Latest news with #DigitalMarketsAct
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple Faces EU Ultimatum Over App-Store Rules
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) is racing to meet a June 26 deadline or risk a new charge sheet from the European Commission after a 500 million fine in April for breaching the Digital Markets Act's anti-steering rules. Regulators want Apple to let developers tell users about cheaper app-purchase options outside the App Storean obligation the company has so far resisted, arguing that the EU keeps moving the goalposts. If Apple fails to propose a remedy that satisfies Brussels, fresh penalties could follow swiftly under the DMA's strict enforcement framework. The April penalty stemmed from Apple's contractual bans on steering, and Meta (NASDAQ:META) also picked up a 200 million fine for similar violations. Apple is simultaneously challenging an EU order to open iOS to rival technologies, underscoring the fraught negotiations over how gatekeepers must adapt. Since September 2023, six tech giantsincluding Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT)have fallen under the DMA, which demands clearer distribution paths and fairer terms for third-party developers. Why it matters: New charges would ratchet up legal and reputational risks for Apple, potentially shaking investor confidence and accelerating shifts in Europe's app-commerce landscape. Investors will be watching Apple's submission by June 26 and any reaction from the Commission ahead of Q3 earnings in late October. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Euronews
11 hours ago
- Business
- Euronews
Apple and Meta to escape sanctions for failing to meet digital rules
US tech giants Apple and Meta will not face sanctions immediately for failure to meet obligations under the EU's digital rulebook, an EU spokesperson told Euronews. In April, the Commission fined Apple €500 million and Meta €200 million for non-compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and gave both companies 60 days to bring their practices in line with EU rules. That grace period ends on 26 June, after which they risk periodic penalty payments. According to the spokesperson, financial penalties will not be applied automatically but only after the Commission conducts a preliminary analysis and shares its findings with the two tech giants as part of an ongoing exchange process. Apple was fined €500 million for preventing developers from directing users to alternative offers or content outside its platform—an action deemed contrary to DMA rules. Meta received a €200 million fine for its "pay or consent" model, which the Commission found problematic. The model forces users to either consent to the use of their personal data for targeted advertising or pay for an ad-free subscription—limiting user choice. In response, Meta introduced a revised version of its personalised advertising model in November 2024, which uses less personal data. The Commission is still evaluating this system while continuing its discussions with the company. Compared to past antitrust enforcement, the fines issued in April were relatively modest. Under former EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, tech giants were subject to more substantial penalties. In April, EU officials explained that the lower fines reflected the short duration of the violations since the DMA implementation started in 2023 and the Commission's current focus on achieving compliance rather than punishing breaches. US digital services have been drawn into the trade war that has been escalating between the US and the EU since mid-March. In response to US tariffs, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has threatened to impose a tax on digital advertising revenues. Meanwhile, a report by the US Trade Representative, published in early April, labelled EU digital regulations as a barrier to US exports. The DMA is designed to prevent dominant digital platforms from abusing their market power. It aims to open up digital ecosystems controlled by Big Tech and ensure users enjoy real freedom of choice online. The foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom - collectively known as the E3 - will meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva to discuss Iran's nuclear program in Geneva on Friday. While the EU has historically played a key role in negotiations with Iran, it seems unlikely to participate in the formal talks. When asked by Euronews whether EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas would participate in the talks, a European Commission spokesperson gave no clear confirmation. 'We have always expressed our openness to dialogue and negotiation. When such dialogue occurs, we will inform you,' the spokesperson said, leaving open the possibility of a last-minute invitation. Before the E3-Iran meeting, the European ministers are expected to meet with Kallas at Germany's permanent mission in Geneva however – a move that highlights the EU's continued efforts to coordinate and facilitate diplomacy, even if indirectly. Brussels has long played a central role in the Iran nuclear negotiations, particularly through the High Representative for Foreign Affairs in the broader EU+3 format – which once included other countries such as the United States, Russia and China. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the UN-brokered nuclear agreement aimed at lifting sanctions in exchange for Iran's compliance with nuclear obligations, the EU served as a key facilitator and guardian of the agreement's implementation. Under the previous administration of US President Donald Trump, Washington pulled out of the JCPOA. The upcoming talks are expected to revive dialogue in light of the escalating conflict and persuade Iran to provide credible guarantees that its nuclear program remains exclusively civilian in nature. However, the influence of the European parties has waned in recent months. The last E3-Iran meeting was held in January, shortly before Trump assumed office. Subsequent indirect US-Iran talks, brokered by Oman, failed to yield results, with the sixth planned round cancelled after the Israeli military strikes on Iran. Although not directly involved this time, the EU has played a behind-the-scenes role as a diplomatic facilitator, attempting to bridge divides among European countries and even between Europe and the US. The EU's presence in the talks has visibly diminished since the tenure of former High Representative Federica Mogherini, who was a prominent architect and staunch defender of the 2015 deal. Despite its limited visibility, the EU hopes that its coordinating efforts can still shape the outcome of the talks or at least keep the door open for renewed multilateral diplomacy on Iran's nuclear file.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
EU Court Advisor Backs Google's $4.7 Billion Android Fine
Alphabet's Google suffered a setback in its yearslong battle against an antitrust fine after a top adviser to the European Union's highest court backed a 4.12 billion-euro ($4.74 billion) penalty imposed by EU antitrust regulators over how the tech giant imposes contractual obligations on device manufacturers deploying its Android operating system. Juliane Kokott, an advocate general of the European Union's Court of Justice in Luxembourg, said Google is wrong to attempt to challenge the fine. She said the company for years held a dominant position in several markets of the Android system that enabled it to benefit from ensuring that users used its services like Google Search. Kokott recommended that judges should uphold the fine, according to a court press release. The Biggest Companies Across America Are Cutting Their Workforces Microsoft Plans to Cut Thousands More Employees All the Hollywood Action Is Happening Everywhere But Hollywood The Fed Waits Out the Tariff Economy The Path to Record Deficits A Google spokesperson said the company was disappointed by the opinion. If the court were to follow it, it could discourage investment in open platforms and ultimately harm users, developers and business partners, the spokesperson said. The opinion is a blow for the search giant, which has for years tried to rid itself of multibillion-dollar penalties the commission has levied for antitrust violations. Judges don't have to follow the advocate general's opinion, but they often do. The European Commission fined Google a record 4.34 billion euros ($4.98 billion) in 2018, alleging that the company unfairly used its dominance in the digital economy to compel device manufacturers and network operators to prioritize Google's own search engine traffic on Android devices. Google first appealed that fine at the EU's general court, where judges in the lower tribunal largely upheld the commission's verdict but trimmed the original penalty to 4.12 billion euros. Although Google's lawyers also argued that the lowered penalty still went too far, Kokott said the judges' fine calculation wasn't excessive to the point of being disproportionate, according to the full text of the opinion. The company has made changes aimed at giving users more control over which search engines and browsers they set as default on their phones. Google in 2019 offered to let rivals appear on a choice screen. The tech giant is now also bound by strict new rules under the EU's Digital Markets Act that govern how it and other large tech groups must treat smaller businesses that rely on their popular platforms such as search and Chrome to reach customers. Companies can be fined up to 10% of their annual worldwide turnover for flouting the rules, with penalties rising to 20% for repeat offences. Google has racked up some 8.25 billion euros of EU competition fines in the last decade. Last year, it failed to cancel a 2.4 billion-euro penalty handed to it over how its shopping search results position other results from competing price-comparison sites. Write to Edith Hancock at Fed Holds Rates Steady and Keeps Door Open to Cuts Stablecoin Legislation Will Juice Demand for Treasurys—to a Point Waymo Wants to Bring Its Robotaxis to New York City QXO Proposes $5 Billion Acquisition of GMS What UnitedHealth Can Do to Revive Its Battered Stock
Mint
18 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Google and Meta antitrust cases show why we need a policy pincer to foster competition in digital markets
Next Story Business News/ Opinion / Views/ Google and Meta antitrust cases show why we need a policy pincer to foster competition in digital markets Sumit Jain , Vikrant Singh The dominance of Big Tech is the context for India's digital competition law on its way. We should combine prohibitions on anticompetitive practices with positive obligations on digital players to strengthen rivalry in favour of end users. The District Court of Columbia held that Google is monopolizing the general search and general search text advertisement market. Gift this article The US Department of Justice recently filed a petition in the Google Search case suggesting remedial action to promote competition in digital markets. Key steps include opening up the search ecosystem by prohibiting Google from offering any monetary incentives for the distribution of its search services, combining its search with other products and signing exclusive agreements with content publishers. It also suggests that Google be asked to offload its web browser Google Chrome, through which about 30% of the total search queries are obtained. The US Department of Justice recently filed a petition in the Google Search case suggesting remedial action to promote competition in digital markets. Key steps include opening up the search ecosystem by prohibiting Google from offering any monetary incentives for the distribution of its search services, combining its search with other products and signing exclusive agreements with content publishers. It also suggests that Google be asked to offload its web browser Google Chrome, through which about 30% of the total search queries are obtained. The petition comes in the backdrop of multiple contravention orders by competition authorities globally. For instance, in this case, the District Court of Columbia held that Google is monopolizing the general search and general search text advertisement market. Verdicts in Europe have found digital companies such as Google, Amazon and Meta engaged in practices like exclusive deals, lock-in provisions and self preferencing that foreclose avenues of competition to the incumbent. Also Read: Google Search: Its evolution is being led by GenAI and Gen Z Negative obligations: The digital industry is characterized by network effects and economies of scale. These sometimes also exhibit the first-mover advantage and winner-takes-all effect. The concentrated nature of platform markets has been such that governments globally have taken steps to inhibit the tipping effect. For instance, Europe has enacted the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which bans bundling and tying, self-preferencing and cross-utilization of data. Digital gatekeepers have a positive obligation to ensure the interoperability of their technologies. Bundling and tying: There are many adjacent services in digital markets and a core issue with the business model of digital companies has been the group-level tying and bundling of services in ways that can result in power concentration. Big Tech entities ensure that the behavioural bias of users is fully exploited so that dominance in one relevant market stream could be exploited to foreclose competition in a second market. For instance, while using Gmail along with its search engine may appear 'optional,' the size and placement of its pop-up on the search engine screen would suggest otherwise. Self-preferencing: This is another ubiquitous practice found to be anti-competitive. The strategy remains the same: i.e., to exploit a behavioural bias so that the user doesn't exit the ecosystem. For instance, an Android phone comes with Google Chrome as its default web browser. While users can install competing browsers, user inertia would support the status quo, which cements the position of the incumbent. Cross-utilization of data: Tech firms have been consolidating their dominant position through unauthorized access to personal data. For instance, in the Facebook data sharing case, Germany's federal cartel office found the company to be profiling users for advertisements without consent. The European Commission has held Meta in violation of the DMA, stating that its pay-or-consent model didn't give users any realistic choice to sign up for a less intrusive data sharing model. Positive obligations: It is important to give obligations such as interoperability and data portability their due focus, given concerns of whether negative obligations will actually help promote competition in digital markets. The European Commission recently developed guidelines to ensure the interoperability of Apple devices . Even the Court of Justice for the EU recently held that there is a positive obligation on a dominant company to keep its technology interoperable. India's startup ecosystem may benefit from expanded space for competition in various fields, be it app stores, web browsers or cloud computing platforms. India's draft digital competition law provides for data portability, indicating a change in direction. Conclusion: Digital markets have posed unique challenges for competition law enforcement. The Google case has highlighted the detrimental effect on competition of practices such as bundling, tying, self-preferencing and cross-utilization of data. So, positive obligations such as interoperability and data portability must be accorded high priority. A combination of negative and positive obligations is more likely to work as a deterrent to anti-competitive activity and ensure that digital markets become duly competitive. Such a framework would guard against abuses of digital market dominance and ensure that both our short-term and long-term goals of consumer welfare are served. The authors are directors, Centre for Competition Law and Economics. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Time of India
19 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
China's AliExpress risks fine for breaching EU illegal product rules
Chinese online giant AliExpress must do more to protect consumers from illegal product sales , the European Commission said Wednesday in an interim finding that could open the way to heavy fines. While noting some progress, "the Commission preliminarily found AliExpress in breach of its obligation to assess and mitigate risks related to the dissemination of illegal products" under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), a statement said. The EU opened a formal investigation in March 2024 into AliExpress, which is owned by Alibaba, for multiple suspected breaches of DSA rules on countering the spread of illegal goods and content online. The commission's preliminary findings concluded that "AliExpress fails to appropriately enforce its penalty policy concerning traders that repeatedly post illegal content". It also highlighted "systemic failures" in AliExpress's moderation systems that expose it to "manipulation by malicious traders", and said the firm's own risk assessments underestimated the dangers linked to illegal products. Those findings were "in breach of the obligations" that the DSA imposes on very large platforms -- such as AliExpress, Facebook and Instagram -- with more than 45 million monthly European users, the commission said. AliExpress now has the right to examine the commission's findings and reply in writing. If AliExpress is confirmed to be in non-compliance with the DSA, the commission could impose a fine of up to six percent of the firm's global turnover. The EU has developed a powerful armoury to regulate Big Tech with the milestone DSA and a sister law, the Digital Markets Act, that hits web giants with strict curbs, obligations and oversight on how they do business. It took action against AliExpress after identifying likely failings to prevent the sale of fake medicines, prevent minors seeing pornography, stop affiliated influencers pushing illegal products, and other issues including data access for researchers. In its statement Wednesday, the commission said AliExpress had taken a series of legally binding measures to remedy those concerns. Steps included improvements to its systems for detecting illegal products such as medicines and pornographic material, notably goods spread through hidden links and affiliate programmes. The commission also said AliExpress had addressed concerns regarding the flagging of illegal products, the handling of internal complaints, ad transparency, the traceability of traders and research access to data. ec/ub/js
