Google faces another AI training lawsuit from major publishers

TechCrunchIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 959 days ago

A recent update to Google's privacy settings allows the company to collect more user data, including images, files, audio, and video recordings, to enhance its AI models. This change was implemented through an update to Google's Search services privacy settings, which was communicated to users via an email in June. The update introduces new settings—'Search Services History' and 'Personalized Recommendations'—that allow users to configure how their activity is used for personalization and how long their web and app activity is stored. These changes apply across various Google services like Maps, Shopping, Flights, Hotels, Translate, and News. Users who use features like Google Lens, Search Live, or Google Translate may have their media saved for AI training. However, users can adjust these settings to opt out of saving media or set automatic deletion schedules.

Bias read (Center): The article discusses technical updates related to user data collection for AI development, focusing on privacy settings and user options rather than political issues. There is no evident ideological framing or bias in the presentation of the facts.

Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 95): The TechCrunch article clearly explains the changes to Google's privacy settings and their implications for AI training. It remains factual and neutral in its presentation of the information.

TechCrunchIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 9010 days ago

Google released a 2026 commercial imagining the Founding Fathers using AI tools like Google Workspace and Gemini to draft the Declaration of Independence. The ad humorously portrays a collaborative process involving Google Docs, Calendar, Meet, and AI-powered suggestions for the national seal. While the ad avoids claiming AI improved the actual Declaration text, it features AI-generated video and subtle AI integration. Viewer reactions on YouTube and Instagram were largely positive, but Bluesky users criticized the ad as 'cringey' and 'tone deaf,' with some noting the lack of genuine AI involvement. Historian Angus Johnston acknowledged the ad's creativity but questioned the relevance of AI in political writing.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced view of the commercial's reception, highlighting both positive and negative responses. It does not overtly favor one perspective over another, though it emphasizes criticism on Bluesky. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the ad's content and audience reaction.

Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 90): The TechCrunch article accurately describes the Google commercial, providing specific details about the ad's content, tone, and public reaction. It avoids making unsupported claims and presents the ad as a fictionalized, humorous take. The article remains objective in its description.

TechCrunchIndependentCenterFactual 0Objective 06 days ago

Google is introducing a new feature that allows users to identify whether an advertisement was created or edited using artificial intelligence. The change comes as part of broader efforts to increase transparency around AI-generated content. Users will be able to view this information through the 'My Ad Center' panel within Google Search, YouTube, and Google Discover. The disclosure applies to ads created with Google's generative AI tools, but advertisers using external platforms will need to manually indicate AI involvement. Google does not independently verify these claims outside of its own systems, though some regions may require AI labeling by law.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual update about a corporate policy change without overtly favoring any political ideology. It focuses on technological transparency rather than ideological debate, and the framing remains neutral. There is no clear leaning toward either progressive or conservative values,

Why these scores (Factual 0 · Objective 0): This article is incomplete and does not provide any relevant information about AI models, costs, or open vs closed models, thus scoring very low on both factuality and objectivity.

TechCrunchIndependentCenteryesterday

Apple is releasing the iOS 27 public beta, which includes a major overhaul of Siri, making it available to all users rather than just developers. This update introduces advanced AI capabilities, allowing Siri to access device data like emails, photos, and messages, while also integrating with the iPhone's search function. The new Siri features a standalone app and works across multiple Apple devices, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and more. Underlying the upgrade is Apple Intelligence, which includes Foundation Models developed in collaboration with Google's Gemini model, though Apple's versions are tailored for its hardware and privacy-focused architecture.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual overview of Apple's technical advancements with Siri, focusing on product development and integration across devices. While the topic relates to technology and AI, there is no overt ideological framing or emphasis on political implications. The tone remains neutral, as

TechCrunchIndependentCenteryesterday

A coalition of publishers and authors, including Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, author Scott Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E., has filed a class-action lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company used their copyrighted works to train its AI model, Gemini, without permission. The lawsuit claims Google altered or removed copyright information to conceal that its AI models were trained on 'stolen' materials. This follows multiple similar lawsuits against AI firms like Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic, though some recent rulings in California have supported AI companies by citing 'fair use' under outdated copyright laws. Anthropic recently paid a record $1.5 billion settlement after being found guilty of copyright infringement, but many authors opted out to continue pursuing legal action. The Google case was filed in the Southern District of New York, offering a different judicial perspective. The plaintiffs argue that Google improperly expanded its use of copyrighted material beyond agreed-upon terms, such as those related to Google Books and Google Play, where limited access was previously allowed.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the issue—detailing the allegations made by the publishers and authors while also noting the legal defenses offered by AI companies and previous court rulings. It does not favor one side over the other, nor does it use biased language or selectively omit relevant信息