A New Mexico court ordered (PDF) Meta to create a $567 million fund to address harms linked to youth mental health and child sexual exploitation after finding its platforms constituted a public nuisance. "In sum, the Court finds that New Mexico is in the midst of a teen mental health crisis affecting public health and public safety in and throughout the state, and that Meta's platforms are a significant contributing cause to the crisis," wrote Chief Judge Bryan Biedscheid in the decision. The fund comes on top of $375 million in civil penalties, though the judge declined to mandate changes to features such as infinite scroll and autoplay, citing potential First Amendment and Section 230 concerns. Tech Policy Press reports: The decision follows the second phase of in the State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms Inc., which consisted of a bench trial. Its central question was whether Meta's platforms amounted to a public nuisance in New Mexico, and, if the court found that they did, what remedy would be needed to address it. In March, a Santa Fe jury found Meta liable for violations of New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act, awarding $375 million in civil penalties. The jury deliberated less than a day following that nearly seven-week trial. The $567 million abatement fund would be in addition to the civil penalties, according to today's decision. New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez sued Meta in December 2023, alleging the company made false public statements about the safety of its platforms while knowing internally that its products facilitated child sexual exploitation. The court denied Meta's Section 230 defense in May 2024. In today's decision, the court again asserted that "Section 230 does not preclude the State's public nuisance claim," but the decision attempted to thread the needle on issues that the court determined might have run "afoul" of the statute, or of the First Amendment, such as issuing remedies around any particular product feature.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Seen on FourthAmendment.com, a decision from the Eastern District of New York: “The government seeks a warrant to search two cellular phones that have been in its possession for more than two months since the time to execute a prior search warrant lapsed. In United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2020), the...

The Associated Press and Anthony Izaguirre report: More than 20 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Monday to block it from getting wide access to the personal information of millions of recipients of a benefits program for low-income families. The case is the latest legal action between states and the federal government...

Apple is now seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent OpenAI and Jony Ive's io startup from developing AI hardware allegedly based on stolen Apple trade secrets. "The iPhone maker also claims that more of its former employees may be involved with the trade secrets theft," reports TechCrunch. From the report: In a new filing, Apple is requesting expedited discovery from the accused OpenAI employees, senior systems engineer Chang Liu and Chief Hardware Officer Tang Yew Tan; OpenAI, and its foundation; and io, the device startup co-founded by Apple's former lead designer Jony Ive. Apple also notes that its continued investigation has so far revealed 11 other former Apple employees beyond Liu and Tan may have been witnesses or otherwise involved in the case, and others who were previously named in the original complaint, like OpenAI employee Yu-Ting Peng. The filing marks an escalation in Apple's legal battle with OpenAI, as it suggests Apple has uncovered new evidence that the misconduct goes beyond the former employees named in the original complaint. "For example, another former Apple employee seems to have met with Mr. Liu and Ms. Peng in advance of Ms. Peng's interview at OpenAI and discussed with them during that meeting Apple proprietary information relating to unannounced products," the filing states. "Yet another former Apple employee took screenshots of confidential Apple documents relating to an unannounced Apple product before an interview at OpenAI." "And, after Apple filed its complaint, multiple former Apple employees now working at OpenAI reached out to discuss returning Apple-issued work devices they kept when they left Apple," Apple claims, suggesting there were more who were possibly involved with the scheme. Apple is pushing the court to allow for expedited discovery because it believes it has good cause to suspect that there are others involved in the theft of its intellectual property. The company noted that its motion for a preliminary injunction is also pending. Apple's request for a preliminary injunction is "both based on false information and completely unnecessary because we do not have, nor want, any of their trade secrets," said OpenAI in a blog post. "We're much more interested in building innovative products and technologies that push the frontier," OpenAI's statement reads.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Carly Nairn reports: A federal judge has mostly tossed a privacy case brought against LinkedIn over the company’s Insight Tag. Users said the feature — which links actions on third-party advertiser websites to specific LinkedIn profiles — collected sensitive medical data without their permission. But Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Davila mostly granted the company’s...

Jill Canfield and Tyler R. Bridegan of Womble Bond Dickinson write: The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a 1967 penal code law originally designed to protect the privacy rights of California residents, has become the basis for a recent surge in demands and lawsuits. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are suing companies across the country for using...

New York has sued prediction-market platform Kalshi, alleging it operates an "illegal gambling operation" without state authorization. "No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple," said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a press release announcing the lawsuit. "By ignoring our laws, Kalshi is running an illegal operation and harming New Yorkers in the process." CNBC reports: In a case filed in a Manhattan state court (PDF), the lawsuit claims that Kalshi accepts wagers as a gambling business in disregard for the state's constitution and laws by not being registered with the New York State Gaming Commission. Governor Kathy Hochul in the press release said the state is taking the action to stop what it views as illegal behavior and bring the company into compliance with New York law. The lawsuit is seeking a permanent injunction against Kalshi. The suit by the state is also seeking a total restitution to users who have placed trades on the platform, a $100,000 penalty for each attempt to offer sports wagering, and another penalty three times the amount the company has gained while allegedly operating in violation of New York law. The state estimates that could total $36 billion.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Joseph J. Lazzarotti of JacksonLewis writes: If you have heard of CIPA, BIPA, GIPA, or TCPA litigation, you may have an idea of where this post is headed. These acronyms reference federal and state laws that permit a private right of action for certain privacy-related claims, affording successful plaintiffs with statutory remedies. In a recent case, Bartholomew...

A former Comcast retail employee alleges that a Connecticut store manager tied the lowest-performing salesperson to a chair each month and had co-workers smash a cream pie into their face, recording the incidents as a sales-motivation tactic. The plaintiff says he resigned after reporting the alleged assaults and is seeking damages for constructive discharge and emotional distress. Ars Technica reports: A Comcast store in Plainville, Connecticut, "had a policy that the highest-ranked Retail Sales Consultant for the prior month was instructed by his or her supervisor -- Ms. Peterson, the Comcast Store manager -- to tie the lowest-ranked sales consultant for the prior month to a chair in the back office and thereafter assault that person by violently smashing a cream pie in their face," the complaint alleged (PDF). Plaintiff David Figueroa's lawsuit said he was hired as a retail sales consultant on February 2, 2026, and was supervised by store manager Sully Fuentes Peterson. Figueroa alleges that Peterson "designed and implemented" the pie-in-face ritual to meet goals related to sales and positive responses in customer surveys. "Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff prior to his acceptance of Defendant's offer of employment that the Comcast Store has a policy of subjecting Retail Sales Consultants to public assaults by co-workers -- at the direction of Ms. Peterson, the store manager -- for the purpose of increasing Defendant's sales and profitability," the lawsuit said. Figueroa resigned on February 27, and he alleges it was a constructive discharge. The lawsuit says the defendant, Comcast, was negligent because it "reasonably should have known" about the store management's policies and that the policies could harm employees. Comcast "failed to properly supervise the Comcast Store's management team," allowing store management to humiliate employees "for the purpose of promoting the Defendant's revenues and profits," the lawsuit alleged. Comcast said in a statement: "The Company has zero tolerance for harassment, humiliation, or any behavior that compromises a respectful and safe workplace. This matter is in litigation so we will not comment on the specific allegations, other than to say that we disagree with the claims in the complaint and its characterization of the alleged events, and intend to fully respond through the legal process."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Federal Trade Commission, joined by Utah and California, by and through Los Angeles County Counsel, today sued Hims & Hers alleging that the telehealth provider shared consumers’ sensitive health information about medical conditions with third-party advertising platforms despite claiming its services maintain consumers’ privacy and deceives users about its billing and cancellation practices. In...

Zack Whittaker reports: A U.S. magistrate judge last month denied to issue a search warrant allowing federal agents to snoop on the phones of “thousands of uninvolved, unsuspecting individuals” across Ohio in an effort to identify a suspected criminal’s device, a rare rebuke by a court blocking the use of a cell-site simulator. In the ruling,...

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Minnesota, the first US state to prohibit prediction markets, was prevented from enforcing the law by a federal court ruling just days before the ban was scheduled to take effect. But while Minnesota was stopped from enforcing a total ban, the state may ultimately be allowed to prohibit some types of prediction-market wagers. The Trump administration and the two largest prediction markets -- Kalshi and Polymarket -- sued Minnesota after the state enacted the law in May. The cases were consolidated, and a ruling (PDF) issued yesterday imposed a preliminary injunction blocking the law that was scheduled to take effect on August 1. Minnesota lawmakers saw prediction markets as indistinguishable from gambling, but the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) argues it has exclusive authority to regulate the platforms under federal law. One of the primary legal questions is whether event contracts are "swaps," which are regulated by the CFTC. Swaps are defined broadly in US law to include contracts in which payment "is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence." US District Judge Katherine Menendez in the District of Minnesota, a Biden appointee, said Minnesota's total ban on prediction markets is likely to violate US law because many trades on Kalshi and Polymarket are swaps. Menendez wrote: "Specifically, it appears that whether the Minnesota statute is expressly preempted turns on whether the state law attempts to regulate trades in event contracts that qualify as "swaps" within the meaning of the CEA [Commodity Exchange Act]. And there are several examples of event contracts hosted by Kalshi and Polymarket US that fit that definition because they concern the occurrence of events with clear potential economic, financial, or commercial consequences that are neither remote or unattenuated. Kalshi and Polymarket US are designated contract markets, so the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate transactions involving those 'swaps.'" Menendez said the CFTC, Kalshi, and Polymarket met their burden of showing they are likely to succeed on the merits, so she issued "a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Minnesota's prediction market statute until a final decision on the merits is reached." But she said Minnesota may be able to prohibit some types of event contracts offered on Kalshi and Polymarket because not all of them appear to meet the definition of swaps. For example, Menendez doesn't think prediction-market bets on the outcome of Love Island USA meet the legal definition of swaps. Minnesota could continue litigating the case in district court or ask a federal appeals court to overturn the preliminary injunction.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let it enforce an executive order that would restrict mail-in voting, after a federal appeals court kept the order blocked in nearly half the states just months before the November midterm elections.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a Massachusetts federal judge acted too soon when she struck down key parts of the order, which blocked federal agencies from carrying it out in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Sauer said the order only directs agencies to study changes and has not yet produced a final rule, so no state has suffered harm. 

“The district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful,” he wrote. He asked the court to pause the injunction while the case moves through the appeals court, and to grant an immediate stay in the meantime.

President Donald Trump signed an order in March that directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens in each state and send them to election officials, along with directing the U.S. Postal Service to draft rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued three days after Trump signed the order, arguing the Constitution gives states and Congress, not the president, power over elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in June that the administration lacked power to build its own citizen-voter database and that the Postal Service could not impose new rules on states’ mail ballots by itself. She also found the order’s enforcement language amounted to an improper threat against local election officials. 

In Monday’s filing, the administration leaned on a 2020 case, Trump v. New York, in which the justices threw out a challenge to a separate Trump order on census counts because it was too soon to know how agencies would carry it out. Sauer argued the same logic applies here. The order tells agencies to act only “to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law.” That wording, he said, means the Postal Service and Homeland Security could still drop or narrow the changes once they finish reviewing public comments and checking what the law allows.

The filing follows a string of fights over how the 2026 midterms will run. Earlier this month, Trump gave a prime-time address reviving his claim that the 2020 election was rigged, this time pointing to China, without providing any new evidence.

The filing also follows a Supreme Court ruling in late June that let states keep counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if postmarked on time. 

You can read the full filing below. 

The post Trump asks Supreme Court to let him curtail mail-in voting ahead of midterms appeared first on CyberScoop.

Suzanne Smalley reports: The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled Monday that Bahrain can’t hide behind state immunity to block a lawsuit filed by two dissidents alleging the government infected their devices with spyware. Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege Bahrain secretly installed FinSpy spyware on their laptops, likely in 2011. Government agents then spied on...

Legal intern Suzanne Castillo was the principal author of this post by Sophia Cope on EFF: The Fourth Circuit issued a disappointing opinion in U.S. v. Belmonte Cardozo, a case in which EFF filed an amicus brief, alongside the national ACLU, its Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia affiliates, and the National Association of Criminal Defense...

Zack Whittaker reports: The U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting an American for allegedly providing U.S. border authorities with a passcode that wiped the contents of his phone, according to an indictment and media reports. This is thought to be the first known case in the United States where federal prosecutors have charged someone for the...

Paramount Skydance has agreed to postpone its $111 billion Warner Bros. Discovery merger until five days after an antitrust trial or June 1, 2027, whichever comes first. The agreement with a 12-state coalition led by California effectively shelves the deal for months while states argue it would reduce competition in cable and theatrical markets. Variety reports: Paramount had been keen to close the deal before Sept. 30, when it will begin to incur a $7-million-a-day "ticking fee" to be paid to Warner Bros. investors. The agreement is a tacit acknowledgement that that will not happen, barring a settlement with the states. Paramount previously sought a three-day hearing on the injunction motion in late August, hoping to win the judge's blessing to close the deal sometime in early September. But the states resisted that idea, saying they would need more time to take discovery and prepare for a full trial on the merits. The states were due to file their injunction motion on Thursday night, but held off as the two sides held discussions on a path forward. In a statement, the company said the agreement is a "significant win." "Today's agreement is a significant win because the result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence," a Paramount spokesperson said. "This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached. Plaintiffs' market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today's marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny. We look forward to proving our case at trial." A hearing was scheduled for Aug. 3 in federal court in Oakland, at which point the two sides were expected to argue over the injunction motion. The two sides agreed to cancel that hearing. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin approved the joint stipulation on Friday afternoon, about an hour after it was entered. The Writers Guild of America filed its own motion for an injunction earlier this week, which was also set to be heard on Aug. 3. That motion has been withdrawn, as Paramount has effectively conceded that it will not close the deal until a determination of the merits of the antitrust claims. The parties also agreed to submit a joint stipulation by July 31 on their respective positions on trial scheduling. The states previously proposed to hold the trial in April 2027.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A federal judge has approved Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement over pirated books used to train its Claude chatbot, with authors and publishers set to receive about $3,000 per book. The case produced a mixed ruling for the AI industry: training on copyrighted books was found not to be illegal, but Anthropic's use of pirated copies from shadow libraries was. The Associated Press reports: District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said in a Monday ruling that the class-action settlement provides "meaningful relief" to affected authors and publishers. About 91% of the more than 482,000 books covered by the ruling have been claimed by authors or publishers who are now due payment. Plaintiff attorney Justin Nelson said in a statement that the settlement was "the largest known copyright recovery in history. We look forward to making distributions to the Class as promptly as possible."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A federal judge has temporarily paused the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger after a 12-state coalition led by California argued the deal would violate antitrust law. The 14-day restraining order (PDF) preserves the status quo while the court considers a preliminary injunction, which could effectively determine whether the merger survives. Variety reports: "Plaintiff States' showing at least demonstrates that serious questions going to the merits remain, weighing in favor of preliminary injunctive relief," the judge wrote, adding that Paramount has acknowledged it will not be harmed by the delay until the end of September. "Paramount and Warner Bros. will continue to operate as separate, viable companies competing in the marketplace while they wait for the Court to adjudicate this case. The balance of equities, combined with the public's vital interest in antitrust enforcement, therefore tips sharply in favor of the requested injunctive relief." The 12-state coalition, led by California, brought a motion for the temporary restraining order. The states are also seeking a preliminary injunction, which would block the merger until the judge rules on the merits of the states' lawsuit. The 14-day restraining order could be extended to as long as 28 days. Martinez-Olguin, of the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California in Oakland, also set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for Aug. 3, though that date, too, could be delayed if the parties agree. Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, hailed the judge's ruling as a "critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day." "History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," Bonta said. "With our lawsuit, we're fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike. We have a full tank of gas, the law on our side, and look forward to continuing to make our case."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MacRumors: Apple has reportedly sent legal letters to dozens of former Apple employees now working at OpenAI, telling them to preserve potentially relevant documents and communications as it continues to pursue its trade secret lawsuit against the AI company. The Financial Times (paywalled) reports that Apple has targeted around 40 former employees with legal preservation letters, acting on its belief that the alleged misappropriation of confidential information may extend beyond the individuals named in its original complaint. The development follows Apple's lawsuit filed last week against OpenAI, in which the company alleges a coordinated effort to obtain confidential information relating to its hardware engineering and product development. Apple claims OpenAI recruited key engineers, including former Apple executives Tang Tan and Chang Liu, and benefited from proprietary designs, manufacturing processes, and other trade secrets. Tan is OpenAI's Chief Hardware Officer and a 24-year Apple veteran who led product design, while Liu is on the hardware team at OpenAI after working as a senior system electrical engineer at Apple.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.