal troubles between the Archive and book publishers. TorrentFreak reports: The Internet Archive sent a takedown request to GitHub, requesting the developer platform to remove a tool that circumvents industry-standard technical protection mechanisms for digital libraries. This "DeGouRou" software effectively allows patrons to save DRM-free copies of the books they borrow. "This DMCA complaint is about a tool made available on github which purports to circumvent technical protections in violation of the copyright act section 1201," the notice reads. "I am reporting a Git which provides a tool specifically used to circumvent industry standard library TPMs which are used by Internet Archive, and other libraries, to permit patrons to borrow an encrypted book, read the encrypted book, and return an encrypted book."

Interestingly, an IA representative states that they are "not authorized by the copyright owners" to submit this takedown notice. Instead, IA is acting on its duty to prevent the unauthorized downloading of copyright-protected books. It's quite unusual to see a party sending takedown notices without permission from the actual rightsholders. However, given the copyright liabilities IA faces, it makes sense that the organization is doing what it can to prevent more legal trouble. Permission or not, GitHub honored the takedown request. It removed all the DeGourou repositories that were flagged and took the code offline. [...] After GitHub removed the code, it soon popped up elsewhere.

Texas's ban on TikTok at state institutions violates the First Amendment, claims a lawsuit filed Thursday by a group of academics and civil society researchers. CNN reports: The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, which works to study the impact of technology on society. The lawsuit specifically challenges Texas' TikTok ban in relation to public universities, saying it compromises academic freedom and impedes vital research. "The ban is not just ineffective but counterproductive. It's impeding researchers and scholars from studying the very things that Texas says it's concerned about -- like data-collection and disinformation," Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Institute, told CNN.

The lawsuit cites the example of a University of North Texas researcher who studies young people's use of social media, who has been forced to abandon research projects that rely on university computers and to remove material about TikTok from her courses. The Knight Institute lawsuit notes that Texas has not imposed a ban on other online platforms that collect similar user data, such as Meta and Google. It further argues that a ban doesn't "meaningfully" constrain China's ability to collect sensitive data about Americans, because this data is widely available from other data brokers.

"It's entirely legitimate for government officials to be concerned about social media platforms' data-collection practices, but Imposing broad bans on Americans' access to the platforms isn't a reasonable, effective, or constitutional response to those concerns," Jaffer told CNN. "Like it or not, TikTok is an immensely popular communications platform, and its policies and practices are influencing culture and politics around the world," said Dave Karpf, a Coalition for Independent Technology Research board member and associate professor in the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. "It's important that scholars and researchers be able to study the platform and illuminate the risks associated with it. Ironically, Texas's misguided ban is impeding our members from studying the very risks that Texas says it wants to address."

The FTC has asked a federal court to temporarily halt Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard. Microsoft won its fight against the FTC on Tuesday, after a California judge said the agency had failed to show the deal would be illegal under antitrust law. The FTC appealed that loss yesterday, and Microsoft said it would fight that appeal. Reuters reports: In its motion, the FTC asked for an order that would prevent the deal from closing until after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on a separate stay request filed with that court. Any outstanding regulatory hurdle makes it more likely the agreement between Microsoft and Activision will expire on July 18 without the deal having been completed. After July 18, either company will be free to walk away from the deal unless they negotiate an extension.

In its motion for the stay to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, the FTC argued her denial of a preliminary injunction to halt the deal "raises serious, substantial issues for the Court of Appeals to resolve." Specifically, the FTC said she had applied the wrong standard in considering the agency's request for a preliminary injunction. "Granting an injunction pending appeal is warranted because the FTC is likely to succeed on appeal," the agency wrote.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Polygon: Bungie has won almost $500,000 in damages from a Destiny 2 player who harassed one of its community managers and his wife with abusive, racist, and distressing calls and messages, and sent an unsolicited pizza order to their home in a manner designed to intimidate and frighten the couple. According to members of Bungie's legal team, the judgment from a Washington state court sets important precedents that will empower employers to go after anyone who harasses their employees online, and strengthen the enforcement of laws against online trolling and harassment. "This one is special," Bungie's attorney Dylan Schmeyer tweeted.

As laid out in the court's judgment, the defendant, Jesse James Comer, was "incensed" when the community manager -- whom both Bungie and the court declined to name, to protect them from further harassment -- spotlighted some fan art by a Black community member. Using anonymous phone numbers, Comer left a string of "hideous, bigoted" voicemails on the community manager's personal phone, some asking that Bungie create options in Destiny 2 "in which only persons of color would be killed," before proceeding to threaten the community manager's wife with more racist voicemails and texts. Then he ordered a pizza to be delivered to their home, leaving instructions for the driver to knock at least five times, loudly, to make the intrusion as frightening as possible.

The court ruled that Comer was liable to pay over $489,000 in damages, fees, and expenses it had accrued in protecting and supporting its employees, investigating Comer, and prosecuting the case against him. As laid out in a Twitter thread by Kathryn Tewson, a crusading paralegal who worked on the case, the judgment is significant because it recognizes that patterns of harassment escalate from online trolling to real-world violence; establishes that harassment of an employee for doing their job damages the employer as well, which can then use its resources to go after the culprit; and recognized a new tort -- a legal term for a form of injury or harm for which courts can impose liability -- around cyber and telephone harassment. While it may seem odd to celebrate a judgment that awards a company -- rather than an individual -- with damages for personal harassment, the significance of the case is that its legal precedent empowers and motivates employers to use their resources to protect employees who face harassment as part of their jobs. Bungie and its lawyers have broken important new ground that could improve the level of protection for workers in the game industry and beyond.

Lina Khan, the progressive head of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), faced tough questions on Thursday from a Republican-led House committee about court fights over multi-billion dollar mergers the agency opposed and lost. From a report: Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican from California, asked Khan about the cases that the agency had lost. "We fight hard when we believe there was a law violation, and unfortunately things don't always go our way," responded Khan. "Are you bringing cases you expect to lose?" Kiley asked later. "Absolutely not," Khan said. "Okay well your track record seems to suggest otherwise," he answered.

Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican, sternly disagreed with the Khan FTC's decision to press on with a fight against Illumina's purchase of Grail after an FTC internal judge disagreed with FTC commissioners. That challenge was initially brought under the Trump administration and is currently before an appeals court. The agency also lost a fight to stop Facebook parent Meta Platforms from buying VR content maker Within Unlimited. Democrats on the committee sought to defend Khan, occasionally joined by Republicans on the panel including Rep. Ken Buck. The White House also put out a statement backing Khan. "Chair Khan has delivered results for families, consumers, workers, small businesses, and entrepreneurs," said White House Press Secretary Michael Kikukawa, citing efforts including the agency's bid to ban non-compete agreements and mergers that would harm consumers.

It was the court case the entire crypto industry was waiting for -- the showdown between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Ripple, an early digital assets firm behind the popular XRP token. From a report: The SEC alleged that sales of XRP constituted offering unregistered securities, while Ripple defended its $25 billion market, chiding the SEC's lack of clear guidance. On Thursday, a federal judge agreed partly in favor of both parties, with Ripple -- and the broader crypto industry -- appearing the early victor. The existential question for the U.S. crypto sector has been whether the thousands of tokens, from Bitcoin and Ether to Dogecoin and Pepecoin, are securities -- a financial term for an investment contract, which would require registration with the SEC. Crypto firms have argued that working with the agency is impossible under the current rules, while the SEC has accused nearly every token, with the clear exception of Bitcoin, as operating illegally.

Ripple became an important trial balloon for the debate. In 2020, the SEC charged the company -- founded in 2012 with the promise of disrupting the global payments network through its proprietary token, XRP -- and two of its executives with raising over $1.3 billion through an unregistered digital asset securities offering. Unlike other subjects of SEC lawsuits, Ripple challenged the case, which has been litigated for the past three years in the Southern District of New York. The proceedings have enraptured the crypto industry, especially as the SEC has aggressively pursued other exchanges and projects for allegedly offering unregistered securities. A decision that found XRP was not a security could buoy other firms and weaken the SEC's torrent of lawsuits against the industry, while a total victory for the SEC would have proved disastrous and likely climbed its way to the Supreme Court.

Stability AI is being sued by a co-founder, who claims he was deceived into selling his 15% stake in one of the hottest startups in the sector for $100 to CEO Emad Mostaque, months before the company raised millions at a $1 billion valuation. From a report: Cyrus Hodes accused Mostaque, who is also named in a lawsuit filed in a U.S. federal court on Thursday, of convincing him that Stability AI was worthless and hiding the company's work on what became the popular image generator, Stable Diffusion. Hodes, also a co-founder of blockchain AI startup AIGC Chain, said he sold his entire Stability AI stake in 2021 and 2022, after which the business raised $101 million in a seed funding round. More recently, it was seeking to raise money at a $4 billion valuation.

The former chief executive officer of bankrupt crypto lender Celsius Network was arrested following a probe into the company's collapse, Bloomberg reported Thursday. From the report: The arrest took place Thursday morning, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the criminal case isn't public. The Securities and Exchange Commission also filed a lawsuit against Mashinsky and the company Thursday, according to court records. Celsius was one of several high-profile crypto firms that imploded last year. The company gained popularity paying high interest rates on digital-asset deposits. But following the collapse of the TerraUSD stablecoin and a downturn in the digital-asset markets the company was left with a giant hole in its balance sheet and unable to meet an influx of customer withdrawals.

swinferno shares a report: VanMoof -- the Amsterdam-based e-bike maker that once bragged about being the "most funded e-bike company in the world" -- has turned to the Dutch courts for legal protection in order to give the company time to pay its bills. The company is exploring all possible routes out of its debt, including a possible sale, according to a source familiar with the matter. All options are on the table as the company looks for a path to survival. The company is also temporarily closing its brand stores. Amid rumors of trouble, angry customers descended on VanMoof's flagship Amsterdam store and service center (and former global HQ) on Wednesday to claim their bikes that had been brought in for service weeks ago.

The closures are meant to safeguard VanMoof employees. The so-called preliminary "surseance van betaling" (which translates to "suspension of payment") that VanMoof has entered is typically granted for a period of up to 18 months and -- importantly -- is designed to help companies avoid bankruptcy. However, it's also often the first step toward bankruptcy proceedings. Under Dutch law, creditors cannot claim their debts during the suspension of payment period, which ends once all creditors are paid, a final agreement with creditors is reached (private or judicial), or when the company is declared bankrupt.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan is taking on the world's biggest technology companies -- and losing. From a report: Khan failed Tuesday in her latest effort to block a big-tech deal when a federal judge denied her agency's bid to block Microsoft from closing its purchase of videogame publisher Activision Blizzard. The FTC suffered a similar setback earlier this year when it tried to thwart Meta Platforms' purchase of a virtual-reality gaming company. Khan, who gained prominence as a critic of Amazon, entered office in 2021 vowing to stiffen antitrust enforcement. Past enforcers were too cautious about bringing tough cases, she has said, and failed to confront the rise of companies such as Facebook owner Meta that gained monopoly-like power in digital industries, she said.

"I'm certainly not someone who thinks success is marked by a 100% court record," Khan said last year in remarks at the University of Chicago. "If you just never bring those hard cases, I think there is severe cost to that, that can lead to stagnation and stasis." Under the Biden administration, antitrust agencies have challenged more mergers than in previous years, including some that historically the government wouldn't have tried to block. Microsoft and Activision aren't head-to-head competitors, making the case against the deal less straightforward and more dependent on the FTC's prediction that the combined company would abuse its power to hurt competition in the future.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Amazon doesn't want to comply with Europe's Digital Services Act, and to avoid the rules the company is arguing that it doesn't meet the definition of a Very Large Online Platform under EU law. Amazon filed an appeal at the EU General Court to challenge the European Commission decision that Amazon meets the criteria and must comply with the new regulations. "We agree with the EC's objective and are committed to protecting customers from illegal products and content, but Amazon doesn't fit this description of a 'Very Large Online Platform' (VLOP) under the DSA and therefore should not be designated as such," Amazon said in a statement provided to Ars today.

The Digital Services Act includes content moderation requirements, transparency rules, and protections for minors. Targeted advertising based on profiling toward children will no longer be permitted, for example. Amazon argued that the new law is supposed to "address systemic risks posed by very large companies with advertising as their primary revenue and that distribute speech and information," and not businesses that are primarily retail-based. "The vast majority of our revenue comes from our retail business," Amazon said. Amazon also claims it's unfair that some retailers with larger businesses in individual countries weren't on the list of 19 companies that must comply with the Digital Services Act. The rules only designate platforms with over 45 million active users in the EU as of February 17.

Amazon said it is "not the largest retailer in any of the EU countries where we operate, and none of these largest retailers in each European country has been designated as a VLOP. If the VLOP designation were to be applied to Amazon and not to other large retailers across the EU, Amazon would be unfairly singled out and forced to meet onerous administrative obligations that don't benefit EU consumers." Those other companies Amazon referred to include Poland's Allegro or the Dutch Bol.com, according to a Bloomberg report. Neither of those platforms appears to have at least 45 million active users. A summary of the appeal provided by Amazon claimed the designation "is based on a discriminatory criterion and disproportionately violates the principle of equal treatment and the applicant's fundamental rights." In response, the EC said that "it would defend its position in court and added that Amazon still must comply with the rules by end of August, regardless of the appeal," Bloomberg wrote.

"The scope of the DSA is very clear and is defined to cover all platforms that expose their users to content, including the sale of products or services, which can be illegal," the commission said in statement reported by Bloomberg. "For marketplaces as for social networks, very wide user reach increases the risks and the platforms' responsibilities to address them."

"CNN reports on a wide-ranging class action lawsuit claiming Google scraped and misused data to train its AI systems," writes long-time Slashdot reader david.emery. "This goes to the heart of what can be done with information that is available over the internet." From the report: The complaint alleges that Google "has been secretly stealing everything ever created and shared on the internet by hundreds of millions of Americans" and using this data to train its AI products, such as its chatbot Bard. The complaint also claims Google has taken "virtually the entirety of our digital footprint," including "creative and copywritten works" to build its AI products. The complaint points to a recent update to Google's privacy policy that explicitly states the company may use publicly accessible information to train its AI models and tools such as Bard.

In response to an earlier Verge report on the update, the company said its policy "has long been transparent that Google uses publicly available information from the open web to train language models for services like Google Translate. This latest update simply clarifies that newer services like Bard are also included." [...] The suit is seeking injunctive relief in the form of a temporary freeze on commercial access to and commercial development of Google's generative AI tools like Bard. It is also seeking unspecified damages and payments as financial compensation to people whose data was allegedly misappropriated by Google. The firm says it has lined up eight plaintiffs, including a minor. "Google needs to understand that 'publicly available' has never meant free to use for any purpose," Tim Giordano, one of the attorneys at Clarkson bringing the suit against Google, told CNN in an interview. "Our personal information and our data is our property, and it's valuable, and nobody has the right to just take it and use it for any purpose."

The plaintiffs, the Clarkson Law Firm, previously filed a similar lawsuit against OpenAI last month.

A California judge is allowing Microsoft to close its acquisition of Activision Blizzard after five days of grueling testimony. From a report: Microsoft still faces an ongoing antitrust case by the Federal Trade Commission, but Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley has listened to arguments from both the FTC and Microsoft and decided to deny the regulator's request for a preliminary injunction. In a ruling submitted today, Judge Corley said the following: Microsoft's acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox. It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements to for the first time bring Activision's content to several cloud gaming services. This Court's responsibility in this case is narrow. It is to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted -- perhaps even terminated -- pending resolution of the FTC administrative action. For the reasons explained, the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The European Commission today decided it is safe for personal data to be transferred from the European Union to US-based companies, handing a victory to firms like Facebook and Google despite protests from privacy advocates who worry about US government surveillance. The commission announced that it "adopted its adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework," concluding "that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection -- comparable to that of the European Union -- for personal data transferred from the EU to US companies under the new framework. On the basis of the new adequacy decision, personal data can flow safely from the EU to US companies participating in the Framework, without having to put in place additional data protection safeguards."

In May, Facebook-owner Meta was fined 1.2 billion euros for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with transfers of personal data to the United States and was ordered to stop storing European Union user data in the US within six months. But Meta said at the time that if the pending data-transfer pact "comes into effect before the implementation deadlines expire, our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users." The data-transfer deal "is expected to face a legal challenge from European privacy advocates, who have long said that the US needs to make substantial changes to surveillance laws," a Wall Street Journal report said today. "Transfers of data from Europe to the US have been in question since an EU court ruled in 2020 that a previous deal allowing trans-Atlantic data flows was illegal because the US didn't give EU individuals an effective way to challenge surveillance of their data by the US government."

The EC's announcement said the new framework has "binding safeguards to address all the concerns raised by the European Court of Justice, including limiting access to EU data by US intelligence services to what is necessary and proportionate, and establishing a Data Protection Review Court (DPRC), to which EU individuals will have access." The new court "will be able to order the deletion" of data that is found to have been collected in violation of the new rules. The framework will be administered and monitored by the US Department of Commerce and the "US Federal Trade Commission will enforce US companies' compliance," the EC announcement said. EU residents who challenge data collection will have free access to "independent dispute resolution mechanisms and an arbitration panel." US companies can join the EU-US framework "by committing to comply with a detailed set of privacy obligations, for instance the requirement to delete personal data when it is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected, and to ensure continuity of protection when personal data is shared with third parties," the European Commission said. The latest deal is expected to get challenged, according to the WSJ. European Parliament member Birgit Sippel, who is in Germany's Social Democratic Party, said the "framework does not provide any meaningful safeguards against indiscriminate surveillance conducted by US intelligence agencies," according to The New York Times.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents major tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta, said: "Today's decision means that EU and US businesses will soon have full legal certainty again to transfer personal data across the Atlantic... Data flows are vital to transatlantic trade and the EU-US economic relationship, which is worth 5.5 trillion euros per year. Nevertheless, the two economies had been left without guidelines for data transfers after an EU Court ruling invalidated the previous framework back in 2020."

Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a near total ban on buying and selling of location data drawn from consumers' mobile devices in the state, in what would be a first-in-the-nation effort to rein in a billion-dollar industry. From a report: The legislature held a hearing last month on a bill called the Location Shield Act, a sweeping proposal that would sharply curtail the practice of collecting and selling location data drawn from mobile phones in Massachusetts. The proposal would also institute a warrant requirement for law-enforcement access to location data, banning data brokers from providing location information about state residents without court authorization in most circumstances.

Location data is typically collected through mobile apps and other digital services and doesn't include information such as a name or a phone number. But often, a device's movement patterns are enough to derive a possible identity of its owner. For example, where a phone spends its evening and overnight hours is usually the owner's home address and can be cross-checked against other databases for additional insight. The Massachusetts proposal is part of a flurry of state-level activity to better protect the digital privacy of residents in the absence of a comprehensive national law. Ten states have enacted privacy laws in recent years under both Republican and Democratic-controlled legislatures. Several bipartisan proposals are under consideration in Congress but have failed to gain traction.