Jurisdiction

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.

UK regulator accuses Google of abusing ad market power

The UK’s antitrust regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has accused Google of abusing its dominant position in digital advertising, restricting competition in the sector. According to the CMA, Google’s practices, which allegedly favour its ad exchange platform, have hurt British publishers and advertisers, impacting their ability to generate revenue through digital ads. The regulator’s provisional findings suggest that Google has been using its influence in the advertising market’s buying and selling sides since 2015.

The CMA highlighted the potential harm these practices could cause businesses relying on online ads to fund their websites and apps, reaching millions across the UK. Juliette Enser, interim executive director of enforcement, stressed that this anti-competitive behaviour undermines free or lower-cost digital content. In response, Google disagreed with the CMA’s conclusions, arguing that its advertising tools support businesses of all sizes in a highly competitive industry.

The issue is part of a larger global scrutiny of Google’s advertising practices, with similar investigations underway by the US Department of Justice and the European Commission. In 2023, the EU regulators even suggested that Google might need to sell parts of its adtech business, though the company dismissed this idea as disproportionate. The CMA is now set to review Google’s response before deciding on possible fines or other legal actions to end the infringement.

Google faces new remedies in US DOJ antitrust case

The US Department of Justice plans to outline by December the steps Alphabet’s Google must take to restore competition after being found guilty of illegally monopolising the online search market. Prosecutors have not revealed specific remedies but indicated that their proposal would be comprehensive and consider Google’s plans to integrate AI into its search operations, including rebranding its AI product to Gemini.

Potential actions include requiring Google to divest certain business units, such as its Android operating system, or stopping billions in payments to ensure its search engine remains the default on devices and browsers. Google’s legal team argued that they need a detailed proposal from prosecutors to prepare a response, possibly involving information from AI rivals like Microsoft and OpenAI.

Google has said it plans to appeal the ruling, and US District Judge Amit Mehta suggested a possible hearing in the spring, with a final decision expected by next August.

Snapchat faces lawsuit for child exploitation claims

New Mexico has filed a lawsuit against Snap Inc, alleging that Snapchat’s design facilitates the sharing of child sexual exploitation material. Attorney General Raul Torrez stated that a months-long investigation found Snapchat to be a key platform for sextortion, where predators coerce minors into sending explicit content.

Snap said it is reviewing the complaint and will respond in court. The company has invested significant funds into trust and safety measures and continues to work with law enforcement and safety experts to combat such issues.

Snapchat is widely used by teens due to its disappearing message feature, which has been criticised for misleading users. According to Torrez, predators can permanently capture the content, creating a virtual collection of child sexual images that are shared indefinitely.

Investigators opened a decoy Snapchat account as part of the investigation, discovering 10,000 records of child sexual abuse material on the dark web. Snapchat was identified as a major source for such content in these sites. New Mexico also sued Meta last December for similar reasons.

Google’s new proposals under EU antitrust review

European Union regulators will gather feedback next week on Google’s latest proposals to comply with competition rules aimed at curbing the dominance of Big Tech. The process could determine whether formal charges will be brought against the company.

The European Commission initiated an investigation in March to examine whether Google unfairly favours its own vertical search services, including Google Shopping, Flights, and Hotels, over rivals. Competitors have raised concerns that Google has not fully complied with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which seeks to level the playing field for smaller competitors.

In response, Google has offered a proposal that would display a separate box for competitors below its product listings in search results. It also suggested adding two adjacent boxes to show intermediaries alongside direct suppliers like airlines and hotels. Regulators will hold workshops in September to hear from stakeholders, though Google will not participate.

Failure to address the regulators’ concerns could result in formal charges and a potential fine of up to 10% of Google’s global annual turnover. Google stated that it will continue to engage with the European Commission and the industry in the coming months.

US Department of Justice ramps up probe into Nvidia’s AI practices

The US Department of Justice has intensified its antitrust investigation into Nvidia by issuing a subpoena, according to reports from Bloomberg. The subpoena comes after previous questionnaires were sent, signalling the authorities’ increased scrutiny of the AI chipmaker’s business practices. Nvidia is accused of making it difficult for buyers to switch suppliers and potentially penalising customers who don’t exclusively use its AI chips.

The investigation reportedly stems from complaints by competitors who claim Nvidia may be abusing its market dominance. Several other companies have also received subpoenas as part of the broader probe. The escalating crackdown coincides with increased caution among investors regarding AI companies, as concerns about overspending and high expectations loom.

Despite a worldwide growth in demand for AI chips, Nvidia’s recent quarterly forecast disappointed investors, leading to a sharp drop in its share value. The company’s stock fell 2.5% in extended trading on Tuesday, following a 9.5% decline during regular market hours. This scrutiny adds further pressure to the AI giant during a sensitive period for the industry.

Nvidia declined to comment on the ongoing investigation, while the United States Department of Justice has yet to respond to requests for further information. The outcome of this probe could have significant implications for the company and the broader AI market.

Starlink complies with Brazilian court order amid country’s crackdown on Elon Musk

Elon Musk’s Starlink has become entangled in a legal dispute with Brazil, as the company reluctantly complies with a court order to block access to the country’s social media platform X. The compliance comes just a day after Starlink initially informed Brazil’s telecom regulator, Anatel, that it would defy the order, setting up a clash with the Brazilian judiciary. The legal battle is centred around actions by Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered the freezing of Starlink’s accounts as a precaution against unpaid fines owed by X and, thus, by Musk.

The conflict escalated after Moraes directed all internet providers in Brazil to block access to X, citing the platform’s failure to maintain a legal representative, which was one of the conditions imposed by the court. The decision, which was upheld by a panel of Supreme Court justices, has led to the platform’s shutdown in Brazil. Despite initial resistance, Starlink reversed its stance and began implementing the block, with Anatel confirming that access to X has already started being cut off.

Starlink, which serves over 200,000 customers in Brazil, expressed its discontent with the situation in a post on X, labelling the freezing of its assets as illegal. The company has initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court, arguing that Moraes’ orders violate the Brazilian constitution. However, Starlink missed a deadline to file a new appeal against the asset freeze, leaving its next legal steps uncertain.

The roots of this dispute trace back to an earlier order by Moraes, which required X to block accounts under investigation for spreading disinformation and hate speech. Musk condemned this order as censorship and closed X’s office in Brazil in August. Despite the office closure, X remained accessible until Moraes’ recent crackdown. Some users in Brazil are reportedly bypassing the block by using VPNs.

The standoff highlights broader tensions between Musk and the Brazilian judiciary, raising concerns about the balance between state power and the protection of free speech. Musk’s pushback against what he views as government overreach has now turned into an ardent legal battle, with potential implications for internet freedom and the role of tech companies in upholding or challenging state authorities.

Musk’s Starlink defies Brazil court order to shutdown X

Elon Musk’s Starlink has informed Brazil’s telecom regulator, Anatel, that it will not comply with a court order to block the social media platform X, also owned by Musk, until the freeze on its Brazilian bank accounts is lifted. The defiance follows a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered the suspension of X due to its failure to appoint a legal representative in Brazil, a decision that also led to the freezing of Starlink’s accounts in the country.

Brazil’s Supreme Court is now facing tension as it deals with the standoff between Musk’s businesses and the nation’s legal system as a five-member court panel recently upheld the suspension of X, siding with Moraes and supporting the action necessary to combat misinformation and hate speech on the platform. The ruling has been backed by Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who emphasised that X’s content threatened democracy.

Starlink’s refusal to comply with the court’s order has put it at risk of sanctions from Anatel, which could include revoking its license to operate in Brazil. The regulator has warned that it is closely monitoring compliance among all telecom operators in the country and may take further action against Starlink. Musk has responded defiantly despite the legal pressures, criticising Moraes and threatening reciprocal actions against Brazilian assets.

Why does this matter?

The legal case represents the ongoing disputes between Musk and Brazilian authorities, which have intensified over the past few months. Critics of Moraes accuse him of using authoritarian methods to control political discourse, while supporters argue that his actions are essential for protecting democratic principles. As the situation escalates, the suspension of X remains in effect, although some users have found ways to bypass the ban using VPNs.

Moreover, Brazil is one of the most significant markets for X, with around 21.5 million users, making the outcome of this legal battle significant for Musk’s business interests and the broader debate on regulating social media and freedom of expression in the country.

Lavrov blames Durov’s ‘freedom’ for Telegram CEO’s arrest

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented on the recent arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, in France, claiming that Durov’s ‘too free’ approach to running the social media platform led to his downfall. Durov, a Russian-born tech entrepreneur, was placed under formal investigation by a French judge last week for alleged complicity in facilitating illicit activities on Telegram, including child sex abuse images, drug trafficking, and fraud. Durov’s lawyer dismissed the charges as ‘absurd,’ arguing that he cannot be held accountable for crimes committed by users on the app, which boasts nearly a billion users globally and is especially popular in Russia and other former Soviet states.

Lavrov, speaking to students at MGIMO University in Moscow, suggested that the investigation is part of a broader Western effort to control Russia, reflecting the Kremlin’s stance. He remarked that Durov did not heed Western advice on moderating his platform, which has been a source of friction with authorities. Despite years of pressure from Russia on Durov and his tech ventures, the country has rallied behind him after his arrest.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov emphasised that there have yet to be any negotiations between the Kremlin and Durov, who also holds French and UAE passports. He expressed concern that the situation in France might evolve into political persecution despite French President Emmanuel Macron’s denial of any political motives behind Durov’s detention. Lavrov further noted that Durov’s arrest, the first of a major tech CEO, has further strained relations between Moscow and Paris, marking a new low point in their diplomatic ties.

CCIA supports USTR’s challenge to Canada’s Digital Services Tax

The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has expressed strong support for the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) recent announcement regarding consultations with Canada over its digital services tax (DST). The action marks the initial step in a formal dispute process under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). If the issue is not resolved within 75 days, the US may escalate the matter to a dispute settlement panel.

The DST, enacted through Bill C-59, is perceived by the CCIA and other trade associations as discriminatory against US companies, primarily targeting large foreign tech firms based in the US. The DST imposes a 3% tax on revenue generated by foreign companies from Canadian users, affecting firms with global revenues exceeding $1.1 billion, which includes major US companies like Google and Meta. CCIA’s Vice President of Digital Trade, Jonathan McHale, highlighted the negative impact of the DST, estimating potential losses of up to $2.3 billion annually for US companies and significant job losses.

Why does this matter?

The association has long advocated for US action against the DST, emphasising that it undermines the fair market access stipulated in the USMCA and could set a precedent for similar measures by other countries. In response, Canadian officials have stated that the consultations are part of ongoing discussions and reiterated their commitment to international tax agreements. Canadian officials suggested that the DST would be rescinded if a multilateral solution is achieved.