Arizona’s Android users should keep an eye out: they may receive a piece of a recent $700 million settlement over Google’s Play Store monopoly.
In addition to paying out millions to affected consumers, Google will initiate anticompetitive reforms concerning billing systems, app store monopolization, and third-party apps and stores.
Google agreed to reforms including the installation of third-party apps on phones outside of Google Play such as third-party app stores for at least seven years; allowing developers to offer alternative, cheaper in-app billing systems alongside Google Play’s billing system for at least five years; abstaining from requiring developers to price-match in-app purchases on Google Play versus alternative billing systems for at least five years; abstaining from requiring developers to launch their apps at the same time with the same or better features on Google Play as on other app stores for at least four years; abstaining from requiring the Play Store to be the pre-loaded app store on a device for at least five years; abstaining from requiring manufacturers to obtain its consent prior to preloading a third-party app store on a mobile device for at least five years; and maintaining functionality of a third-party app store for at least four years.
Those eligible for the restitution, totaling $630 million, are consumers who made purchases between August 2016 and September 2023. All 50 states, including Arizona, and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands will receive $70 million for their claims.
Eligible consumers don’t have to submit a claim. They will receive automatic payments through PayPal, Venmo, or with permission a check.
Attorneys general from California, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah led the lawsuit against Google: Utah v. Google. Utah initiated the lawsuit in 2021 with a coalition of 37 attorneys general, including former Attorney General Mark Brnovich, following several years of investigations into Google beginning in 2019.
The attorneys general accused the tech giant of monopolizing app store availability and, therefore, limiting choice and driving up app prices. The states accused Google of engaging in exclusionary conduct: shutting out competing app distribution channels and requiring consumers to pay inflated prices for in-app purchases, namely by requiring apps to run in-app payments through their payment processing services.
Investigatory efforts accused Google of originally launching and marketing Android OS as an “open source” platform. The model attracted original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) such as Samsung and mobile network operators (MNOs) such as Verizon.
After successfully attracting the desired OEMs and MNOs, Google closed the Android OS system and its app distribution market by requiring the OEMs and MNOs to enter restrictive, anticompetitive contracts.
Announcement of the $700 million settlement came just weeks before another, potentially greater settlement that Google entered into as part of a $5 billion lawsuit over the tech giant’s practice of tracking users’ internet activity while in “incognito” mode.
A formal agreement for court approval is expected by late February in that case.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The state of Arizona is among the top ten in the nation for having the most credit cards.
According to a new study by WalletHub, Arizonans rank ninth among all states concerning credit card ownership.
The average Arizonan has an average of five credit cards. The average American has around four open credit cards, per their data.
There was an average of between one and two credit cards opened by Arizonans in the third quarter of 2023, with the average number of credit cards owned ballooning to between five and six that quarter.
Compared to last year, that marked a six to seven percent decrease in the average number of new credit cards opened. However, there was an overall increase of nearly seven percent in the number of average credit cards owned by Arizonans in the same time frame.
Outranking Arizona, in order for most to least, were: Alaska, New Jersey, Nevada, Wyoming, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and California.
The combined high ranking and increase in credit card ownership in the state may be another symptom of the poor health of the economy.
Last November, Arizona was among the states facing the highest inflation rates in the nation. According to the latest Consumer Price Index data, prices have gone down by less than half a percent over the past month, but up by over three percent compared to one year ago.
Over the last quarter of 2023, Arizona’s cost of living ranked 36th in affordability. RentCafe data reflects Arizona’s cost of living to be around six percent higher than the national average: 20 percent higher in housing, two percent lower in utilities, two percent higher in food, four percent lower in health care, even in transportation, and one percent higher in goods and services.
Earlier this month, CBS News reported that Arizonans would have to spend over $13,000 more annually to maintain the same basic cost-of-living standards from last year. That’s over 16 percent higher than the national estimation: over $11,000.
In September, the National Low Income Housing Coalition reflected in its annual report that the average Arizonan would need to make nearly $30 an hour to afford a two-bedroom rental home. That translates to 86 hours at the $13.85 minimum wage, or 71 hours for a one-bedroom rental home.
Yet, Arizona was ranked among the top 20 in the nation for business.
Coupled with these facts, credit card debt ballooned to a record high of nearly $1.1 trillion in the third quarter of this year, part of a record high of over $17 trillion of overall household debt. Per a previous study by WalletHub over the summer, Arizona ranked 10th for credit card debt.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Minimum wage in Arizona will rise to over $14 an hour in the new year, a 50-cent increase from the previous amount of over $13.
At $14.35, that will make Arizona the state with the ninth-highest minimum wage in the country. Only eight Democratic-led states — California, Washington, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Colorado — outrank Arizona in their minimum wages offered.
Arizona was one of 22 states to receive a minimum wage increase.
The state’s minimum wage adjustment originated with Proposition 206 — referred to as the Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act — passed by voters in 2016 under former Gov. Doug Ducey. At the time of the act’s passage, the minimum wage was about $8 an hour. The act initiated an incremental increase in the minimum wage from $8 in 2016 to $12 an hour in 2020, with all subsequent annual changes based on cost of living increases.
The act exempts individuals employed by parents or siblings, babysitters, state or federal government employees, and small businesses that gross less than $500,000 annually and don’t have to pay a minimum wage per federal law.
Since 2006, municipalities have been allowed to set a local minimum wage higher than the state.
Flagstaff and Tucson both have their own minimum wage ordinances; Flagstaff requires its wage to be at least $2 higher than the state, while Tucson currently has an incremental increase to reach $15 by 2025.
2024 marks the first year Flagstaff will adjust its minimum wage based on cost of living. Tucson will adopt the same schedule after 2025.
According to those parameters, Flagstaff’s minimum wage will rise to $17.40 come January. Tucson was set to reach a $14.25 minimum wage this year according to its schedule, but according to the law will match the state raise to $14.35.
In recent years, Flagstaff has battled with the state in court over its minimum wage schedule. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in February that the city would have to pay the state over $1.1 million for its minimum wage ordinance, per a 2019 law requiring annual assessments of municipalities with a minimum wage exceeding that imposed by the state. These assessments review estimated state agencies’ costs attributable to the higher minimum wage.
The federal minimum wage remains at $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009. Democrats in the House and Senate are looking to change that with proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $17 by 2028.
According to an Economic Policy Institute analysis, the raise would result in an estimated $86 billion annually in wages for over 27.8 million workers, averaging out to about $3,000 more per worker annually. Those millions affected make up about 19 percent of the national workforce.
In Arizona, the proposed federal minimum wage raise would impact roughly 629,000 workers with an average annual increase of over $900.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a review of similar legislation which proposed a minimum wage increase of $15 an hour by 2027. CBO estimated that earnings would raise for some, but overall there would be a decrease in employment.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Another one of Arizona’s 14 career and technical education (CTE) districts can’t prove it effectively prepared students for high-need technical occupations despite spending over $1.4 million.
A report issued last week by the Arizona auditor general revealed that the Cobre Valley Institute of Technology (CVIT) didn’t collect, validate, and use complete data to assess whether students were successfully prepared to enter high-need occupations or earned industry certifications through its programs.
“Without collecting, validating, and using complete and reliable key outcome data about jobs obtained and certifications earned by its students, the District could not demonstrate to students, parents, the public, and State policymakers that its programs were effective in achieving the statutory purpose of preparing students for entry into high-need occupations,” reported the audit.
CVIT reported that it didn’t factor student employment and industry certification data because it didn’t have a reason to distrust self-reported data from its students and member districts. The auditor general rejected the permissiveness as prone to corrupting the data quality with errors and misreporting.
High-need occupations are those defined by the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity and the Arizona Department of Education as high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand occupations. These careers normally don’t require a higher education or advanced degree, and may require certification or licensure.
CVIT paid over $176,000 to partner with Eastern Arizona College: $130,000 in tuition and other fees for its students to attend the program and $46,000 for classroom supplies and equipment purchases. It also paid over $575,000 in satellite funding to its member districts and about $120,000 on grants passed to member districts and equipment purchases.
Administrative costs were the second-biggest portion of the $1.4 million collectively, totaling about $529,000. CVIT spent about $356,000 on salaries and benefits for its superintendent and business manager, administrative supplies and equipment, audit services, and advertising, as well as nearly $173,000 on support services for the salaries and benefits of staff performing program director duties, attendance software and services, insurance costs, school safety supplies and equipment, and cell phone services.
According to the auditor general, CVIT didn’t have consistent processes in place to collect student job placement data, though it surveyed students who completed a CTE program to determine if they were employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or enlisted in the military, and were using skills and knowledge acquired in their CTE programs.
Additionally, CVIT only validated certification data for students who attended central campus programs, not member districts.
The auditor general recommended CVIT develop and implement consistent data collection protocols for all CTE programs: collecting and validating complete data such as student certifications earned and post-graduate jobs obtained. CVIT issued a response agreeing with the auditor general’s finding and recommendations.
CVIT wasn’t the only CTE district to fail to prove its funding adequately prepared students for high-need occupations. The auditor general reported in September that the Northern Arizona Vocational Institute of Technology also didn’t.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) extended its application deadline for a sex ed curriculum committee serving grades 6-9 to about mid-January.
The district disclosed that it had received enough applicants to form the Sex Ed/Human Growth and Development (HGD) committee, but that not all of the desired learning communities were represented in the applicant pool.
SUSD divides its schools into five learning communities that comprise a school feeder pattern: Arcadia Learning Community, which includes Arcadia High School, Echo Canyon K-8, Ingleside Middle School, and the Hopi and Tavan elementary schools; Chaparral Learning Community, which includes Chaparral High School, Cocopah Middle School, Copper Ridge K-8, and the Cherokee, Cochise, and Sequoya elementary schools; Coronado Learning Community, which includes Coronado High School, Tonalea Middle School, and the Hohokam, Pima, and Yavapai elementary schools; Desert Mountain Learning Community, which includes Desert Mountain High School, Desert Canyon Middle School, Mountainside Middle School, Cheyenne K-8, and the Anasazi, Desert Canyon, Laguna, and Redfield elementary schools; and Saguaro Learning Community, which includes Saguaro High School, Mohave Middle School, and the Kiva, Navajo, and Pueblo elementary schools.
The committee will be tasked with learning Arizona laws establishing processes and guidelines for HGD/sex education materials; discussing and identifying criteria for evaluating resources beyond statutory criteria; reviewing, evaluating, and discussing vendor-submitted resources; reviewing teacher and parental feedback; and recommending resources to the SUSD Governing Board for formal approval and adoption.
Arizona law requires parental permission for any sexual education lessons in grades 6-12. Sexual education is prohibited before the fifth grade.
Even prior to seeking out parental permission, school districts and charter schools must make all sex ed curricula available for review online and in person, and notify parents where these materials may be reviewed at least two weeks prior to offering the instruction.
Development of the curriculum also requires public notification, review, and input for at least 60 days before the governing board votes on the curriculum.
SUSD sex ed curriculum committee application deadline extended – APPLY HERE: ⬇️https://t.co/RTnZsJpYak
NOTE: Even if you are not selected as a committee member, all curriculum review meetings will be open to the public and we encourage you to attend. pic.twitter.com/bOMxtvhou5
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) December 26, 2023
Committee members serve as unpaid volunteers, though eligible certified employees could receive horizontal move hours for committee meetings that occur after the school day. Members are scheduled to meet twice in January, and once in February, March, and April, though SUSD noted that there will be the possibility that more meetings could occur to accomplish their work.
The original application deadline was scheduled for earlier this month, in mid-December, with an announcement of the committee members promised for Dec. 22. The new deadline is end of day Friday, Jan. 12, 2024.
The first meeting date is scheduled less than a week after the new deadline.
At least half of the committee members will be SUSD-certified teachers who possess content knowledge of sex ed/HGD curriculum.
Those deciding on committee membership are three individuals from the SUSD Cabinet, Ed Services Department, and/or the Teaching and Learning Department.
Parent and community member applicants are asked to provide experience and/or expertise relative to sex education, such as any training, prior employment, health care background, and education levels; examples of membership on past teams that were successful; and the main reason for interest in serving on the committee.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
