Google must now contend with a class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting data through Chrome without user consent. A US federal appeals court has revived the case, overturning a 2022 decision that had dismissed it. The court highlighted the need for a closer examination of Google’s privacy disclosures to determine whether users genuinely understood and consented to the data collection.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, alleges that Google collected user data from Chrome even when they did not enable Chrome sync. Plaintiffs argue that browsing history, IP addresses, and unique browser identifiers were shared without explicit permission. Google has maintained that users consented by accepting its privacy policy, a stance previously upheld by a lower court.
However, the recent ruling suggests that the lower court may have overlooked whether users truly grasped the implications of their agreement with Google. The case will now return to the lower courts for further consideration. Google remains confident in its position, stating that Chrome Sync provides seamless functionality across devices while maintaining clear privacy controls.
Despite the ongoing legal challenge, Google spokesperson José Castañeda has emphasised that upcoming changes to Chrome’s sync feature, which will no longer be necessary for accessing saved information, are unrelated to the lawsuit.
India’s Commerce Minister, Piyush Goyal, has accused Amazon and other e-commerce giants of predatory pricing practices that threaten the survival of millions of traditional brick-and-mortar stores in the country. He expressed concerns that these companies are using their vast investments to mask business losses and undercut smaller retailers, thus bypassing Indian regulations designed to protect local businesses.
Amazon and Walmart-owned Flipkart have significantly transformed India‘s retail sector by investing billions to attract consumers with enticing discounts. However, India’s regulations prohibit these companies from directly selling to consumers, limiting them to operating marketplaces where third-party sellers offer products. Despite these restrictions, small retailers have alleged that Amazon and Flipkart use complex business structures to circumvent the rules.
Goyal’s comments came during an event in New Delhi, where he criticised Amazon, accusing the company of using its substantial investments to cover up losses linked to predatory pricing tactics. He questioned the legitimacy of Amazon’s business practices but did not provide specific evidence to support his claims. Both Amazon and Flipkart have yet to respond to these allegations.
Why does this matter?
In the past, Goyal has openly criticised US e-commerce companies for exploiting their scale and access to low-cost capital to the detriment of small retailers. A report in 2021 revealed that Amazon allegedly helped a select group of sellers thrive on its Indian platform by offering them discounted fees, which allowed the company to bypass foreign investment laws—a claim Amazon has denied.
Both Amazon and Flipkart are currently under investigation by Indian antitrust authorities, but they continue to deny any wrongdoing. Goyal’s remarks have reignited the debate over the impact of large e-commerce players on India’s traditional retail landscape.
A federal judge in Dallas has blocked the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ban on noncompete agreements, which would have made it difficult for workers to join competing employers or start their own businesses. The ruling, issued by US District Judge Ada Brown, prevents the ban from taking effect on 4 September, although the FTC may still appeal the decision. Judge Brown stated that the FTC had exceeded its authority, calling the ban ‘unreasonably overbroad’ and potentially causing ‘irreparable harm.’
The FTC has expressed disappointment with the ruling, emphasising its commitment to challenging noncompete agreements that they argue restrict economic freedom, hinder innovation, and depress wages. The agency is considering an appeal, which would go to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the meantime, the FTC will have to address noncompete issues on a case-by-case basis.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by tax firm Ryan LLC, supported by the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, which argued that the ban would make it harder for companies to retain talent. Despite the FTC’s claim that the ban would enable the creation of over 8,500 new businesses annually, the judge’s decision has put the nationwide ban on hold.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finalised a rule prohibiting companies from buying or selling fake online reviews. New regulation allows the FTC to impose fines of up to $51,744 per violation, targeting deceptive practices that harm consumers and distort competition.
The rule addresses various forms of manipulation, including fake reviews from non-existent customers, company insiders, or AI. It also bans purchasing fabricated views or followers on social media and using intimidation to remove negative reviews. While the rule does not require platforms to verify consumer reviews, it represents a significant step towards a more honest online marketplace.
Trade groups and businesses like Google, Amazon, and Yelp have supported the rule. Yelp’s General Counsel, Aaron Schur, stated that enforcing the rule would improve the review landscape and promote fair competition among businesses.
Consumer advocates, such as Teresa Murray from the US Public Interest Research Group, praised the rule as essential protection for online shoppers. The hope is that the fear of penalties will encourage companies to adhere to ethical practices, benefiting both consumers and businesses.
India’s telecom regulator has ordered service providers to halt all promotional calls from unregistered numbers immediately and to blacklist these callers in response to a growing number of spam and phishing scams. These fraudulent calls often involve scammers posing as representatives of well-known companies like FedEx and Blue Dart to steal sensitive financial information by sending phishing links to retrieve lost packages.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) emphasised that all promotional calls from unregistered telemarketers must be stopped immediately. Unregistered callers will face blacklisting for up to two years. Telecom service providers must report their actions against scam callers on the 1st and 16th of each month to ensure compliance and combat this issue effectively.
The US Department of Justice is exploring various options, including potentially breaking up Alphabet’s Google, after a recent court ruling found the tech giant guilty of illegally monopolising the online search market. The ruling was considered a significant victory for federal authorities challenging Big Tech’s dominance, which determined that Google spent billions to establish an illegal monopoly as the world’s default search engine.
Among the remedies the DOJ considers are forcing Google to share data with competitors and implementing safeguards to prevent the company from gaining an unfair advantage in AI products. Discussions have also included the possibility of divesting key assets such as the Android operating system, the AdWords search ad program, and the Chrome web browser.
Why does this matter?
The following case is part of a broader effort by federal antitrust regulators, who have previously taken action against other tech giants like Meta Platforms, Amazon, and Apple, accusing them of maintaining illegal monopolies. Alphabet and the DOJ have not yet commented on the ongoing deliberations.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a lawsuit against cryptocurrency company NovaTech and its founders, Cynthia and Eddy Petion, accusing them of fraudulently raising over $650 million from investors worldwide. The SEC claims that the Petions assured investors their funds would be secure, with promises of profits from the outset. However, the lawsuit alleges that the couple used new investments to pay off earlier investors and commissions to promoters while diverting millions for personal use. The scheme reportedly continued for four years until NovaTech collapsed in May 2023.
The legal dispute follows a separate lawsuit by New York Attorney General Letitia James in Manhattan, where the fraud was estimated to exceed $1 billion. Both regulators have labelled the operation a pyramid scheme, noting that NovaTech enticed victims through religious appeals on social media, often using platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp to target Haitian-American communities. Cynthia Petion was known to portray herself as the ‘Reverend CEO,’ suggesting NovaTech was part of a divine plan.
The SEC has also charged six NovaTech promoters with fraud, accusing them of continuing to recruit investors despite numerous warning signs, such as delayed withdrawals and regulatory actions in the US and Canada. One promoter, Martin Zizi, has agreed to pay a $100,000 civil fine, though his legal representation has not commented.
The lawsuits in Miami and New York seek restitution for the defrauded investors and civil penalties. The Petions, believed to reside in Panama, have yet to be located for comment, and no legal representatives have been identified. Both cases highlight the significant legal challenges NovaTech faces as authorities seek accountability for the alleged misconduct.
The SEC’s case against NovaTech is being heard in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuits aim to recover losses for investors and impose financial penalties on those involved in the fraudulent scheme.
Polish billionaire Rafal Brzoska and his wife plan to take legal action against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, due to fake advertisements circulating on these platforms. These ads falsely feature Brzoska’s image and spread misinformation about his wife. The couple has yet to decide where to file the lawsuit, which is part of a broader effort to hold Meta accountable for allowing such ads to persist even after being alerted to the issue.
Brzoska, known for founding the Polish parcel locker company InPost, stated that he first notified Meta about the problem in early July but has yet to see a resolution. He and his wife are considering various legal jurisdictions, including possibly filing a lawsuit in the United States if they don’t see action in Europe. They intend to demand that Meta cease profiting from misleading content that infringes on their rights and seek substantial compensation, which they plan to donate to charity.
The situation has prompted action from the President of the Personal Data Protection Office in Poland, who recently mandated that Meta Platforms Ireland Limited stop displaying false advertisements featuring the Brzoskas on Facebook and Instagram in Poland for three months.
A Meta spokesperson responded that the company removes false ads when discovered and collaborates with local authorities to combat scammers. They acknowledged the ongoing challenge of scammers who constantly adapt to evade detection, reaffirming their commitment to working with businesses, local governments, and law enforcement to address these issues.
Apart from the cryptocurrency-focused media, not many US news outlets have been providing this newsworthy coverage. The United States is home to more than 100 top cryptocurrency companies. In particular, the USA is home to the world’s second largest cryptocurrency exchange, Coinbase, which is a publicly traded company. Coinbase reported a USD 273 million profit in the fourth quarter of 2023. For the full year of 2023, it earned USD 95 million on USD 3.1 billion in revenue, while in 2022, it posted a loss of USD 2.6 billion. Apart from Coinbase, Marathon Mining, the largest US cryptocurrency mining operation, reported a staggering revenue increase of 229% to a record USD 387.5 million in 2023 from USD 117.8 million in 2022. Several policy proposals are before policymakers in the USA, trying to tackle issues related to the industry.
In late July 2024, Nashville, Tennessee (USA) was the stage of the largest annual bitcoin gathering. The Bitcoin Conference 2024 had one speaker that everyone awaited with anticipation. Republican Party candidate and the former US President Donald J Trump is the first high-end political figure in the USA who agreed to address the bitcoin crowd. Trump’s appearance was announced a couple of weeks before, and at that very moment the issue of cryptocurrency and the surrounding industry slipped into the main discussion among the candidates for the November US elections.
Back on the green
So, the industry is back on the green, regulation is discussed in the US Senate and Congress and the mining industry is growing. How come that industry is not discussed that much on the main political stage?
In Nashville, everything was ready for Trump’s appearance. The former president’s campaign trail advertised his appearance as one of the highlights of his July campaign. Anyhow, the crowd gathered at the Bitcoin Conference is not politically homogeneous. There are people on the complete opposite side of Trump’s proposed political spectrum. In the past, US cryptocurrency companies were one of the top contributors to the US Democratic Party (most prominently, Sam Bankman-Fried, now convicted, former CEO of the failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX).
Crypto vs bitcoin
Before I continue, let me give you a brief explanation. It is important, trust me.
In short, the cryptocurrency industry is divided into two strongly opinionated teams standing on opposite sides. Bitcoin adopters would almost never call themselves crypto enthusiasts. They consider other cryptocurrencies, cryptocurrency exchanges, and the entire idea of ‘blockchain technology changing the world’ to be false. For (true) bitcoiners, NFTs, meme coins, microtransactions, enormous overnight profits, and other ‘miraculous’ stories were considered nothing more than elaborate schemes for tricksters and scammers willing to sell innocent investors a story of the world-changing technology. And to be fair, that narrative kind of proved to be true. For years, US financial regulators have been waging war on cryptocurrencies and online cryptocurrency exchanges as ‘unregulated securities’ businesses. The US SEC has already won many cryptocurrency-related court cases for scam and fraud charges. On the other hand, the same regulatory agency has made a clear distinction between bitcoin and others. The SEC has officially stated that bitcoin cannot be considered a security but rather a commodity and that they will not pursue any bitcoin holders or bitcoin-only companies (in a court case back in 2019). This is thought to be due the decentralised nature of bitcoin. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, bitcoin does not have a CEO, headquarters, or hire anyone to work on its update. Bitcoin is simply an open-source protocol that handles digital value as unique information. Therefore, it cannot be defined as ‘a promise of profits’ to investors, which is the main argument of the famous Howey Test, a metric that has been used by the SEC to determine the scope of its work since the 1946 Supreme Court case.
This is the first point of difference recognised by regulators and one of the main arguments for Bitcoin as digital gold. Bitcoin can be used at a settlement level to create a future ‘digital gold standard’ mimicking the now abandoned ‘gold standard’ for the global economy. Bitcoiners argue that other cryptocurrencies and the industry as a whole have achieved a huge value transfer but fail to see any value creation (thus far). Court decisions worldwide have confirmed quite similar things.
Energy consumption in cryptocurrency
The second point of major disagreement between the two sides (crypto and bitcoin) is the way the industry is spending energy. Energy is the most frequently mentioned issue in the media coverage of cryptocurrency developments. You have heard and read numerous reports on the massive amount of energy used to mine (create) cryptocurrency and 99.5% of that energy is spent in bitcoin mining. The proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm, used in the bitcoin network for security reasons, requires miners to spend energy creating new bitcoins. Specialised mining equipment is often located near big power plants, and the pursuit of cheap electricity is the major driver of the industry. In contrast, the crypto industry, apart from bitcoin, has created a solution for such energy demand with the non-energy consuming Proof-of-Stake (PoS) algorithm for network security. Therefore, the crypto industry is now pointing to bitcoin as the sole reason why regulators are thinking about cryptocurrencies, as the green agenda worldwide becomes dominant. A couple of US legislators from the Democratic Party have filed several motions for a statewide ban on bitcoin mining as an energy demanding industry. As a counter-argument, bitcoiners say that the actual amount of energy spent for bitcoin creation gives it its power. In other words, energy spent in creation gives bitcoin an intrinsic value similar to physical gold.
It is important that these distinctions have been clarified in order to understand the scope of Trump’s address. With that, back to Nashville.
One of my friends who was in the audience told me that people who normally are not interested in politics were ecstatic and wanted to hear the first address of the US president to the bitcoin crowd. President Trump took the stage at the Bitcoin Conference 2024 and gave the crowd all they wanted to hear, and a bit more. He said that the AI and bitcoin industries are similar as they need the same thing: electricity. He made a promise to the United States to ramp up electricity production by a couple of folds, clearly setting his agenda on the opposite side of Democrat’s calls for mining bans. We want all bitcoins in the world to be created in the USA, he said. ‘We will be creating so much electricity that you’ll be saying: Please, please president, we don’t want any more electricity…’
He immediately followed with the promise to relieve Mr Gary Gensler, the current chairman of the US SEC. Actually, he would do it on his first day in the office. He promised that the bitcoin and crypto industry would stay in the USA. But one of the most dazzling promises for all bitcoiners attending was his announcement that the USA might start accumulating bitcoins as for future global trade. The crowd was overwhelmed, as he confirmed that the idea of bitcoin as digital gold had finally received approval from the top policymaker, let alone the former (and possibly future) president of the United States. Later during the conference, plans were elaborated on how such a thing can be done. If true, this could indeed play a significant role in the worldwide adoption of bitcoin as a global store of digital value. Having in mind that the future global economy will certainly be digital, such a thing is actually quite possible and logical. Ultimately, it is a matter of political will to create such a strong global independent currency not related to the reigning central banking system. ‘Bitcoin will probably overtake gold (market), there was never anything like it… it’s not only a marvel of technology but the miracle of (human) corporation.’ To back that up, Trump reiterated that he would halt the development of the US Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
Trump finished with the best wishes for all: ‘We will make America and bitcoin bigger, better, stronger, richer, freer, and greater than ever before… Have a good time with your bitcoin and your crypto and everything else you’re playing with.’
The moment he said it, the crowd suddenly became colder. They realised that he was not aware of the distinction between bitcoin and crypto. Actually, he might just populistically say what crowds want to hear, and the moment the script was taken off the teleprompter, he could not tell the difference between the two.
This was for sure the event that launched issues surrounding bitcoin and cryptocurrency in the US elections race, as more and more young voters are getting to the polling stations and the idea of the independent global currency becomes not so utopian and high-end tech issue. In any case, we will have to wait and see which of those promises are actual future policies and which part plays the role of enchanting the masses. Open-source software, energy consumption, and consumer protection will be discussed in detail in the future.
A US court has ordered the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX to pay $12.7 billion in relief to its customers. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that the order resolves a settlement between the CFTC and FTX, which collapsed in late 2022 after misappropriating customer deposits for risky investments. FTX has committed to a bankruptcy liquidation plan, promising 100% recovery for its customers based on the value of their accounts at the time of the bankruptcy filing.
The CFTC settlement ensures that the government’s lawsuit against FTX will not reduce the funds available to customers, as the CFTC has agreed to wait until all customers are repaid with interest before collecting any payment. FTX is required to pay $8.7 billion in restitution and $4 billion in disgorgement to further compensate victims for their losses. Despite the settlement, some victims of the crypto theft remain dissatisfied, arguing that they are being short-changed by the decision to repay them based on lower cryptocurrency prices from November 2022.
FTX is currently soliciting votes on its bankruptcy proposal, with final approval expected on 7 October. The exchange has been selling assets purchased with misappropriated customer funds to satisfy its obligations. Meanwhile, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, sentenced to 25 years in prison for stealing $8 billion from customers, has appealed his conviction.
