The US Justice Department has urged a federal appeals court to reject TikTok‘s emergency request to delay a law requiring its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app by 19 January or face a nationwide ban. TikTok argued the law threatens to shut down one of America’s most popular social media platforms, which boasts over 170 million US users, while the Justice Department maintains that continued Chinese ownership poses a national security risk.
While the law would not immediately block users from accessing TikTok, the Justice Department admitted the lack of ongoing support would eventually render the app inoperable. A three-judge appeals court panel recently upheld the divestment requirement, and ByteDance has asked the US Supreme Court to review the case.
The controversy places TikTok’s future in the hands of the incoming presidential administration. President Joe Biden could grant a 90-day extension to the divestment deadline before President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to prevent a ban, takes office on January 20. Trump’s stance on TikTok has been consistent since his unsuccessful attempts to ban the app during his first term.
The law also strengthens the US government’s powers to ban other foreign-owned apps over data security concerns, following a broader trend initiated under Trump, including an earlier attempt to block Tencent-owned WeChat. As legal battles continue, TikTok’s operations in the US hang in the balance.
TikTok‘s Canadian branch has filed an emergency motion with the country’s Federal Court to review a government order requiring it to cease operations due to national security concerns. The company, owned by China’s ByteDance, is challenging the December 5 order and seeking either its annulment or a return to the government for further review. The motion argues that shutting down TikTok’s Canadian operations could result in significant job losses.
The legal challenge comes after Canada began investigating TikTok’s plans to expand its business in the country last year. The investigation led to last month’s order, which did not block Canadian access to the app but mandated the company’s exit from the Canadian market. TikTok emphasised the importance of maintaining a local presence for its platform in Canada, where it has over 14 million monthly users.
Under Canadian law, the government can assess foreign investments’ risks to national security, though details of the investigations are kept confidential. The case follows similar actions in the US, where the government has pressured ByteDance to sell TikTok’s US assets by January 2025 or face a ban. TikTok is currently seeking a temporary block on this US law as well.
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) is reviewing the European Commission‘s response to a March ruling that its use of Microsoft 365 violated the bloc’s data protection laws. Monday marked the deadline for the Commission to address the EDPS order to halt unlawful data flows and renegotiate its contracts with Microsoft.
On Tuesday, EDPS Wojciech Wiewiórowski confirmed receipt of the Commission’s report, emphasising the complexity of the case and hinting that a detailed analysis will take time. Both the Commission and Microsoft are appealing the EDPS decision, with related cases set to progress through the courts in 2025.
The outcome could have significant implications for the Commission’s use of tech platforms and broader data privacy enforcement in the EU. For now, all parties remain tight-lipped, extending the uncertainty over the resolution of this high-profile dispute.
Italian prosecutors have concluded an investigation into alleged tax evasion involving Facebook owner Meta, focusing on unpaid VAT worth €887.6 million. Two executives from the company’s Irish subsidiary are implicated in the case. This marks the final step before a potential trial unless the suspects can demonstrate their innocence.
The dispute centres on whether Meta’s provision of free access to platforms like Facebook and Instagram, in exchange for users’ personal data, qualifies as a taxable transaction. Italian tax police argue that user registrations represent a non-monetary exchange that should incur VAT. Meta disputes these claims, maintaining that it has met all tax obligations and cooperated fully with Italian authorities.
Italy’s Revenue Agency has supported the findings of an earlier police investigation, alleging Meta failed to declare €4 billion in taxable income between 2015 and 2021. Meta now has 60 days to address these observations, potentially leading to either a settlement or a judicial tax dispute.
The case, involving consultations with the European Commission’s VAT Committee, could set significant precedents for digital taxation. A final resolution remains pending, with Meta standing firm against the notion of applying VAT to user access.
Chinese drone manufacturers DJI and Autel Robotics face potential bans in the US under a proposed military bill. The legislation requires a national security review within a year to assess risks posed by their drones. If no review occurs, the companies will automatically join the Federal Communications Commission’s ‘Covered List,’ effectively blocking the sale of new models.
DJI, the world’s largest drone producer, claims the process is unfair, citing extensive security audits and enhanced privacy features. Autel Robotics, also impacted by the proposal, has previously been flagged for investigation over national security concerns.
US lawmakers remain concerned about potential surveillance risks and data vulnerabilities linked to Chinese drones. DJI has refuted these claims, emphasising that no forced labour is involved in its production, despite customs citing related concerns to block imports.
The controversy reflects escalating tensions in US-China relations, particularly in technology and national security domains. The outcome of the proposed bill could reshape the landscape of the commercial drone market in the United States.
A federal court ruling on December 4 has bolstered the Justice Department’s (DOJ) position that algorithm-driven price-fixing constitutes a clear antitrust violation. Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that claims against Yardi Systems Inc., a property management software firm, could proceed under the “per se” theory of antitrust law. This theory automatically deems certain actions, like price-fixing, illegal without requiring additional proof of harm.
The case alleges that Yardi’s RENTmaximizer tool facilitated collusion among property managers to inflate rents. The decision marks a significant departure from earlier rulings where similar claims involving pricing algorithms were dismissed. Experts see this as a pivotal moment for antitrust litigation, enabling plaintiffs to pursue cases by demonstrating that shared algorithm use facilitated price collusion.
This ruling aligns with the DOJ’s broader push against anticompetitive practices in algorithm-driven pricing, a growing area of concern across industries like home rentals and hospitality. While the decision strengthens the DOJ’s stance, legal experts anticipate continued debates over whether traditional antitrust principles can adapt to emerging technologies, signaling years of legal uncertainty ahead.
European regulators are investigating a previously undisclosed advertising partnership between Google and Meta that targeted teenagers on YouTube and Instagram, the Financial Times reports. The now-cancelled initiative aimed at promoting Instagram to users aged 13 to 17 allegedly bypassed Google’s policies restricting ad personalisation for minors.
The partnership, initially launched in the US with plans for global expansion, has drawn the attention of the European Commission, which has requested extensive internal records from Google, including emails and presentations, to evaluate potential violations. Google, defending its practices, stated that its safeguards for minors remain industry-leading and emphasised recent internal training to reinforce policy compliance.
This inquiry comes amid heightened concerns about the impact of social media on young users. Earlier this year, Meta introduced enhanced privacy features for teenagers on Instagram, reflecting the growing demand for stricter online protections for minors. Neither Meta nor the European Commission has commented on the investigation so far.
Content moderators in Kenya are suing Meta and its former contractor, Sama, for wrongful dismissal and blacklisting after attempting to unionise. The moderators allege they were excluded from reapplying for similar roles when Meta transitioned to a new contractor, Majorel. This legal dispute sheds light on challenges faced by moderators, particularly those focusing on Ethiopia, who say they received death threats from the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) for removing violent posts but were ignored by their employer.
According to court filings, the moderators accuse Sama of initially dismissing their complaints, accusing them of fabricating the threats. One moderator, publicly identified by the rebels, was eventually sent to a safe house. The OLA reportedly warned moderators to stop deleting their graphic posts, escalating the atmosphere of fear among employees. Moderators claim Meta failed to address hate speech effectively, leaving them in a constant cycle of reviewing harmful content that did not breach Meta’s policies.
The case also highlights broader concerns over how Meta manages its global network of moderators tasked with handling violent and graphic content. This comes amid separate allegations that Meta allowed violent and hateful posts to proliferate during Ethiopia’s civil conflict, worsening tensions. Out-of-court settlement talks failed last year, and the legal outcomes could shape how content moderation is approached worldwide.
Meta and Sama have refrained from commenting on the latest allegations, while the OLA did not respond to requests. As the trial unfolds, it raises critical questions about accountability and workplace protections for moderators operating in volatile regions.
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, have filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to temporarily halt a US law that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok by 19 January or face a nationwide ban. The companies argue that without the delay, the popular app could shut down in the US, affecting 170 million monthly users and numerous businesses reliant on the platform.
The motion follows a decision by an appeals court panel upholding the divestment requirement. TikTok’s lawyers assert the Supreme Court should have time to review the case and highlight President-elect Donald Trump’s stated intention to prevent the ban. The incoming administration, they argue, could reconsider the law and render the case moot.
The law granting the US government authority to ban foreign-owned apps over data security concerns has faced criticism, with TikTok warning the decision could disrupt services globally. As the January deadline looms, ByteDance faces challenges in demonstrating sufficient progress toward a divestment to secure an extension, even as political and legal battles intensify.
The United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced on Friday it will subject Google Payment Corp., Alphabet‘s payment arm, to federal oversight, citing potential risks to consumers. The move follows complaints involving fraud and unauthorised transactions, although the agency stopped short of alleging direct misconduct.
Google has filed a lawsuit challenging the order, arguing that the service in question is no longer active and poses no risk. The CFPB, however, maintains its authority to regulate even discontinued services if they posed prior risks.
The announcement comes as the Biden administration intensifies regulation of tech-driven financial services, seeking parity with traditional banks. Last month, the CFPB finalised rules extending banking supervision to tech firms offering payment and digital wallet services, a move opposed by Republican lawmakers.
With Biden leaving office and President-elect Trump set to return, the decision may face political challenges. Google’s case highlights the broader conflict between Silicon Valley and federal regulators over financial innovation.
