Apple is set to escalate its legal battle with Epic Games regarding the App Store back to the Supreme Court. In a recent document filed, the iPhone manufacturer announced its intention to request the U.S. Supreme Court to review another facet of this ongoing dispute concerning App Store commissions.

In the interim, Apple is aiming to suspend the appeals court’s decision that restricts its ability to charge for external transactions.

To recap, Apple has been entangled in a protracted legal struggle with Fortnite developer Epic Games after the latter incorporated external payment options in its application to circumvent Apple’s App Store fees in 2020. Apple largely prevailed in 2021 when the court ruled that the company was not a monopoly. Nevertheless, the judge mandated that Apple must permit developers to link to external payment methods.

The tech giant pursued an appeal of that ruling up to the Supreme Court, which chose not to take the case, thereby maintaining the Ninth Circuit Court’s initial ruling. Consequently, Apple began permitting external payments but instituted a 27% commission on transactions processed through developers’ payment systems — only a marginal reduction from Apple’s standard 30% fee. (Conversely, Google recently reached a settlement with Epic Games regarding a similar case, reducing its Play Store commissions to 20%.)

Epic Games contended that such a commission was inconsistent with the court’s directive; they, along with other developers, were also not realizing any savings since payment processing incurs its own fees.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California concurred with Epic, determining that Apple was in contempt. This ruling was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in December 2025. The appeals court commented that Apple’s 27% charge on external payments effectively nullified the purpose of permitting them, yet did not propose a new fee structure. That ruling will be revisited by a lower court for determination. (Apple sought a rehearing on this decision, but its request was rejected in March 2026.)

With no further recourse within the Ninth Circuit, Apple is gearing up to bring its case before the Supreme Court.

Should the Supreme Court agree to take on the case, Apple is poised to challenge the legal standards that led to its contempt ruling, and it will argue that courts should not have the authority to impose limitations on the fees it can charge for its services. The company has consistently maintained that the 27% fee is associated with additional services, including hosting, discovery, and its suite of software and developer tools. Fundamentally, it’s a fee that Apple asserts mirrors the worth of its App Store ecosystem.

However, as the Supreme Court previously declined to entertain Apple’s earlier appeal, which dealt with a different angle of the litigation, it is quite possible this appeal will also be dismissed. This matter is now poised to return to a lower court to determine what commission, if any, Apple can impose on purchases made outside the App Store.

Once this conflict is resolved, the court’s ruling could significantly influence Apple’s revenue from the App Store, especially as consumers increasingly rely on AI chatbots and agents for various tasks.

In a statement, an Epic Games spokesperson, Natalie Munoz, referred to Apple’s motion for a stay as “another delay tactic to obstruct the court from defining essential and permanent limits on Apple’s capacity to levy excessive fees on third-party payments.”

“Courts have repeatedly ruled this as illegal,” she noted. “Epic has heard this firsthand from many developers in our attempts to provide Web Shops and comparable services in competition with Apple. Due to Apple’s strategies, only a few courageous developers, including Spotify, Kindle, and Patreon, have dared to leverage this right and deliver advantages to consumers. We will continue to resist Apple’s efforts to weaken competition.”

Updated post-publication with Epic’s statement.

In recent years, individuals from North Korea have secured remote positions at numerous Western firms by masquerading as being from different locations, utilizing counterfeit resumes, and occasionally with aid from American associates.

This has been a significant issue for years, as North Korea faces tight sanctions imposed by the U.S. and European authorities due to the regime’s illicit nuclear weapons initiatives, which restrict companies from employing North Korean nationals.

Eventually, someone came up with a method to potentially uncover North Koreans during job interviews: asking the suspected impostor to criticize the nation’s leader Kim Jong Un, since denouncing him is illegal in North Korea and could lead to severe penalties. Although this tactic is widely recognized, examples of it effectively functioning in real scenarios are seldom encountered.

That’s precisely what transpired in this video that gained traction on X. The footage depicts a job interview via video call, where the interviewer requests the candidate to state, “Kim Jong Un is a fat ugly pig.”

Here is a video of a North Korean IT worker being stopped dead in their tracks upon being required to insult Kim Jong Un.

It won’t work forever, but right now it’s genuinely an effective filter. I’m yet to come across one who can say it. https://t.co/8FFVPxNm8X pic.twitter.com/KXI5efMo5L

— tanuki42 (@tanuki42_) April 6, 2026

The request seems to confuse the job candidate, who becomes noticeably uneasy, feigns a lack of understanding regarding the inquiry, and ultimately leaves the interview.

It is crucial to recognize that this method does not always yield results. Some North Korean phony IT professionals, especially those based in China or Russia, may not be subjected to the same level of oversight as the hackers operating within North Korea’s territory, rendering these tactics less effective in isolation.

A cyberattack from North Korea last Monday momentarily seized control of one of the most commonly utilized open source projects online, a process that unfolded over several weeks as part of a protracted effort to focus on the leading developers of the code.

The takeover of the Axios project on March 31 proved partially effective due to the well-funded hackers cultivating a relationship and trust with their target over an extended duration to enhance their chances of a successful infiltration. This type of breach underscores the security obstacles that creators of popular open source initiatives may encounter, especially as government hackers and cybercriminals alike are aiming at widely utilized projects for their capacity to access, in some cases, millions of devices globally.

Jason Saayman, the maintainer of the well-known Axios project that developers employ to link their applications to the internet, provided an analysis with a timeline of the breach. He revealed that the hackers initiated their targeting campaign approximately two weeks prior to ultimately taking control of his computer to disseminate malicious code.

By impersonating a legitimate company, establishing a convincing Slack workspace, and creating fake employee profiles to enhance trustworthiness, Saayman stated that the suspected North Korean hackers subsequently invited him to a web meeting that coerced him into downloading malware disguised as a necessary update to join the call. Saayman noted that the enticement mirrored a tactic often employed by North Korean hackers that misleads potential victims into permitting remote access to their systems, frequently for the purpose of stealing cryptocurrency. 

Saayman indicated that this attack mirrored previous hacks linked to North Korea by security experts at Google.

After breaching and acquiring remote control of Saayman’s machine, the hackers then deployed the malicious updates to the Axios project.

The two harmful Axios packages, removed roughly three hours after their initial release on March 31, may have still compromised thousands of systems during that interval, although the complete extent of the widespread hack remains unclear. Any computer that installed a harmful version of the software during this period may have enabled the hackers to extract private keys, credentials, and passwords from that machine, potentially leading to additional breaches.

Saayman did not quickly reply to an email inquiring about the incident.

North Korean hackers continue to be one of the most prevalent cyber threats online today, credited with the theft of at least $2 billion in cryptocurrency just in 2025.

The regime of Kim Jong Un remains under international sanctions and excluded from the global financial system due to violations related to its nuclear weapons development program, which the nation largely funds through cyberattacks and cryptocurrency theft.

It is believed that North Korea has thousands of well-organized hackers — most of whom are compelled to work against their will under the oppressive Kim regime. These hackers engage in weeks or months of intricate social engineering attacks aimed at building trust and, eventually, gaining access to steal cryptocurrency and data to extort their targets.

As governments contend with the economic repercussions of superintelligent technologies, OpenAI has put forth a series of policy suggestions detailing how wealth and employment could be transformed in what they call an “intelligence age.” These concepts merge traditionally progressive approaches like public wealth funds and enhanced social safety nets with a fundamentally capitalistic, market-oriented economic model. 

OpenAI’s suggestions essentially serve as a wishlist, a public pronouncement designed to help lawmakers, investors, and the general populace grasp how the $852 billion firm envisions changes in a realm where artificial intelligence revolutionizes jobs and the economy.

These proposals were unveiled in the context of growing unease surrounding AI, fueled by worries about job loss, wealth disparity, and the expansion of data centers nationwide. They have emerged concurrently with the Trump administration’s move towards a national AI strategy and as the midterm elections approach, indicating a bid for bipartisan support. This effort is complemented by a more direct political campaign: OpenAI president Greg Brockman — who has contributed millions to President Donald Trump — along with various tech billionaires, have channeled hundreds of millions into super PACs advocating for lenient AI regulations.  

OpenAI’s proposed strategy revolves around three main objectives: distributing the benefits of AI-driven prosperity more evenly, creating protections to diminish systemic risks, and guaranteeing broad access to AI technology to prevent the concentration of economic power and opportunity. 

OpenAI suggests adjusting the tax obligations from labor to capital. The organization refrains from stating a specific corporate tax rate — which Trump reduced from 35% to 21% during his initial term. Nonetheless, OpenAI cautions that growth spurred by AI could erode the tax revenue that supports Social Security, Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance as corporate profits soar and reliance on labor income declines. 

“As AI transforms labor and production, the nature of economic activity may change — boosting corporate profits and capital gains while likely decreasing dependence on labor income and payroll taxes,” OpenAI stated. 

The organization advocates for increased taxes on corporate earnings, AI-generated returns, or capital gains for the wealthiest — a category of policy that led Marc Andreessen to support Trump after Biden proposed taxing unrealized capital gains in 2024. OpenAI also entertains the idea of a robot tax, a concept suggested by Microsoft founder Bill Gates in 2017, which would require robots to contribute the same tax amount as the human workers they replace. 

The document also suggests establishing a Public Wealth Fund aimed at providing Americans with an automatic public stake in AI firms and AI infrastructure, even for those not investing in the market. Any returns would be allocated directly to citizens. This idea may resonate with Americans who have observed AI inflating the market while they themselves have not benefited from those gains.

Numerous proposals from OpenAI also focus on labor, including one advocating for a subsidized four-day workweek with no pay reduction — a proposal that corresponds with the tech sector’s promises that AI will enhance work-life balance for humans. OpenAI also recommends that companies increase retirement matching or contributions, take on a greater share of healthcare expenses, and subsidize childcare or eldercare. Importantly, OpenAI frames these as corporate obligations rather than governmental ones, neglecting to address the individuals AI is most likely to displace. If automation takes away your job, your employer-sponsored healthcare and retirement matching could vanish along with it.

Despite this, OpenAI does separately suggest the creation of portable benefit accounts that would follow workers from job to job, though these would likely still depend on employer or platform contributions and do not approach the government-provided universal coverage that could truly safeguard those displaced by AI.

OpenAI recognizes that the dangers of AI extend beyond job losses, including the potential misuse by governments or malicious entities and the risk of systems functioning outside human control. To address these risks, it proposes containment strategies for hazardous AI, new regulatory bodies, and targeted protections against high-risk applications such as cyberattacks and biological threats. 

However, along with the safety measures and safeguards come initiatives for growth, such as enhancing electricity infrastructure to meet AI’s energy requirements and expediting AI infrastructure expansions by providing subsidies, tax incentives, or equity investments. OpenAI advocates treating AI as a utility, suggesting that industry and government collaborate to maintain affordability and accessibility, rather than allowing it to be controlled by a select few companies. 

OpenAI’s framework is put forth six months after competitor Anthropic unveiled its policy outline, which detailed various potential responses to disruptions caused by AI. 

“We are embarking on a new chapter of economic and social organization that will fundamentally alter work, knowledge, and production,” OpenAI stated. This, according to the company, necessitates a “new industrial policy agenda that ensures superintelligence is advantageous for everyone.”

OpenAI was originally founded as a nonprofit with the goal of ensuring AI benefits all of humanity. It transitioned to a for-profit model last year, a change that has led some critics to question whether its professed mission aligns with the need to grow and meet its obligations to shareholders.

The company referenced past periods of economic turmoil such as the Industrial Age, highlighting how new economic and financial initiatives like the New Deal ensured that “growth resulted in broader opportunities and greater security” by “establishing new public institutions, safeguards, and expectations about what a fair economy should provide, including labor protections, safety standards, social safety nets, and enhanced access to education.”

“The shift to superintelligence will necessitate an even more ambitious kind of industrial policy, one that reflects the capability of democratic societies to act collectively, at scale, to shape their economic destiny so that superintelligence benefits everyone,” OpenAI expressed.

For Pre-Series A founders and anyone aware of a startup deserving of investment, consider this your reminder. The nomination period for Startup Battlefield 200 is now underway, and the top applicants are already emerging. If your startup received a nomination, keep pushing forward. Submit your application right away.

This is more than just another pitching occasion. You’re taking the spotlight in front of over 10,000 attendees, leading VCs, and the worldwide TechCrunch audience at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026. You’re in a competitive setting, receiving real-time feedback from leading VCs, and demonstrating that your company deserves recognition.

If you’ve been contemplating applying or nominating a startup, hesitating is the quickest way to lose out. Founders who act promptly gain a competitive advantage with additional preparation time, increased visibility, and a better chance to capture the attention of the TechCrunch editorial team. Make your nomination and finalize it by applying.

Which startups ought to apply?

We seek early-stage startups creating ambitious, innovative, and potentially game-changing products. We welcome applications globally from all sectors. Most selected firms will be pre-Series A, with some Series A companies considered individually. A functional minimum viable product (MVP) and a distinct product demonstration are mandatory. Above all, we support exceptional founders and visions that can make a real difference.

This is the same platform where companies such as Dropbox, Discord, Fitbit, Trello, and Mint left their initial imprint. Discover who else has succeeded through Battlefield 200.

Every year, thousands apply, 200 are chosen to participate, and 20 make it to the final round to pitch live on the Disrupt Stage. Only one champion is crowned. Learn more and apply here.

What benefits do selected startups receive

• Worldwide exposure through TechCrunch’s audience

• Complimentary exhibit table for the entire 3 days

• 4 all-access Disrupt passes

• Highlighted startup profile in the event application

• Access to the press list and opportunities for lead generation

• Exclusive founder masterclasses

• An opportunity to pitch live on the Disrupt Stage

• Immediate feedback from leading VCs

• A chance to win $100,000 in equity-free funding

Submit your application for Startup Battlefield 200 today

The application deadline is May 27, but the founders who succeed do not procrastinate. They act promptly and seize their opportunity before other competitors catch up.

If you are developing something that has the potential to establish a category, or if you know a founder who is, now is your time. Nominate your startup or one that merits a place in the spotlight. If nominated, ensure you submit your application. Don’t remain on the sidelines and let the opportunity pass you by.

Founders Fund has established its reputation by supporting what Peter Thiel refers to as “zero to one” companies — organizations that innovate significantly beyond existing concepts rather than merely enhancing them. Its investment portfolio features Facebook, SpaceX, and Palantir. Its most recent investment is in a startup from New Zealand that equips cows with solar-powered smart collars.

Halter, which secured a $220 million Series E round at a valuation of $2 billion last month, with Founders Fund at the helm, is not the type of firm that typically headlines tech news. There’s no advanced AI in play, nor any humanoid robots. However, there exists a substantial, largely unresolved issue: How can cattle be managed over some of the earth’s most isolated landscapes without the aid of dogs, horses, motorbikes, or helicopters?

Craig Piggott, the 30-year-old founder and CEO of Halter, has dedicated nine years to finding a solution. “For anyone managing a pasture-based farm, be it dairy or beef, the key factor is how you optimize the productivity of your land,” Piggott shared with TechCrunch in a recent chat. “Fences serve as the control mechanism — they dictate grazing areas for animals and manage land recovery. The concept of doing that virtually made complete sense.”

Halter’s system integrates a solar-powered collar, a low-frequency tower network, and a smartphone application enabling farmers to establish virtual fences, observe their livestock 24/7, and maneuver their herds without stepping outside the farmhouse. Cattle are conditioned to respond to sound and vibration cues from the collar — a training process that Piggott compares to how a car beeps while reversing toward a wall. He notes that most animals learn to navigate virtual fences after just three encounters. “Then you can lead them and redirect them using only sound and vibration.”

The collar offers more than herding capabilities. Because it is constantly monitoring and collecting behavioral data, it also assesses the health of the animals, tracks reproductive cycles, and alerts when specific animals might be unwell, a functionality that Piggott claims has vastly improved as Halter has built what is likely the world’s most extensive dataset on cattle behavior. The company is currently on its fifth generation of hardware, and its reproduction tool is in beta testing with customers in the U.S.

“The product ranchers use now is dramatically different from what they purchased a year ago,” Piggott remarked. “We are introducing new features to our clients every week.”

Piggott grew up on a dairy farm in New Zealand, went on to study engineering, and had a brief experience at Rocket Lab, the aerospace company that gave him his first insight into the technology startup landscape. “Rocket Lab was my landmark into the tech and startup world, along with venture capital,” he said. “The awareness that one could raise funds, assemble a team, and pursue an ambitious mission was motivating. I aspired to apply that to agriculture.” He founded Halter at age 21. “Perhaps a bit naive in hindsight,” he acknowledged, “but that was acceptable.”

After nine years, Halter’s collar is utilized on over a million cattle across 2,000+ farms within New Zealand, Australia, and the United States, where the company operates in 22 states. The financial case for farmers is clear: By providing ranchers with exact control over their herds’ grazing patterns, Halter can enhance land productivity by as much as 20% — not solely by reducing labor costs (though that occurs as well), but by maximizing the efficiency of grazing and minimizing leftover grass. “In some instances, we observe clients effectively doubling the productivity of their land,” Piggott stated. “The potential returns are very, very robust.”

Halter is not the only one recognizing this opportunity. The pharmaceutical behemoth Merck already has its own virtual fencing product for cattle, termed Vence, and newer competitors are emerging — recently, at Y Combinator’s latest “demo day,” a startup named Grazemate showcased a concept for utilizing autonomous drones to herd cattle (without the need for collars).

Piggott appears unfazed by either development. When asked about drones, he responds: “Can I envision drones playing a minor role in the future? Possibly. But I don’t believe a drone is suitable for the main function of virtual fencing. A collar will likely remain the ideal form factor for an extended period.” Regarding the broader competitive landscape, he maintains that the primary challenge isn’t rival technology. “The most significant competition is simply inertia,” he stated. “It’s sticking to what you did last year.”

What differentiates Halter, Piggott asserts, is the rigorous engineering challenge it has faced over nine years — a system managing a thousand animals must demonstrate high reliability, as even a 1% failure rate translates to ten animals potentially escaping at any moment. “Achieving those high levels of reliability takes time,” he expressed, “and that lengthy process is what we validated in New Zealand over many years before expanding internationally.”

Halter is also somewhat unique within the agri-tech industry, which has seen a downturn recently as startups struggled to convince farmers to adopt innovative products amidst escalating operational costs. Piggott attributes Halter’s growth to its unwavering focus on financial return. “From the very beginning, Halter has been constructed around delivering a solid financial ROI,” he stated. “If you can amplify land productivity by 20%, that positively impacts the whole business.”

Unlike most tech firms, Halter does not regard the United States as its primary market. “The U.S. market is crucial for us, but it’s not the biggest globally,” Piggott noted. “Agriculture exists worldwide, and we must reach those markets as well.” The company has now raised approximately $400 million in total and is focusing on expansion throughout the U.S., South America, and Europe.

However, the magnitude of the remaining opportunity is perhaps best illustrated by a single statistic — one that likely resonates with Founders Fund and Halter’s previous investors. Halter’s collar is attached to one million cattle, while there are one billion more globally. With less than 10% market penetration in its home market of New Zealand, “We have a long road ahead, and much more product to develop,” Piggott remarked.

You can listen to our discussion with Piggott in the latest episode of the StrictlyVC Download podcast, released on Tuesdays.

The uproar surrounding Delve seems to have resulted in the compliance startup severing ties with accelerator Y Combinator.

Delve is no longer found in YC’s portfolio company directory, and the Delve page appears to have been taken down from the YC site. Moreover, the startup’s COO Selin Kocalar announced on X that “YC and Delve have gone their separate ways.”

“I still recall the day we had our YC interview at MIT,” Kocalar expressed. “We are incredibly grateful to the community and every fellow founder we have met.”

YC is not the sole investor distancing itself from Delve. Insight Partners also seems to have removed mentions of its investment in the firm, although its main blog post was eventually restored.

At the same time, Delve is actively responding to anonymous allegations that it misled clients regarding compliance with privacy and security standards while purportedly neglecting critical requirements and generating reports for “certification mills that simply approve reports.”

These allegations first emerged in an anonymous Substack article attributed to “DeepDelver,” who identified as a former Delve client that became wary after receiving leaked information concerning the startup’s clients.

DeepDelver later published additional articles sharing what they claimed were Slack messages and video content from the company, as well as accusing Delve of misappropriating an open-source tool without giving due credit or obtaining permission from the original developer. A security researcher also claimed to have accessed sensitive Delve information.

Simultaneously, Delve found itself involved in a related dispute when malware was identified in an open-source project created by Delve customer LiteLLM.

In their latest blog entry, Delve’s COO Kocalar and CEO Karun Kaushik asserted their aim to clarify “the truth regarding anonymous accusations.” They stated that the firm has engaged a cybersecurity company “to help us comprehend what occurred,” and remarked that the “evidence indicates a malicious attack rather than a legitimate whistleblower.”

“It appears an attacker acquired Delve under false pretenses, maliciously extracted data, including Delve’s internal company information, and utilized it for a coordinated smear campaign against us,” they stated. The blog post also featured a screenshot they claimed “demonstrates the attacker extracting our audit tracking spreadsheet via file.io.”

Aside from this allegation, Delve characterized DeepDelver’s critiques as “a combination of false claims, selectively chosen screenshots, and information taken out of context.” For instance, they noted DeepDelver “dismisses our AI yet acknowledges that it automated 70% of a security questionnaire.”

Regarding the use of open-source tools, Delve explained that it “built upon an Apache 2.0 open-source repository, which explicitly allows commercial usage, and considerably modified it for compliance applications.”

Nonetheless, the executives also indicated they have been implementing measures to reassure customers “about our platform and compliance results.”

These measures reportedly include cleaning up the company’s network to eliminate auditing firms “that don’t align with our standards,” “offering complimentary re-audits and penetration tests to all active clients,” and clarifying that Delve’s templates for items such as board meeting notes “are intended to serve as initial guides only.”

In a post on X, Kaushik reiterated many of the same assertions but also remarked, “[W]e expanded too quickly and did not meet our own standards. To our customers, we sincerely apologize for any disturbances caused.”

TechCrunch has reached out to Y Combinator and DeepDelver for their responses to Delve’s statements.