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.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched a formal antitrust investigation nto Amazon’s $4 billion investment in AI startup Anthropic. This follows recent scrutiny of Google’s ties with the same company, as concerns grow over Big Tech’s strategic investments in AI firms. The CMA’s investigation will determine whether Amazon’s stake in Anthropic could harm competition within the United Kingdom, despite the e-commerce giant not holding a majority stake or board seat in the startup.
Anthropic, established in 2021 and known for developing large language models like its chatbot Claude, has raised $10 billion so far. Its public benefit corporation status is intended to distinguish it from rivals in the AI space. Despite Amazon’s significant investment, Anthropic maintains that its strategic partnerships do not compromise its independence or ability to collaborate with other companies. The CMA has 40 working days to decide whether to advance the investigation to a more in-depth phase.
The CMA’s move comes amid increasing concerns about Big Tech companies adopting a ‘quasi-merger’ approach to avoid full acquisitions, which would likely face greater regulatory scrutiny. The regulator has also been examining similar deals, including Microsoft’s investments in AI startups like OpenAI and Mistral AI. The outcome of the CMA’s probe into Amazon’s investment in Anthropic could have broader implications for how tech giants are regulated in their acquisition strategies.
Amazon’s investment is part of a wider trend in which leading tech companies are securing stakes in promising AI startups to ensure they stay ahead in the rapidly evolving AI sector. With the CMA’s investigation underway, the regulatory landscape for these types of deals is expected to become more stringent, potentially reshaping future investment strategies in the AI industry.
The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) has launched legal action against the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, in a case that revolves around processing user data to train Musk’s AI large language model called Grok. The AI tool or chatbot was developed by xAI, a company founded by Elon Musk, and is used as a search assistant for premium users on the platform.
The DPC is seeking a court order to stop or limit the processing of user data by X for training its AI systems, expressing concerns that this could violate the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The case may be referred to the European Data Protection Board for further review.
The legal dispute is part of a broader conflict between Big Tech companies and regulators over using personal data to develop AI technologies. Consumer organisations have accused X of breaching GDPR, a claim the company has vehemently denied, calling the DPC’s actions unwarranted and overly broad.
The Irish DPC has an important role in overseeing X’s compliance with the EU data protection laws since the platform’s operations in the EU are managed from Dublin. The current legal proceedings could significantly shift how Ireland enforces GDPR against large tech firms.
The DPC is also concerned about X’s plans to launch a new version of Grok, which is reportedly being trained using data from the EU and European Economic Area users. The privacy watchdog argues that this could worsen existing issues with data processing.
Despite X implementing some mitigation measures, such as offering users an opt-out option, these steps were not in place when the data processing began, leading to further scrutiny from the DPC. X has resisted the DPC’s requests to halt data processing or delay the release of the new Grok version, leading to an ongoing court battle.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how AI and data protection issues are handled across Europe.
A consumer group has filed a complaint against Elon Musk’s social media platform X, alleging violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in using user data to train its AI tool, Grok. The complaint, submitted by lawyer Marco Scialdone on behalf of Euroconsumers and Altroconsumo, was lodged with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC).
X users recently discovered that their data was being used to train Grok, an AI chatbot that Musk’s company xAI developed, without explicit consent. The complaint accuses X of failing to clearly explain its data usage practices, collecting excessive data, and possibly mishandling sensitive information. Scialdone has called on the DPC to order X to stop using personal data for AI training and to ensure compliance with GDPR. Violations of these regulations can lead to fines as high as 4% of a company’s worldwide annual revenue, making non-compliance potentially very expensive for X.
The complaint also highlights issues with X’s communication regarding its data processing practices. According to Scialdone, X’s privacy policy does not transparently outline the legal basis for using personal data for AI training. The policy mentions using data on a ‘legitimate interest’ basis, which allows data processing if it serves a valid purpose without infringing on users’ rights. However, Scialdone argued that this information is not easily accessible to users. He also stressed that such legal actions would lead to a consistent regulatory approach across different platforms, preventing disparities in user treatment and market inequalities.
Why does this matter?
Musk’s approach to compliance with the EU privacy laws has been controversial, raising concerns about X’s adherence to regulatory standards. The DPC’s actions signal a potential end to Musk’s relatively unchecked run on GDPR oversight since the filed suit marks the third major tech company facing such allegations, following similar complaints against Meta and LinkedIn. Recently, X has also faced regulatory challenges in the Netherlands and scrutiny under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which could lead to even steeper penalties for non-compliance.
Apple has requested a US judge to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit filed by federal and state regulators, accusing the tech giant of monopolising the smartphone market. The Justice Department, along with 19 states and Washington, D.C., allege that Apple maintains an illegal monopoly by imposing contractual restrictions and withholding critical access from developers.
In its defence, Apple argues that the limitations placed on third-party developers are reasonable and do not constitute anti-competitive behaviour. The company contends that being forced to share its technology with competitors would stifle innovation. Apple further asserts that courts should not be involved in overseeing product design and policy choices in rapidly changing technical markets.
Why does this matter?
The lawsuit challenges Apple’s restrictions and fees on app developers. It claims the company hinders interoperability between iPhones and third-party apps and devices, effectively locking users into Apple’s ecosystem and harming competition. However, Apple counters that no evidence proves its practices harm competition or consumers, who can switch to competitors if dissatisfied with iPhone features.
US District Judge Julien Neals will consider responses from both the government and Apple before deciding on the motion later this year. The legal case is among five major antitrust lawsuits against major tech companies, including Meta, Amazon, and Google.
US progressive groups and Senator Elizabeth Warren have called on the Department of Justice to investigate Nvidia for potential anti-competitive practices, citing the company’s dominant position in the AI chip market. Nvidia’s market value surged to $3 trillion this summer, driven by high demand for its advanced chips used in AI models. The groups, including Demand Progress, criticised Nvidia’s bundling of hardware and software, arguing that it restricts competition and stifles innovation.
The Department of Justice has been directed to oversee potential antitrust probes into Nvidia, while the Federal Trade Commission is investigating other tech giants like Microsoft and OpenAI. Nvidia maintains that it follows all regulations and supports a wide range of industries and innovators.
With approximately 80% of the AI chip market and nearly 100% of the market excluding cloud providers’ custom chips, Nvidia’s dominance is significant. Senator Warren has expressed concerns about the risks of a single company controlling the AI market. The Department of Justice has not commented on the case’s specifics, but antitrust officials are concerned about potential bottlenecks in the industry.
The European Commission has approved Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s (HPE) acquisition of Juniper Networks without any conditions. The Commission determined that the merger would not pose significant competition issues within the European Economic Area (EEA). HPE, a provider of IT infrastructure and cloud solutions, and Juniper, which specialises in networking and security solutions, did not significantly overlap in their markets.
The Commission’s investigation covered several areas, including wireless network equipment, Ethernet switches, and data centre switches. It concluded that the merged entity would still face substantial competition from other major players and would need more market power to disrupt competitive dynamics. The Commission also found no risk of anti-competitive bundling practices due to the differing nature of the products offered by the two companies.
With no substantial competition concerns raised, the Commission cleared the transaction unconditionally. The Commission was notified of the merger on 27 June 2024, and the review was completed within the standard 25 working days. More details on the case can be accessed on the Commission’s competition website under case number M.11457.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) of the United States declared that Amazon will be held accountable for selling hazardous third-party products on its platform. It has further asked the company to take steps to inform consumers and ensure that they return or destroy such products. The directive encompasses 400,000 items that violate flammability standards, such as defective carbon monoxide detectors, unsafe hairdryers, and children’s sleepwear. In response, Amazon revealed its intention to contest the order in court.
The US agency stated that ‘Amazon failed to notify the public about these hazardous products and did not take adequate steps to encourage its customers to return or destroy them, thereby leaving consumers at substantial risk of injury’. The CPSC labelled Amazon as a ‘distributor’ of faulty products, as such products are stored and shipped by the company.
This is not a one-off incident for the company as previously, in 2021, the CPSC also sued Amazon, compelling them to recall numerous hazardous products sold on their platform. Subsequently, Amazon was forced to remove most of these items and refunded customers. Nevertheless, Amazon maintained that they provide logistics for independent sellers and are not distributors.
Britain’s competition regulator, the CNMC, has imposed a hefty fine of €413.2 million (US$448 million) on online reservation platform Booking.com. The fine, the largest ever levied by the CNMC, targets Booking.com’s dominant market position in Spain, where it holds a 70% to 90% share. The penalties stem from practices dating back to 2019.
The CNMC found Booking.com to be imposing unfair terms on hotels and stifling competition from other providers. This included a ban on hotels offering lower prices on their own websites compared to Booking.com’s listings, as well as the ability of Booking.com to unilaterally impose price discounts on hotels. Additionally, the platform mandated that hotels resolve disputes in Dutch courts.
Booking Holdings, Booking.com’s parent company, intends to appeal the fine. They argue that the issue falls under the remit of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act and express strong disagreement with the CNMC’s findings. Booking Holdings plans to challenge the decision in Spain’s high court.
The investigation was triggered by complaints lodged in 2021 by the Spanish Association of Hotel Managers and the Madrid Hotel Business Association. Another point of contention is Booking.com’s practice of offering benefits to hotels that generate higher fees, which critics argue unfairly restricts competition from alternative booking services.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is anticipated to receive unconditional EU antitrust approval for its $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, a leading networking gear maker. The acquisition, announced in January, highlights the industry’s urgency to innovate and develop new products in response to the surge in artificial intelligence-driven services.
The European Commission is set to decide on the deal by 1 August. Both HPE and Juniper have declined to comment on the matter. Sources suggest that HPE plans to emphasise the dominant market position of Cisco, Juniper’s main competitor, to mitigate any potential competition concerns from the EU.
In addition to the EU review, the deal is also under scrutiny by the UK’s antitrust authorities, with their decision expected by 14 August. The acquisition marks a significant move in the tech industry as companies strive to stay competitive in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
