Activision Blizzard faces another lawsuit over sexual harassment

Activision has been served another lawsuit over harassment at the company. As Bloomberg Law and Game Developer report, an anonymous woman still working at Activision Blizzard has sued the game developer in a Los Angeles court for allegedly enabling sexual harassment and discrimination. The company also retaliated against her when she shared her experiences at a December 2021 press conference, according to the complaint.

As with past suits, the woman accused Activision Blizzard of routinely allowing misconduct. The senior administrative assistant in IT was reportedly pressured to join in “cube crawls” where women were harassed and groped, and was told to tolerate unwanted sexual advances and excessive drinking. She was also asked to keep her complaints private, according to the suit, and supposedly faced an increasingly hostile workplace the more she spoke out.

The plaintiff said she applied for positions elsewhere in the company to avoid sexism in IT, and wrote to president Allen Brack (who stepped down in August 2021 as the scandal grew) about the problems. She was offered and took a lower-paying role elsewhere in the company, but noted that her application for an executive assistant job was rejected in December that year, shortly after she’d applied in November.

In the lawsuit, the woman demands damages that include lost earnings and medical expenses. She also asks for functional reforms, including the ouster of CEO Bobby Kotick, a rotating human resources team (to prevent conflicts of interest) and the use of a neutral firm to investigate incidents.

We’ve asked Activision Blizzard for comment. The company has used some measures to address harassment and discrimination complaints, including removing employees, taking disciplinary actions and forming a committee to implement anti-harassment initiatives. It also settled an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit and has been more cooperative with investigations. However, it’s still facing a mounting number of legal challenges that include both more lawsuits and an SEC investigation — the debacle is far from over.

Washington DC Attorney General sues Grubhub over hidden fees

Washington DC Attorney General Karl Racine has filed a lawsuit against Grubhub over alleged hidden fees and other “deceptive trade practices.” His office has accused Grubhub of violating the jurisdiction’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act in eight separate ways.

“We’re suing Grubhub for misleading District residents and taking advantage of local restaurants to boost its own profits,” Racine wrote on Twitter. “Grubhub charges hidden fees and uses bait-and-switch tactics, all while pretending to help local businesses during the pandemic. This needs to stop.”

Racine’s office also claims the app charged users higher prices than they’d pay in restaurants and that it misrepresented an offer of “unlimited free delivery” with a Grubhub+ subscription, since customers still need to pay a service fee.

The suit alleges that Grubhub offered deliveries from more than 1,000 eateries in the area without restaurants’ permission. It accused the company of listing phone numbers for restaurants that were actually routed to Grubhub workers and creating websites for restaurants without their consent or clearly disclosing that it operated the sites. Grubhub has ended those practices, as TechCrunch notes.

“In one of Grubhub’s most shameless moves, at the beginning of the pandemic, it ran a discount called ‘Supper for Support,’ ginning up business by claiming to help struggling restaurants, and then stuck restaurants with the bill,” Racine said. “This program cut into struggling restaurants’ profit margins while padding Grubhub’s bottom line.”

The promotion allowed restaurants to offer a $10 discount on orders over $30, but they had to cover the cost. Grubhub later offered them a $250 credit, as the suit notes.

“We are disappointed [the AG’s office has] moved forward with this lawsuit because our practices have always complied with DC law, and in any event, many of the practices at issue have been discontinued,” Grubhub said in a statement. “We will aggressively defend our business in court and look forward to continuing to serve DC restaurants and diners.”

Grubhub says it has worked with Racine and his office over the last year to address concerns. In the wake of the lawsuit, the service is adding disclaimers about service fees for Grubhub+ subscribers and the fact prices may be lower at restaurants than in its app. Grubhub will also make it clearer that users can place orders for free through its app and website as long as they pick up food themselves. These changes will apply to everyone, not only users in DC.

The DC lawsuit is the latest in a number of legal battles over delivery apps’ business practices. Chicago has also sued Grubhub (and DoorDash) over alleged deceptive delivery fees and charging higher prices for menu items than restaurants themselves do. In September, those two services and Uber Eats filed suit against New York City for placing limits on the fees they can charge restaurants.

Apple settles voice over LTE patent dispute with WiLAN

Following years of litigation, Canadian “patent monetization” firm WiLAN has signed a licensing agreement with Apple. With the deal, the two companies have settled all court cases that were ongoing between them in the US, Canada and Germany related to …

New SEC rules would require companies to disclose climate goals and emissions

Public companies would be required to disclose greenhouse gas emissions they produce under new rules proposed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The move is part of the Biden government’s push to identify climate risks and cut emissions as much as 52 percent by 2030. The SEC’s three Democratic commissioners voted to approve the proposal, while Republican commissioner Hester M. Peirce voted against it.

“I am pleased to support today’s proposal because, if adopted, it would provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information for making their investment decisions, and it would provide consistent and clear reporting obligations for issuers,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

Under the new rule, companies would need to explain how climate risks would affect their operations and strategies. They’d be required to share the emissions they generate and larger companies would need to have those numbers confirmed by independent consulting firms. They’d also need to disclose indirect emissions generated by supplies and customers if those are “material” to their climate goals. 

In addition, any companies that have made public promises to reduce their carbon footprint would need to explain how they plan to meet those goals. That includes the use of carbon offsets like planting trees, which have been criticized as being a poor substitute for actually slashing emissions, as Greenpeace said in a recent report. 

The SEC already allows for voluntary emissions guidance, but the new rules would make it mandatory. Many companies like Ford already share emissions date from factory production as well as vehicle fuel usage. However, “there are lots of companies that won’t do it unless it’s mandatory,” task force chief Mary Schapiro told The Washington Post ahead of the report’s release. 

After the proposed rule is published on the SEC’s website, the public will have 60 days to comment. The final rule will likely head to a vote in several months, and would be phased in over several years. The ruling will likely be challenged in court by Republicans in states like West Virginia, along with business groups, on the grounds that climate change is not a material issue for investors in the near future. 

However, experts have warned that time is of the essence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently issued a report stating that many of the impacts of global warming are “irreversible” and that there’s only a brief window of time to avoid the worst. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called it a “damning indictment of failed climate leadership.” 

US Justice Department says Google misuses attorney-client privilege to hide documents

The US Department of Justice has accused Google of training its employees on how to shield business communications from discovery in cases of legal disputes “by using false requests for legal advice.” As Axios reports, the DOJ has told the judge overseeing its antitrust case against the tech giant that Google instructs employees to add in-house lawyers to written communication, apply attorney-client privilege labels to them and make a request for legal advice even when it’s not needed. The department is now asking the judge to sanction the company “for its extensive and intentional efforts to misuse the attorney-client privilege to hide business documents relevant” to the case.

In the brief (PDF) its lawyers wrote for the judge, the DOJ said Google refers to the practice as “Communicate with Care” and that it first started no later than 2015. New employees are reportedly directed to follow the practice without discussion on whether it should only be used when legal advice is truly needed. In addition, Google allegedly provided the same training to teams handling search-distribution for the department’s (and other authorities’) antitrust cases. 

Google specifically told those teams to follow the practice for any written communication containing revenue-sharing agreements and mobile application distribution agreements, based on the presentation slides the DOJ included in its brief. Those agreements are central to the case. If you’ll recall, the DOJ accused Google of having an unfair monopoly over search and search-related advertising in its 2020 antitrust lawsuit. It also questioned its terms for Android device manufacturers that force them to pre-load Google apps and set Google as the default search engine. 

According to the DOJ, statements such as “adding legal” or “adding [attorney] for legal advice” appear in thousands of Google documents. These emails apparently lacked any specific request for advice and attorneys rarely respond to them. In the brief, the department said the practice “pervades the entire company” and is being used even by Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai.

The DOJ is now asking the court to hold Google’s conduct as sanctionable and to order it to immediately produce “all withheld or redacted emails where no attorney responded to the purported request for legal advice.”

Google spokesperson Julie Tarallo McAlister defended the company in a statement sent to Axios, however, calling the allegations “flatly wrong.” McAlister said:

“Our teams have conscientiously worked for years to respond to inquiries and litigation, and suggestions to the contrary are flatly wrong. Just like other American companies, we educate our employees about legal privilege and when to seek legal advice. And we have produced over four million documents to the DOJ in this case alone — including many that employees had considered potentially privileged.”

Lawsuit accuses Google of fostering systemic bias against Black employees

A new lawsuit against Google accuses the company of fostering a “racially biased corporate culture” that offers Black employees lower pay and fewer opportunities to advance than their white counterparts, reports Reuters. Filed on Friday with a federal court in San Jose, California, the complaint alleges the company subjected former diversity recruiter April Curley and other current and former Black employees to a hostile work environment.

In 2014, Google hired Curley to design a program to connect the company with Black colleges. Shortly afterward, she claims she was subjected to denigrating comments from her managers, who allegedly stereotyped her as an “angry” black woman while passing her over for promotions.

“While Google claims that they were looking to increase diversity, they were actually undervaluing, underpaying and mistreating their Black employees,” Curley’s lawyer told Reuters. The complaint notes Black people make up only 4.4 percent of employees at Google and approximately 3 percent of its leadership.

We’ve reached out to Google for comment.

Curley is not the first person to accuse Google of fostering a work environment hostile to Black employees and other people of color. In the aftermath of Timnit Gebru’s controversial exit from the company, Alex Hanna, a former employee with the tech giant’s Ethical AI research group, said she decided to leave Google after becoming tired of its structural deficiencies. “In a word, tech has a whiteness problem,” Hanna wrote on Medium at the time. “Google is not just a tech organization. Google is a white tech organization.”

Judge dismisses lawsuit accusing Amazon of antitrust violation over third-party pricing

On Friday, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia threw out a complaint that Attorney General Karl Racine had filed against Amazon accusing the retailer of anticompetitive behavior, according to The Wall Street Journal. Last June, Racine’s office alleged that Amazon had used a variety of contract provisions to prevent third-party sellers from offering their wares for less elsewhere.

“We believe that the Superior Court got this wrong, and its oral ruling did not seem to consider the detailed allegations in the complaint, the full scope of the anticompetitive agreements, the extensive briefing and a recent decision of a federal court to allow a nearly identical lawsuit to move forward,” a spokesperson for the attorney general told the outlet.

At the center of Racine’s suit was Amazon’s Fair Pricing Policy. In 2019, amid antitrust scrutiny, the company stopped telling third-party sellers they couldn’t offer their wares at lower prices on competing marketplaces. The complaint alleged that Amazon added a near-identical clause under its Fair Pricing Policy. The suit said that those guidelines allow the company to impose sanctions on merchants that sell their products for less money elsewhere.

When Racine’s office first filed its complaint, Amazon argued that many retailers employ pricing restrictions in their contracts. “The DC Attorney General has it exactly backwards — sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store,” a spokesperson for the company told Engadget at the time. “Amazon takes pride in the fact that we offer low prices across the broadest selection, and like any store we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers that are not priced competitively. The relief the AG seeks would force Amazon to feature higher prices to customers, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law.”

Racine’s office said it was weighing whether to appeal the ruling. “We are considering our legal options and we’ll continue fighting to develop reasoned antitrust jurisprudence in our local courts and to hold Amazon accountable for using its concentrated power to unfairly tilt the playing field in its favor,” it told The Journal.

Tesla halts work at Shanghai factory amid coronavirus outbreak

SHANGHAI (Reuters) – Tesla is suspending production at its Shanghai factory for two days, according to a notice sent internally and to suppliers, as China tightens COVID restrictions to curb the country’s latest outbreak. 

The Shanghai factory runs around the clock, and suppliers and Tesla staff were told on Wednesday in the notice, reviewed by Reuters, that production would be suspended for Wednesday and Thursday. 

It did not give a reason for the stoppage at the plant, also known as the Gigafactory 3, which makes the Tesla Model 3 sedan and the Model Y crossover sport utility vehicle. 

Many cities across China, including Shanghai, have been rolling out strict movement controls to stem the country’s largest COVID-19 outbreak in two years. The measures have also caused factory shutdowns in parts of the country, putting pressure on supply chains. 

Tesla did not have immediate comment. 

Its Shanghai factory produces cars for the China market and is also a crucial export hub to Germany and Japan. It delivered 56,515 vehicles in February, including 33,315 for export, according to the China Passenger Car Association. 

That amounts to an average of around 2,018 vehicles a day. 

It was not immediately clear whether the suspension of work would apply to other plant operations over the two days. 

Two people briefed on the notice said they understood it applied to Tesla’s general assembly lines. They declined to be identified because the information was not public. 

The notice did not specify whether the measures would correspond to a loss of production, or whether Tesla could make up for any lost output. 

Authorities in Shanghai have asked many residents not to leave their homes or work places for 48 hours to as long as 14 days as they conduct COVID tests or carry out contact tracing. 

In a separate notice issued on Wednesday that was also seen by Reuters, Tesla asked suppliers to estimate how many workers were needed to achieve full production and to provide details of workers affected by COVID restrictions. 

It also asked suppliers to prepare workers to live, sleep and eat at the factories in an arrangement similar to China’s “closed-loop management” process. Apple supplier Foxconn was allowed to resume some operations at its Shenzhen campus on Wednesday after it set up such an arrangement. 

Tesla was alerted by one supplier last weekend that its production had been affected by COVID measures, said a person familiar with the matter. That supplier told Tesla that its stockpiles could only last for two days, the person said. 

Any protracted China lockdowns will further rattle Asian supply chains, OCBC economist Wellian Wiranto said in a research note, noting the southern manufacturing hub of Shenzhen alone produces 11% of China’s exports. 

  (Reporting by Zhang Yan and Brenda Goh; Editing by Kenneth Maxwell and Kim Coghill)