The European Commission is taking significant steps to ensure Apple aligns its practices with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). That initiative involves specifying the actions Apple must undertake to enhance interoperability with other products, marking a pivotal moment as it represents the first formal use of this DMA tool to engage with the tech giant.
The move reflects the Commission’s commitment to fostering a competitive digital market within the EU, particularly in light of ongoing discussions regarding Apple’s role in this landscape. To this end, the Commission has initiated two key proceedings focused on interoperability issues concerning Apple’s iOS operating system.
The first aims to simplify the connection process for non-Apple devices, such as smartwatches and headphones, enabling them to work seamlessly with iPhones and iPads. That includes enhancing features like Bluetooth pairing and notifications. The second proceeding examines how Apple interacts with developers seeking interoperability, aiming to establish a fair and efficient process that encourages innovation while addressing potential privacy and security concerns.
The European Commission has established a clear timeline for these proceedings, setting a six-month deadline for investigations into Apple’s compliance with the DMA. Should Apple fail to meet the specified requirements, the Commission may impose fines or restrictions on the company’s operations in certain regions or technology sectors. Moreover, it follows a previous mandate requiring Apple to address competition concerns related to access to near-field communication (NFC) technology for contactless payments, highlighting the company’s ongoing scrutiny.
European antitrust regulators will not take action against Microsoft’s acquisition of staff from AI startup Inflection, including its co-founders, following the withdrawal of requests from seven European Union countries. These countries dropped their requests for the European Commission to investigate, due to a recent court ruling that limits the regulator’s ability to examine mergers below the EU’s revenue threshold.
The court ruling has been viewed by some as a correction against regulatory overreach. The European Commission, in response, stated it would not pursue the case further. Despite this, the Commission acknowledged the Microsoft-Inflection deal as a merger due to its restructuring of Inflection’s business focus towards AI development.
The agreement between Microsoft and Inflection represents a significant market shift. Under the EU’s merger rules, it is considered a concentration, reflecting the ongoing transformations in the AI industry.
The Dutch competition regulator, the Netherlands Authority of Consumers and Markets (ACM), has called for more authority to investigate corporate deals independently. This comes after the European Union’s antitrust regulators decided not to take action against Microsoft’s acquisition of AI startup Inflection’s staff.
The EU’s decision to not investigate further comes after the initial 7 Member states who complained about Microsoft sweeping up of Inflection’s staff, decided to drop their complaints, leaving the Commission with no decision in this matter.
ACM expressed concerns over potential negative impacts of such deals on Dutch consumers and businesses but lacks the power to fully assess or prevent market dominance in these cases. The regulator’s chairman, Martijn Snoep, emphasised the need for new investigative powers to better assess acquisitions and their effects.
ACM is pushing for the ability to refer acquisitions with broader European implications to the European Commission, enabling better oversight of deals that might otherwise go unexamined.
The United States is pushing Vietnam to avoid using Chinese firm HMN Technologies in its plan to build 10 new undersea cables by 2030, amid concerns over national security and sabotage. Vietnam’s current cables, essential for global internet connectivity, have suffered repeated failures, prompting the government to prioritise new projects.
Washington is lobbying Hanoi to select more experienced and trusted suppliers for the cables, citing concerns about espionage and security threats linked to HMN Technologies, which the US views as associated with Chinese tech giant Huawei. The US has also raised concerns about possible sabotage of Vietnam’s current subsea cables.
Vietnamese authorities have remained open to working with Chinese firms, but United States officials have stressed that choosing HMN Tech could discourage American companies from investing in Vietnam. Meanwhile, Vietnam’s top telecoms company, Viettel, is already planning a cable with Singapore, bypassing disputed waters in the South China Sea.
The US and China are vying for influence in Vietnam as the Southeast Asian nation looks to expand its undersea cable infrastructure. Both countries are heavily invested in Vietnam, with subsea cables becoming a critical element in the broader US-China technology rivalry.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two new bills into law aimed at protecting actors and performers from unauthorised use of their digital likenesses through AI. The following measures have been introduced in response to the increasing use of AI in the entertainment industry, which has raised concerns about the unauthorised replication of performer’s voices and images. The first bill mandates that contracts unambiguously specify the use of AI-generated digital replicas and requires professional representation for performers during negotiations.
The second bill restricts the commercial use of digital replicas of deceased performers. It prohibits their appearance in films, video games, and other media unless the performer’s estate gives explicit consent. These steps are crucial in safeguarding the rights of performers in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, where AI-generated content is becoming increasingly prevalent.
The legislative actions mentioned highlight widespread concerns about AI technology, not just in entertainment but across different industries. The increasing use of AI has raised worries about its potential to disrupt sectors, lead to job displacement, and even pose a threat to democratic processes. Although President Biden’s administration has advocated for federal AI regulations, Congress is split, which makes it challenging to enact comprehensive national-level legislation.
Google’s advertising business has faced renewed scrutiny in the EU, with a recent proposal to sell its advertising marketplace, AdX, being rejected by European publishers. The tech giant offered the sale to resolve an antitrust investigation by the EU, which accuses Google of favouring its services. The investigation followed complaints from the European Publishers Council, and the European Commission has since charged Google with anti-competitive practices.
Publishers dismissed Google’s offer as insufficient, arguing that the sale of AdX alone would not address the broader conflicts of interest due to Google’s dominance across the entire adtech supply chain. These industry insiders suggest that more drastic measures may be needed to curb Google’s influence, but the EU has not yet demanded such extensive divestments.
Google, meanwhile, maintains that the Commission’s claims are based on a misinterpretation of the competitive nature of the advertising sector. Despite facing similar antitrust trials in the US over its advertising technology, the company continues to defend its business practices, where authorities have called for selling its Ad Manager product.
AdX, which allows publishers to auction unsold ad space to advertisers in real time, has become a key component in the ongoing investigation. The EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager previously suggested Google divest additional tools to resolve the issue. However, experts believe the Commission may first issue a simpler ruling to halt Google’s current practices before escalating to demands for asset sales.
With advertising contributing to 77% of Google’s $237.85 billion revenue in 2023, the company’s dominant position in digital advertising remains a central point of contention in the EU and globally.
Google is facing a billionaire lawsuit in London as Alphabet, its parent company, asked a tribunal to dismiss claims accusing the tech giant of abusing its dominance in the online search market. The lawsuit, which could amount to £7 billion ($9.3 billion), focuses on businesses’ costs when using Google’s search advertising services, which plaintiffs argue are ultimately passed on to consumers. The legal challenge is one of several targeting Google’s practices in recent years, including a similar case in Britain concerning its advertising market dominance and an ongoing antitrust trial in the United States.
Consumer rights advocate Nikki Stopford, representing the class of claimants, argues that Google’s overwhelming market presence allows it to increase costs unfairly. Her lawsuit also points to a €4.5 billion fine imposed by the European Commission in 2018 over Google’s restrictions on Android manufacturers, a decision currently being appealed. Furthermore, the lawsuit accuses Google of striking a deal with Apple to make its search engine the default on Apple’s Safari browser in exchange for a portion of mobile search ad revenues.
Google has dismissed these claims as unfounded. Its lawyer, Meredith Pickford, stated that the case is flawed, rejecting the notion that Google’s practices harmed consumers. Pickford also emphasised that Google’s agreement with Apple was legally sound and argued that the European Commission’s ruling was based on technicalities rather than substantive issues. The tribunal’s decision on whether the case will proceed to trial remains pending.
Qualcomm faced another legal setback in the EU as the continent’s second-highest court largely upheld an EU antitrust fine, reducing it slightly to €238.7 million ($265.5 million) from the original €242 million. The fine, imposed by the European Commission in 2019, stemmed from Qualcomm’s practice of selling chipsets below cost between 2009 and 2011—a tactic known as predatory pricing—aimed at driving British competitor Icera, now part of Nvidia, out of the market.
Qualcomm argued that the chipsets in question only accounted for a small fraction (0.7%) of the market, making it unlikely they could have effectively blocked competitors. However, the General Court in Luxembourg dismissed most of the company’s claims, apart from a minor point regarding the fine’s calculation, which led to a slight reduction.
The ruling marks another chapter in Qualcomm’s legal battles with the EU. While the company can appeal on legal grounds to the EU Court of Justice, it has already experienced mixed results in the European courts. In 2021, Qualcomm overturned a separate €997 million fine, which had been levied for paying Apple billions to exclusively use its chips in iPhones and iPads from 2011 to 2016.
For now, the EU’s watchdog continues to pursue antitrust enforcement in the tech sector, with Qualcomm remaining a key target in its efforts to curb anti-competitive behaviour.
Google secured a significant victory on Wednesday, overturning a €1.49 billion ($1.66 billion) fine imposed by the European Commission in 2019. The fine, levied over antitrust violations, accused Google of abusing its dominance in online search advertising by restricting websites from using advertising brokers other than its AdSense platform. These practices, deemed illegal by the Commission, were said to have spanned from 2006 to 2016.
The General Court of Luxembourg, while agreeing with most of the European Commission’s findings, annulled the hefty fine. The judges ruled that the Commission had not fully considered all factors, particularly the duration of the unfair contractual clauses, which played a critical role in overturning the penalty. Despite the annulment, the ruling upheld many of the Commission’s assessments, but the financial punishment did not hold.
The fine was one of three that have cost Google a combined total of €8.25 billion in antitrust penalties, triggered by complaints from rivals such as Microsoft. Google noted that it had already revised the contracts in question in 2016 before the Commission’s decision.
The legal victory for Google comes just a week after it lost a separate case involving a €2.42 billion fine for unfairly promoting its price comparison service. While the battle over its advertising practices may have seen a favourable outcome, the tech giant’s ongoing legal challenges in Europe reflect the broader scrutiny facing major digital platforms across the continent.
Facebook’s owner company, Meta, is bracing for a substantial fine from the European Union, according to sources familiar with the matter. The penalty stems from allegations that Meta is leveraging its dominance in social networking to stifle competition in the classified advertising sector. The company’s practice of linking its free Marketplace service with Facebook has raised concerns among the EU regulators, who view this strategy as an attempt to edge out rivals.
The decision is expected as soon as next month, and it could be one of the final significant moves overseen by the EU’s current competition chief, Margrethe Vestager, before her departure. The investigation into Meta’s business practices marks a continuation of the EU’s broader efforts to crack down on the monopolistic behaviour of tech giants.
Currently, neither Meta nor the EU regulators have commented on the looming decision. However, this case could signal a more stringent approach to maintaining a level playing field in the digital marketplace, where tech companies have long held considerable power. The ruling could have substantial financial and operational consequences for Meta, potentially setting the tone for future regulatory actions in the tech industry.
