Tag Archives: judge

Federal Judge Rules Google Not Required to Sell Chrome

Posted on by
Reply

Google will not be compelled to divest its Chrome browsers. A federal judge ruled last year’s monopoly case in the ongoing legal dispute involving the tech giant.

The company is prohibited from specific monopolistic transactions with device manufacturers and is required to share data from search engines with competitors, according to the judge’s decision.

Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling comes after months of speculation regarding the penalties Google might face, following a judgment last year which found that Google violated antitrust laws, establishing what the company referred to as an online search monopoly. This case is considered one of the most significant antitrust proceedings in decades, resulting in further hearings in April to ascertain appropriate government actions for relief.

Mehta’s decision to let Google retain Chrome reflects a more favorable outcome for the company than what federal prosecutors had sought. The prosecution had proposed that Google divest its marquee search products and barred it from entering the browser market for a period of five years. In his extensive 230-page ruling, Mehta stated that the prosecutors had “overvalued by seeking mandatory sales of these key assets.”

While Google averted the most severe repercussions for antitrust violations, Mehta’s ruling supported prosecutors by forbidding the establishment or continuation of exclusive agreements regarding the distribution of products such as Chrome, Google Assistant, and Gemini apps. However, this ruling does not restrict Google from compensating distributors.

Following Mehta’s decision, Google’s shares experienced a rise in after-hours trading, indicating investor confidence in the favorable outcomes for the company.

The ruling was critiqued as “a complete failure” by the nonprofit advocacy group, the American Economic Freedom Project.

“It’s akin to finding someone who robbed a bank, only to tell him to write a thank-you note to the robber,” remarked Nidhi Hegde, the executive director of the American Economic Freedom Project. “Likewise, Google is not held accountable for monopolistic behavior, while a remedy is drafted to safeguard that monopoly.”

Google contended that under the Antimonopoly Act, which was first tried in 2023, its advantage in search is not a product of anticompetitive actions but stems from the creation of superior products.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Meanwhile, prosecutors have demonstrated that Google has invested billions in agreements with device manufacturers like Samsung and Apple to establish the browser as the default search for their products, allowing it to secure approximately 90% of the U.S. search market.

“After thorough deliberation and consideration of witness testimonies and evidence, the court concluded that Google was the monopoly and acted to preserve its monopoly,” Mehta ruled last year.

Mehta’s relief decision this week acknowledged that there have been significant transformations in the internet search industry since last year’s case concluded, indicating that his ruling was designed to address both popular search engines and the recent emergence of AI search engines and chatbots developed by Google.

“The procedures for these remedies were aimed at fostering competition among general search engines (GSEs) as much as ensuring that the advantages in search were not overshadowed by developments in the AI space,” Mehta stated.

Additionally, Google is set to face another hearing later this year regarding how the government will manage antitrust violations connected to its monopoly in online advertising technology.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Judge States Wikipedia Can Contest Online Safety Laws If Stricter Regulations Are Enforced

Posted on by
Reply

Wikimedia operators have received approval from a High Court judge to contest the online safety legislation when deemed a high-risk platform, which imposes the most stringent requirements.

The Wikimedia Foundation warns that if OFCOM classifies it as a Category 1 provider later this summer, it will be compelled to limit access to the site in order to meet regulatory standards.

As a nonprofit entity, the organization stated it “faces significant challenges in addressing the substantial technical and staffing demands” required to adhere to its obligations, which include user verification, stringent user protection measures, and regular reporting responsibilities to mitigate the spread of harmful content.


The Wikimedia Foundation estimates that to avoid being categorized as a Category 1 service, the number of UK users accessing Wikipedia would need to decrease by approximately three-quarters.

Wikipedia asserts it is unlike other platforms expected to be classified as Category 1 providers, such as Facebook and Instagram, due to its charitable nature and the fact that users typically interact only with content that interests them.

Judge Johnson declined to challenge Wikipedia’s status in court for various reasons but emphasized that the site “offers tremendous value for freedom of speech and expression,” noting that the verdict would not provide Ofcom or the government a mandate to impose regulations that would severely limit Wikipedia’s operations.

He stated that the classification of Wikipedia as a Category 1 provider “must be justified as proportionate if it does not infringe upon the right to freedom of expression,” but added that it was “premature” to enforce such a classification as Ofcom had not yet determined it to be a Category 1 service.

Should Ofcom deem Wikipedia a Category 1 service, which would jeopardize its current operations, Johnson suggested that technology secretary Peter Kyle “should consider altering the regulations or exempting this category of services from the law,” highlighting that Wikipedia could confront further challenges if this were not addressed.

“We are pleased to report that we are actively engaging with the Wikimedia Foundation,” said Phil Brad Leishmieg, lead attorney for the organization. “While the ruling does not provide immediate legal protection for Wikipedia as we had sought, it accentuates the responsibilities facing Ofcom and the UK government regarding the implementation of the Online Safety Act.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

“The judge has recognized the issues caused by the misalignment of OSA classifications and obligations concerning Wikipedia’s ‘significant value, user safety, and the human rights of Wikipedia volunteer contributors.’

Government KC Cecilia Aibimee stated that the minister has taken OFCOM’s guidance into account, specifically considering whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations, but ultimately decided against it. She remarked that Wikipedia was deemed “in principle an appropriate service necessitating Category 1 obligations,” and that the reasoning behind this decision was “neither unreasonable nor without justification.”

A government representative commented: “We are pleased with today’s High Court ruling. This will assist us in our ongoing efforts to implement online safety laws and foster a safer online environment for all.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Judge Rules Men Accused of Hacking Can Be Sent to U.S. for Trial

Posted on by
Reply

A British court has approved the extradition of an Israeli individual charged by a New York prosecutor in a case involving an operation dubbed “hacking fatalen,” aimed at environmental organizations.

According to prosecutors, the company operated by 57-year-old Amit Forlit allegedly earned over $16 million by hacking more than 100 victims and stealing confidential data while working for major oil companies on behalf of a lobbying firm.

In a court submission from January, Forlit’s attorneys identified the company as ExxonMobil. Exxon is currently facing lawsuits from Democratic lawyers and local officials regarding its role in climate change, with claims that it has concealed knowledge about climate change for decades to maintain its oil sales. The lobbying firm mentioned in the filing is known as DCI Group.

Exxon has stated that it was not involved in and had no knowledge of the hacking activities, emphasizing, “If hacking is involved, we will condemn it in the strongest possible terms.”

A spokesman for DCI, Craig Stevens, stated that the firm has instructed its employees and consultants to follow the law and asserted that none of DCI’s guidance was linked to the hack that allegedly occurred a decade ago.

DCI also referred to “numerous billionaire donors still benefiting from the fossil fuel legacy,” describing them as “financiers of radical anti-oil activists and their billionaire backers.”

This remark hinted at the Rockefellers’ involvement in supporting organizations pursuing climate change litigation. The Rockefeller heirs, who amassed oil fortunes over a century ago, lead the Rockefeller Family Fund, which plays a significant role in the movement to sue oil companies over climate change. Lee Wasserman, its director, has reported being targeted in a hacking initiative.

Last year, Forlit was arrested in connection with a major trial in New York for allegedly committing wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and hacking offenses that could lead to lengthy prison sentences. His legal team contended that he should not be extradited due to concerns about a fair trial in the U.S., given the political climate surrounding climate change litigations.

They argued that “one motive for the prosecution appears to be an effort to advance political agendas against ExxonMobil, with Forlit being collateral damage.”

Forlit’s attorneys also expressed concerns about his safety at the Metropolitan Detention Center, New York’s only federal prison, which has been criticized for violence and dysfunction. High-profile detainees have included individuals such as Luigi Mangione, Sam Bankman-Fried, and Shawn Combs (Puff Daddy/Diddy).

The Westminster Magistrate’s Court dismissed these worries, but Forlit has the option to appeal. His attorney did not immediately respond to inquiries for comments.

One targeted entity was a coalition of concerned scientists who have extensively researched the fossil fuel industry’s influence on climate science disinformation. This group also engages in source attribution science, estimating how specific companies contribute to global warming effects like rising sea levels and wildfires. Their findings support lawsuits against the oil sector.

The organization became aware of hacking attempts following a 2020 report from Citizen Lab, a cybersecurity watchdog from the University of Toronto, which revealed that hackers were targeting American nonprofits working on the #ExxonKnew campaign.

A coalition of concerned scientists has received suspicious emails in which hackers attempted to extract passwords or deploy malicious software. Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York have initiated an investigation.

One of Forlit’s associates, Aviram Azari, pleaded guilty in New York to charges including computer breaches, wire fraud, and identity theft, receiving a six-year prison sentence.

Forlit manages two Israel-registered security and intelligence newsletter firms, one of which is registered in the U.S. His clientele includes a lobbying firm representing “one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies” involved in ongoing climate change litigation. Exxon has its historical roots in Irving, Texas.

The lobbying firm selected targets for Mr. Forlit, who then passed the list to Azari. Azari, who owned another Israeli-based company, employed individuals from India to gain illegal access to accounts. This information was reportedly utilized to gather documents from oil companies and the media, allegedly undermining the integrity of the civil investigation, according to the filings.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Judge Challenges Apple, Orders It to Ease Control Over the App Store

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Apple must ease its control over the App Store and cease collecting fees for app sales. This decision wraps up a five-year antitrust lawsuit initiated by Epic Games, aimed at redefining Apple’s substantial influence within the digital economy.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California criticized Apple for trying to obstruct the previous court ruling and indicated that the company should refrain from appealing further. She specifically condemned Apple CEO Tim Cook and other executives for providing false testimony.

In a prior ruling, Judge Gonzalez Rogers instructed Apple to allow apps to process payments directly, enabling them to provide external links to users and circumvent the 30% fee levied by Apple, potentially resulting in lower costs for consumers.

However, on Wednesday, Judge Gonzalez Rogers asserted that Apple had established a new framework that would mandate external sales apps to pay a 27% commission to the company. Apple also implemented a pop-up notification that warned customers against making payments outside the App Store, suggesting that such transactions might be insecure.

“Apple has attempted to protect billions in revenue by directly opposing this court’s injunction,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated.

In response, she indicated that Apple would no longer be able to collect commissions from transactions made outside of the App Store. She also mentioned that she could impose restrictions on developers from creating buttons or links for payments outside the store, and could not issue warnings that deter users from making purchases. Furthermore, Judge Gonzalez Rogers urged federal attorneys to investigate possible criminal actions within the Northern District of California.

This ruling marks a significant shift in the app economy, potentially decreasing costs for Apple while increasing earnings for developers. The App Store, a core element of Apple’s business model, remains a primary venue for downloading mobile games and various applications.

“This opens up opportunities for developers to negotiate better deals, resulting in advantages for consumers as well,” stated Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. “Today is a momentous occasion for everyone involved.”

Apple may contest the ruling. The company has not yet commented, and its stock fell by 1.5% in after-hours trading.

Epic, the developer of Fortnite, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in 2020. Apple was accused of coercing app developers into using its payment system for App Store access, which is the sole channel for distributing apps on iPhones. This policy enabled Apple to garner as much as 30% from numerous transactions.

The App Store contributes significantly to Apple’s annual service revenue, which is nearly $100 billion.

In a ruling two years later, Judge Gonzalez Rogers stopped short of declaring Apple a monopoly in the mobile gaming sector, thus protecting the company from the most severe consequences of the lawsuit. However, she did find that Apple violated California’s unfair competition laws by hindering developers from providing users with alternative payment methods.

Last year, Epic contended that Apple was not adhering to the ruling due to the implementation of new fees and regulations for developers. The judge mandated that Apple submit documentation clarifying the reasoning behind its revised system.

Internal documents from Apple revealed attempts to obstruct alternative payment options while preserving as many of the traditional 30% fees as possible. During a meeting in July 2023, Phil Schiller, who managed the App Store, asserted that Apple would not charge commission, while Apple’s finance chief, Luca Maestri, defended the newly established 27% fee. Reports indicated that Cook supported Maestri’s position.

Cook also instructed that a “fear” notification be displayed, stating that “Apple privacy and security standards do not apply to purchases made via the web” when a user clicks an external payment link.

“Apple clearly understood its actions and consistently chose the most anti-competitive options,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers remarked.

She accused Apple executives of “lying under oath,” further asserting that “Cook made misguided choices.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

FBI arrests Wisconsin judge in immigration dispute during Trump Administration live update

Posted on by
Reply

On March 11, approximately 50 judges gathered in Washington for a six-month meeting of the Judicial Council, which oversees the administration of federal courts. This meeting marked the first gathering since President Trump assumed office.

Discussions during the meeting focused on staffing levels, long-term planning, and the increasing threats to judges and their safety, according to attendees.

At one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, chairman of the conference’s Judicial Security Committee, raised concerns about potential threats to the safety of judges. He highlighted the authority that the US Marshals Service, overseen by the Justice Department, has in judicial security matters. Given the history of former officials like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton having their security stripped by Trump, Judge Sullivan wondered if federal judges could be the next target.

Judge Sullivan, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and later elevated to appeals judge by Trump, emphasized the importance of trusting the head of judicial security amidst uncertainties about potential threats to the federal bench.

While there is no evidence that Trump is considering revoking judges’ security, Judge Sullivan’s remarks highlighted the unease among judges about the agency responsible for their safety ultimately answering to the President through the Attorney General, without sufficient funding to address rising threats.

In a statement, the Marshall Services affirmed their commitment to following all legal orders from federal courts to ensure the protection of judges, jurors, and witnesses. However, concerns have been raised about the frozen court security funds at a time when threats to federal judges are on the rise.

Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., in a letter to Congress, expressed disappointment that court security funds remain stagnant despite the escalating threats. The total amount spent has seen minimal increase, despite inflation and higher staff salaries.

The former US S’s responsibilities have expanded to include protecting the Supreme Court’s residence in response to growing threats. Concerns about the oversight of Marshall Services have led some to propose transferring control of the agency to the judiciary for better protection of judges.

As the threats to judges continue to increase, some members of Congress are considering legislation to make judicial security more independent. The former US S’s response to court orders and the potential interference from political branches remain critical issues to address for the safety of judges.

Despite the challenges, efforts to reduce Marshall Services to increase efficiency may impact the agency’s ability to fulfill its crucial mission of protecting judges and upholding court orders.

Source: www.nytimes.com

US judge rules that Google has illegally dominated the online advertising market

Posted on by
Reply

Google, owned by Alphabet, was found to have illegally controlled two markets related to online advertising technology. The ruling by a US District Judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Thursday dealt a blow to the tech giant, opening the door for anti-trust prosecutors to potentially split up its advertising products.

The judge, Leonie Brinkema, held Google responsible for monopolizing the market for advertising exchanges between buyers and sellers, as well as for publisher ad server platforms used to manage advertising inventory on websites. The judge rejected the claim that Google had a monopoly on advertisers’ ad networks.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice-chairman of the regulator, stated that Google plans to appeal the ruling.

The decision sets the stage for further proceedings to determine how Google can restore competition in the markets it monopolized. This may involve selling off a portion of its business, though no date has been set for this examination.

The Department of Justice has indicated that Google may need to sell Google Ad Manager at the very least.

In addition to this case, Google is facing the possibility of being forced to sell assets or change its practices in another court case. A Washington judge is set to preside over a trial next week concerning Google’s Chrome browsers and its dominance in online searches. Google has previously considered selling ad exchanges to comply with European antitrust regulations.

Brinkema presided over a trial last year where prosecutors accused Google of using monopoly tactics to eliminate competitors and control online advertising transactions. Google refutes these claims, stating that it continues to develop tools that can work with competitors’ products and pointing out competition from companies like Amazon and Comcast.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Tesla asserts Elon Musk was awarded a $56 billion compensation package even though a judge found it to be invalid.

Posted on by
Reply

According to court documents released on Friday, Tesla Inc. states that Elon Musk has emerged victorious in a legal battle over his $56 billion compensation package. This victory comes after shareholders voted in favor of the pay, despite a judge previously setting it aside earlier this year.

The company’s submission comes following Tesla shareholders’ approval of his stock option package for 2018, conducted two weeks ago. This decision was made after a Delaware judge voided the compensation in January due to alleged mismanagement by Musk during negotiations and misleading shareholders about critical details.

The ongoing lawsuit has strained Musk’s relationship with Tesla, as the company grapples with declining sales and mounting competition. Musk has hinted at developing products outside of Tesla if he fails to secure a larger ownership stake.

In its proposal, Tesla has outlined to Delaware Chancery Court Judge Katherine McCormick how the final order should be drafted to implement her January ruling. The company argues that the order should declare “judgment is entered in favor of the defendants.”

Shareholders’ lawyers are urging the judge to uphold the previous ruling that invalidated Musk’s compensation package. They are seeking a directive for Tesla to issue billions of dollars in Tesla stock to cover legal expenses.

Tesla has suggested a fair fee of up to $13.6 million.

McCormick has instructed both parties to prepare briefs discussing the impact of the shareholder vote on the case and to schedule oral arguments on the matter in late July or early August.

Oral arguments on costs are set for July 8, with a decision likely to be reached after several weeks. Even if the January ruling remains unchanged, McCormick may acknowledge that the shareholder vote indicates little merit in winning the case, as Tesla shareholders appear to desire substantial compensation, which could undermine the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee claim based on the value they have provided by overturning the compensation packages.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk seeks shareholder approval for $56 billion payout from Tesla, judge rejects request

Posted on by
Reply

Tesla is seeking shareholders’ re-approval for CEO Elon Musk’s hefty $56 billion compensation plan from 2018, which was previously rejected by a Delaware judge in January for being excessive and unjustified.


Musk’s compensation, tied to Tesla’s market value increase to $650 billion over the next decade, currently stands at over $500 billion, according to LSEG data, excluding salary or cash bonuses.

The rejection from Delaware Court of Chancery’s Kathleen McCormick criticized the board’s decision, deeming the compensation “incalculable” and unfair to shareholders.

Tesla’s move for a fresh shareholder vote appears to bolster support for Musk’s pay package and challenge the court’s ruling, which disapproved the largest corporate pay package in America.

In response to the court’s decision, board chair Robin Denholm expressed disagreement, stating that the ruling did not conform to corporate law principles.


In 2023, Musk’s compensation was recorded as $0, as he does not draw a salary but is compensated through stock options. The court case also mentioned Musk’s involvement in an attempt to disrupt Twitter Inc.’s acquisition deal.

Tesla is suggesting a re-vote on the original 2018 compensation package, contemplating legal considerations, as well as seeking approval from shareholders to relocate its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas.

Ahead of the market opening, shares of the leading automaker rallied by 1%.

This year has been challenging for Tesla, with reports of underperforming against market expectations and observing its first decline in deliveries in four years, prompting a workforce reduction of 14,000 employees. The broader electric vehicle industry has also experienced a slowdown, with major players like Ford revising their plans.

Meanwhile, Apple scaled back its self-driving electric car project, leading to layoffs, indicating a shifting landscape in the electric vehicle sector.

Source: www.theguardian.com

US judge stops government from monitoring energy usage of cryptocurrency mining.

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. government has halted an investigation into a cryptocurrency mining operation over its rising energy use following a lawsuit from an industry accused by environmental groups of fueling the climate crisis.

A federal judge in Texas granted an interim order blocking new requirements to verify cryptocurrency miners’ energy use, stating that the industry would suffer “irreparable harm” if forced to comply.

The U.S. Department of Energy launched an “emergency” initiative last month to examine the energy usage of mining operations, which use computational power to mine currencies like Bitcoin.

The growth of cryptocurrencies and mining activities has led to a surge in electricity usage, with data centers popping up and even reviving coal-fired power plants for mining operations.

The federal government requires more information on big miners’ electricity use, as mining facilities provided a significant portion of total U.S. electricity demand last year. Globally, cryptocurrency mining is responsible for a notable portion of energy consumption.

Campaigners warn that the increased electricity consumption from cryptocurrency mining exacerbates the climate crisis, with mining operations releasing significant amounts of carbon dioxide each year.

Cryptocurrency mining is straining power grids, with instances of Bitcoin companies receiving energy credits to reduce power usage during peak demand periods.

The industry has managed to avoid an investigation it deems burdensome, citing political motives from the government. The debate continues on the regulation of cryptocurrency mining in the U.S.

The Blockchain Council of Texas and other groups argue that the government’s actions are aimed at limiting or eliminating Bitcoin mining in the U.S., causing concerns for the industry and its employees.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk relocates SpaceX to Texas following reduction of $56 billion compensation to Tesla by Delaware judge

Posted on by
Reply

SpaceX, the rocket company, has relocated its corporate headquarters from Delaware to Texas, as announced by CEO Elon Musk.

Musk stated, “SpaceX has moved its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas. If your company is still incorporated in Delaware, we recommend moving to another state as soon as possible.” This announcement was made on the platform.

This move comes after a Delaware judge ruled in favor of Tesla investors in a lawsuit alleging that Musk’s $56 billion compensation was excessive. Musk, who also serves as Tesla’s CEO, recently announced plans for a shareholder vote to move Tesla’s corporate domicile to Texas as well.


Musk also mentioned, “The people’s vote is unequivocally in favor of Texas! Tesla intends to immediately conduct a shareholder vote to move its incorporated state to Texas.” This statement was made earlier this month after a public opinion poll indicated support for the incorporation change.

In January, a Delaware judge nullified Musk’s compensation package, citing improper actions by the electric car maker’s board of directors.

This decision follows a lawsuit filed five years ago by Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta, accusing Musk of improperly directing negotiations over his compensation package and the board of directors of lacking independence.

Musk’s compensation deal with Tesla is the largest ever for an executive, contributing significantly to his fortune, which ranks among the largest in the world. Musk testified at his compensation trial in November 2022 that the money would be used to fund interplanetary travel.

Neuralink, Musk’s brain chip implantation company, also moved its location from Delaware to Nevada last week.

Reuters contributed to this report

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk’s $56 billion compensation for Tesla deemed excessive by judge

Posted on by
Reply

In a court filing on Tuesday, a Delaware judge ruled in favor of investors who contested Elon Musk’s $56 billion pay package from Tesla, stating that it was excessive. The judge concluded that the compensation had been improperly established by Tesla’s board of directors and revoked it. If the decision is upheld in a potential appeal, Tesla’s board would need to create a new compensation plan for Musk.


Elon Musk responded on Twitter/X, saying, “Never incorporate a company in Delaware.”

Five years ago, Tesla shareholder Richard Tornetta filed a lawsuit accusing the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, of improperly directing negotiations on compensation packages and the board of directors lacking independence. The court’s decision directed Tornetta to cooperate with Musk’s legal team regarding the judge’s order, which can be appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Musk’s compensation trial in November 2022 revealed that the money would be used to fund interplanetary travel. He testified, “This is how we’re going to get humans to Mars, so Tesla can help potentially achieve that.”

Tesla’s board argued that the package was necessary to keep Elon Musk committed to the electric car maker. The judge disagreed, noting that the defense failed to prove the need for such an unprecedented compensation plan. She instructed the parties to work on the final order implementing her decision.

The plaintiffs’ legal team also argued that the board had a duty to either reduce Musk’s salary or find another CEO and ensure that he worked full-time at Tesla instead of focusing on other projects.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Amit Batish of executive compensation research firm Equilar estimated in 2022 that Musk’s package was about six times the combined compensation of the 200 highest-paid executives in 2021.

In July, Tesla directors agreed to return $735 million to the company to settle shareholder claims that the company had overpaid in a separate lawsuit.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Tesla and Elon Musk found aware of Autopilot system flaws by Florida judge

Posted on by
Reply

A Florida judge has ruled that Tesla and its executives, including CEO Elon Musk, knew that its vehicles were equipped with defective Autopilot systems. It found there was “reasonable evidence” to conclude that the vehicle had been allowed to operate in an area that was “unsafe for the technology”.

Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Reed Scott handed down the decision last week in a lawsuit filed by the family of a man who died in a crash while his Tesla was on Autopilot, alleging willful misconduct and gross misconduct. This means Tesla can seek punitive damages. procrastination. Reuters first reported the news.

The blow to Tesla comes after the electric car maker won two product liability lawsuits in California earlier this year over the safety of its Autopilot system. Autopilot is Tesla’s advanced driver-assistance system that can perform self-driving tasks such as navigating up and down highway ramps, controlling cruise control, changing lanes, and automatically parking.

The Florida lawsuit stems from a 2019 crash north of Miami. Owner Steven Banner’s Model 3 was crushed under the trailer of an 18-wheeler truck that had rolled onto the road, cutting off the roof of the Tesla and killing Banner. The trial, scheduled for October, was postponed and has not yet been postponed.

If the case goes to trial, it could reveal new information about the reams of data collected by Tesla, typically confidential information.

Judge Scott’s finding that Tesla’s top executives knew of the flaws could mean Musk will have to testify. According to the ruling, the judge found that Tesla’s marketing strategy portrayed the product as a self-driving car and that Musk’s public comments about Autopilot “significantly influenced his beliefs about the product’s capabilities.” said. The judge pointed to a misleading 2016 video that appeared to be directed by Musk that purported to show Teslas being fully self-driving through the Autopilot system.

The billionaire entrepreneur was not required to appear at the deposition after the judge rejected Banners’ argument that Musk had “independent knowledge” of the issues in the case.

The judge compared Banner’s crash to a similar fatal crash involving Joshua Brown in 2016, when Autopilot failed to detect a passing truck and the vehicle crashed into the side of a tractor-trailer at high speed. The judge also based his decision on testimony from autopilot engineer Adam Gustafson and Dr. Mary “Missy” Cummings, director of George Mason University’s Center for Autonomous and Robotics.

Gustafson, who was the investigator in both the Banner and Brown crashes, testified that in both cases Autopilot was unable to detect the semi-tractor and stop the vehicle. Additionally, engineers testified that even though Tesla was aware of the problem, no changes were made to the cross-traffic detection warning system that took cross-traffic into account from the date of Brown’s crash until Banner’s crash.

In the ruling, the judge said that testimony from other Tesla engineers showed that Musk, who was “intimately involved” in Autopilot’s development, was “acutely aware” of the problem but failed to remedy it. He said that a reasonable conclusion had been drawn.

A Tesla spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

The automaker will likely argue, as Tesla has done in the past, that Banner’s accident was the result of human error. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation into the accident found evasion to be at fault. The investigation found that the truck driver failed to yield the right of way and Banner was negligent because he relied too much on Autopilot. However, the NTSB also found that Autopilot did not send any visual or audible warnings to the driver to put his hands back on the steering wheel. bloomberg.

Tesla’s lawyers may rely on precedent set in two previous lawsuits this year that Tesla won.

Tesla secured a victory in April after a California jury found the company not liable for a 2019 crash involving Autopilot. Plaintiff Justin Su sued Tesla in 2020 for fraud, negligence and breach of contract, but was not awarded damages.

A few weeks ago, a jury sided with Tesla over allegations that Autopilot led to the death of Tesla driver Mika Lee in 2019. The two plaintiffs, survivors of the accident, claimed that Tesla knew its products were defective and sought $400 million in damages. Tesla claimed the accident was the result of human error.

The case — No. 50-2019-CA-009962 — is being heard in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.

Source: techcrunch.com