Tag Archives: antitrust

Zuckerberg’s 2006 Quote Central to Meta’s Antitrust Case

Posted on by
Reply

In September 2006, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg articulated the distinctiveness of his platform.

“Facebook is about genuine connections with actual friends,” he stated Company Posts.

Now, two decades later, this statement lies at the core of Zuckerberg’s pivotal antitrust trial against the social media giant, now called Meta, which is accused of unlawfully stifling competition. The trial essentially questions whether social networking is solely about personal relationships or something broader.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is prosecuting the case, aims to specifically characterize social networking as a service that connects friends and family. By this definition, Meta’s primary competition is with Snap, the creator of Snapchat, based on user reach. However, Meta argues that it competes with all social media platforms, including TikTok and YouTube.

“The aspect of my friends has significantly diminished,” Zuckerberg testified during the trial last month, contradicting his earlier sentiments from 2006.

The contrasting definition of social media in the case—Federal Trade Commission vs. Metaplatforms—highlights the evolution and complexity of social networking over the years. Meta has broadened its origins to become a platform for college students, with numerous other companies now creating similar products that mimic features such as the “Like” button and news feed.

In the trial’s initial four weeks, numerous executives from companies like Reddit, Pinterest, and LinkedIn appeared, yet they did little to clarify what constitutes social networking. They acknowledged competing for the same user base, albeit with different offerings.

Determining Meta’s role in this landscape will be pivotal for Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is overseeing the case.

“It’s not a walk in the park,” Judge Boasberg remarked in his opinion late last year.

The trial will assess whether Meta’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 and its $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp in 2014 constituted illegal competition. The judge’s ruling could significantly influence tech markets as the industry faces ongoing bipartisan efforts to limit Silicon Valley’s influence on speech, entertainment, commerce, and computing.

Should he side with the government, which aims to dismantle Meta, it could hinder the inclination of major tech companies to acquire smaller competitors. This would disrupt the startup economy, as many founders depend on larger firms to provide liquidity for investors.

“The world we inhabit is becoming increasingly intricate, making this case significant. If the FTC prevails, we could see more vigorous antitrust enforcement,” stated Daniel Rubinfeld, a former Deputy Attorney General who was involved in the government’s antitrust action against Microsoft over two decades ago.

Under most antitrust regulations, competitive markets tend to be clearly defined, according to legal experts. Prices are typically the basis for evaluating a company’s competitive power and effects, including mergers or anti-competitive actions that raise the prices of products like airline tickets and appliances.

However, since internet companies like Meta provide services at no cost to users, this case represents a novel legal challenge.

In his opening statement, Daniel Matheson, the lead attorney for the government, accused Meta of possessing a “monopoly in U.S. personal social networking services.”

Matheson argued that Meta’s extensive network, which facilitates connections among users, was central to the company’s growth and attracted advertisers eager to reach closely connected audiences.

Meta countered by asserting that it primarily competes for user attention with platforms like YouTube and TikTok that focus on short-format videos. Mark Hansen, Meta’s chief litigator, mentioned that the company shifted into “crisis” mode following TikTok’s U.S. launch in 2018.

On Thursday, one of Meta’s attorneys queried Instagram director Adam Mosseri about the app’s resemblance to Facebook and TikTok.

“I see Instagram as being situated between the two; it aligns more closely with TikTok,” he replied. Instagram began as a platform for connecting friends but has evolved into a resource for entertainment.

Despite the influx of executives from other social media platforms, there has been little clarity regarding the market structure of the industry.

“YouTube and Instagram are the primary competitors of TikTok,” according to a 2021 internal TikTok document released by Meta’s legal team.

When queried about competition, TikTok’s business chief Adam Presser downplayed the notion, insisting that the app operates differently: “We don’t perceive it as a social app.”

YouTube, meanwhile, primarily serves entertainment needs, and it’s uncommon for users to share content or follow acquaintances on the platform, noted Aaron Filner, the company’s senior director.

As for social media platform X, Keith Coleman, vice president of product, remarked, “Many people now view it as a space to connect with friends and family, rather than just a news source.”

Experts indicated that it is normal for market definitions to be contested.

In 1997, the FTC successfully blocked the merger between Staples and Office Depot by highlighting their concentration in the office supply market, despite their claims of competition with big-box retailers like Walmart.

The following year, the government accused Microsoft of reducing competition by bundling internet browsers with their widely used Windows operating system, convincing judges to draw a narrow market definition around personal computers running on Intel chips, excluding Apple computers and handheld devices.

The FTC’s case against Meta adopts a conventional approach by narrowly defining the market; however, it also recognizes that digital realities alter the dynamics of competition, focusing on attention and user engagement. This insight comes from an FTC official involved in the agency’s lawsuit against Meta.

Judge Boasberg has kept his views largely private yet has pointed out that various social media applications share numerous characteristics, questioning whether their usage differs “only in degree.”

He mentioned that texting has largely replaced voice calls and that younger users frequently switch between different platforms and technologies.

“Are these norms in a constant state of flux?” Judge Boasberg, who does not engage with social media, queried expert witnesses.

Source: www.nytimes.com

How Google’s Antitrust Case Reshapes the AI Competition

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge made a significant ruling last year, declaring Google as a dominant player in the internet search industry. However, during a recent hearing aimed at addressing this issue, the focus shifted towards the rapidly evolving technology of artificial intelligence.

In a U.S. District Court session in Washington last week, a Justice Department attorney contended that Google’s search monopoly could hinder transparency within the company regarding the development of its AI chatbot, Gemini. Rivals in the AI sector also noted that Google’s influence poses a challenge to their success.

On Wednesday, the first critical question was directed at Google CEO Sundar Pichai. AI topics emerged more than 20 times during a 90-minute testimony after he took the stand.

“I consider it one of the most dynamic moments in the industry,” Pichai remarked. “I’ve observed user home screens featuring seven to nine chatbot applications that they’re experimenting with and refining.”

The antitrust lawsuits of the past have essentially morphed into a debate about the future, with both the government and Google suggesting modifications to the tech giant’s business practices that could alter the trajectory of AI development.

For over two decades, Google’s search engine has dominated the online information landscape. Now, federal courts are assessing whether the Silicon Valley behemoths will lead the next phase of how users access information as consumers increasingly turn to new chatbot technologies for answers and solutions.

During the proceedings, government attorneys asserted that Google’s monopolistic search strategies could facilitate the widespread adoption of its Gemini Chatbot. They argue that the burgeoning AI sector should not allow consumers to be deprived of diverse product alternatives.

Google countered by stating that OpenAI’s rapid ascent (the AI startup powering Apple’s products) showcases the existing competition, asserting that intervention from the courts is unnecessary.

Judge Amit P. Mehta, who is overseeing the search-related cases, may reshape this fierce competition and influence technology policy through these AI discussions. Google is already a leading AI entity, with Gemini attracting over 350 million active users monthly. Any measures to curb this endeavor or support competitors will greatly impact the race.

The government has requested the court to mandate Google to divest its Chrome browser and share data with competitors, which includes search results and advertisements, along with other actions.

These government initiatives are inherently forward-looking, aiming to dismantle long-standing monopolistic practices and open the market to new challengers. As John Newman, deputy director of the Competition Bureau during the Biden administration, stated, “You don’t want to spend five years on a case that leads to no substantial action and consumes resources across multiple agencies.”

A spokesperson for Google highlighted John Schmidtlein, the company’s lead counsel, who claimed that the artificial intelligence market is “extremely competitive.” The Department of Justice has opted not to provide comments.

This year’s hearings follow a 2024 ruling that found Google illicitly maintained its monopoly by compensating companies like Apple, Mozilla, and Samsung, ensuring its search engine’s automatic prominence on web browsers and smartphones.

From the start of the hearings, the focus has remained firmly on artificial intelligence.

Professor Gregory Dullett, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Texas, was the first witness, providing Judge Mehta with an overview of AI technologies and their integration into Google’s products.

The government presented documentation indicating that last year, Google contemplated a deal with wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers for premium placement of Gemini Prime alongside its search engine, reminiscent of a previous arrangement for prominent search engine positioning.

After the judge’s ruling last year regarding search practices, Google opted not to pursue the Gemini initiative with wireless carriers and phone manufacturers. Ultimately, separate agreements were reached with Samsung to feature Gemini on their devices, as documented.

Google executives testified that their partnership with Samsung allowed smartphone makers to collaborate with other AI services. Pichai noted that the company is focused on forming partnerships in alignment with its relief proposals, emphasizing that smartphone manufacturers should have greater autonomy in determining which Google applications to utilize.

Executives from competing AI firms, including OpenAI, shared that proposed changes to Google’s business practices would help facilitate product development and consumer access.

Nicholas Turley, head of product for OpenAI’s ChatGPT, revealed that his company developed a prototype search tool called SearchGPT in July, requesting Google to participate in a transaction for data access. However, an email from OpenAI’s team indicated that Google rejected the request due to its “complexity.”

“Given the competitive nature of our products, we recognized that Google might not be inclined to offer favorable terms,” Turley remarked, adding that if Judge Mehta compels Google to provide greater data access to OpenAI, their company could “develop better products more swiftly.”

OpenAI has also expressed interest in acquiring Google’s Chrome browser if it becomes available for sale, Turley noted.

(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft regarding copyright infringement related to news content and AI systems, both parties have denied these allegations.)

Dmitry Shevelenko, chief business officer of AI search startup Confusion, testified that his organization sought a deal with a telecom company to source a chatbot, which was already in an arrangement with Google.

He stated, “They really appreciate our assistant and believe it enhances user experience, but we can’t modify the default assistant on our devices due to our obligations to Google.”

Google’s legal team countered that the company has not imposed overly restrictive agreements on smartphone manufacturers concerning Gemini. They reiterated that many AI firms are flourishing, citing data showing that ChatGPT surpasses all other chatbots in usage.

“I believe ChatGPT is performing well without any interventions required in this case,” Schmidtlein stated in his opening remarks. “These companies are thriving independently of the plaintiff’s proposed solutions.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Could U.S. Antitrust Laws Curb Silicon Valley? | Meta

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Apple faced a fine from the European Union, and Meta was also penalized for hundreds of millions in dollars.

As reported by my colleague Jennifer Rankin:

The European Commission imposed a fine of 500 million euros (£429 million) on Apple, alongside a 2 million euro penalty for Meta, for violating fair competition and user choice regulations. This marks the first enforcement action under the EU’s groundbreaking internet laws.

The EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) is designed to promote equitable business practices among tech giants, potentially setting the stage for further conflict with Donald Trump’s administration, which has heavily criticized European internet regulations.

The Trump administration quickly condemned the fines: a spokesperson from the National Security Council labeled the EU’s decision as “a novel form of economic terror that the United States will not accept.”

Although these fines are significant, their repercussions may be overshadowed by the intense scrutiny tech companies are under in the U.S. While the EU enforces stronger consumer protection laws in technology, legal actions against these firms could jeopardize the existing corporate structures that integrate products and generate substantial profits.

Before Trump’s potential re-election, I would have expected his administration to introduce tech regulations that could enhance Silicon Valley’s dominance alongside Europe. However, the current regulatory environment reveals a different reality: the U.S. Department of Justice is actively investigating nearly all major tech firms for alleged monopolistic practices. Lawsuits against Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Google have been filed over the past two years, with Meta’s trial commencing recently, jeopardizing its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Most critically, Google is facing the repercussions of losing two antitrust cases consecutively. The U.S. has petitioned the court to compel the tech giant to divest Chrome, a leading web browser.

With major tech operations based in the U.S., the government wields substantial influence. Unlike EU penalties, U.S. antitrust cases threaten the very foundations of these companies. High-performing firms have weathered heftier fines in the past, akin to when the FTC penalized Facebook $5 billion for privacy infringements, yet the platform continued operations as usual. Similarly, the EU fined Google in 2018 concerning Android’s preference for its search engine, while Apple was fined 1.8 billion euros last year related to music streaming payments.

Without Chrome, Google may offer a less tailored online experience. Platforms like YouTube and Google search may diminish users’ history, and no other entity currently ads on every corner of the web.

For more details, click here.

Two insightful essays on technology

UK Regulators Work to Safeguard Children Online

Tesla Posts Disappointing Earnings at a Critical Time for Musk


Donald Trump and Elon Musk at the SpaceX Test Flight launch in November. Photo: Brandon Bell/Reuters

Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company reported poor revenue figures last week for Q1 2025. Here are the details from my colleague Johanna Bouyan:

Skip past newsletter promotions

Tesla experienced a 9% decline in year-on-year revenue in Q1 2025, generating $19.3 billion—well below Wall Street’s expectations of $21.45 billion. The company reported earnings per share of 27 cents, significantly trailing the anticipated 43 cents.

The company’s profits plummeted by 71%, down to $499 million, compared to $1.399 billion in net income the previous year.

Tesla also saw a 13% decrease in vehicle deliveries, marking the worst quarter since 2022, with a total of 336,681 vehicles delivered.

Much of Musk’s considerable wealth—he remains the richest individual globally despite losing almost $100 billion since the start of the year—stems from his stake in Tesla, which is now valued significantly lower than it was when Trump took office.

In a call with disappointed investors following the revenue report, Musk remarked that his government role consists largely of “orderly finance houses.” He also indicated that his involvement with Doge will likely diminish next month, with plans to step away from the project on May 30, within the confines of his 130-day pledge as a special government employee.

This statement evokes the premature “mission accomplished” banner displayed by former President George W. Bush early in the Iraq War, indicating that the long-term success of Musk’s cost-cutting initiatives remains uncertain. Just days before the earnings call, a U.S. federal judge halted the administration’s efforts to close the leading consumer finance protection agency. The total impact of Musk’s role remains unclear.

Discover more about Elon Musk

Broader Technology Insights

Source: www.theguardian.com

What makes the antitrust division between Google and Meta challenging?

Posted on by
Reply

It was a quarter of a century ago when the court seriously considered the wisdom of disbanding a giant technology company after it was discovered that Microsoft had illegally curtailed competition for personal computer software.

A U.S. District Judge said Microsoft forced it to split into two, and forced its exclusive window operating system to separate its office productivity products and other software. However, the Court of Appeals abandoned the order, calling it a “relief imposed with great care because it is rarely certain of its long-term effectiveness.”

This month’s pair of landmark lawsuits in two courtrooms in Washington, the issue of possibly potentially disbanding a large tech company is once again on the judicial table.

In an antitrust trial that began Monday, the Federal Trade Commission alleged that Meta maintained an illegal monopoly on social media through its acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp. The agency is trying to force Meta to sell both. Next week, in another proceeding, federal judges will hear debate from the Department of Justice about why the courts are disbanding Google to improve the company’s monopoly in internet searches.

“We’re a great leader in our efforts to help people understand how we’re doing,” said William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and a former chairman of the FTC.

For generations, courts have faced the challenges of what to do in major antitrust laws after it was discovered that the dominant company was engaged in anticompetitive behavior. In a Supreme Court decision in 1947, Judge Robert H. Jackson wrote that if the court’s solution did not open the market for competition, the government would remember that “we won the lawsuit and lost the cause.”

However, while the court’s decision is based on examining past facts, its remedies look to the future. The goal is not to thwart the market, but to free it and create a competitive environment that brings new ideas, new companies, more innovations, lower prices.

The challenge is to take on new importance as regulators have a huge drive to curb the tech giant in a series of antitrust laws that oppose power beyond communication, commerce and information.

In another lawsuit against Google, the Department of Justice awaits a judge’s decision regarding the company’s superiority in advertising technology. The department also sued Apple for its tactics to protect the favorable iPhone franchise. The FTC sued Amazon, saying it illegally protected its monopoly in its online retail business from competition.

This wave of antitrust lawsuits, including appeals, could last for years. And if the government wins any of the cases, the judge could order a breakup – the worst outcome for the business.

History shows that these orders could be effective, antitrust experts said. However, the outcomes of improved competition are mixed.

Standard Oil, an energy giant founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1870, was the decisive case of a progressive and unreliable era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That’s what the company was like Disbanded by the Supreme Court In 1911 it was divided into 34 entities that made up the original standard oil trust that controlled the production, refining, distribution and pricing of the oil industry. It initially helped the competition, but over time the trust’s descendants became their own oil giants, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

The AT&T split in the 1982 settlement followed a lengthy antitrust lawsuit by the Department of Justice, which accused the United States of illegally monopolying the US telecom market. The local telephone business was split into seven regional “babybell” companies, with the order opening a long-distance telephone and telephone equipment market, increasing competition and lowering prices.

In antitrust terminology, such “structural” solutions generally refer to division. But there is Steps other than forced sale It could form a market and stimulate competition, anti-trust experts said.

In 1969, IBM unlocked hardware from software after pressure from the government’s antitrust laws, which accused it of monopolizing the computer market at the time. The software will no longer be “free” included in the computer price. It helped Microsoft as the biggest winner to ignite the rise of the commercial software industry.

Microsoft avoided breaking up, but the final settlement in 2001 included a ban on contracts that essentially used Windows monopoly as a club by restricting computer manufacturers from distributing software from emerging rivals. That suppression has kept the door open to new competition in browser software and search. Google was a major beneficiary.

“These were strong, break-up-free relief packages that created more competition,” said Fiona Scott Morton, professor of economics at Yale School of Business Administration.

The next powerful tech company facing court scrutiny is Meta and Google.

On Monday, the FTC and Meta (formerly Facebook) issued their opening statement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The company’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, then stood up. The essence of the government case is that Facebook has been extremely overpaid for Instagram and WhatsApp over a decade ago, killing them to protect the lucrative monopoly of social networking.

Meta replied that Instagram and WhatsApp have grown and flourished under their ownership. And the company argued that there was a lot of competition in the social networking market, including the rise of the Tiktok meteor.

If the government wins the meta case, antitrust experts said there is a high possibility of a relief measure.

In the same Washington court next week, Google is facing a relief phase in a lawsuit by the Department of Justice and a group of states over its internet search monopoly. In August, Judge Amit P. Mehta discovered that Google was keeping its search monopoly illegal.

To restore competition, the government has asked the court to order Google to sell popular web browsers and is prohibited from spin-off the smartphone operating system Android or make the service mandatory on Android phones. Chrome and Android are powerful distribution channels for Google search.

Google describes the government’s list as “a violently outboard proposal” that “goes beyond court decisions” and harms consumers by providing products that are inferior to consumers. The company also said it would appeal.

Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, was a White House advisor on technology and competition policy for the Biden administration, helping to break up Google and META cases.

“If you want to stir the pot, the structural solution is clean and essentially self-executive. You break up and leave,” he said. (Mr. Wu writes about the New York Times opinion section.)

However, every split order has been appealed, and today’s High Court appears to reflect skepticism in the Microsoft era.

In a rare unanimous decision in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Association of College Athletics cannot use its market power to stop paying student-athletes. It was essentially a fixed wage price case and was decided entirely for the plaintiff.

However, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, who wrote for the court, derailed to create a broader point about antitrust judicial binding.

“In short, judges should never aim for that role to create poor “central planners,” he wrote.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Meta is facing antitrust claims in trials due to its ownership of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook’s pro-meta platform is currently on trial in Washington, accused by US antitrust enforcement officials of unlawfully creating a social media monopoly by overspending when trying to secure the deal.

Over a decade ago, the acquisition was made with the intention of eliminating potential competitors that could challenge Facebook’s dominant position as a social media platform for connecting with friends and family, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 during the first term of Donald Trump.

The FTC is seeking to compel Meta to restructure or divest parts of its business, including Instagram and WhatsApp. This trial marks the first significant test for the FTC under the second Trump administration, following an investigation initiated during Trump’s initial term.

Meta’s Chief Legal Officer, Jennifer Newsted, described the incident as a hindrance to technology investment in a blog post on Sunday.

Newsted writes, “It is absurd that the FTC is attempting to dismantle a prominent American company while the administration works to protect China-owned TikTok.”

This situation poses a serious threat to Meta’s existence. It provides a real indication of how aggressively the new Trump administration will pursue its promises to challenge major technology companies, especially considering that Instagram generates approximately half of US advertising revenue.

Losing Instagram would be a significant blow to Meta, according to Jasmine Enberg, a top analyst at market research firm Emarketer.

Enberg stated, “Losing Instagram would also greatly impact future user and revenue growth prospects. Instagram is currently Meta’s primary revenue generator, accounting for 50.5% of the company’s ad revenue in 2025. Instagram has filled the void left by Facebook in terms of user engagement, particularly among younger users.”

Meta has been actively engaging with Trump since his election. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made multiple visits to the White House recently. Zuckerberg also purchased a new $23 million home in DC to allow him to focus more on policy issues related to American technology leadership while Meta continues its work.

A company spokesperson said, “This allows Mark to spend more time as Meta continues to work on policy issues related to American technology leadership.” The company has contributed $1 million to Trump’s initial committee and has sought to persuade the president to settle the lawsuit against Meta.

FTC spokesman Joe Simonson commented, “The FTC under Trump Vance was not prepared for this trial.”

Zuckerberg will face questions about an email that suggested acquiring Instagram as a strategy to neutralize potential competitors and expressed concerns that WhatsApp, an encrypted messaging service, could evolve into a social network.

Meta argues that the purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2014 benefited users, and Zuckerberg’s previous statements are no longer relevant in the face of fierce competition from TikTok, YouTube, and Apple’s messaging apps.

The central focus of this case is how users engage with social media platforms and whether they consider the services to be interchangeable. Meta points to increased traffic on Instagram and Facebook during TikTok’s brief hiatus in the US in January, as indicated in court records.

The FTC contends that Meta holds a monopoly on the platform used for social sharing. Snapchat and Mewe from Snap are major competitors in the US market.

Mike Prucks, Vice President of Research at Forrester, believes that the trial could have far-reaching implications for the social media industry.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Proulx stated, “The outcome of this trial, combined with the uncertainty surrounding TikTok’s future, could reshape the core of the social media market. Meta is no longer the dominant force. We haven’t seen this level of disruption since 2006-2011 during the early days of social media. We may witness a resurgence of new social media startups attempting to establish a new order in the social media landscape.”

US District Judge James Boasberg ruled in November that the FTC had sufficient evidence to proceed, but the agency faces tough questions about the viability of its claims as the trial progresses.

Former FTC Chairman Lina Khan stated that Meta relied on “buy-and-bury techniques” when acquiring companies like Instagram and WhatsApp. If Meta could not outperform its competitors, it either acquired them or restricted access to Facebook’s network and features. The case revolves around the principles of “free and fair competition,” Khan explained in an interview with NBC.

Khan emphasized, “There is no expiration date on the illegality of these transactions. I believe the entire social networking ecosystem would look different today if Facebook had not been allowed to acquire these companies.”

The trial is set to continue in July. If the FTC prevails, it will need to demonstrate in a second attempt how measures such as divesting Instagram and WhatsApp can restore competition.

Losing Instagram, in particular, could have dire consequences for Meta’s revenue.

Although Meta has not disclosed app-specific revenue figures, Emarketer’s forecast in December suggests that Instagram is expected to generate $37.13 billion this year.

While WhatsApp currently contributes only a small portion to Meta’s overall revenue, it is the company’s primary app in terms of enhancing efforts to monetize tools such as daily users and chatbots. Zuckerberg believes that a “business messaging” service like this will drive the company’s future growth.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Re-examining Meta’s antitrust test with serial witness Mark Zuckerberg

Posted on by
Reply

Seven years ago, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg testified for the first time in Congress. After a two-week boot camp by lawyers, he answered questions at three consecutive Buck-to-Buck hearings in two days of baptism by fire to prepare him.

Zuckerberg, 40, has been practicing more since. He made eight appearances before Congress and testified at least twice in court. He defends his company, previously known as Facebook, on issues such as privacy, child safety, and the spread of disinformation.

As early as Monday, Zuckerberg will once again be in a hot seat. This time, as a marquee witness in a landmark federal committee lawsuit accusing Meta of breaking antitrust laws. Regulators sued the US District Court company in the District of Columbia over the acquisition Instagram And WhatsApp says it used “buying and boring strategies” to maintain its monopoly on social media.

Zuckerberg’s turn as a serial witness has become a powerful symbol of Washington’s growing frustration with the power Silicon Valley holds, spurring attempts to curb the tech industry. Under President Trump, the technology chief is welcoming with the administration in hopes of regulators taking softer hands, but his appointees have shown continued scrutiny.

At Capitol Hill, lawmakers have stepped down as Zuckerberg, accusing him of lying and are personally responsible for various social harms. Legal experts said previous tough questions could help him during the expected seven-hour testimony defending Meta in antitrust law.

“He seems to be more aware of the audience he’s talking about compared to his previous years,” said Adam Sterling, Associate Dean at Stanford Law School. “Whether it’s a deposit, a lawsuit, or in front of the Senate, he can actually create a message to that recipient.”

Meta and the FTC declined to comment.

It’s a far cry from Zuckerberg’s start in his Harvard dorm room 21 years ago. After building “Facebook,” he dropped out of school and moved to Silicon Valley to build a social network. His successes and failures were publicly scrutinized.

In 2021, he renamed his efforts to cut some of the company’s packages to Meta. He recently courted Trump. This month he visited the White House to try and persuade the president and his aides to settle the FTC lawsuit.

Government scrutiny and legal challenges did not inflict permanent damage on the company. Meta’s stock price has more than doubled since Zuckerberg first appeared in Congress.

Zuckerberg is likely to face tougher times in the stands in antitrust trials, legal experts said. Congressional hearings feature spectacular features by lawmakers, each limited to a few minutes. The FTC lawyers plan to bake Mr. Zuckerberg for hours. They also have a chunk of his emails and other communications and will ask him to defend documents that prove his company’s maliciousness.

“Trials are another beast as the other counsels are well prepared, ask better questions and keep focused on their cases,” said Nu Wexler, former policymaker for Meta and principal of Four Corners Public Relations.

In 2017, Zuckerberg testified in Dallas in a trial by video game company Zenimax Media about intellectual property theft claims. He also testified in 2023 during an FTC trial in San Jose, California to block the acquisition of Meta’s Virtual Reality Company.

Now, the FTC is asking Judge James E. Boasberg to convict Meta of antitrust violations, which is “exposed to more in danger,” said Katie Harbus, former public policy director for Meta and chief executive of consulting firm Anchor Change.

For the first half of Meta’s history, Zuckerberg has stepped away from the unscripted public appearance. In 2010, he groped through interviews at a technology conference and struggled to answer privacy questions as sweat beads ran through his face.

Most of his public witness experience came before Congress.

Zuckerberg faced a major backlash from Washington State Senators after the 2016 presidential election. Reports have emerged that Facebook has given political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica access to people’s social networking data without consent.

That led to Zuckerberg’s appearance at a packed hearing in Congress in April 2018. His lawyers guided him to calm down when interrupted and to postpone answering harsh questions.

“My team will be back to you,” he said multiple times during the hearings.

The following year, Zuckerberg was faced with questions from the House Financial Services Committee on the security and security of the plans of a cryptocurrency company called Libra.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, interrupted Zuckerberg about misinformation in political ads. He frowned at times, sometimes he struggled to find the answer.

California’s president Maxine Waters, who was then Democratic chairman of the committee, accused Zuckerberg of leading the company’s fate to users.

“You’re going to step into your competitors, women, people of color, even our democracy,” Waters said.

“I don’t think I’m an ideal messenger for this right now,” replied Zuckerberg. “We certainly have the work to do to build trust.”

Zuckerberg has been better with the next two appearances, said a legal expert and former employee, showing that he will control more Poland and his answers. He and the chiefs of Apple, Amazon, and Google were summoned in 2020 during the pandemic when the House Judiciary Committee was summoned for a hearing on the power of big technology. In 2021, Zuckerberg, who joined the CEOs of Twitter and Google, spoke to a House committee about disinformation.

Last year, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley requested at a child safety hearing that Zuckerberg would apologize to parents who lost their children due to bullying and other harms accused of refueling Instagram.

“I’m sorry for everything you’ve gone through,” Zuckerberg told parents in attendance. “No one should experience your family suffering.”

Holy said it is important to keep Meta and Zuckerberg accountable.

“This was my whole goal of enforcing a moment of truth,” Holy said in an interview. “But the truth is that he will continue to sail first and do so until there is a real outcome in Congress and in court next week.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Mark Zuckerberg and Robbie Trump Settle Antitrust Lawsuit Against Meta

Posted on by
Reply

Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg approached President Trump and his aides to resolve the federal antitrust laws against his company, which will be on trial on April 14th.

Zuckerberg has been on several trips to the White House and Mar-a-Lago to discuss the issue along with other issues, said two people who are not authorized to reveal private conversations. Most recently he visited the White House on Wednesday morning.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Meta during Trump’s first term in 2020, blaming the competition for stifling competition by buying young startups like Instagram and WhatsApp, preventing them from suffocating. Mehta was able to settle the lawsuit with a settlement. It is unclear whether Zuckerberg’s efforts have led the Trump administration to consider a solution.

Andy Stone, a spokesman for Meta, also owned by Facebook, said “we meet regularly with policymakers to discuss issues that affect competitiveness, national security and economic growth.”

The White House immediately had no comment, and the FTC declined to comment. That’s what the details of the meeting were It has been reported Previously by the Wall Street Journal.

In its lawsuit, the FTC alleged that Meta violated antitrust laws by buying up its younger rival and stealing consumers from alternative social media platforms. The FTC argued that Meta bought the 2012 photo sharing site Instagram for $1 billion and that the 2014 deal for messaging app WhatsApp should not be approved for $19 billion.

The company “sought to buy or bury an innovator threatening to beat Facebook in a new mobile environment,” the FTC said in a complaint.

Meta refuses to kill the competition between Instagram and WhatsApp and says it is investing heavily in developing app innovation. Meta also says he continues to face tough competition from rivals such as Tiktok, YouTube, Snap and Imessage.

The acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp has proven to be foresightful. Instagram has become a central part of Meta’s business, bringing billions of revenues per year. WhatsApp has quadrupled in size to 2 billion users and has begun to generate significant revenue for META.

The federal judge neglected the antitrust case in 2021, but quickly revived after the FTC added more evidence and analysis to support its claims.

Now the exam will start within two weeks. The trial could feature testimonies from well-known meta executives, including Zuckerberg. Sheryl Sandberg, former Chief Operating Officer. Kevin Systrom, co-founder of Instagram.

Meta executives have worked closely with outside lawyers when called to testify, and have been fiercely preparing for trial for several months, the two people said.

Zuckerberg’s White House visit is part of an effort to improve Meta and the government, particularly with Trump, which has clashed in the past. In December, Meta announced that it had donated $1 million to Trump’s first fund. And Zuckerberg promoted longtime Republican meta-executive Joel Kaplan, who became the head of the company’s global public policy and deepened his ties with the Trump administration.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Second antitrust lawsuit filed against Google in the U.S. for online advertising | Technology

Posted on by
Reply

The second antitrust trial between Google and the U.S. Department of Justice commenced on September 9, with a federal judge in Virginia listening to opening arguments regarding whether the tech giant unlawfully monopolized the digital advertising sector. This trial carries significant implications for the tech industry, online publishers, and Google’s primary revenue stream.

This much-anticipated trial represents the second major U.S. antitrust case against Google, following a recent landmark ruling that found the company guilty of monopolizing the online search market illegally. Contrary to the previous case, the Justice Department is now seeking specific measures to compel Google to divest parts of its business and sell some of its advertising technology.


The Department of Justice’s second lawsuit, submitted in January 2023, targets Google’s Ads initiative, focusing on the company’s acquisition and utilization of digital advertising technology. The case revolves around Google’s role as an intermediary for website operators seeking to monetize through advertising, enabling them to sell ad space on their sites and connecting advertisers with potential customers, with Google retaining a significant portion of the ad revenue.

The Department of Justice argues that Google’s control over various aspects of digital advertising results from strategic acquisitions, culminating in a monopoly over the industry. The case delves into Google’s acquisitions of DoubleClick, Invite Media, and AdMeld, which allegedly granted the company dominance over both supply and demand in online advertising and intermediary exchange points.

During the trial, the Justice Department alleges that Google’s actions constitute anti-competitive behavior through exclusionary practices and acquisitions, leading to an illegal monopoly. Google’s defense maintains that its business model aligns with industry practices and that the Justice Department’s allegations stem from outdated perceptions of the digital advertising landscape.

Source: www.theguardian.com

NVIDIA’s stock price drops as US ramps up antitrust probe

Posted on by
Reply

Shares in AI chip designer Nvidia have been falling overnight following reports that US authorities are stepping up an investigation into whether the company has violated competition laws.

The company’s shares fell 2.4% in after-hours trading, supplementing a fall of nearly 10% in regular trading, sending its market capitalisation down by $279bn (£212bn) to $2.6trn, the biggest one-day fall ever for a US company.

Bloomberg reported that overnight, the Department of Justice sent subpoenas to Nvidia and other tech companies, taking steps to legally compel recipients to hand over information.

Nvidia executives are said to be concerned that the company is making it difficult for customers to switch to other semiconductor suppliers and penalizing buyers that refuse to give them exclusive use of Nvidia’s AI chips.

The moves mark an intensification of the U.S. antitrust investigation and bring the government one step closer to filing formal charges against Nvidia.

Tuesday’s sell-off came amid a market-wide sell-off sparked by weak U.S. manufacturing data that raised broader concerns among investors about the outlook for the U.S. economy. Manufacturing contracted at a moderate pace in August, with new orders, production and employment levels declining, according to the Institute for Supply Management’s monthly survey of factories.

That sent the S&P 500 down more than 2%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index fell nearly 3.3%. Uncertainty spread to Asia, where Japan’s Nikkei fell 4.2% on Wednesday and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 index fell 1.9%.

This has exacerbated recent volatile trading for Nvidia and other AI-related stocks, including Google, Apple and Amazon, as investors worry that the real impact — and tangible benefits — of the much-touted AI revolution may still be a long way off.

Founded in 1993, Nvidia primarily designed chips for video games, but during the cryptocurrency boom it realized its processing technology could be used to mine digital coins. Since then, the company has shifted its focus to artificial intelligence, riding a new wave of excitement about the potential of large-scale language models.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

The company last week reported a 122% increase in second-quarter revenue, but signs of slowing growth, especially around its next-generation AI chip, code-named “Blackwell,” have spooked investors.

An Nvidia spokesman said: “We win on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, so they can choose the solution that’s best for them.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Antitrust Investigation Launched Against Microsoft, OpenAI, and NVIDIA in Technology Sector

Posted on by
Reply

Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia are under increased scrutiny for their involvement in the artificial intelligence industry as U.S. regulators have reportedly agreed to investigate these companies.

The New York Times reported that the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have reached an agreement to investigate key players in the AI market, with the investigation expected to be completed within the next few days.

The Justice Department will lead an investigation into whether Nvidia, a leading chip maker for AI systems, has violated antitrust laws aimed at promoting fair competition and preventing monopolies, according to Wednesday’s NYT.

Meanwhile, the FTC will scrutinize OpenAI, the developer of the ChatGPT chatbot, and Microsoft, the largest investor in OpenAI and supporter of other AI companies.

The Wall Street Journal also reported on Thursday that the FTC is investigating whether Microsoft structured a recent deal with startup Inflection AI in a way to avoid antitrust scrutiny.

In March, Microsoft hired Mustafa Suleiman, CEO and co-founder of Inflexion, to lead its new AI division and agreed to pay the company $650 million to license its AI software.

The FTC has shown interest in the AI market before, ordering OpenAI, Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Amazon, and Anthropic to provide information on recent investments and partnerships involving generative AI companies and cloud service providers.

An investigation into OpenAI was launched last year based on allegations of consumer protection law violations related to personal data and reputations being at risk.

Jonathan Cantor, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, stated that the department will “urgently” investigate the AI sector to examine monopoly issues and the competitive landscape in technology.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

Regulators like Kantor believe swift action is necessary to prevent tech giants from dominating the AI market.

The FTC, Department of Justice, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Microsoft have been approached for comments.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Google Addressing Antitrust Concerns in Germany Regarding Bundled Car Services

Posted on by
Reply

The move follows a competitive objection filed against Google in Germany this summer over the bundling of Google Maps and other services through its Android-based in-vehicle infotainment system software, known as Google Automotive Services (GAS). The tech giant will eliminate some service bundling and contractual restrictions that apply to automakers to resolve regulatory intervention.

Google’s proposed remedies will be applied to the automaker in a market test by Germany’s competition regulator, which will then determine whether it resolves the problems it has identified.

Back in June, this country’s Federal Cartel Office (FCO) sends statement of objection He spoke to tech giants about how to operate GAS, specifically referring to the Google Maps, Google Play, and Google Assistant bundles that Google offers automakers.

The statement also highlighted Google’s practice of giving a portion of its advertising revenue to automakers only if they refrain from pre-installing other voice assistants next to their voice AI. Another concern raised by the FCO is that Google requires GAS license holders to set bundled services as default or prominently display them. It also took issue with Google’s refusal to restrict or allow interoperability of services included in GAS with third-party services.

At the time, the FCO said its preliminary view of Google’s practices around GAS was that they did not comply with German competition rules for large digital companies. This would give the FCO greater freedom to intervene where it suspects competition is being undermined.

“In particular, we are critical of Google’s ability to offer its services for infotainment systems only as a bundle. This reduces the opportunity for competitors to sell competing services as individual services. body,” the FCO said in the summer.

Regulators said they will now carefully consider Google’s proposal to determine whether an appropriate level of separation of its services from in-vehicle infotainment platforms would address competition concerns.

“We are particularly concerned about the forced bundling of the reach of services with significant market power with those with less power. “This is particularly problematic as a way to ‘infiltrate’ the market,” said FCO Chairman Andreas Mundt. press release Google is expected to announce its proposal on Wednesday. “It may reduce the opportunity for our competitors to sell competing services. We will now look very closely at whether Google’s proposal can effectively eliminate the practices that raised our concerns.” ”

Google’s proposed remedy to address the FCO’s competition concerns provides three products separately in addition to the GAS product bundle: Google Maps OEM Software Development Kit, Google Play Store, and Cloud Custom Assistant. This means that automakers will be able to: Develop mapping and navigation services with functionality comparable to Google Maps.

The addition of Google Play Store also allows end users to download a wider selection of third-party apps, alleviating concerns that they will be steered toward using Google’s own apps. Cloud Custom Assistant is described as a “proprietary AI voice assistant solution” for use in vehicles to enable automakers to offer competitive assistants.

The tech giant is also proposing to remove contractual clauses it imposes on advertising revenue sharing provided its proprietary Google Assistant voice AI is exclusively pre-installed on the GAS infotainment platform. .

“Google is also prepared to remove contractual provisions relating to setting Google services as a default application or displaying them prominently on infotainment platforms,” ​​the FCO said. “Finally, Google stands ready to enable licensees to combine the Google Assistant service with other mapping and navigation services and provide the technical prerequisites to create the necessary interoperability.”

“Based on the results of market testing, federal cartel ramt [FCO] It will be determined whether Google’s proposal generally addresses concerns that have been addressed to date. The question of whether Google’s proposal amounts to a bundled offering of Google’s services in the automotive sector will become decisive in this context.”

Google was asked for comment on the proposal.

The technology giant’s business was placed under Germany’s Special Competition Abuse Regulation Regime in January 2022. Since then, the FCO has extracted a number of concessions from the company over how it operates, including securing an agreement on Google’s data reform this autumn. Under the terms, users will be able to gives you more choice in how you can use your information. Last year, Google also proposed limiting how news content it licenses from third-party publishers appears in search results to address regulators’ concerns about self-preference.

Germany’s digital competition restart applies only to designated high-tech giants within the market, but companies may choose to apply product changes globally to manage operational complexity (For example, by launching a new account center, as Meta did this summer, users are opting out of cross-site tracking after the FCO intervened, and the company plans to roll this out globally.) announced).

The European Union has also recently implemented its own pre-competition reforms in the form of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) targeting so-called internet gatekeepers. The FCO’s enforcement against Big Tech therefore raises the possibility of what action will be taken across the bloc next year, when compliance deadlines for the six targeted his DMA gatekeepers and their 22 core platform services begin next year. You can get a glimpse of what’s going on. This list includes Google Maps, Google Play, Google Shopping, Google Ads, Google Chrome, Google Android, Google Search, and YouTube, the Google-owned video sharing platform.

Notably, the EU has not designated GAS as a core platform service. This may partly explain the FCO’s focus on GAS here, as competition regulators across the region seek to avoid duplication of intervention. (Germany’s status as a major automaker may also facilitate scrutiny of Google’s automotive software and services.)

The FCO also began proceedings on Google Maps in June 2022, some time before the DMA was approved by the bloc’s co-members.

On the other hand, the pan-EU regulation began to be applied in May 2023. However, the deadline for DMA gatekeepers to comply is March 2, 2024, so a full restart of Big Tech competition across the EU will not occur until then. next year. This may be enough reason for the FCO to continue monitoring Google Maps for some time. (In this regard, the German regulatory authorities also Said The EU will continue to “cooperate closely” with EU competition authorities on regulating the digital economy.

As of June 2023, the FCO has announced that it will continue to investigate Google’s terms of use for the Google Maps Platform (GMP), and in a preliminary assessment, the tech giant will end restrictions on combining its own GMP mapping services. Use a third party map service that you mentioned you need to type.

“These restrictions could hinder competition between applications relating to mapping services used by, for example, logistics, transport and delivery service providers,” the FCO said at the time. “It could also negatively impact competition among services for vehicle infotainment systems by making it more difficult for map service providers to develop effective alternatives to Google Maps.”

Ex-ante competition law reforms in Germany and across the EU are aimed at curbing fraudulent practices by digital giants that could further consolidate their vast market power, and European regulators are looking to move ahead with these more aggressive reforms. We hope that such interventions will have a better effect on correcting the imbalances in the digital economy. The implementation of a classic competition could be achieved. (A related example of classic enforcement is the 123 million fine that Italy’s competition watchdog imposed on Google in May 2021 over restrictions it applied to third-party app makers via its Android Auto in-car software.) There is a dollar fine.)

Source: techcrunch.com

Analyst warns that Google’s major court defeat to Epic Games may lead to reorganization of Big Tech companies due to antitrust concerns

Posted on by
Reply

“`html

One of Google’s most vocal critics says Google’s “catastrophic” antitrust loss this week to “Fortnite” maker Epic Games is a huge blow to Big Tech companies and other companies. This could potentially change the situation completely, potentially exposing the company to a wave of restructuring. Matt Stoller, director of research at the antitrust watchdog American Economic Liberties Project, said the jury’s unanimous verdict that Google maintained an illegal monopoly through the Android app store was a sign that “the truly powerful Big Apple… This is the first time a “tech company” has lost a major antitrust case. case. “There will be appeals and things like that, but I think over the next five years or so Google will start to settle and agree to splits because they know they’re going to lose.” , it’s not worth it. There is a lot of legal uncertainty.” Stoller told journalist Glenn Greenwald on his show “System Update.” “I know there’s a lot of cynicism, but this is actually how we’re going to rebuild these companies,” Stoller added. “It’s kind of amazing that it actually works.” “It’s over.”Google just lost a major antitrust lawsuit brought by Epic Games, the first judgment of its kind against a major tech company.The potential impact on Google, Amazon, Facebook, and other companies cannot be overstated.@MatthewStoller I’ll explain 👇 pic.twitter.com/aaGQ96Bcgu— System Update (@SystemUpdate_) December 13, 2023 Stoller added that the jury’s decision sets an important new legal precedent that is likely to influence the process in a range of antitrust cases facing Google and other large companies. Google is awaiting a judge’s ruling on a landmark Justice Department case targeting its online search empire, as well as separate investigations into its digital advertising business and Google Maps business. “All of a sudden, there’s a precedent and these sneaky judges are going to have to find reasons to rule in favor of Google, whereas before they had to find reasons to rule against Google. Deaf,” Stoller said. “I think all of these lawsuits are going to be overturned, and it’s going to be much harder for Google to win the lawsuits.” As The Post reported, experts say the Google v. Epic ruling could upend the business model that underpins the company’s lucrative Play Store. The Play Store previously charged large companies up to a 30% fee on in-app purchases and required them to: Use your company’s pricing system. Matt Stoller is the research director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an antitrust watchdog group. X/@SystemUpdate_ U.S. District Judge James Donato will next decide which illegal business practices Google must eliminate. A judge could order Google to stop paying major app developers to discourage them from launching competing app stores and suspend billing requirements, among other remedies. . In May 2024, Judge Amit Mehta will decide Google’s fate in a Justice Department lawsuit that alleges it has maintained an illegal monopoly over online search. The Post reached out to Google for comment on Stoller’s comments. Google faces a series of antitrust battles in the future. EPA Meanwhile, Google has already announced plans to contest the verdict in the Epic lawsuit. “Android and Google Play offer more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform,” said Wilson White, the company’s vice president of government affairs and public policy. “This trial makes clear that we are in intense competition with Apple and its App Store, as well as the App Store for Android devices and game consoles.”

“`

Source: nypost.com

Publisher sues Google for antitrust damages from AI-inflicted profit losses

Posted on by
Reply

A new class action lawsuit filed this week in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of news publishers, accuses Google and parent company Alphabet of anticompetitive practices that violate U.S. antitrust laws, the Sherman Act, and other laws. The lawsuit, filed by the Arkansas-based publisher Helena World Chronicle, alleges that Google is “siphoning” content, readers and advertising revenue from news publishers through anticompetitive means. It also specifically cites new AI technologies such as Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) and Bard AI chatbots as exacerbating the problem.

The Helena World Chronicle, which owns and publishes two weekly newspapers in Arkansas, said in its complaint that Google “starves freedom of the press” by sharing publishers’ content on Google and “starves out freedom of the press” and forces publishers to ” They claim that they have lost billions of dollars.

In addition to newer AI technology, the lawsuit also points to Google’s older question-and-answer technologies, such as Knowledge Graph, which was launched in May 2012, as part of the problem.

“When a user searches for information about a topic, Google displays a “knowledge panel” to the right of the search results. “This panel contains a summary of content extracted from the Knowledge Graph database,” the complaint states. “Google compiled this vast database by extracting information from publisher websites (what Google calls ‘material shared on the web’) and ‘open source and license databases.'” There is.

By 2020, the knowledge graph looked like this: grown 500 billion facts about 5 billion entities. However, much of the “collective intelligence” used by Google was content “appropriated from publishers,” the lawsuit alleges.

Other Google technologies, such as “Featured Snippets,” where Google algorithmically extracts answers from web pages, have also been cited as driving traffic away from publishers’ websites.

Perhaps more importantly, the case addresses how AI will impact publishers’ businesses.This issue has recently been clarified in detail In a Thursday report in the Wall St. Journal, It yielded shocking statistics. When the online magazine The Atlantic modeled what would happen if Google integrated AI into search, it found that 75% of the time, the AI ​​would be used by users without requiring them to click through to his website. , and found that the traffic was lost. This could have a big impact on publisher traffic going forward, as Google currently accounts for nearly 40% of publisher traffic, according to SamelWeb data.

Some publishers are now trying to get ahead of this problem. For example, Axel Springer signed a deal with OpenAI this week to license AI model training news. But overall, publishers believe they will lose 20 to 40 percent of their website traffic once Google’s AI products are fully rolled out, the WSJ report said.

The lawsuit reiterates this concern, saying that Google’s recent advances in AI-based search are “for the purpose of discouraging end users from accessing class member websites that are part of the commercial field of digital news and publishing.” It is claimed that it was implemented in

SGE offers web searchers a conversational way to search for information, but it “appropriates” content, ultimately trapping users in Google’s “walled garden”. claims. Publishers also cannot block his SGE, as it uses his web crawler, which is the same as his GoogleBot, Google’s general search service.

Additionally, Google’s Bard AI says it was trained on a dataset that includes “news, magazines, and digital publications,” citing both 2023. report From News Media Alliance Washington Post article on AI training data For reference only. (The Post, working with researchers at the Allen Institute for AI, found that news and media sites were his third largest category of AI training data.)

The lawsuit also points to other concerns, including AdSense price changes and evidence of improper misappropriation of evidence on Google’s part through the destruction of chat messages. This issue is raised in the recent Epic Games lawsuit against Google over app store antitrust issues. I won.

In addition to damages, the lawsuit also seeks an injunction to obtain consent from publishers to use the website’s data to train artificial intelligence products in general, including those of Google itself and its competitors. It also calls on Google to allow publishers who opt out of SGE to continue to appear in Google search results.

Lawsuits continue in the US Google’s agreement with the Canadian government last month The search giant would then pay Canadian media a fee to use their content. Under the terms of the deal, Google will provide US$73.5 million (C$100 million) annually to news organizations in the country, with the funding to be distributed based on news organizations’ headcount. Negotiations with Meta have not yet been resolved, but Meta began blocking news in Canada in August in light of pressure to pay for content under new Canadian legislation.

This lawsuit will be filed at the same time as the U.S. lawsuit. Department of Justice files suit against Google against digital advertising technology monopolies, and the 2020 Department of Justice Civil antitrust lawsuit around search and search advertising (a different market than the digital advertising technology in recent litigation).

The anticompetitive effects of Google’s plans cause serious harm to competition, consumers, workers, and democratic press freedom.” announcement It was posted on the website of Hausfeld, the law firm that handled the case.

“Plaintiff Helena World Chronicle LLC invokes the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act to restore and ensure competition in digital news and reference publishing and install guardrails to preserve the free market of ideas in a new era. Seeks collective monetary and injunctive relief for: Artificial Intelligence.”

Google has been asked for comment, but has not yet received a response.

Complaints are available below.

Helena World Chronicle, LLC v. Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. by tech crunch On Scribd

Source: techcrunch.com

Epic Games Prevails in Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Over Fortnite

Posted on by
Reply
On Monday, a jury sided with Epic Games over Google in an antitrust case that could change the way app marketplaces like Google Play operate.
The unanimous ruling ended a three-year legal battle between the two companies. Epic, the developer of the popular online multiplayer game Fortnite, first filed a lawsuit against Google in 2020, alleging that the company’s app store practices violated federal law and California antitrust law. He claimed that there was.
The lawsuit against Google was just part of Epic’s splashy effort to rally app developers large and small against the entrenched gatekeepers of mobile software. Epic’s war against Apple and Google revolves around the hit game Fortnite, which is free to play and available on almost every software platform imaginable, despite the current App Store and Google Play drama.
Epic alleges that both tech giants violate antitrust laws by forcing app users to pay through their systems, drastically reducing in-app revenue in the process. When defending themselves, Apple and Google typically point to security concerns and justify a shared desire to direct app users to central software authorities.
Apple and Google treat third-party apps differently. iOS doesn’t allow third-party apps, but Android allows “sideloading” of apps. This fact changed the shape of the battle between Epic and Google. Still, Google warns customers against installing external apps, and the process isn’t as simple as just downloading something on Google Play.
Faced with these facts, it wasn’t clear whether Epic would prevail in its lawsuit against Google Play’s relatively unrestricted ecosystem, but it did.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for all app developers and consumers around the world,” Epic Games said in a statement about the ruling. “This proves that Google’s app store practices are illegal and abuse its monopoly to charge exorbitant fees, stifle competition, and reduce innovation.”
Epic points to the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill and the EU Internal Digital Markets Act as examples of regulations on the way that could impose further restrictions on Apple and Google’s dominant software practices. I admired it.
In a statement provided to TechCrunch, Wilson White, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, confirmed the company’s plans to appeal.
“We intend to appeal the ruling. Android and Google Play offer more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform,” White said. “…We remain committed to the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem.”
If any of these look familiar, it’s probably because Epic fought the same battle against Apple. The highly publicized campaign began with a parody of Apple’s iconic “1984” ad and culminated in a mixed verdict two years ago.
The court’s ruling largely favored Apple, but called on the iPhone maker to open up its software market by allowing developers to direct customers to alternative payment options. In September, the companies asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling and take the case, so essentially everything is still up in the air.
Epic started directing Fortnite players to download it in 2018, moving it away from Google’s Play Store. In 2020, Epic released Fortnite through Google’s official app marketplace, but it still accused the company of preventing users from downloading third-party apps. The popular game is no longer available on Google Play or installed on iOS devices through Apple’s App Store.
This isn’t the last we hear about Epic’s multi-pronged battle. Google should appeal soon. Still, between a somewhat unexpected victory in court and last week’s massive Lego Fortnite launch that attracted more than 2.4 million concurrent players, Epic has everything going for it right now.

Source: techcrunch.com