Delhi High Court says Apple could face $38 billion penalty in Indian antitrust case

India’s Delhi High Court says that Apple could face a penalty as high as $38 billion for what its investigators describe as "abusive conduct” related to the tech giant's app store, according to Reuters.

Apple is challenging the constitutionality of country's new antitrust law, taking specific issue with the fact that penalties are calculated based on companies’ total annual global revenue, rather than just revenue derived from India.

That global figure could mean fines as high as $38 billion, according to a court filing seen by Reuters.

The Competition Commission of India has not issued a final ruling in the case.

Apple contests India's antitrust penalty law with risk of $38 billion fine, filing shows

That global figure could mean fines as high as $38 billion, according to a court filing seen by Reuters.

The Competition Commission of India has not issued a final ruling in the case.

More Power

See all Power

Jon Keegan5h

Anthropic CEO Amodei asked to testify before Congress about Claude-powered Chinese cyberattack, Axios reports

Earlier this month, Anthropic revealed that Chinese state actors had used its Claude chatbot to orchestrate and execute a cyber espionage campaign for the first time. The company said that after it detected its product was being used in that manner, it was able to respond and disrupt malicious behavior.

Now, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has been called to testify before the House Committee on Homeland Security, along with Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kuria and Quantum Xchange CEO Eddy Zervigon, Axios reports.

The House committee is seeking information about how nation-state actors are using AI agents to devise and execute novel cyberattacks, like the one that Anthropic disrupted.

Exclusive: Anthropic CEO called to testify before Congress about Chinese AI cyberattack

The House committee is seeking information about how nation-state actors are using AI agents to devise and execute novel cyberattacks, like the one that Anthropic disrupted.

Max Knoblauch11/21/25

Joby sues Archer, accusing its air taxi rival of stealing trade secrets

The rivalry between two much-hyped air taxi companies is heating up, as Joby Aviation has sued Archer Aviation, alleging the latter stole its trade secrets and used them to undercut a partnership deal in an act of “corporate espionage, planned and premeditated.”

Archer called the lawsuit “baseless litigation” without merit in a statement to CNBC.

The lawsuit alleges that this summer, Joby’s US state and local policy lead, George Kivork, was recruited by Archer. The company alleges that two days before announcing his resignation from Joby, Kivork downloaded “dozens” of files and sent additional material to his personal email account.

The following month, the lawsuit states that a strategic partner that had worked with Kivork while at Joby told the company it had been approached by Archer with a more lucrative deal.

Boeing’s air taxi subsidiary, Wisk, sued Archer in 2021, accusing the latter of “brazen theft” of confidential information and intellectual property.

Archer and Joby are both racing to develop electric air taxis for use in commercial flight. Each has also struck deals with major defense contractors.

Joby lawsuit accuses air taxi rival Archer of using stolen information to 'one-up' deal

The following month, the lawsuit states that a strategic partner that had worked with Kivork while at Joby told the company it had been approached by Archer with a more lucrative deal.

Boeing’s air taxi subsidiary, Wisk, sued Archer in 2021, accusing the latter of “brazen theft” of confidential information and intellectual property.

Archer and Joby are both racing to develop electric air taxis for use in commercial flight. Each has also struck deals with major defense contractors.

Meta wins in FTC antitrust trial

The five-year-long case results in another big win for Big Tech as companies evade aging antitrust laws.

Jon Keegan11/18/25

Congress votes to end shutdown

The over 40-day government shutdown came to an end without a guarantee that the ACA tax credits will be extended.

J. Edward Moreno11/12/25

Jon Keegan11/12/25

OpenAI: The New York Times is forcing us to turn over 20 million ChatGPT conversations

A judge in the The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit against OpenAI (and Microsoft) has ordered that the ChatGPT maker hand over the conversations of 20 million users to the Times’ lawyers, in an effort to find examples of copyright violations.

Today, OpenAI is lobbying the public in a last-ditch effort to prevent the release, which is due Friday:

“The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations. They claim they might find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall. This demand disregards long-standing privacy protections, breaks with common-sense security practices, and would force us to turn over tens of millions of highly personal conversations from people who have no connection to the Times’ baseless lawsuit against OpenAI.”

If the company’s final appeals to the court do not succeed, OpenAI explains that it will de-identify the chat logs, scrub any personally identifying information from the chats, and that technical experts hired by The New York Times’ legal team will be the only ones who can examine the data, which will be tightly controlled.

Fighting the New York Times’ invasion of user privacy

Today, OpenAI is lobbying the public in a last-ditch effort to prevent the release, which is due Friday:

“The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations. They claim they might find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall. This demand disregards long-standing privacy protections, breaks with common-sense security practices, and would force us to turn over tens of millions of highly personal conversations from people who have no connection to the Times’ baseless lawsuit against OpenAI.”

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC produces fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and is a fully owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, or Robinhood Money, LLC.