Japan’s cabinet has approved a legislative proposal to curb the dominance of tech giants like Google and Apple by imposing major fines on those that restrict third-party access to smartphone apps and payment systems. This initiative mirrors the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and targets anti-competitive behaviour, threatening fines of up to 20% of their revenues.
According to government spokesman Yoshimasa Hayashi, this regulation is crucial for maintaining a competitive digital environment internationally and fostering innovation and consumer choice in software necessary for smartphone usage.
Concurrently, the Japanese government is escalating efforts to regulate social media platforms like Meta, addressing the surge in online scams that exploit celebrity images. The local unit of Meta has been criticised for its inadequate response to online scams that exploit celebrity images to commit fraud. Former Digital Transformation Minister Takuya Hirai has suggested that the Japanese Diet might summon Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify. He criticised Meta for being the ‘most non-compliant platform owner’ and highlighted the company’s insufficient efforts in combating these fraudulent activities.
The EU has designated Shein, a fast-fashion company founded by China, as a very large online platform (VLOP) due to its extensive user base, surpassing 45 million users. The categorisation under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) imposes stricter regulations on platforms regarding online content, mandating them to take more robust measures against illegal and harmful content as well as counterfeit products.
Shein, responding to the designation, expressed its commitment to complying with the rules outlined by the EU. Leonard Lin, Shein’s global head of public affairs, emphasised the company’s dedication to ensuring consumers in the EU can confidently shop online. Shein, known for its rapid expansion and popularity, launched its marketplace in the EU in August last year and is considering a US initial public offering.
ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, faces a crucial decision amidst looming legislation threatening to ban the app from US app stores. Sources close to ByteDance revealed that the company may opt to shut down TikTok rather than sell it, should legal avenues be exhausted. Central to this decision is the significance of TikTok’s algorithms, which are considered vital to ByteDance’s operations. Despite TikTok’s contribution being a small fraction of ByteDance’s total revenue and user base, the parent company hesitates to part with its core algorithm.
TikTok’s fate hinges on US legislation, with President Biden signing a bill that could force its sale by 19 January. However, Biden may extend this deadline by three months if ByteDance shows progress. Yet, ByteDance remains tight-lipped about its plans. It merely reiterates its lack of intention to sell TikTok as its CEO expresses confidence in overcoming legal challenges, underlining the app’s importance to its 170 million American users.
The intertwined nature of TikTok with ByteDance’s core algorithms poses a significant hurdle to any potential sale. TikTok’s algorithms align closely with ByteDance’s domestic apps, making it challenging to divest without relinquishing crucial intellectual property. Moreover, ByteDance is adamant about safeguarding its ‘secret source’ – the TikTok algorithm – from falling into the hands of competitors. This stance reflects a broader concern over data security and technological sovereignty.
Why does it matter?
Tensions surrounding TikTok highlight broader geopolitical and technological concerns, with China indicating resistance to any forced divestment of the app. The situation underscores the intricate web of international relations, trade regulations, and corporate strategies shaping the fate of digital platforms like TikTok. As ByteDance navigates this complex landscape, the future of TikTok hangs in the balance, with profound implications for both the company and its millions of users worldwide.
Google announced that it will update its policies to stop allowing political ads in Brazil through Google Ads, including YouTube, to display alongside search results and other types of advertisements contracted through the company’s tool. This update, set to take effect in May, aligns with the implementation of electoral resolutions for 2024.
One notable development is the resolution passed by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) in late February, which requires establishing ad libraries and repositories for political and electoral content on platforms for real-time monitoring. This resolution also bars companies from providing content promotion services for ads that are notably false or severely misleading, thus posing a potential threat to the integrity of the electoral process.
In this regard, the resolution states that when such content has been promoted ‘irregularly,’ the Electoral Court may require platforms to disseminate, ‘through promotion and at no cost,’ informative content that clarifies notably false information ‘in the same manner and scope of the original promotion.’ Such measures are to be enforced continuously, even in non-election years and pre and post-election periods.
In 2022, Google introduced Brazil to its transparency reports on political ads across its platforms, initially focusing on federal-level candidates and later expanding to include state-level candidates. However, with the new TSE resolution, the scope broadens to include elected officials, candidates, government proposals, legislative projects, voting rights, and other political matters.
Why does it matter?
The TSE resolutions represent concrete measures against a long-standing concern in Brazil regarding the role of social media platforms in the country’s political landscape. While Google appears willing to comply with government measures, not all platforms share this stance, particularly X. Tensions peaked recently when Elon Musk engaged directly in a dispute with Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is investigating digital misinformation and an alleged coup attempt during former President Jair Bolsonaro’s tenure. Musk claimed that Moraes’s decision to block specific accounts was unconstitutional.
Kenya’s government has advised against banning TikTok amidst concerns over content shared on the platform, suggesting stricter oversight instead. The recommendation comes in response to a parliamentary panel considering a citizen’s petition to ban the Chinese-owned app. The interior ministry alleges TikTok has been used for spreading propaganda, fraud, and distributing sexual content.
The information and communication ministry proposed a co-regulation model, urging TikTok to screen content for compliance with laws in Kenya and submit quarterly reports on removed material. TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, has yet to comment on the recommendation since it has faced global criticism but defended its user privacy record.
Regulatory scrutiny of TikTok is not unique to Kenya. Italy recently fined three TikTok units for inadequate content checks, especially concerning children’s safety. Meanwhile, in the US, the Senate approved legislation threatening a TikTok ban unless ByteDance divests within the next nine to twelve months. Concerns centre around fears that China could exploit the app for data access or surveillance of American users.
TikTok has suspended its rewards functions in TikTok Lite, a new app catering to regions with slower internet speeds. This decision follows concerns raised by the European Commission regarding the app’s ‘Task and Reward Program,’ which incentivises user engagement with rewards like Amazon vouchers and PayPal gift cards. Particularly, worries over potential addictive effects, especially for children, due to inadequate age verification mechanisms have been highlighted by the EU executive.
Our children are not guinea pigs for social media.
I take note of TikTok’s decision to suspend the #TikTokLite “Reward Program” in the EU.
The cases against TikTok on the risk of addictiveness of the platform continue.#DSA ensures the safety of our 🇪🇺 online space. https://t.co/J1oI6zNI97
In response to the Commission’s apprehensions, TikTok stated its commitment to engaging constructively with regulators and suspended the rewards functions. However, Commissioner Thierry Breton emphasised that concerns regarding TikTok’s platform addictiveness persist, along with an ongoing investigation to determine TikTok Lite’s compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA, which came into force recently, imposes regulations on how online platforms handle illegal and harmful content, with TikTok falling under its jurisdiction as a very large online platform (VLOP).
Under the DSA, TikTok was required to conduct and submit a risk assessment before launching the Lite app. However, the Commission’s proceedings revealed TikTok’s initial failure to meet this requirement. Despite missing the initial deadline, TikTok eventually submitted the risk assessment, indicating compliance with the Commission’s demands. France’s digital minister and MEPs have welcomed TikTok’s suspension decision, signalling a positive response from the EU authorities regarding the company’s efforts to address regulatory concerns.
President Joe Biden has signed into law a foreign aid package that includes a provision to ban TikTok if its China-based parent company, ByteDance, fails to divest the app within a year. The legal action sets a deadline for ByteDance to take action, with an initial nine-month period to finalise a deal, extendable by another three months if progress is evident.
By the way..
President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign has opted to maintain its presence on TikTok despite Biden signing a bill that mandates the sale or potential ban of the Chinese-owned app within the US due to security apprehensions. The campaign emphasised that TikTok serves as a crucial platform to engage with voters, particularly the younger demographic, stating it’s vital to meet them where they are. The Biden team assured us they would implement enhanced security measures on TikTok, although specifics were not disclosed for security reasons.
The Biden-Harris campaign’s TikTok account boasts over 300,000 followers and has been instrumental in sharing campaign content, including videos of the president and other political figures.
Initially, the legislation faced uncertainty in the Senate after passing in the House as a standalone bill. However, strategic political tactics in the House saw the TikTok bill combined with foreign aid to US allies, which compelled the Senate to consider and ultimately pass the measures together. The revised bill extended the divestment timeline from six months to a year, garnering broader support among lawmakers.
TikTok has indicated its intention to challenge the law in court even though legal challenges could delay enforcement, impacting the timeline for divestment. Additionally, there are uncertainties about China’s response and whether ByteDance will be permitted to sell TikTok along with its algorithm, a key asset driving the app’s popularity.
ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, has submitted a long-awaited risk assessment for its TikTok Lite service, recently launched in France and Spain, following regulatory threats of fines and potential bans from the European Commission. Regulators are concerned about the addictive nature of TikTok Lite, particularly its rewards system for users, and claim ByteDance didn’t complete a full risk assessment on time.
ByteDance now has until 24 April to defend itself against regulatory action, including possibly suspending the rewards program. Failure to comply with regulations could result in fines of up to 1% of its total annual income or periodic penalties of up to 5% of its average daily income under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Meanwhile, in the US, legislation is swiftly advancing through Congress, requiring ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to divest its ownership within a year or face a US ban. The Senate has passed this measure as part of a foreign aid package, sending it to President Joe Biden for his expected approval. ByteDance will have nine months initially, with a possible three-month extension, to complete the sale, though legal challenges could cause delays.
Italy’s antitrust authority has fined two Amazon subsidiaries 10 million euros for alleged unfair commercial practices, a decision that Amazon plans to challenge through an appeal. The regulator accused Amazon of limiting consumers’ freedom of choice by automatically pre-setting a ‘Subscribe and Save’ option on its website for a wide range of products. This practice encouraged consumers to opt for recurring deliveries rather than one-off purchases, potentially restricting their ability to choose freely.
According to the authority, pre-ticking recurring purchases could lead consumers to buy products periodically, even without a genuine need, thus curtailing their freedom to choose. Amazon responded by contesting the decision and stating its intention to appeal. The company defended its ‘Subscribe and Save’ program, highlighting its benefits to customers regarding cost savings and convenience for routine purchases.
Amazon emphasised that the ‘Subscribe and Save’ option, which allows customers to schedule regular deliveries of essential items with a discount, has resulted in significant savings exceeding 40 million euros since its introduction in Italy. Despite the fine and regulatory scrutiny, Amazon maintains that its program continues to provide value to customers by simplifying their shopping experience and offering discounts on recurring purchases of everyday products.
Elon Musk’s feud with Australian authorities reached new heights as he advocated for the imprisonment of a senator and criticised the country’s gun laws in the wake of a court order targeting his platform, X. The dispute stemmed from X’s publication of a video depicting a knife attack on an Assyrian bishop during a church service in Sydney, prompting the federal court to temporarily halt the video’s display.
Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian “eSafety Commissar” is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?
In response to the court order, Musk accused Australian leaders of attempting to censor the internet, sparking condemnation from lawmakers and prompting Senator Jacqui Lambie to delete her X account in protest. Lambie called for Musk’s imprisonment, labelling him as ‘lacking a social conscience’. Musk, in turn, labelled Lambie as an ‘enemy of the people of Australia.’
Musk’s combative approach towards governments extends beyond Australia, as seen in his clashes with authorities in Brazil over social media content oversight. He further escalated tensions by endorsing posts criticising Australia’s gun laws and government, reacting with exclamation marks and amplifying messages questioning the integrity of Australian governance.
The legal battle between Musk’s platform and Australian authorities intensified during a court hearing, where X was accused of failing to fully comply with the temporary takedown order. Despite claims of compliance, the video remained accessible on X in Australia. The federal court judge extended the temporary takedown order until further hearings, citing the need for continued deliberation over the contentious issue.
