President-elect Donald Trump hinted at allowing TikTok to continue operating in the US, at least temporarily, citing the platform’s significant role in his presidential campaign. Speaking to conservative supporters in Phoenix, Arizona, Trump shared that his campaign content had garnered billions of views on TikTok, describing it as a “beautiful” success that made him reconsider the app’s future.
TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has faced pressure from US lawmakers to divest the app over national security concerns, with allegations that Chinese control of TikTok poses risks to American data. The US Supreme Court is set to decide on the matter, as ByteDance challenges a law that could force divestment. Without a favourable ruling or compliance with the law, TikTok could face a US ban by January 19, just before Trump takes office.
Trump’s openness to TikTok contrasts with bipartisan support for stricter measures against the app. While the Justice Department argues that Chinese ties to TikTok remain a security threat, TikTok counters that its user data and operations are managed within the US, with storage handled by Oracle and moderation decisions made domestically. Despite ongoing legal battles, Trump’s remarks and a recent meeting with TikTok’s CEO suggest he sees potential in maintaining the platform’s presence in the US market.
According to a report by Nikkei Asia, Japan’s competition watchdog, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC), is expected to find Google guilty of violating the country’s antitrust laws. The JFTC is reportedly preparing to issue a cease-and-desist order, directing Google to halt its monopolistic practices. The investigation, which began last October, focuses on Google’s dominance in web search services.
Google has yet to comment on the allegations, and the JFTC has also not responded to requests for a statement. This investigation follows similar antitrust actions in Europe and other major economies, where concerns have been raised about Google’s market power. The company’s Chrome browser, which is the most widely used globally, plays a central role in its advertising business by providing valuable user data.
This development comes amid increasing scrutiny of Google’s practices. In the US, the Department of Justice has argued that Google should be forced to divest Chrome and be banned from re-entering the browser market for five years as part of efforts to address its search engine monopoly.
Unexplained drone sightings across New Jersey have led the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to impose a temporary ban on drone flights over critical infrastructure in 22 towns, including Jersey City, Elizabeth, and Camden. The restriction, effective until 17 January, limits drone activity within one nautical mile up to 400 feet in affected areas. Officials cite ‘special security reasons’ for the measures, even warning of potential use of deadly force against threatening unmanned aircraft.
The US FAA first implemented similar restrictions in late November around specific sites, but the recent expansion reflects growing concern. While a joint statement from the FAA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security reassures that the drones do not present an immediate national security risk, authorities remain tight-lipped about their origin. Many sightings have been attributed to commercial or hobbyist drones, law enforcement aircraft, and even misidentified stars.
Despite these reassurances, public anxiety persists, fuelled by weeks of speculation and conspiracy theories in the New York City metro area. Lawmakers are pressing for new regulations to improve drone tracking and accountability, as officials scramble to address the unease surrounding this enigmatic aerial phenomenon.
Cryptocurrency theft reached $2.2bn (£1.76bn) in 2024, with North Korean hackers reportedly responsible for $1.3bn, according to a Chainalysis report. The total marks a 21% increase from 2023, though it remains lower than peak years.
The study highlights that hackers often target private keys used to access crypto platforms, causing severe losses for centralised exchanges. Significant breaches included a $300m theft from Japan‘s DMM Bitcoin and a $235m loss from India-based WazirX. Many attacks were linked to citizens of North Korea posing as remote IT workers.
The United States government has accused Pyongyang of using stolen funds to evade sanctions and finance weapons programmes. Recently, 14 North Koreans were indicted in a federal court for alleged extortion schemes, while the State Department announced a $5m reward for information on these activities.
Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist, has been found in contempt of court for falsely asserting he is Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite a High Court ruling in March debunking his claim, Wright continued launching lawsuits seeking intellectual property rights over Bitcoin, including a $1.2 trillion demand.
The court described Wright‘s actions as ‘legal terrorism’ and sentenced him to a suspended 12-month prison term. If he persists, he risks jail time. Wright’s claim lacked concrete evidence, prompting the cryptocurrency industry to unite against him.
The court found Wright ‘lied extensively’ in his pursuit of recognition, creating a ‘chilling effect’ on the industry. The identity of Bitcoin’s inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, remains unknown, as all claims, including Wright’s, have been discredited.
During a freelancer meetup at Café Oz in Paris on 3 December, Scott Horlacher, a software engineer, found himself caught in a crypto scam. While discussing with two individuals who claimed to represent a new crypto exchange called Lainchain, Horlacher grew suspicious. The platform’s design and its request for users to input wallet seed phrases instead of standard security measures made Horlacher realise he was dealing with a scam.
After confronting the duo, they swiftly left the event. Horlacher, along with others, began to warn fellow attendees. A subsequent investigation by AMLBot, a blockchain forensics firm, revealed that Lainchain was a sophisticated phishing scam designed to steal personal and wallet information from users. The scam relied on fake identities and social engineering tactics to deceive victims.
Lainchain’s website appeared professional but was full of red flags, including the manipulation of wallet access and demands for seed phrases. The platform’s hosts were found to be connected to other fraudulent websites, and investigations showed their use of stolen identities to create false legitimacy. The scammers also exploited Telegram and other social media platforms to lure victims.
This case serves as a reminder of the growing threat of phishing scams in the crypto space. Users are urged to be cautious of any platform requesting private keys or seed phrases and to verify the legitimacy of any crypto-related website or service before engaging with it.
The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving TikTok and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, in a challenge against a law requiring the app’s sale or a ban in the US by January 19. The court will hear arguments on 10 January but has not yet decided on TikTok’s request to block the law, which it claims violates free speech rights under the First Amendment. TikTok, used by 170 million Americans, argues the law would harm its operations and user base, while US officials cite national security concerns over data access and content manipulation.
The Justice Department has labelled TikTok a significant security risk due to its Chinese ownership, while TikTok denies posing any threat and accuses lawmakers of speculation. The law, passed in April and signed by President Biden, would ban the app unless ByteDance divests its ownership. The company warns that even a temporary shutdown could damage its US market share, advertising revenue, and ability to recruit creators and staff.
The case also reflects heightened tensions between the US and China over technology and trade policies. TikTok’s fate could set a precedent for the treatment of other foreign-owned apps, raising questions about free speech and digital commerce. The Supreme Court’s decision may have far-reaching implications for the platform’s future and US-China relations.
Apple has accused Meta of making excessive interoperability requests that could compromise user privacy and security, intensifying the rivalry between the two tech giants. Under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple must allow competitors access to its services or face significant fines. Apple claims Meta’s 15 requests — more than any other company — could expose sensitive data like messages, emails, and passwords.
Meta, which seeks integration for products like its Quest VR headsets and smart glasses, dismissed Apple’s privacy concerns as a cover for anticompetitive practices. Apple cited Meta’s past privacy violations in Europe as a reason for caution.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has outlined measures to ensure Apple complies with the DMA, including clear timelines and feedback mechanisms for developers. A final decision on Apple’s compliance with the law is expected in March 2025.
Italy’s antitrust authority has concluded its investigation into Booking.com, finding the travel giant’s proposed changes sufficient to resolve concerns about its dominance in the market. The probe, which began in March, scrutinised whether the company’s practices restricted competition and led to higher prices for consumers.
The Italian watchdog highlighted that Booking.com’s Preferred Partner Programme risked stifling competition by favouring certain hotels while reducing consumer choice. As part of its commitments, the platform agreed not to consider prices offered by hotels on other booking channels when managing or promoting participating properties.
These adjustments are intended to ensure fairer competition in the online travel sector, preventing practices that could inflate costs or limit options for users. By addressing these issues, Booking.com avoids further regulatory action and strengthens its position in Italy’s travel market.
The Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has imposed a €4.75 million ($4.98 million) fine on Netflix for not adequately informing its customers about how their personal data was being used between 2018 and 2020. The fine follows a detailed investigation that began in 2019, which revealed that Netflix’s privacy statement was insufficiently clear regarding the company’s data practices. Specifically, the DPA found that the streaming giant did not provide customers with enough information on how their data was being processed or used.
The investigation also uncovered that when customers sought to understand which personal data Netflix was collecting, they did not receive clear answers. This lack of transparency was deemed a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which sets strict requirements on companies to protect user privacy and ensure clear communication about data usage.
In response to the findings, Netflix has since updated its privacy statement and improved how it informs customers about its data collection practices. Despite these changes, the company has objected to the fine, though it did not provide a comment when approached by the press.
This fine highlights the increasing scrutiny on companies to comply with GDPR and underscores the importance of clear, transparent data handling practices, especially for tech giants like Netflix that handle vast amounts of personal information.
