Klarna, the buy now, pay later lender that’s headed for an initial public offering, said on Thursday that it’s signed on DoorDash as a partner, another sign of momentum for public market investors.

It’s DoorDash’s first BNPL alliance and gives users of the restaurant delivery service a new way to pay for meals. Klarna said in a press release that DoorDash customers will be able to pay in full at checkout, split payments into four equal interest-free installments, or defer to dates that align conveniently with payday schedules.

Klarna, which is headquartered in Sweden, filed its prospectus last week to list on the New York Stock Exchange. Revenue last year increased 24% to $2.8 billion, and adjusted operating profit was $181 million, swinging from a loss of $49 million a year earlier. CNBC reported on Monday that Klarna will be the exclusive provider of buy now, pay later loans for Walmart, taking a coveted partnership away from rival Affirm.

“Our partnership with DoorDash marks an important milestone in Klarna’s expansion into everyday spending categories,” said David Sykes, Klarna’s chief commercial officer, in Thursday’s release.

Klarna, founded in 2005, said in its prospectus that it has 675,000 merchant partners in 26 countries. It’s among the most hotly anticipated IPOs of the year following an extended stretch of historically little activity for new offerings.

A federal appeals court ruled that art created autonomously by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted, saying that at least initial human authorship is required for a copyright.

The ruling Tuesday upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office denying computer scientist Stephen Thaler a copyright for the painting “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”

The picture was created by Thaler’s AI platform, the “Creativity Machine.”

The “Copyright Office’s longstanding rule requiring a human author … does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said in its unanimous ruling.

“The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being — the person who created, operated, or use artificial intelligence — and not the machine itself,” the panel said.

The panel noted that the Copyright Office “has allowed the registration of works made by human authors who use artificial intelligence.”

Copyright grants intellectual property protection to original works, giving their owners exclusive rights to reproduce the works, sell the works, rent them and display them.

Tuesday’s ruling hinged on the fact that Thaler listed the “Creativity Machine” as the sole “author” of “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” when he submitted a registration application to the Copyright Office in 2018.

Thaler listed himself as the picture’s owner in the application.

Thaler told CNBC in an interview that the Creativity Machine created the painting “on its own” in 2012.

The machine “learned cumulatively, and I was the parent, and I was basically tutoring it,” Thaler said.

“It actually generated [the painting] on its own as it mediated,” said Thaler.

He said his AI machines are “sentients” and “self-determining.”

Thaler’s lawyer, Ryan Abbott, told CNBC in an interview said, “We do strongly disagree with the appeals court decision and plan to appeal it.”

Abbott said he would first ask the full judicial lineup of the Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case. If that appeal is unsuccessful, Abbott could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the issue.

The attorney said the case detailed “the first publicized rejection” by the Copyright Office “on the basis” of the claim that a work was created by AI.

That denial and the subsequent court rulings in the office’s favor, “creates a huge shadow on the creative community” he said, because “it’s not clear where the line is” delineating when a work created by or with the help of AI will be denied a copyright.

Despite the ruling, Abbott said he “was very pleased to see that the case has been successful in drawing public attention to these very important public policy issues.”

The Copyright Office first denied Thaler’s application in August 2019, saying, “We cannot register this work because it lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”

“According to your application this work was ’created autonomously by machine,” the office said at the time.

The office cited an 1884 ruling by the Supreme Court, which found that Congress had the right to extend copyright protection to a photograph, in that case one taken of the author Oscar Wilde.

The office later rejected two requests by Thaler for reconsideration of its decision.

After the second denial, in 2022, Thaler sued the office in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking to reverse the decision.

District Court Judge Beryl Howell in August 2023 ruled in favor of the Copyright Office, writing, “Defendants are correct that human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.”

“Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright,” Howell wrote.

Thaler then appealed Howell’s ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals panel wrote, “This case presents a question made salient by recent advances in artificial intelligence: Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976?”

“The use of artificial intelligence to produce original work is rapidly increasing across industries and creative fields,” the decision noted.

“Who — or what — the ‘author’ of such work is a question that implicates important property rights undergirding growth and creative innovation.”

The ruling noted that Thaler had argued that the Copyright Office’s human authorship requirement “is unconstitutional and unsupported by either statute or case law.”

Thaler also “claimed that judicial opinions ‘from the Gilded Age’ could not settle the question of whether computer generated works are copyrightable today,” the ruling noted.

But the appeals panel said that “authors are at the center of the Copyright Act,” and that “traditional tools of statutory interpretation show that within the meaning of the Copyright Act, ‘author’ refers only to human beings.”

The panel said that the Copyright Office “formally adopted the human authorship requirement in 1973.”

That was six years after the office noted in its annual report to Congress that, “as computer technology develops and becomes more sophisticated, difficult questions of authorship are emerging.”

Abbott, the attorney who represented Thaler in the appeal, told CNBC that the Copyright Act “never says” that “you need a human author at all for a work … or a named author.”

Abbott noted that corporations are granted copyrights, as are authors who are anonymous or pseudonymous.

Protecting a ‘beautiful picture’

The Copyright Office, in a statement to CNBC, said it “believes the court reached the correct result, affirming the Office’s registration decision and confirming that human authorship is required for copyright.”

Thaler said that he will continue to pursue his bid for a copyright for the painting.

“My personal goal is not to preserve the feeling of machines,” Thaler said. “It’s more to preserve, how should I say, orphaned intellectual property.”

“A machine creates a beautiful picture? There should be some protection for it,” Thaler said.

The Federal Trade Commission is going after an e-commerce company that allegedly took millions of dollars from consumers as part of a “passive income” scheme, which spun up Amazon storefronts on their behalf and promised “insane returns” that were higher than the stock market.

The FTC said Tuesday it filed a lawsuit against the company, called Click Profit; its co-founders Craig Emslie and Patrick McGeoghean; and two other business associates. It also asked a judge to bar the parties from doing business temporarily.

The case is the latest example of the FTC cracking down on e-commerce “automation” services. These companies launch and manage online storefronts on behalf of clients, who pay money for the services and the promise of earning tens of thousands of dollars in “passive income.” The companies often make extravagant claims about potential earnings and the use of artificial intelligence technology to guarantee profits. Despite their assurances, consumers frequently end up losing money.

Click Profit, which also operated under the names FBALaunch, Automation Industries and PortfolioLaunch, promised investors they would “build you a massively profitable e-commerce store from the ground up” by selling products on Amazon, Walmart and TikTok, according to the FTC.

The company charged consumers between $45,000 to $75,000 for the initial investment, plus an additional $10,000 or more to pay for inventory, the FTC alleged in its complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Click Profit took up to 35% of any profits from their customers’ stores, the complaint states.

The company claimed the business opportunity was “safe, secure and proven to generate wealth,” according to marketing materials referenced in the FTC’s complaint. They posted screenshots of purportedly successful Amazon storefronts, including one they claimed generated product sales of over $540,000 in one month.

Emslie often appeared in TikTok videos and other online ads to pitch prospective consumers. In one ad, he said that “the stock market, real estate or precious metals will never be able to offer you” the level of security offered through investing in Click Profit, according to the FTC’s complaint. Other TikTok videos show him appearing alongside an image of Warren Buffett while “fanning himself” with wads of cash, per the complaint.

Click Profit talked up its expertise by claiming it had product sourcing partnerships with legitimate brands, including Nike, Disney, Dell, Colgate and Marvel, the complaint alleges. It also claimed to have spent $5 million to build a “super computer” and other AI technologies to locate the “most profitable products,” claiming the super computer had generated “around $100 million in sales,” per the complaint.

The company even implied that investors’ online store could be bought out by venture capital firms connected with Click Profit “at a 3-6x multiple,” the FTC alleged.

“In reality, the highly touted AI technology and brand partnerships do not exist, and the promised earnings never materialize,” the FTC said in its complaint.

Amazon suspended or terminated about 95% of Click Profit’s stores after they violated Amazon’s seller policies, the FTC alleged. After accounting for Amazon’s fees, more than one-fifth of Click Profit’s stores on the platform earned no money at all, while another third earned less than $2,500 in gross lifetime sales, the FTC stated.

As a result, most consumers were unable to recoup their investments and “some are saddled with burdensome credit card debt and unsold products,” according to the FTC, which also said that Click Profit often refused to refund victims their investments and threatened them with legal action if they posted publicly about their experience.

One unnamed consumer mentioned in the lawsuit invested “his life’s savings” in Click Profit and was later terminated as a client “with nothing to show for his payments,” the complaint states. He posted a negative review online and was allegedly approached by Emslie’s attorney, who threatened to sue the consumer and “take everything he and his wife owned,” per the complaint.

The consumer took the reviews down, then asked Emslie whether he could receive a partial refund, according to the FTC.

“The attorney told the consumer that Emslie had responded, ‘F*** off,’” the FTC alleged.

Representatives for Emslie and Click Profit didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The FTC alleges Click Profit violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act and the Business Opportunity Rule. It seeks to permanently prohibit Click Profit from doing business, as well as monetary relief for the victims.