Month: October 2025

(Reuters) The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by the conservative activist group Project Veritas to invalidate on constitutional free speech grounds an Oregon law that generally bans unannounced recordings of conversations.

The justices turned away the group’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that upheld the law and found that it did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s protections against government abridgment of free speech.

Oregon is one of a handful of states that make it a crime to record conversations unless all parties are notified. There are several exceptions to the ban, including ones that allow for recording interactions with on-duty police officers and conversations taking place during a violent felony.

The law relaxes the notification requirement in contexts in which recording is commonplace like public meetings and press conferences.

Project Veritas filed its legal challenge to the Oregon law in 2020, saying the Oregon statute unlawfully impedes undercover journalists who investigate corruption and work with whistleblowers. The group’s lawyers said the law made it impossible to record protests about racial injustice in Portland, the state’s largest city, following the killing that year of a Black man named George Floyd by a white police officer in Minneapolis.

Project Veritas frequently publishes edited recordings that portray liberal organizations and media negatively. Critics have called its tactics deceptive.

Oregon has argued that the law does not discriminate based on content, and that recording private conversations is not constitutionally protected “expressive conduct.”

Democratic Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a court filing that the First Amendment also protects the freedom to choose whether to speak publicly.

“Just because the conversation takes place in public – which, in (Project Veritas’) view, apparently includes cafes and other places that intimate conversations take place – does not mean that it is meant to be shared with the whole world,” the court filing stated.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle issued a 9-2 decision in January finding that Oregon’s law was narrowly tailored to the state’s significant governmental interest in ensuring that residents know when they are being recorded.

Circuit Judge Morgan Christen in that ruling warned of the risk of secret recordings being shared across the internet, or selectively edited to create audio “deepfakes” in which people appear to say things they never said.

That decision reversed an earlier 2-1 ruling in favor of Project Veritas by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel, which concluded that Oregon’s law “violates the First Amendment right to free speech and is therefore invalid on its face.”

(Reuters) A Delaware judge said former Activision Blizzard officials including Chief Executive Bobby Kotick must face most of a lawsuit alleging they shortchanged shareholders when Microsoft bought the “Call of Duty” game maker for $75.4 billion.

Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Chancery Court said on Thursday the shareholders in the proposed class action can pursue their “core” claim that Kotick and other Activision directors breached their fiduciary duties. She dismissed two claims against Microsoft.

Shareholders led by Swedish pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden accused Kotick of rushing into the merger so he could keep his job and $400 million of change-of-control benefits, and insulate himself from claims he knew about widespread sexual harassment at Activision.

They also said the $95 per share takeover price was too low from the outset, and looked worse as Activision’s performance improved during the 21-month regulatory approval process for the merger, which closed in October 2023.

In an 83-page decision, McCormick found sufficient allegations that Kotick manipulated the sale process to favor Microsoft, which “offered speed, deal certainty, and–inferably a friendly landing place.”

She also found it reasonably conceivable that Activision directors put Kotick’s interests ahead of those of shareholders, including by allowing a lowball takeover price while harassment concerns were depressing Activision’s stock.

She dismissed claims that Microsoft aided and abetted the alleged breaches, even if the Redmond, Washington-based company may have “passively stood by” while they occurred. She also dismissed other claims against the Activision defendants.

“Litigation on the merits of a trimmed-down version of the plaintiff’s complaint can now launch,” McCormick wrote. “Game on.”

Lawyers for the individual defendants and Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday. The shareholders’ lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

The case is Sjunde AP-Fonden v Activision Blizzard Inc et al, Delaware Chancery Court, No. 2022-1001.

(Reuters) The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by Europe’s largest software maker SAP to avoid a lawsuit by U.S. data technology company Teradata that accused it of violating American antitrust law.

The justices turned away SAP’s appeal of a lower court’s decision that let Teradata pursue claims that its larger German rival violated U.S. antitrust law by tying sales of business-planning applications to the purchase of a key SAP database that can perform transactional and analytical functions. San Diego-based Teradata makes a rival analytics database.

Teradata filed its lawsuit against SAP in federal court in California in 2018. SAP has denied any wrongdoing. A judge has scheduled an April 2026 trial on Teradata’s claims, as well as on a counterclaim that SAP lodged against Teradata accusing it of patent infringement.

“We are disappointed the Supreme Court has declined to review these important legal issues. We remain confident in our position, reject Teradata’s claims and look forward to resolving the matter in the trial court,” SAP said in a statement.

Teradata declined to comment.

SAP sells “enterprise resource planning” software to companies that lets them manage data used in daily activities such as finance and supply-chain operations.

Teradata makes a database that can provide analytics on such a substantial amount of data. The company said SAP customers relied on other tech companies like Teradata to handle the data that SAP’s applications produced.

The lawsuit accused SAP of illegally tying sales of its business operations software to a new product that was developed to compete with Teradata’s database.

Two key legal standards guide how judges resolve whether conduct restrains competition: the “per se rule,” under which alleged conduct is presumed illegal; and the “rule of reason,” under which judges balance between anticompetitive effects and a defendant’s procompetitive justification.

SAP won in the district court, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived Teradata’s case in 2024. The 9th Circuit said there was a material dispute between the companies that a jury could take up and decide.

The 9th Circuit, using a version of the “per se rule,” applied too stringent a standard in evaluating Teradata’s claims, SAP told the Supreme Court in a filing.

SAP said the 9th Circuit’s ruling clashed with how another federal appeals court in Washington in 2001 resolved a landmark antitrust case against Microsoft.

In its filing at the Supreme Court, SAP said its two products were integrated, and that such integration benefits consumers and allows companies to compete effectively.

Teradata urged the justices to reject SAP’s appeal. It disputed that SAP’s two products were integrated and also denied there was any divide among the federal appeals courts about which rules judges should use to evaluate antitrust lawsuits.

Meta Platforms and Microsoft jointly submitted a friend-of-the-court brief backing SAP at the Supreme Court.

(Reuters) The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to halt key parts of a judge’s order requiring Alphabet’s Google to make major changes to its app store Play, as the company prepares to appeal a decision in a lawsuit brought by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games.

The justices turned down Google’s request to temporarily freeze parts of the injunction won by Epic in its lawsuit accusing the tech giant of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps.

A federal appeals court in July upheld the judge’s sweeping order against Google.

The injunction issued last year by U.S. District Judge James Donato requires Google to allow users to download rival app stores within its Play store and make Play’s app catalog available to competitors. Those provisions do not take effect until July 2026.

The judge also said Google must allow developers to include external links in apps, enabling users to bypass Google’s billing system. That part of the injunction is due to take effect later this month.

Google said in a statement that while it was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s order, the company will continue its appeal.

Epic Games chief executive Tim Sweeney said in a post on social media platform X that starting later this month, app developers will be “legally entitled” to steer Google Play users to out-of-app payment options without fees and other “friction.”

Donato issued his order in a lawsuit that Epic filed in 2020 against Google, alleging its restrictive app store rules violated antitrust law. Epic won a jury trial in San Francisco in 2023. Google has denied any wrongdoing.

Google has called Donato’s order unprecedented, and said it would cause reputational harm, safety and security risks and put the company at a competitive disadvantage if allowed to take effect.

Google in its Supreme Court filing said the changes would have enormous consequences for more than 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. Google said it plans to file a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, which could allow the justices to take up the case during their nine-month term that began on Monday.

Epic has said Google is relying on what it called “flawed security claims” to justify its control over Android devices. Epic had urged the justices to allow Donato’s injunction to take effect “so consumers and developers can benefit from competition, choices and lower prices.”

In July, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, ruling that the record in Epic’s lawsuit was “replete with evidence that Google’s anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance.”

Google faces other lawsuits from government, consumer and commercial plaintiffs challenging its search and advertising business practices.

(JD Supra) In Notice 2025-53, the IRS provided relief for individuals and businesses affected by terrorism in the State of Israel throughout 2024 and 2025. The new notice extends the relief granted to taxpayers in Israel, as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, provided in Notice 2024-72. We previously discussed Notice 2024-72 in a prior post here. Notice 2024-72 provided additional relief over and above the relief the IRS provided in Notice 2023-71 to taxpayers affected by Hamas’ terror actions in Israel beginning on October 7, 2023. We previously discussed Notice 2023-71 in a prior post here.

Pursuant to Notice 2025-53, the IRS has extended, until September 30, 2026, certain filing, payment, and other time-sensitive acts due to be completed on or after September 30, 2024, and before September 30, 2026. These acts include, but are not limited to:

• Any other acts identified in Treasury Regulation section 301.7508A-1(c)(1) or Revenue Procedure 2018-58 (December 10, 2018).
• Filing any return of income tax, estate tax, gift tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, excise tax (other than firearms tax), harbor maintenance tax, or employment tax;
• Paying any income tax, estate tax, gift tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, excise tax (other than firearms tax), harbor maintenance tax, or employment tax, or any installment of those taxes;
• Making contributions to a qualified retirement plan;
• Filing a petition with the Tax Court;
• Filing a claim for credit or refund of any tax;
• Bringing suit upon a claim for credit or refund of any tax; and
• Any other acts identified in Treasury Regulation section 301.7508A-1(c)(1) or Revenue Procedure 2018-58 (December 10, 2018).

Notice 2025-53 also extends the time for the IRS to perform certain time-sensitive acts with respect to taxpayers who qualified for relief under Notice 2024-72. As with eligible taxpayers, IRS deadline for completing acts due to be completed on or after September 30, 2024, is extended until September 30, 2026. These acts include, but are not limited to:

• Assessing any tax;
• Giving or making any notice or demand for the payment of any tax, penalty, and interest owed to the IRS;
• Collecting, by levy or otherwise, tax, penalty, and interest owed to the IRS;
• Bringing suit by the United States, or any officer on its behalf, with respect to and tax, penalty, or interest owed to the IRS, and allowing a credit or refund of any tax; and
• Any other acts identified in Treasury Regulation section 301.7508A-1(c)(2).

The taxpayers entitled to relief in Notice 2025-53 are the same as those entitled to relief in Notice 2024-72:

• Any individual visiting Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank who was killed, injured, or taken hostage as a result of the terroristic action;
• Individuals whose principal residence is located in Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank;
• Any business or sole proprietor with a principal place of business in Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank;
• Any individual affiliated with a recognized government or philanthropic organization and who is assisting in Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank, such as a relief worker;
• Any individual, business entity or sole proprietor, or estate or trust whose tax return preparer or records necessary to meet a Federal tax deadline for postponed acts are located in Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank
• The spouse of any taxpayer described above with respect to the filing of a joint return of two married individuals; and
• Any individual visiting Israel, the Gaza Strip, or the West Bank who was killed, injured, or taken hostage as a result of the terroristic action.

Notice 2025-53 extends the relief the IRS previously provided in Notice 2024-72, which extended the relief the IRS provided in Notice 2023-71. Notice 2023-71 provided relief to taxpayers in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank affected by Hamas’ terror attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023. Any filing, payment, and time-sensitive acts postponed by Notice 2023-71 and extended to September 30, 2025, by Notice 2024-72 now no longer need to be performed until September 30, 2026.

Importantly, Notice 2023-71 only provides relief for taxpayers affected by Hamas’ terror attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023; Notice 2024-72 only provides relief for taxpayers entitled to relief under Notice 2023-71 and taxpayers affected by terrorism in Israel between September 30, 2024, and September 30, 2025; and Notice 2025-53 extends the September 30, 2025, deadline in Notice 2024-72 until September 30, 2026.

But none of the Notices provide relief for taxpayers in Israel affected by Hezbollah’s rocket attacks in northern Israel or affected by attacks made by the Houthis in central Israel between October 8, 2023, and September 29, 2024. While taxpayers might be able to argue that attacks by Hezbollah and/or the Houthis between October 8, 2023, and September 29, 2024, are the result of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attacks on Israel, and therefore subject to the relief in Notice 2023-71, Notice 2024-72, and Notice 2025-53, we recommend speaking with a professional tax advisor before making that argument.

(Reuters) A federal judge said Coinbase shareholders may pursue a narrowed lawsuit accusing the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange operator of concealing business risks, including whether it would be sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In a Tuesday night decision, U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti in Newark, New Jersey rejected requests by Coinbase, top executives and directors for a full dismissal of claims based on dozens of statements made over two years in regulatory filings, earnings calls, blog posts and tweets.

Shareholders said Coinbase defrauded them into believing it was improbable the SEC would accuse it in court of operating an unregistered securities exchange, and misrepresented the risk they could lose assets if Coinbase filed for bankruptcy.

Martinotti said shareholders cannot pursue claims based solely on “group pleading,” where statements in group-published documents such as press releases do not suggest any particular defendant intended to commit fraud.

“Where plaintiffs have appropriately provided defendant-by-defendant particularity, the claims must remain,” he added.

Martinotti’s 59-page decision does not say which statements he dismissed, because the parties did not identify which may involve group pleading. “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs,” the judge said in a footnote.

In a statement, Coinbase called the decision a “significant step forward,” and said it is committed to vigorously defending against any remaining claims.

Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Coinbase’s share price fell 12% on June 6, 2023 after the SEC sued the company for allowing trading in tokens that the regulator said should have been registered as securities.

Shares also fell more than 26% on May 11, 2022 after Coinbase added disclosures and reported a larger-than-expected revenue decline.

The proposed class action led by Swedish pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden covers Coinbase shareholders from April 14, 2021 to June 5, 2023.

In February, the SEC ended its lawsuit against Coinbase, as the Trump administration eases regulatory oversight of the cryptocurrency industry.

The case is In re Coinbase Global Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 22-04915.

(Westlaw) The Delaware Chancery Court has dismissed a stockholder lawsuit challenging the 2021 merger of a special purpose acquisition company with fitness and health company The Beachbody Co. Group LLC, ruling the claims were filed too late.

Reilly v. Horn et al., No. 2024-0654, 2025 WL 2781735 (Del. Ch. Sept. 30, 2025).

Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will said in a Sept. 30 opinion that the lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of laches because the three-year clock for the plaintiff’s claims began ticking May 28, 2021, when the allegedly deficient proxy statement for the merger was disseminated.

Because the suit was filed June 14, 2024, it was untimely, the opinion said.

A ‘now-familiar story’

The case presented a “now-familiar story” of SPAC litigation, in which a shareholder accuses conflicted fiduciaries of impairing redemption rights through a misleading proxy, Vice Chancellor Will wrote.

Bryan Reilly’s complaint alleged that directors and officers of Forest Road Acquisition Corp. breached their fiduciary duties to him and other investors in the SPAC. The complaint said the defendants pushed through a “value-destroying merger” with Beachbody by issuing a proxy that contained material misstatements and omissions.

According to the suit, the proxy failed to disclose a more conservative set of “base case” financial projections prepared by Forest Road and its financial advisers.

It also allegedly omitted key details about the “December Sale,” in which certain Beachbody insiders sold equity to the company’s largest shareholder and other investors at a $1.5 billion valuation. The valuation was about half the $2.9 billion valuation used in the final merger agreement, the complaint said.

The plaintiff claimed these omissions prevented shareholders from making an informed decision about whether to redeem their shares for approximately $10 each or invest in the post-merger company.

Claims barred by laches

The defendants moved to dismiss the suit on several grounds, but the vice chancellor said their timeliness argument was dispositive.

A breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim “accrues at the moment of the wrongful act,” which in this case was the issuance of the proxy statement, Vice Chancellor Will explained. The plaintiff’s “informational injury” occurred when the allegedly misleading proxy tainted the shareholder decision-making process, not at a later date when financial losses may have materialized, the opinion said.

The vice chancellor rejected Reilly’s argument that the claims could not have accrued until the redemption deadline passed. This logic, she wrote, “would create an untenable result where stockholders could not sue to correct a flawed proxy before a vote.”

The opinion also noted that the complaint itself pleads facts demonstrating Reilly was on “inquiry notice” of potential wrongdoing from the proxy’s public disclosures. By highlighting omissions related to the December Sale and the net cash per share value, the complaint showed that a “reasonably diligent stockholder would have been spurred to inquire into whether the defendants had been forthright” when the proxy was issued, the vice chancellor concluded.

Because the claims were time-barred, the court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Attorneys from Grant & Eisenhofer PA and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC represented Reilly. The defendants were represented by attorneys from DLA Piper LLP.

(Reuters) A federal judge on Tuesday denied Apple, Google and Meta Platforms’ requests to dismiss lawsuits claiming they promoted illegal gambling by hosting and accepting commissions from casino-style apps that addict users.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, rejected the companies’ main argument that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability over third-party content, shielded them from the proposed class actions.

Davila dismissed some claims alleging violations of some U.S. state laws, but denied motions to dismiss all claims brought under consumer protection laws except in California.

Google, a unit of Alphabet, had no immediate comment. Apple and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The plaintiffs’ lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Dozens of plaintiffs contended that Apple’s App Store, Google’s Play Store and Meta’s Facebook promoted an “authentic Vegas-style experience of slot machine gambling” through an illegal racketeering conspiracy.

By exploiting users, the defendants allegedly triggered depression, suicidal thoughts and other consequences, while brokering and collecting 30% commissions – estimated at more than $2 billion – on transactions they processed, the plaintiffs added.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory and triple damages, among other remedies.

JUDGE SAYS ISSUES’ IMPORTANCE JUSTIFIES IMMEDIATE APPEALS

In a 37-page decision, Davila found that Apple, Google and Meta did not act as “publishers” when processing payments, undercutting their Section 230 immunity claims.

He called it irrelevant that the companies provided “neutral tools” to support the apps, and rejected a suggestion that the plaintiffs’ failure to label them “bookies” excused them from liability.

“The crux of plaintiffs’ theory is that defendants improperly processed payments for social casino apps,” Davila wrote. “It is beside the point whether that activity turns defendants into bookies or brokers.”

Davila said Apple, Google and Meta may immediately appeal his decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in part because of the importance of the Section 230 issues.

That court dismissed earlier appeals in May 2024, saying it lacked jurisdiction at the time. The litigation against the Silicon Valley-based defendants began in 2021.

The cases in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, are In re Apple Inc App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-md-02985; In re Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-md-03001; and In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 21-02777.