Google is scheduled to present its Made by Google event, broadcast on its Made by Google YouTube channel, at 10 a.m. PT on Wednesday. The tech giant is anticipated to unveil the new Pixel 10 series, and we’ll also likely see the Pixel Watch 4, new earbuds, and AI features. Notably, the event will be hosted by comedian Jimmy Fallon.

The livestream is embedded below. As usual, TechCrunch will provide updates as they happen.

The main attraction is expected to be the new Pixel 10 series, which will include the standard model, the Pixel 10 Pro, the Pixel 10 Pro XL, and the foldable Pixel 10 Pro Fold.

There are also rumors that Google will reveal the Pixel Watch 4, which could feature longer battery life and faster charging. New earbuds, such as a refreshed Pixel Buds 2a, might also be on the horizon.

Additionally, we may get more AI features for the Pixel 10 as Google ramps up its efforts to focus on its family of Gemini models.

A Florida judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against embattled HR and payroll provider Deel. And while Deel described this as a “Rippling-aligned” and “Rippling-supported” lawsuit, this is not the infamous lawsuit filed by its rival earlier this year that involved an alleged corporate spy.

Rippling CEO Parker Conrad even went so far as to write “This litigation has nothing to do with Rippling, we are not a party to it, did not fund it,” in a tweet. (Rippling representatives declined further comment.)

Still, this is some good news for Deel. In January, a lawsuit was filed in Florida by Melanie Damian, who accused Deel of helping Russian entities sidestep U.S. sanctions by processing payments for Surge Capital Ventures.

Surge had been subject to a separate U.S. SEC action alleging that the company was involved in a Ponzi scheme that defrauded church members out of $35 million. Damian, a court-appointed receiver for Surge, was tasked with recovering assets, Semafor reported at the time. She filed the lawsuit on behalf of investors, alleging that Deel was responsible for processing the payments. This is the case that was dismissed.

Deel is attempting to tie this case to the suit filed by Rippling, in part because Damian’s lawyers cited the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Rippling, which is suing Deel in California, is also alleging that Deel violated RICO, as well as the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and California state law, as TechCrunch previously reported. RICO is famously the statute that was originally used to prosecute mobsters.

Rippling’s lawsuit, however, involves a different set of allegations centered on a Rippling employee who testified in an Irish court that he had been acting as a paid corporate spy for Deel. 

Deel is clearly hoping that if one court dismisses a lawsuit alleging RICO violations, another court will follow suit. “The ruling invites further questions about the credibility of another baseless set of RICO accusations by Rippling in California,” a Deel spokesperson told TechCrunch in an emailed statement. 

But as these cases involve different actions and circumstances, we’ll all have to wait and see how the California court responds. Meanwhile, Deel is also suing Rippling, claiming that one of Rippling’s employees was unlawfully impersonating a customer.

On top of all of that, the person who confessed to being Deel’s alleged corporate spy, Keith O’Brien, successfully obtained a restraining order against people he said were following him and scaring his family. O’Brien is now Rippling’s star witness in its case against Deel. 

At first, lawyers for Deel denied involvement, but later admitted the company had hired “discreet surveillance” of O’Brien, according to court testimony seen by TechCrunch and first reported by the Irish Independent. 

“Alex and his father can deflect and delay but they will face the music when we get our day in court,” Conrad added in his tweet, referring to Rippling’s case that names Deel’s founder and CEO Alex Bouaziz and his father, who is chairman and CFO, Philippe Bouaziz.

“Deel will explore all its options for relief, defend itself vigorously against pending cases and continue to focus on winning in the marketplace,” a Deel spokesperson said in that statement.

We’re always looking to evolve, and by providing some insight into your perspective and feedback into TechCrunch and our coverage and events, you can help us! Fill out this survey to let us know how we’re doing and get the chance to win a prize in return!

The U.K has dropped its demand for special access to Apple’s cloud systems, or a “backdoor,” following negotiations with the Trump administration, according to U.S. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard. 

“As a result, the U.K. has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a ‘back door’ that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties,” Gabbard wrote in a post on X. She also claimed that she worked along President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the negotiations.

This is the latest (and unexpected) development in a months-long saga that saw the British government secretly demanding Apple to grant its authorities access — essentially asking for a backdoor — to the encrypted data of iCloud users, effectively anywhere in the world, particularly those who turn on Advanced Data Protection (or ADP), an opt-in security feature. ADP turns on end-to-end encryption for iCloud, meaning only the user can access their files stored on Apple’s cloud servers. 

The existence of the legal demand was first reported by The Washington Post in February, which was made under the U.K.’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the Snoopers’ Charter. The request sparked outrage and condemnation from privacy and security experts worldwide, who argued that if the U.K. government obtained what it wanted, it would weaken privacy for the whole world, and also open the door for more governments to make similar demands, even in other companies’ technologies. 

Apple initially responded by removing ADP from the U.K., meaning new users couldn’t turn it on. The company also said it would give guidance to existing users who “will eventually need to disable this security feature.”

In the meantime, Apple also reportedly challenged the backdoor mandate in court, a case that was initially secret but was then ruled to be held in public. 

Apple and the U.K. Home Office, which initiated the demand on behalf of the British government, did not respond to requests for comment. 

Olivia Colemanm, the press secretary of the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, referred to a February letter to Sen. Wyden and Rep. Biggs. 

Apple previously told TechCrunch that the company has “never built a backdoor or master key” to any of its products or services and it “never will.”