Ex-European tech leader accuses Elon Musk of lying during AfD interview

A former EU leader in the technology sector alleges that the EU attempted to prevent the owner of Company X from meeting with the co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party, branding Elon Musk as “outrageous.” He accused, “You’re lying.”

Thierry Breton, who spearheaded the passing of ambitious legislation to regulate big tech and stepped down as European commissioner in September, claimed that the EU was striving to censor Musk’s scheduled meeting with Alice Weidel. He asserted that it was deceitful to suggest otherwise.


The US billionaire asserted on his social media platforms: “First, the EU tried to hinder my online conversation with President @realDonaldTrump. Now they are trying to block people from hearing my discussion with Alice Weidel, a potential future German chancellor. It appears that these individuals truly detest democracy.”

His tweet referred to a letter Breton sent to Musk prior to a similar discussion with Donald Trump in August. In the letter, Breton reminded Musk of his responsibilities under the Digital Services Act (DSA) not to enable the “amplification of harmful content.”

Following Musk’s announcement of his intention to interview Weidel, whose party holds a 19% approval rating and is anti-immigration, Breton issued a similar caution to Weidel via a social media post. “I reached out to him, but it appears to have been a stunt.” This led to accusations against Musk on Wednesday.

In an interview with the Guardian, Breton stated: “[Musk] is trying to portray the EU as stifling conversations. We are distorting information here.”

When asked if Musk could be lying, Breton responded: “No one attempted to prevent him from speaking to Trump, or to Germany.”

The Frenchman mentioned that he has always had a positive and constructive relationship with Musk in person.

X did not provide any comments. Musk recently criticized Breton as “annoying,” and in August referenced a quote from the satirical film Tropic Thunder, telling the then-commissioner to “take a big step back and literally defecate on himself.”

The dispute is the latest in a series instigated by Musk in recent weeks, including hostile remarks towards British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, provoking outrage across Europe.

Breton called on leaders to denounce the propagation of misinformation and hatred. “Leadership is crucial, especially in these times. Europe can only thrive with strong leadership.”

X is currently under investigation by the European Commission under the DSA, partly initiated by Breton. The company mentioned that it is “collaborating with the regulatory process” and is committed to creating a safe and inclusive platform for all users while safeguarding freedom of expression.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Insiders indicated that the verdict was expected in the fall of 2023, but X needed time to prepare a legal defense. Some anticipated that conclusions would be disclosed soon.

Breton declined to address the investigation but emphasized that the DSA is not intended to silence critics or curb the freedom of speech cherished by all European democracies. He reiterated that such a notion does not exist.

“Freedom of speech is of utmost importance in Europe, vital for democracy across all member states, and non-negotiable for the Court of Justice,” he affirmed.

However, he emphasized that it operates within a legal framework that also prohibits anti-Semitic remarks, racist hate speech, and terrorism apologists, which tech companies must be cautious of.

“These are forbidden by law in physical spaces, on streets, in media, and now in the digital realm,” he stated, pointing out that social media companies, unlike traditional media, wield immense power to disseminate content to audiences and must acknowledge the responsibility that comes with it.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Watchdog accuses Google of employing anti-competitive tactics in UK ad market

Britain’s competition watchdog has accused Google of anti-competitive behavior in the market for buying and selling advertising on websites, following similar investigations in the US and EU.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it had found that Google had “abused its dominant position” in online advertising, to the detriment of thousands of UK publishers and advertisers.

The CMA said that while the majority of publishers and advertisers use Google’s advertising technology services to bid for and sell advertising space, Google is preventing its rivals from offering a competitive alternative.

Regulators are focusing on Google’s role in three areas: owning two tools for buying ad space, running an advertising platform that allows publishers to manage their ad space online, and managing AdX, an ad exchange that brings together advertisers and publishers in a way that matches buyers and sellers in the stock market.

“The CMA is concerned that Google is actively using its dominance in this sector to favor its own services,” the watchdog said. “Google is putting competitors at a disadvantage and preventing them from competing on a level playing field to offer publishers and advertisers better, more competitive services that will help them grow their businesses.”

In its interim findings published on Friday, the CMA found that Google abused its dominant market position by using its own buying tools and inventory tools for publishers to bolster its own ad trading position and protect it from competition since 2015. The CMA also alleged that Google blocked rival ad inventory tools (called publisher ad servers) from effectively competing with its own product, DoubleClick for Publishers.

The CMA will consider Google’s response before making a final decision.

Regulators can impose fines of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover depending on the severity of the violations, and can also issue legally binding directions to end the violations.

In a statement, Google said the CMA’s arguments were “flawed”.

“Our ad tech tools help websites and apps fund their content and help businesses of all sizes effectively reach new customers,” said Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global advertising. “At the heart of this lawsuit is a misinterpretation of the ad tech sector. We disagree with the CMA’s position and will respond accordingly.”

The U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission are also investigating Google’s ad tech activities: In June 2023, EU regulators said Google may have to sell parts of its ad tech business to address concerns, while the U.S. Department of Justice is set to accuse Google in court on Monday of monopolizing the ad tech market.

Last month, a federal court ruled that Google was illegally monopolizing the internet search market, a decision that could lead to a partial breakup of the company’s business.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Class action lawsuit accuses CrowdStrike of defrauding investors | Technology sector

CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity company that caused a massive global computer outage in July, has been sued for misleading investors.

A class action lawsuit filed in Texas by the Plymouth County Retirement Association, a pension fund, alleges that CrowdStrike misled investors by representing its technology as “verified, tested and certified,” when in fact, the investors allege, CrowdStrike's software was anything but.

“Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) CrowdStrike implemented insufficient controls over its Falcon update procedures and did not adequately test Falcon updates before deploying them to customers; (2) this improper software testing created a significant risk that the Falcon updates would cause widespread outages for many of the company's customers; and (3) such outages could, and ultimately did, result in significant reputational damage and legal risk for CrowdStrike.” As a result, the lawsuit alleges, “CrowdStrike's stock price was traded artificially inflated until the widespread outages allowed its stock price to recover.”

“We believe this lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend the company,” a CrowdStrike spokesperson said.

Securities fraud lawsuits typically arise after an adverse event has occurred for a company. If the reasons for a decline in a stock price were not clearly disclosed to investors in advance, a defendant may be able to prevail by arguing that the lack of disclosure constituted a fraudulent sale of the relevant shares.

CrowdStrike also faces more general legal liability for the outage. Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Ed Bastian estimated on Wednesday that the outage would force the cancellation of more than 5,000 flights and ultimately cost the company $500 million (£391 million). He said airlines had “no choice” but to seek damages as a result.

“To get priority access to the Delta ecosystem on the technology side, we need to test how it works. We can't just walk into a mission-critical operation that runs 24/7 and say there's a bug,” Bastian added. “We have to protect our shareholders. We have to protect our customers and employees, not just from costs but from damage to our brand and reputation.”

The outage, which crashed roughly 1% of Windows PCs worldwide, was estimated to have cost the Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. alone $5 billion. Nevertheless, the company's most visible response, aside from its efforts to restore service, was to thank “teammates and partners” who helped resolve the outage by sending $10 UberEats gift cards, though Uber quickly blocked the gift cards due to fears of possible fraud.

Source: www.theguardian.com

EU accuses Meta of breaking digital law by charging for ad-free social network

According to the European Commission, Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, has breached the EU’s new digital law with its advertising strategy. This model involved charging users for access to ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram.

Last year, Meta introduced a “pay or consent” system to comply with EU data privacy regulations. Under this model, users could pay a monthly fee to use Facebook and Instagram without ads and with their personal data not utilized for advertising. Non-paying users agree to have their data used for personalized ads during the signing-up process.

The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, stated that this model does not align with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) created to regulate big tech companies. The Commission’s initial findings of the “Pay or Consent” investigation revealed that this model coerces users into consenting to data collection across various platforms. Additionally, users are not given the option to choose services that use less data but are similar to the ad-supported versions of Facebook and Instagram.

The Commission expressed that this alternative does not offer users a comparable less personalized version of the Meta network, forcing them to agree to data integration. To comply with the DMA, Meta would need to launch a version of Facebook or Instagram using less user data.

In response, a Meta spokesperson mentioned that the new model was designed to adhere to regulatory requirements such as the DMA. They highlighted that subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a common business model and were implemented to address various obligations.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

The European Commission is required to complete its investigation by the end of March next year. Meta may face fines of up to 10% of its global turnover, amounting to $13.5 billion (£10.5 billion). The Commission recently found Apple guilty of violating the DMA by impeding competition in its app store.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Apple accuses Spotify of seeking ‘unlimited’ access to its tools for free

Apple is hitting back at Spotify over an ongoing competition case filed in the EU, which could lead to significant fines if Apple is found guilty.

The federation has completed its investigation into allegations of anti-competitive behavior by Apple regarding the App Store rules for the music streaming service and is expected to levy a fine of €500m (£425m). Apple accused Spotify of seeking access to its tools without paying for them.


Spotify, based in Stockholm, lodged a complaint with the EU in 2019, alleging that the App Store rules restrict choice and competition by imposing a 30% fee on purchases, including music streaming subscriptions. Spotify argued that this fee gives Apple an unfair advantage over its own competing Apple Music streaming service.

Apple responded by stating that Spotify does not offer subscriptions through the App Store, hence does not pay any fees to Apple in the EU.

The European Commission, after a lengthy investigation, found no evidence of consumer harm or anti-competitive behavior by Apple in this market. Apple criticized EU regulators for the prolonged investigation.

Spotify, with over 50% market share in Europe, has access to various advertising channels outside of the App Store to inform users how to subscribe, including email marketing and social media.

Apple also stated that the investigation may further solidify Spotify’s dominant position in the market, rather than fostering competition.

When Spotify filed its complaint in 2019, founder Daniel Ek accused Apple of implementing rules in the App Store that suppress innovation and limit choices.

Source: www.theguardian.com