The National Communications Authority (NCA) is conducting a public consultation on its draft Guidelines for the Management of Network Promotional Messages. These guidelines are designed to set industry standards for transmitting network promotional messages, ensuring they comply with legal, ethical, and transparent practices. The guidelines also aim to protect consumer rights by introducing clear opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, regulating the frequency and timing of messages, and standardizing sender identification for better consumer recognition.
The consultation, which began on 2 August 2024, is ongoing and will conclude on 19 September 2024. The NCA encourages all stakeholders, including Service Providers, Consumer Advocacy Groups, and the general public, to participate by reviewing the draft guidelines and providing feedback. The NCA has reaffirmed its commitment to transparency by announcing that all submissions will be treated as non-confidential and will be published on the NCA website as they are received.
Google has introduced a new AI-powered chat assistant to help YouTube creators recover hacked accounts. Currently, in testing, the tool is accessible to select users and aims to guide them through securing their accounts. The AI assistant will assist affected users by helping them regain control of their login details and reverse any changes made by hackers. Presently, the feature supports only the English language, but there are plans to expand its availability.
To use the new tool, users must visit the YouTube Help web page and log into their Google Account. They will then find the option to ‘Recover a hacked YouTube channel’ under the Help Centre menu. This new option opens a chat window with the AI assistant, who will guide them through securing their accounts.
Google’s latest innovation reflects its ongoing commitment to enhancing user security. Although the tool is in its early stages, efforts are being made to make it available to all YouTube creators.
As cyber threats evolve, Google’s AI assistant represents an important step forward in providing robust security solutions. The initiative shows the company’s dedication to protecting its users’ online presence.
Australia’s Federal Court has ruled that Bit Trade Pty, the operator of the Kraken cryptocurrency exchange in Australia, failed to meet design and distribution obligations for its margin trading product. The case, initiated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in September 2023, centred on Bit Trade’s failure to determine an appropriate target market before offering the product, despite prior warnings.
The court’s ruling highlights the legal requirement for financial products to be appropriately distributed to consumers. ASIC argued that the obligation to repay digital assets or national currency classified the margin trading product as a credit facility, which required stricter compliance. ASIC’s Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, emphasised the significance of this outcome as a reminder to the crypto industry about the importance of adhering to regulations.
Bit Trade, a subsidiary of US company Payward Incorporated, expressed disappointment with the decision but stated its readiness to comply with the court’s ruling. The company has seven days to negotiate declarations and injunctions with ASIC, which plans to pursue financial penalties against Bit Trade at a later date.
In addition to this case, Kraken’s parent company is also under scrutiny in the US, where the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit in November 2023, accusing Kraken of operating as a securities exchange without proper registration.
A Washington, DC, appeals court has revived a lawsuit against Amazon, claiming that the company’s pricing policies stifle competition. The District of Columbia had initially filed the lawsuit in May 2021, accusing Amazon of restricting third-party sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms and maintaining agreements with wholesalers that discourage price reductions. The lawsuit alleges that these practices harm competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.
The DC Court of Appeals reversed a previous ruling that dismissed the case, stating that the claims made by the DC Attorney General were plausible and could proceed. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal challenge, as Amazon also faces similar accusations from the US Federal Trade Commission and several states.
Amazon has defended its policies, arguing that they benefit consumers by ensuring competitive pricing. However, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb has welcomed the court’s decision, reaffirming his commitment to fighting what he describes as Amazon’s unfair practices that limit innovation and choice in online retail.
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.
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.
