US DoJ to file lawsuit against TikTok for alleged children’s privacy violations

TikTok will be sued again by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) in a consumer protection lawsuit against ByteDance’s TikTok later this year, focusing on alleged children’s privacy violations. The incentive for the legal move comes on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but the DoJ will not pursue allegations that TikTok misled US consumers about data security, specifically dropping claims that the company failed to inform users that China-based employees could access their personal and financial information.

The decision suggests that the primary focus will now be on how TikTok handles children’s privacy. The FTC had referred to the DoJ a complaint against TikTok and its parent, ByteDance, concerning potential violations of children’s privacy, stating that it investigated TikTok and found evidence suggesting they may be breaking the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The federal act requires apps and websites aimed at kids to get parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13.

Simultaneously, TikTok and ByteDance are challenging a US law that aims to ban the popular short video app in the United States starting from 19 January next year.

ByteDance challenges US TikTok ban in court

ByteDance and its subsidiary company TikTok are urging a US court to overturn a law that would ban the popular app in the USA by 19 January. The new legal act, signed by President Biden in April, demands ByteDance divest TikTok’s US assets or face a ban, which the company argues is impractical on technological, commercial, and legal grounds.

ByteDance contends that the law, driven by concerns over potential Chinese access to American data, violates free speech rights and unfairly targets TikTok while ‘ignores many applications with substantial operations in China that collect large amounts of US user data, as well as the many US companies that develop software and employ engineers in China.’ They argue that the legislation represents a substantial departure from the US tradition of supporting an open internet and sets a dangerous precedent.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments on this case on 16 September, a decision that could shape the future of TikTok in the US. ByteDance claims lengthy negotiations with the US government, which ended abruptly in August 2022, proposed various measures to protect US user data, including a ‘kill switch’ for the government to suspend TikTok if necessary. Additionally, the company made public a 100-plus page draft national security agreement to protect US TikTok user data and claims it has spent more than $2 billion on the effort. However, they believe the administration prefers to shut down the app rather than finalise a feasible agreement.

The Justice Department, defending the law, asserted that it addresses national security concerns appropriately. Moreover, the case follows a similar attempt by former President Trump to ban TikTok, which was blocked by the courts in 2020. This time, the new law would prohibit app stores and internet hosting services from supporting TikTok unless ByteDance divests it.

SoftBank to expand US power generation for AI

Founder Masayoshi Son announced that Japan’s SoftBank Group plans to expand its power generation business in the US to support global generative AI projects. SB Energy, backed by SoftBank, focuses on developing and operating renewable energy projects across the US. The initiative aligns with SoftBank’s strategy to explore new investment opportunities outside Japan.

Why does it matter?

At the annual shareholder meeting of SoftBank Corp, the group’s telecom arm, Son highlighted the importance of seeking innovative investments. He emphasised that SoftBank’s future growth would rely on identifying and nurturing emerging technologies and markets beyond Japan.

The current strategy reflects SoftBank’s commitment to advancing its global presence and influence in the tech and renewable energy sectors.

TikTok’s fate in US to be decided before election

A US appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for 16 September to address legal challenges against a new law requiring ByteDance, the China-based parent company of TikTok, to divest its US assets by 19 January or face a ban. The law, signed by President Joe Biden on 24 April, aims to eliminate Chinese ownership of TikTok due to national security concerns. TikTok, ByteDance, and a group of TikTok creators have filed lawsuits to block the law, arguing that it significantly impacts American life, with 170 million Americans using the app.

The hearing will coincide with the final weeks of the 2024 presidential election, and both parties are seeking a ruling by 6 December to allow for a potential Supreme Court review. The law also prohibits app stores like Apple and Google from offering TikTok and bars internet hosting services from supporting it unless ByteDance divests. Such a measure reflects US lawmakers’ fears that China could use TikTok to access American data or conduct espionage.

Google’s bid to end US antitrust case over digital advertising rejected

Google has lost its bid to dismiss a US government lawsuit accusing it of monopolistic practices in the digital advertising market in an ongoing antitrust scrutiny of major tech companies. The ruling marks a critical juncture in the broader effort to regulate and curtail the market power of tech giants. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, denied Google’s motion to dismiss the case during a recent hearing, as documented in court records.

The decision allows the lawsuit, originally filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2023, to proceed. The DOJ alleges that Google has engaged in anti-competitive behavior to maintain its dominance in the digital advertising market, using its position to unfairly disadvantage competitors, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of antitrust actions targeting Big Tech, as regulators aim to address concerns over market monopolization and its effects on competition, consumers, and innovation. According to the DOJ, Google has employed various strategies to stifle competition, including acquiring competitors, favoring its own services, and implementing restrictive policies that disadvantage rival ad tech firms.

Last week, Google achieved a notable victory when Judge Brinkema allowed the trial to proceed without a jury, following a settlement of claims that its conduct harmed the US government. Judge Brinkema is scheduled to preside over the trial on September 9. In response to the ruling, a Google spokesperson expressed disappointment, stating that the company strongly disagrees with the DOJ’s claims and plans to vigorously defend itself in court. Google maintains that its digital advertising products benefit publishers and advertisers by providing efficient, effective tools that foster competition.

Why does it matter?

The outcome of this case could have implications for the tech industry, particularly for digital advertising. If the court ultimately rules against Google, it could lead to significant changes in how digital advertising markets operate, potentially requiring Google to divest parts of its advertising business or change its business practices. The case against Google is pivotal to the ongoing debate over the power and influence of tech giants. It reflects increasing regulatory scrutiny and a shift towards more aggressive antitrust enforcement.

The ruling not only impacts Google but also sets a precedent for future actions against other major players in the tech industry. As the case moves forward, it will be closely watched by industry stakeholders, policymakers, and consumers alike, as it holds the potential to reshape the digital advertising ecosystem and redefine the boundaries of acceptable business practices for tech companies.

US lawmakers question NewsBreak over Chinese origins and AI-generated stories

Three US lawmakers have raised concerns about NewsBreak, a popular news aggregation app, due to its Chinese origins and use of AI tools that have produced erroneous stories. Senator Mark Warner, chair of the Intelligence Committee, emphasised the threat posed by technologies from adversarial countries. At the same time, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi highlighted the need for transparency regarding any ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Representative Elise Stefanik pointed to the backing by IDG Capital, a Beijing-based private equity firm, as a reason for increased scrutiny.

NewsBreak, launched in the US in 2015, was originally a subsidiary of the Chinese news app Yidian, founded by Jeff Zheng. Despite being labelled an American company by its spokesperson, court documents and other evidence reveal historical links to Chinese investors and engineers based in China. Notably, Yidian has received praise from Chinese Communist Party officials for disseminating government propaganda, although there is no evidence that NewsBreak has censored or produced pro-China news.

The primary investors in NewsBreak include San Francisco-based Francisco Partners and Beijing-based IDG Capital. IDG Capital, which the Pentagon has listed as allegedly working with Beijing’s military, denies any such association. Francisco Partners has described the scrutiny as ‘false and misleading,’ but the lawmakers maintain their stance on carefully examining the app’s potential risks to US interests.

US tech giants urge Indian government to reconsider proposed competition law

A US lobby group representing tech giants Google, Amazon, and Apple has urged India to reconsider its proposed competition law, similar to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The group argues that the new regulations, which aim to prevent the misuse of non-public data and preferential treatment of partners, could increase user costs and discourage investment in the country. The draft ‘Digital Competition Bill’ targets large firms with significant global turnover and local user bases, aiming to curb monopolistic practices and promote fair competition.

India’s Corporate Affairs Ministry is working on the bill, which proposes strict penalties for violations, including fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual global turnover. The proposed law addresses concerns about the growing market power of a few dominant digital companies in India. However, the US-India Business Council (USIBC) warns that the legislation’s broad scope could lead to reduced investments, higher digital service prices, and a narrower range of consumer offerings.

Why does it matter?

Despite opposition from major US tech firms, a coalition of 40 Indian startups supports the new law, arguing it will help level the playing field and combat monopolistic practices. The Indian government is reviewing the proposal’s feedback and will seek parliamentary approval in the coming months, with or without modifications.

Report reveals surge in fake accounts on X targeting US presidential election

Fake accounts discussing the US presidential election are increasing on the social media platform X, according to a report by Cyabra, an Israeli tech company specialising in AI-driven analysis. The report found that 15% of accounts praising former President Donald Trump and criticising President Joe Biden are fake, while 7% of accounts praising Biden and criticising Trump are fake.

Cyabra’s study analysed posts on X over two months, starting 1 March, focusing on popular hashtags and sentiment. The analysis showed a tenfold increase in fake accounts during March and April. Specifically, 12,391 out of 94,363 pro-Trump accounts and 803 out of 10,065 pro-Biden accounts were found to be bogus.

The report also noted that fake pro-Trump accounts appear to be part of a coordinated campaign pushing messages like ‘Vote for Trump’ and ‘Biden is the worst president the US has ever had,’ while fake pro-Biden accounts did not show coordinated activity.

Although X did not respond to requests for comments, Elon Musk recently announced efforts to purge bots and trolls from the platform, including testing a ‘Not a Bot’ program in New Zealand and the Philippines.

Why does it matter?

Since Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, social media platforms have faced increased scrutiny. With the upcoming election on 5 November, Cyabra’s findings on fake accounts are a cause of alarm for election officials and misinformation experts. The situation is even more concerning, given X’s history of downplaying the presence of fake accounts on its platform. According to Reuters, in May 2022, Twitter claimed that fewer than 5% of its daily active users were ‘false or spam’ based on an internal review. However, Cyabra estimated that 13.7% of Twitter profiles were inauthentic.

Tech titans clash: Inside the US-China battle for chip market dominance

Competition between the USA and China in chip trade and production is growing on a daily basis to the extent that it is considered a chip war between these two superpowers.

In this analysis, we will review all the facts and steps that Beijing and Washington have taken so far to position themselves better in the chip market. This will help us see the whole picture better and allow us to predict what will come next more easily.

China

China’s first significant step in strengthening its position in the semiconductor technology market happened in 2014 when a broader national security strategy was introduced. The main task of the strategy, active to this day, is to position China as the world’s leading science and technology superpower, which is part of its goal to establish itself as a global superpower. Chinese leaders realised that semiconductor microchips are crucial to emerging civilian and military technologies and for achieving their long-term geopolitical goals and potentially surpassing the USA as the dominant superpower.

China has made significant progress in technological advancements that have outpaced the forecasts from Western intelligence and industry analyses. For example, the military-civil fusion programme aims to integrate civilian technologies with military capabilities and to blur the lines between civilian and military applications.

Part of the broader national security strategy is a tendency to reduce dependence on Western technologies and to reach the point where they can rely on themselves in critical sectors like semiconductors. That’s precisely why Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, called for increased technological autonomy to counter Western influence and strengthen China’s global position. They have also invested heavily in its semiconductor industry while setting ambitious targets to increase chip self-reliance. But, some targets are proving to be somewhat challenging, such as reaching 70% self-reliance by 2025.

However, those efforts have been bolstered even more by the constant pressure of the USA in the form of increasing trade restrictions and policies that limit Chinese technological investments and exports. Semiconductor microchips are a focal point in Beijing’s economic security strategies. As expected, the conflict over microchips with the USA did not go without countermeasures. For example, China accelerated its efforts to remove foreign-manufactured chips, especially those made in the USA, and set a deadline for domestic telecommunications companies to do so by 2027. That move could particularly hit American chipmakers such as Intel and AMD and inflict significant financial damage to the US economy.

China also found a way to bypass Washington’s prohibition of Nvidia’s high-end AI processor sales to China. Instead of buying directly from Nvidia, Chinese universities and research institutions acquired the processors through resellers. There was no lack of open criticism either, as officials in Beijing criticised the USA for tightening trade rules. They emphasised that this move raises barriers and introduces uncertainty to the global chip sector. China is showing clear signs that they will not give up the fight, but it all depends on the speed of their technological progress.

US

As for the USA, when President Biden took office in 2021, concerns about China’s accelerating technological progress were already very much present. Those concerns were mainly focused on the field of AI. Many feared that China could overtake the US in semiconductor technology, which would also threaten the dominance of the West over the East in technology.

This is precisely why the EU and the USA began emphasising economic security in the foreground, thus making a turn from past policies when they promoted globalisation and trade liberalisation. This was also triggered by alleged reports that claimed China acquired Western technologies through joint ventures and projects and caused disruptions in supply chains for crucial materials and equipment.

However, the most significant turning point in American politics regarding semiconductor microchip manufacturing was the introduction of the CHIPS Act in August 2022. The primary purpose of the CHIPS Act was to boost the domestic semiconductor manufacturing process and protect it from potential sabotage. It also included the tendency to reduce US dependency on imports, especially from China.

Furthermore, Washington implemented a series of sanctions and export controls to protect its intellectual property and national security interests. The sanctions included restrictions on exporting the equipment required to produce advanced chips to China, emphasising chips lower than 16/14 nm.

The next step the USA took was to strengthen some of its alliances. They did this primarily with the Netherlands and Japan, which enhanced export controls on high-performance semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Also, to further isolate China, the White House proposed the Chip 4 Alliance with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, aiming to bolster the resilience of East Asia’s semiconductor supply chain.

Taiwan plays a vital role in this US-China conflict because it produces a significant share of the world’s most advanced chips. Its technological leadership, supplier diversity, and resilience made it a cornerstone in efforts to strengthen the semiconductor supply chain. Both Beijing and Washington want to increase their influence in Taiwan to better take advantage of the breadth of Taiwan’s chip production.

What can we expect?

The rivalry between China and the USA in this field started during Donald Trump’s presidency and has continued under President Joe Biden. It reflects a rare bipartisan consensus in the US Congress to challenge China’s technological ambition. On the other hand, for China, the position of a global leader is a matter of national pride, which is omnipresent in President Xi Jinping’s leadership.

The expanded tech war manifests in various arenas, with the most notable ones being chipmaking and green technology. Chipmaking is crucial for information processing, while green technology is becoming increasingly important for the global economy. Both China and the USA are vying for dominance in these sectors.

The Economist stated in its article titled ‘The tech wars are about to enter a fiery new phase’ that regardless of the outcome of future elections in the USA, the next president is likely to continue challenging China’s technological advancements. This echoes the joint effort in Washington to confront China’s growing influence in advanced technologies.

The Economist added that heightened tensions and a more aggressive US approach under a future administration are also possible. This could involve expanding export controls and sanctions beyond companies like Huawei to other Chinese tech firms. Such actions might provoke retaliatory measures from China, further escalating the conflict.

The Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC, which has significant investments in China, could be pressured by the US government to limit its operations there. That could also happen with other foreign companies that do business in China and get caught in the crossfire of this conflict.

Despite winning over some allies, the USA might need help with other partners, particularly in Europe and Asia. Washington’s approach to technology and China could affect its relationship with some allies since there is a difference in priorities, which could strain alliances and potentially complicate efforts to form a united front against China’s technological ambition.

This clash between the two great powers will undoubtedly leave its mark on the world economy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that the elimination of high-tech trade between the two countries could cost as much as $1 trillion annually, equivalent to 1.2% of the global GDP. It is in the general interest to resolve this conflict as soon as possible, although everything indicates that it will not happen very soon.

TikTok sues US government over law mandating ban or divestment

TikTok has filed a lawsuit against the US government, challenging a new law that requires the app to sever ties with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face a ban in the US. The company argues that the law is unconstitutional and deems it impossible to sell the app from ByteDance, stating that it would instead result in a shutdown by 19 January 2025.

Namely, the law, signed by President Joe Biden last month, grants ByteDance nine months to divest TikTok or cease its operations in the US, citing national security concerns. However, TikTok’s complaint argues that the government has not presented sufficient evidence of the Chinese government misusing the app. Concerns expressed by individual members of Congress and a congressional committee report are speculative about the potential misuse of TikTok in the future without citing specific instances of misconduct. However, TikTok asserts that it has operated prominently in the US since its launch in 2017.

The app contends that a ban in the US would be unfeasible due to the complex task of transferring millions of lines of software code from ByteDance to a new owner. Additionally, restrictions imposed by the Chinese government would prevent the sale of TikTok along with its algorithm. TikTok argues that such a ban would effectively isolate American users and undermine its business, mentioning also its previous efforts to address US government concerns.

During the Trump administration, discussions were held regarding partnerships with American companies such as Walmart, Microsoft, and Oracle to separate TikTok’s US operations. However, these potential deals have yet to materialise. TikTok also attempted to appease the government by storing US user data in Oracle’s servers, although a recent report suggests that this action was primarily cosmetic.

TikTok seeks a court judgement to declare the Biden administration’s legislation unconstitutional in response to the new law. The company also requests an order to prevent the attorney general from enforcing the law.