Jurisdiction

Major data centre investment by Amazon in the UK

Amazon has announced plans to invest £8 billion in the UK to expand its data centre operations. The investment will be made by Amazon Web Services (AWS) over the next five years, aiming to meet growing demand for cloud computing, largely driven by AI advancements.

This new investment will add to AWS’s previous contributions of £3 billion since 2022, with facilities already in London and Manchester. The company expects the project to contribute £14 billion to the UK economy and support more than 14,000 jobs by the end of 2028.

AWS’s investment follows significant European cloud computing expansions, including substantial projects in Spain and Germany. After a pause last year, many corporate clients have resumed cloud spending, driven by a renewed interest in AI.

The announcement has been welcomed by the UK government, with Finance Minister Rachel Reeves highlighting its importance ahead of an upcoming investment summit. The exact locations of the new data centres will not be disclosed due to security reasons, but they will meet growing demand around London.

Russia to invest $660 million in modernising internet censorship

Russia is ramping up its efforts to control the internet by allocating nearly 60 billion roubles ($660 million) over the next five years to upgrade its web censorship system, known as TSPU. The system, developed by state regulator Roskomnadzor, is designed to filter and block content deemed harmful or illegal by the government. The funding, part of a broader ‘Cybersecurity Infrastructure’ project, will acquire new software and hardware and expand the system’s capabilities.

The initiative is seen as part of Moscow’s broader crackdown on online freedoms, which has intensified since Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The government has been targeting independent media and social media platforms, blocking websites, and cracking down on using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which many Russians use to bypass government restrictions. Roskomnadzor has been increasingly influential in blocking access to these tools, with officials planning to enhance the system’s efficiency further.

The TSPU system was introduced under a 2019 law that requires internet service providers to install government-controlled equipment to monitor and manage web traffic. As of late 2022, over 6,000 TSPU devices had been deployed across Russian networks. The new funding will modernise this infrastructure and improve the system’s ability to detect and block VPN services, making it harder for Russians to access uncensored content.

Why does this matter?

While the Kremlin continues to position these measures as necessary for national security, critics see them as a blatant attack on free speech. Digital rights activists, including those from Roskomsvoboda, warn that while new investments in censorship technology will tighten government control, it is unlikely to eliminate access to independent information. Developers of VPNs and other circumvention tools remain determined, stating that innovation and motivation are essential in the ongoing struggle between censorship and free access.

Russia’s battle with VPNs and independent media is part of a broader campaign against what it calls Western information warfare. Despite the government’s efforts to clamp down, demand for alternative ways to access the internet remains high. Developers are working on more resilient tools, even as the state pours resources into strengthening its censorship apparatus. This tug-of-war between government control and free access to information seems set to continue, with both sides ramping up their efforts.

US Senate to question tech leaders on election security

Tech industry leaders from some of the world’s most influential companies, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Adobe, are set to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on 18 September. The hearing will focus on the growing threats to election security, particularly disinformation and misinformation, ahead of the closely watched 5 November election. As the nation prepares for a contentious face-off between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, US officials are eager to ensure the integrity of the electoral process by addressing the risks of false online narratives.

Executives like Alphabet’s global affairs president Kent Walker, Meta’s Nick Clegg, and Microsoft’s Brad Smith are no strangers to congressional scrutiny, having testified before lawmakers in previous election-related hearings. Their appearance next week underscores the ongoing concerns about how foreign actors, such as Russia, Iran, and China, may attempt to meddle in American elections by exploiting digital platforms. These countries have repeatedly denied any interference while simultaneously accusing the US of involving itself in their political affairs, claims that Washington dismisses.

The testimony from these tech giants is expected to shed light on how their platforms prepare to handle the threats of misinformation and foreign influence leading up to the election. With the stakes as high as ever in this tight political contest, the role of technology companies in safeguarding democracy will be front and centre.

EU court rules against Apple’s tax deal and Google’s market practices

In a significant victory for European regulators, the EU’s top court upheld rulings against Apple and Google, marking key moments in the ongoing battle against Big Tech. Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s antitrust chief, has been at the forefront of efforts to challenge multinational companies benefiting from tax deals and engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. On Tuesday, the courts sided with her in two major cases involving Apple’s tax deal with Ireland and Google’s market practices.

The Apple case, which dates back to 2016, revolved around 13 billion euros ($14.4 billion) in back taxes. The European Commission argued that Apple’s arrangement with Ireland allowed the tech giant to pay an artificially low tax rate, at times as low as 0.005%. The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice agreed, confirming that Apple had received unlawful state aid and Ireland must recover the amount. Apple expressed disappointment, arguing that its income had already been taxed in the US and that the EU was attempting to change the rules retroactively.

Ireland, too, had challenged the ruling despite benefiting from the corporate taxes of large tech companies. The country’s low tax rates had attracted giants like Apple to establish European headquarters there. However, in a shift that signals broader changes in global tax policy, Ireland has since agreed to align with new international tax standards, even though its multinational tax take continues to grow.

On the same day, the European Court also ruled against Google in a separate antitrust case. In 2017, the European Commission fined Google 2.42 billion euros for abusing its market dominance by promoting its shopping service over smaller European rivals. Google appealed the decision but was met with a firm rejection. The court ruled that Google’s practices were discriminatory and did not constitute fair competition on the merits. Google, like Apple, voiced disappointment with the decision, though it claimed to have changed its business practices since the original ruling.

The ruling adds to the 8.25 billion euros in antitrust fines Google has accumulated in Europe over the past decade. The company continues to face scrutiny, with ongoing cases related to its Android operating system and AdSense advertising platform and an investigation that could lead to selling parts of its adtech business.

Why does this matter?

The decisions against Apple and Google reflect a broader movement within Europe to challenge the power of Big Tech. These cases are part of a growing trend where governments seek to hold multinational companies accountable for their tax practices and market behaviours. Other major corporations, such as IKEA and Nike, are also under investigation for their tax arrangements as regulators across the globe attempt to reshape the corporate landscape and foster a fairer competitive environment.

Irish government responds to Apple tax ruling as a historical matter

The Irish government responded to a European court ruling on Tuesday that found it had granted Apple unlawful tax benefits, stating the issue is now ‘of historical relevance’ due to changes in its tax system. The ruling stems from a 2016 European Commission order requiring Ireland to recover 13.8 billion euros from Apple, which had benefited from Irish tax rulings that reduced its tax rate to as low as 0.005% in 2014.

Ireland has consistently contested the order, asserting it does not offer preferential tax treatment to companies. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the decision, confirming that Apple paid insufficient taxes and that more needed to be recovered.

Since the 2016 ruling, Ireland has significantly reformed its corporate tax laws, aligning with international agreements and addressing corporate residence and profit attribution for non-resident companies operating in the country. The government will now begin releasing funds from the escrow account holding the recovered amount.

Apple loses €13 billion EU tax case

Apple has lost its battle with the European Union over a €13 billion tax payment dispute, marking a major win for the EU regulators. The European Commission initially ordered the payment in 2016, accusing Apple of benefiting from favourable Irish tax rulings that significantly reduced its tax obligations. These sweetheart deals allowed Apple to pay as little as 0.005% tax in 2014.

Apple and Ireland challenged the decision, arguing that the ruling defied logic, especially since Ireland’s low tax rates were instrumental in attracting major tech firms. However, the Court of Justice of the EU upheld the Commission’s order, declaring that Ireland had provided Apple with illegal state aid, which now must be repaid.

Apple expressed disappointment, accusing the EU of retroactively changing tax laws and arguing that its income had already been taxed in the US. The final and non-appealable ruling is a significant step in the EU’s efforts to clamp down on favourable tax deals for multinational corporations.

Nepal lifts TikTok ban after ten months

The Nepalese government has lifted the ban on TikTok after nearly ten months, following a cabinet meeting on 22 August 2024. This decision came after discussions with ByteDance representatives, who agreed to several conditions for TikTok’s operation in Nepal. These conditions include registering as a business, appointing a local contact, promoting tourism, supporting digital literacy, and moderating content in Nepali languages.

The Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA) has directed all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to lift the ban, citing Section 15 of the Telecommunications Act. TikTok has three months to meet the government’s conditions and will collaborate with local authorities to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

The ban was initially imposed in November 2023 due to concerns about social harmony and inappropriate content, leading to criticism regarding freedom of expression. The recent decision to lift the ban has been positively received by TikTok, which is committed to fostering creativity and free expression among Nepali users, reflecting a balance between regulation and digital innovation.

US DoJ takes Google to court over monopoly

Google is facing another antitrust battle in a Virginia court, where the US Justice Department has accused the tech giant of monopolising the online advertising industry. Prosecutors argue that Google controls the infrastructure that handles hundreds of thousands of ad sales each second, using its size and dominance to push out competitors and restrict customer choice.

The trial, which US District Judge Leonie Brinkema is hearing, focuses on claims that Google acquired rivals and manipulated market transactions to gain control over both advertisers and publishers. The government’s case highlights how Google allegedly stifled competition and locked customers into its products, tactics reminiscent of traditional monopolies.

Google’s defence, led by attorney Karen Dunn, refuted the accusations by arguing that the case is based on outdated market conditions. She noted that Google now faces significant competition from other major tech companies like Amazon and Comcast and that its tools have evolved to work alongside its rivals.

As the trial progresses, prosecutors push for Google to be forced to sell off essential parts of its ad business, including Google Ad Manager. The case is part of a broader effort by US authorities to curb the dominance of Big Tech, with other lawsuits targeting companies such as Apple, Meta, and Amazon.

Australia plans age limits for social media use

Australia is preparing to introduce age restrictions for social media use to protect children’s mental and physical health. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the plan, emphasising that the government would conduct an age verification trial before finalising the laws, likely setting the minimum age between 14 and 16. Albanese stressed the importance of reducing children’s reliance on social media in favour of real-life activities, citing growing concerns about the harmful effects of digital platforms.

The proposed law would make Australia one of the first to implement such a restriction. However, past attempts by the EU have faced resistance over concerns about limiting minors’ online rights. Tech giants like Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, which currently have a self-imposed minimum age of 13, have responded cautiously, calling for empowerment and tools for young users rather than outright restrictions.

Why does this matter?

Australia‘s move comes amid a parliamentary inquiry into social media’s impact on society, where testimonies have highlighted its negative influence on teenagers’ mental health. However, critics warn that the law may backfire, potentially driving younger users into unregulated, hidden areas of the internet. Digital rights advocates and experts from institutions like the Queensland University of Technology have expressed concerns, arguing that exclusion from mainstream platforms could harm children’s digital engagement and safety.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has also noted that restriction-based approaches may limit access to critical support services for younger users. As the debate continues, social media industry groups urge the government to consult with experts to ensure the policy does not inadvertently expose children to greater risks online.

Telegram tightens content rules after criticism

Telegram founder Pavel Durov announced that the messaging platform will tighten its content moderation policies following criticism over its use for illegal activities. The decision comes after Durov was placed under formal investigation in France for crimes linked to fraud, money laundering, and sharing abusive content. In a message to his 12.2 million subscribers, Durov stressed that most users were law-abiding but acknowledged that a small percentage were tarnishing the platform’s reputation. He vowed to transform Telegram’s moderation practices from a source of criticism to one of praise.

While details on how Telegram will improve its moderation remain sparse, Durov revealed that some features frequently misused for illegal activity had already been removed. These include disabling media uploads on a standalone blogging tool and scrapping the People Nearby feature, which scammers had exploited. The platform will now focus on showcasing legitimate businesses instead. These changes follow Durov’s arrest and questioning in France, raising significant concerns within the tech industry over free speech, platform responsibility, and content policing.

Critics, including former Meta executive Katie Harbath, warned that improving moderation would not be simple. Harbath suggested that Durov, like other tech CEOs, may find himself in for a difficult task. Telegram also quietly updated its Frequently Asked Questions, removing language that previously claimed it did not monitor illegal content in private chats, signalling a potential shift in how it approaches privacy and illegal activity.

Durov also defended Telegram’s moderation efforts, stating that the platform removes millions of harmful posts and channels daily, dismissing claims that it is a haven for illegal content. He expressed surprise at the French investigation, noting that authorities could have contacted the company’s the EU representative or himself directly to address concerns.