The University of Washington has agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve a high-profile First Amendment lawsuit brought by computer science professor Stuart Reges, who was disciplined after including a parody land acknowledgment in a course syllabus.
The settlement, announced Thursday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), follows a December ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found university officials violated Reges’ academic freedom rights by retaliating against his speech and engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
“I am deeply grateful to FIRE for this legal victory which will remind public universities that they are obligated to respect the First Amendment rights of their students, faculty, and staff,” Reges said in a statement Thursday. He added that he hopes his protest helps reverse “a decade-long trend towards ideological conformity in academia.”
Under the agreement, UW agreed to pay $600,000 to FIRE to cover damages, legal fees, and costs. The settlement prohibits the university from taking further adverse action against Reges or removing the parody statement from his syllabi in perpetuity. While the appeal was pending, UW also rescinded and replaced Executive Order 31, the anti-harassment policy used during the investigation.
The dispute began in January 2022 after the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering recommended that faculty include a statement acknowledging Coast Salish Indigenous lands in their syllabi.
Reges, a teaching professor who has been at the school since 2004, opposed the policy. Instead, he included a parody invoking philosopher John Locke’s labor theory of property to claim Indigenous groups held “almost none” of the land occupied by the university.
UW officials responded by censoring the parody from Reges’ course syllabus, opening a yearlong disciplinary investigation under an anti-harassment policy, and creating a competing “shadow” section of his course so students could opt out of taking his class.
Although the university ultimately declined to formally discipline Reges, officials warned him that repeating the statement could trigger further punishment. Reges sued the UW in 2022, and while a U.S. District Court initially sided with the university, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that student discomfort cannot justify retaliating against a professor’s speech on matters of public concern.
Reges’ lawsuit named top university leadership as defendants, including then-UW President Ana Mari Cauce, Allen School Director Magdalena Balazinska, Vice Director Dan Grossman, and College of Engineering Dean Nancy Allbritton. Current UW President Robert J. Jones is named in the final agreement.
The Ninth Circuit panel’s decision established that university teaching materials like course syllabi are protected academic speech, setting a binding First Amendment precedent across public higher education institutions in the Western U.S.
The University of Washington provided the following statement to GeekWire:
“The University of Washington maintains that we acted appropriately, and this settlement is in no way an admission of any wrongdoing. Given the Ninth Circuit’s 2-1 decision overturning the federal district court’s decision in favor of the University, a settlement agreement was the most reasonable option due to the attorney fees and costs that would have resulted from the Ninth’s Circuit’s decision. Prof. Reges has retained his faculty position and continued teaching throughout this process, and his status with the UW remains unchanged.”
Reges remains an active faculty member. Under the terms of the deal, he is free to include the Locke property statement on future course materials without administrative interference.
Read the full settlement agreement here.
Two Illinois customers allege Walmart created voiceprints from service calls without obtaining consent required under the state’s biometric privacy law.
The post Walmart Accused of Creating Voiceprints From Customer Service Calls appeared first on TechRepublic.
Two Illinois customers allege Walmart created voiceprints from service calls without obtaining consent required under the state’s biometric privacy law.
The post Walmart Accused of Creating Voiceprints From Customer Service Calls appeared first on TechRepublic.
Seattle-based cannabis data analytics company Headset has agreed to pay more than $1 million to resolve allegations that it improperly received and obtained forgiveness for a federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan.
The settlement, announced Monday by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington, stems from a May 2024 whistleblower lawsuit filed by Sidesolve LLC under the False Claims Act. Sidesolve is a data analytics company that uses AI algorithms to hunt for potential pandemic loan fraud across public records.
The government alleged that Headset was ineligible for the Small Business Administration (SBA) loan it received in February 2021 — and had forgiven in August 2021 — because its work supporting the marijuana industry conflicts with federal law.
Under the terms of the deal, Headset paid $100,000 within 30 days of signing the agreement in early August and will pay the remaining balance of more than $900,000 over four years through August 2030. The company made no admission of wrongdoing, stating it agreed to the payments to avoid the risks and expense of litigation.
Headset was founded in 2015 by Cy Scott, Brian Wansolich, and Scott Vickers. The trio previously co-founded Leafly, the popular online cannabis strain database and marketplace, which was acquired by Privateer Holdings in 2011. After departing Leafly, they launched Headset to bring business intelligence and real-time sales metrics to the legal pot industry.
The startup functions like a Nielsen for the cannabis sector, aggregating point-of-sale data from dispensaries and retailers to provide market trends, pricing insights, and consumer demographics.
Over the years, the company has raised $29.4 million in total funding from investors including Poseidon Asset Management and Canopy Rivers, expanding its data coverage across legal state and international markets.
This story originally appeared on Real Estate News.
Compass and the Washington state-based Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) have settled their year-plus-long lawsuit, Compass announced on Monday.
Compass and NWMLS have agreed to a settlement through the creation of a new listing status that will allow Compass agents to pre-market their properties without risk of being fined by the MLS. The new status, which will become effective Sept. 4, is called “First Look” and will be treated similarly to a coming-soon listing, according to a press release.
When requested by the seller, the status allows showings for brokers and their clients, open houses and offers to be made on a property without incurring public price changes or days on market for up to 21 days while preparing for an “Active” status launch.
NWMLS clarified that days in the “First Look” status and any pre-launch price adjustments will be available internally to members of the NWMLS database but will not be published publicly. The MLS also said sellers can choose whether a “First Look” is published on IDX websites “or choose to engage in more tailored public marketing.”
Compass International Holdings Chairman and CEO Robert Reffkin said the brokerage’s goal in launching its lawsuit against NWMLS “has been fully realized.”
“We brought this lawsuit on a fundamental principle: homeowners deserve the absolute right to control how their properties are marketed, and real estate brokers should never face fines from NWMLS simply for following their client’s lawful instructions which in Washington State is their Statutory Duty,” Reffkin said in a statement.
Compass “proudly invested millions” in the lawsuit, Reffkin added, “and it was worth it.”
“MLSs are a group of direct competitors that are telling their competitors how they can and can not compete, which is the textbook definition of an antitrust violation,” Reffkin continued. “MLSs exist to distribute listings, when the homeseller wants to use it, not to let brokerage competitors collectively dictate how other brokers compete in marketing services or how homesellers market their homes.”
In a news release, NWMLS said the “First Look” status was created in response to member feedback — specifically amid shifting consumer expectations.
“We are giving sellers the flexibility they desire when preparing a home for market, while steadfastly protecting buyers from private networks,” NWMLS President and CEO Justin Haag said in a statement. “Simply put, First Look modernizes the pre-launch preparation process, while ensuring an open marketplace and fair competition, in full compliance with Washington State’s open-market laws.”
The MLS’s announcement also noted that the new status enables NWMLS to resolve litigation with Compass “while reaffirming its commitment to an open and comprehensive marketplace, data integrity, and consumer protection across the Pacific Northwest.”
In a blog post published on Monday, Redfin also praised NWMLS’s move to create the new listing status.
“This is exactly the kind of innovation sellers, agents and major industry players — including Redfin — have been calling for, and we salute NWMLS for pioneering a pro-consumer, pro-competition solution,” said the post authored by Joe Rath, head of industry relations at Redfin parent Rocket Companies.
Back in April, Rath authored a separate open letter published on the company’s website that implored NWMLS to change its pre-marketing policies, arguing in favor of “homeseller choice,” a phrase used often by Reffkin. Redfin and Compass partnered in February to allow the brokerage’s “Private Exclusive” and “Coming Soon” listings to be published on Redfin.
In his Monday post, Rath also reiterated an argument Redfin made earlier this year that providing sellers with more pre-marketing options could ultimately give for-sale inventory a boost.
Compass sued NWMLS last April, alleging that the MLS engaged in anticompetitive business practices, obstruction of seller choice and retaliation through a temporary suspension of Compass’ IDX feed. At the time, Compass claimed that it spent months trying to negotiate rule changes with NWMLS to allow for the brokerage’s office exclusives, but NWMLS “simply refused.”
Last June, NWMLS filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but a judge denied the motion in March 2026.
Then, in April of this year, NWMLS filed a counterclaim against Compass, alleging that the brokerage’s 3-phased marketing strategy violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act because it is a “deceptive scheme” designed to conceal data from the public at large. NWMLS also argued that its own MLS rules were reaffirmed through a new state law seeking to restrict private listings.
In addition to the new listing status, several other terms were agreed to as part of the settlement.
By Oct. 15, NWMLS has agreed to require all portals and real estate websites that use the MLS’s data to clearly and prominently display the name and contact information of real estate brokers on a listing, and immediately next to any contact broker buttons so that buyers have clear and direct access to the listing broker.
By that same date, NWMLS must also stop placing its watermarks on listing photographs to “[ensure] that NWMLS does not take credit for the work of real estate professionals.”
NWMLS is further obligated to apply its rules across all brokerages in the state of Washington to ensure they receive equal treatment, and it will be prohibited from taking legal action against Compass or its real estate professionals “under the guise of ‘enforcing state law,'” Compass said. The point references the new Washington state law that took effect in mid-June, which seeks to limit the use of private marketing practices in real estate. The language of the law, however, is vague, and therefore how much it may curb private listings in practice is uncertain.
By Nov. 15, NWMLS must also “give broker platforms the data fields and supplements that are relevant for brokers to do their jobs (eg, Legal, Firpta, 22k, 22j, Prelim, Surveys/maps, Resale cert), unless legally prohibited,” Compass said, so that brokers don’t have to access multiple systems to complete their work functions.
Washington state will receive up to $339 million as part of a historic $17.1 billion multistate settlement with Meta, resolving allegations that the tech giant intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram with addictive features that harmed youth mental health.
Attorney General Nick Brown said Wednesday that the landmark agreement delivers on core youth-safety product changes — including hard caps on daily time limits, late-night scrolling blocks, and disabled push notifications during school hours — that state lawmakers failed to pass through legislation over the past two years.
“Let me say to the young people of Washington state: This agreement shows that your health and safety is more important than Meta’s profits,” Brown said in a news release.
Under the deal, Meta must overhaul Instagram and Facebook for young users by enforcing a two-hour combined daily time limit, turning off push notifications during school hours (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.), and blocking access late at night between midnight and 6 a.m. Teen users will also get the option to switch off algorithmic feeds in favor of a chronological timeline.
The agreement resolves claims brought by a coalition of 47 states, Washington, D.C., and three territories. While Meta acknowledged the settlement could cost up to $18 billion total over 10 years, it marked a rare legal resolution for a major platform facing nationwide youth safety litigation.
Outside the landmark Big Tobacco agreements of the late 1990s, the $17.1 billion deal represents the largest state consumer protection settlement in U.S. history. State officials and tech policy experts are framing the enforcement action as a similar watershed moment for regulating algorithmic harms and digital product design.
Washington state will receive a guaranteed baseline of $237 million from the core youth-safety agreement, with its payout potentially scaling up to nearly $339 million over the next decade if other major platforms like TikTok and Snapchat adopt comparable terms.
The Attorney General’s Office plans to use the funds to cover legal costs, bolster ongoing consumer protection enforcement, and directly fund state programs tackling the youth mental health crisis driven by social media use.
The settlement also mandates an independent third-party auditor to evaluate and report Meta’s technical compliance directly to state regulators annually over the next five years. Beyond usage limits, Meta must restrict social comparison features such as targeted beauty filters, hide public “like” counts for younger users, and implement stricter age verification to prevent children under 13 from creating accounts.
In addition to the core youth-safety agreement, Washington will receive a separate $10.2 million payment resolving long-standing state claims against Meta for sharing nonpublic user data with third parties like Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 election cycle.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced that his state’s share will total more than $125 million over 10 years.
In a public statement, Meta praised the agreement as setting a new benchmark for youth safety, while emphasizing that the restrictions should apply across the entire industry.
“While this is an important step, these protections will only be truly effective if our peers — TikTok and YouTube — put the same measures in place,” a Meta spokesperson said.
The agreement remains subject to final judicial approval in federal district court.
Zillow and Redfin settled an antitrust case with the Federal Trade Commission and five states Monday, just as a trial was set to begin, agreeing to undo part of a $100 million partnership that the government said effectively paid Redfin to stop competing in apartment rental advertising.
The companies, both based in Seattle, have been rivals in online real estate and related services for the better part of two decades, expanding into rentals to build their businesses beyond the market for single-family homes. The FTC alleged the deal combined two of the three largest online apartment listing services against one main competitor, CoStar’s Apartments.com.
The proposed settlement requires Redfin, now owned by Rocket Cos., to relaunch its apartment advertising operation within six months — hiring a general manager, a sales force and a trained customer support team, while committing to spend millions of dollars to grow the business.
Redfin faces fines if it misses deadlines, and must report regularly to the FTC on its progress.
Zillow’s apartment listings will still appear on Redfin.com, Rent.com and ApartmentGuide, and Redfin will keep syndicating them, so Zillow is holding onto the audience it gained in the 2025 deal. The companies say the syndication will run through at least 2030.
What ends is the exclusive nature of the partnership: As part of the FTC settlement, Redfin is no longer barred from selling its own advertising alongside those listings, or from doing business on its own with the property managers shifted to Zillow under their original deal.
Zillow also must help Redfin rebuild. Under the order, which runs 10 years, Zillow is required to give Redfin employee information so it can recruit Zillow workers, waive any noncompete or anti-poaching agreements blocking those hires, and let apartment advertisers locked into Zillow contracts renegotiate without penalty for nine months after Redfin relaunches.
The companies will also pay the states $2 million in costs and fees, according to Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who co-led the five-state coalition.
Zillow said the partnership “will continue unchanged,” and framed the standalone advertising products both companies plan to launch in 2027 as added flexibility for property managers.
“This resolution is a win for renters and multifamily housing providers,” said Michael Sherman, general manager and senior vice president of Zillow Rentals, in a statement. He said the partnership has brought “more leads and leases to property managers and more options to renters,” and that the standalone products will let Zillow “do even more to support the marketplace.”
The FTC offered its own take: “Today’s settlement unwinds an agreement under which Zillow paid Redfin $100 million to stop competing and hand off all its customers to Zillow,” said Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “This kind of payment to a competitor to exit a market and stop competing violates the antitrust laws.”
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson called it “a complete victory for the American people” in a thread on X early Monday. He added, “This anticompetitive agreement is now history under our proposed settlement.”
Guarnera said the settlement “delivers better, quicker, more certain results” than the agency would have been able to achieve if it had gone to trial and prevailed.
“Today’s settlement will restore competition by paving the way for Redfin to re-enter the market as a stronger competitor,” Brown said in a statement. “Most importantly, consumers will have more choices and won’t be subjected to illegally manipulated prices.”
The FTC and state cases were consolidated last year. Zillow and Redfin moved to dismiss in January, and U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga denied that motion in May, according to Real Estate News. However, the FTC’s case had met resistance in July, when Trenga denied its request to declare the deal presumptively unlawful, finding genuine disputes of material fact.
Redfin called the outcome “a significant win for Redfin and consumers across the country.”
“This agreement allows us to maintain our rental partnership with Zillow through at least 2030, while building and investing in a standalone rentals business of our own,” a spokesperson said, adding that renters “will continue to have access to the rental inventory they rely on today.”
The proposed settlement, announced Monday morning, requires court approval.
Updated with details from Washington AG Nick Brown.
A new Warner Bros. Discovery lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the tech giant of poaching a top HBO Max marketing executive 16 months before her contract expired, comes with an unusual request: a court order barring Amazon from hiring any employee of the media conglomerate as long as they’re under contract.
The suit, filed July 21 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on Pia Barlow, the longtime HBO Max executive who was announced last week as Amazon MGM Studios’ new head of series marketing. Her Warner Bros. Discovery contract ran through October 2027.
She resigned in June and was due to start at Amazon on Aug. 3.
Warner Bros. Discovery accuses Amazon of “hurriedly seeking to pirate away a number of contracted employees,” calling the company a “digital bull in a china shop” that chose to build its entertainment workforce by raiding Hollywood rather than hiring from scratch.
The suit says Amazon tried weeks earlier to recruit another WBD executive under contract through December 2027 and failed, and was pursuing at least one more when the suit was filed.
The complaint says Barlow’s departure “conveyed a troublesome message throughout Plaintiffs’ executive ranks” — that contractual commitments could be disregarded “whenever a larger paycheck appears.”
Amazon declined to comment in response to GeekWire’s inquiry.
The company acquired MGM in 2022 for $8.5 billion, its second-largest acquisition ever behind the $13.7 billion purchase of Whole Foods in 2017. The deal brought a catalog of more than 4,000 films and 17,000 TV shows, and the studio was rebranded Amazon MGM Studios in 2023.
It’s led by Mike Hopkins, head of Prime Video and Amazon MGM Studios.
Warner Bros. Discovery itself is in the middle of being sold. Paramount Skydance agreed in February to buy the company for about $81 billion, outbidding Netflix, but 12 state attorneys general sued this month to block the deal, and Paramount has pushed its closing deadline to as late as June 2027.
The complaint goes further, alleging Amazon didn’t just recruit Barlow but also picked her lawyer. Warner Bros. Discovery says the firm now representing her is based less than a mile from Amazon’s Seattle headquarters and “has a well-publicized, long-standing relationship with Amazon as outside litigation counsel,” and that Amazon is paying its fees. The firm isn’t named in the complaint.
Barlow, who lives and works in Los Angeles, is not a defendant.
Warner Bros. Discovery says its lawyers exchanged letters with Amazon and with that attorney before filing suit, demanding Barlow not leave. It makes the fee allegation on “information and belief,” a legal phrase indicating a claim based on inference rather than direct evidence.
Login