Jurisdiction

Australia enacts groundbreaking law banning under-16s from social media

Australia has approved a groundbreaking law banning children under 16 from accessing social media, following a contentious debate. The new regulation targets major tech companies like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat, which will face fines of up to A$49.5 million if they allow minors to log in. Starting with a trial period in January, the law is set to take full effect in 2025. The move comes amid growing global concerns about the mental health impact of social media on young people, with several countries considering similar restrictions.

The law, which marks a significant political win for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has received widespread public support, with 77% of Australians backing the ban. However, it has faced opposition from privacy advocates, child rights groups, and social media companies, which argue the law was rushed through without adequate consultation. Critics also warn that it could inadvertently harm vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQIA or migrant teens, by cutting them off from supportive online communities.

Despite the backlash, many parents and mental health advocates support the ban, citing concerns about social media’s role in exacerbating youth mental health issues. High-profile campaigns and testimonies from parents of children affected by cyberbullying have helped drive public sentiment in favour of the law. However, some experts warn the ban could have unintended consequences, pushing young people toward more dangerous corners of the internet where they can avoid detection.

The law also has the potential to strain relations between Australia and the United States, as tech companies with major US ties, including Meta and X, have voiced concerns about its implications for internet freedom. While these companies have pledged to comply, there remain significant questions about how the law will be enforced and whether it can achieve its intended goals without infringing on privacy or digital rights.

FTC challenges Microsoft over cloud practices

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched a wide-reaching antitrust investigation into Microsoft’s business practices, focusing on cloud computing, software licensing, and artificial intelligence. Allegations suggest the company has imposed restrictive licensing terms that make it difficult for customers to switch from its Azure cloud services to rival platforms. FTC Chair Lina Khan approved the probe ahead of her expected departure in January, raising questions about its future under a potentially business-friendlier administration.

Critics, including competitors and industry groups like NetChoice, claim Microsoft’s licensing policies unfairly lock customers into its ecosystem. Google has raised similar concerns with European regulators, citing significant mark-ups for using Windows Server on competing cloud services and delays in providing security updates. The FTC’s investigation also touches on broader competition concerns in AI and cybersecurity, including Microsoft’s acquisition of AI startup Inflection AI.

Microsoft has not commented on the probe, but complaints have mounted over its practices in cloud computing and the integration of AI tools into productivity products like Office and Outlook. Some industry observers note that Microsoft has been relatively spared in recent US antitrust actions targeting Big Tech firms, including Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon. However, the FTC’s focus on Microsoft could signal a shift in regulatory priorities.

The outcome of the investigation remains uncertain, particularly with a potential change in the political landscape. While the Trump administration previously pursued aggressive antitrust enforcement, including actions against Google and Meta, Microsoft has benefited from its policies in the past, such as winning a contentious $10 billion Pentagon cloud contract over Amazon. Experts believe a new administration may alter enforcement priorities but not necessarily halt ongoing probes.

Google challenges verdict in Epic Games lawsuit

Google is appealing a court order mandating significant changes to its Play app store, arguing to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that legal errors during the trial unfairly favoured Epic Games. The tech giant contends that the San Francisco jury should not have been allowed to rule on Epic’s claims and that the trial judge overstepped by issuing a nationwide injunction.

Epic, known for creating “Fortnite,” accused Google of monopolising app distribution and payment systems on Android devices. A jury sided with Epic last year, leading US District Judge James Donato to require Google to permit rival app stores on Android and allow competitors access to Play’s app catalogue. This injunction, set to last three years, is on hold pending the appeal.

Google warns the mandated changes would disrupt app developers and users, framing the judge’s order as excessive intervention. Epic, meanwhile, dismissed Google’s appeal as baseless and a refusal to honour the jury’s unanimous decision. The appeals court is set to hear arguments in February, with a decision expected later in 2025.

US court halts Arkansas ban on Chinese-owned crypto mining

A federal judge in Little Rock, Arkansas, has temporarily blocked state officials from shutting down a cryptocurrency mining firm owned by a naturalised US citizen of Chinese descent. The company, Jones Eagle, was targeted under Arkansas laws prohibiting property and business ownership by Chinese nationals or entities, despite its owner, Qimin ‘Jimmy’ Chen, holding US citizenship.

The court’s restraining order, issued by Chief Judge Kristine Baker, stops Arkansas from taking immediate action against Chen’s business. Chen argued the state’s actions were discriminatory, as he had previously provided documentation confirming his US citizenship and compliance with local laws. The state’s case relied on Acts 636 and 174, which restrict property ownership by individuals linked to China and foreign digital asset miners.

The restraining order is in effect for 14 days, allowing time for a hearing to decide whether it will be extended. Chen’s legal team intends to challenge the constitutionality of the laws, describing them as overreaching and discriminatory. The outcome could have broader implications for property and business rights in the US amidst growing scrutiny of enterprises linked to China.

Privacy battle brings WhatsApp to highest EU court

WhatsApp has taken its legal dispute over a €225 million fine to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The fine, issued by Ireland’s data protection authority in 2021, stemmed from complaints about the company’s handling of personal data. The penalty increased after intervention by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB).

An earlier challenge to the fine was dismissed by the General Court, the EU’s second-highest tribunal, which ruled that WhatsApp was not directly affected by the EDPB’s decision. The court also noted that the Irish watchdog retained some discretion over the final ruling. WhatsApp has now appealed, arguing that the EDPB’s decisions have direct legal consequences.

Hans-Georg Kamann, representing WhatsApp, told the CJEU that the current framework is flawed and could affect future administrative processes across the EU. The appeal is seen as a critical test of how much influence EU bodies can wield over national regulators in privacy matters.

The CJEU is expected to issue a decision on the case, formally known as C-97/23 P WhatsApp Ireland v European Data Protection Board, in 2024.

Australian parliament advances social media restrictions for kids

Australia’s House of Representatives passed a groundbreaking bill on Wednesday aiming to ban social media use for children under 16. The bill, supported by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government and the opposition, introduces strict measures requiring platforms to implement age-verification systems. Companies could face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for breaches. The Senate will debate the bill next, with Albanese pushing for its approval before the year ends.

The law follows an emotional inquiry that highlighted cyberbullying’s devastating effects, including testimony from parents of children who self-harmed. While advocates argue the ban will protect young people’s mental health, critics, including youth groups and human rights organisations, warn it risks cutting off teens from vital social connections. Tech giants like Google, Meta, and TikTok have urged the government to delay the legislation until a proposed age-verification trial concludes in 2025.

Despite these concerns, public opinion overwhelmingly supports the ban, with recent polls showing 77% approval. Parent advocacy groups have praised the initiative as a critical step in addressing the negative impacts of social media on children. However, critics within parliament and civil rights groups have called for more nuanced solutions, emphasising the importance of balancing protection with privacy and self-expression rights.

If passed, Australia will become a global leader in stringent social media regulations, but the debate over how best to safeguard young users while respecting their freedoms is far from over.

US adjusts Intel’s chip subsidy amid sector challenges

Intel’s expected $8.5 billion subsidy for expanding its United States chip manufacturing facilities is likely to be reduced, sources revealed. The grants, part of a broader semiconductor funding initiative under the CHIPS and Science Act, will still represent a significant investment but may drop below $8 billion. The adjustment is reportedly linked to Intel’s separate $3 billion Pentagon contract funded through the same programme.

The US government aims to bolster domestic semiconductor production through the CHIPS Act, allocating $52.7 billion overall, including $39 billion in subsidies. Intel’s planned projects in Arizona include building two new chip factories and upgrading an existing facility. Despite these efforts, Intel faces industry challenges, with slumping share prices and restructuring moves under CEO Pat Gelsinger.

Other companies, such as TSMC and GlobalFoundries, have also benefited from preliminary CHIPS Act agreements. Intel’s revised funding agreement is expected soon, with the US Commerce Department declining to comment on the final subsidy figure.

US court to decide TikTok’s future amid ByteDance divestment law

A United States federal appeals court is set to rule by 6 December on whether ByteDance, TikTok‘s Chinese parent company, must divest its US operations or face a ban. The ruling will address national security concerns raised by the Justice Department, which alleges that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses risks due to access to vast American user data. ByteDance has challenged the law as unconstitutional, arguing it unfairly targets TikTok and violates free speech.

The three-judge panel could uphold the law, leading to a likely appeal by ByteDance. Alternatively, the court might allow the law but criticise its fairness, requiring further certification of TikTok as a security risk. A ruling deeming the law unconstitutional could halt efforts to force ByteDance to sell TikTok’s US assets. Any outcome may result in further legal battles, including an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case underscores tensions between US national security priorities and free market principles, with over 170 million Americans actively using TikTok. The final decision could shape the future of tech regulation and US-China relations.

Google’s antitrust trial nears verdict

A pivotal antitrust case involving Google’s dominance in online advertising has reached its conclusion in a Virginia federal court. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alphabet’s Google unfairly monopolised key markets, including ad servers and advertiser networks, as well as attempting to dominate ad exchanges. Closing arguments were presented after a 15-day trial.

DOJ lawyers accused Google of manipulating the ad market for its advantage. They characterised the company as a ‘once, twice, three times a monopolist’ and likened the case to a tale of conflicting narratives, urging the judge to side with their evidence. Publishers testified about being unable to switch from Google’s services due to the company’s vast ad demand, highlighting the significant revenue at stake.

Google’s defence argued that its business practices align with antitrust laws and that the DOJ failed to meet the burden of proof. Company lawyers claimed the case misrepresented a competitive ad market and ignored Google’s legitimate strategies. Google contends the government focused narrowly on certain market aspects rather than acknowledging broader industry competition.

A decision could lead to major structural changes for Google’s advertising business. Prosecutors want Google to divest its Ad Manager platform, which includes its publisher ad server and ad exchange. The company recently offered to sell its ad exchange to resolve a similar EU antitrust inquiry, though European publishers rejected the proposal as inadequate.

Amazon Japan faces antitrust probe, source reports

Japan’s Fair Trade Commission has raided Amazon Japan over allegations of anti-monopoly violations. The company is suspected of pressuring sellers to reduce prices in exchange for favourable product placement on its e-commerce platform, a government source revealed.

The investigation comes amid growing global scrutiny of Amazon’s practices. In Europe, regulators are preparing a case to examine whether Amazon favours its branded products on its marketplace under new antitrust rules.

This is not the first time Amazon Japan has faced such scrutiny. In 2018, authorities accused it of shifting discount costs onto suppliers. The case was resolved after Amazon agreed to improve its business practices, but the latest allegations suggest ongoing concerns about its market conduct.