LUY-Development

Category: Tech News Feed

  • Apple files lawsuit accusing ChatGPT maker OpenAI of stealing trade secrets


    Apple on Friday accused OpenAI of stealing trade secrets as it seeks to build its own hardware for ChatGPT, a major rupture in a partnership between the iPhone maker and the artificial intelligence company.

    Apple said in the lawsuit filed in a California federal court that OpenAI encouraged Apple employees it was recruiting to share confidential information, even guiding how to avoid scrutiny when taking jobs at the other company.

    “This case is about Apple’s former employees stealing Apple’s trade secrets for the benefit of OpenAI,” the filing says. “Apple brings this suit to put a stop to it.”

    Two former Apple employees who now work for OpenAI are also named as defendants. One is Tang Tan, who helped design the iPhone, Apple Watch and iPod and is now OpenAI’s chief hardware officer. The other is Chang Liu, a former electrical engineer Apple says it entrusted with some of its most sensitive product development efforts before Liu left Apple to join OpenAI earlier this year.

    OpenAI said it is still reviewing the filing, but spokesperson Drew Pusateri said in a statement Friday that OpenAI has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets. We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.”

    The suit accuses OpenAI of seeking shortcuts on hardware

    OpenAI has never said exactly what type of device it is building, but has described it as an effort to find a new way to interact with AI that goes beyond “traditional products and interfaces.” It’s part of a broader push to create a physical embodiment of the latest AI advances, a decade after Amazon and Google introduced screen-free talking speakers into homes.

    The lawsuit claims the effort was built partly on knowledge stolen from Apple.

    “OpenAI’s nascent hardware business now rests on the shakiest of foundations, rotten to its core by its illegal reliance on misappropriated trade secrets,” the lawsuit says.

    Apple said it began investigating whether some of its confidential information was compromised and “uncovered a pattern of theft” of Apple’s trade secrets by former employees who moved on to positions at OpenAI.

    The lawsuit alleges both Liu and Tan accessed Apple’s confidential company information and files while working at OpenAI. Among the allegations, Apple claims Liu accessed and downloaded several confidential hardware-related files on an Apple-issued device he kept after departing. It also alleges Tan directed job candidates who were still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” from Apple to their interviews at OpenAI.

    Apple said in the lawsuit that it reached out to OpenAI in February to raise its concerns early in its investigation, but said that OpenAI did not respond.

    An Apple spokesperson said in a statement Friday that the company will “always defend our teams’ hard work and innovations, and we are taking all appropriate steps to do so.”

    A partnership with Apple has edged toward rivalry

    Apple sought help from OpenAI several years ago as it was behind in the AI race sparked by ChatGPT’s arrival. The two companies partnered in 2024 to use ChatGPT as an AI-powered “answer engine” on the iPhone when the built-in Siri technology couldn’t satisfy user needs. More recently, the partnership has veered toward rivalry.

    As part of its expansion efforts, OpenAI recruited former Apple designer Jony Ive to oversee a project to build an AI-powered device that many analysts believe could eventually challenge Apple’s products.

    Last year, OpenAI announced it was working on a secret hardware collaboration with Ive to pioneer a new way of communicating with artificial intelligence. As part of the collaboration, OpenAI acquired io Products, a product and engineering company co-founded by Ive, Tan and two others, in a deal valued at nearly $6.5 billion.

    That led a little-known tech startup iyO Inc. to sue Ive and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman for trademark infringement due to the similar-sounding name and the firms’ past interactions. The startup also sued one of its own former employees for allegedly leaking a confidential drawing of iyO’s unreleased product, and it later added trade secret theft claims against Tan to the lawsuit.

    Apple’s lawsuit also names io Products as a defendant. Lawyers who previously represented the firm and Tan referred The Associated Press to OpenAI for comment.

    Apple’s lawsuit comes as OpenAI has been exploring whether to go public on Wall Street and faces heightened competition from rivals including Anthropic and Google.

    OpenAI winnowed down some of its business ventures earlier this year to focus on its core product, ChatGPT, but has continued to pursue a device, the company’s chief financial officer told The Associated Press this spring.

    “We have consumer hardware that will come towards the end of this year,” CFO Sarah Friar told the AP in April.


  • Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users


    Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has appealed the verdict of a landmark social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, challenging the jury’s determination that the company designed its platforms to hook young users without concern for their well-being.

    Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawyers will provide their arguments related to the appeal in subsequent court filings.

    The case centered on a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child and that it worsened her mental health struggles. The jury found that negligence by both Meta and Google-owned YouTube, which was also a defendant in the case, was a substantial factor in causing harm to the young woman, identified in court only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.

    The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages. Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a statement Friday that the legal team is expecting the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”

    A notice of appeal starts what can be a lengthy process. A Meta spokesperson provided a statement Friday that they also gave when the jury returned the verdict in March, saying that teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”

    José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement Friday that YouTube plans to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”

    Meta and Google had each filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — a routinely filed motion by defense lawyers asking a judge to toss out the jury’s verdict — and for a new trial. The trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, denied those motions in early June.

    Tech companies like Meta and YouTube are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted by third parties, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. To get around those protections, the plaintiffs focused on the design features of the platforms like “infinite scroll,” or the endless nature of feeds on the platforms, and autoplay functions.

    Questions about encroaching into content-related territory were the subject of many objections from the defendants throughout the five-week trial.

    The verdict in this case came during a time of legal woes for Meta. A jury in New Mexico returned a verdict finding that Meta’s platforms harm children’s mental health and safety just one day before the California jury reached its decision. The New Mexico jury, siding with state prosecutors who brought the case, landed on a penalty of $375 million. Meta has said the company disagrees with the verdict and will also appeal in that case.

    “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement at the time of the verdicts and again on Friday.

    Kaley’s case was a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, and the verdict could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm. TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each settled for undisclosed sums before the trial began.


  • Technology is driving an increase in attacks and threats to the UK, senior officials say


    LONDON (AP) — Technology and online platforms are increasingly being used to threaten the United Kingdom, including by hostile countries, extremists and far-right groups, senior British police officials said Thursday.

    There is a “continual battle” against threats online, said Vicki Evans, a senior national coordinator for counterterrorism at the Metropolitan Police, and police need help from technology companies because “it’s not something we can do alone.”

    Islamic extremism remains the biggest threat but over the past five years, threats from far-right groups and hostile states have significantly grown, said Laurence Taylor, head of counterterrorism police.

    According to Evans, the threat from hostile states is the “most rapidly escalating mission” for counterterrorism police.

    Threats from hostile countries are increasing

    In July, two Romanian men were jailed over the stabbing of a journalist from a Persian-language television station, which the judge said was carried out on behalf of Iran’s government.

    In June, a Ukrainian man and Romanian man were jailed for their role in setting fire to property linked to U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer — a plot which fits the description of Russian state-backed sabotage. And in May, a U.K. border official and former Hong Kong police officer were convicted of spying for China.

    Evans said that in 2025, there were more than 20 Iranian-backed plots, including assassinations, kidnappings and other serious crimes against the U.K. Additionally, police are still investigating whether arson attacks against Jewish sites earlier in the year have a link to Iran.

    Russia has been organizing a “constant stream of surveillance plots” against people and institutions in Britain, aiming to target people Russian officials believe are enemies, “infiltrate” ordinary life and identify people who will “peddle” Russian narratives or carry out proxy work on behalf of the Russian state, she added.

    Across Europe, Russia has recruited dozens of people on apps like Telegram to carry out vandalism or set fires — including at a warehouse in London that stored communications equipment meant for Ukraine.

    Dylan Earl, the ringleader of that plot, was recruited on Telegram by the Wagner Group, a mercenary organization acting on behalf of Moscow that has been designated a terrorist group by the U.K. government.

    Evans also said that teenagers as young as 15 have been arrested by police in relation to proxy plots. The challenge for law enforcement, she added, is that “anyone could be targeted,” especially online.

    “This isn’t something that’s happening elsewhere,” Evans said, speaking to journalists at New Scotland Yard, the Metropolitan Police headquarters. “It’s happening here. This risk is in our neighborhoods, in our online spaces and in our workplaces.”

    The threat of far-right extremism is rising

    Taylor said that the threat level in the U.K. was raised in April from “substantial” to “severe,” partly because cases linked to extreme far right ideologies are “growing substantially.”

    Police have noted an increase in “vile” content, particularly online, which creates a “cocktail of racism, misogyny and extreme homophobia,” he said.

    Extreme views, he said, appear to be being challenged less and less and so conditions have been created where previously unacceptable views are now more prevalent.

    As an example, he gave the case of an 18-year-old woman, Alina Burns, who was imprisoned for almost 20 years in May after attacking a stranger with an ax — an attack that Taylor said was motivated by her extreme right-wing mindset.

    Children are increasingly radicalized online

    Alfie Coleman — a 22-year-old sentenced on Wednesday for 13.5 years for trying to buy a gun from an undercover MI5 officer — was radicalized online from the age of 14, Taylor said.

    Evans said that those behind the exploitation are specifically designing online content to attract young people by blending it with propaganda and gaming footage, historical images and music. The young are then prompted to carry out violent acts — such as being asked to “recreate” in real life horrific attacks from video games, she said.

    In some cases, Evans said, “sadistic online groups,” ask people to compete against each other to cause harm online and offline — by using cyberattacks, extremism, serious violence or even child sexual abuse or terrorism.

    The extent of “lawful but awful” content online, including extreme violence and gore, she said means that some people now have a skewed sense of what is normal or acceptable. Those people are particularly vulnerable to manipulation, including by state actors, she said.

    Although the government has said that Britain will ban social media for those under 16, that is not enough, said Evans, adding that pressure needs to be put on technology companies to help curb harmful content online.

    Laws and policies regulating harmful content online quickly go out of date while social platforms have powerful mechanisms to push content to young people, she said.

    “The tipping point is very swift and steep,” for some people who are drawn into harmful content online, she said.


  • AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use


    NEW YORK (AP) — Launching an artificial intelligence tool to take notes and summarize important information from a virtual meeting can be alluring. Seconds after one of the agents attends an hour-long video conference, it can deliver a recap of key points and outline a to-do list for all the participants.

    But the way popular AI notetakers accomplish those tasks makes some people avoid using them. The technology turns everything said during meetings into data. Confidential personnel information, corporate strategies, trade secrets and remarks that could later be seen as incriminating — all of it could end up in the wrong hands.

    “There are huge risks to the organization on AI notetakers,” Amy Dufrane, the chief executive of human resources training and certification provider HRCI, said. “I don’t think companies should use it at all.”

    An AI notetaker is a software application or device that uses artificial intelligence, speech recognition and large language models to record, transcribe and summarize conversations. The tools are intended to save time and improve participation, but professionals in a number of fields say there are reasons to be wary.

    Chief among them is uncertainty about where the collected data is stored and for how long. Privacy advocates worry the companies behind the AI notetakers are creating voiceprints without consent. Voiceprints — a type of biometric profile similar to a fingerprint but tuned to the unique intonations and characteristics of one’s voice — can be used to access restricted or confidential information, including the contents of bank accounts.

    Some tech companies resell data from the notetaking tools they created or use confidential meeting transcripts and recordings to train their AI models. There’s also the risk that conversations between an attorney and client could become fair game in legal proceedings; a New York federal judge in February ordered a criminal defendant to provide prosecutors with documents he created for his lawyers because it already had been shared with a third party, which was Anthropic’s Claude.

    “People who use AI notetakers, they don’t always know where the data goes,” said Justin Daniels, an Atlanta-based corporate attorney at law firm Baker Donelson. “And in my context, if the data goes anywhere else and they’re not aware of it, that attorney-client-privileged conversation may not be attorney-client-privileged anymore.”

    Here are some tips on the etiquette of kicking an AI notetaker out of a meeting, the risks of using one and how to protect yourself.

    The first step when you join a meeting is check for bots

    When you join a meeting, make it a habit to check whether an AI notetaker is present. It might appear as a meeting attendee, often labeled as an AI notetaker, or a pop-up message on the screen informing participants the meeting is being recorded. The latter could signal the presence of an AI notetaker.

    Virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom and Google Meet let users know when recording is underway, but some meeting software does not make it clear when a notetaker is present, according to Thorin Klosowski, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior security and privacy analyst.

    Participants also may use personal notetaking devices that are separate from the meeting platform, in which case the other attendees wouldn’t necessarily know a discussion was being recorded and transcribed.

    “You hope the other person would tell you that they’re doing that,” Klosowski said. “Asking everyone for consent before doing a sensitive meeting would be the most polite approach to take.”

    If you’re unsure whether someone has deployed an AI notetaker, you can ask. You can also state at the beginning that a meeting is not authorized for recording.

    A polite way to establish such a boundary is to say, “Our company policy is that this meeting cannot be recorded,” Dufrane suggested. This relieves the employee, such as a salesperson who wants to make a good impression, of having to be the “bad guy,” putting the onus on the company instead, she said.

    Another option is to allow the notetaker for part of the gathering but turn if off at the end to dedicate time for more delicate topics.

    “I won’t start talking about anything substantive until it’s shut off, because I just don’t want to take the risk,” Daniels said.

    Assert your privacy rights to protect voiceprints

    Many AI notetakers determine unique acoustic signatures, or voiceprints, for each speaker in the room, said Chris Pluymers, associate attorney at The Dillon Law Group in East Lansing, Michigan. That’s how the companies distinguish one speaker from another, labeling them with monikers “Speaker 1” or “Speaker 2.”

    One way voiceprints are used is to verify the identities of bank account holders over the phone. If bad actors got ahold of a person’s vocal signature, they could use it to access files, commit fraud or take over accounts, he said.

    Laws in some states govern how voiceprints can be created and stored and provide rights that individuals can assert to object to the use of an AI notetaker during meetings they attend.

    In Illinois, voiceprints are considered biometric identifiers, similar to fingerprints, and are covered under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires written notice and informed consent before an AI notetaker or other agent collects voiceprints. The law also mandates a documented data retention schedule and destruction policy, Pluymers said. But most companies using the tools have none of those systems in place, Pluymers said.

    “In the world of AI, the world of data and privacy, the world of biometric identification, I don’t think you can have such a lax approach to it,” Pluymers said. “I think getting out ahead of it is crucial.”

    Under the Illinois law, employees can say they don’t want to attend a meeting with an AI notetaker until they have assurances of where and why the data is being stored, and when it will be deleted, Pluymers said. They can also ask if there is a policy and written consent form to sign.

    If an AI notetaker shows up at a meeting unexpectedly, a participant could say, “I prefer we keep this meeting without AI recording or transcript tools and I’d be happy to take my own notes and share a recap if that’s helpful,” Pluymers suggested. “Just being warm and genuine about it and asking them to respect your wishes.”

    Know where your data goes

    When working with AI notetaking apps, find out whether the companies that built them retain recordings, transcripts or metadata indefinitely or use them to train AI models, said Danielle Kays, a partner at Fisher Phillips who represents businesses on privacy and employment law matters.

    “If there is some sort of speaker ID or voice recognition, really understand what that is and how it works,” Kays said.

    Even when content is deleted, metadata about meetings can remain stored with the vendor, meaning sensitive business information could influence how the model behaves and in some cases could be memorized or reproduced, she said.

    AI notetakers generate text, and that’s easier for outsiders to search through than video or audio files, according to EFF.

    “Storing a bunch of video isn’t easy, it’s costly and hard to look through, but text is much easier to search and cheaper to store,” said Klosowski of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    ___

    Share your stories and questions about workplace wellness at cbussewitz@ap.org. Follow AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health at https://apnews.com/hub/be-well


  • News outlets urge a judge to sanction OpenAI in a high-stakes AI copyright fight


    NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times, the Daily News and other media outlets are asking a federal judge to impose sanctions on OpenAI, escalating a fight over artificial intelligence and copyright that could shape the future of a struggling news industry.

    The newspapers allege the ChatGPT maker is hiding evidence important to what could be a landmark copyright infringement trial over how OpenAI and its business partner, Microsoft, built their AI technologies using millions of news articles. At issue is whether AI chatbots are unfairly competing as an information source, siphoning off web traffic without doing the journalistic work involved in gathering the news.

    A filing Thursday in a Manhattan federal courthouse alleges OpenAI “chose obstruction” over releasing datasets and ChatGPT logs that could show how the AI system used copyrighted news content. The plaintiffs are asking the judge to penalize the company for “discovery misconduct” that could distort evidence, saying the recent deposition of an OpenAI employee contradicts the company’s earlier claims.

    New York Daily News attorney Steven Lieberman said OpenAI has been “making misrepresentations” for two years about its ability to search for copyrighted content in its AI training datasets and logs.

    “This motion asks the court to punish OpenAI for hiding and destroying evidence showing how ChatGPT was trained on stolen journalism,” said Lieberman, who represents the Daily News and seven of its sister papers.

    OpenAI has described its limitations in sharing ChatGPT logs as a measure to protect user privacy.

    “As the Times’ case weakens and they’ve been forced to drop claims against us, they’re persisting with their efforts to invade the privacy of people who have nothing to do with this case, including by making these blatantly false allegations,” said a statement Thursday from OpenAI spokesperson Drew Pusateri. “We’ll continue defending our users’ privacy and the long-established principles of fair use.”

    The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in late 2023, about a year after ChatGPT’s debut sparked a commercial AI boom and began changing the way people search for information online. The threat to news publications became even more apparent when Google in 2024 introduced AI-generated summaries at the top of online search results, cutting off the advertising dollars that come when people click a link to the information’s original source.

    The Times has since been joined by other news organizations, including MediaNews Group-owned newspapers the Daily News and the Chicago Tribune, digital media publisher Ziff Davis and the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting.

    OpenAI and other tech companies have argued the process of training their AI systems on digitized books, online articles and other writings found on the internet is protected by the “fair use” doctrine of U.S. copyright law. It’s a theory being tested in dozens of lawsuits as visual artists, novelists, music record labels and other creative industries take AI companies to court, with mixed results.

    In the case involving the biggest copyright settlement so far, OpenAI rival Anthropic agreed to pay book authors $1.5 billion for training its chatbot Claude on their pirated works — an amount that represents a small fraction of Anthropic’s $965 billion market valuation as it prepares to become publicly traded.

    The New York Times’ arguments are different from those brought by book authors. In its original lawsuit and an amended complaint filed last month, it focused on the unfair competition of companies that “seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism by using it to build substitutive products without permission or payment.”

    The Times has already spent more than $28 million on fighting AI companies in court, according to filings with financial regulators that disclose its litigation costs. The costs include another lawsuit the newspaper filed last year against AI company Perplexity. Among the sanctions sought by the newspapers Thursday are attorney fees that would pay for the efforts to secure “improperly withheld” evidence.

    The mounting costs come as a growing number of media organizations have signed licensing deals with OpenAI and other AI companies such as Google and Facebook parent Meta that typically pay the outlet a fee to be able to train AI systems on their news feeds or archives. The Associated Press was the first to announce such a deal with OpenAI in 2023.

    ___

    O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.


  • Polymarket is in a high-stakes race to win back trust as it recommits to the US market


    NEW YORK (AP) — After four years in exile, the prediction market platform Polymarket has begun a well-funded campaign to sell a new version of itself to the American public.

    To do so, the company is trying to convince policymakers, regulators, the public and prospective customers that the business it is building onshore is a more disciplined operation than the freewheeling offshore exchange that has at times been the subject of unfavorable headlines.

    Polymarket has hired social media influencers to produce viral marketing on TikTok and other platforms. Its account on X, formerly known as Twitter, is now followed by millions and posts about current events throughout the day. It has signed partnership deals with major sports teams and Major League Baseball, as well as news organizations ranging from CNBC to CNN. It’s all part of a pitch that its real-time markets are a more accurate read on the future than traditional polling or punditry.

    The campaign is, effectively, an effort to sell Polymarket as something different from the Polymarket people know today.

    What the American public knows as Polymarket has, at least by the letter of the law, been unavailable to Americans. In 2022, it was pushed offshore after settling federal charges that it operated an unregistered derivatives market. But Americans have regularly found ways around the prohibition, and the offshore business faced criticism over allegations of insider trading and allowing wagers tied to war and other violence.

    Polymarket’s push into the U.S. means Americans now have legal access to Polymarket through their U.S. platform, albeit it will be limited access. It adds another competitor to the U.S. prediction market industry, now dominated by Kalshi, and also featuring Robinhood and others offering similar services.

    Polymarket began operating again in the U.S. at the end of 2025 after buying the derivatives exchange QCEX to get the regulatory license to operate in the country. Executives say the U.S. exchange is walled off from the international platform, and they have hired a slate of compliance, surveillance and regulatory specialists in recent weeks to keep it that way.

    “Trust is the product we are building here,” said Dan Lee, head of U.S. operations at Polymarket, in an interview. Lee started with Polymarket in February from Coinbase.

    Among the hires, the company added Megan McGrath from Robinhood as its new chief compliance officer. Lee and another executive, Natalie Oblazny, were hired from Coinbase. It’s also hired former Department of Justice and FBI officials as the platform’s head of enforcement and new surveillance head. Lee said Polymarket’s successful reentry into the U.S. depends almost entirely on whether it can convince people that Polymarket U.S. can be a trusted prediction market platform, and the new hires are key to that effort.

    Both Polymarket International and Polymarket U.S. provide the same service: trading on the likelihood of events, such as weather, sports, politics or news. But the underlying structures differ. Polymarket’s international platform is built on blockchain technology and requires users to trade with cryptocurrency, while Polymarket U.S. operates through a more centralized structure regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and funded with traditional U.S. dollars.

    Customers using Polymarket U.S. versus Polymarket International won’t notice the difference, with the exception of how they fund their accounts. Also Polymarket U.S. is going to have a much narrower number of contracts, and more regulations, than its international counterpart.

    “Polymarket U.S. is supposed to comply with U.S. law and regulations. Polymarket International is where anything goes,” said Todd Phillips, who has written extensively on prediction markets at the Roosevelt Institute.

    The stakes are high for Polymarket. Between its departure in 2022 and return six months ago, the prediction market industry has changed and grown in popularity. The trading volume across the platforms for Polymarket and rival Kalshi is now $26.6 billion, according to blockchain analytics firm Dune. That’s up from $9.75 billion in volume across the platforms in October last year. About two-thirds of that activity is on Kalshi, which dominates the U.S. market on the strength of sports wagering. Kalshi was valued at $22 billion in its most recent funding round.

    Both platforms are also benefiting from a more favorable treatment of the industry in Washington. The Trump Administration has been generally supportive of prediction markets. The CFTC has sued states to argue that federal law should preempt any regulations that state politicians have wanted to place on the prediction market industry. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., is also an investor in Polymarket through his venture capital firm 1789 Capital.

    Even so, it’s been a rough start for Polymarket’s reintroduction to American audiences. The Wall Street Journal found evidence that Polymarket’s advertising and marketing campaigns used allegedly deceptive strategies that showed hired influencers making money trading on Polymarket when the trades were fake.

    Politico reported in June that a Polymarket executive paid at least 20 political content creators, many of which did not disclose those partnerships to the public. Both projects have been part of the campaign Polymarket was using to reintroduce to American audiences.

    In response to the WSJ and Politico reports, the company says it is investigating its marketing and promotional campaigns.

    It’s too soon to tell whether Polymarket U.S. will be able to differentiate itself from its international counterpart. Polymarket’s international platform has made headlines, often to public and political outrage.

    When a U.S. Army sergeant was indicted earlier this year over bets on the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, he was trading on Polymarket’s international platform. The Associated Press reported in April that 50 brand new accounts on Polymarket’s international platform placed substantial bets on a U.S.-Iran ceasefire in the hours, even minutes, before President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire on social media, raising concerns of insider trading.

    Lee said he believes the steps the U.S. business is taking will help further legitimize it, despite the issues the international platform has faced.

    “I think having the international business being the bulk of the volume, it often sort of masks the progress we are making here in the U.S. to broaden Polymarket’s acceptance,” Lee said.


  • Why World Cup game balls always make their way back onto the pitch during matches


    ATLANTA (AP) — Game balls for World Cup matches have become stars in their own right during the tournament.

    The ball has made headlines with its embedded technology and raised questions among fans, including: Why is everyone expected to promptly toss the ball back onto the pitch?

    It’s a question more out of curiosity than an outcry for change.

    The thrill of catching a match ball is short-lived for World Cup -goers as staff members working the match await on the pitch in a ready position for fans to throw it back, per FIFA policy.

    Some fans try to get a quick selfie with the ball if they are lucky enough to get their hands on it. A game ball would definitely be a coveted memento, especially for those who have spent thousands on flights, hotels and 100-level tickets.

    “I mean, the amount of money that I spent, I should definitely be able to keep a football when I catch it from the stadium,” England fan Jack Goodwin said. “I saved up for a house and blew my whole deposit bringing me and my dad out from London.”

    It’s a tradition for American sports fans — catch a baseball at a game and you have a souvenir for life. Bonus if it’s a ball from a playoff game or a milestone moment for the hitter.

    In soccer, not so much.

    “We don’t know, and we don’t care,” one Congo fan said when asked if he knew why fans couldn’t keep a ball kicked into the stands. “We didn’t come here for a prize, we came here to watch our country.”

    Baseball fans climb over each other and jump over seats for balls that come their way. Most soccer fans don’t have a problem throwing the ball back.

    Getting to the “why?” FIFA’s policy is so rigid can be difficult. FIFA did not respond to emails requesting comment on this story. However, theories range from tradition, to economic concerns, to the ball’s technology, to the flow of the game.

    “I don’t think there’s ever been a policy where you can keep the ball, which, unlike baseball, is a fairly expensive piece of equipment,” soccer historian Charles Cutton said. “Back in the day, it was not unusual for there to be one ball at a game. That was it. If it went into the stands, you had to retrieve it or give it back so play could continue. Now you’ve got them stationed all over the field.”

    Fans can purchase FIFA balls from licensed venders or pop-up stands for anywhere from $60 to $180. It’s unclear how much soccer’s ruling body pays for match-day balls, though it would seem whatever the cost FIFA could afford to have a few more on hand to ensure the match is not interrupted if one sails into the stands and a fan holds onto to it.

    But while Major League Baseball fans eventually won the right to keep balls hit into the stands, soccer has stood firm in its expectations over the years. The evolution of the ball itself has only reinforced FIFA’s interest in getting each one back.

    This year’s World Cup ball, the Adidas Trionda, is the most sophisticated to date.

    Gone are the days of hand-stitched, leather, 32-panel balls.

    “They’ve evolved from being natural materials like leather to now being a polymeric material,” Georgia Tech professor Jud Ready said. “That’s done for a couple of reasons. First, cost, but also, performance, because polyurethane does not absorb moisture like leather would.”

    The Trionda is a four-panel, thermally pressed polyurethane ball, but perhaps the most defining feature is on the inside, where a 500Hz motion sensor sends real-time data to the video assistant referee system to help officials with decisions, including the oft-controversial offsides call.

    Real-time data also goes to match referees to determine whether the ball has crossed the goal-line.

    “The World Cup balls have radio frequency transmitters inside to serve basically as a GPS, as well as accelerometers to understand how much force is being kicked,” Ready said.

    Ready’s colleague, professor Manos Tentzeris, said the sensor operates with 99.99% accuracy. Paired with cameras, it can pinpoint the precise location of anything on the pitch down to the tip of a shoe, which can be enough to determine whether a player is offside.

    That technology isn’t quite as valuable outside the stadium. Ready said the ball relies on stadium infrastructure to communicate with officials, making the electronics virtually unusable outside a World Cup venue.

    Balls also must be charged before a match using a cord-free system similar to charging a smartwatch.

    Because it’s such a process, it seems unlikely a game ball will ever become a keepsake for a fan, but never say never — one day it could happen.

    ___

    See more of AP’s World Cup coverage here


  • YouTube defends video that falsely claims Sydney massacre survivor is ‘crisis actor’


    MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A Google executive told an inquiry on Tuesday that a YouTube video that falsely claimed a wounded survivor of an antisemitic massacre in Sydney was a crisis actor blooded with makeup had met the platform’s standards and would remain online.

    Google Australia manager Rachel Lord was testifying at a government inquiry into the spread of antisemitism in Australia including an attack by two gunmen on a Sydney Hanukkah celebration in December that left 15 dead.

    Lord was questioned about a complaint made by survivor Arsen Ostrovsky about a video posted on YouTube. Ostrovsky was attacked online after an image showing blood streaming from a wound in his head was posted on X two hours after he was shot.

    Lord said the decision to allow the video to remain on YouTube had been reviewed at “quite senior levels.”

    “We have spent a lot of time thinking about where we draw the line and we continue to re-evaluate where we are doing that,” Lord said.

    Richard Lancaster, the lawyer leading the inquiry’s evidence, referred to a transcript of the video to avoid showing the images in public.

    Four men appear on split screen saying Ostrovsky’s bleeding head appeared “very crisis actor-ish” and mentioned “makeup.” They also describe him as an “intelligence asset” who had a “degree in theater.”

    The video also describes Ostrovsky as a Zionist and claims the massacre was a “false flag operation.” Police allege father and son shooters Sajid and Naveed Akram were inspired by the Islamic State group.

    Lancaster told Lord the video remaining online demonstrated a “really serious deficiency” in YouTube’s hate speech guidelines.

    Lord replied that she appreciated Lancaster’s “feedback.”

    YouTube told Australia’s online safety regulator three days after the massacre that the platform was “focused on ensuring Australians and all users around the world have access to high quality information about the tragic events,” Lord said.

    Ostrovsky told the inquiry last month that he had been targeted by online hate, abuse, vilification and AI manipulation since he suffered the minor head wound on Dec. 14.

    The inquiry was then shown an AI-generated image of Ostrovsky apparently laughing as someone applied fake blood to his head.


  • Supreme Court won’t block Texas from enforcing a law requiring age verification for app downloads


    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to block Texas from enforcing a state law that requires apps stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors seeking to download apps or make in-app purchases on mobile phones.

    Justice Samuel Alito, in a pair of one-sentence orders, denied petitions by plaintiffs who claim that the Texas App Store Accountability Act violates users’ constitutional rights to free speech.

    Last month, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law can take effect. The panel suspended a district court’s ruling last December that the law is unconstitutional.

    The plaintiffs suing to block the law include the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a defendant in both cases.

    Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the law impermissibly seeks to limit access to content protected by the First Amendment, including news and educational material.

    “Equity and the public interest support relief because protecting First Amendment rights — and parents’ rights to supervise their children as they see fit, not as the government tells them they should — is always in the public interest,” wrote attorneys for Students Engaged in Advancing Texas.

    Attorneys from Paxton’s office argued that the law protects children from “dangerous modern products.”

    “A child with access to an app store and a mobile device (such as a tablet or smartphone) can potentially download any number of software applications, potentially agreeing to invasions of the child’s privacy and sale of the child’s data and be exposed to any conceivable content without parental consent or even parental knowledge,” they wrote.


  • Microsoft cuts 4,800 jobs, including many at Xbox in a ‘reset’ of its gaming division


    REDMOND, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft is cutting 4,800 jobs, about 2.1% of its global workforce, including a large number of workers at its Xbox video game business.

    The layoffs included 1,600 Xbox workers, with more to come this year in a broader reorganization designed to “reset” Xbox as it faces heightened competition, the company said Monday.

    “Our business today is not healthy,” said a memo from Xbox CEO Asha Sharma, who took over the gaming division earlier this year. “We are operating at margins that are 3-10x lower than comparable platform and publishing businesses.”

    Sharma said the industry, in which Xbox competes with Sony’s PlayStation and Nintendo’s Switch, is facing a severe “hardware crisis” as costs soar for console components.

    Beyond the layoffs announced Monday, Sharma said Xbox expects another 1,600 job cuts over the course of the fiscal year that began last week. The company is also spinning off four video game development studios previously acquired by Microsoft.

    Nearly three years ago, Microsoft closed a $69 billion deal to acquire gaming giant Activision Blizzard, maker of “Call of Duty” and other blockbuster franchises. The company said at the time it wanted to broaden its game development portfolio and offer a Netflix-like streaming subscription service, but the strategy doesn’t appear to have been enough to get ahead of the competition.

    “While those businesses have created meaningful value, they did not grow at the pace we expected,” Sharma said.

    The Xbox cuts are in addition to broader Microsoft layoffs that the software giant’s chief people officer Amy Coleman tied to unspecified changes in customer needs.

    “I also want to be direct that the roles eliminated today are not being replaced by AI,” Coleman wrote in a blog post.

    The layoffs followed voluntary buyouts that Microsoft began offering to about 8,750 people in May. More than 30% of eligible workers accepted those voluntary retirement offers, Coleman said Monday.