Workers at trading card marketplace TCGplayer form eBay's first union

The workers at eBay-owned TCGplayer, a marketplace for trading card games such as Magic: The Gathering, have voted in favor of joining a union. eBay purchased the company in 2022 for a deal valued up to $295 million, but the website continues to operate independently. Now that all 272 non-supervisory workers at the company's authentication center in Syracuse, New York are represented by the Communications Workers of America, they've become the first group to form a union at eBay in the US. 

The organized workers, who are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and quality of all shipments in and out of the company, filed for a union election with the National Labor Relations Board back in January. They wanted to unionize in a bid to have a voice within the company, and they were also seeking pay raises to account for inflation, a fair and comprehensive sick leave and absence policy, as well as inclusive career advancement opportunities, fair and transparent hiring practices, and clearly defined job roles and expectations.

In the CWA's announcement of the union victory, it said TCGPlayer workers first tried to unionize in 2020. However, the company hired a union buster to "spread disinformation," and the workers ultimately withdrew their petition for a vote due to the pandemic. While they were successful this time around, their employer reportedly tried to get them to back down again. CWA filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company in January for illegally surveilling union activity. It filed more charges just last week, accusing the company of threatening workers for supporting unionization efforts and forcing them to attend anti-union meetings, as well. The unionized workers are still waiting for the NLRB's decision on those complaints.

Playing trading card game

Justice Department wants Sam Bankman-Fried to use a flip phone for the rest of his bail

FTX founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried may be stuck using a dumb phone for the foreseeable future. In a letter seen by Bloomberg, prosecutors involved in his criminal case said Friday that Bankman-Fried’s lawyers had agreed to modify the terms of his bail agreement. Provided the judge overseeing the case agrees to the changes, SBF will be restricted to using a “non-smartphone” without internet connectivity. Unless a lawyer is present, he will also be forbidden from contacting current or former FTX and Alameda Research employees. Additionally, SBF won’t be able to use encrypted messaging apps, including Signal.

The proposed restrictions come after Bankman-Fried allegedly attempted to contact the general counsel of FTX’s US subsidiary over Signal at the start of the year. “I would really love to reconnect and see if there’s a way for us to have a constructive relationship, use each other as resources when possible, or at least vet things with each other,” he said in one message, according to the Justice Department.

Earlier in the week, Nishad Singh, FTX’s former director of engineering, pleaded guilty to federal fraud and conspiracy charges. Singh is the third of Bankman-Fried’s inner circle to cooperate with prosecutors in the case against him. At the end of last year, former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and FTX co-founder Zixiao "Gary" Wang pleaded guilty to fraud charges and said they would cooperate with investigators.

According to Bloomberg, District Judge Lewis Kaplan threatened to revoke Bankman-Fried’s bail and send him to jail before the start of his trial after learning that the disgraced entrepreneur may have influenced potential witnesses. Last month, Kaplan also banned Bankman-Fried from using a virtual private network (VPN) after his lawyers said he used one to watch a football game. According to Reuters, Kaplan said he did not want SBF "loose in this garden of electronic devices.”

Under the modified bail agreement, SBF would be allowed to use a laptop to surf the web, but his access would be filtered through a VPN that would limit him to two categories of websites. One category would include resources his defense team says are critical to his case. The other features a list of 23 websites SBF could use to order food, read the news and watch streaming content. No word yet if the proposed restrictions would limit him from playing League of Legends. 

Former FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried, who faces fraud charges over the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, arrives to the Manhattan federal court in New York City, U.S. February 16, 2023. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Sonic the Hedgehog co-creator Yuji Naka pleads guilty to insider trading

Yuji Naka has pleaded guilty to insider trading charges filed last fall. The Sonic the Hedgehog co-creator has admitted to violating Japanese financial law by buying shares in the game studio Aiming before its team-up with Square Enix on Dragon Quest Tact became public. Naka admitted to making a profit over 20 million yen (about $150,000) after selling his investment. He hasn't yet received a penalty for the illegal trade.

The veteran developer signed on with Square Enix in 2018, but abruptly left soon after his one project at the company (the mobile platformer Balan Wonderland) shipped to customers. He sued the company for removing him as director of Balan six months before launch. He was still with Square Enix when he heard about the Dragon Quest Tact work.

Two other former employees, Taisuke Sasaki and Fumiaki Suzuki, were also arrested for buying Aiming shares using insider knowledge. Square Enix says it's cooperating with investigators and has established a system that prevents insider trading. It's not clear how well that protection will work in practice, but the guilty plea theoretically discourages developers from using industry secrets to manipulate the stock market.

A model of Sega character 'Sonic the Hedgehog' is pictured at its headquarters in Tokyo, Japan, February 16, 2022. Picture taken on February 16, 2022. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

DOJ accuses Google of deleting chat evidence for its antitrust lawsuit

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is accusing Google of routinely destroying internal messaging chat histories, which the company is required to preserve under federal rules for an antitrust lawsuit. Google is grappling with not just one, but a couple of antitrust lawsuits filed by the DOJ and groups of states. This particular case pertains to the lawsuit the department filed back in 2020 for "unlawfully maintaining monopolies" around search and search-related advertising.

In the DOJ's filing, it said company employees typically used their internal chatroom, which was set to delete history every 24 hours, to discuss "substantive and sensitive business." Apparently, the agency expected Google to change its chat history setting in 2019 when the company "reasonably anticipated [the] litigation," but it left the decision to individual employees. Only a few people deemed their chat histories relevant to the case and preserved theirs for the court, and Google continued deleting most people's chats even after the lawsuit was filed. 

Despite that, Google reportedly told the government that it had already "put a legal hold in place" to suspend auto-deletion on its chat tool. The DOJ alleges that the company's claim was a lie and that it only truly stopped deleting chat histories this week after it was warned that the agency would file a motion for sanctions. It's now asking the court to rule that Google had violated a federal rule and to order a hearing that would determine how the company would be sanctioned. The DOJ also wants the court to order Google to provide more information about its chat practices. 

Google, however, denies the DOJ's allegations. A spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal: "Our teams have conscientiously worked for years to respond to inquiries and litigation. In fact, we have produced over 4 million documents in this case alone, and millions more to regulators around the world."

London, UK - January 01, 2022: Name sign above the entrance of Google offices in London. First Google office in the UK in opened in 2003 and has since grown to accommodate thousands of employees.

NBA legend Paul Pierce settles with SEC over allegedly false crypto statements

NBA Hall of Famer Paul “The Truth” Pierce agreed to pay $1.4 million to settle charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission over a cryptocurrency he promoted on Twitter. The SEC charged Pierce with making false and misleading promotional statements about EthereumMax (EMAX) and failing to disclose the $244,000 payment in tokens he received for plugging it on social media.

The SEC said Pierce also posted a misleading screenshot of an account showing much more in EMAX holdings and profits than his account had. Pierce also tweeted a link to the currency’s website, including instructions on purchasing EMAX tokens. The government agency found that Pierce violated anti-touting and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The retired NBA legend and former ESPN studio analyst didn’t admit or deny the SEC’s findings as part of the settlement. However, he did agree not to promote crypto for three years. Pierce’s case echoes Kim Kardashian’s $1.26 million settlement in October for plugging the same currency. Pierce and Kardashian were also sued last year for their involvement in the scheme.

“This case is yet another reminder to celebrities: The law requires you to disclose to the public from whom and how much you are getting paid to promote investment in securities, and you can’t lie to investors when you tout a security,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler in a statement today. “When celebrities endorse investment opportunities, including crypto asset securities, investors should be careful to research if the investments are right for them, and they should know why celebrities are making those endorsements.”

February 20, 2022; Cleveland, Ohio, USA; NBA great Paul Pierce is honored for being selected to the NBA 75th Anniversary Team during halftime in the 2022 NBA All-Star Game at Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse. Mandatory Credit: Kyle Terada-USA TODAY Sports

Federal prosecutors ask court to bar Sam Bankman-Fried from using Signal

US prosecutors have asked a federal court to tighten Sam Bankman-Fried’s bail conditions to prevent the disgraced entrepreneur from contacting his former colleagues. According to court documents seen by The New York Times, lawyers from the Department of Justice allege Bankman-Fried tried messaging the general counsel of FTX's US arm over Signal and email earlier this month. The communication was “suggestive of an effort to influence Witness-1's potential testimony,” the filing states. 

“I would really love to reconnect and see if there’s a way for us to have a constructive relationship, use each other as resources when possible, or at least vet things with each other,” says one message Bankman-Fried sent, according to the Justice Department. The DOJ has asked the judge overseeing Bankman-Fried’s criminal case to bar him from contacting current and former FTX employees, as well as using Signal or any other encrypted or ephemeral messaging app. Following the request, SBF’s legal team accused federal prosecutors of trying to paint their client in the “worst possible light.” They claim Bankman-Fried tried contacting the general counsel of FTX US and CEO John Ray to offer “assistance,” not to interfere with his criminal case. His lawyers also claim a Signal ban isn’t necessary since Bankman-Fried is not using the app’s auto-delete feature.

Prosecutors allege SBF’s use of Signal is consistent with “a history” of using the app to hide his dealings at FTX. Prior to FTX’s implosion in November, Bankman-Fried and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison were reportedly part of a secret “Wirefraud” group chat on Signal. During his tenure at the exchange, SBF also allegedly directed employees to enable Signal’s disappearing messages feature.

Defense attorney Mark Cohen, pleads "not guilty" for his client Sam Bankman-Fried, founder and former CEO of crypto currency exchange FTX, at his plea hearing in Manhattan federal court in New York City, U.S., January 3, 2023 in this courtroom sketch.    REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Elon Musk says his SpaceX shares would've funded his plan to take Tesla private

Elon Musk said he could've sold his SpaceX shares to take Tesla private when he took the witness stand again to defend his 2018 "funding secured" tweets in a lawsuit filed by the automaker's shareholders. According to CNBC, Musk proclaimed: "SpaceX stock alone meant 'funding secured' by itself. It's not that I want to sell SpaceX stock but I could have, and if you look at the Twitter transaction — that is what I did. I sold Tesla stock to complete the Twitter transaction. And I would have done the same here." He didn't say how many of his shares he'd have to sell, however, to be able to fund the transaction. 

The plaintiffs' lawsuit is based on Musk's infamous 2018 tweets in which he said he was "considering taking Tesla private at $420." He even said that he already had "[f]unding secured." Musk first took the stand for this particular case last week to defend himself against the plaintiffs' accusations that the tweets he made cost them significant financial losses. Tesla's shares temporarily stopped trading after those tweets and remained volatile in the weeks that followed. He said at the time that just because he tweets something "does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly."

This time, Musk reiterated his previous claim that he had an agreement with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund to take Tesla private. He told the court that the country was "unequivocal" in its support of the transaction, which ultimately didn't go through. According to Bloomberg, the court discussed his communication and eventual falling out with Saudi fund governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan regarding the deal. A text exchange was reportedly presented to the jury, wherein Musk accused Al-Rumayyan of backing out of their handshake agreement. The Saudi official responded that he didn't have sufficient information to be able to commit to the buyout and called Musk's public announcement of their discussions "ill advised."

The plaintiffs' lawyer also asked Musk what many of us were probably wondering: If the $420 share price in his tweets was made as a joke in reference to marijuana. Apparently, it wasn't a joke, and he chose it "because it reflected about a 20 percent premium on Tesla's stock price." Musk is expected to testify again on Tuesday, so we'll likely hear more details about his failed bid to convert Tesla into a private entity. 

As Bloomberg notes, the judge in this case had already determined that his tweets were "objectively false and reckless." However, the plaintiffs still have to prove that Musk knew his tweets were misleading and that his tweets caused their losses to win the case. Musk and Tesla previously had to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $20 million each to settle a separate lawsuit over the same tweets, accusing him of making "false and misleading statements" that could be constituted as fraud. The CEO said on the stand that he told the SEC about SpaceX and that the plaintiffs' lawyer "deliberately exclud[ed] that from jurors."

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is questioned by the investors' attorney Nicholas Porritt before Judge Edward Chen as a screen displays one of Musk's tweets, during a securities-fraud trial at federal court in San Francisco, California, U.S., January 23, 2023 in this courtroom sketch. REUTERS/Vicki Behringer

FTC asks court to hold Martin Shkreli in contempt for launching new drug company

Martin Shkreli, whom you may know as "Pharma Bro," launched a new company last year called "Druglike, Inc." Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has asked a federal judge to hold him in contempt for failing to cooperate with the agency in its investigation to determine whether launching the company violates his lifetime industry ban. US District Court Judge Denise Cote imposed a lifetime ban on Shkreli that prohibits him from participating in the pharmaceutical industry early last year. Cote ruled that the former pharma exec orchestrated an illegal anticompetitive scheme to gain a monopoly over Daraprim, a life-saving anti-malarial and anti-parasitic drug. 

After Shkreli's former company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, obtained the manufacturing license for Daraprim, it raised the drug's prices from $17.50 to $750 per tablet. Cote sided with the FTC in the antitrust lawsuit the agency filed against Shkreli in 2020 and ordered him to pay $64.6 million in damages, in addition to imposing a lifetime industry ban against him. Prior to Druglike's launch, Shkreli tried (and failed) to convince a judge to put the ban on hold, arguing that the public could benefit from his future contributions to the industry. Shkreli challenged the ban while he was serving time in federal prison after receiving a seven-year sentence in 2017 for defrauding investors. He was released from prison in May.

The FTC said it started asking Shkreli for a compliance report and access to relevant records, as well as asking him to sit for an interview regarding Druglike, in October 2022. However, the company co-founder kept on disregarding its "repeated requests." The agency also said that Shkreli has yet to pay any amount of his $64.6 million fine. It's now asking the court to order Shkreli to comply with its information requests within 21 days of its decision. 

In a press release (PDF) for its launch, Druglike described itself as "a Web3 drug discovery software platform." The company said it's building a "decentralized computing network" that "provides resources for anyone looking to start or contribute to early-stage drug discovery projects." In a statement, Shkreli said "Druglike will remove barriers to early-stage drug discovery, increase innovation and allow a broader group of contributors to share the rewards."

NEW YORK, NY - AUGUST 4: (L to R) Lead defense attorney Benjamin Brafman walks with former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli after the jury issued a verdict at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, August 4, 2017 in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. Shkreli was found guilty on three of the eight counts involving securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Elon Musk defends 'funding secured' tweets in Tesla shareholder trial

Elon Musk said that just because he tweets something, it "does not mean people believe it or will act accordingly." The Tesla chief took the witness stand in a San Francisco federal court to defend himself (and the tweets he made back in 2018) in a lawsuit filed by a group of the automaker's shareholders. "I think you can absolutely be truthful but can you be comprehensive? Of course not," he added, regarding Twitter's character limits. If you'll recall, Musk famously tweeted in August 2018 that he was "considering taking Tesla private at $420" and that he was already able to secure funding. "Investor support is confirmed," he said in a follow-up tweet.

The CEO later revealed that he was in talks with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which reportedly expressed interest in Tesla as part of the country's bid to lessen its reliance on oil. However, the deal didn't materialize, and he later penned a lengthy post on the automaker's website to say that it's staying public. 

As CNBC notes, shareholders blamed those "funding secured" tweets for their significant financial losses, leading them to file a class action lawsuit against Musk. Tesla's shares apparently remained highly volatile in the weeks that followed. The executive, however, downplayed his tweets' impact and said that they don't necessarily affect stock prices: "There have been many cases where I thought that if I were to tweet something, the stock price would go down. For example, at one point I tweeted that I thought that, in my opinion, the stock price was too high...and it went went higher, which was, which is, you know, counterintuitive."

In addition to the shareholder lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Musk over his tweets, calling them "false and misleading statements" that could be constituted as fraud. Musk and Tesla paid $20 million each to settle with the SEC, and the executive had to step down as board chairman. The SEC also required company lawyers to approve any Tesla-related tweet Musk makes — a condition the CEO tried (and failed) to get out of last year. 

Aside from defending his tweets, Musk criticized short sellers during his testimony, telling the court that short-selling "should be made illegal." He added: "It is a means for, in my opinion, bad people on Wall Street to steal money from investors. Not good." Another piece of information to take away from his time on the witness stand is that nobody can tell Musk to stop tweeting. When lawyers asked him about the advice he got to refrain from posting on Twitter after calling a British cave diver a "pedo guy," Musk said: "I continued to tweet, yes."

According to Reuters, Musk only testified for less than 30 minutes and that he's not done answering lawyers' questions. He's expected to take the witness stand again to explain why he wrote the funding tweets and why he insisted that he had Saudi Arabia's backing. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk testifies during a securities-fraud trial in San Francisco, California, U.S., January 20, 2023 in this courtroom sketch. REUTERS/Vicki Behringer

Epic and Match antitrust case against Google goes to trial November 6th

Epic Games and Match Group now have a court date for their antitrust case against Google. A Northern District of California judge has set the start of a jury trial for November 6th. Both Epic and Match accuse Google of abusing its control of Android app distribution through the Play Store by establishing unfair fees and requirements for in-app purchases. This comes alongside a lawsuit from 39 attorneys general as well as a customer class action suit demanding $4.7 billion in damages.

Epic sued Google in 2020 after the Android creator kicked Fortnite out of the Play Store for letting customers use an alternative in-app payment system. Match sued Google last year over the "exorbitant" store fee. Epic and Match consolidated their case and a filed motion last fall to expand their allegations, accusing Google of further antitrust violations by paying major developers hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their apps in the Play Store. 

Unlike Epic's partially successful lawsuit against Apple, this case has to acknowledge that customers do have a choice. Where Apple requires that all regular app downloads go through the App Store, Android's sideloading option lets customers install software without downloading it from Google. The issue, as you might imagine, is that those apps are both harder to install and less likely to be noticed when the Play Store is included by default on many Android phones.

Google denies misusing its power, and argues that the fees are necessary to maintain and invest in the Play Store. It maintains that the incentive program doesn't forbid developers from launching third-party stores, and that its portal competes fairly. In December, Google called on the court to deny the expanded requests over timing and other issues.

Google has made some concessions, including a test program for Play Store billing alternatives. That pilot still gives Google a cut of each transaction, though, and it remains to be seen if moves like that will satisfy the court and regulators. As it is, the internet pioneer is facing a raft of other antitrust cases that include a Justice Department lawsuit from 2020. Even if Google prevails against Epic and Match, it may not escape unscathed.

An exterior view of building BV100, during a tour of Google's new Bay View Campus in Mountain View, California, U.S. May 16, 2022. Picture taken May 16, 2022.   REUTERS/Peter DaSilva