Apple and Google face growing scrutiny in the UK over allegations of stifling competition in mobile web browsers. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) claims that both companies use their dominant positions to restrict consumer choice, citing Apple’s limits on progressive web apps as a barrier to innovation on iOS devices. Progressive web apps could bypass app stores and their fees, offering faster and more secure browsing.
The CMA’s report also points to a revenue-sharing deal between Apple and Google that discourages competition in mobile ecosystems. Both companies have responded, with Apple defending its privacy and security measures and Google emphasising the openness of its Android platform.
This investigation is part of a broader crackdown on Big Tech, with regulators in the US and UK aiming to curb monopolistic practices. The CMA plans to finalise its report in March and use upcoming digital competition laws to address these concerns.
The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for a multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, over its role in the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. Investors claim Meta failed to fully disclose the risks of user data misuse, which caused Facebook’s stock value to drop sharply in 2018 when the scandal became public.
Cambridge Analytica, a firm tied to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, accessed data from 87M Facebook users to influence voter targeting. While Meta has already paid over $5B in fines and settlements for privacy violations, this lawsuit focuses on alleged failures in investor disclosures.
The US Supreme Court dismissed Meta’s appeal to halt the lawsuit, leaving a prior appellate ruling intact. As legal challenges mount for tech giants, the court is also considering another class action against Nvidia over claims of misleading investors about cryptocurrency-related revenues.
The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalised a rule to supervise the largest nonbank companies offering digital funds transfer and payment wallet apps, specifically those processing over 50 million transactions annually. That rule aims to ensure that these companies comply with federal laws, similar to banks and credit unions.
The CFPB estimates that the apps affected by this rule collectively process over 13 billion consumer payment transactions yearly. In addressing key concerns such as consumer privacy, fraud prevention, transaction errors, and the issue of ‘debanking’, where consumers lose access to their accounts, the rule will grant the CFPB the authority to supervise these companies proactively.
That will help detect problems early and protect consumers from disruptions such as account closures and fraudulent transactions. Furthermore, the transaction threshold for supervision has been raised to 50 million transactions annually, and the rule’s scope is limited to US dollar transactions. Therefore, this action is part of the CFPB’s broader effort to regulate large technology firms in consumer financial markets.
Digital payment apps are crucial for daily commerce, particularly among middle and lower-income consumers. The CFPB’s oversight will ensure these companies protect privacy, address fraud, and prevent service disruptions, building on past efforts to regulate sectors like debt collection and student loan servicing. This helps ensure that digital payment companies comply with consumer protection laws.
The Blockchain Association has sent a letter to president-elect Donald Trump and Congress, outlining key reforms for the crypto industry during the first 100 days of Trump’s administration. The letter, signed by CEO Kristin Smith, highlights the need for new leadership at the IRS and Treasury Department, alongside changes to policies hindering crypto innovation.
Smith criticised inconsistent taxation on digital assets and the IRS’s ‘Broker rule’, which requires brokers to disclose gains and losses on crypto transactions, warning it could drive businesses offshore. The association also called for rolling back the SAB 121 accounting guideline, labelling it ‘punitive’ and harmful to crypto firms.
The letter further urged reforms to end the exclusion of crypto companies from traditional banking, citing the need for fair access to financial services. To support innovation, the Blockchain Association proposed creating a crypto advisory council to work alongside Congress and regulators.
The association emphasised the importance of a balanced regulatory framework to protect consumers while fostering growth, stressing the role of public-private partnerships in establishing effective policies.
India’s Competition Commission has rejected Apple’s request to pause an antitrust investigation, clearing the way for the case to progress. The investigation alleges Apple breached competition laws by exploiting its dominant app store position. Apple disputes these claims, arguing its market share in India is minor compared to Android devices.
The controversy began in 2021 when the non-profit Together We Fight Society (TWFS) accused Apple of anti-competitive practices. In August, the commission ordered investigation reports to be recalled, following Apple’s claims of sensitive information being leaked to rivals. Revised reports were issued after redaction disputes, but Apple requested a suspension, citing non-compliance by TWFS.
Regulator in India dismissed Apple’s concerns, calling its request to halt proceedings ‘untenable.’ The commission has now instructed Apple to submit audited financial records for three fiscal years to assess potential penalties. Apple has yet to respond publicly to these developments.
Senior officials at the Competition Commission are reviewing the evidence and will issue a final ruling. The case highlights broader scrutiny of major tech companies’ market behaviour, particularly regarding app store operations and developer relations.
The European Commission has closed its antitrust investigation into Apple’s e-book and audiobook practices after the original complaint was withdrawn, TechCrunch reported. The probe, launched in 2020, examined Apple’s in-app payment rules and its restrictions on third-party developers informing users about alternative payment methods.
This inquiry followed a similar case involving music-streaming apps, which led to a $2 billion fine against Apple earlier this year after Spotify alleged unfair competition. Despite the closure of the e-book case, the Commission clarified that this does not mean Apple’s practices comply with EU competition laws.
The investigation’s conclusion underscores the EU’s ongoing efforts to regulate tech giants and ensure a fair digital marketplace, with Apple remaining a focal point of scrutiny.
The US Supreme Court has decided to allow a class-action lawsuit against Meta, Facebook’s parent company, to move forward. The case stems from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where the political consulting firm accessed personal data from 87M Facebook users and used it for voter targeting in the 2016 US presidential election. Meta had sought to block the lawsuit, but the court dismissed its appeal.
Investors claim Meta failed to fully disclose the risks of data misuse, leading to two major drops in its stock price in 2018 when the extent of the privacy breach became public. Meta has already paid a $5.1B fine and a $725M settlement with users over related allegations.
The lawsuit is one of several legal challenges facing big tech firms. A separate case against Nvidia is under review, as investors allege the company misled them about its dependency on cryptocurrency mining.
A significant step in financial regulation will see major tech companies processing over 13 billion transactions annually subject to closer oversight. The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has finalised a rule bringing digital wallets and payment apps under the same scrutiny as banks. The move aims to enhance consumer privacy protections, combat fraud, and ensure fair account management.
The rule, targeting services like Apple Wallet, Google Pay, and Venmo, signals a shift in recognising digital payments as essential consumer tools. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasised the need for oversight that reflects the growing reliance on these services. The measure, first proposed a year ago, has undergone substantial revisions to refine its scope and application.
Only companies processing over 50 million transactions annually will fall under the rule, a change from the initially proposed threshold of 5 million. Moreover, the regulation focuses solely on transactions in US dollars, excluding digital assets from its purview. Critics, including the Financial Technology Association, argue that the rule lacks a clear justification, though some in the banking industry support its introduction.
Set to take effect 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register, the rule has sparked debate over its future under a changing regulatory landscape. With the growing role of digital payments in daily life, the rule marks a pivotal moment for the industry and consumer protections alike.
Amazon is likely to face an EU investigation next year into allegations that it favours its own brand products on its online marketplace, according to sources familiar with the matter. If found in violation of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Amazon could face a fine of up to 10% of its global revenue.
The potential investigation will be overseen by Teresa Ribera, the incoming EU antitrust chief, who will take office next month. Amazon has denied any wrongdoing, stating it complies with the DMA and treats all products equally in its ranking algorithms. The company has been in ongoing discussions with the European Commission about its practices.
The DMA, implemented last year, aims to curb the dominance of Big Tech by prohibiting preferential treatment of their products and services. Alongside Amazon, other tech giants such as Apple, Google, and Meta are also under scrutiny. Amazon shares fell 3% following reports of the possible investigation.
OpenAI is under scrutiny after engineers accidentally erased key evidence in an ongoing copyright lawsuit filed by The New York Times and Daily News. The publishers accuse OpenAI of using their copyrighted content to train its AI models without authorisation.
The issue arose when OpenAI provided virtual machines for the plaintiffs to search its training datasets for infringed material. On 14 November 2024, OpenAI engineers deleted the search data stored on one of these machines. While most of the data was recovered, the loss of folder structures and file names rendered the information unusable for tracing specific sources in the training process.
Plaintiffs are now forced to restart the time-intensive search, leading to concerns over OpenAI’s ability to manage its own datasets. Although the deletion is not suspected to be intentional, lawyers argue that OpenAI is best equipped to perform searches and verify its use of copyrighted material. OpenAI maintains that training AI on publicly available data falls under fair use, but it has also struck licensing deals with major publishers like the Associated Press and News Corp. The company has neither confirmed nor denied using specific copyrighted works for its AI training.
