Mixed reactions as Australia bans social media for minors

Australia’s recent approval of a social media ban for children under 16 has sparked mixed reactions nationwide. While the government argues that the law sets a global benchmark for protecting youth from harmful online content, critics, including tech giants like TikTok, warn that it could push minors to darker corners of the internet. The law, which will fine platforms like Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and TikTok up to A$49.5 million if they fail to enforce it, takes effect one year after a trial period begins in January.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised the importance of protecting children’s physical and mental health, citing the harmful impact of social media on body image and misogynistic content. Despite widespread support—77% of Australians back the measure—many are divided. Some, like Sydney resident Francesca Sambas, approve of the ban, citing concerns over inappropriate content, while others, like Shon Klose, view it as an overreach that undermines democracy. Young people, however, expressed their intent to bypass the restrictions, with 11-year-old Emma Wakefield saying she would find ways to access social media secretly.

This ban positions Australia as the first country to impose such a strict regulation, ahead of other countries like France and several US states that have restrictions based on parental consent. The swift passage of the law, which was fast-tracked through parliament, has drawn criticism from social media companies, which argue the law was rushed and lacked proper scrutiny. TikTok, in particular, warned that the law could worsen risks to children rather than protect them.

The move has also raised concerns about Australia’s relationship with the United States, as figures like Elon Musk have criticised the law as a potential overreach. However, Albanese defended the law, drawing parallels to age-based restrictions on alcohol, and reassured parents that while enforcement may not be perfect, it’s a necessary step to protect children online.

FTC challenges Microsoft over cloud practices

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched a wide-reaching antitrust investigation into Microsoft’s business practices, focusing on cloud computing, software licensing, and artificial intelligence. Allegations suggest the company has imposed restrictive licensing terms that make it difficult for customers to switch from its Azure cloud services to rival platforms. FTC Chair Lina Khan approved the probe ahead of her expected departure in January, raising questions about its future under a potentially business-friendlier administration.

Critics, including competitors and industry groups like NetChoice, claim Microsoft’s licensing policies unfairly lock customers into its ecosystem. Google has raised similar concerns with European regulators, citing significant mark-ups for using Windows Server on competing cloud services and delays in providing security updates. The FTC’s investigation also touches on broader competition concerns in AI and cybersecurity, including Microsoft’s acquisition of AI startup Inflection AI.

Microsoft has not commented on the probe, but complaints have mounted over its practices in cloud computing and the integration of AI tools into productivity products like Office and Outlook. Some industry observers note that Microsoft has been relatively spared in recent US antitrust actions targeting Big Tech firms, including Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon. However, the FTC’s focus on Microsoft could signal a shift in regulatory priorities.

The outcome of the investigation remains uncertain, particularly with a potential change in the political landscape. While the Trump administration previously pursued aggressive antitrust enforcement, including actions against Google and Meta, Microsoft has benefited from its policies in the past, such as winning a contentious $10 billion Pentagon cloud contract over Amazon. Experts believe a new administration may alter enforcement priorities but not necessarily halt ongoing probes.

Google challenges verdict in Epic Games lawsuit

Google is appealing a court order mandating significant changes to its Play app store, arguing to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that legal errors during the trial unfairly favoured Epic Games. The tech giant contends that the San Francisco jury should not have been allowed to rule on Epic’s claims and that the trial judge overstepped by issuing a nationwide injunction.

Epic, known for creating “Fortnite,” accused Google of monopolising app distribution and payment systems on Android devices. A jury sided with Epic last year, leading US District Judge James Donato to require Google to permit rival app stores on Android and allow competitors access to Play’s app catalogue. This injunction, set to last three years, is on hold pending the appeal.

Google warns the mandated changes would disrupt app developers and users, framing the judge’s order as excessive intervention. Epic, meanwhile, dismissed Google’s appeal as baseless and a refusal to honour the jury’s unanimous decision. The appeals court is set to hear arguments in February, with a decision expected later in 2025.

Margrethe Vestager reflects on EU legacy as competition chief

Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s outgoing competition chief, is stepping down after a decade of high-profile confrontations with tech giants like Apple and Google. In an exit interview, she expressed regret over not being more aggressive in regulating Big Tech, acknowledging the continued dominance of major platforms despite billions in fines. She described her tenure as ‘partly successful,’ noting the slow pace of change in the tech landscape.

Vestager was instrumental in shaping the EU’s regulatory framework, pushing for initiatives like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to curb monopolistic behaviour. However, she conceded that the full impact of these measures may take years to be felt. She emphasised the importance of stronger enforcement and deterrence, advocating for a bolder approach to regulating tech firms globally.

Her reflections also highlighted the role of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in overseeing social media platforms and addressing harmful content. Platforms like X and Telegram, which face criticism for inadequate content moderation, were pointed out as examples of why robust regulation is necessary. Vestager stressed that platforms undermining democracy must comply with the EU’s stringent laws.

As she prepares to transition to academia, Vestager’s departure marks the end of an era. While her legacy includes significant strides in holding tech companies accountable, the ongoing influence of these firms signals that the battle for better regulation is far from over. Teresa Ribera Rodríguez will succeed her, tasked with continuing this critical work.

US adjusts Intel’s chip subsidy amid sector challenges

Intel’s expected $8.5 billion subsidy for expanding its United States chip manufacturing facilities is likely to be reduced, sources revealed. The grants, part of a broader semiconductor funding initiative under the CHIPS and Science Act, will still represent a significant investment but may drop below $8 billion. The adjustment is reportedly linked to Intel’s separate $3 billion Pentagon contract funded through the same programme.

The US government aims to bolster domestic semiconductor production through the CHIPS Act, allocating $52.7 billion overall, including $39 billion in subsidies. Intel’s planned projects in Arizona include building two new chip factories and upgrading an existing facility. Despite these efforts, Intel faces industry challenges, with slumping share prices and restructuring moves under CEO Pat Gelsinger.

Other companies, such as TSMC and GlobalFoundries, have also benefited from preliminary CHIPS Act agreements. Intel’s revised funding agreement is expected soon, with the US Commerce Department declining to comment on the final subsidy figure.

US court to decide TikTok’s future amid ByteDance divestment law

A United States federal appeals court is set to rule by 6 December on whether ByteDance, TikTok‘s Chinese parent company, must divest its US operations or face a ban. The ruling will address national security concerns raised by the Justice Department, which alleges that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses risks due to access to vast American user data. ByteDance has challenged the law as unconstitutional, arguing it unfairly targets TikTok and violates free speech.

The three-judge panel could uphold the law, leading to a likely appeal by ByteDance. Alternatively, the court might allow the law but criticise its fairness, requiring further certification of TikTok as a security risk. A ruling deeming the law unconstitutional could halt efforts to force ByteDance to sell TikTok’s US assets. Any outcome may result in further legal battles, including an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case underscores tensions between US national security priorities and free market principles, with over 170 million Americans actively using TikTok. The final decision could shape the future of tech regulation and US-China relations.

Amazon Japan faces antitrust probe, source reports

Japan’s Fair Trade Commission has raided Amazon Japan over allegations of anti-monopoly violations. The company is suspected of pressuring sellers to reduce prices in exchange for favourable product placement on its e-commerce platform, a government source revealed.

The investigation comes amid growing global scrutiny of Amazon’s practices. In Europe, regulators are preparing a case to examine whether Amazon favours its branded products on its marketplace under new antitrust rules.

This is not the first time Amazon Japan has faced such scrutiny. In 2018, authorities accused it of shifting discount costs onto suppliers. The case was resolved after Amazon agreed to improve its business practices, but the latest allegations suggest ongoing concerns about its market conduct.

Google proposes changes to European search results amid antitrust scrutiny

Google has announced further changes to its search results in Europe in response to complaints from smaller competitors and looming EU antitrust charges under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The tech giant has faced criticism from price-comparison sites, hotels, and small retailers over a 30% drop in direct booking clicks caused by earlier search tweaks.

The DMA, introduced last year to curb Big Tech dominance, prohibits Google from favouring its services. To comply, Google plans to offer expanded and uniformly formatted options for users to choose between comparison sites and supplier websites, along with new ad formats and tools for competitors to display prices and images.

As part of a test in Germany, Belgium, and Estonia, Google will temporarily remove hotel location maps and associated results to assess user interest in a simpler “ten blue links” layout. While reluctant to cut features, Google says these measures aim to strike a balance between user needs and regulatory requirements.

The European Commission has been scrutinising Google since March, with DMA violations carrying potential fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue. Google’s compliance efforts reflect its attempt to navigate the demands of regulators and rival businesses while maintaining its services’ usability.

Apple faces regulatory action over payment system in Brazil

Brazil’s antitrust regulator, Cade, has mandated Apple to lift restrictions on in-app payments. The decision follows a complaint by e-commerce giant MercadoLibre, accusing Apple of unfair practices.

The complaint, filed in 2022 in Brazil and Mexico, criticised Apple for forcing app developers to use its payment system. It also alleged that the company blocks apps from offering third-party digital goods or redirecting users to external websites.

Cade’s ruling requires Apple to permit developers to integrate external payment systems and allow hyperlinks to external purchasing platforms within apps. Developers must also have the option to include alternative in-app payment methods.

Apple faces a 250,000 real (£43,000) daily fine if it fails to comply within 20 days. Both Apple and MercadoLibre have yet to provide comments on the ruling.

Apple faces setback in India’s antitrust probe

India’s Competition Commission has rejected Apple’s request to pause an antitrust investigation, clearing the way for the case to progress. The investigation alleges Apple breached competition laws by exploiting its dominant app store position. Apple disputes these claims, arguing its market share in India is minor compared to Android devices.

The controversy began in 2021 when the non-profit Together We Fight Society (TWFS) accused Apple of anti-competitive practices. In August, the commission ordered investigation reports to be recalled, following Apple’s claims of sensitive information being leaked to rivals. Revised reports were issued after redaction disputes, but Apple requested a suspension, citing non-compliance by TWFS.

Regulator in India dismissed Apple’s concerns, calling its request to halt proceedings ‘untenable.’ The commission has now instructed Apple to submit audited financial records for three fiscal years to assess potential penalties. Apple has yet to respond publicly to these developments.

Senior officials at the Competition Commission are reviewing the evidence and will issue a final ruling. The case highlights broader scrutiny of major tech companies’ market behaviour, particularly regarding app store operations and developer relations.