Latest news with #TonyTan
Phone Arena
05-07-2025
- Business
- Phone Arena
Apple, T-Mobile and Google face billions in civil penalties over TikTok
Tony Tan is an Alphabet stockholder, which makes him more than a little concerned that the company's Google subsidiary might have left itself open to potentially billions of dollars in civil penalties. Other tech firms, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, T-Mobile , Oracle, and LG, are also potentially on the hook. To understand what happened, we have to go back to January 20th, the date that Donald Trump was inaugurated for the second time. Right up against a deadline because of a bill signed into law by then-President Joe Biden in April 2024. That bill gave TikTok owner ByteDance 270 days to sell the app or TikTok would get banned in the U.S. President Trump signed an executive order extending the deadline to April 5th. And when that deadline and the one after it failed to result in the sale of the app, Trump extended his executive orders with the last one keeping hands off on TikTok until September 17th, 2025. The day after the first extension of Trump's executive order, April 5th, the administration sent letters to tech companies, including Apple, telling them that even if the law said otherwise, they would not face any consequences from keeping TikTok online. The original law signed by President Biden said that any company helping TikTok continue operating in the U.S. in violation of the law, faces up to $850 billion in liability . And since the executive order did not make TikTok legal in the U.S., Mr. Tan, the Google stockholder, has some concerns. -Letter to President Trump written by Senator Edward Markey, Senator Cory Booker, and Senator Chris Van Hollen As a result of Google's relisting of TikTok in the Play Store, Mr. Tan sued Alphabet, Google's parent company, to find out why it returned TikTok to the Play Store considering it could leave the company facing a liability as high as $850 billion. He says that Alphabet's decision could affect all of its shareholders. Tan also used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain letters sent to to Google, Akamai, Amazon, Digital Realty Trust, Fastly, Microsoft, T-Mobile, Oracle, and LG. The April 5th letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Apple's Senior Vice President & General Counsel Katherine Adams follows: Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 April 5, 2025 Katherine Adams Senior Vice President & General Counsel Apple Inc. Ann O'Leary Ian Gershengorn Re: Enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act Dear Ms. Adams: Article II of the United States Constitution vests in the President the responsibility over national security and the conduct of foreign policy. The President previously determined that an abrupt shutdown of the TikTok platform would interfere with the execution of the President's constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States. See Executive Order 14166 (E.O. 14166). The Attorney General has concluded that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the 'Act') is properly read not to infringe upon such core Presidential national security and foreign affairs powers. Executive Order 14166 instructed the Department of Justice not to take any action on behalf of the United States to enforce the Act for any conduct that occurred during the period of time from January 19, 2025 through April 5, 2025 (the 'Covered Period'). Pursuant to the President's responsibility to protect national security and to conduct foreign policy, the President determined that a 75-day extension of the Covered Period to June 19, 2025 is appropriate and has signed a subsequent Executive Order to effectuate that determination (the 'Extended Covered Period'). See Executive Order, Extending The TikTok Enforcement Delay (April 4, 2025). In the Executive Order signed on April 4, the President directed 'the Attorney General to issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during' the Extended Covered Period as well as for any conduct from the effective date of the Act. Based on the Attorney General's review of the facts and circumstances, Apple Inc. has committed no violation of the Act and Apple Inc. has incurred no liability under the Act during the Covered Period or the Extended Covered Period. Apple Inc. may continue to provide services to TikTok as contemplated by these Executive Orders without violating the Act, and without incurring any legal liability. The Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against Apple Inc. for the conduct proscribed in the Act during the Covered Period and Extended Covered Period, with respect to TikTok and the larger family of ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok, Inc. applications covered under the Act. This is derived from the Attorney General's plenary authority over all litigation, civil and criminal, to which the United States, its agencies, or departments, are parties, as well as the Attorney General's authority to enter settlements limiting the future exercise of executive branch discretion. Finally, because the Act vests authority for investigations and enforcement of the Act only in the Attorney General, the Department of Justice intends to take all necessary actions to implement the President's Executive Orders and guard the Attorney General's exclusive authority to enforce the Act, to include filing amicus briefs, statements of interest, or intervening in litigation. Regards, Pamela Bondi Attorney General United States Department of Justice Secure your connection now at a bargain price! We may earn a commission if you make a purchase Check Out The Offer
Phone Arena
04-07-2025
- Business
- Phone Arena
Apple, T-Mobile and Google face billions in fines over TikTok despite receiving letter from the AG
Tony Tan is an Alphabet stockholder, which makes him more than a little concerned that the company's Google subsidiary might have left itself open to potentially billions of dollars in future fines. Other tech firms, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, T-Mobile , Oracle, and LG, are also potentially on the hook. To understand what happened, we have to go back to January 20th, the date that Donald Trump was inaugurated for the second time. Right up against a deadline because of a bill signed into law by then-President Joe Biden in April 2024. That bill gave TikTok owner ByteDance 270 days to sell the app or TikTok would get banned in the U.S. President Trump signed an executive order extending the deadline to April 5th. And when that deadline and the one after it failed to result in the sale of the app, Trump extended his executive orders with the last one keeping hands off on TikTok until September 17th, 2025. The day after the first extension of Trump's executive order, April 5th, the administration sent letters to tech companies, including Apple, telling them that even if the law said otherwise, they would not face any consequences from keeping TikTok online. The original law signed by President Biden said that any company helping TikTok continue operating in the U.S. in violation of the law, faces up to $850 billion in liability . And since the executive order did not make TikTok legal in the U.S., Mr. Tan, the Google stockholder, has some concerns. -Letter to President Trump written by Senator Edward Markey, Senator Cory Booker, and Senator Chris Van Hollen As a result of Google's relisting of TikTok in the Play Store, Mr. Tan sued Alphabet, Google's parent company, to find out why it returned TikTok to the Play Store considering it could leave the company facing a liability as high as $850 billion. He says that Alphabet's decision could affect all of its shareholders. Tan also used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain letters sent to to Google, Akamai, Amazon, Digital Realty Trust, Fastly, Microsoft, T-Mobile, Oracle, and LG. The April 5th letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Apple's Senior Vice President & General Counsel Katherine Adams follows: Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 April 5, 2025 Katherine Adams Senior Vice President & General Counsel Apple Inc. Ann O'Leary Ian Gershengorn Re: Enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act Dear Ms. Adams: Article II of the United States Constitution vests in the President the responsibility over national security and the conduct of foreign policy. The President previously determined that an abrupt shutdown of the TikTok platform would interfere with the execution of the President's constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States. See Executive Order 14166 (E.O. 14166). The Attorney General has concluded that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the 'Act') is properly read not to infringe upon such core Presidential national security and foreign affairs powers. Executive Order 14166 instructed the Department of Justice not to take any action on behalf of the United States to enforce the Act for any conduct that occurred during the period of time from January 19, 2025 through April 5, 2025 (the 'Covered Period'). Pursuant to the President's responsibility to protect national security and to conduct foreign policy, the President determined that a 75-day extension of the Covered Period to June 19, 2025 is appropriate and has signed a subsequent Executive Order to effectuate that determination (the 'Extended Covered Period'). See Executive Order, Extending The TikTok Enforcement Delay (April 4, 2025). In the Executive Order signed on April 4, the President directed 'the Attorney General to issue a letter to each provider stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct that occurred during' the Extended Covered Period as well as for any conduct from the effective date of the Act. Based on the Attorney General's review of the facts and circumstances, Apple Inc. has committed no violation of the Act and Apple Inc. has incurred no liability under the Act during the Covered Period or the Extended Covered Period. Apple Inc. may continue to provide services to TikTok as contemplated by these Executive Orders without violating the Act, and without incurring any legal liability. The Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against Apple Inc. for the conduct proscribed in the Act during the Covered Period and Extended Covered Period, with respect to TikTok and the larger family of ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok, Inc. applications covered under the Act. This is derived from the Attorney General's plenary authority over all litigation, civil and criminal, to which the United States, its agencies, or departments, are parties, as well as the Attorney General's authority to enter settlements limiting the future exercise of executive branch discretion. Finally, because the Act vests authority for investigations and enforcement of the Act only in the Attorney General, the Department of Justice intends to take all necessary actions to implement the President's Executive Orders and guard the Attorney General's exclusive authority to enforce the Act, to include filing amicus briefs, statements of interest, or intervening in litigation. Regards, Pamela Bondi Attorney General United States Department of Justice Secure your connection now at a bargain price! We may earn a commission if you make a purchase Check Out The Offer
WIRED
10-06-2025
- Business
- WIRED
A Google Shareholder is Suing the Company Over the TikTok Ban
Jun 10, 2025 1:34 PM Silicon Valley software engineer Tony Tan says his battle against Google and the Trump administration is about upholding the rule of law. The TikTok app page in the Google Play Store. Photograph:The Trump administration is still refusing to enforce a federal ban on TikTok, and Silicon Valley software engineer Tony Tan is fed up. Last month, Tan sued the US Department of Justice for allegedly failing to turn over records about why it has not taken action against Google and Apple, which Tan believes are violating the law by continuing to host TikTok on their respective app stores. Tan is now stepping up his fight against what he sees as a worrying and potentially costly trend away from respecting the American legal system. On Tuesday, he filed a shareholder lawsuit in Delaware state court against Google's parent organization Alphabet. Tan alleges the company wrongfully denied a request he made for internal documents about Google's decision to risk billions of dollars in fines by not complying with the TikTok ban. 'The biggest thing that motivates me here is I've been frustrated by the volume of recent attacks on our legal system,' says Tan, who is in his late 20s and owns a small number of Alphabet shares directly and through investment funds. 'If Google is outright breaking the law, and they don't have to acknowledge it, they very much are above the law, and that doesn't seem right to me.' Google declined to comment on the lawsuit. But in a letter to Tan's attorneys seen by WIRED, a lawyer representing Google questioned whether the tech giant was really violating the TikTok ban, calling the idea an 'unsupported legal conclusion.' Tan's records request 'appears simply to be wondering if Alphabet is complying with applicable laws,' Doru Gavril, a partner at the firm Freshfields, wrote in March. 'Curiosity alone is not a basis for a books and records inspection demand.' TikTok's future in the United States has been under threat for years. President Donald Trump tried banning the app during his first term in 2020, arguing it posed a risk to national security because it was run by ByteDance, a Chinese tech company. After years of congressional debate and a legal battle that made it up to the Supreme Court, a law banning companies such as Apple and Google from helping to distribute TikTok and other Chinese apps in the US went into effect this past January. TikTok then disappeared from app stores for about half a day, until Trump issued an executive order pausing enforcement of the law and giving ByteDance time to reach a deal to reduce its ownership stake in TikTok's US operation. In the months since, Trump has used the popular video platform as a bargaining chip in high-stakes trade negotiations with China. Legal experts and some lawmakers have questioned the legality of Trump's order, which expires next Thursday. But there haven't been any known legal challenges to it, and the president has indicated that he will extend the pause again as discussions with Beijing continue. Tan, who declined to say whether he personally supports the TikTok ban, believes the central issue is enforcement. 'There is a federal law that says the TikTok app should not be on your store, and I can see TikTok is on the app store,' he says of Google. 'Congress passed the law, and the Supreme Court upheld it. It's not debatable.' In his view, Google is openly ignoring the law, and he wants to understand the legal basis for that decision, as well as the extent to which shareholders should be worried about Google's potential liability. 'I felt I should join the someones who are doing something,' Tan says. Books and Records Tan has a history of using records requests and litigation to investigate and combat what he views as injustices. In 2019, he sued a New Hampshire hotel for allegedly violating anti-discrimination laws by barring bookings from adults under 21 years old. Tan says he dropped the case after the hotel amended its policy. This February, Tan filed a public records request with the US Department of Justice seeking copies of letters that Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly sent to companies such as Google and Apple advising them that they would not be held liable for continuing to distribute TikTok. After the attorney general's office claimed it did not have records matching Tan's request, he took the Department of Justice to court. (The New York Times has filed a similar lawsuit.) In a court filing, the Justice Department denied any wrongdoing. In March, Tan requested minutes and materials from meetings of Alphabet's board of directors related to the TikTok ban, including the same reported letter from the attorney general. Tan made his request under a law in Delaware, where Alphabet is incorporated, that allows shareholders acting in 'good faith' to inspect 'books and records' when investigating suspected mismanagement. Through a series of exchanges between Alphabet's attorneys and his, Tan learned that the company possessed about half a dozen relevant documents, but that it wouldn't turn them over unless ordered to do so by a court. 'The board minutes will show whether or not the board discussed the risks associated with making the TikTok application available through Google Play and, if so, whether and how they assessed the risk of liability,' Tan's lawsuit filed on Tuesday states. 'The board minutes will also show whether the board considered whether making TikTok available through Google Play constituted a positive violation of federal law.' Companies that violate the TikTok ban by continuing to distribute the app can face penalties of up to $5,000 per user. Tan's lawsuit alleges that Google should not be relying on Trump's executive order and Bondi's letter alone to shield them from legal risks, and that the tech giant could be held liable by a future president—or even by Trump, who is known to frequently change his mind. Gavril, the attorney representing Google, contended in one exchange with the attorneys representing Tan that 'a lot of planets would have to align for that hypothetical harm to become reality. Some would argue that a concerned shareholder should wait for there to be an actual harm before progressing to investigate how it came to be.' Alphabet and Apple have yet to specifically mention the TikTok law in shareholder disclosures listing risks to their businesses. Akamai, which provides content hosting services to TikTok, wrote in a February disclosure that the attorney general determined the company could continue serving the app 'without incurring any legal liability,' but added 'there is no assurance that we will not be exposed to liability' in the future. Tan says that many incidents under Trump 2.0 this year have left him concerned about the rule of law, the foundational democratic principle that everyone should be treated the same way by the government. But the TikTok situation was one he felt capable of investigating, and as a shareholder of tech companies such as Alphabet, he felt a duty to try to protect his own bottom line. 'If these companies are openly willing to break the law, will others be pressured into breaking the law because it's politically convenient?' he says. 'Will shareholders be left holding the bag when the legal liability comes due?' Tan says his work in tech has nothing to do with TikTok or Google, but in general, he doesn't want the industry he is part of a trend toward what he considers flagrant lawbreaking. He claims no one—not even friends and family—has encouraged him to pursue his lawsuits over the TikTok ban. His attorneys at Berger McDermott have represented Meta in the past, but the social media company has no hand in his cases, he says. Tan adds he is paying standard rates for his legal representation. 'It's been expensive,' he says, 'and it's going to be more expensive.' Tan explains that he prioritized challenging Google over other companies, including California-incorporated Apple, partly because of the Delaware law allowing him to seek internal records. In recent years, shareholders have filed an increasing number of these kinds of requests, with the hope of using the obtained records as the basis for shareholder resolutions or lawsuits against executives and board members. Most requests are resolved informally, but some end up in court. In March, Delaware enacted a law aimed at limiting the records companies must turn over, which could hamper Tan's request. Lawmakers in the state acknowledged they were under pressure to stop the flight of companies like Tesla to jurisdictions with more business-friendly statutes. Roy Shapira, a professor of law at Reichman University who studies corporate governance in Delaware, says that shareholders trying to hold a company accountable for intentionally violating the law may now find it even more difficult 'to show what directors knew and when they knew it.'
Malay Mail
12-05-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
From guides to guards: Robot dogs find new roles across Singapore's public and private sectors
SINGAPORE, May 12 — From guarding bus depots to guiding the visually impaired, robot dogs are increasingly taking on diverse roles in Singapore, marking a new phase in the city-state's growing adoption of robotics. The quadruped robots, known for their dog-like agility, have become a fixture in several industries here — patrolling construction sites, navigating hazardous zones, and even assisting with social services, according to a report published today in The Straits Times. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Boston Dynamics' robot dog Spot was deployed at Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park to enforce safe distancing. Since then, its successors have expanded their scope, with one recently seen accompanying Progress Singapore Party candidate Tony Tan on an election walkabout. According to Chan U-Gene, deputy director at the National Robotics Programme (NRP), Singapore has seen rising interest in robot dogs, particularly for surveillance and inspection tasks. The NRP now tracks more than 300 robotics-related firms — up from 200 in 2023 — reflecting a sector in rapid expansion. While the NRP does not track exact deployment numbers, Chan noted that legged robots offer distinct advantages over wheeled types due to their ability to navigate uneven terrain, stairs, and narrow spaces. Lower costs have also driven adoption. New models from Chinese manufacturers now cost as little as US$2,700 (RM11,600), a fraction of Boston Dynamics' original US$75,000 price tag. At the National University of Singapore (NUS), researchers are trialling robot dogs as assistive guide dogs for the visually impaired. Robotics PhD student Cai Shaojun said the machines are cheaper and easier to train than real guide dogs and can respond to complex commands using artificial intelligence. Cai's team has tested the robots with visually impaired users and is developing them to navigate stairs and complex environments. A pilot is planned for 2025 at public locations like parks and transport hubs. NUS AI Lab is also building software that enables robots to read social cues and move smoothly through crowded spaces, said associate director Harold Soh. Robot dogs are also being deployed as guard dogs. Since September 2024, SBS Transit has used a robot named Mars, developed with Weston Robot, to patrol Seletar Bus Depot. Fitted with high-definition cameras, thermal sensors and live-feed capabilities, Mars monitors for intrusions and tampering, especially in areas difficult for human guards to access. Spot's earlier deployments included monitoring crowd levels and broadcasting safety messages at parks, and delivering medicine at the Changi Exhibition Centre during the pandemic. Other robot dogs now support inspection roles. SP Group uses a robot named SPock to assist in checking up to 6km of underground tunnels, detecting issues like cracks or moisture that are invisible to the naked eye. At Sengkang MRT Depot, SBS Transit introduced Avatar (Advanced Video Analytics Train Assessment Robot) in July 2024 to inspect train undercarriages for issues such as air leaks or loose tank caps, helping technicians reduce physical strain. The robot's agility allows it to climb stairs and navigate tight spaces. SBS Transit is considering expanding its use to detect broken lights and damaged handles. NUS researchers are also exploring robot dog use in public housing, with robots scanning staircases for uniformity in step height and depth. The project is expected to be commercialised as a start-up soon, said project lead Justin Yeoh.
ABC News
10-05-2025
- Entertainment
- ABC News
Tony Tan's roast chicken with black bean sauce — a takeaway classic, reimagined the traditional way
Tony Tan is bringing an Aussie takeaway favourite back to its roots, showing Alice how to cook it the traditional way. This dish elevates a humble roast chicken with deep, savoury notes from fermented black beans, Shaoxing wine, and fragrant ginger. But the real secret? A homemade chicken broth — crafted from scratch with bones, aromatics, and time — forming the backbone of countless Asian dishes. This slow, careful process infuses the dish with layers of umami, making it richer and more complex than anything you'd get in a takeaway box. Forget the shortcut — this is how it's really done. Here's the full list of recipes from Season 2 of A Bite To Eat With Alice. This recipe appears in A Bite to Eat with Alice, a new nightly cooking show on ABC iview and weeknights at 5pm on ABC TV.
