Blog

Apple users—specifically those who use Siri through products such as Macbooks, iPhones, and Apple TVs—may be entitled to make a claim after Apple’s class action lawsuit settlement, worth $95 million dollars, regarding the voice-activated assistant.

The settlement comes from a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Californian Fumiko Lopez, who claimed that Apple, via Siri, conducted “unlawful and intentional interception and recording of individuals’ confidential communications without their consent and subsequent unauthorized disclosure of those communications.”

“Apple intentionally, willfully, and knowingly violated consumers’ privacy rights, including within the sanctity of consumers’ own homes where they have the greatest expectation of privacy,” the lawsuit stated. “Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have bought their Siri Devices, or would have paid less for them, if they had known Apple was intercepting, recording, disclosing, and otherwise misusing their conversations without consent or authorization.”

In 2019, Apple published a statement titled “Improving Siri’s privacy protections,” in which they said they hadn’t “been fully living up” to their “high ideals” and vowed to issue improvements.

Apple agreed to the settlement on Dec. 31, 2024. According to the settlement website: “Apple denies all of the allegations made in the lawsuit and denies that [they] did anything improper or unlawful.”

The website also provides information about who is eligible to file a claim and the deadlines they need to adhere to.

Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, a professor of law at New York University, says that this case shows how disputes over customer’s personal information have changed. “For the longest time, all of these cases have [largely] been dismissed, because it has been very hard in the U.S. to prove damages,” she says. “Cases were not even settled because firms were so sure that they would win [but] courts had a very hard time articulating what the damages were except for information breaches.”

Now, Marotta-Wurgler notes, companies are showing “greater apprehension” and are more willing to settle.

As the significance of the multi-million dollar settlement continues to be discussed, here’s what you need to know about whether you’re eligible to file a claim and how you can do that.

Who is eligible to file a claim?

People eligible to make a claim include those who owned or purchased a Siri device—which includes the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook, iMac, HomePod, iPod touch, Apple TV—between Sept. 17, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2024. They must have “purchased or owned a Siri Device in the United States or its territories and enabled Siri on that device.”

According to the settlement agreementeligible parties also should have “experienced an unintended Siri activation during a confidential or private communication.”

Those not eligible include Apple employees, legal representatives, and judicial officers assigned to the case.

Marotta-Wurgler points out that the more people who claim, the smaller the share of the payout will be for said claimants.

How can you make a claim and when is the deadline?

Claimants can submit a claim form via the settlement website, and can submit claims for up to five Siri devices.

The deadline to make a claim is July 2, 2025. This is also the deadline to opt out of the payment, which would allow the customer to keep their right to bring any other claim against Apple arising out of, or related to, the claims in the case.

Some of those eligible to make a claim may have received a postcard or an email—with the subject line “Lopez Voice Assistant Class Action Settlement”—notifying them about the settlement. This correspondence would likely include a Claim Identification Code and a Confirmation Code. Per the settlement website, people can use these codes when making a claim, but eligible Apple customers who haven’t received any correspondence can still file a claim.

New papal names often drip with meaning. Pope Francis, in 2013, named himself after Saint Francis of Assisi, signifying his dedication to poverty, humility, and peace. Pope Paul VI, in 1963, modeled himself after Paul the Apostle, becoming the first pope to make apostolic journeys to other continents.

When Robert Francis Prevost announced on Saturday he would take the name Leo XIV, he gave an unexpected reason for his choice: the rise of AI. The most recent Pope Leo, Prevost explained, served during the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 19th century, and railed against the new machine-driven economic systems turning workers into mere commodities. Now, with AI ushering in a “new industrial revolution,” the “defense of human dignity, justice and labor” is required, he said.

With his name choice and speech, Leo XIV firmly marks AI as a defining challenge facing our world today. But also embedded in the name is a potential path forward. Leo XIII, during his papacy, laid out a vision for protecting workers against tech-induced consolidation, including minimum wage laws and trade unions. His ideas soon gained influence and were implemented in government policies around the world.

While it’s still unclear what specific guidance Leo XIV may issue on artificial intelligence, history suggests the implications of his crusade could be profound. If he mobilizes the world’s one billion Catholics against AI’s alienating potential as decisively as his namesake confronted industrial exploitation, Silicon Valley may soon face an unexpected and formidable spiritual counterweight.

“We have a tradition that views work from a theological perspective. It’s not simply burdensome; it’s where we develop ourselves,” says Joseph Capizzi, dean of theology and religious studies for The Catholic University of America. “Pope Leo XIV is going to be drawing on our tradition to try to make a case for finding work that dignifies human beings—even while making space for AI to do things that human beings will no longer be doing.”

Of the revolutionary

At the heart of Leo XIV’s new name choice is Leo XIII’s formal letter Rerum Novarum, which he wrote in 1891. At the time, the Industrial Revolution was upending society. Mechanized production and factory systems generated unprecedented wealth and productivity, but led to the displacement of many agrarian jobs and people to move into overcrowded, unsanitary urban centers in search of work. The jobs there were grueling, unsafe, and paid terribly. The wealth gap widened dramatically, leading to massive social unrest and the rise of communist ideology.

In the midst of these many challenges, Leo penned Rerum Novarum, an encyclical that marked the first major example of a pope commenting on social justice. In it, Leo wrote that “a small number of very rich men” had laid “upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” There now existed as “the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty,” he wrote.

To combat this trend, Leo explored potential solutions. First, he rejected communism, arguing that workers had a right to the fruits of their own labors. But he also stressed the need for a living wage, time for workers for family and church, and the right to form Christian trade unions. “He was really championing the rights of workers,” says Dr. Richard Finn, director of the Las Casas Institute at Blackfriars, Oxford.

These ideas eventually caught hold. One of the first major advocates of minimum wage laws in the U.S. was the priest and economist John A. Ryan, who cited Pope Leo as a significant influence. Many ideas in his text “A Living Wage and Distributive Justice” were later incorporated into the New Deal, when Ryan was an influential supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the 1960s, the Catholic Church eventually came out in support of César Chávez and the United Farmworkers (UFW), which Chávez told TIME in 1966 was the “single most important thing that has helped us.”

In Australia, Things News Influenced political leaders who forged a basic wage in that country. And in Mexico, the Rerum Novarum spurred the creation of many Catholic labor unions and mutual aid societies. “It really shaped Catholic activism, with organizations working to ensure that Mexico was neither an unfettered capitalist country nor a Marxist state-owned state,” says Julia Young, a professor at the Catholic University of America. “It was successful in creating Catholic associations that were very politically vocal.”

The Church and AI

More than a century after the industrial revolution, a similarly impactful technological revolution is unfolding, amidst many similar economic circumstances.

“In terms of similarities between now and then, there was rural to urban immigration changing the workplace, widespread exploitation of workers, and seemingly growing poverty in urban areas,” Young says. “And so you had the church trying to respond to that and saying, ‘We have a different response than Marx or the robber barons.”

While Leo XIV hasn’t yet explicitly called for any of the same measures as Leo XIII, it is clear that he believes the rise of AI necessitates some sort of counterweight. And his citing of Rerum Novarum also perhaps reveals a hunger to provoke widespread social change and offer a third path in a two-power arms race. “In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution,” he said on Saturday.

Across the world, people are expressing intense anxiety about AI causing job displacement. (Some economists contend that these fears are overblown, however.) Like in the industrial revolution, the initial spoils of AI are flowing to a few ultra-powerful companies. And AI companies have also reinforced some of the worst aspects of predatory global capitalism systems: OpenAI, for instance, outsourced some of its most grueling AI training to Kenyan laborers earning less than $2 an hour.

JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon has long been one of Bitcoin’s most vicious skeptics. In 2017, he said he would fire any employee who traded Bitcoin for being “stupid,” and called it a “fraud.” Last year, he called the cryptocurrency a “pet rock.”

But this week, Dimon announced that JPMorgan Chase would allow its clients to buy Bitcoin. He said it with a grimace on his face, speaking at JPMorgan Chase’s investor day, and rattled off a list of criticisms shared by other Bitcoin cynics, including that the currency facilitated sex trafficking and terrorism. But he conceded that his clients could do what they wished with their money. “I don’t think you should smoke, but I defend your right to smoke. I defend your right to buy Bitcoin. Go at it.”

The decision marks a significant symbolic and practical victory for the Bitcoin community, which, despite its anti-establishment beginnings, has sought institutional acceptance. Dimon, a heavyweight of traditional finance, has consistently used his perch to discourage regular investors and other financial leaders from getting involved. But he has also often been called a pragmatist—and his shift on Bitcoin reflects a changed political climate and mounting client demand.

Read More: Why Trump’s Meme Coins Have Alarmed Both Crypto Insiders and Legal Experts

Dimon’s decision arises from a year of mounting competition and interest in Bitcoin from other large firms. The entwining of Bitcoin and traditional finance kicked off in January 2024, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reluctantly gave the green light for Bitcoin ETFs—investment vehicles which allow people to bet on Bitcoin’s price without actually holding it—to enter the market. Billions of dollars immediately flowed into these ETFs, proving their value to major financial institutions like BlackRock. That summer, Morgan Stanley allowed its wealth advisors to sell Bitcoin ETFs to clients, and Goldman Sachs purchased $418 million worth of them.

Then, Donald Trump won the presidency, sending crypto hype into overdrive. On the campaign trail, Trump won over many crypto fans for accusing Biden of choking off the industry. Trump then pledged to make the U.S. the “Bitcoin capital of the world.”

Since his election, Trump has thrown both his government influence and personal brand behind cryptocurrency efforts. And the banking sector has been significantly impacted. In his first week in office, Trump repealed SAB 121, a Biden-era accounting rule which discouraged banks from handling crypto assets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency then rescinded their anti-crypto guidance, leaving much greater discretion to the banks on how to deal with digital assets.

Many banks jumped in. Goldman Sachs amassed a stockpile of over $1 billion worth of Bitcoin ETFs. The CEOs of Bank of America and Morgan Stanley both expressed interest in offering crypto products.

Two Evangelical Christian leaders sent an open letter to President Trump on Wednesday, warning of the dangers of out-of-control artificial intelligence and of automating human labor.

The letter comes just weeks after the new Pope, Leo XIV, declared he was concerned with the “defense of human dignity, justice and labor” amid what he described as the “new industrial revolution” spurred by advances in AI.

“As people of faith, we believe we should rapidly develop powerful AI tools that help cure diseases and solve practical problems, but not autonomous smarter-than-human machines that nobody knows how to control,” reads the open letter, signed by the Reverends Johnnie Moore and Samuel Rodriguez. “The world is grappling with a new reality because of the pace of the development of this technology, which represents an opportunity of great promise but also of potential peril especially as we approach artificial general intelligence.”

Rodriguez, the President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, spoke at Trump’s first presidential inauguration in 2017. Moore, who is also the founder of the public relations firm Kairos, served on Trump’s Evangelical executive board during his first presidential candidacy.

The letter is a sign of growing ties between religious and AI safety groups, which share some of the same worries. It was shared with journalists by representatives of the Future of Life Institute—an AI safety organization that campaigns to reduce what it sees as the existential risk posed by advanced AI systems.

The world’s biggest tech companies now all believe that it is possible to create so-called “artificial general intelligence”—a form of AI that can do any task better than a human expert. Some researchers have even invoked this technology in religious terms—for example, OpenAI’s former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, a mystical figure who famously encouraged colleagues to chant “feel the AGI” at company gatherings. The emerging possibility of AGI presents, in one sense, a profound challenge to many theologies. If we are in a universe where a God-like machine is possible, what space does that leave for God himself?

“The spiritual implications of creating intelligence that may one day surpass human capabilities raises profound theological and ethical questions that must be thoughtfully considered with wisdom,” the two Reverends wrote in their open letter to President Trump. “Virtually all religious traditions warn against a world where work is no longer necessary or where human beings can live their lives without any guardrails.”

Though couched in adulatory language, the letter presents a vision of AI governance that differs from Trump’s current approach. The president has embraced the framing of the U.S. as in a race with China to get to AGI first, and his AI czar, David Sacks, has warned that regulating the technology would threaten the U.S.’s position in that race. The White House AI team is stacked with advisors who take a dismissive view of alignment risks—or the idea that a smarter-than-human AI might be hostile to humans, escape their control, and cause some kind of catastrophe.

“We believe you are the world’s leader now by Divine Providence to also guide AI,” the letter says, addressing Trump, before urging him to consider convening an ethical council to consider not only “what AI can do but also what it should do.”

“To be clear: we are not encouraging the United States, and our friends, to do anything but win the AI race,” the letter says. “There is no alternative. We must win. However, we are advising that this victory simply must not be a victory at any cost.”

The letter echoes some themes that have increasingly been explored inside the Vatican, not just by Pope Leo XIV but also his predecessor, Pope Francis. Last year, in remarks at an event held at the Vatican about AI, Francis argued that AI must be used to improve, not degrade, human dignity.

“Does it serve to satisfy the needs of humanity, to improve the well-being and integral development of people?” he asked. Or does it “serve to enrich and increase the already high power of the few technological giants despite the dangers to humanity?”

Today’s newest AI models might be capable of helping would-be terrorists create bioweapons or engineer a pandemic, according to the chief scientist of the AI company Anthropic.

Anthropic has long been warning about these risks—so much so that in 2023, the company pledged to not release certain models until it had developed safety measures capable of constraining them.

Now this system, called the Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP), faces its first real test.

On Thursday, Anthropic launched Claude Opus 4, a new model that, in internal testing, performed more effectively than prior models at advising novices on how to produce biological weapons, says Jared Kaplan, Anthropic’s chief scientist. “You could try to synthesize something like COVID or a more dangerous version of the flu—and basically, our modeling suggests that this might be possible,” Kaplan says.

Accordingly, Claude Opus 4 is being released under stricter safety measures than any prior Anthropic model. Those measures—known internally as AI Safety Level 3 or “ASL-3”—are appropriate to constrain an AI system that could “substantially increase” the ability of individuals with a basic STEM background in obtaining, producing or deploying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to the company. They include beefed-up cybersecurity measures, jailbreak preventions, and supplementary systems to detect and refuse specific types of harmful behavior.

To be sure, Anthropic is not entirely certain that the new version of Claude poses severe bioweapon risks, Kaplan tells TIME. But Anthropic hasn’t ruled that possibility out either.

“If we feel like it’s unclear, and we’re not sure if we can rule out the risk—the specific risk being uplifting a novice terrorist, someone like Timothy McVeigh, to be able to make a weapon much more destructive than would otherwise be possible—then we want to bias towards caution, and work under the ASL-3 standard,” Kaplan says. “We’re not claiming affirmatively we know for sure this model is risky … but we at least feel it’s close enough that we can’t rule it out.”

If further testing shows the model does not require such strict safety standards, Anthropic could lower its protections to the more permissive ASL-2, under which previous versions of Claude were released, he says.

This moment is a crucial test for Anthropic, a company that claims it can mitigate AI’s dangers while still competing in the market. Claude is a direct competitor to ChatGPT, and brings in over $2 billion in annualized revenue. Anthropic argues that its RSP thus creates an economic incentive for itself to build safety measures in time, lest it lose customers as a result of being prevented from releasing new models. “We really don’t want to impact customers,” Kaplan told TIME earlier in May while Anthropic was finalizing its safety measures. “We’re trying to be proactively prepared.”

But Anthropic’s RSP—and similar commitments adopted by other AI companies—are all voluntary policies that could be changed or cast aside at will. The company itself, not regulators or lawmakers, is the judge of whether it is fully complying with the RSP. Breaking it carries no external penalty, besides possible reputational damage. Anthropic argues that the policy has created a “race to the top” between AI companies, causing them to compete to build the best safety systems. But as the multi-billion dollar race for AI supremacy heats up, critics worry the RSP and its ilk may be left by the wayside when they matter most.

Still, in the absence of any frontier AI regulation from Congress, Anthropic’s RSP is one of the few existing constraints on the behavior of any AI company. And so far, Anthropic has kept to it. If Anthropic shows it can constrain itself without taking an economic hit, Kaplan says, it could have a positive effect on safety practices in the wider industry.

Anthropic’s new safeguards

Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety measures employ what the company calls a “defense in depth” strategy—meaning there are several different overlapping safeguards that may be individually imperfect, but in unison combine to prevent most threats.

One of those measures is called “constitutional classifiers:” additional AI systems that scan a user’s prompts and the model’s answers for dangerous material. Earlier versions of Claude already had similar systems under the lower ASL-2 level of security, but Anthropic says it has improved them so that they are able to detect people who might be trying to use Claude to, for example, build a bioweapon. These classifiers are specifically targeted to detect the long chains of specific questions that somebody building a bioweapon might try to ask.

Anthropic has tried not to let these measures hinder Claude’s overall usefulness for legitimate users—since doing so would make the model less helpful compared to its rivals. “There are bioweapons that might be capable of causing fatalities, but that we don’t think would cause, say, a pandemic,” Kaplan says. “We’re not trying to block every single one of those misuses. We’re trying to really narrowly target the most pernicious.”

Another element of the defense-in-depth strategy is the prevention of jailbreaks—or prompts that can cause a model to essentially forget its safety training and provide answers to queries that it might otherwise refuse. The company monitors usage of Claude, and “offboards” users who consistently try to jailbreak the model, Kaplan says. And it has launched a bounty program to reward users for flagging so-called “universal” jailbreaks, or prompts that can make a system drop all its safeguards at once. So far, the program has surfaced one universal jailbreak which Anthropic subsequently patched, a spokesperson says. The researcher who found it was awarded $25,000.

Anthropic has also beefed up its cybersecurity, so that Claude’s underlying neural network is protected against theft attempts by non-state actors. The company still judges itself to be vulnerable to nation-state level attackers—but aims to have cyberdefenses sufficient for deterring them by the time it deems it needs to upgrade to ASL-4: the next safety level, expected to coincide with the arrival of models that can pose major national security risks, or which can autonomously carry out AI research without human input.

Lastly the company has conducted what it calls “uplift” trials, designed to quantify how significantly an AI model without the above constraints can improve the abilities of a novice attempting to create a bioweapon, when compared to other tools like Google or less advanced models. In those trials, which were graded by biosecurity experts, Anthropic found Claude Opus 4 presented a “significantly greater” level of performance than both Google search and prior models, Kaplan says.

President Donald Trump has warned Apple CEO Tim Cook that not manufacturing iPhones in the United States will result in a minimum tariff of 25% on Apple goods.

In a post shared via TruthSocial on Friday, the President said: “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S.”

Later on Friday, when speaking to reporters at the White HouseTrump said his tariffs could apply to more than just Apple. “It would be also Samsung and anybody that makes that product, otherwise it wouldn’t be fair,” he said. Trump estimated that it would start by “the end of June.”

“Again, when they build their plants here [in the U.S.]there’s no tariff,” Trump emphasized. “I had an understanding with Tim that he wouldn’t be doing this. He said he’s going to India to build plants, I said: ‘That’s OK to go to India, but you’re not going to sell it to here without tariffs.’ That’s the way it is.”

In an interview on Fox NewsU.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: “I think that one of our greatest vulnerabilities is this external production, especially in semiconductors. And a large part of Apple’s components are in semiconductors. So we would like to have Apple help us make the semiconductor supply chain more secure.”

Trump previously raised the issue of Apple manufacturing abroad, particularly in India, during his three-country tour of the Middle East.

At a business roundtable in Qatar on Thursday, May 15, Trump said: “I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday, I said to him: ‘Tim, you’re my friend. You’re coming here with $500 billion, but now you’re building all over India. I don’t want you building in India.’”

In February, Apple announced that it would be spending more than $500 billion in the U.S over the next four years. This was slated to include investment in a new factory in Texas, a manufacturing academy, as well as spending in AI and silicon engineering.

Whilst Trump is hopeful that Apple could shift more production to the U.S. in order to avoid tariffs, such a change in manufacturing could take time. Analysts estimate that up to 90% of iPhones are assembled in China, and the devices are made up of 1,000 from countries across the globe.

If iPhones were made in the U.S., would consumers feel the impact?

The likely rise in the retail price of the product has long been a sticking point when it comes to discussing the possibility of having iPhones produced in the U.S.

In response to Trump’s tariffs threat, Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, estimated via social media that if iPhone production were to move Stateside, the cost of the product could rise to $3,500. Therefore, consumers risk being significantly impacted.

The news comes at a time when U.S. consumers are already bracing themselves to feel the impact of Trump’s existing tariffs.

On May 15, Walmart’s chief financial officer John David Rainey warned that the retailer may have to soon start raising prices as the U.S. tariffs are “still too high.”

“We’re wired for everyday low prices, but the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb,” Rainey said in an interview with CNBC. “It’s more than any supplier can absorb. And so I’m concerned that [consumers are] going to start seeing higher prices. You’ll begin to see that, likely towards the tail end of this month, and then certainly much more in June.”

Trump issued a defiant response, telling the retailer to “eat the tariffs.”