The more affordable Legion Go "S" is expected to be less powerful than the Legion Go based on the Z1 Extreme, but will be a more affordable option potentially for those looking to jump into the ecosystem.

EXCLUSIVE: First renders of the budget-friendly Legion Go "S" PC gaming handheld are here, most likely powered by the new AMD Z2 platform | Windows Central

The best deals I find on the ROG Ally, MSI Claw, Steam Deck, Legion Go and more are all right here.

I'm searching for Black Friday handheld gaming PC deals as the resident 'guy who just won't shut up about handheld gaming PCs' | PC Gamer

The best deals I find on the ROG Ally, MSI Claw, Steam Deck, Legion Go and more will land right here.

Legion

legion

A Legion of Sway: How Influencer Marketing Boosted Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2

How some desired Jesus to mix the New Law with the Old Law; and concerning the legion of swine;

Messaging & Communications, Media - October 11, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “Startups of The Year” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Messaging & Communications startup ecosystem. The list, compiled by the HackerNoon team, showcases 30 startups making significant contributions and driving innovation in the Messaging & Communications industry. https://youtu.be/XOpG6B4AKPU?embedable=true Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here. The Startups in the Messaging & Communications industry nominated for Startups of The Year 2024 include: Intellico Inc
INNZPIRA
firsthub.in
Kitchenara
Creart Digital Media
The Merchant Hub
IPAGE #GrowSmartly
GPS ROTAS SEGURAS
PLATMA
Mission Possible
Fast Remote Services
Accredify
Sconto
Corbin Technology Solutions Private Limited
Evidoo
KUENHA
Megasight
Didimi
Forescribe
ADV Today
NAYAMAX
SODA.Auto
In Plain English
UTech
COOCO
textomap
LEGIONWEB
LogicNimbus Private Limited
Hoags Technologies
JobTab “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Messaging & Communications industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO. “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” Why It Pays Off to Be Nominated Startups of The Year 2024 is a 100% community-driven voting event recognizing startups transforming technology and the world for the better. Starting October 1st, 2024, the internet can nominate and vote for the best ventures in their city and industry. People can nominate their favorite startups until October 31st, and vote once per day per award for who they think should be Startup of The Year up to March 31st, 2025. Winners will be announced in April 2025, after a comprehensive evaluation by the HackerNoon team. Apart from validation from the world's greenest tech publication, all nominees get free interviews relevant to their region and industry. They will also receive curated startup-friendly packages and a free version of their very own Evergreen Tech Company News Page on HackerNoon. In sum, being nominated gives you major credibility as one of the top startups globally and an expert in your industry, meaning even without winning, you still gain tons of exposure. Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here. About HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year Startups of The Year 2024 is HackerNoon’s flagship community-driven event celebrating startups, technology, and the spirit of innovation. Currently in its third iteration, the prestigious Internet award recognizes and celebrates tech startups of all shapes and sizes. This year, over 150,000 entities across 4200+ cities, 6 continents, and 100+ industries will participate in a bid to be crowned the best startup of the year! Millions of votes have been cast over the past few years, and many stories have been written about these daring and rising startups. The winners will get a free interview on HackerNoon and an Evergreen Tech Company News page. Visit our FAQ page to learn more. Download our design assets here. Check out the Startups of The Year Merch Shop here. HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year is a branding opportunity unlike any other. Whether your goal is brand awareness or lead generation, HackerNoon has curated startup-friendly packages to solve your marketing challenges. Meet our sponsors: Wellfound: Join the #1 global, startup-focused community. At Wellfound, we're not just a job board—we're the place where top startup talent and the world's most exciting companies connect to build the future. Notion: Notion is trusted and loved by thousands of startups as their connected workspace—from building product roadmaps to tracking fundraising. Try Notion with unlimited AI, FREE for up to 6 months, to build and scale your company with one powerful tool. Get your offer now! Hubspot: If you’re looking for a smart CRM platform that meets the needs of small businesses, look no further than HubSpot. Seamlessly connect your data, teams and customers in one easy-to-use scalable platform that grows with your business. Get started for free. Bright Data: Startups that leverage public web data can make faster, data-driven decisions, giving them a competitive edge. With Bright Data’s scalable web data collection, businesses can grow from a small operation to an enterprise by harnessing insights at every stage. Algolia: Algolia NeuralSearch is the world's only AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform combining powerful keyword and natural language processing in a single API. Messaging & Communications, Media - October 11, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “Startups of The Year” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Messaging & Communications startup ecosystem. Messaging & Communications, Media - October 11, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “Startups of The Year” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Messaging & Communications startup ecosystem. Messaging & Communications, Media - October 11, 2024 Messaging & Communications, Media - October 11, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “ Startups of The Year ” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Startups of The Year startup ecosystem. The list, compiled by the HackerNoon team, showcases 30 startups making significant contributions and driving innovation in the Messaging & Communications industry. https://youtu.be/XOpG6B4AKPU?embedable=true https://youtu.be/XOpG6B4AKPU?embedable=true Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here. Nominations are open - learn more here . You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here . here Startup of The Year in Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here here The Startups in the Messaging & Communications industry nominated for Startups of The Year 2024 include: Startups in the Startups in the Startups in the Messaging & Communications industry Messaging & Communications industry nominated Intellico Inc INNZPIRA firsthub.in Kitchenara Creart Digital Media The Merchant Hub IPAGE #GrowSmartly GPS ROTAS SEGURAS PLATMA Mission Possible Fast Remote Services Accredify Sconto Corbin Technology Solutions Private Limited Evidoo KUENHA Megasight Didimi Forescribe ADV Today NAYAMAX SODA.Auto In Plain English UTech COOCO textomap LEGIONWEB LogicNimbus Private Limited Hoags Technologies JobTab Intellico Inc INNZPIRA firsthub.in Kitchenara Creart Digital Media The Merchant Hub IPAGE #GrowSmartly GPS ROTAS SEGURAS PLATMA Mission Possible Fast Remote Services Accredify Sconto Corbin Technology Solutions Private Limited Evidoo KUENHA Megasight Didimi Forescribe ADV Today NAYAMAX SODA.Auto In Plain English UTech COOCO textomap LEGIONWEB LogicNimbus Private Limited Hoags Technologies JobTab “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Messaging & Communications industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO. “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Messaging & Communications industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO. “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO . “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO Why It Pays Off to Be Nominated Startups of The Year 2024 is a 100% community-driven voting event recognizing startups transforming technology and the world for the better. Starting October 1st, 2024, the internet can nominate and vote for the best ventures in their city and industry. People can nominate their favorite startups until October 31st , and vote once per day per award for who they think should be Startup of The Year up to March 31st, 2025. Winners will be announced in April 2025, after a comprehensive evaluation by the HackerNoon team. Startups of The Year 2024 nominate their favorite startups until October 31st nominate their favorite startups Apart from validation from the world's greenest tech publication, all nominees get free interviews relevant to their region and industry. They will also receive curated startup-friendly packages and a free version of their very own Evergreen Tech Company News Page on HackerNoon. get free interviews startup-friendly packages startup-friendly packages Evergreen Tech Company News Evergreen Tech Company News In sum, being nominated gives you major credibility as one of the top startups globally and an expert in your industry, meaning even without winning, you still gain tons of exposure. Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here. Nominations are open - learn more here . You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here . here Startup of The Year in Startup of The Year in Messaging & Communications here here About HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year Startups of The Year 2024 is HackerNoon’s flagship community-driven event celebrating startups, technology, and the spirit of innovation. Currently in its third iteration, the prestigious Internet award recognizes and celebrates tech startups of all shapes and sizes. This year, over 150,000 entities across 4200+ cities, 6 continents, and 100+ industries will participate in a bid to be crowned the best startup of the year! Millions of votes have been cast over the past few years, and many stories have been written about these daring and rising startups. Startups of The Year 2024 Startups of The Year 2024 many stories many stories The winners will get a free interview on HackerNoon and an Evergreen Tech Company News page. free interview on HackerNoon Evergreen Tech Company News Evergreen Tech Company News Visit our FAQ page to learn more. FAQ FAQ Download our design assets here . here here Check out the Startups of The Year Merch Shop here . here here HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year is a branding opportunity unlike any other. Whether your goal is brand awareness or lead generation, HackerNoon has curated startup-friendly packages to solve your marketing challenges. startup-friendly packages startup-friendly packages Meet our sponsors: Meet our sponsors: Meet our sponsors: Wellfound: Join the #1 global, startup-focused community . At Wellfound, we're not just a job board—we're the place where top startup talent and the world's most exciting companies connect to build the future. Wellfound: Join the #1 global, startup-focused community Join the #1 global, startup-focused community Notion: Notion is trusted and loved by thousands of startups as their connected workspace—from building product roadmaps to tracking fundraising. Try Notion with unlimited AI, FREE for up to 6 months , to build and scale your company with one powerful tool. Get your offer now ! Notion: Try Notion with unlimited AI, FREE for up to 6 months Get your offer now ! Hubspot: If you’re looking for a smart CRM platform that meets the needs of small businesses, look no further than HubSpot. Seamlessly connect your data, teams and customers in one easy-to-use scalable platform that grows with your business. Get started for free . Hubspot: Get started for free Get started for free Bright Data: Startups that leverage public web data can make faster, data-driven decisions, giving them a competitive edge. With Bright Data’s scalable web data collection , businesses can grow from a small operation to an enterprise by harnessing insights at every stage. Bright Data: Bright Data’s scalable web data collection Bright Data’s scalable web data collection Algolia: Algolia NeuralSearch is the world's only AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform combining powerful keyword and natural language processing in a single API. Algolia: AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform

Startups of the Year 2024: 8,350 Startups Nominated in the Messaging & Communications Industry

Top 10 Greatest Games of All Time 
According to the Hackernoon Team

Top 10 najboljih igara svih vremena 
Prema Hackernoon timu

Els 10 millors jocs de tots els temps 
Segons l'equip Hackernoon

Top 10 nejlepších her všech dob 
Podle Hackernoon Teamu

Die 10 besten Spiele aller Zeiten
Laut dem Hackernoon-Team

Los 10 mejores juegos de todos los tiempos
según el equipo de Hackernoon

हैकरनून टीम के अनुसार अब तक के 10 सबसे महान खेल

史上最高のゲームトップ10 
Hackernoonチームによる

Бардык убакыттардын эң мыкты 10 оюндары 
Hackernoon командасынын айтымында

د هر وخت غوره 10 غوره لوبې 
د هیکرنون ټیم په وینا

Топ 10 најбољих игара свих времена 
Према Хацкерноон тиму

Top 10 Бузургтарин бозиҳои ҳама вақт 
Бино ба маълумоти Hackernoon Team

Top 10 Greatest Games of All Time 
Ngokutsho kweQela leHackernoon

Dogs of War: Digital Warriors Fighting Russian Disinformation and Supporting Ukraine

Silicon Valley: With Swords & Shields

ONE of the most prominent firms in crypto recently sent shockwaves through the industry by announcing it is suing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On April 25th, in a bitterly worded lawsuit filed in a Texas federal court, crypto giant Consensys accused the SEC of “regulatory overreach” in its bid to bring to heel the $380 billion cryptocurrency Ether (commonly referred to as ETH). The complaint is based on the grounds that “ETH bears none of the attributes of a security.” Consensys are wrong, and this lawsuit is doomed to fail. The reasons why stretch back nearly ten years to when Ethereum was first founded. But in order to understand them, we first need some context on what, exactly, Consensys does. Consensys is a major backer of the Ethereum blockchain; a “Layer 1” blockchain ledger, like Bitcoin, but on top of which other protocols and applications can be built. Ethereum users transact on the network using ETH, which acts as a form of payment made by users of the network to the individuals around the world who run it (known as “miners” - more on them shortly). Consensys has contributed significantly to Ethereum’s back-end infrastructure, as well as funding a lot of smaller projects within the ecosystem. However it’s best known as the developer of MetaMask; by far the most popular wallet used in the crypto industry, with around 30 million monthly active users as of February this year. The level of the firm’s contribution to the Ethereum ecosystem, and the huge adoption its products have seen, have enabled Consensys to become a colossus in the crypto world; in November 2021, it raised $200 million at a $3.2 billion valuation. In March 2022, it raised a further $450 million; this time, with a valuation of $7 billion. The success of Consensys is intrinsically tied to the success of the Ethereum network which it backs, however, the latter has been mired in controversy and plagued by regulatory scrutiny since its inception, on account of its token ETH. Specifically, the manner in which ETH was first launched onto the market. ETH was launched nearly ten years ago, in July 2014, through a process known as an Initial Coin Offering (ICO); essentially, the crypto industry’s version of an IPO, in which tokens are first sold to the public. In their heyday, ICOs were tremendously popular, with participation in them reaching a zenith in 2016-17; a period now referred to in the industry as the “ICO era.” Such was the exuberance around these sales that one token, EOS, raised almost $4.1 billion through a year-long ICO; more than the three biggest equity raises that year – Uber, Epic Games, and Juul – combined. With so much money flooding into ICOs, they soon caught the attention, and the ire, of regulators. The SEC produced an Investigative Report in July 2017, declaring that “offers and sales of digital assets by ‘virtual’ organizations are subject to the requirements of the federal securities laws.” Cryptocurrencies, the agency decided, were securities and were to be regulated as such. After issuing this decree, the regulators set about ardently pursuing and prosecuting ICOs that did not adhere to securities law. Which, unsurprisingly, was pretty much all of them. This brought about an abrupt end to the ICO mania, with token sales drying up virtually overnight. However, while the SEC was hell-bent on throwing the book at new ICOs, all the tokens that launched before the July 2017 report were effectively given a free pass. None of these token issuers were prosecuted because their sales had been conducted before the decree went out that ICOs fall within the boundaries of securities laws. This meant a lucky escape for ETH; had it launched after the report, then its developers would have been prosecuted. No registrations for the sale were filed with the regulator, meaning the ICO did not comply with the SEC’s securities laws. Yet, despite not actively pursuing ETH for securities violations, the agency resolved to keep both the network, which was skyrocketing in popularity, and the coin, which was skyrocketing in price, firmly on their radar. For the next five or so years, while some debate persisted around whether the SEC should in fact be going after ETH, the regulators’ main focus was to clamp down on the . many scams and frauds being conducted throughout the space All this was to change in 2022, however, when Ethereum made a major change to the way the network was run. The details around this change are quite technical, but essentially, Ethereum introduced a system called “proof-of-stake,” in which the network would operate by the aforementioned miners locking up (or “staking”) their ETH in exchange for the ability to receive payments from the network’s users. While this may sound like an innocuous technical update, comprehensible and interesting to only a handful of basement-dwelling obsessives, the switch to proof-of-stake changed everything for Ethereum. The network was now firmly within the SEC’s crosshairs. And the regulator, long since exasperated by the sheer number of scams unfolding in the cryptosphere, had the perfect excuse to go after the network that it saw as integral to the facilitation of so much fraudulent activity. Because to the SEC, staking constitutes an investment contract and falls firmly within the realm of securities law. Investment contracts are classified as such if they pass the “Howey Test”. Developed by the US Supreme Court in a landmark case in 1946, the Howey Test asserts that an investment contract is “a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests their money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.” Staking arrangements involve individual investors contributing crypto to staking pools with the expectation of receiving a reward while relying on the efforts and work of the team managing and operating the staking platform. A court using the Howey Test, therefore, would find staking does indeed constitute an investment contract, and therefore, falls under securities law. Since Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake, the SEC has been vigorously and ruthlessly clamping down on the network and the companies within its ecosystem, unleashing a deluge of regulatory action against many of the major players in the space. In its lawsuit filing, Consensys even refer to the head of the agency, Gary Gensler, as “the crusading SEC Chair.” And, indeed, buried within that same lawsuit a diligent reader will discover, on reaching the 68th paragraph, that Consensys itself was recently served a Wells Notice by the SEC; a letter that informs firms about impending legal action, following the results of an investigation which the agency has conducted. It turns out, then, that prior to filing its lawsuit Consensys was staring down the barrel of imminent prosecution. The SEC’s grounds for this were that, amongst other things, the MetaMask wallet which Consensys built offers staking services within its product. With all of this considered, a very different picture begins to emerge around Consensys’ decision to sue the SEC, and its lawsuit starts to look very much like a preemptive blow. Knowing that prosecution was imminent, the firm decided to go on the offensive and sue the SEC before the SEC sued them. The problem is, however, that Consensys stands almost no chance of winning. Despite what Consensys may argue, ETH bears all the hallmarks of a security. Not only because of the staking mechanism which is central to the way the network operates, but also because the token was issued through an ICO; a process which the SEC has declared falls under securities laws. ETH simply got lucky and was given a pass because its ICO happened to have taken place prior to the declaration. It was good timing which prevented prosecution, and nothing else. And while the SEC can’t go after the token for the way in which it was launched onto the market, the incorporation of staking as a central feature of the network has given them all the ammo they need to initiate legal proceedings and take down ETH from a different angle. And, over and above the sheer weight of evidence against its case, Consensys also has the SEC’s track record of prosecuting crypto companies to contend with. The SEC website lists 238 lawsuits the agency has filed against crypto firms, and to date, it has never really lost a case that involves unregistered securities. Ripple, another cryptocurrency firm whose token , made a lot of noise around a purported court victory in July last year. However, this is misleading; XRP was deemed not to be a security when offered to the public in secondary sales on exchanges, but the court found it is indeed a security when sold to hedge funds and other institutions. At a push, it was a partial victory for Ripple, and certainly not a loss for the SEC. XRP the SEC claimed was a security With all of this in view, therefore, the decision by Consensys to sue the SEC over its alleged witch-hunt of the Ethereum ecosystem can best be regarded as something of a Hail Mary play; the firm knew it was going to get prosecuted, and likely very soon, so it decided to roll the dice and take on the SEC in court over a separate issue, perhaps in an attempt to shift attention away from itself and onto the legal uncertainties surrounding Ethereum and its token. In doing so, it’s also fast-tracking the resolution of one of the biggest open questions in crypto, which has long been looming over the industry: whether or not ETH is officially, and legally, a security. Up against such astronomically unlikely odds of victory, it seems the best Consensys can hope to achieve is to drag the court case on for as long as possible. The firm has vast financial resources and can afford to hire legions of the best lawyers in the business. In doing so, it’ll be able to keep the party going for a little longer. But sooner or later the court will, inevitably, come to a decision. And when that happens, it’ll be lights out for both ETH and Consensys.

Here's Why Consensys' Lawsuit Against the SEC Is Doomed

এসইসির বিরুদ্ধে কনসেনসিসের মামলা কেন ধ্বংস হয়ে গেছে তা এখানে

Darum ist die Klage von Consensys gegen die SEC zum Scheitern verurteilt

He aquí por qué la demanda de Consensys contra la SEC está condenada al fracaso

Voici pourquoi le procès de Consensys contre la SEC est voué à l'échec

यहाँ बताया गया है कि क्यों एसईसी के खिलाफ कंसेन्सिस का मुकदमा असफल हो गया है

Consensys の SEC に対する訴訟が失敗に終わる理由はここにある

SEC에 대한 Consensys의 소송이 실패한 이유는 다음과 같습니다.

Veja por que o processo da Consensys contra a SEC está condenado

Вот почему иск Consensys против SEC обречен

İşte Consensys'in SEC'e Karşı Açtığı Dava Neden Sonuçsuz?

Đây là lý do tại sao vụ kiện của Consensys chống lại SEC lại thất bại

这就是为什么 Consensys 对 SEC 的诉讼注定失败

**SANTA MONICA, CA, April 4th, 2024/Chainwire/--**Raiinmaker, a Web3 and AI Technology Company, is announcing the closing of a $7.5M seed round ahead of its Mainnet launch and native token $Coiin TGE. Notable investors in this funding round: Jump Crypto and Cypher Capital along with GDA Capital, Gate.io Labs, London Real Ventures, MEXC Global, Krypital Group, Alphabit, Launchpool, New Tribe Capital, Coach K, Axia 8 Ventures, Sheesha Finance, Andromeda Capital, Arcanum Capital, Bella Capital and Alpha Sigma Capital. The Raiinmaker Network boasts innovative features including a scalable and modular blockchain architecture, decentralized AI tools, and AI powered smart contracts. The company’s core focus lies in the scalable implementation of Decentralized AI and Web3 infrastructure to power Mass Adoption solutions in Sports, Gaming and Entertainment. Raiinmaker Super App users train AI right from their iOS or Android phones and earn fractional rewards based on the value of their contributions to decentralized AI models and infrastructure. Now everyone has the ability to train AI models and run a DePIN enabled validator node using just their smartphone from anywhere in the world. On the application, users are training the same stable diffusion models the community is using to generate AI art through fine tuning and data labeling. “The transformative power of AI and Web3 technology has the potential to empower the human race to an unprecedented degree and we are excited to be at the forefront of the decentralized AI Technology Revolution,” said J.D. Seraphine, Founder and CEO of Raiinmaker. Raiinmaker’s investor cap table includes other notable companies such as DCI Capital, Seed Thrift Ventures, Titans Ventures, WeeHodl, Kopman Capital, 7 O'Clock Capital Fund, Spicy Capital, NxGen.xyz, Absoluta Digital, Candaq, Mainchain Ventures, Panda Capital, Stealth Capital, Taisu, K300, Tulpar Capital, Acacia Digital, Simurg Labs, Gemhead, Alpha Capital, Green Arrow Ventures, Basics Capital, Legion Ventures, Coinvestor Ventures, Simplicity Blockchain, Aza Ventures, Transform Capital, Khan's DeFi Kitchen, HC Capital, Crypto Roundtable, Gemhead Capital, and Metazero Capital. With 70,000+ app downloads, over 150,000 nodes, 18 million transactions processed and an engaged community of over 200,000 worldwide, Raiinmaker empowers people all over the planet to contribute to decentralized AI infrastructure while earning crypto, no special technical knowledge required. About Raiinmaker Raiinmaker is an innovative Web3 and AI technology company that has successfully developed the Raiinmaker Mobile Application and Raiinmaker Network. The Raiinmaker App is a cutting-edge Web3 and decentralized AI platform that revolutionizes the monetization of users’ contribution to AI infrastructure. The Raiinmaker Network combines scalable Web3 and AI infrastructure that redefines value creation tied to digital identity, behavior, and reputation. The Raiinmaker AI Super App is powered by the Raiinmaker Network, providing seamless integration with native Protocol Web3 features. These features include Identity, NFT Minting, Token Creation, and AI Powered Smart Contracts. | | | Website x Telegram Discord Contact Head of Marketing Kris Seraphine kris@raiinmaker.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here.

Raiinmaker Closes $7.5M Funding To Advance Decentralized AI

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 11 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 1. State Contract Law CCDH’s first argument about damages relies on state contract law. Under state contract law, when there is a breach, “the plaintiff is entitled to damages that are equivalent to the benefit of the plaintiff’s contractual bargain.” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Pomona Unified Sch. Dist.. 34 Cal. 4th 960, 967–68 (2004). But a plaintiff’s damages “cannot . . . exceed what it would have received if the contract had been fully performed on both sides.” Id. at 968 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3358). “This limitation of damages for breach of contract ‘serves to encourage contractual relations and commercial activity by enabling parties to estimate in advance the financial risks of their enterprise.’” Id. (quoting Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 515 (1994)). While tort damages are intended to award a plaintiff for all injury suffered, “[c]ontract damages are generally limited to those within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was entered into or at least reasonably foreseeable by them at that time.” Erlich v. Menezes, 21 Cal. 4th 543, 550 (1999). This is a key “distinction between tort and contract.” Id. There are two types of contractual damages: “general damages (sometimes called direct damages) and special damages (sometimes called consequential damages).” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., 34 Cal. 4th at 968. General damages “flow directly and necessarily from a breach of contract . . . or . . . are a natural result of a breach.” Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3300). X Corp.’s theory of damages—that CCDH violated the ToS by scraping the X platform, that CCDH used the data that it scraped to publish deliberately misleading publications criticizing X Corp., that those publications caused X Corp.’s advertisers to pause spending, and that the pause in spending caused X Corp. to lose “at least tens of millions of dollars” in revenue, see, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 70, 78[12]—do not flow directly and necessarily from CCDH’s breach of the ToS’s scraping provision. The question is whether they constitute special damages. “[S]pecial damages are those losses that do not arise directly and inevitably from any similar breach of any similar agreement. Instead, they are secondary or derivative losses arising from circumstances that are particular to the contract or to the parties.” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., 34 Cal. 4th at 968. They “are recoverable if the special or particular circumstances from which they arise were actually communicated to or known by the breaching party (a subjective test) or were matters of which the breaching party should have been aware at the time of contracting (an objective test).” Id. at 968–69.[13] X Corp. agreed at the motion hearing that its damages had to be foreseeable at the time of contracting. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 10:7–14. But X Corp.’s complaint does not allege that CCDH knew at the time of contracting, or should have known at the time of contracting, that breach of the ToS’s scraping provision would result in damages of “at least tens of millions of dollars.” X Corp. alleges that “CCDH engaged in its unlawful scraping with the intent to improperly obtain data that would be used to cause X Corp. to lose significant advertising revenues.” FAC ¶ 78. It alleges nothing about CCDH’s intent or knowledge when it agreed to the ToS in 2019. This is a fatal flaw. X Corp. argues that “the Motion . . . impermissibly demands that the Court engage in a fact-intensive analysis without the benefit of any discovery to determine what CCDH knew or could have known at the time of contracting and what CCDH knew or could have known would result from its actions.” Opp’n at 18. But cognizable damages are an element of a breach of contract claim, and either they have been plausibly pled or they have not. See King v. Facebook, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 3d 776, 790 (2021) (dismissing a claim for breach of contract in part because “much of the injury allegedly suffered . . . is injury to reputation” and “this kind of injury is generally not compensable for a breach of contract.”); Modden v. Ticketfly LLC, No. 18-cv-6450-RS, 2019 WL 4738237, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“Nowhere has Modden alleged that Ticketfly knew or should have known about his special damages at the time of contracting. Regardless of whether he has shown the other elements, Modden has not sufficiently pled his damages. The breach of contract claim must therefore be dismissed.”) (emphasis in original). It is not facially plausible that “CCDH could have known, [when] it accepted the ToS [in 2019], that (for instance) the Twitter/X platform would abruptly change course to restore accounts that it had banned for spreading hate speech, misogyny, and conspiracy theories . . . ; that the CCDH Defendants would collect and review public posts on the platform to shed light on these issues . . . and that the CCDH Defendants’ subsequent reporting based on this data would allegedly affect advertiser revenue to the tune of ‘at least tens of millions of dollars.’” MTD&S at 16. One might respond that CCDH—an organization that “prepare[s] and publish[es] what it refers to as ‘research’ reports and articles” about “organizations and individuals . . . who express viewpoints via social media platforms that differ from CCDH’s own views on widely debated topics including COVID-19 vaccinations, reproductive healthcare, and climate change,” FAC ¶ 17—could or should have known in 2019 that it was planning to report on objectionable posts on the X platform and encourage advertisers to flee. But when CCDH joined Twitter in 2019, id. ¶ 8, Twitter looked quite different. Elon Musk had not yet taken over and turned Twitter into the X platform. See Wile Timeline. The COVID pandemic (one of the subjects that the speech here concerned) had not yet occurred. See Derrick Bryson Taylor, “A Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic,” N.Y. Times, March 17, 2021, http://nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html. Twitter had “content-moderation policies . . . designed, among other things, to minimize the reach of harmful and misleading information.” See O’Handley v. Padilla, 579 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1172 (N.D. Cal. 2022). As late as January of 2022, this Court was still fielding lawsuits from right-leaning users arguing that Twitter’s content-moderation policies discriminated against them. See, e.g., id., 579 F. Supp. 3d 1163.[14] Indeed, the February 9, 2023 CCDH report that admitted scraping the X platform was about how Twitter had changed. The report states that Musk had declared a “general amnesty” for banned Twitter users in November of 2022, thereby reinstating “tens of thousands of accounts, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories.” Toxic Twitter at 3. And it claimed that Twitter was generating millions of dollars in advertising revenue from the previously banned accounts. See id. Musk was not at the helm of Twitter reinstating previously banned accounts in 2019. Nor was it foreseeable that he would be. At the motion hearing, the Court observed that “it’s a very different thing to say” that CCDH understood the terms of the ToS in 2019 than it is to say that CCDH “understood that actually X Corporation would start allowing all of these people back on, which was different from the policy that was in place at the time that they entered the [ToS].” Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 13:2–8. X Corp. responded that “the policies do say they’re subject to change, and users, when they stay on the platform, agree to the subsequent policy.” Id. at 14:24–15:1. This argument does not save the breach of contract claim, for at least three reasons. First, the FAC alleges that the time of contracting was 2019—it does not allege that CCDH agreed to subsequent versions of the ToS. See FAC ¶ 8. Second, the argument that “it is foreseeable that we might change our policy” would work an absurd extension of the law, essentially eliminating the requirement of foreseeability altogether. Any change of policy would be foreseeable because it is always foreseeable that policy can change. Unsurprisingly, X Corp. offers no legal support for that reasoning. Third, the argument that logging back into the Twitter/X platform constitutes a reaffirmation of the ToS (and therefore that the Court must assess foreseeability at a later point in time than 2019) fails because it appears that the ToS in effect at the time of the February 9, 2023 report was in place from June 10, 2022 to May 18, 2023, and June 10, 2022 predated Musk’s purchase of Twitter. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 29:3–14; see also Kaplan Decl. Ex. A; see also X, Previous Terms of Service, https://twitter.com/en/tos/previous (listing one version dated June 10, 2022 and a next version dated May 18, 2023). So there does not appear to have been a reaffirmation of the ToS at the time when Musk was changing the platform’s policies and reinstating “tens of thousands of anti-Semites and white supremacists and other people to the platform.” See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 29:11–13. Accordingly, X Corp. has not plausibly pleaded that CCDH had knowledge at the time of contracting in 2019 of the “tens of millions of dollars” X Corp. now seeks in connection with advertisers’ decisions to pause spending in response to CCDH’s February 9, 2023 report. b. Reputation Damages Another reason that the damages X Corp. seeks—“at least tens of millions of dollars” of lost revenue that X Corp. suffered when CCDH’s reports criticizing X Corp. caused advertisers to pause spending, see FAC ¶ 70—are problematic is that X Corp. has alleged a breach of contract but seeks reputation damages. Of course, the main problem with X Corp.’s theory is that the damages alleged for the breach of contract claim all spring from CCDH’s speech in the Toxic Twitter report, and not its scraping of the X platform. See Reply at 7 (“Because X Corp. seeks (impermissibly) to hold CCDH U.S. liable for speech without asserting a defamation claim, it is forced to allege damages that are (impermissibly) attenuated from its claimed breach.”). One way we know that this is true is that if CCDH had scraped the X platform and never spoken, there would be no damages. Cf. ACLU Br. at 12. (“Had CCDH U.S. praised rather than criticized X Corp., there would be no damages to claim and therefore no lawsuit.”). Again, X Corp. conceded this point at the motion hearing. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 7:22–8:3. CCDH’s reputation damages argument is another way of saying that the damages X Corp. suffered when advertisers paused their spending in response to CCDH’s reporting was not a foreseeable result of a claimed breach. There is certainly support for that point. See Frangipani v. Boecker, 64 Cal. App. 4th 860, 865–66 (1998) (“The invariable rule is pronounced by a legion of cases that damages are not recoverable for . . . injury to reputation resulting from breach of contract”) (internal quotation marks omitted; cleaned up); see also Rice v. Cmty. Health Ass’n, 203 F.3d 283, 287–88 (4th Cir. 2000) (reputational damages “universally rejected” for breach of contract because they are “too speculative and could not reasonably be presumed to have been contemplated by the parties when they formed the contract.”). X Corp. argues that this reputation argument is inapposite because X Corp. did not suffer amorphous reputational damages, but “tangible, economic losses . . . e.g., advertising revenue.” Opp’n at 18 (citing Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 671 (1991); Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Newman, 51 F.4th 1125, 1134 (9th Cir.2022); Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Ctr. for Medical Progress, No. 15-cv-3522-WHO, 2018 WL 5879786, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018))[15]; see also Opp’n at 19 (the FAC “pleads specific and measurable harm”). But even if X Corp. can quantify its reputational harms (and “at least tens of millions of dollars” is not terribly specific or measured), it has not plausibly alleged that such harm was “contemplated by the parties when they formed the contract.” See Rice, 203 F.3d at 288. c. “Specifically Stated” One last reason that the breach of contract claim fails to adequately allege special damages is that Rule 9(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[i]f an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g). “A specific statement of special damages requires not just the total lump sum, but a statement of the specific items which make up the lump sum.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., No. 02-5286 CW, 2005 WL 645389, at *17 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2005). Here, X Corp. does not attempt to identify the specific items that make up the lump sum of “at least tens of millions of dollars.” See FAC ¶ 70. Indeed, the “at least tens of millions of dollars” amount is the same amount X Corp. alleges as to all three state law claims, even though the first cause of action is about CCDH’s scraping of the X platform, and the third and fourth causes of action are about CCDH accessing X Corp. data held by Brandwatch. See id. ¶¶ 78, 93, 99. This deficiency in the pleading, which X Corp. ignores in its opposition brief, see Opp’n at 18 (“These allegations satisfy the pleading requirements under Rule 8”); Reply at 6 (deeming this “an incomplete argument about a different rule”), is fixable in one sense. In an amended complaint, X Corp. could probably come up with a list of advertising revenues that it lost out on, and that add up to “tens of millions of dollars.” But in another sense, it would be hard for X Corp. to tie those losses back to CCDH’s alleged scraping, as opposed to CCDH’s speech based on that scraping, or CCDH’s accessing of the Brandwatch data, or its speech based on the Brandwatch data, or the speech of other X Corp. critics, or other things happening in the market.[16] For all of these reasons, the complaint fails to allege recoverable damages for the breach of contract under state contract law. Continue Reading . Here [12] In its opposition brief, X Corp. asserts that it had further alleged that “CCDH’s conduct forced X Corp. to ‘conduct internal investigations,’” “‘allocate[] significant employee resources,’” and “‘incur[] attorneys’ fees.’” Opp’n at 18 (citing FAC ¶ 71). But those other sources of X Corp.’s damages appear in the complaint as allegations of harm caused by “CCDH’s unauthorized access to the [Brandwatch] data”—something not at issue in the first cause of action. See FAC ¶ 71. [13] The classic case discussing special damages is an 1854 English case called Hadley v. Baxendale, in which, “[a]fter Hadley’s mill shut down because of a broken crankshaft, he entered into a contract to have a new one built.” Id. at 969 (citing Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 156 Eng.Rep. 145). Hadley took the broken shaft to Baxendale, to deliver it to the builder to use as a model. Id. When Baxendale did not deliver the shaft for seven days, Hadley sued Baxendale for lost profits. Id. The court held that Hadley’s lost profits were not recoverable, because Hadley had not communicated the special circumstance—that the mill could not operate without the shaft—to Baxendale. Id. [14] Interestingly, the plaintiff in that case, Rogan O’Handley, is behind one of the “ten reinstated accounts” highlighted in CCDH’s Toxic Twitter report. See Toxic Twitter at 4 (“Rogan O’Handley, a Hollywood former entertainment lawyer turned far-right conspiracy theorist, who has been criticized for fanning the flames of vaccine conspiracies in the wake of the NFL athlete Damar Hamlin’s heart attack.”). [15] X Corp. cites to a number of cases involving constitutional law in response to CCDH’s arguments under state contract law. The Court will address these cases in the next section. [16] See, e.g., Reply at 16 (noting that “X Corp. has now carried out [its threat to bring suit] against yet another social-media-monitoring nonprofit, see X Corp. v. Media Matters for Am., No. 23 Civ. 1175 (N.D. Tex), all while engaging in conduct that plainly refutes its own theory of harm in both cases, see, e.g., Lora Kolodny, Elon Musk Claims Advertisers Are Trying to ‘Blackmail’ Him, Says ‘Go F---Yourself,’ CNBC (Nov. 29, 2023).”). About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Understanding Damages in Contract Law: A Closer Look at Special Damages and Breach Claims 

Apple's about changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union reads with the professionalism and poise of a teenager throwing a tantrum. It's amazing really. press release Some choice quotes, emphasis mine: Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — to EU users. new risks the DMA poses Apple will share new resources to help EU users understand the changes they can expect. That includes guidance to help EU users — including a less intuitive user experience — and best practices for approaching new risks associated with downloading apps and processing payments outside of the App Store. navigate complexities the DMA’s changes bring Inevitably, the new options for developers’ EU apps . Apple can’t eliminate those risks, but within the DMA’s constraints, the company will take steps to reduce them. create new risks to Apple users and their devices And possibly my favorite quote from this whole article: EU users will be with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage. confronted interrupts That's a hell of a way to say that EU users will be asked to choose their favorite browser! With their announcements yesterday, Apple is indicating that they don't intend to comply with the Digital Markets Act after all, an unsurprising move to be sure. I have no doubt that Apple's legions of lawyers know that their new strategy is blatantly illegal, so they must be gearing up for years of court battles to delay the inevitable as long as they can instead. The DMA has many clauses that specify that gatekeepers must ensure alternative platforms have " " interoperability, which is certainly not the case here: free of charge iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold. For an app like Instagram, that could be nearly $11,000,000 for the privilege of using Apple's App Store. per month not And, if you still want to open an alternative marketplace anyway, you ... must Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users. I think anyone who was hoping for iOS's alternative is thoroughly disappointed today. Big Tech companies flouting the law is, of course, nothing new, but the EU should nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand. F-Droid The Illusion of Choice All of this being said, the DMA does have legitimate issues, which I don't think enough people are talking about either. Regulators, Apple, and tech commenters seem to be falsely equating the existence of alternative app stores with an open market. In reality, individual users will have no more real choices on iOS than they had before, even if the EU gets its way. The road that Apple is heading down—one which actually allowed by the DMA—looks something like this: Apps will be distributed on the App Store via an alternative publisher. This isn't a real choice; you will just end up juggling multiple app stores. is or If this problem isn't addressed, we're just replacing one walled garden with many walled gardens, and people will have to participate in each one to keep the same experience they had before. We've seen this play out in the movie and television industry already with the proliferation of streaming services created by distributors. I don't think any consumer on Earth would argue that the state of streaming platforms today is what an ideal marketplace should look like, and indeed, digital as a result. piracy is on the rise again The music industry provides an example of the alternative to this model, one which many customers enjoy today. Music streaming platforms offer true marketplaces that people can choose between, whether it's Spotify, Apple Music, TIDAL, or one of many others, which all largely share a similar catalog. There are some minor differences, sure, but consumers largely choose between these platforms based on features and pricing, not content availability. This model drives competition and offers a far more open ecosystem overall. Neither Apple developers like Epic Games seem too keen to adopt this option. real nor Maybe we will eventually find a middle ground where apps are published to Apple's App Store alternatives, and consumers can choose between marketplaces based on factors like pricing and features rather than exclusive content. That future doesn't seem likely to me at the moment. and Time will tell whether the EU will react to all of this and how the digital apps marketplace situation will play out overall, but one thing is clear to me: Consumers—EU or otherwise—aren't really winning yet. Also published . here

Apple is Furious About the Digital Markets Act

Stories, News & Mentions about LEGION

Legion’s Stories on HackerNoon

Legion's News & Mentions