A Dutch court on Monday confirmed a 2021 consumer watchdog's ruling saying that Apple had abused its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions on providers of dating apps in the App Store. From a report: The Rotterdam District Court ruled that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) was therefore right to impose an order subject to a penalty for non-compliance. The court ruled that ACM was right in finding that dating app providers had to use Apple's own payment system, were not allowed to refer to payment options outside the App Store, and had to pay a 30% commission (15% for small providers) to Apple.

Timothy B. Lee has written for the Washington Post, Vox.com, and Ars Technica — and now writes a Substack blog called "Understanding AI."

This week he visits recent research by computer scientists and legal scholars from Stanford, Cornell, and West Virginia University that found that Llama 3.1 70BÂ(released in July 2024) has memorized 42% of the first Harry Potter book well enough to reproduce 50-token excerpts at least half the time... The paper was published last month by a team of computer scientists and legal scholars from Stanford, Cornell, and West Virginia University. They studied whether five popular open-weight models — three from Meta and one each from Microsoft and EleutherAI — were able to reproduce text from Books3, a collection of books that is widely used to train LLMs. Many of the books are still under copyright... Llama 3.1 70B — a mid-sized model Meta released in July 2024 — is far more likely to reproduce Harry Potter text than any of the other four models....

Interestingly, Llama 1 65B, a similar-sized model released in February 2023, had memorized only 4.4 percent of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This suggests that despite the potential legal liability, Meta did not do much to prevent memorization as it trained Llama 3. At least for this book, the problem got much worse between Llama 1 and Llama 3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was one of dozens of books tested by the researchers. They found that Llama 3.1 70B was far more likely to reproduce popular books — such as The Hobbit and George Orwell's 1984 — than obscure ones. And for most books, Llama 3.1 70B memorized more than any of the other models...

For AI industry critics, the big takeaway is that — at least for some models and some books — memorization is not a fringe phenomenon. On the other hand, the study only found significant memorization of a few popular books. For example, the researchers found that Llama 3.1 70B only memorized 0.13 percent of Sandman Slim, a 2009 novel by author Richard Kadrey. That's a tiny fraction of the 42 percent figure for Harry Potter... To certify a class of plaintiffs, a court must find that the plaintiffs are in largely similar legal and factual situations. Divergent results like these could cast doubt on whether it makes sense to lump J.K. Rowling, Richard Kadrey, and thousands of other authors together in a single mass lawsuit. And that could work in Meta's favor, since most authors lack the resources to file individual lawsuits.
Why is it happening? "Maybe Meta had trouble finding 15 trillion distinct tokens, so it trained on the Books3 dataset multiple times. Or maybe Meta added third-party sources — such as online Harry Potter fan forums, consumer book reviews, or student book reports — that included quotes from Harry Potter and other popular books..."

"Or there could be another explanation entirely. Maybe Meta made subtle changes in its training recipe that accidentally worsened the memorization problem."

Agriculture equipment giant Deere must face a lawsuit by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission accusing the company of forcing farmers to use its authorized dealer network and driving up their costs for parts and repairs, a U.S. judge has ruled. From a report: U.S. District Judge Iain Johnston in the federal court in Rockford, Illinois on Monday ruled for now to reject, opens new tab Deere's effort to end the lawsuit, which was filed at the end of Democratic President Joe Biden's administration in January.

The lawsuit alleges Deere is violating federal antitrust law by controlling too tightly where and how farmers can get their equipment repaired, allowing the Illinois-based company to charge artificially higher prices. The FTC was joined in its lawsuit by Michigan, Wisconsin and three other U.S. states.

Since filing for bankruptcy in March, 23andMe has received data deletion requests from 1.9 million users -- around 15% of its customer base. That number was revealed by 23andMe's interim chief executive Joseph Selsavage during a House Oversight Committee hearing, during which lawmakers scrutinized the company's sale following an earlier bankruptcy auction. "The bankruptcy sparked concerns that the data of millions of Americans who used 23andMe could end up in the hands of an unscrupulous buyer, prompting customers to ask the company to delete their data," adds TechCrunch. From the report: Pharmaceutical giant Regeneron won the court-approved auction in May, offering $256 million for 23andMe and its banks of customers' DNA and genetic data. Regeneron said it would use the 23andMe data to aid the discovery of new drugs, and committed to maintain 23andMe's privacy practices. Truly deleting your personal genetic information from the DNA testing company is easier said than done. But if you were a 23andMe customer and are interested, MIT Technology Review outlines that steps you can take.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The robot built by [Yuntao Ma and his team at ETH Zurich] was called ANYmal and resembled a miniature giraffe that plays badminton by holding a racket in its teeth. It was a quadruped platform developed by ANYbotics, an ETH Zurich spinoff company that mainly builds robots for the oil and gas industries. "It was an industry-grade robot," Ma said. The robot had elastic actuators in its legs, weighed roughly 50 kilograms, and was half a meter wide and under a meter long. On top of the robot, Ma's team fitted an arm with several degrees of freedom produced by another ETH Zurich spinoff called Duatic. This is what would hold and swing a badminton racket. Shuttlecock tracking and sensing the environment were done with a stereoscopic camera. "We've been working to integrate the hardware for five years," Ma said.

Along with the hardware, his team was also working on the robot's brain. State-of-the-art robots usually use model-based control optimization, a time-consuming, sophisticated approach that relies on a mathematical model of the robot's dynamics and environment. "In recent years, though, the approach based on reinforcement learning algorithms became more popular," Ma told Ars. "Instead of building advanced models, we simulated the robot in a simulated world and let it learn to move on its own." In ANYmal's case, this simulated world was a badminton court where its digital alter ego was chasing after shuttlecocks with a racket. The training was divided into repeatable units, each of which required that the robot predict the shuttlecock's trajectory and hit it with a racket six times in a row. During this training, like a true sportsman, the robot also got to know its physical limits and to work around them.

The idea behind training the control algorithms was to develop visuo-motor skills similar to human badminton players. The robot was supposed to move around the court, anticipating where the shuttlecock might go next and position its whole body, using all available degrees of freedom, for a swing that would mean a good return. This is why balancing perception and movement played such an important role. The training procedure included a perception model based on real camera data, which taught the robot to keep the shuttlecock in its field of view while accounting for the noise and resulting object-tracking errors.

Once the training was done, the robot learned to position itself on the court. It figured out that the best strategy after a successful return is to move back to the center and toward the backline, which is something human players do. It even came with a trick where it stood on its hind legs to see the incoming shuttlecock better. It also learned fall avoidance and determined how much risk was reasonable to take given its limited speed. The robot did not attempt impossible plays that would create the potential for serious damage -- it was committed, but not suicidal. But when it finally played humans, it turned out ANYmal, as a badminton player, was amateur at best. The findings have been published in the journal Science Robotics.

You can watch a video of the four-legged robot playing badminton on YouTube.

Disney and NBCUniversal have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against AI image generator firm Midjourney in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, marking the first time major Hollywood studios have taken legal action against a generative AI company.

The entertainment giants accuse Midjourney, founded in 2021, of training its software on "countless" copyrighted works without permission and enabling users to create images that "blatantly incorporate and copy" famous characters including Darth Vader, the Minions, Frozen's Elsa, Shrek, and Homer Simpson.

The companies claim they attempted to resolve the matter privately, but Midjourney "continued to release new versions" with "even higher quality infringing images" according to the complaint. Disney's general counsel used the word "piracy," to describe Midjourney's practice, while NBCUniversal's general counsel characterized it as "blatant infringement."

WhatsApp has applied to submit evidence in Apple's legal battle against the UK Home Office over government demands for access to encrypted user data. The messaging platform's boss Will Cathcart told the BBC the case "could set a dangerous precedent" by "emboldening other nations" to seek to break encryption protections.

The confrontation began when Apple received a secret Technical Capability Notice from the Home Office earlier this year demanding the right to access data from its global customers for national security purposes. Apple responded by first pulling its Advanced Data Protection system from the UK, then taking the government to court to overturn the request.

Cathcart said WhatsApp "would challenge any law or government request that seeks to weaken the encryption of our services." US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has called the UK's demands an "egregious violation" of American citizens' privacy rights.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has called for changes to the roster of officials appointed to oversee the forthcoming election at the African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC), the latest twist in a conflict that stretches back years and has left the African regional internet registry in limbo. From a report: AFRINIC is one of the world's five regional internet registries, the governance bodies that delegate and manage IP addresses and autonomous systems numbers in co-ordination with ICANN. The African organization has essentially been dead in the water, operating without a board or CEO since 2022. The problems started in 2020 when AFRINIC alleged that one of its members -- a company called Cloud Innovation -- had breached its agreement with the registry in ways that could lead AFRINIC to reclaim the company's IP address holdings.

Cloud Innovation countered that AFRINIC acted improperly and launched multiple lawsuits in Mauritius, the Indian Ocean nation the registry calls home. Other parties also sued AFRINIC for similar reasons. The lawsuits left AFRINIC's bank accounts frozen and meant it was unable to convene a board or run elections. In February 2025, the Supreme Court of Mauritius appointed a receiver to secure AFRINIC's assets and reconstitute its board.

The Associated Press reports that on Friday, U.K. High Court justice Victoria Sharp and fellow judge Jeremy Johnson ruled on the possibility of false information being submitted to the court. Concerns had been raised by lower-court judges about "suspected use by lawyers of generative AI tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked." In a ruling written by Sharp, the judges said that in a 90 million pound ($120 million) lawsuit over an alleged breach of a financing agreement involving the Qatar National Bank, a lawyer cited 18 cases that did not exist. The client in the case, Hamad Al-Haroun, apologized for unintentionally misleading the court with false information produced by publicly available AI tools, and said he was responsible, rather than his solicitor Abid Hussain. But Sharp said it was "extraordinary that the lawyer was relying on the client for the accuracy of their legal research, rather than the other way around."

In the other incident, a lawyer cited five fake cases in a tenant's housing claim against the London Borough of Haringey. Barrister Sarah Forey denied using AI, but Sharp said she had "not provided to the court a coherent explanation for what happened." The judges referred the lawyers in both cases to their professional regulators, but did not take more serious action.

Sharp said providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the "most egregious cases," perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

California law prohibits "operating" a mobile phone while driving. And that makes it illegal for a driver to hold a cellphone in order to look at a map, a state appeals court ruled this week. From a report: In a 2016 law intended to strengthen previous restrictions, "the Legislature intended to prohibit all handheld functions of wireless telephones while driving" and "to encourage drivers to keep their eyes on the road," said the 6th District Court of Appeal.

A Superior Court panel had reversed a driver's conviction for a traffic infraction and $158 fine in San Jose, ruling that the law prohibited only "actively using or manipulating" a hand-held phone for actions such as talking or listening, browsing the internet or playing video games while driving. The appeals court reinstated the conviction and the fine, in a ruling that could set a statewide standard unless it is narrowed or overturned on appeal.

Apple's emergency request to pause a court order forcing it to ease App Store restrictions was denied by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing new compliance rules to take effect while Apple continues to appeal. 9to5Mac reports: Apple had asked the appeals court to halt enforcement of a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who found Apple in contempt this April for effectively dodging her original injunction. Convoluted, right? Exactly. The judge observed several violations, including Apple's imposition of a 27% fee on out-of-app transactions and overall attempts to continue making it unappealing for developers to direct users to external payment options.

As Reuters noted: "In its emergency appeal, Apple said the ruling blocked the company from "exercising control over core aspects of its business operations' and forced it to give away free access to its services." In rejecting Apple's motion, the court is letting those new compliance requirements stand while the company appeals the decision. Apple had hoped to halt the enforcement until the decision was final, which would grant the company the right to roll back the changes it was recently compelled to implement. In a statement provided to 9to5Mac, Apple said: "We are disappointed with the decision not to stay the district court's order, and we'll continue to argue our case during the appeals process. As we've said before, we strongly disagree with the district court's opinion. Our goal is to ensure the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for our users."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: OpenAI is now fighting a court order (PDF) to preserve all ChatGPT user logs—including deleted chats and sensitive chats logged through its API business offering -- after news organizations suing over copyright claims accused the AI company of destroying evidence. "Before OpenAI had an opportunity to respond to those unfounded accusations, the court ordered OpenAI to 'preserve and segregate all output log data that would otherwise be deleted on a going forward basis until further order of the Court (in essence, the output log data that OpenAI has been destroying)," OpenAI explained in a court filing (PDF) demanding oral arguments in a bid to block the controversial order.

In the filing, OpenAI alleged that the court rushed the order based only on a hunch raised by The New York Times and other news plaintiffs. And now, without "any just cause," OpenAI argued, the order "continues to prevent OpenAI from respecting its users' privacy decisions." That risk extended to users of ChatGPT Free, Plus, and Pro, as well as users of OpenAI's application programming interface (API), OpenAI said. The court order came after news organizations expressed concern that people using ChatGPT to skirt paywalls "might be more likely to 'delete all [their] searches' to cover their tracks," OpenAI explained. Evidence to support that claim, news plaintiffs argued, was missing from the record because so far, OpenAI had only shared samples of chat logs that users had agreed that the company could retain. Sharing the news plaintiffs' concerns, the judge, Ona Wang, ultimately agreed that OpenAI likely would never stop deleting that alleged evidence absent a court order, granting news plaintiffs' request to preserve all chats.

OpenAI argued the May 13 order was premature and should be vacated, until, "at a minimum," news organizations can establish a substantial need for OpenAI to preserve all chat logs. They warned that the privacy of hundreds of millions of ChatGPT users globally is at risk every day that the "sweeping, unprecedented" order continues to be enforced. "As a result, OpenAI is forced to jettison its commitment to allow users to control when and how their ChatGPT conversation data is used, and whether it is retained," OpenAI argued. Meanwhile, there is no evidence beyond speculation yet supporting claims that "OpenAI had intentionally deleted data," OpenAI alleged. And supposedly there is not "a single piece of evidence supporting" claims that copyright-infringing ChatGPT users are more likely to delete their chats. "OpenAI did not 'destroy' any data, and certainly did not delete any data in response to litigation events," OpenAI argued. "The Order appears to have incorrectly assumed the contrary." One tech worker on LinkedIn suggested the order created "a serious breach of contract for every company that uses OpenAI," while privacy advocates on X warned, "every single AI service 'powered by' OpenAI should be concerned."

Also on LinkedIn, a consultant rushed to warn clients to be "extra careful" sharing sensitive data "with ChatGPT or through OpenAI's API for now," warning, "your outputs could eventually be read by others, even if you opted out of training data sharing or used 'temporary chat'!"

Anne Wojcicki has asked a U.S. judge to reopen the auction for 23andMe, claiming she has backing from a $400+ billion Fortune 500 company. Reuters reports: South San Francisco, California-based 23andMe filed for bankruptcy in March, seeking to sell its business at auction after a decline in consumer demand and a 2023 data breach that exposed sensitive genetic and personal information of millions of customers. Last month, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals agreed to buy the firm for $256 million, topping a $146 million bid from Wojcicki and TTAM Research Institute, which was founded by Wojcicki and describes itself as a California non-profit public benefit corporation.

In a filing dated May 31, Wojcicki claimed that 23andMe's debtors had attempted to tilt the sales process away from TTAM and in favor of Regeneron. TTAM and Wojcicki said in the filing that 23andMe's financial and legal advisers unfairly capped their maximum bid at $250 million due to misplaced concerns about TTAM's "financial wherewithal." The plaintiffs said the auction was prematurely concluded before they had the opportunity to submit a bid that would have exceeded $280 million.

The company's debtors said the auction results came after an extensive and careful consideration by a four-member special committee of independent directors, according to the filing. According to another filing, 23andMe is seeking court approval to let Wojcicki and Regeneron submit final proposals by June 12. 23andMe is also seeking a $10 million breakup fee for Regeneron if Wojcicki's bid is ultimately accepted.

Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report: A Romanian national pleaded guilty on Monday to charges related to his role in a "swatting" ring that targeted dozens of public officials, including a former US president. Going by the aliases "Plank," "Jonah" and "Cypher," 26-year-old Thomasz Szabo took part in a years-long conspiracy to place bogus 911 calls, claiming emergencies were taking place at the homes of top government officials, and make bomb threats against government buildings and houses of worship, according to the Justice Department.

Szabo and a co-conspirator, 21-year-old Serbian national Nemanja Radovanovic, allegedly targeted about 100 people, including members of Congress, governors, cabinet-level executive branch officials and state officials. Szabo, who was extradited from Romania last November, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of making bomb threats. He is slated to be sentenced in a Washington, DC, federal court in October. [...] Charges against Radovanovic are still pending.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney anticipated his company's battle with Apple would create "fireworks," but he never expected Fortnite to disappear from the iOS App Store for nearly five years. When Epic deliberately violated App Store rules in 2020 by inserting its own payment system into Fortnite, Sweeney thought the resulting legal clash would be brief. "I had actually hoped that we would get an injunction against Apple blocking Fortnite and that we'd only be off for a few weeks," Sweeney told The Verge. "But the court process dragged out, and we were off for five years."

Fortnite returned to iOS last month and has quickly reclaimed its position as the top free game in the App Store, accumulating roughly 10 million downloads since May 20th. The game now offers players a choice between Epic's payment system, which provides 20% back in Epic Rewards, and Apple's traditional in-app purchase system. About 60% of users have chosen Apple's system while 40% have opted for Epic's alternative, according to Sweeney. He expects that ratio to shift toward Epic's system as more players associate payment methods with their Epic accounts.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Internet service provider Frontier Communications agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by major record labels that demanded mass disconnections of broadband users accused of piracy. Universal, Sony, and Warner sued Frontier in 2021. In a notice of settlement filed last week in US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each side to pay its own fees and costs.

The record labels and Frontier simultaneously announced a settlement of similar claims in a Bankruptcy Court case in the same district. Frontier also settled with movie companies in April of this year, just before a trial was scheduled to begin. (Frontier exited bankruptcy in 2021.) [...] Regardless of what is in the agreement, the question of whether ISPs should have to crack down more harshly on users accused of piracy could be decided by the US Supreme Court.

Apple has filed an appeal with the European Union's General Court in Luxembourg challenging the bloc's order requiring greater iOS interoperability with rival companies' products under the Digital Markets Act. The EU executive in March directed Apple to make its mobile operating system more compatible with competitors' apps, headphones, and virtual reality headsets by granting developers and device makers access to system components typically reserved for Apple's own products.

Apple contends the requirements threaten its seamless user experience while creating security risks, noting that companies have already requested access to sensitive user data including notification content and complete WiFi network histories. The company faces potential fines of up to 10% of its worldwide annual revenue if found in violation of the DMA's interoperability rules designed to curb Big Tech market power.

A U.S. federal judge has decided that free-speech protections in the First Amendment "don't shield an AI company from a lawsuit," reports Legal Newsline.

The suit is against Character.AI (a company reportedly valued at $1 billion with 20 million users) Judge Anne C. Conway of the Middle District of Florida denied several motions by defendants Character Technologies and founders Daniel De Freitas and Noam Shazeer to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the mother of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III. Setzer killed himself with a gun in February of last year after interacting for months with Character.AI chatbots imitating fictitious characters from the Game of Thrones franchise, according to the lawsuit filed by Sewell's mother, Megan Garcia.

"... Defendants fail to articulate why words strung together by (Large Language Models, or LLMs, trained in engaging in open dialog with online users) are speech," Conway said in her May 21 opinion. "... The court is not prepared to hold that Character.AI's output is speech."
Character.AI's spokesperson told Legal Newsline they've now launched safety features (including an under-18 LLM, filter Characters, time-spent notifications and "updated prominent disclaimers" (as well as a "parental insights" feature). "The company also said it has put in place protections to detect and prevent dialog about self-harm. That may include a pop-up message directing users to the National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, according to Character.AI."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

In March an executive order directed America's treasury secretary to create two stockpiles of crypto assets (to accompany already-existing "strategic reserves"of gold and foreign currencies). And the Washington Post notes these new stockpiles would include "cryptocurrency seized by federal agencies in criminal or civil proceedings." But how big would America's "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" be — and what other cryptocurrencies would the U.S. government hold in its "Digital Asset Stockpile"?

"New data on what crypto cash the U.S. government has seized may now provide some answers. It suggests the crypto reserves will together hold more than $21 billion in cryptocurrency... The stockpile will be funded with whatever crypto assets the Treasury holds other than bitcoin, leaving the stockpile's composition to be largely determined by a mixture of chance and criminal conduct. That unconventional method for selecting government financial holdings had the benefit of making the reserves cost-neutral for the taxpayer.

It also provided a way to estimate what exactly might go into the two pools before results are released from an official accounting of U.S. crypto holdings that is underway.Because government seizures are disclosed in court documents, news releases and other sources, crypto-tracking firms can use those notices to monitor which digital assets the U.S. government holds. Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, reviewed cryptocurrency wallets that appear to be associated with the U.S. government for The Washington Post. The company estimated how much bitcoin it holds, and the other crypto tokens in its top 20 digital holdings as of May 13, by tracking transactions involving those wallets.

The United States' top 20 crypto holdings according to Chainalysis are worth about $20.9 billion as of 3 p.m. Eastern on May 28, with $20.4 billion in bitcoin and about $493 million in other digital assets. It has been scooped up from crimes such as stolen funds, scams and sales on dark net markets. Those estimates put the U.S. government's top crypto holdings at less than the approximately $25 billion worth of oil held in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Their value is nearly double the Fed's listing for U.S. gold holdings, although that figure uses outdated pricing and would be over $850 billion at current prices...

The crypto tokens headed for the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile according to the Chainalysis list include ethereum, the world's second-largest digital asset, and a string of other crypto tokens with punier name recognition. They include derivatives of bitcoin and ethereum that mirror those cryptocurrencies' prices, several stable coins designed to be pegged in value to the U.S. dollar, and 10 tokens tied to specific companies, including the cryptocurrency exchanges FTX, which imploded in 2022 after defrauding customers, and Binance.
Two U.S. states have already passed legislation creating their own cryptocurrency reserve funds, the article points out. But ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin complained to the Post in March that crypto's "original spirit...is about counterbalancing power" — including government and corporate power, and getting too close to "one particular government team" could conflict with its mission of decentralization and openness. And he's not the only one concerned: Austin Campbell, a professor at New York University's business school and a principal at crypto advisory firm Zero Knowledge, sees hypocrisy in crypto enthusiasts cheering the government's strategic reserves. The bitcoin community in particular "has historically been about freedom from sovereign interference," he said.

Major broadband lobby groups have asked the Trump administration to sue states that require internet service providers to offer low-cost plans to low-income residents, following their unsuccessful court challenges against such laws. The cable, telecom, and mobile industry associations filed the request this week with the Justice Department's new Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force, specifically targeting New York's law that mandates $15 and $20 monthly broadband options for eligible customers.

The industry groups suffered a significant legal defeat when the Supreme Court refused to hear their challenge to New York's affordability mandate in December 2024, after losing in federal appeals court. Now they face a potential wave of similar legislation, with California proposing $15 plans offering 100 Mbps speeds and ten other states considering comparable requirements.