The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is reportedly pushing for Alphabet’s Google to divest its Chrome browser, escalating efforts to curb the company’s alleged monopolistic practices in digital markets. This follows a prior ruling that Google illegally dominated the search market. The DOJ also plans to address Google’s control over AI and the Android operating system.
Google, which commands two-thirds of the global browser market, denies the claims, arguing that its success stems from user preference and robust competition. It also criticises the DOJ’s proposals as extreme and potentially harmful to consumers. Prosecutors have suggested a range of remedies, including ending exclusive search agreements with companies like Apple or enforcing Chrome’s divestiture if market competition does not improve.
A trial to finalise the remedies is set for April, with a ruling expected by August 2025. Google intends to appeal any decision to divest Chrome, citing the browser’s integral role in its ad revenue and user experience.
Dell Technologies and Iron Bow Technologies have agreed to pay over $2 million each to settle allegations of overcharging the US Army under a computing contract, according to the Justice Department.
Dell will pay $2.3 million, while Iron Bow will pay $2.05 million to resolve claims of violating the False Claims Act. The DOJ accused the companies of submitting non-competitive bids that inflated costs under the Army Desktop and Mobile Computing contract.
The settlement highlights government efforts to enforce accountability in defence contracts, ensuring fair pricing and compliance with procurement laws.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has decided against investigating the partnership between Google’s parent company, Alphabet, and AI startup Anthropic. Following a detailed review, the CMA found the agreement did not qualify as a merger under UK competition law.
Concerns over competition prompted the CMA to scrutinise the deal, focusing on whether it gave Alphabet control over Anthropic’s business. The authority concluded that Alphabet’s involvement, including financial support and computing resources, did not result in material influence or loss of independence for Anthropic.
The agreement includes Google providing Anthropic with cloud services, distributing its AI models, and offering convertible debt financing. While the partnership is significant, Anthropic’s UK turnover fell below the £70m threshold required for it to qualify as a merger.
This ruling follows similar CMA decisions involving tech companies and AI startups, including clearing Microsoft’s investment in Mistral and Amazon’s $4bn stake in Anthropic. The watchdog remains vigilant about potential anti-competitive practices in the rapidly growing AI sector.
Booking.com must comply with strict European Union regulations as of Thursday due to its designation as a ‘gatekeeper’ under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The European Commission has placed significant obligations on the travel reservation platform, ensuring it moderates content effectively, supports fair competition, and makes it simpler for consumers to switch between services. The DMA targets tech giants with major market dominance, holding them accountable through measures that could include fines and operational restrictions.
The company affirmed it is fully compliant, citing extensive efforts to adapt to the rules. In a blog post, Booking.com stated that it has implemented solutions that meet regulatory demands while maintaining a high standard of service for travellers and partners. It also expressed a commitment to ongoing dialogue with EU authorities and stakeholders.
Under the DMA, companies identified as gatekeepers are defined by having over 45 million monthly users and significant market capitalisation. Non-compliance could lead to fines of up to 10% of a company’s global revenue, rising to 20% for repeated violations. Additionally, the Commission has the power to limit acquisition activities if a company fails to adhere to the rules.
The United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is reportedly moving to place Alphabet’s Google under formal federal supervision, according to a Washington Post report. This development comes after months of confidential talks, during which Google has strongly resisted the idea. If implemented, federal oversight would provide regulators with access to Google’s internal records, marking a significant step in regulatory scrutiny of the tech behemoth. The CFPB, which typically oversees financial firms, is now expanding its reach to include more tech companies, particularly those with extensive consumer data handling.
This move is yet another regulatory challenge for Google, which is already facing multiple legal hurdles. Current government actions include pressure for the company to divest parts of its operations and a court mandate to open up its mobile app store to competition. Antitrust lawsuits and investigations continue to question Google’s dominance in digital markets, pushing the company to defend its business practices amid mounting legal pressure.
Google, alongside Alphabet, declined to comment on the CFPB’s intentions. However, industry analysts note that increased federal oversight could lead to greater regulatory enforcement on how tech giants manage consumer data and financial operations. As regulatory measures tighten, Google may have to adopt new strategies to mitigate risks and comply with evolving US oversight regulations.
Key members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will decide on Thursday whether to reinstate access for Amazon lobbyists after their privileges were revoked in February for failing to attend hearings on working conditions. Amazon had previously declined invitations to discuss its workplace practices and cancelled scheduled site visits to warehouses in Poland and Germany.
The Employment Committee (EMPL) revoked badges for 14 Amazon lobbyists, citing the company’s refusal to engage on critical labour issues. The move was supported by over 30 trade unions across Europe, which accused Amazon of disregarding EU labour laws and democratic oversight. In a letter to the committee, Amazon’s Director of EU Public Policy expressed a renewed commitment to cooperation and invited lawmakers to visit its facilities.
Trade unions have urged MEPs to only restore access if Amazon attends a hearing and allows committee visits to its warehouses. EMPL member Estelle Ceulemans emphasised that accepting these terms is essential to maintaining democratic oversight. Thursday’s discussions will also address whether a new mission to Amazon’s facilities should be organised to advance dialogue on workplace conditions.
A US judge has ruled that Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, must face trial in an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The lawsuit, initiated during the Trump administration, alleges that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were intended to stifle emerging competition and maintain a social media monopoly. Meta has countered the FTC’s claims, arguing that the regulators ignore substantial competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn.
This case is part of a broader crackdown on Big Tech by United States regulators. The FTC and the Department of Justice are pursuing major antitrust lawsuits against several technology giants, including Amazon and Apple. Alphabet’s Google also faces two significant legal challenges, with one case already finding that the company unlawfully restricted competition among search engines. These lawsuits reflect intensified regulatory efforts to address concerns over the market power of leading technology firms.
Meta’s legal battle could set a significant precedent for how tech conglomerates operate and acquire competitors. Critics argue that Meta’s dominance has harmed innovation and user choice, while the company insists it faces robust competition across the digital landscape. As Meta prepares for trial, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the tech industry and future regulatory actions against monopolistic practices.
According to sources, the Federal Trade Commission is preparing to investigate Microsoft’s cloud computing business over allegations of anti-competitive practices. The probe will focus on claims that Microsoft uses restrictive licensing terms to deter customers from moving data from its Azure cloud service to competitors.
Reportedly, Microsoft has been accused of tactics such as raising subscription fees for departing customers, imposing steep exit charges, and making its Office 365 products incompatible with rival cloud platforms. These practices could potentially leverage the company’s market power in productivity software to stifle competition.
While the FTC declined to comment on the investigation, Microsoft has yet to respond to the allegations. The Financial Times was the first to report on the probe.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has been fined nearly €800M by the European Union for anti-competitive practices related to its Marketplace feature. The European Commission accused the tech giant of abusing its dominant position by tying Marketplace to Facebook’s social network, forcing exposure to the service and disadvantaging competitors.
This marks the first time the EU has penalised Meta for breaching competition laws, though the company has faced previous fines for privacy violations. The investigation found that Meta unfairly used data from competitors advertising on Facebook and Instagram to benefit its own Marketplace, giving it an edge that rivals couldn’t match.
Meta rejected the claims, arguing that the decision lacks evidence of harm to competition or consumers. While the company pledged to comply with the EU’s order to cease the conduct, it plans to appeal the ruling. The case highlights ongoing EU scrutiny of Big Tech, with Meta facing additional investigations on issues like privacy, child safety, and election integrity.
Which? is taking legal action against Apple, alleging the company breached competition law by pressuring customers to use its iCloud service. Which? argues that Apple encouraged users to store their data on iCloud, making it challenging to switch to other providers, and then charged users when they exceeded the free 5GB limit. This practice, they claim, led to overcharges, costing consumers up to £13.36 ($16.98) this year in subscription fees.
Apple denies any wrongdoing, stating customers are not required to use iCloud and often choose third-party alternatives. However, if Which? succeeds, around 40 million Apple customers in the UK who have used iCloud over the last nine years could be entitled to compensation.
Which? CEO Anabel Hoult emphasised that the action aims to secure refunds for consumers, prevent future anti-competitive behaviour, and promote a fairer market. The group plans to file the claim with the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
