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.
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.
