Meta Platforms announced it will soon give Instagram and Facebook users in Europe the option to receive less personalised ads. The decision comes in response to pressure from EU regulators and aims to address concerns about data privacy and targeted advertising. Instead of highly tailored ads, users will be shown adverts based on general factors like age, gender, and location, as well as the content they view in a given session.
The move aligns with the European Union‘s push to regulate major tech companies, supported by legislation like the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which was introduced earlier this year to promote fair competition and enhance user privacy. Additionally, Meta will offer a 40% price reduction on ad-free subscriptions for European customers.
The changes follow a recent ruling by Europe’s highest court, which supported privacy activist Max Schrems and ruled that Meta must limit the use of personal data from Facebook for advertising purposes. Meanwhile, the European Union is set to fine Apple under these new antitrust rules, marking a significant step in the enforcement of stricter regulations for Big Tech.
The European Union has issued a directive for Apple to cease geo-blocking content on several of its platforms, including the App Store, Apple Arcade, Music, iTunes Store, Books, and Podcasts. Geo-blocking, the practice of limiting access to content based on a user’s location, is considered discriminatory by the EU, as it creates barriers for consumers depending on where they live or are based. The European Commission has expressed its concerns, warning that if Apple does not address these issues within the next month, national regulators across EU member states could step in with enforcement actions.
European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager underscored the EU’s commitment to ensuring fair access to digital services, stating that no company, regardless of its size, should be allowed to unfairly limit customers’ access to services based on nationality, place of residence, or other factors unrelated to the services provided. Apple now has one month to submit a detailed plan that addresses these concerns and outlines how the company will eliminate geo-blocking practices from its platforms. Failure to meet this deadline could result in penalties or legal consequences as the EU continues to prioritise consumer rights and digital market fairness across Europe.
South Korea’s ruling party has proposed a new chips act designed to offer subsidies to chipmakers and provide an exemption from the national cap on working hours. The legislation comes as the country faces increased competition from rivals in China, Taiwan, and other nations, along with potential risks from measures threatened by incoming United States President Donald Trump. The semiconductor sector is crucial for South Korea‘s economy, accounting for 16% of total exports last year.
President Yoon Suk Yeol recently warned of challenges posed by Trump’s threat of steep tariffs on Chinese imports, which could lead Chinese rivals to cut export prices and impact South Korean chip firms abroad. The bill, which requires approval from the main opposition party, also includes provisions allowing extended working hours for some research and development employees. However, Samsung’s labour union has opposed this, arguing that the company is deflecting blame for its financial struggles.
Samsung has apologised for disappointing profits as it lags behind competitors like TSMC and SK Hynix in the AI chip market. Global competition has intensified as countries like China, Japan, and the United States have been subsidising their chip manufacturers. In a recent statement, lawmaker Lee Chul-gyu stressed that the proposed act would help South Korean companies remain competitive amid the ongoing semiconductor trade tensions between the United States and China.
A Chinese dual citizen, Daren Li, has pleaded guilty to laundering $73 million stolen through cryptocurrency scams. The schemes, active from August 2021 to April 2024, included fraudulent practices such as “pig butchering.” Li admitted using shell companies and US-based bank accounts to disguise and transfer the stolen funds.
Prosecutors revealed that millions were converted into Tether (USDT) and distributed to wallets controlled by Li and his co-conspirators. One of the wallets linked to the scheme reportedly held over $341 million in digital assets. Li’s arrest occurred in April 2024 at Atlanta airport, while his alleged accomplice, Yicheng Zhang, was arrested in May.
Li now faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a $500,000 fine, and three years of supervised release. Prosecutors also indicated he may need to pay restitution of up to $73 million to the victims. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 2025.
Huawei Technologies has called on a US judge to dismiss most of the federal charges accusing the company of conspiring to steal technology secrets from American firms and misleading banks about its business dealings in Iran. In a court filing in Brooklyn, Huawei described the accusations as part of the Department of Justice’s ‘ill-founded’ China Initiative, aimed at prosecuting Chinese entities. The company argued there is no substantial evidence of a conspiracy and that several charges relate to actions outside the United States.
The telecommunications giant contended that the bank fraud allegations rely on a ‘right to control’ theory of fraud, which the US Supreme Court invalidated in a separate case last year. Huawei, which operates globally from its base in Shenzhen with around 207,000 employees, has pleaded not guilty. A trial is set for January 2026. A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s office declined to comment, and Huawei’s legal team did not respond to requests for remarks.
The case dates back to 2018 and led to the high-profile detention in Canada of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. Although charges against her were dropped in 2022, the controversy remains a significant chapter in US-China tensions. The China Initiative, under which Huawei was prosecuted, was initiated during Donald Trump’s presidency to curb alleged intellectual property theft by Beijing but was terminated by the Biden administration in 2022 following criticism of racial profiling and the negative impact on research.
Collapsed cryptocurrency company FTX has filed a lawsuit against Binance and its former CEO Changpeng Zhao, alleging that $1.8 billion was fraudulently transferred to Binance and its executives. The case centres on a 2021 transaction in which Binance sold its stake in FTX, which it initially acquired in 2019, back to FTX for $1.76 billion. The funds for the buyout reportedly came from FTX’s Alameda Research division, which was insolvent at the time, according to the lawsuit.
FTX’s administrators claim that Alameda’s use of tokens to finance the share repurchase was improper, as the division did not have the resources to cover the transaction. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, seeks to recover the $1.76 billion for FTX‘s creditors and demands compensatory and punitive damages. Binance has dismissed the lawsuit as ‘meritless’, pledging to defend itself vigorously. Changpeng Zhao, also known as ‘CZ’, has not yet commented.
The legal battle adds to ongoing tensions between the two former crypto giants. FTX, once a dominant player in the cryptocurrency industry, collapsed in late 2022 after Binance withdrew a rescue offer. FTX’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, was sentenced to 25 years in prison earlier this year for embezzling $8 billion. Meanwhile, Zhao was given a four-month sentence for breaching US anti-money laundering laws.
French news publishers, including Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Le Parisien, have taken legal action against the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, over alleged unpaid content rights. They argue that X has distributed their material without compensation, as required by French ancillary rights laws, which mandate payments to news outlets when digital platforms use their content.
The dispute centres around X’s refusal to open negotiations with French media, contrasting with platforms like Google and Meta, which have reached agreements with publishers. French newspapers contend that X has ignored an order by the Paris Court of Justice from May, which requires the company to disclose financial information needed to determine the amount owed.
In a statement, the publishers emphasised that revenue from these payments supports media independence, plurality, and quality, contributing to freedom of expression and the right to information in society. They argue that securing these funds is vital for sustaining a democratic press.
A representative of the Paris court has confirmed that a hearing will take place on May 15, 2025, where both parties will present their cases. X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, has yet to comment on the legal challenge.
India’s financial crime agency has conducted raids at the offices of several sellers on Amazon and Flipkart, investigating alleged violations of foreign investment rules. This development follows a recent report from India’s antitrust body, which accused the e-commerce giants of favoring certain sellers and limiting fair competition. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) carried out searches in major cities, including New Delhi and Bengaluru, focusing on sellers suspected of being influenced by Amazon and Flipkart to manipulate prices.
This probe adds to Amazon and Flipkart’s regulatory struggles in India, one of their largest and fastest-growing markets. The Indian government has accused both companies of effectively controlling inventory through select sellers, despite regulations prohibiting foreign companies from direct multi-brand retail. Amazon and Flipkart, owned by Walmart, insist they comply with Indian laws and emphasize that they serve only as marketplace platforms.
While neither company has yet responded to these latest raids, they continue to face increasing scrutiny as India strengthens its regulatory approach to foreign e-commerce giants. The outcome could significantly impact how these companies operate within India, as the government seeks to ensure a more level playing field for local sellers.
Swedish tech firm Truecaller saw its shares fall by 11% on Thursday after Indian tax authorities conducted a surprise raid on its local offices. The company, which specialises in caller identification software, confirmed the raid in a statement and emphasised its commitment to cooperating fully with authorities. Truecaller noted that it had no prior notice of the action and had not faced any tax investigations in India beyond regular audits.
Following the news, Truecaller’s stock dropped significantly on the Stockholm exchange, down 9.3% by midday. This sudden raid adds a layer of uncertainty for the company in one of its key markets, as Truecaller has a substantial user base in India, where it recently appointed Rishit Jhunjhunwala as its new CEO. Truecaller reassured investors that such tax probes are common and that it remains committed to transparent business practices. However, the news has unsettled shareholders, highlighting the potential regulatory challenges foreign tech firms face in India’s growing but complex market.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has requested a federal court to dismiss three key defences presented by cryptocurrency exchange Kraken in a lawsuit accusing the platform of securities violations. The SEC’s motion, filed on 5 November, seeks to invalidate Kraken’s argument that it lacks clear legal guidance on which digital assets qualify as securities. The SEC contends that existing securities laws are clear enough and that Kraken was fully aware of potential breaches.
Kraken’s defences include invoking the “major questions doctrine,” which argues the SEC needs explicit Parliamentary approval to regulate digital assets as securities. Kraken also claims that it did not receive adequate notice of which aspects of its operations may violate securities laws. The SEC rejected these claims, labelling the defences as attempts to delay proceedings by complicating the evidence process.
According to the SEC, dismissing Kraken’s defences would simplify the case, reducing unnecessary document requests and preventing delays in reaching a verdict. Kraken initially attempted to dismiss the case in August, but the court ruled in the SEC’s favour, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The outcome could have significant implications for the SEC’s regulatory authority over digital assets in the cryptocurrency industry.
