Here’s our cheat sheet for 2022’s tech lawsuits

Your guide to a bunch of the Google antitrust cases, where the FTC is with Facebook, what could happen next with Sec. 230 and more.

U.S. Courthouse

The Big Tech lawsuits are ripening.

Photo: georgeclerk/Getty Images

If you really want to know what’s going on in tech, it’s hard to beat litigation. Lawsuits go far beyond all those glossy product launches and those “we share your concerns and are taking them seriously” press releases. Instead they unearth hidden documents, force reclusive executives to testify and bring secret feuds out into an open courtroom where the rest of us might get called for jury duty.

Lawsuits can also be confusing and time-consuming to watch, though. So we’re offering our guide to the most important cases we’ll be watching, or waiting for, in the U.S. in 2022.

U.S. v. Google: This is the Goliath vs. Goliath of tech lawsuits — an antitrust case the Justice Department brought in 2020, alleging that Google violated competition laws with how it distributed its dominant search engine. Almost every state is on board too, and the matter could end up being as important to antitrust as U.S. v. Microsoft. While the case still might not go to trial this year, disputes over document production, pending depositions and more have already pulled in major companies including Apple, Microsoft, Yelp, Samsung and others. We’ll also be keeping an eye on a separate antitrust lawsuit, originally brought by a coalition of states, that takes aim at Google’s online ads operation — the heart of its profits. That case has been consolidated during the pre-trial phase with private companies’ similar complaints, but the dispute has already produced a look at Google’s pricing, internal project codes and a secret agreement with Facebook. As if that weren’t enough, there’s a third multistate case digging into Google’s actions in the mobile environment.

FTC v. Facebook: The Federal Trade Commission brought this case in late 2020. The commission claims Facebook (now Meta) engaged in acquisitions designed to eliminate rivals. Foremost among those deals were the purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp, which the FTC hopes to make Meta spin off. A federal judge dismissed the FTC’s complaint last June but let the agency take another shot. Lina Khan, the commission’s tech-skeptical chair, then shepherded a renewed complaint that suggested Mark Zuckerberg pursued the acquisitions because Facebook had fallen behind when the world turned to mobile in the early 2010s. Up next is the question of whether the judge allows this new complaint to proceed, and if Facebook’s move to have Khan recuse herself will have any bearing on the case.

Epic v. Apple: This case actually gave us the gift of a trial last year, bringing both Tim Cook and Tim Sweeney to the stand and resulting in a decision that could fundamentally alter how App Store fees function. (Maybe.) For the time being, Apple successfully got an appeals court to stop implementation of the trial ruling that would have forced the company to let apps steer users to payment options that don’t require giving the iPhone maker a commission. The full appeal is still forthcoming, though, and Epic has also sued Google over its app store fees.

NetChoice v. Moody: Florida tried to force social media services to carry more conservative content. A trade group for the companies then sued, and has so far convinced the court to block implementation of the law on the grounds it impedes the firms’ First Amendment rights. Most serious scholars agree the Florida law is unconstitutional, but a debate is brewing about whether broad interpretations of the companies’ rights would get in the way of other tech regulations. There’s a parallel case in Texas too, and if Republicans regain some measure of power in Washington in this year’s elections, we can expect federal proposals that mirror the states’.

Doe v. Twitter: In this case, two boys, who were coerced into making sexually explicit videos while underage, sued Twitter, where the video ended up for a time. Their complaint showed that FOSTA — a controversial law that pared back tech platforms’ liability shield in an attempt to tackle online sex trafficking — may affect everyday social media services. In August, the company lost part of a motion to dismiss it which likely would have won before FOSTA, and may now have to face a trial.

Viasat v. FCC: Elon Musk wants to launch more satellites than have ever before ascended into the sky, and he’s not alone. This case raises the question of whether environmental reviews should extend to space as companies prepare to send up tens of thousands of satellites in coming years — but it’s also the most obvious conflict as the firms vie for advantage through Washington policy-making.

Henderson v. The Source for Public Data: A bit of a sleeper, this case has attracted significant interest from tech policy experts. At issue is whether Section 230, which protects platforms from lawsuits over user content, blocks a legal complaint under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiffs here sued a website that allows users to search through third-party data databases. The website prevailed, but even some typical Section 230 defenders have dismissed the court’s reasoning. The case is now being appealed, with scholars watching for potential collisions between Section 230 and other federal requirements.

FTC v. Amazon (hypothetically): This hasn’t happened yet, and perhaps it still won’t. But the agency has been investigating Amazon since at least 2019, and the ecommerce giant and the FTC have both suggested they won’t let the other off easy. Washington, D.C., has already sued Amazon over the company’s treatment of third-party sellers. The FTC itself has looked into that issue, as well as probing moves like Amazon’s purchase of MGM.

Chamber of Commerce v. FTC (hypothetically): Khan’s big changes to the FTC have already drawn legal threats from Big Business. And while such threats can often be empty, particularly in Washington, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is no stranger to litigation, and a libertarian group has already sued the FTC over production of records. A potential target of lawsuits could include the way Khan has handled votes by a departed ally on the commission or her ambitious plans to regulate online data usage and illegal algorithmic discrimination in coming years.

A pro-China disinformation campaign is targeting rare earth miners

It’s uncommon for cyber criminals to target private industry. But a new operation has cast doubt on miners looking to gain a foothold in the West in an apparent attempt to protect China’s upper hand in a market that has become increasingly vital.

It is very uncommon for coordinated disinformation operations to target private industry, rather than governments or civil society, a cybersecurity expert says.

Photo: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Just when we thought the renewable energy supply chains couldn’t get more fraught, a sophisticated disinformation campaign has taken to social media to further complicate things.

Known as Dragonbridge, the campaign has existed for at least three years, but in the last few months it has shifted its focus to target several mining companies “with negative messaging in response to potential or planned rare earths production activities.” It was initially uncovered by cybersecurity firm Mandiant and peddles narratives in the Chinese interest via its network of thousands of fake social media accounts.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Ripple’s CEO threatens to leave the US if it loses SEC case

CEO Brad Garlinghouse said a few countries have reached out to Ripple about relocating.

"There's no doubt that if the SEC doesn't win their case against us that that is good for crypto in the United States,” Brad Garlinghouse told Protocol.

Photo: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile for Collision via Getty Images

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the crypto company will move to another country if it loses in its legal battle with the SEC.

Garlinghouse said he’s confident that Ripple will prevail against the federal regulator, which accused the company of failing to register roughly $1.4 billion in XRP tokens as securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.


Microsoft and Google are still using emotion AI, but with limits

Microsoft said accessibility goals overrode problems with emotion recognition and Google offers off-the-shelf emotion recognition technology amid growing concern over the controversial AI.

Emotion recognition is a well-established field of computer vision research; however, AI-based technologies used in an attempt to assess people’s emotional states have moved beyond the research phase.

Photo: Microsoft

Microsoft said last month it would no longer provide general use of an AI-based cloud software feature used to infer people’s emotions. However, despite its own admission that emotion recognition technology creates “risks,” it turns out the company will retain its emotion recognition capability in an app used by people with vision loss.

In fact, amid growing concerns over development and use of controversial emotion recognition in everyday software, both Microsoft and Google continue to incorporate the AI-based features in their products.

“The Seeing AI person channel enables you to recognize people and to get a description of them, including an estimate of their age and also their emotion,” said Saqib Shaikh, a software engineering manager and project lead for Seeing AI at Microsoft who helped build the app, in a tutorial about the product in a 2017 Microsoft video.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories