 |
|
|
|||||
Joshua Aaron, the developer of the ICE agent tracking app ICEBlock, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and ICE for unconstitutionally pressuring Apple to remove the app from its App Store. Apple pulled ICEBlock in early October after Justice Department officials contacted the company claiming that the app enables users to evade immigration raids and endangers ICE agents. The app, which has more than a million downloads, gives users notifications when ICE agents are nearby, and allows users to anonymously report the location of ICE agent activity, but only if they are located in the same area. Aarons lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks reinstatement of the app, plus appropriate damages. The case could reshape how tech platforms handle government requests, particularly when those requests come without formal warrants or court orders. The developer argues the app simply facilitates sharing of public information, similar to community apps that track traffic or weather. The lawsuit claims Attorney General Pam Bondi and other officials violated Aarons rights by forcing the apps removal without a court order. The goal is pretty simplewere hoping to set a precedent that says not only is ICEBlock protected by the First Amendment but they cannot come after me and threaten me as they’ve been doing over the past year, Aaron tells Fast Company. If successful, the lawsuit could prevent the Justice Department or other federal agencies from depriving other lawful apps of distribution in the future. The ICEBlock app removal may be a case of an unconstitutional government tactic known as jawboning, in which a government official uses their official capacity to pressure a private sector entity to do something. In another recent example of the practice, FCC chairman Brendan Carr used an implicit threat of regulatory entanglement to pressure ABC and its affiliates to drop Jimmy Kimmels Kimmel Live show. Bondi may have admitted, in public, to jawboning, when she spoke on Fox Digital the night after Apples removal of ICEBlock on October 2, 2025. We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Storeand Apple did so, Bondi declared, according to the lawsuit. With this admission, Attorney General Bondi made plain that the United States government used its regulatory power to coerce a private platform to suppress First Amendment-protected expression, the suit states. Bondi again boasted of the ICEBlock take-down during a congressional oversight hearing two days later. But it may take more than Bondis public statements to prove that the government violated the First Amendment. The EFF, a digital rights group, recently filed suit to compel the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to release documentation of their communications with Apple and other tech platforms that led to the app removals. Meta removed a Facebook group with 80,000 members called ICE Sighting-Chicagoland at the request (or demand) of the government. Chicago residents had been using the apps to warn neighbors when the masked federal agents were near area schools, grocery stores, and other community locations. Google removed an ICE tracking app called Red Dot from its Google Play store, saying the app violated its policy against apps that share the location of what it describes as a vulnerable group. Large tech companies have largely overlooked the authoritarian tendencies of the Trump administration, choosing instead to appease and coddle it, and capitulate to its demands. The tech industry is engaged in investing trillions in AI, and wants the administration to continue hobbling the governments normal regulation and oversight. Precedent may be on Aarons side. There is a long history that shows documenting law enforcement performing their duties in public is protected First Amendment activity, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mario Trujillo tells Fast Company. The government acted unlawfully when it demanded Apple remove ICEBlock, while threatening others with prosecution. Reuters reported that members of the House Homeland Security committee argued in a letter to tech companies that free speech does not protect incitement to lawless action, and called on them to explain how they vet and monitor such content. Apple cited its App Store guidelines prohibiting content that poses “safety risks” as justification for the removal, but critics argue the vague policy allows for arbitrary enforcement influenced by government pressure. As AppleInsiders Wesley Hilliard points out, the App Store carries the Waze and Apple Maps apps, both of which allow users to post information about nearby traffic enforcement personnel.
Category:
E-Commerce
On December 5, the entertainment world was rocked when Netflix and Warner Bros. announced a massive deal that set Netflix up to purchase the legendary Hollywood studio, creating one of the largest media entities of all time. Today, Paramount Skydancewhich has been vying for Warner Bros. for monthsappears to be saying, Not so fast. Paramount Skydance, the David Ellison-led company fresh off of its own merger earlier this year, has been circling around a potential buyout of Warner Bros. Discovery (Warner Bros. parent company) since at least September. Last week, it appeared that Netflix was swooping in to snatch a large part of the deal. And now, Paramount Skydance has countered with a hostile takeover bid to secure Warner Bros. Discovery once and for all. Heres everything you need to know about the saga and whats at stake. Whats the backstory? Back in early September, initial reports emerged that Paramount Skydance was preparing a bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, one of its rivals. The following month, Warner Bros. Discovery confirmed that it was open to a potential sale in a press release, sharing that it had received unsolicited interest from multiple parties for the entire company. Paramount Skydance and Netflix were two of the top contenders identified for the deal. In late October, Reuters reported that Ellisons initial $60 billion approach offer was rejected by Warner Bros. Discovery, though analysts still pegged Paramount Skydance as the most likely victor in the bidding wars. Then, on December 5, Netflix and Warner Bros. came forward to announce a deal in which Netflix would purchase the legendary Hollywood studio, along with its HBO Max and HBO divisions, for a total enterprise value of approximately $82.7 billion (which Netflix says has an equity value of $72 billion). The agreement came after Warner Bros. Discovery announced this summer that it would split the current company into two, with the newly created companies owning its Streaming & Studios assets and Global Networks divisions, respectively. Through the proposed acquisition, Netflix would be buying the Streaming & Studios company that will spin off from Warner Bros. Discovery next year. Paramount Skydance, on the other hand, had expressed interest in buying all of Warner Bros. Discoverys assets. How did people react to the Netflix deal? Experts say that the colossal Netflix-Warner Bros. deal would give the worlds largest streaming service access to a giant library of valuable IP, including the Harry Potter film franchise, the DC Universe, Barbie, and more. The proposed deal sparked immediate concerns that Netflix might gain too much of a monopoly within the entertainment industry, potentially allowing the company to bump up its subscription prices. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the deal an anti-monopoly nightmare in a statement. It would create one massive media giant with control of nearly half of the streaming marketgiving Americans fewer choices over what and how they watch, and putting American workers at risk, she wrote on X. Another notable commentator was President Trump, who said on December 7 that the deal could be a problem because of the size of the combined market share. What’s happening now? Now, it seems that the Netflix deal could be on shaky ground. On December 8, Paramount Skydance announced that it would go straight to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders with an all-cash, $30-per-share offer that equates to an enterprise value of about $108.4 billion. Warner Bros. Discovery reportedly rejected the deal last week, but now its investors will get a chance to weigh in. This tactic is called a hostile takeover bid, and its intended to put pressure on a target company by recruiting its shareholders on the side of the deal. Were really here to finish what we started, Ellison told CNBC this morning. He added: Were sitting on Wall Street, where cash is still king. We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal they currently have signed up with Netflix, and we believe when they see what it is currently in our offer, thats what theyll vote for. At this point, the deal is in limbo as shareholders react to Ellisons new offer. And, no matter which company comes out victorious, the acquisition is likely to face regulatory fights to determine whether the megamerger truly represents a media monopoly.
Category:
E-Commerce
Miami Art Week usually exists behind invisible velvet ropes. It is a place where private dinners, celebrity walkthroughs, and invitation-only installations dominate the social landscape. But this past week, Capital One tried something unusual. It opened one of Art Weeks most insular cultural moments to people who are not part of the traditional art world by giving its cardholders access to the kind of programming that normally requires a personal invitation, using Art Week not simply as a cultural stage but as a strategic laboratory for understanding what premium consumers now expect from financial brands. The brand’s presence featured a collaboration with artist Alex Prager and global arts agency The Cultivist, centered on Mirage Factory, a cinematic installation that functioned as both an artwork and an access vehicle. The activation also included a performance by Diana Ross, a signal of the caliber of entertainment Capital One was willing to attach to its premium ecosystem. Taken together, these elements demonstrated how the brand is positioning itself inside a broader evolution of the credit card rewards market. Once defined primarily by points, cashback, and lounge access, the premium category has shifted toward cultural relevance and emotional differentiation, especially among younger affluent customers. Capital One presented the activation as an example of what premium now means in a market where loyalty is shaped not only by earn rates, but by identity, affiliation, and what a customer feels their card allows them to experience. Turning a cultural moment into a loyalty engine Prager describes Mirage Factory as an immersive reflection of Los Angeles mythology and the machinery of Hollywood dreams. “The Mirage Factory allows visitors to escape into the dreamlike world of Los Angeles, to experience a heightened, fabricated vision that celebrates the artifice of the city and the dreams that built it” Prager explains. “It evokes the spirit of Golden Age Hollywood, a cinematic fantasy of nostalgia, glamour, and illusion.” The installation was open to the public for a limited time, but the most valuable components were reserved for Capital One cardholders. Those included a multi course dinner staged inside the installation and a second evening of bespoke programming. For select attendees, the activation also included access to the Diana Ross performance, a tier of cultural exclusivity that has become increasingly common as credit card issuers compete through experiential differentiation. [Photo: Daniel Seung Lee, courtesy Capital One] From a business perspective, the shift reflects competitive dynamics that now extend far beyond traditional rewards. The premium card category has evolved into an arms race of cultural touchpoints. American Express, Chase, and Capital One are all investing in curated events, access-driven partnerships, and high-touch hospitality in an attempt to cultivate deeper emotional loyalty. In this context, a single moment like Mirage Factory becomes a test case for understanding what customers are willing to pay for and which experiences actually change brand perception. Lauren Liss, Capital One’s Senior Vice President of Premium Products and Experiences, noted that the companys premium portfolio is now its fastest growing segment, driven in part by demand for experiences that feel both elevated and low friction. She explained that Capital One evolved from a really small company that issued credit to customers overlooked by traditional banks to a firm that identified a gap in the market. There were premium credit cards that were out there, but a lot of folks were saying they weren’t for them. They wanted something that was simple, straightforward, easy to use, had the rewards, but also had things that were tailored to great experiences, she said. Both that value and the access. [Photo: Daniel Seung Lee, courtesy Capital One] The company now runs more than 300 branded experiences per year. Liss said the measure of success is straightforward. I’d say the best measurement is that our customers love it. The sellout rate is well over 90 percent, she said. Even if I’m not going now, it’s really cool that I have these types of options or offerings for the future. Why a financial brand is investing in art world authenticity For Capital One, credibility in cultural spaces depends on its partners. The Cultivist plays a central role in ensuring these activations feel artist-led rather than brand-driven. Cultivist cofounder Marlies Verhoeven Reijtenbagh said the firm began as a non-commercial art membership club and expanded into a consultancy that connects artists, institutions, and brands in ways that protect artistic integrity. We realized that a lot of brands wanted to work in the art world, and that we could help them do it in a way that felt very authentic, because we saw a lot of brand activations that maybe were a bit more pasted on, she said. Working with Capital One, she added, is structurally different from working with other financial firms because the company brings a unified internal strategy to the table. When I work with big brands, especially big corporate financials, it often feels like little fiefdoms that have their own individual goals, she said. This is very different. Authenticity is especially important because the credit card industry has entered a phase where premium customers judge brands as much by cultural fluency as financial benefits. Integrations that appear superficial can erode trust faster than a weak earn rate. But Capital Ones approach reflects an understanding that cultural participation must feel native, not opportunistic. The economics f premium dining inside a branded art experience Capital One also expanded its culinary strategy at Art Week. The exclusive dinner inside Mirage Factory was led by chef Dave Beran, whose Michelin-starred restaurants are known for narrative-driven menus. [Photo: Daniel Seung Lee, courtesy Capital One] High-touch experiences like this operate at the top of what Capital One executives describe as an access pyramid. Some events serve thousands of cardholders through presales or reserved ticket inventory. Others, like the Mirage Factory dinner, serve a few dozen. Both are strategically important, but they generate value in different ways. Monica Weaver, Head of Branded Card Partnerships and Experiences, said the system is designed to give customers multiple pathways into the cultural sphere. We think about it in this pyramid where there are certain events that are bucket list, and those are fewer. Then there are exclusive experiences, and then there is a broader tier which is reserved access to certain things, she said. Capital One has built out these layers through Capital One Entertainment, which blends proprietary events with the full Vivid Seats inventory. Customers redeem rewards for both bucket list and everyday experiences. This reflects a broader shift in rewards behavior. Points are no longer perceived as a savings mechanism. They function as a form of stored access, a currency customers convert into identity-defining moments. Expanding influence beyond the gallery walls This year, the company also extended its Art Week presence into The Shelborne By Proper, a historic Art Deco hotel that became a branded retreat for Venture X and Venture X Business cardholders. Through the Premier Collection, stays included breakfast credits, upgrades when available, and property-wide programming tied to the Mirage Factory concept. There were daily Golden Hour gatherings, wellness events, and nightly sound sessions. The programming allowed Capital One to shape not just a single event but the full customer journey across the Art Week environment. In premium banking, this kind of journey-mapping is becoming a central competitive tool. Every moment becomes a data point in understanding what customers value. Weaver framed the partnership as a broader strategic move. Our partnership with The Cultivist and debut of Alex Pragers Mirage Factory redefines what immersive premium access means at Art Week in Miami, she said. Ami Vedak, who leads Small Business Acquisitions for Business Cards and Payments, added that the events resonated strongly with small business owners, many of whom view premium card perks as tools for client entertainment and business growth. You hear about Art Week in Miami a lot. It is in the press a lot. Even me as a regular person, I did not necessarily know how to access it, she said. Small business owners are people too. They want opportunities to immerse themselves in art and culture. A financial company positioning itself as a culture brand Capital Ones activation fits a broader industry trend, in which financial institutions compete for high-value customers by offering cultural access that cannot be replicated by earn rates alone. In that landscape, a Diana Ross performance, an immersive art environment, and a curated hotel program are not aesthetic add-ons. They are strategic assets in a loyalty economy where emotional differentiation drives retention. For a brief moment, the boundaries around one of the most exclusive weeks in American culture shifted. Access depended not on a relationship with a gallery, but on whether a visitor carried a specific card. For Capital One, that shift was less about a single week, and more about building a long-term competitive strategy rooted in cultural relevance rather than commodity rewards.
Category:
E-Commerce
For global companies, Africas promise has long been tempered by a persistent operational myth: that the continent is not ready for complex business. The reality is different, however. The barrier isn’t a lack of demand, but the inability of traditional global systems to handle Africas unique financial landscape. Nearly 400 million African adults remain on the fringes of the formal financial system, yet digital adoption is exploding. The conversation has decisively shifted from basic financial access to a more critical question: How can multinationals efficiently manage their core operations like paying suppliers, collecting revenue, and moving money across borders, in such a complex environment? WHY AFRICAN FINTECH IS THE SOLUTION Global payment giants are built for standardized, mature markets. African fintech companies have grown from basic payment services into essential partners. Their key strength is building the specialized digital backbone that businesses need to operate. The most important work of African fintech isn’t consumer-facing. Today, it’s happening behind the scenes, where it solves two fundamental problems at once: domestic fragmentation and global isolation. Internally, their platforms help large companies easily pay hundreds of suppliers across different African countries at once, in local currencies. Externally, they are building the rails for African businesses to trade with the world. For instance, they provide a secure infrastructure for African merchants to pay or receive payments from a partner in East Asia. This dual capability avoids the delays, high fees, and headaches of old systems, keeping supply chains running smooth. African fintech systems are crucial for global money transfer companies, allowing them to send payments directly to people anywhere, even remote areas, not just major cities. This same technology is also built into key industries like agriculture and logistics. It provides instant payments to farmers and handles complex freight payments, solving critical cash flow problems for businesses. This is not e-commerce, this is the essential financial plumbing for Africa’s real economy. The role of regulators has also evolved. Its no longer just about enabling data sharing. Progressive regulators are now collaborating with fintechs to design cross-border payment frameworks and digital identity systems that secure high-value B2B transactions. This proactive engagement is creating a more stable and predictable environment for large-scale investment. Similarly, deep integration with telcos goes beyond consumer mobile money. It’s about leveraging vast agent networks and mobile penetration to create secure, corporate-grade channels for business operations, from distributing payroll to settling invoices with small-scale retailers. The data underscores this shift. According to the GSMA’s 2025 report, Africa processed $1.1 trillion in mobile money value in 2024, accounting for 66% of the global total. Digital payments in Africa are growing rapidly, with transaction values expected to continue their strong upward trajectory. But the real story is in the nature of these transactions: Increasingly, they are sophisticated, high-value B2B flows. Multinationals must now strategically partner with African fintechs to succeed. This is crucial for their proven pan-African networks and deep understanding of local rules and markets. The future of business on the continent will be built on this connected infrastructure. By working with these fintechs, global companies aren’t just overcoming a barrier; they are plugging into Africa’s most powerful driver for growth. Olugbenga GB Agboola is founder and CEO of Flutterwave.
Category:
E-Commerce
Massachusetts’ highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state’s lawsuit arguing that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make them addictive to young users. The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, alleges that Meta did this to make a profit and that its actions affected hundreds of thousands of teenagers in Massachusetts who use the social media platforms. We are making claims based only on the tools that Meta has developed because its own research shows they encourage addiction to the platform in a variety of ways, said State Solicitor David Kravitz, adding that the state’s claim has nothing to do the company’s algorithms or failure to moderate content. Meta said Friday that it strongly disagrees with the allegations and is confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people. Its attorney, Mark Mosier, argued in court that the lawsuit would impose liabilities for performing traditional publishing functions and that its actions are protected by the First Amendment. The Commonwealth would have a better chance of getting around the First Amendment if they alleged that the speech was false or fraudulent, Mosier said. But when they acknowledge that its truthful that brings it in the heart of the First Amendment. Several of the judges, though, seem to be more concerned about Meta’s functions, such as notifications, than the content on its platforms. I didn’t understand the claims to be that Meta is relaying false information vis-a-vis the notifications but that it has created an algorithm of incessant notifications … designed so as to feed into the fear of missing out, fomo, that teenagers generally have, Justice Dalila Wendlandt said. That is the basis of the claim. Justice Scott Kafker challenged the notion that this was all about a choice to publish certain information by Meta. It’s not how to publish but how to attract you to the information, he said. It’s about how to attract the eyeballs. It’s indifferent the content, right. It doesn’t care if it’s Thomas Paine’s Common Sense or nonsense. It’s totally focused on getting you to look at it.” Meta is facing federal and state lawsuits claiming it knowingly designed featuressuch as constant notifications and the ability to scroll endlesslythat addict children. In 2023, 33 states filed a joint lawsuit against the Menlo Park, California-based tech giant, claiming that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without their parents consent, in violation of federal law. In addition, states, including Massachusetts, filed their own lawsuits in state courts over addictive features and other harms to children. Newspaper reports, first by The Wall Street Journal in the fall of 2021, found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers especially teen girls when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse. Critics say Meta hasn’t done enough to address concerns about teen safety and mental health on its platforms. A report from former employee and whistleblower Arturo Bejar and four nonprofit groups this year said Meta has chosen not to take real steps to address safety concerns, opting instead for splashy headlines about new tools for parents and Instagram Teen Accounts for underage users. Meta said the report misrepresented its efforts on teen safety. ___ This story has been corrected to show one of the justices is called Justice Dalila Wendlandt, not Wendland. Michael Casey, Associated Press Associated Press reporter Barbara Ortutay contributed to this report.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] next »