Consumer protection

UK’s Ofcom demands clear broadband labels

Ofcom has introduced new guidance to ensure that broadband providers offer clear and precise information about the technology behind their services. That change aims to address the confusion caused by the industry’s inconsistent use of the term ‘fibre’. Under the new rules, providers must use specific terms like ‘full-fibre’, ‘part-fibre’, ‘copper’, or ‘cable’ to describe their network technology, eliminating the vague term ‘fibre’ alone. That move will help consumers make more informed choices by understanding exactly what type of broadband service they are subscribing to.

Ofcom’s new guidelines mandate that this technology information be provided to consumers before finalising their purchase. Whether signing up in person, over the phone, or online, customers must be given unambiguous details about the underlying network technology of the broadband service they are considering. This ensures that potential buyers are fully informed about what they are committing to, reducing the risk of misunderstandings and dissatisfaction.

Ofcom also requires that broadband providers offer a more thorough explanation of the technology used in their services. This information should be easily accessible, often through a link, allowing consumers to understand better what their broadband service entails. By enforcing these measures, Ofcom aims to enhance transparency and ensure that consumers are well-informed about the broadband technology they choose.

Google overturns €1.49 billion antitrust fine in EU court

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.

Bitcoin drops below $60K as economic concerns mount

Bitcoin experienced a 4.1% drop between 15th and 16th September, falling to $57,595 after failing to break through the $60,000 resistance level. This decline erased the gains made on 13 September when the price briefly surged to $60,580. While some analysts attributed Bitcoin’s earlier rise to a weakening US dollar and inflows into Bitcoin ETFs, the cryptocurrency has struggled to sustain momentum as traders remain cautious ahead of key economic events, such as the upcoming Federal Reserve interest rate decision.

Investors are closely watching the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on 18 September, where a 0.50% interest rate cut could potentially boost risk on markets like Bitcoin. However, if the Fed opts for a smaller 0.25% cut, it may negatively impact market sentiment, especially with lingering concerns over corporate earnings and China’s economic slowdown. In addition, regulatory pressure has intensified, with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expanding its lawsuit against Binance, further weighing on investor confidence.

In the short term, Bitcoin’s price faces both macroeconomic and regulatory challenges. Despite ongoing demand from institutions like MicroStrategy and positive inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs, investor sentiment has been shaken by a large, dormant Bitcoin address selling $12.7 million worth of BTC and the growing legal scrutiny of major exchanges.

23andMe to pay $30 million in data breach settlement

American personal genomics and biotechnology company 23andMe has agreed to a $30 million settlement after a data breach exposed the personal information of 6.9 million users. The breach, which occurred last year, compromised sensitive data, including DNA Relatives profiles and Family Tree information. Affected users will receive financial compensation and three years of security monitoring under the Privacy & Medical Shield + Genetic Monitoring program.

The lawsuit also accused 23andMe of failing to inform customers of Chinese and Ashkenazi Jewish descent that they were specifically targeted in the breach. The stolen information was later found for sale on the dark web. A federal judge must now approve the proposed settlement, which the company considers fair and beneficial for its users.

Despite its financial challenges, the company expects to cover $25 million of the settlement with cyber insurance. The breach, which began in April 2023 and lasted five months, affected nearly half of the company’s 14.1 million customers at the time. 23andMe disclosed the incident in an October 2023 blog post.

The company, led by co-founder Anne Wojcicki, is also facing financial difficulties. It posted a significant quarterly loss and has been attempting to go private. Shares of 23andMe have been trading below $1 since December 2023, a sharp drop from its original public offering price.

Kraken demands jury trial in the case against US Securities and Exchange Commission

The ongoing legal confrontation between Kraken, a prominent crypto exchange, and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) intensifies as Kraken demands a jury trial to address allegations of violating federal securities laws.

According to a court filing on Thursday, Kraken faces accusations similar to those levelled against other major crypto exchanges, Binance and Coinbase, by the SEC. The US federal regulator contends that these companies failed to register as brokers, clearinghouses, or exchanges, as mandated by law.

In November last year, the SEC initiated legal action against Kraken in the Northern District of California, asking the court to permanently enjoin the exchange from committing further securities violations. The agency also seeks to disgorge Kraken’s ‘ill-gotten gains’ and other civil penalties. The SEC has specifically listed 11 tokens claiming these as unregistered securities, arguing that Kraken’s failure to register these securities directly violates federal law.

Kraken asserts it was not required to register with the SEC as it does not classify itself as an exchange, broker-dealer, or clearing agent within the meaning of the Exchange Act. The exchange argues that digital assets should not be considered investment contracts as they lack the rights and obligations associated with traditional financial instruments like stocks or bonds. Additionally, Kraken accuses the SEC of acting without due process and fair notice, suggesting the regulator’s enforcement actions are punitive rather than corrective.

By demanding a jury trial, Kraken is poised to challenge the SEC’s regulatory authority, potentially setting a legal precedent that could influence future digital asset regulation in the United States and beyond.

Elon Musk’s X may sidestep EU’s big tech regulations

Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, is likely to avoid being subjected to the EU’s stringent new tech regulations aimed at curbing the power of Big Tech. The company is expected to fall outside the scope of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which imposes strict rules on firms that act as key intermediaries between businesses and consumers.

The European Commission investigated X in May, exploring whether the platform met the criteria to be classified as a ‘gatekeeper’ under the DMA. To qualify, a company must have over 45 million active users and a market capitalisation of at least €75 billion. Gatekeepers must open their messaging apps to rival services, allow users more control over pre-installed apps, and avoid giving preferential treatment to their products.

X has argued that it does not serve as a critical gateway between businesses and consumers, distancing itself from the obligations set by the DMA. While the investigation remains ongoing, the Commission has not provided further comment on its findings.

However, X faces more pressing issues under the EU’s newly implemented Digital Services Act (DSA), which requires large platforms to actively combat harmful or illegal content or face significant fines—up to 6% of their global turnover. X is under scrutiny as part of several ongoing investigations related to its compliance with the DSA.

Antitrust investigation finds Amazon and Flipkart prioritised sellers

An Indian antitrust investigation has concluded that Amazon and Walmart’s Flipkart breached competition laws by favouring select sellers on their platforms. The probe, initiated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), revealed that both companies created an ecosystem that prioritised certain sellers, making it harder for other retailers to compete.

Reports found that these preferred sellers were given an unfair advantage, appearing higher in search results and receiving additional services, leading to deep discounting practices. The findings highlighted that these practices harmed smaller retailers and stifled competition, especially in the mobile phone sector.

Both Amazon and Flipkart are expected to review the reports and submit objections before any fines are imposed. These companies have consistently denied any wrongdoing and argued that their operations comply with Indian regulations.

The investigation stemmed from complaints by traditional retailers and follows growing concerns about the dominance of e-commerce giants in India. Both Amazon and Flipkart remain major players in a market projected to be worth $160 billion by 2028.

DoT and TRAI to enhance telecom services with new measures

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) are taking significant steps to enhance the security and quality of telecom services. To combat spam and cyber fraud, TRAI has implemented measures to disconnect and blacklist entities involved in bulk spam operations, resulting in the removal of over 3.5 lakh spam numbers and the blacklisting of 50 entities.

Additionally, the DoT’s Sanchar Saathi platform allows citizens of India to report suspicious activity, leading to the disconnection of over one crore fraudulent connections and the blocking of 2.27 lakh handsets involved in cybercrime. Concurrently, TRAI has updated its Quality of Service (QoS) regulations to enforce stricter benchmarks for network performance metrics such as call drop rates, packet drop rates, and latency. Effective 1 October 2024, these regulations will introduce monthly monitoring from April 2025, enhancing oversight and accountability to improve network quality.

DoT and TRAI are also implementing proactive measures to tackle the issue of unregistered telemarketers. For that, TRAI is considering immediate service suspensions for telemarketers not registered, based on a predefined threshold of complaints, and is working on proactive detection of suspected spammers.

These initiatives are part of a broader strategy to create a more secure and user-friendly telecom environment. Through these collaborative efforts, the DoT and TRAI ensure ongoing enhancements in telecom services, infrastructure, and quality assurance, aiming to provide users with a more reliable and customer-centric experience.

EU court rules against Apple’s tax deal and Google’s market practices

In a significant victory for European regulators, the EU’s top court upheld rulings against Apple and Google, marking key moments in the ongoing battle against Big Tech. Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s antitrust chief, has been at the forefront of efforts to challenge multinational companies benefiting from tax deals and engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. On Tuesday, the courts sided with her in two major cases involving Apple’s tax deal with Ireland and Google’s market practices.

The Apple case, which dates back to 2016, revolved around 13 billion euros ($14.4 billion) in back taxes. The European Commission argued that Apple’s arrangement with Ireland allowed the tech giant to pay an artificially low tax rate, at times as low as 0.005%. The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice agreed, confirming that Apple had received unlawful state aid and Ireland must recover the amount. Apple expressed disappointment, arguing that its income had already been taxed in the US and that the EU was attempting to change the rules retroactively.

Ireland, too, had challenged the ruling despite benefiting from the corporate taxes of large tech companies. The country’s low tax rates had attracted giants like Apple to establish European headquarters there. However, in a shift that signals broader changes in global tax policy, Ireland has since agreed to align with new international tax standards, even though its multinational tax take continues to grow.

On the same day, the European Court also ruled against Google in a separate antitrust case. In 2017, the European Commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros for abusing its market dominance by promoting its shopping service over smaller European rivals. Google appealed the decision but was met with a firm rejection. The court ruled that Google’s practices were discriminatory and did not constitute fair competition on the merits. Google, like Apple, voiced disappointment with the decision, though it claimed to have changed its business practices since the original ruling.

The ruling adds to the 8.25 billion euros in antitrust fines Google has accumulated in Europe over the past decade. The company continues to face scrutiny, with ongoing cases related to its Android operating system and AdSense advertising platform and an investigation that could lead to selling parts of its adtech business.

Why does this matter?

The decisions against Apple and Google reflect a broader movement within Europe to challenge the power of Big Tech. These cases are part of a growing trend where governments seek to hold multinational companies accountable for their tax practices and market behaviours. Other major corporations, such as IKEA and Nike, are also under investigation for their tax arrangements as regulators across the globe attempt to reshape the corporate landscape and foster a fairer competitive environment.

Beijing condemns Dutch move to align with US chip restrictions

China has expressed dissatisfaction with the Dutch government’s decision to extend export controls on ASML’s chipmaking equipment. The Dutch government announced it would expand licensing requirements on ASML’s 1970i and 1980i DUV lithography machines, aligning its policies with the US export restrictions introduced last year.

China has criticised Washington’s efforts to pressure allies like the Netherlands and Japan to impose restrictions that limit Chinese access to advanced semiconductor technologies. Beijing described the move as part of the United States strategy to maintain global dominance and strongly opposed the measures.

In its statement, China urged the Netherlands to avoid abusing export controls, emphasising that such actions could harm Sino-Dutch cooperation in the semiconductor sector and damage business interests on both sides. Dutch Trade Minister Reinette Klever defended the decision, saying it was made in the interest of safety.

The Dutch restrictions have effectively blocked ASML, the world’s largest chipmaking equipment supplier, from sending its most advanced lithography systems to China, impacting China’s ability to produce cutting-edge semiconductors.