A federal judge in Massachusetts struck down major sections of a Trump administration executive order  that would have restricted mail-in ballots through the U.S. Postal Service and required states to adopt federally approved voter lists.

The ruling Thursday from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found those parts of the order were unconstitutional, while declaring another section that directs federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute noncompliant state and local officials legally nonbinding.

Talwani wrote that the U.S. Constitution empowers States and Congress in different roles but “does not grant the President any specific power over elections.”

While the White House has cited the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and Civil Rights-era voting laws as justification, Talwani found those laws do not authorize the government to regulate state voter registration practices.

“Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State voter lists,” Talwani wrote. “Further, neither in HAVA nor any other federal statute does Congress authorize the federal government to create their own voting database. Instead, Congress, consistent with the Constitution, has left that authority to the States alone.”

Talwani also declined to remove President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as named defendants in the suit, rejecting the administration’s argument that the court could not regulate or intrude upon the president’s’ constitutional authority “in the performance of his official duties.”

“Contrary to Defendants assertion, Presidential action is not inherently unreviewable,” Talwani wrote.

The order, issued in March, instructs the Homeland Security secretary, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile lists of American voters for each state, including their supposed citizenship status.

To build the lists, the agencies would rely on the controversial Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database that DHS has been building under the Trump administration, as well as Social Security and federal citizenship and naturalization records.

Those lists would then be sent to states, most of which have already refused similar Trump administration efforts to control voter registration.. The order instructs the Department of Justice to investigate  and prosecute  state and local election officials who issue  ballots to ineligible voters. 

The order also requires mail-in ballots to be sent in special barcoded envelopes for tracking. Crucially, it demands states provide lists of voters eligible for mail-in voting, and threatens to deny ballots to states that refuse. It also claims the attorney general is entitled to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.

Talwani found that states have shown they already have a rigorous voter registration and verification process to ensure non-citizens and other ineligible voters aren’t able to vote in U.S. elections, and have laws in place to investigate and prosecute those who do.

Executive branch lawyers argued the order was merely an internal federal directive that does not impedestate authorities. But Talwani noted that states like Connecticut were already pulling staff from critical activities, such as translating election materials required under the Voting Rights Act, to develop compliance plans for the order.

Nearly half of the states in the lawsuit have already purchased mail-in ballots for this election cycle that are out of compliance with the Postal Service’s envelope and design standards.

Despite a string of losses in the courts and Congress, the White House has continued to assert broad authority over the way states and localities administer elections.

The Department of Justice has sued dozens of states to force them to hand over sensitive voter data. In the 10 cases decided so far, states have won every one.

In their opinions, judges cited the executive branch’s lack of inherent authority to create state voter lists. Others accused the DOJ of misusing Civil Rights-era laws designed to protect Black and minority voters,  creating an “unreliable” database that would disenfranchise  legitimate voters.

The Massachusetts ruling comes to the same conclusion, with Talwani writing “it is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.”

On Wednesday, Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill in an attempt to pressure  congressional Republicans to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement many of the same changes to U.S. elections. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he considered passage of the bill to be a “National Emergency.”

The post Federal court rules Trump election-focused executive order illegal appeared first on CyberScoop.

A federal court ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s national voter database violates federal privacy laws, interferes with Americans’ right to vote, and must be dismantled.

In the ruling, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the District Court of Washington D.C. wrote that records reviewed by the court show federal agencies knew that the SAVE voter database violated federal laws like the Privacy Act, the Social Security Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, but were “scrambling” to comply with President Trump’s executive order to create a system for mass voter verification.

That pressure resulted in agencies “haphazardly” combining and repurposing the personal information of millions of Americans from different government databases, including citizenship data they knew was unreliable.

“The Court therefore sets aside and vacates the 2025 SAVE modified system and the related notices because they were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and without observance of procedure required by law,” Sooknanan wrote.

The League of Women Voters, its local affiliate groups and the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed the lawsuit last year. They argued the administration violated privacy laws that restrict the government’s ability to collect or combine private data without congressional authorization.

Sooknanan wrote that the SAVE database violates a prohibition in the Social Security Act against the disclosure of Social Security numbers and other related SSA records as well as substantive and procedural protections in the Privacy Act, which prevent the non-consensual disclosure of certain information both by federal agencies and between federal agencies and require notice and comment.

The court also ruled that SAVE violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how the federal government develops regulations and makes official decisions to ensure they’re fair and impartial.

Sooknanan had earlier declined to rule the database illegal under the Administrative Procedures Act, saying the plaintiffs had failed to prove the data would cause  irreparable harm. In her final ruling, she changed course, writing that the states have since run their voter rolls through the federal government’s modified SAVE system, and some voters have been wrongfully identified as non-citizens and had their voter registrations canceled.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

The ruling reinforces longstanding objections from former government officials and privacy experts over the past year, who have said Congress has repeatedly passed privacy laws explicitly to prevent the executive branch from using Americans’ data in ways not proscribed through law. That is what DHS did last year when it took SAVE, a database meant to process government benefits for legal immigrants, and combined it with data from the Social Security Administration and other agencies to create a new massive database of American voters and their citizenship status.

John Davisson, deputy director of enforcement at EPIC, celebrated the decision in a statement, saying the ruling “underscores that government agencies must follow the law, defend privacy and remain accountable to the public they serve.”

 “Today’s decision is a victory for us all. By halting the illegal consolidation of sensitive personal data across federal agencies, the court has safeguarded not only our privacy rights but also the bedrock of our democracy: the right to vote,” said Davisson. 

The post Court rules SAVE database illegal, orders it dismantled appeared first on CyberScoop.

The Meta-owned communications app is filing a federal court contempt order against NSO.

The post WhatsApp Catches Spyware Firm NSO Defying No-Hacking Court Order appeared first on SecurityWeek.

A 19-year-old woman is suing the makers of a dating app, alleging they took a video she posted online, repurposed it without her consent into an advertisement for the app, then used geofencing to target that ad to people in her area. 

According to the lawsuit filed Apr. 28 in Tennessee and an interview with her lawyer, the company allegedly used geotargeting to serve the ads on platforms like Snapchat to users near her, including men in her own dormitory. 

The allegations, if proven, offer another example of how modern technology has made it easier than ever today for bad actors to imitate, objectify, profit off and harass individuals, often women. Recent laws like the Take It Down Act have focused particularly on the use of AI to create sexualized imagery of their victims. In this case, the lawsuit alleges that Meete used not AI, but simple video editing, a voiceover and geofencing to create the same kind of deception. 

 On the day of her high school graduation, Kaelyn Lunglhofer posted a brief video to TikTok, wearing an orange outfit and saying a few words to her followers over background music. She went on to attend the University of Tennessee in the fall, where she began building a following as a TikTok influencer.

The complaint alleges that the makers behind the dating app Meete took that video without Lunglhofer’s consent, overlayed it with graphics advertising the app, and added a voiceover to make it appear she was saying “Are you looking for a friend with benefits? This app shows you women around you who are looking for some fun. You can video chat with them.”

Abe Pafford, Lunglhofer’s attorney, told CyberScoop that his client had no idea Meete was using her likeness until a male student in her dormitory told her he had repeatedly seen her in ads for the app on his Snapchat shortly after the two had met. 

Pafford called it “implausible” that this was a coincidence, pointing to Meete’s premise of connecting users with nearby women and the precision of geofencing technology. Before filing the case, Pafford’s law firm hired an investigative firm to gather additional evidence.

“I think the idea is they want[ed] viewers of these advertisements – and candidly this is pretty clearly targeted at male viewers – to have their eye caught by someone they may know or recognize or think they may have seen around, and that’s part of what makes it so disturbing,” he said.

Pafford said he believes Lunglhofer is far from the only person whose image Meete has misappropriated, and that most victims likely have no idea it’s happening. Lunglhofer herself only had evidence because the student who told her had saved recordings and screenshots of the ads featuring her video.

“The bottom line is we think there are likely others that have been victimized in a similar way, but finding out who they are and landing on tangible proof of that can be challenging,” he said.

After this story was published, Snap told CyberScoop it is investigating.

“Snap’s advertising policies require that advertisers have all necessary rights to the content in their ads, including the rights to any individuals featured,” Snap spokesperson Ahrim Nam said in an email. “Using someone’s likeness without their consent is a violation of our policies. Upon learning of these allegations, we are actively reviewing the matter and will take appropriate action.”

The lawsuit cites alleged violation of multiple federal and state laws, including the Lanham Act, the primary U.S. law governing trademark rights. The suit also alleges violations of Tennessee state law under the ELVIS Act, which prevents the unauthorized use of image or likeness for artists and musicians, and Tennessee common laws for defamation and right of publicity.

Lunglhofer is seeking $750,000 in punitive damages, as well as any revenue tied to the ads featuring her likeness. Pafford said that the advertisements damaged her online brand and reputation while also putting her at risk of harassment or falsely implying she was endorsing a local dating service and was open to casual hookups.

“It’s really kind of grotesque and it’s also kind of dangerous,” he said. “Someone may not be aware that this is happening and they’re targeted in this way, but you can put people at risk in ways that are really troubling if you stop to think about it.”

The suit names Quantum Communications Development Unlimited, based in the Virgin Islands, as well as Chinese companies Starpool Data Limited and Guangzhou Yuedong Interconnection Technology, as defendants. A judge has ordered representatives from all three to appear for depositions in the United States.

Quantum Communications Development Unlimited has a sparse internet footprint: their website consists of a single page with a message written in broken English and an email address that no longer appears to work. Efforts by CyberScoop to reach the company and other defendants for comment were not successful. The company is listed as Meete’s publisher on Apple’s App Store, where it describes the app as “a space where you can be yourself and meet people” and promises “safety and respect first” — adding that “Meete provides a secure environment where your privacy and safety are our top concerns.”

The description also claims the app adheres to Apple’s safety standards, citing a “Zero-Tolerance Policy regarding objectionable content and abusive behavior.” Listed safeguards include “24/7” manual reviews by moderation teams, instant reporting and blocking of other users, and AI filtering “to detect and prevent harassment before it happens.”

On Meete’s Google Play Store page, user reviews accuse the app of failing to match them to nearby users and being largely populated by bots posing as women to sell in-app currency.

Pafford acknowledged that the defendants being based overseas complicates efforts to hold them accountable under U.S. law, but argued that Meete is clearly designed to operate in the United States. The companies behind the app have filed U.S. patents and trademarks, for their business, and distribute their app through the Apple and Google Play Stores while advertising on major U.S. social media platforms like Snapchat.

Apple and Google did not respond to a request for comment.

You can read the full lawsuit below.

5/05/26: This story was updated to include comment from Snap received after publication.

The post A college student is suing a dating app that allegedly used her TikTok videos to target men in her dormitory appeared first on CyberScoop.

A federal judge has blocked Perplexity, makers of the Comet AI browser, from accessing user Amazon accounts and making purchases on their behalf.

In an March 9 order, Judge Maxine Chesney of the Northern District Court of California said the temporary injunction reflects the likelihood that Amazon “will succeed on the merits” of its claim that Perplexity’s AI agents violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

The court held that Amazon “has provided strong evidence that Perplexity, through its Comet browser, accesses with the Amazon user’s permission but without authorization by Amazon, the user’s password-protected account.”

Per the ruling, Perplexity must prohibit Comet from accessing, attempting to access, assisting, instructing or providing the means for others to access Amazon user accounts. Perplexity must also delete all Amazon account and customer data it collected along the way.

Perplexity told the court that the purchases were legitimate and legal because their users had authorized their AI agent to make the purchases on their behalf. But Amazon has explicitly denied them such permission, saying the agents make mistakes, interfere with Amazon’s own algorithm and place their users at an elevated cybersecurity risk.

Additionally, Chesney wrote that Amazon has incurred “significantly more” than $5,000 needed to qualify as computer fraud, including the cost of time spent by Amazon employees to develop new web tools to block Comet’s access to private customer accounts and detect future unauthorized access by the browser.

According to Amazon, they have asked Perplexity officials on five separate occasions to cease covertly accessing Amazon’s store with its agents. In a cease-and-desist letter sent to Perplexity Oct. 31, 2025, attorney Moez Kaba of law firm Hueston Hennigan wrote to Perplexity, alleging the automated purchases degrade the online shopping experience for Amazon customers.

Amazon requires AI agents to digitally identify themselves when using the e-commerce platform. But they alleged Perplexity executives “refused to operate transparently and have instead taken affirmative steps to conceal its agentic activities in the Amazon Store,” including configuring their software to covertly pose as human traffic.

“Such transparency is critical because it protects a service provider’s right to monitor AI agents and restrict conduct that degrades the customer shopping experience, erodes customer trust, and creates security risks for our customers’ private data,” wrote Kaba.

Additionally, such agents could pose a further risk to Amazon through cybersecurity vulnerabilities exploited by cybercriminals to hijack AI browsers like Comet.

The lack of response from Perplexity executives to earlier entreaties from Amazon may have played a role in the court’s injunction, with Chesney noting that Amazon was likely to suffer irreparable harm without court intervention because “Perplexity has made clear that, in the absence of the relief requested, it will continue to engage in the above-referenced challenged conduct.”

The case could have broader implications for the way commercial AI agent tools are designed and how far they can legally act on a person’s behalf. Notably, while Amazon opposes Comet’s AI-directed purchases, Perplexity claims that its users have given them permission to make purchases on their behalf.

Perplexity argued a court order halting their AI’s activities would go against the public interest, depriving them of consumer choice and innovation. Chesney concluded the opposite, endorsing Amazon’s argument that the public has a greater interest in protecting their computers from unauthorized access.

Perplexity did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling at press time.

You can read the injunction below.

The post Federal judge blocks Perplexity’s AI browser from making Amazon purchases appeared first on CyberScoop.