Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, the breakout RPG from Sandfall Interactive, had its Game of the Year and Debut Game awards stripped hours after winning at the Indie Game Awards. The reversal comes after the studio confirmed it had used generative AI tools during production, a direct violation of the awards’ rules.
The Indie Game Awards require that no generative AI be used in nominated games. According to the awards’ official statement, Sandfall Interactive initially assured organizers that AI was not part of the development process. Once the studio confirmed AI usage on the day of the awards premiere, the nomination committee disqualified the game. Assets that relied on AI were patched out, but the violation remained.
With Expedition 33 disqualified, the awards were reallocated. Blue Prince was named Game of the Year, while Sorry We’re Closed won Debut Game. Acceptance speeches from both developers are expected to be released in early 2026, though they were not included in the recorded broadcast.
The controversy comes amid broader industry discussions about AI in game development. Larian CEO Swen Vincke recently highlighted that AI can help with tasks such as cleaning motion capture data and automatic retargeting. Developers across studios have acknowledged that AI tools, when used appropriately, can streamline production and reduce repetitive tasks, without replacing human creativity.
Clair Obscur’s COO François Meurisse previously told El País that AI was used sparingly, and emphasized that the team focused on creative decisions. Despite this, the awards body enforced its rules, underscoring the ongoing tension between innovation and traditional standards in the gaming industry.
For players and developers, the episode raises questions about how AI tools should be disclosed, the criteria for awards, and the broader implications for creativity in digital media. The debate also reveals how fragile public trust can be when industry rules clash with evolving technology.
Email inquiries to hello@laterstack.com
Related Laterstack Sensational Tech Stories
Pro-AI Super PACs Target Candidates and Push Federal Control Over AI
Stanford Graduates Face Job Market Shift as AI Replaces Entry-Level Roles
Microsoft’s Copilot Holiday Ad Shows Everything That Doesn’t Work
FTC Forces Instacart to Refund $60 Million Over Deceptive Subscription Practices
PornHub is facing extortion after the ShinyHunters gang gained access to historical Premium user data. The breach stems from a previous compromise at Mixpanel, the analytics provider PornHub used until 2021.
Mixpanel suffered a smishing attack on November 8, 2025, which allowed attackers to access systems. PornHub clarified that the exposed data comes from historical analytics records, not its own systems. Passwords, payment information, and other financial data were not affected.
ShinyHunters claims to have obtained 94 gigabytes of data containing more than 200 million records. The information includes email addresses, search history, video watch and download activity, video names, associated keywords, and timestamps.
A sample of the leaked data reviewed by BleepingComputer shows sensitive activity that users would expect to remain private. ShinyHunters confirmed that this is part of a larger trend in 2025, having also targeted Salesforce integration companies, Oracle E-Business Suite, and other analytics platforms.
The group is now creating a ransomware-as-a-service platform called ShinySpid3r. It will allow affiliates, including those connected to Scattered Spider, to conduct ransomware attacks.
For everyday users, this breach highlights how digital footprints can remain exposed years after the fact. Even historical analytics data can be weaponized by cybercriminals. Companies are custodians of this information, but breaches show that the responsibility to protect it extends beyond the moment data is collected.
Email inquiries to hello@laterstack.com
Related Laterstack Cybersecurity Stories
ICE Expands Cybersecurity Contract to Intensify Employee Surveillance
Airbus Moves Critical Workloads to European Sovereign Cloud Amid Security Concerns
Is Your Vibrator Spying on You? Understanding App-Connected Sex Toy Data
Apple and Google Roll Out Emergency Patches After Active Zero-Day Exploits
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is quietly renewing a cybersecurity contract that expands the agency’s ability to monitor employee activity. The move comes as the White House ramps up investigations into internal leaks, framing dissent as a potential threat.
Under the updated contract, ICE systems will record, preserve, and analyze employee activity across agency networks, creating a more comprehensive picture of internal operations. The expansion includes monitoring communications, system access, and potentially other workplace behaviors. While framed as a security measure, the contract raises questions about how federal agencies balance national security with employee privacy and whistleblower protections.
The agency’s push reflects a broader trend in government and corporate environments, where advanced surveillance technologies are increasingly deployed to track insiders. Critics worry that such monitoring could discourage employees from raising concerns about misconduct, creating a culture of fear rather than accountability.
ICE’s decision also highlights the intersection of cybersecurity and labor management, particularly in high-stakes environments where leaks or insider threats are treated as immediate national security risks. While contractors and technology vendors profit from expanded monitoring contracts, employees may face heightened scrutiny and reduced autonomy over their digital footprint.
For everyday people, this story is a reminder that surveillance technologies are not just abstract tools—they shape workplaces, influence corporate and government cultures, and define the boundaries of privacy in the modern era. As federal agencies like ICE adopt more sophisticated monitoring systems, understanding the implications of workplace surveillance becomes increasingly relevant for all employees, not just those in government.
Email inquiries to hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Cybersecurity Stories
Airbus Moves Critical Workloads to European Sovereign Cloud Amid Security Concerns
Is Your Vibrator Spying on You? Understanding App-Connected Sex Toy Data
Apple and Google Roll Out Emergency Patches After Active Zero-Day Exploits
Credit Check Company 700Credit Exposes Personal Data of Over 5 Million Americans
Ample, a startup that promised full EV battery swaps in about the time it takes to fill a tank of gas, has filed for bankruptcy, according to recent reports. Founded in 2014, the company set out to solve slow charging times and compatibility issues for commercial electric vehicle fleets, including logistics, ride-hailing, and delivery services.
Over five rounds of funding, Ample raised more than $330 million to develop fully autonomous modular battery swapping technology. The system relied on purpose-built “Ample stations” where vehicles are elevated on a platform while a robot removes and replaces the battery module in under five minutes. The company deployed or planned deployments in San Francisco, Madrid, and Tokyo and maintained partnerships with Uber, Mitsubishi, and Stellantis.
Despite the backing, the company struggled to scale. Its bankruptcy filing cites macroeconomic and industry headwinds, including supply chain disruptions, reduced investment in renewable energy, and delays or redirection of government incentives for EV adoption. Regulatory and permitting hurdles further slowed international expansion. As a result, Ample laid off nearly all of its workforce, leaving just two full-time employees.
Ample is not the first battery-swapping startup to fail. California-based Better Place collapsed in 2013 due to high infrastructure costs, and Tesla briefly experimented with the concept before abandoning it. Electrek notes that while startups have struggled with the business model, automakers like NIO have had some success in China, though even they missed scaling goals for 2025.
The challenge remains that battery-swapping infrastructure is capital-intensive and requires coordination with automakers, regulators, and fleet operators. Critics also point out that current fast-charging technology allows vehicles to charge from 10 to 80 percent in roughly 18 minutes, making the five-minute swap advantage less transformative for most drivers. Additionally, rapid vehicle turnover at swap stations would require significant throughput, and pricing would need to match or beat quick-charging costs to be viable.
For everyday people, Ample’s story underscores the difficulty of scaling ambitious clean energy startups, even with major funding and high-profile partnerships. It also highlights the tension between new technology and the existing infrastructure and policy landscape that governs electric vehicles. The lessons from Ample may shape future innovation in EV battery solutions, particularly around cost, regulation, and practical deployment.
Email inquiries to hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Startup Stories
Sequoia Partner’s False Brown Shooting Claims Put New Leadership to the Test
Resolve AI Hits $1 Billion Valuation as Investors Bet on Autonomous Software Maintenance
Cursor Buys Graphite as AI Coding Arms Race Accelerates
Known Is Betting Voice AI Can Fix Dating by Getting People Offline Again
A new network of political action committees is quietly reshaping the debate around artificial intelligence ahead of the 2026 midterms. The bipartisan pro-AI coalition, led by the super PAC Leading the Future, has raised over $100 million from major tech investors and executives, including OpenAI president Greg Brockman and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Their first move targets candidates who favor state-level AI regulations, signaling a push for federal preemption.
The PAC’s initial focus is New York State Assemblyman Alex Bores, who sponsored legislation requiring large AI companies to publish safety data. Leading the Future ran an attack ad claiming Bores would allow a “chaotic patchwork” of state rules that could harm innovation and cost jobs. The ad also links Bores to outside groups funded by the convicted crypto executive Sam Bankman-Fried. Bores responded that Silicon Valley billionaires are attempting to influence elections to avoid accountability while he stands up for public safety and transparency.
The effort mirrors strategies used by the cryptocurrency industry in prior election cycles, where PAC-backed campaigns successfully defeated candidates opposing rapid innovation in favor of consumer protections. Leading the Future aims to support like-minded candidates nationwide while discouraging elected officials from opposing the tech industry’s agenda. Meta is running a separate but complementary pro-AI PAC, emphasizing the bipartisan push to shape AI policy.
This political strategy highlights a growing tension in American governance. Federal preemption is favored by the tech industry and supported by the Trump administration, which has proposed executive action to prevent states from regulating AI independently. State-level regulations are seen as a potential obstacle to rapid AI deployment, which aligns with national security and economic competitiveness arguments. For Trump and tech allies, centralized federal rules simplify compliance, reduce uncertainty, and ensure U.S. companies maintain a competitive edge in global AI development.
Critics argue that this approach narrows the scope of policy debate. Leading the Future and similar PACs prioritize federal rules that limit state oversight, even as public concern over AI safety, labor displacement, and privacy grows. Pew Research Center surveys show that over half of Americans see AI as a high-risk technology, while Gallup reports 80% of U.S. adults believe government regulations are needed for safety and data security. By preempting state regulation, the industry risks marginalizing these concerns and centralizing decision-making power in Washington and Silicon Valley.
For everyday people, the implications are clear. Decisions about AI safety, privacy, and the local impact of data centers could increasingly bypass local representatives. Voters may find that the systems shaping their lives are influenced more by global corporations than by elected officials in their communities. Awareness of these forces is the first step toward engaging critically with technology policy and the political structures that govern it.
Email inquiries to hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
Stanford Graduates Face Job Market Shift as AI Replaces Entry-Level Roles
Microsoft’s Copilot Holiday Ad Shows Everything That Doesn’t Work
FTC Forces Instacart to Refund $60 Million Over Deceptive Subscription Practices
Google Sues Web Scraper for Stealing Search Results at ‘Astonishing Scale’
Airbus is preparing to migrate its most sensitive workloads to a European sovereign cloud, signaling a shift in how global corporations are approaching digital security and data sovereignty. The aerospace manufacturer intends to move key on-premises applications, including ERP systems, manufacturing execution systems, CRM platforms, and product lifecycle management tools, to a platform under European control.
“I need a sovereign cloud because part of the information is extremely sensitive from a national and European perspective,” said Catherine Jestin, Airbus executive vice president of digital. “We want to ensure this information remains under European control.”
The move is partly driven by software innovation. Vendors like SAP are now developing new features exclusively for cloud platforms, encouraging large organizations to migrate from legacy systems to modern cloud solutions. Airbus plans to launch a request for proposals in early January, with a decision expected before summer. The contract is expected to exceed €50 million and extend up to ten years, emphasizing long-term stability and price predictability.
Geopolitical pressures are a major factor. European companies are increasingly cautious about US cloud providers due to the CLOUD Act, which allows American authorities to access data stored abroad. Microsoft, AWS, and Google have developed solutions to address these concerns, but European organizations still fear potential exposure to extraterritorial regulations.
Jestin is waiting for clarification from European regulators on whether Airbus would truly be insulated from foreign laws and whether services could be interrupted in a crisis. Beyond US-related concerns, she also questions whether European cloud providers have sufficient scale to handle Airbus’s mission-critical workloads.
“This puts pressure on European providers to collaborate,” Jestin said. “Whether they can meet the requirements within our timeframe remains uncertain. Today, I would estimate an 80/20 chance of finding a solution.”
For everyday organizations, the Airbus case illustrates a larger trend: as digital operations become central to business strategy, sovereignty and security are increasingly critical. Companies must carefully evaluate where data is stored, how cloud providers operate, and what regulations apply, particularly when handling sensitive or mission-critical information.
For inquiries or story tips, email hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Cybersecurity Stories
Is Your Vibrator Spying on You? Understanding App-Connected Sex Toy Data
Apple and Google Roll Out Emergency Patches After Active Zero-Day Exploits
Credit Check Company 700Credit Exposes Personal Data of Over 5 Million Americans
Home Depot Exposed Internal Systems for a Year After Employee Leaked GitHub Token
Graduating from Stanford used to guarantee a career in tech. Today, many computer science graduates are discovering their degrees no longer provide the same opportunities. AI coding tools have advanced to the point where one experienced engineer paired with an AI agent can replace ten junior developers.
For students entering the workforce in 2025, the landscape is markedly different. Companies are hiring fewer entry-level engineers, prioritizing those with experience and the ability to work alongside AI. Recent graduates report difficulty securing jobs at top tech firms, prompting many to turn to master’s programs, less prestigious employers, or their own startups.
“Stanford computer science graduates are struggling to find entry-level positions at the biggest tech companies,” said Jan Liphardt, associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford. AI has increased productivity for seasoned engineers but reduced opportunities for newcomers.
The shift is not isolated to Stanford. Universities across California, including UC Berkeley and USC, report similar challenges. For many students, the reality is a split in the market: a small fraction of highly capable engineers still secure top roles, while others face a shrinking pool of opportunities.
Entry-level software jobs are particularly exposed. AI agents can code continuously, handle basic programming tasks faster, and make fewer errors. As a result, even graduates from prestigious institutions find themselves competing in a market where their traditional advantage has been eroded. Studies suggest that hiring for AI-exposed entry-level roles has dropped nearly 20% since 2022. Roles in customer service, accounting, and other fields are also affected, with 40% of tasks potentially automated.
While AI is still limited in consistency and often requires human oversight, the demand for junior developers is declining. Students are adapting by seeking additional skills, learning to manage AI tools, or extending their education with fifth-year master’s programs. Others are lowering their expectations and joining smaller companies or startups.
Some recent graduates who struggled for months eventually found positions where they now manage AI-assisted workflows, effectively performing the work of multiple developers. Universities are being challenged to rethink curricula to prepare students for a world where AI is a constant collaborator.
For everyday readers, this trend illustrates a broader cultural shift: traditional career pathways are being disrupted by automation, and skills that once guaranteed success may need continuous updating to remain relevant.
For questions, tips, or inquiries, email us at hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
Microsoft’s Copilot Holiday Ad Shows Everything That Doesn’t Work
FTC Forces Instacart to Refund $60 Million Over Deceptive Subscription Practices
Google Sues Web Scraper for Stealing Search Results at ‘Astonishing Scale’
The RAM Shortage Is Not Going Away and Your Next Phone or PC Will Cost More
Microsoft has released another Copilot ad, this time holiday-themed, featuring users asking the AI to assist with lighting, cooking, decorations, and more. The ad is festive and cinematic, showing smart lights pulsing to music and toy production “delays” blamed on elves drinking too much cocoa. But testing the prompts from the ad reveals a different story: most of the Copilot actions do not work as advertised.
In the spot, a homeowner asks Copilot to sync holiday lights to music using a website called Relecloud. On screen, lights pulse to a song. The issue is Relecloud is not a real company, but a fictional example Microsoft has used in past case studies. When tested in real applications like Philips Hue, Copilot can identify some buttons correctly but often hallucinates elements that do not exist and misguides users.
Other ad scenarios include scaling a recipe, following IKEA assembly instructions, and checking HOA rules for decorations. Copilot often gives incomplete calculations, mislabels steps or ingredients, and defers judgment to the user rather than providing actionable guidance. In some cases it claims to highlight buttons or text on screen when nothing is actually there.
Even when shown real apps, Copilot struggles to reliably complete tasks. Recipe scaling only partially works, assembly instructions are misread, and lighting automation frequently fails to perform as intended. The ad’s holiday cheer masks the reality that these AI features are far from ready for everyday tasks.
Microsoft insists all Copilot responses in the ad are real responses generated by the AI at the time, shortened for brevity. Still, the disconnect between ad depiction and actual functionality points to a broader pattern: the promise of seamless AI assistance often outpaces what is technically achievable.
For consumers, this serves as a reminder that technology marketing can exaggerate capabilities, and even widely used AI assistants may not deliver on advertised promises. Understanding these gaps helps set realistic expectations for home automation, AI tools, and digital assistants.
For questions, tips, or inquiries, email us at hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
FTC Forces Instacart to Refund $60 Million Over Deceptive Subscription Practices
Google Sues Web Scraper for Stealing Search Results at ‘Astonishing Scale’
The RAM Shortage Is Not Going Away and Your Next Phone or PC Will Cost More
Google and Apple Warn Visa Holding Employees to Avoid International Travel
Instacart has agreed to refund $60 million to settle claims by the Federal Trade Commission that it misled customers with deceptive advertising and automatically enrolled users in paid subscriptions. The grocery delivery service, which partners with over 1,800 retailers and serves millions of customers across North America, was accused of multiple tactics that increased costs for shoppers without their knowledge.
The FTC complaint alleges that Instacart advertised “free delivery” while charging mandatory service fees that could add up to 15 percent of the order. It also claimed that the company offered a “100% satisfaction guarantee” but often provided only small credits toward future purchases instead of full refunds. Customers attempting to access refunds through self-service menus were often led to believe that credits were their only option.
The complaint also raised concerns about Instacart+ free trials. Many users were automatically charged for memberships at the end of the trial period without clear disclosure. Hundreds of thousands of consumers were affected, paying for services they did not intend to subscribe to.
Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated that the agency is focused on ensuring online delivery services compete transparently on pricing and subscription terms. Under the settlement, Instacart must end all deceptive practices and clearly disclose subscription details. Consumers who were charged without consent will receive refunds.
Instacart remains under investigation for pricing practices after consumer advocacy groups noted that the platform charged different prices for identical products depending on the user. The company explained this as randomized A/B testing to gauge price sensitivity and denied using personal information to determine prices. Retail partners retain full control over individual product prices.
In a statement, Instacart said, “We provide straightforward marketing, transparent pricing and fees, clear terms, easy cancellation, and generous refund policies all in full compliance with the law. We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and remain focused on delivering value for our customers, shoppers, and retail partners.”
For everyday consumers, this case highlights how technology platforms can obscure costs and manipulate subscriptions, even for widely used services. Awareness of these practices can help people make more informed choices when navigating online marketplaces and subscription programs.
For tips, questions, or inquiries, email us at hello@laterstack.com.
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
Google Sues Web Scraper for Stealing Search Results at ‘Astonishing Scale’
The RAM Shortage Is Not Going Away and Your Next Phone or PC Will Cost More
Google and Apple Warn Visa Holding Employees to Avoid International Travel
New York Governor Kathy Hochul Signs RAISE Act to Regulate AI Safety
Google has filed a lawsuit against SerpApi, a company offering tools to scrape web content, including Google search results. The complaint alleges that SerpApi used automated methods to bypass protections, access copyrighted data at scale, and sell it to customers. Google says these actions violate federal copyright law and threaten the integrity of its search ecosystem.
This legal conflict is part of a wider pattern. Reddit also sued SerpApi and other data scrapers for taking content from its platform to feed AI tools. While Google’s complaint references Reddit’s case, it does not name any AI companies using the scraped data.
At the center of the dispute is SearchGuard, a technology Google introduced earlier in 2025 to block automated scraping. Google claims SerpApi quickly discovered ways to bypass the system, sending hundreds of millions of queries daily while masking them to appear as human-generated. Each circumvention, Google argues, constitutes a violation of federal law.
SearchGuard was designed to protect Google’s search results and the copyrighted content of its partners. After the tool went live in January 2025, Google alleges SerpApi immediately worked to evade it, continuing large-scale data extraction. Google frames this as a major breach of both technical safeguards and intellectual property rights.
The case highlights broader questions about the evolving digital economy. Tools for scraping, AI data collection, and automated analysis are increasingly central to technology, but they also raise legal and ethical concerns. The tension between innovation and copyright protection is becoming a defining issue for the tech industry.
For everyday users, the story shows that the technology we rely on is underpinned by complex legal and technical frameworks. What seems like a simple search or AI query involves layers of agreements, protections, and limitations that most people never see. Recognizing these layers can change how we understand digital services and the unseen mechanics behind them.
If you have tips, insights, or want to contact Laterstack, email us at hello@laterstack.com
Related Laterstack Tech Stories
New York Governor Kathy Hochul Signs RAISE Act to Regulate AI Safety
Sequoia Partner’s False Brown Shooting Claims Put New Leadership to the Test
Google and Apple Warn Visa Holding Employees to Avoid International Travel
The RAM Shortage Is Not Going Away and Your Next Phone or PC Will Cost More