Most complaints about loot boxes (aka “surprise mechanics”) in games are levelled against the developers, but the latest is aiming at the stores offering those games. AppleInsider has learned of a potential class action lawsuit accusing Apple of profiting from the distribution of games with loot boxes, whose gambling element allegedly violates California law. The company is tacitly aware that loot boxes are gambling as it requires that creators disclose the “odds of winning,” according to the lawsuit, but it doesn’t ask for a notification that loot boxes exist. Companies are also allowed to set their own age ratings, making it possible for an app deemed kid-friendly to include gambling elements.

The lawsuit cites numerous games that rely on loot boxes (if sometimes indirectly), including Mario Kart Tour, FIFA Soccer, Roblox and Brawl Stars. The lawsuit was filed by Rebecca Taylor, a parent whose child has allegedly fallen to the “predatory” tactics.

According to Apple, the throttling was meant to extend the lifespans of phones by reducing the chances of sudden shutdowns as phones’ batteries degraded over time. The company didn’t initially explain the practice, however, leading some to believe it was trying to pressure customers into buying new phones (which reportedly happened in some cases). The lawsuit covers people who used the iPhone 6s, iPhone 7 and original iPhone SE before December 21st, 2017.

Like many large-scale settlements, you shouldn’t expect a windfall. The arrangement would pay each iPhone user $25, and that number is only likely to climb (up to $500 per person) if the total payouts, attorney fees and expenses don’t reach at least $310 million. Most likely, this will only help you cover the cost of a battery replacement if you’re still using a device included in the settlement.

Orange also claimed that Ring’s response was evidence of the company blaming customers. It told Orange that there was “no evidence” someone had hacked the firm’s infrastructure, and that his incident may be the result of a breach at a “non-Ring service” where the perpetrators reused info to sign into Ring accounts. In other words, Ring couldn’t help it if people reused passwords with sites and services it can’t control.

The suit formally levels accusations of breach of contract, invasion of privacy, negligence, unjust enrichment and violating California’s Unfair Competition Law (through misleading representations of security). If it achieves class action status, it would ask Amazon and Ring to compensate victims and implement “improved security procedures and measures.”

We’ve asked Ring for comment, although a spokesperson declined to comment to Gizmodo saying that the company “does not comment on legal matters.”

Whether or not the lawsuit succeeds will likely depend on the nature of the incidents. Orange will have to show that there really was something Ring could do to have prevented these incidents. If Ring’s suspicions are correct and there was an outside breach that exposed its users, Orange is out of luck — the company can’t block intruders who use the right logins and otherwise show no signs of suspicious activity.

The lawsuit covers many Apple laptops with butterfly keyboards, starting with the original 12-inch MacBook from 2015 and including MacBook Pro models produced in 2016 or later.

We’ve asked Apple for comment. It might face an uphill battle in court, however. While the company has never said the butterfly keyboard design was inherently flawed, it instituted repair programs for that keyboard design and even added the latest 13-inch MacBook Pro to the program the moment it became available. Also, the 16-inch MacBook Pro conspicuously reverted to scissor switches in what many see as a tacit acknowledgment that the earlier technology was too fragile. As such, there’s a real chance Apple could find itself paying for its design choices well after the butterfly keyboard becomes a distant memory.

Google told the Financial Times that it intended to appeal the reversal to the country’s Supreme Court. It said the incident “took place nearly a decade ago” and that it had “addressed [it] at the time.” The lawsuit “has no merit,” the company added.

The suit could prove costly to Google if successful. The internet giant already paid $22.5 million in US penalties over its Safari practices, but Lloyd believes the UK case could cost considerably more. He estimated that damages could run up to £750 ($921) per person, or £3.3 billion (just over $4 billion) in total. End users might not see much of that money in practice — instead, this would be more about discouraging Google (or any other tech firm) from engaging in this kind of behavior going forward.

The lawsuit accused Nintendo of fraud and warranty law violations, misrepresentation, breaching implied warranties and unjust enrichment. It’s pushing for both financial penalties as well as further relief, although Nintendo is believed to be offering free repairs for the issue.

As Gizmodo explained, Switch Lite owners may be even more frustrated with controller drift than those who own the standard console. Where regular Switch owners affected by the issue might only have to ship the defective Joy-Cons for repairs, Lite users have to send their entire system — and it might take weeks to get a replacement. The addition of the Lite to the lawsuit theoretically pushes Nintendo to fix this problem before too many buyers have to deal with it.

You’ll have to provide documentation to show that you experienced the issue. You’ll receive $350 if you can prove you were hit by the mic flaw on one phone, or $500 if you dealt with the problem on multiple handsets. If you paid an insurance deductible to get a replacement, you can receive a refund for that amount. You’ll want to act quickly if you’re going to make a standard claim, though. If money runs low, the payouts will be distributed on a prorated basis.

You have until October 7th, 2019 to either make a claim or opt out to make a separate lawsuit. Patience will be necessary after that. A hearing to approve the settlement doesn’t take place until December 6th, and payments should be completed within the three months after that.

Like many settlements, this won’t be a windfall for anyone beyond the lawyers. You will get substantial compensation if you were genuinely affected, though. And consider this: if you’re still interested in Google’s phones, the $350 payout will cover most of the price of a Pixel 3a.

The court “concluded that the development of a face template using facial-recognition technology without consent (as alleged in this case) invades an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests.” Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in an opinion that “the facial-recognition technology at issue here can obtain information that is ‘detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly compiled,’ which would be almost impossible without such technology.”

The lawsuit started in 2015 when users in Illinois accused Facebook of violating the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). It allegedly did so through its use of the tag suggestions feature. That offered users suggestions of friends to tag in their pictures based on previously uploaded photos.

Facebook claimed that the plaintiffs’ claims against the company were unique and as such they should be required to file lawsuits individually. The appeals court rejected that assertion, allowing the class-action suit to proceed. Judge Ikuta wrote that the intention of BIPA was to protect people’s “concrete interests in privacy” and by allegedly using biometric data to create a face template for its users, Facebook “[invaded] an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests.”

Damages for BIPA violations can reach up to $1,000 for each negligent violation, and as much as $5,000 for each reckless or intentional violation. Shawn Williams, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters the class action may include 7 million Facebook users. That could put the company on the hook for billions of dollars if the case goes to trial.

“This decision is a strong recognition of the dangers of unfettered use of face surveillance technology,” Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement. “The capability to instantaneously identify and track people based on their faces raises chilling potential for privacy violations at an unprecedented scale. Both corporations and the government are now on notice that this technology poses unique risks to people’s privacy and safety.”

Facebook, of course, hasn’t exactly steered clear of legal and regulatory troubles when it comes to privacy. Just last month, it agreed to a $5 billion fine with the Federal Trade Commission related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The complaint accuses Nintendo of violating California’s fraud laws as well as state- and federal-level warranty laws. It further accuses the company of misrepresentation, breaching implied warranty and “unjust enrichment.” The attorneys are looking both for monetary damages as well as relief that could include forcing Nintendo to offer better coverage for the issue.

We’ve asked Nintendo for comment. If this succeeds as a class action, though, it could become expensive for the company. Nintendo said it had sold nearly 35 million Switches worldwide as of March 2019, and that’s not including sales of stand-alone Joy-Con kits. While US sales are only part of that amount, that could still leave Nintendo compensating quite a few people for their controller drift woes. Just don’t expect a windfall as a Switch owner — with some exceptions, class actions rarely offer hefty payouts for victims.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the suit at the Victoria Supreme Court on behalf of drivers, operators and licence owners from Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. It says more than 6,000 participants have already joined on a no-win, no-fee basis, and potential damages could number “in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” per Reuters.

The company states that the claimants aim to “hold Uber accountable for destroying their livelihoods,” with case files accusing Uber of operating illegally and assisting its drivers to do the same.

According to Maurice Blackburn, Uber intentionally targeted Australian markets with less-stringent transport regulation, ignored local requirements to have a taxi or hire licence, and paid drivers’ fines when they were caught breaking the rules. This, alleges the suit, allowed Uber to quickly establish a strong presence in the relevant four markets that damaged licenced drivers’ livelihoods.

Furthermore, the suit raises the controversial issue of ‘Greyball,’ a software update to the Uber app that showed fake ‘ghost’ vehicles to users believed to be transport officials, giving the illusion the app was working while not allowing them to book any rides. The software operated as Uber’s version of a shadowban, essentially.

Elizabeth O’Shea, Senior Associate at Maurice Blackburn, comments:

“Uber came in and exploited people by operating outside of regulations and it was Uber’s conduct that led to horrible losses being suffered by our group members. For those reasons, we are targeting the multi-billion dollar company Uber and its associated entities to provide redress to those affected.”

Uber said it had not yet seen evidence of a suit but clarified that it “denies this allegation” and that the claim would be “vigorously defended.”

The legal challenge comes as Uber prepares to go public in the US at a valuation of over $120 billion. Negative publicity caused by lawsuits and accusations will likely be much more of a thorn in the company’s side when it has shareholders to appease.