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.
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.
Ireland‘s political parties are laying out ambitious plans for spending the €14bn tax windfall from Apple as they gear up for the general election. The funds stem from a landmark EUruling requiring Apple to pay back taxes and interest for receiving unfair tax benefits.
Housing is a primary focus. Fianna Fáil proposes €4bn for social housing, while Sinn Féin plans €7.6bn for public housing and €1bn for a housing redress scheme. The Green Party and Labour have also prioritised infrastructure and housing development.
Transport, renewable energy, and regional regeneration also feature heavily. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil emphasise investments in water systems and electricity grids, while the Green Party focuses on enhancing public transport. Both Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil propose community-focused funds for underdeveloped areas, mirroring ‘levelling up’ policies.
Brazil’s antitrust regulator, Cade, has mandated Apple to lift restrictions on in-app payments. The decision follows a complaint by e-commerce giant MercadoLibre, accusing Apple of unfair practices.
The complaint, filed in 2022 in Brazil and Mexico, criticised Apple for forcing app developers to use its payment system. It also alleged that the company blocks apps from offering third-party digital goods or redirecting users to external websites.
Cade’s ruling requires Apple to permit developers to integrate external payment systems and allow hyperlinks to external purchasing platforms within apps. Developers must also have the option to include alternative in-app payment methods.
Apple faces a 250,000 real (£43,000) daily fine if it fails to comply within 20 days. Both Apple and MercadoLibre have yet to provide comments on the ruling.
Meta, the company behind Facebook, is set to face trial in April over allegations from the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it stifled competition by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, argues that Meta acted illegally to maintain dominance in personal social networks by purchasing potential competitors rather than innovating within the mobile ecosystem.
The case is scheduled to begin on 14 April, as ruled by Judge James Boasberg. Earlier this month, the judge rejected Meta’s request to dismiss the case, which argued that the FTC’s claims relied on a narrow definition of the social media market. Meta highlighted competition from TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn, and X as evidence that the FTC’s market analysis was outdated.
Judge Boasberg acknowledged the challenges facing the FTC, noting that shifts in technology and market dynamics complicate its claims. He described the agency’s approach as pushing antitrust law to its limits, raising doubts about whether its case could withstand trial.
The trial will examine whether Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate competition. The outcome could have significant implications for the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech industry.
A federal judge has denied the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s bid to sanction Elon Musk over missed testimony in its investigation of his $44B Twitter purchase. The judge concluded that sanctions were unnecessary after Musk testified in October and paid $2,923 to cover the SEC’s travel expenses.
The US SEC is probing whether Musk delayed disclosing his stock purchases in early 2022, potentially enabling him to buy Twitter shares at a lower price before revealing his significant stake. Critics argue this delay might have given Musk an unfair financial advantage leading up to his eventual takeover.
Musk, currently the world’s richest person, attributed the delay to a misunderstanding of SEC rules. The billionaire, whose ventures include Tesla and SpaceX, has had prior conflicts with the SEC, including a 2018 settlement over his tweets about taking Tesla private.
A Texas federal jury has ordered Samsung Electronics to pay $118M to Netlist, a US-based computer memory company, for patent infringement. The case centers on Netlist’s patented technology that boosts power efficiency and accelerates data processing in high-performance memory products used in cloud computing and data-intensive systems.
This ruling marks another major win for Netlist, which previously secured a $303M verdict against Samsung last year and $445M against Micron in May. The jury also determined Samsung’s actions were willful, leaving open the possibility of higher penalties.
Samsung denies the claims, asserting that the patents are invalid and that its technology operates differently from Netlist’s. Meanwhile, the legal battle continues with Samsung filing a countersuit in US, Delaware, accusing Netlist of failing to license the patents on fair terms.
Apple and Google face growing scrutiny in the UK over allegations of stifling competition in mobile web browsers. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) claims that both companies use their dominant positions to restrict consumer choice, citing Apple’s limits on progressive web apps as a barrier to innovation on iOS devices. Progressive web apps could bypass app stores and their fees, offering faster and more secure browsing.
The CMA’s report also points to a revenue-sharing deal between Apple and Google that discourages competition in mobile ecosystems. Both companies have responded, with Apple defending its privacy and security measures and Google emphasising the openness of its Android platform.
This investigation is part of a broader crackdown on Big Tech, with regulators in the US and UK aiming to curb monopolistic practices. The CMA plans to finalise its report in March and use upcoming digital competition laws to address these concerns.
A Brighton tradesman lost £75,000 to a fake bitcoin scheme that used a deepfake video of Martin Lewis and Elon Musk. The kitchen fitter, Des Healey, shared his experience on BBC Radio 5 Live, revealing how AI manipulated Martin’s voice and image to create a convincing endorsement. Des admitted he was lured by the promise of quick returns but later realised the devastating scam had emptied his life savings and forced him into debt.
He explained that the fraudsters, posing as financial experts, gained his trust through personalised calls and apparent success in his fake investment account. Encouraged to invest more, he took out £70,000 in loans across four lenders. Only when his son raised concerns about suspicious details, such as background music on calls, did Des begin to suspect foul play and approach the police.
Martin Lewis, Britain’s most impersonated celebrity in scams, described meeting Des as emotionally challenging. He commended Des for bravely sharing his ordeal to warn others. Martin emphasised that scams prey on urgency and secrecy, urging people to pause and verify before sharing personal or financial details.
Although two banks cancelled loans taken by Des, he still owes £26,000 including interest. Des expressed gratitude for the chance to warn others and praised Martin Lewis for his continued efforts to fight fraud. Meanwhile, Revolut reaffirmed its commitment to combating cybercrime, acknowledging the challenges posed by sophisticated scammers.
The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for a multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook, over its role in the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. Investors claim Meta failed to fully disclose the risks of user data misuse, which caused Facebook’s stock value to drop sharply in 2018 when the scandal became public.
Cambridge Analytica, a firm tied to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, accessed data from 87M Facebook users to influence voter targeting. While Meta has already paid over $5B in fines and settlements for privacy violations, this lawsuit focuses on alleged failures in investor disclosures.
The US Supreme Court dismissed Meta’s appeal to halt the lawsuit, leaving a prior appellate ruling intact. As legal challenges mount for tech giants, the court is also considering another class action against Nvidia over claims of misleading investors about cryptocurrency-related revenues.
