Google has filed a lawsuit against the operators of a what is believed to be the largest smart TV botnet in the world — BadBox 2.0. 

The company said in its complaint that this China-based botnet had compromised more than 10 million uncertified devices — including TV streaming boxes, tablets and projectors. Google said that cybercriminals pre-installed malware or used malicious apps to download malware on hardware that was running open-source Android software. These compromised devices were then used to conduct "large-scale ad fraud and other digital crimes." In addition to the lawsuit, which is an injunction against the botnet's operators as well as unspecified damages, Google said it has updated Google Play Protect to automatically block known apps associated with BadBox 2.0.

The FBI is also working to dismantle BadBox 2.0, with an alert about the operation issued last month. The original BadBox botnet campaign, which also primarily infiltrated Android operating systems, was identified in 2023 and disrupted in 2024.

Google has been a target for this type of cybercriminal activity before. In 2021, it disrupted Glupteba, which at the time was one of the largest botnets with about one million Windows PCs impacted.

Read the full complaint below:

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/google-is-suing-the-badbox-20-botnet-group-185812719.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, along with a group of current and former company directors and officers, just agreed to settle to end a trial that sought $8 billion in damages, according to a report by Reuters. Zuckerberg and the others will actually be paying out to Meta shareholders as a recompense for damages allegedly caused by allowing repeated violations of Facebook users' privacy.

The parties have not disclosed the details of the settlement, but one would assume the payout was less than the $8 billion the plaintiffs originally asked for. Judge Kathaleen McCormick adjourned the trial just as it was set to enter its second day and well before any of the major players were forced to take the stand.

Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who is a defendant in the trial and a Meta director, was scheduled to testify today. Zuckerberg and former COO Sheryl Sandberg were set to take the stand next week. Former board member Peter Thiel was also expected to testify.

Shareholders sued Zuckerberg, Andreessen, Sandberg and others to hold them liable for the billions of dollars in fines and legal costs the company has been forced to pay out in recent years as part of alleged privacy violations. For instance, the FTC fined Facebook $5 billion in 2019 after finding it failed to comply with a 2012 agreement to protect user data.

Company shareholders wanted the 11 defendants to use their personal wealth to reimburse the company. Plaintiffs alleged in the suit that the defendants failed to oversee FTC compliance and that they knowingly ran Facebook as an illegal data harvesting operation. The defendants denied the allegations, calling them "extreme claims", before settling.

This all goes back to the infamous Cambridge Analytica bombshell, in which the political consulting firm accessed data from millions of Facebook users as part of Donald Trump's successful 2016 presidential campaign. That led to the FTC fine, which was the largest ever issued at the time. Cambridge Analytica has since shuttered.

Several people had already taken the stand before both parties reached a settlement. An expert witness for the plaintiffs testified about "gaps and weaknesses" in Facebook's privacy policies.

This is just one pending case against the company. There's a big antitrust case that once again pits the FTC against Meta, alleging that the company participated in anticompetitive practices by purchasing one-time rivals Instagram and Whatsapp. The trial has ended but no decision has been reached.

Zuckerberg has been implicated in a case that alleges Meta knowingly used pirated materials to train its Llama AI. The company is also paying $25 million to settle a lawsuit with Donald Trump over his 2021 Facebook suspension, after Trump threatened Zuckerberg with retribution during the 2024 election. The current president was temporarily suspended from the platform after inciting a riot at the capitol that left several people dead.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/mark-zuckerberg-and-other-meta-bigwigs-just-agreed-to-a-settlement-in-8-billion-suit-154513933.html?src=rss

©

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

Apple's Irish tax break problems are officially over. Ireland's Department of Finance has reported that the entirety of the €14.25 billion fund in Apple's escrow account for the case has been fully transferred to the Exchequer or Ireland's central fund. The escrow account has, therefore, been closed. This marks the end of one of the world's largest antitrust cases that started way back in 2013 when the European Commission launched an investigation to determine whether Apple was enjoying better tax rates than warranted under the bloc's laws. 

The commission found that the tax breaks Ireland gave Apple back then was illegal shortly after its investigation started. Then in 2016, after years of investigation, the commission ruled that the company had to pay back the "illegal state aid" it received over a 10-year-period before the probe into its tax practices was launched, since it was given "significant advantage" over its rivals. 

Apparently, Apple created Irish subsidiaries that owned most of its intellectual properties. Every time the company sells a product, the Irish subsidiaries get paid for the use of Apple's IPs. And thanks to the company's agreement with Ireland, Apple was only paying a 1 percent tax rate on European profits that became as low as .005 percent in 2014. The Commission ordered Apple to pay back the €13.1 billion in taxes it owed from between 2003 and 2014, with an interest of €1.2 billion on top. 

In 2018, the company transferred €14.3 billion to an escrow account as it appealed the Commission's ruling. The EU's General Court ruled in Apple's favor in 2020, explaining that there wasn't enough evidence to show that the company had broken the bloc's rules. But in 2024, the European Court of Justice overturned that decision and confirmed the Commission's original ruling in 2016. 

As The Irish Times has reported, the funds continued depreciating in value since it was deposited into escrow until 2023. It only managed to regain €470 million within 16 months before the account's closure in May, thanks to higher interest rates and investments with higher yields. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/apples-%E2%82%AC143-billion-irish-tax-break-case-is-officially-over-113755771.html?src=rss

©

© Apple

The US International Trade Commission has determined that Chinese camera company Insta360 has infringed on at least some of GoPro's patents. Based on a press release from GoPro, the determination specifically found that "Insta360 violated federal law by importing and selling in the United States products that infringe GoPro intellectual property."

GoPro writes that it was "pleased" the ITC's judge found that Insta360 infringed on "a patent covering GoPro's iconic Hero camera design." The company also says that the ITC's judge validated multiple patent claims related to its HyperSmooth video stabilization feature, though the patents notably weren't considered infringed, according to the notice. 

When asked to comment on the ITC determination notice, Insta360 didn't portray the ruling as a GoPro victory, though. If anything, the company's statement makes it seem like the opposite. Insta360's press release says that the ITC "rejected GoPro's utility patent claims against Insta360." According to the company, the judge determined that utility patents "relating to stabilization, horizon leveling, distortion, and aspect ratio conversion are invalid, not infringed, or both." Only GoPro's design patent was infringed and valid, and Insta360 says it's implemented design updates to address it.

"The US International Trade Commission's initial determination affirms what many in our industry already know: the future belongs to innovators, not litigators," Insta360 CEO JK Liu shared in the company's press release. "While GoPro sought to block competition by asserting a wide array of patents, the majority of those claims were either found not to be infringed or ruled invalid. That speaks volumes."

The ITC initially started investigating Insta360 on GoPro's suggestion, Reuters reports. The company was specifically seeking "exclusion and cease and desist orders that would ban imports of the Insta360 products" in the US. Even if the ITC has found ways Insta360 infringes on GoPro's patents, the initial determination doesn't prevent the company from importing and selling its cameras. You're still able to buy Insta360 products in the US.

The ITC is expected to deliver a final determination on November 10, 2025, according to GoPro. If the company seems defensive, there's good reason. Even if GoPro is still the most recognizable name in action cameras, Insta360 offers a far wider, and in some cases, more appealing selection of products. Things would be far simpler for GoPro if its competition wasn't allowed to sell its products in the US.

Update, July 11, 6:18PM ET: This story was updated after publishing to clarify which patents were actually infringed and valid.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cameras/itc-rules-insta360-infringed-on-gopro-patents-195518334.html?src=rss

©

© Mat Smith for Engadget

One of the most popular sites for Nintendo Switch piracy has been taken down as part of an ongoing FBI investigation. As reported by Kotaku, Nsw2u was known for hosting Switch ROMs, which users could download to play on a hacked Switch or PC emulator capable of running them.

At the time of writing, when you enter the site’s URL you’ll see a notice confirming the seizure, which the FBI says is in accordance with a warrant issued by the United States District Court in Georgia. The notice also features a logo for the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD), which is a Dutch government agency that investigates financial crimes.

Nintendo has been cracking down on piracy of its games for a number of years. Back in 2019, the company sued the illegal ROM-sharing site RomUniverse, after it became aware it was offering unlimited downloads of new and old Nintendo games for an annual fee. Last year it filed a lawsuit against streamer EveryGameGuru who it accused of broadcasting footage of pirated — and in many cases unreleased — Switch games, as well as providing access to illegal ROMs. In March of 2024 the makers of popular Switch emulator Yuzu paid $2.4 million to settle charges filed by Nintendo.

Nintendo’s latest anti-piracy move was inserting a clause in an updated version of the Nintendo Switch User Agreement that effectively enables it to brick your Switch if it runs illegal emulators or pirated games. This revised agreement came into effect just ahead of the Switch 2 launch on June 5.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/fbi-seize-well-known-nintendo-switch-game-piracy-site-152216405.html?src=rss

©

© FBI

More than six months after TikTok was briefly banned, we still don't know exactly what its fate in the US will be. But we do have new insight into the legal wrangling that has allowed Apple, Google and other platforms to continue to support the app.

If you remember, TikTok was only "banned" for a matter of hours shortly before President Donald Trump took office in January and delayed enforcement of the law. The app's service was promptly restored January 19, 2025, but the app didn't return to Apple and Google's app stores until February 13. Reporting at the time suggested the companies had lingering concerns about potential liability for running afoul of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Back in February, Axios and others reported that the Justice Department had given "assurances" to tech platforms that they wouldn't be penalized for violating the law. Now, we know exactly what Attorney General Pam Bondi told the companied as letters sent to Apple, Google, Amazon, Oracle and other firms have been made public. The letters were disclosed in a Freedom of Information Act Request made by Tony Tan, a software engineer and Google shareholder suing the search giant for not complying with the TikTok ban.

In a letter dated January 30, 2025, Bondi tells Apple and Google that "the President has determined that an abrupt shutdown of the TikTok platform would interfere with the execution of the President's constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States." It goes on to state that Apple and Google "may continue to provide services to TikTok … without incurring any legal liability."

A followup later dated April 5, 2025 (the day after Trump gave TikTok another 75-day reprieve), Bondi told the companies that "the Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against" them "for the conduct proscribed in the Act during the Covered Period and Extended Covered Period, with respect to TikTok and the larger family of ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok, Inc. applications covered under the Act."

The letters can be read in full below.

---

The law has now been paused three times since Trump took office. Earlier this week, he said that details about TikTok's new ownership could be made public in "about two weeks."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/here-are-the-letters-that-let-apple-and-google-ignore-the-tiktok-ban-220630588.html?src=rss

©

© SOPA Images via Getty Images

A US judge has ruled that Huawei must stand trial following a 16-count indictment from 2019 accusing the Chinese telecommunications company of trying to steal trade secrets from its US rivals and selling surveillance equipment to Iran despite trade sanctions, according to a report by Reuters. A trial is currently set for May 4, 2026.

US District Judge Ann Donnelly found sufficient evidence in the indictment to refute the company's bid for dismissal. In a 52-page decision, the Brooklyn judge ruled that its arguments for dismissal were premature. The indictment alleges that Huawei engaged in racketeering, stole trade secrets from six companies and committed bank fraud by misleading the financial organizations about its work in Iran.

The Iran accusations stem from Huawei's alleged control over a Hong Kong-based company called Skycom, which did business in that country. Donnelly said that prosecutors successfully alleged that Skycom "operated as Huawei's Iranian subsidiary and ultimately stood to benefit" from over $100 million in money transfers through the US financial system.

Huawei has pleaded not guilty and sought to dismiss 13 of the 16 counts, referring to itself as "a prosecutorial target in search of a crime." The case goes all the way back to 2019 during President Trump's first term and coincided with the Department of Justice launching an investigation into China's alleged theft of intellectual property.

Chinese officials have accused the US government of "economic bullying" and of using national security concerns as a pretext for "oppressing Chinese companies." The company's CFO Meng Wanzhou, whose father founded the company, was arrested and detained in Canada for three years on allegations that Huawei violated sanctions with Iran. Wanzhou was eventually released and the charges were dismissed.

The US government began restricting Huawei's access to American technology in 2019, citing security concerns. The company struggled to maintain its market share with these restrictions in place, but has since ramped up its own development of chips and related technologies. The company also shifted its focus to the Chinese market.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/us-judge-rules-huawei-must-answer-criminal-charges-about-alleged-iran-deal-161552940.html?src=rss

©

© Unsplash/BoliviaInteligente

Federal Judge Vince Chhabria has ruled in favor of Meta over the 13 book authors, including Sarah Silverman, who sued the company for training its large language model on their published work without obtaining consent. His court has granted summary judgment to Meta, which means the case didn't reach full trial. Chhabria said that Meta didn't violate copyright law after the plaintiffs had failed to show sufficient evidence that the company's use of the authors' work would hurt them financially. 

In his ruling (PDF), Chhabria admitted that in most cases, it is illegal to feed copyright-protected materials into their large language models without getting permission or paying the copyright owners for the right to use their creations. "...by training generative AI models with copyrighted works, companies are creating something that often will dramatically undermine the market for those works, and thus dramatically undermine the incentive for human beings to create things the old-fashioned way," he wrote. 

However, the court "must decide cases based on the evidence presented by the parties," he said. For this particular case, the plaintiffs argued that Meta's actions cannot be considered "fair use." They said that that their creations are affected by Meta's use because the company's LLM, Llama, is capable of reproducing small snippets of text from their books. They also said that by using their books for training without consent, Meta had diminished their ability to license their work for LLM training. The judge called both arguments "clear losers." Llama isn't capable of generating enough text straight from the books to matter, he said, and the authors aren't entitled to the "market for licensing their works as AI training data."

Chhabria wrote that the argument that Meta copied their books to create a product that has the capability to flood the market with similar works, thereby causing market dilution, could have given the plaintiffs the win. But the plaintiffs barely touched the argument and presented no evidence to show how output from Meta's LLM could dilute the market. Despite his ruling, Chhabria clarified that his decision is limited: It only affects the 13 authors in the lawsuit and "does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful."

Another judge, William Alsup, also recently sided with Anthropic in a class action lawsuit also brought by a group of authors who accused the company of using their copyrighted work without permission. Alsup provided the writers recourse, though, and allowed them to take Anthropic to court for piracy.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/meta-wins-ai-copyright-case-filed-by-sarah-silverman-and-other-authors-120035768.html?src=rss

©

© Anadolu via Getty Images