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.
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.
Democratic Senator Ed Markey and Republican Senator Rand Paul are urging President Joe Biden to extend the January 19 deadline for ByteDance, the China-based owner of TikTok, to sell the app’s US assets or face a nationwide ban. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on January 10 regarding ByteDance’s legal challenge, which claims the law mandating the sale violates First Amendment free speech rights. In their letter to Biden, the senators highlighted the potential consequences for free expression and the uncertain future of the law.
The controversial legislation, signed by Biden in April, was passed due to national security concerns. The Justice Department asserts that TikTok’s vast data on 170 million American users poses significant risks, including potential manipulation of content. TikTok, however, denies posing any threat to US security.
The debate has split lawmakers. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell supports enforcing the deadline, while President-elect Donald Trump has softened his stance, expressing support for TikTok and suggesting he would review the situation. The deadline falls just a day before Trump is set to take office on January 20, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the app’s fate.
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.
A former vice president of finance at Delphi Digital has been sentenced to four years in jail after admitting to embezzling nearly $4.5 million from the cryptocurrency research company. Dylan Meissner will also serve two years of supervised release and must repay more than $4.6 million, including funds he stole and an unpaid loan.
The Connecticut District Court found that Meissner, who managed Delphi’s finances between October 2021 and November 2022, accessed the company’s crypto wallets and bank accounts to steal millions. He also fabricated financial records to cover up the theft. In one instance, he took a 50 Ether loan worth $170,000 but failed to repay it, marking the start of his fraudulent activities.
Prosecutors argued that Meissner’s actions were part of a calculated scheme, not a reckless act of desperation. Though his defence cited substance abuse and efforts to atone for his actions, the court noted the sustained nature of his crimes. Meissner pleaded guilty to wire fraud as part of a deal and will report to jail in February 2025.
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.
A networking session at IGF 2024 in Riyadh examined the vital role of African parliamentarians in shaping inclusive digital policies. Discussions revolved around creating legislation that keeps pace with technological evolution, fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration, and addressing Africa’s unique challenges in the digital age.
Participants called for stronger engagement between parliamentarians, technologists, and scientists to craft practical and forward-looking digital frameworks.
Speakers, including Catherine Mumma from Kenya and Millennium Anthony from Tanzania, underscored the need to improve digital infrastructure and internet access, particularly in rural regions. Challenges such as expensive data costs, insufficient digital skills, and a lack of dedicated parliamentary committees for science and technology were highlighted. Susan Dossi from Malawi and Daniel Molokele from Zimbabwe stressed the importance of public participation in the legislative process to ensure policies reflect citizens’ needs.
The session addressed the borderless nature of the internet and the importance of regional and global collaboration to tackle cybercrime and cross-border governance issues. Ayoban Ngao from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Lekhotsa Mafatle from Lesotho emphasised the need to update educational curricula to align with digital needs while investing in digital skills and infrastructure. Ke Gong from China contributed insights on leveraging international best practices to guide Africa’s digital transformation.
Concluding discussions focused on the critical role of parliamentarians in driving digital growth through informed policymaking. Participants advocated for greater cooperation across sectors to ensure Africa capitalises on digital opportunities while addressing its unique challenges. The session underscored a collaborative approach as key to fostering inclusive digital development across the continent.
Discussions at the IGF 2024 in Riyadh shed light on growing challenges to freedom of expression in Africa and the Middle East. Experts from diverse organisations highlighted how restrictive cybercrime legislation and content regulation have been used to silence dissent, marginalise communities, and undermine democracy. Examples from Tunisia and Nigeria revealed how critics and activists often face criminalisation under these laws, fostering fear and self-censorship.
Panellists included Annelies Riezebos from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jacqueline Rowe of the University of Edinburgh, Adeboye Adegoke from Paradigm Initiative, and Aymen Zaghdoudi of AccessNow. They discussed the negative effects of vague cybercrime regulations and overly broad restrictions on online speech, which frequently suppress political discourse. Maria Paz Canales from Global Partners Digital added that content governance frameworks need urgent reform to balance addressing online harms with protecting fundamental rights.
The speakers emphasised that authoritarian values are being enforced through legislation that criminalises disinformation and imposes ambiguous rules on online platforms. These measures, they argued, contribute to a deteriorating climate for free expression across the region. They also pointed out the need for online platforms to adopt responsible content moderation practices while resisting pressures to conform to repressive local laws.
Panellists proposed several strategies to counter these trends, including engaging with parliamentarians, building capacity among legal professionals, and ensuring civil society’s involvement during the early stages of policy development. The importance of international collaboration was underlined, with the UN Cybercrime Treaty cited as a key opportunity for collective advocacy against repressive measures.
Participants also stressed the urgency of increased representation of Global South organisations in global policy discussions. Flexible funding for civil society initiatives was described as essential for supporting grassroots efforts to defend digital rights. Such funding would enable local groups to challenge restrictive laws effectively and amplify their voices in international debates.
The event concluded with a call for multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance. Collaborative efforts involving governments, civil society, and online platforms were deemed critical to safeguarding freedom of expression. The discussions underscored the pressing need to balance addressing legitimate online harms with protecting democratic values and the voices of vulnerable communities.
Attorneys for Arm and Qualcomm are clashing in a US federal court this week over a dispute that could shape the future of the chip industry. The case centres on whether Qualcomm’s acquisition of Nuvia in 2021 for $1.4 billion allowed the transfer of computing core designs that build on Arm’s architecture. Arm, whose technology dominates the smartphone market and is increasingly used in laptops, argues that Nuvia’s designs are derivatives of its intellectual property and fall under licensing restrictions.
At the heart of the trial is the testimony of Gerard Williams, a former Apple executive who founded Nuvia. While Arm’s attorneys contend that Nuvia’s work is derived from Arm’s technology, Williams insisted the influence of Arm’s architecture was minimal, estimating it made up ‘one percent or less’ of Nuvia’s final designs. Qualcomm’s lawyers are defending their right to use Nuvia’s cores, highlighting how the company customises and extends Arm’s technology.
The outcome of this trial could impact Qualcomm’s ambitions in the laptop market, where it partners with Microsoft to compete against Apple’s custom chips. With potential losses of $50 million annually in licensing fees for Arm at stake, both companies are vying for control over the boundaries of intellectual property rights. A verdict could come as early as this week, and Qualcomm’s CEO Cristiano Amon may soon take the stand.
