The company Wednesday issued an email requesting customers discontinue use of its egg-shaped charging case.
The company says it launched an investigation following a “single complaint” of a charging issue from a customer.
Humane is far from the first consumer electronics company to ship products with potentially hazardous batteries.
According to the note, the Charge Case is the only Humane product affected by this news.
Neither its Battery Boost or Charging Pad have been singled out by the company.
Now, we’re headed to Washington, D.C., for another night of top-notch interviews and unparalleled networking, all at the cozy Woolly Mammoth Theatre on Tuesday, June 11.
Lina Khan – Chair, Federal Trade CommissionAs Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the table.
With a background in business reporting and antitrust research, Khan has dedicated her career to addressing consolidation across various markets.
Steve Case – Chairman & CEO, RevolutionSteve Case is known for his pioneering efforts, such as founding AOL, and integrating the internet into everyday life.
Secure Your Spot:Tickets for StrictlyVC Washington, D.C., are priced at $159, offering exceptional value for an evening packed with exclusive content and networking opportunities.
Indeed, with numbers hovering around 20% globally, it’s difficult to make the case that the company is dominating the competition the way Microsoft did Apple a quarter-century ago.
Apple suggests, however, that the DOJ’s suggestion that its “share of the entire U.S. smartphone market exceeds 65%” is misleading, as it refers to revenue rather than units sold.
It’s here the DOJ suggests that Apple commands 70% of the “performance” smartphone market.
Today, only Samsung and Google remain as meaningful competitors in the U.S. performance smartphone market.
Even Cupertino’s highly paid legal team would struggle to make the case that Apple Watch owners aren’t hamstrung by its iOS exclusivity.
Apple’s iPhone antitrust lawsuit: Everything we know so far on the DOJ’s case U.S. regulators are accusing Apple of operating like a monopoly, and the implications of the case stretch far beyond iOS and iPhones themselvesApple’s antitrust scrutiny has reached a fever pitch.
We’ll be updating this page as the Apple antitrust case evolves, but keep in mind that there will be little settled in the short term.
The DOJ’s claims against AppleIf you want to dive into legal docs immediately, you can read the DOJ’s lawsuit right here.
The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google, which was filed back in 2020, went to trial last year and could still take a couple more years to reach a conclusion.
For more on Apple’s antitrust lawsuit, check here:
The left-hand side of the slide has too much info (why are funding, product and customers on the team slide?)
Three things that Protecto could have improvedPitch deck design isn’t usually that important, but the design of this deck is particularly bad.
These case studies aren’t case studiesIn a 14-slide deck, Protecto wastes slide 4 as an interstitial (it just says “our platform”).
The full pitch deckIf you want your own pitch deck teardown featured on TechCrunch, here’s more information.
Also, check out all our Pitch Deck Teardowns all collected in one handy place for you!
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Apple Thursday, accusing the company led by CEO Tim Cook of engaging in anti-competitive business practices.
The allegations include claims that Apple prevents competitors from accessing certain iPhone features and that the company’s actions impact the “flow of speech” through its streaming service, Apple TV+.
This is not the first time Apple has faced legal action from the DOJ.
In 2012, the agency sued Apple for conspiring with publishers to increase ebook prices, a lawsuit that was not settled until 2016.
Morgan Stanley analysts said Friday that the current lawsuit could also favor Apple, as many similar allegations have already been ruled on by a judge in the Apple vs Epic case, with the ruling stating that Apple does not violate antitrust laws.
The one time that Europe is explicitly mentioned, however, is in relation to Apple’s grip on digital wallets, NFC and mobile payment technology within its iOS ecosystem.
For context, the EU filed charges against Apple in May 2022, concluding that Apple “abused a dominant position” around mobile wallets by preventing rival services from accessing the iPhone’s contactless NFC payment functionality.
For example, Apple allows merchants to use the iPhone’s NFC antenna to accept tap-to-pay payments from consumers.
Then there is cross-platform smartwatch compatibility, which the DOJ says Apple impedes by restricting certain features from third-party smartwatch makers.
However, NFC, digital wallets, and mobile payments are where they seem to be most neatly aligned on.
Apple is dubbing the litigation misguided and warning the DOJ risks trashing all the things its customers value about its integrated mobile ecosystem.
In an on-the-record statement provided to TechCrunch, Apple said:This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.
The suit claims Apple holds a more than 70% share of “performance smartphones” and over 65% of the US smartphone market, respectively.
But they are also aggressively briefing that the DOJ case will fail.
In today’s briefing Apple also claimed the DOJ’s case has changed tack multiple times (it suggests at least six) over the four years it’s been in formulation.
The suit alleges that the company has a monopoly in the premium smartphone market and uses a variety of illegal tactics to perpetuate that monopoly.
Apple’s monopoly position is not nearly as clear-cut.
Microsoft Windows had well over 90% market share in the relevant market of operating systems for personal computers.
This argument is important because Apple’s market share is much lower globally (only 23%, with number-two Samsung at 16%).
There’s also a host of circumstantial proof, such as Apple’s massive and durable profit margins on iPhone sales.
Meta has dropped its lawsuit against an Israeli web scraping company Bright Data, after losing a key claim in its case a few weeks ago.
Beyond being just another case of web scraping, what made this case particularly interesting was that Meta was a Bright Data customer at one time.
However, when Bright Data scraped Meta’s own data, the company sued.
“This concession by Meta is a pivotal moment for Bright Data and the web scraping community.
“Bright Data remains committed to keeping public web data freely accessible to everyone.
