#antitrust lawsuit against google with links and sources | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

is6621 · 6 years ago

Text

The GDPR and Google, again - Maggie Flaherty

In class and online, there has been a lot of talk about the GDPR and fines against Google, though of course these are not always directly linked. I thought I’d take this opportunity to give an update to my presentation from early February, as there are some new GDPRGPT (GDPR and Google Presentation Takeaways - remember, not a real acronym).

(sorry for the profanity, but it’s too accurate)

So how’s the GDPR been doing?

It’s been almost a year since the GDPR went into effect and the Association of Privacy Professionals in London held a panel to assess the transition year. In regards to breach notifcation, the policy has been a huge success. There have been significant increases in reporting data breaches in order to comply with the GDPR since implementation. Before, annual notifications were around 18,000 to 20,000. Within the first eight months of the new policy, that number was over 60,000. This is important for consumers to know that their information may have been stolen. It also helps regulators to examine the underlying causes of data breaches and its impacts.

Before the GDPR, there had been no breach notification regulation. Some countries, like Austria, Germany, and Norway had a few laws in place, while others had voluntary reporting. The increases after the introduction of a unified framework can be seen as a lesson for the US that varying state laws don’t have the same effect.

For the most part, however, the GDPR was less effective in imposing fines on companies that did not protect consumer data, which was one of the most controversial aspects of the policy. That 50 million euro fine against Google back in January makes up nearly 90% of the total penalties imposed on companies who mishandled data. Further, this is a trivial sum in the face of Google’s annual revenue. Moving forward, the EU is working to adjust, specifically in defining a matrix to calculate fines, which may create a more harmonious system for regulators. On the flip side, Brexit is posing some problems in universal enforcement, as the UK would no longer have the GDPR as its official system. Deloitte advises every organization that processes personal data, transfers data, or has an entity in the UK to still comply with a well prepared action plan. But, the British government would then be in charge of imposing a GDPR-style law in the UK, which is obviously not their first priority right now.

Cool, but how about in the US?

Data privacy is an integral part of any marketers day to day life, as it’s a valuable commodity and is evolving more and more with social changes. Consumers now dictate how their information is collected, stored, and shared. In an American Barometer survey, Americans said protecting data privacy is more important to them than healthcare insurance and job creation. It’s simple: consumers should have the right to defend their privacy.

Is it really that simple though?

No. In the US, GDPR is theoretically the standard, but there’s not actually a bill like it, or even a bill like it being considered right now. Currently, the local governments are changing data privacy laws. So far, it’s really only California who has taken this on, though New York has a Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD is a real acronym). CA’s Consumer Privacy Act goes into effect January 1, 2020 ad requires any organization that does business in the state, even if it’s only online, using personal data to disclose to CA residents the type of info collected, where it’s collected, and if it’s sold or shared (should sound familiar). This could be the template for future legislation on all levels of government. As of now, though, laws are still fragmented, which as aforementioned is less effective than a universal policy.

Recently, Google had a $8.5 million settlement paid to users to resolve a class action lawsuit. The company was accused of violating users’ privacy by sharing their search queries with other websites. The San Francisco based Court of Appeals decided Google had to uphold the settlement as the plaintiffs had the legal standing necessary to sue. The US Supreme Court, however, threw out this ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas said the settlement, the type of which (cy pres) was becoming common, is unfair and unreasonable. The money that Google would have had to pay out was meant to go to organizations and projects that promote Internet privacy. Obviously, the US government is not so willing to delve deeper into the tech security sector, even if it has become increasingly necessary.

Is Goole untouchable then?

Nope again. Yes, from 2006 to 2016, Google held more than 70% market share in online search advertising intermediation and 90% for general search. But 2006 is when Google put exclusivity contracts with third-party sites in place, which were changed to Premium Placement clauses in 2009 and required written approval before making any changes in how a rival intermediary’s advertisements were displayed. European authorities have been working on fines for years, and since 2017, they’ve fined Google three times. All together, these fines add up to $9.3 billion.

These earlier fines were in regards to Google abusing its dominance to favor its comparison shopping site and illegal practices toward Android devices, though the company is now trying to appeal these. The most recent fine, $1.7 billion, is for violating the EU antitrust laws of the online advertising market. Google cannot impose anti-competitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites. Google had been requiring websites by newspapers, blogs, travel services, and other companies to display ads from Google’s ad services disproportionately more than competing digital advertising agencies and competitors like Microsoft and Yahoo.

Of course, antitrust fines and other after-the-fact measures are not enough to bring back real competition in a market run by a few tech giants. The fines do not have that much of a financial impact on companies like Google, though they have had to modify some business practices. It may be required moving forward that more federal, rather than local, governments become more involved in data privacy laws.

Sources:

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0306/1034704-no-deal-brexit-and-gdpr/

https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/gdpr-one-year-anniversary-breach-notification-fines.html

https://www.adweek.com/digital/look-past-gdpr-into-data-privacy-rules-on-a-state-by-state-basis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/supreme-court-action-jeopardizes-85-million-settlement-in-google-privacy-case/2019/03/20/244848d8-4b0f-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.75461e41a4c8

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/business/google-fine-advertising.html

https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-hit-with-eur1-49-billion-antitrust-fine-by-europe-over-online-advertising/

5 notes · View notes

awesomearound · 3 years ago

Text

The F.T.C. asks for an extension to refile its Facebook antitrust suit.

The Federal Trade Commission on Friday asked a federal judge to give it more time to refile an antitrust suit against Facebook that is the agency’s biggest test in reining in the power of big tech.In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the agency asked for a three-week extension, or until Aug. 19, to amend a lawsuit that the court dismissed last month. The F.T.C. said in its request that it had reached an agreement with Facebook over the proposed extension.Last month, Judge James E. Boasberg of the federal court knocked down a core argument made by the F.T.C., saying prosecutors had failed to provide enough persuasive facts to back up the claim — that Facebook holds a monopoly over social networking. But the judge gave the F.T.C. a 30-day window to refile its lawsuit.The new lawsuit will be the first major action by Lina Khan, the new chair of the F.T.C. and a critic of Facebook, Google and Amazon who has advocated for the breakup of the digital platforms. Source link Read the full article

#Antitrust #asks #extension #Facebook #FTC #refile #Suit

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

Russia Raises Heat on Twitter, Google and Facebook in Online Crackdown LONDON — Russia is increasingly pressuring Google, Twitter and Facebook to fall in line with Kremlin internet crackdown orders or risk restrictions inside the country, as more governments around the world challenge the companies’ principles on online freedom. Russia’s internet regulator, Roskomnadzor, recently ramped up its demands for the Silicon Valley companies to remove online content that it deems illegal or restore pro-Kremlin material that had been blocked. The warnings have come at least weekly since services from Facebook, Twitter and Google were used as tools for anti-Kremlin protests in January. If the companies do not comply, the regulator has said, they face fines or access to their products may be throttled. The latest clashes flared up this week, when Roskomnadzor told Google on Monday to block thousands of unspecified pieces of illegal content or it would slow access to the company’s services. On Tuesday, a Russian court fined Google 6 million rubles, or about $81,000, for not taking down another piece of content. On Wednesday, the government ordered Facebook and Twitter to store all data on Russian users within the country by July 1 or face fines. In March, the authorities had made it harder for people to see and send posts on Twitter after the company did not take down content that the government considered illegal. Twitter has since removed roughly 6,000 posts to comply with the orders, according to Roskomnadzor. The regulator has threatened similar penalties against Facebook. Russia’s campaign is part of a wave of actions by governments worldwide to test how far they can go to censor the web to maintain power and stifle dissent. On Monday, the police visited Twitter’s offices in New Delhi in a show of force. No employees were present, but India’s governing party has become increasingly upset with the perception that Twitter has sided with its critics during the coronavirus pandemic. In Myanmar, Poland, Turkey and elsewhere, leaders are also tightening internet controls. In Belarus, President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko this week signed a law banning livestreams from unauthorized protests. “All of these policies will have the effect of creating a fractured internet, where people have different access to different content,” said Jillian York, an internet censorship expert with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Berlin. The struggle over online speech in Russia has important ramifications because the internet companies have been seen as shields from government censors. The latest actions are a major shift in the country, where the internet, unlike television, had largely remained open despite President Vladimir V. Putin’s tight grip on society. That has changed as Russians have increasingly used the online platforms to speak out against Mr. Putin and to organize and share information. Russian officials, taking a cue from China’s Great Firewall, have pledged to build a “sovereign internet,” a legal and technical system to block access to certain websites and fence off parts of the Russian internet from the rest of the world. “What is happening in Russia foreshadows an emerging global trend when censorship becomes but one tool in the ultimate battle for writing the rules that major tech platforms have to follow,” said Sergey Sanovich, a Princeton University researcher focused on internet censorship and social media governance. Roskomnadzor did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an interview this week with Kommersant, a leading Russian newspaper, Andrey Lipov, the head of Roskomnadzor, said slowing down access to internet services was a way to force the companies to comply with Russian laws and takedown orders. Mr. Lipov said blocking their services altogether was not the goal. Google declined to discuss the situation in Russia and said it received government requests from the around the world, which it discloses in its transparency reports. Facebook also would not discuss Russia, but said it restricted content that violated local laws or its terms of service. “We always strive to preserve voice for the greatest number of people,” a spokeswoman said. Twitter said in a statement that it took down content flagged by the Russian authorities that violated its policies or local laws. “Access to a free and open internet is an essential right for all citizens,” Twitter said. “We remain deeply committed to offering a safe service to account holders around the world — including those in Russia.” Anastasiia Zlobina, a researcher for Human Rights Watch who focuses on Russian internet censorship, said the government crackdown threatened the future of American internet services in the country. A turning point, she said, was when YouTube, Facebook and Twitter were used during protests in support of the opposition leader Alexei A. Navalny after his arrest in January. The demonstrations were the biggest shows of dissent against Mr. Putin in years. “This mobilization was happening online,” Ms. Zlobina said. The Russian government has portrayed the tech industry as part of a foreign campaign to meddle in domestic affairs. The authorities have accused the companies of blocking pro-Kremlin online accounts while boosting the opposition, and said the platforms were also havens for child pornography and drug sales. Twitter became the first major test of Russia’s censorship technology in March when access to its service was slowed down, according to researchers at the University of Michigan. To resolve the conflict, a Twitter executive met at least twice with Russian officials, according to the company and Roskomnadzor. The government, which had threatened to ban Twitter entirely, said the company had eventually complied with 91 percent of its takedown requests. Other internet companies have also been affected. Last month, TikTok, the popular social media platform owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, was fined 2.6 million rubles, or about $35,000, for not removing posts seen as encouraging minors to participate in illegal demonstrations. TikTok did not respond to a request for comment. The fines are small, but larger penalties loom. The Russian government can increase fines to as much as 10 percent of a company’s revenue for repeat offenses, and, perhaps more important, authorities can disrupt their services. Perhaps the biggest target has been Google. YouTube has been a key outlet for government critics such as Mr. Navalny to share information and organize. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, Google has employees in Russia. (The company would not say how many.) In addition to this week’s warning, Russia has demanded that Google lift restrictions that limit the availability of some content from state media outlets like Sputnik and Russia Today outside Russia. Russia’s antitrust regulator is also investigating Google over YouTube’s policies for blocking videos. Google is trying to use the courts to fight some actions by the Russian government. Last month, it sued Roskomnadzor to fight an order to remove 12 YouTube videos related to opposition protests. In another case, the company appealed a ruling ordering YouTube to reinstate videos from Tsargrad, a nationalist online TV channel, which Google had taken down over what it said were violations of American sanctions. Joanna Szymanska, a senior program officer for Article 19, an internet freedom group, said Google’s recent lawsuit to fight the YouTube takedown orders would influence what other countries did in the future, even if the company was likely to lose in court. Ms. Szymanska, who is based in Poland, called on the tech companies to be more transparent about what content they were being asked to delete, and what orders they were complying with. “The Russian example will be used elsewhere if it works well,” she said. Adam Satariano reported from London and Oleg Matsnev from Moscow. Anton Troianovski contributed reporting from Moscow. Source link Orbem News #Crackdown #Facebook #Google #heat #Online #raises #Russia #Twitter

0 notes

guardiannews24 · 4 years ago

Text

Draft lawsuit filed by ten US states last week says Facebook and Google agreed to "cooperate and assist one another" against possible antitrust action (Wall Street Journal)

Wall Street Journal: Draft lawsuit filed by ten US states last week says Facebook and Google agreed to “cooperate and assist one another” against possible antitrust action — Draft lawsuit quotes Facebook’s Sandberg saying Google pact was a ‘big deal strategically’ Source link

View On WordPress

0 notes

gadgets360technews · 4 years ago

Text

Draft lawsuit filed by ten US states last week says Facebook and Google agreed to "cooperate and assist one another" against possible antitrust action (Wall Street Journal)

View On WordPress

0 notes

newstodayreader · 4 years ago

Text

New York is co-leading a third blockbuster antitrust suit against Google

Google on Thursday was hit with a third regulatory lawsuit over its market dominance, this time from 38 states and territories led by New York, Colorado and Nebraska. The suit accuses Google of maintaining monopolies through “multiple forms of anticompetitive conduct in the general search and search advertising-related markets.” The three main tactics Google has… Source link

View On WordPress

0 notes

newsmatters · 4 years ago

Text

Sources: the AGs of Utah, North Carolina, and NY among others are preparing a lawsuit against Google over the cut it takes from app developers in its Play Store (Bloomberg)

Bloomberg: Sources: the AGs of Utah, North Carolina, and NY among others are preparing a lawsuit against Google over the cut it takes from app developers in its Play Store — – States probing Google Play’s 30% in-app-purchase fees — Case would mark new front in antitrust assault against Google Source link

View On WordPress

0 notes

nersgadget · 4 years ago

Photo

US Department of Justice files antitrust lawsuit against Google The DOJ and 11 states say the tech giant abuses its 'monopoly power' to dominate the search and advertising markets. Source link

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

Big Oil's day of reckoning on the climate is here What’s happening: On Wednesday, ExxonMobil (XOM) will face off against an activist investor looking to overhaul its strategy on sustainability. Meanwhile, a Dutch court is due to rule on a landmark case against Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) as activists try to compel the company to move faster to cut emissions. That could make for a pivotal day for the oil industry. “We’ve finally reached the point where climate inaction can cost a board member their job,” Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit, recently tweeted. Engine No. 1 holds just 0.02% of Exxon’s shares, but it poses a credible challenge to the company, which was once the most valuable in the world. Upset with Exxon’s financial performance and its foot-dragging on the climate, the hedge fund is seeking to oust four directors at the firm’s annual meeting. If successful, the campaign could pressure Exxon to dramatically shift its strategy by diversifying into renewable energy and pulling back on oil production. Reading the tea leaves: There’s a real chance of victory. The powerful Institutional Shareholder Services has advised stockholders to vote in favor of three of Engine No. 1’s candidates. Citing Exxon’s “questionable strategy” for the future and “diminishing returns,” Glass Lewis, another top advisory firm, urged shareholders to back two of the four candidates. “We believe Engine No. 1 has presented a compelling case that, without a more concerted response and well-developed strategy … related to the global energy transition, Exxon’s returns, cash flow and dividend, and thus its shareholder value, are increasingly at threat,” Glass Lewis wrote in its report. Reuters reports that asset manager BlackRock (BLK), which is Exxon’s third largest shareholder, is voting to support three of the four candidates. Shell has gone much further on climate than Exxon, announcing that it aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 — a target that includes emissions from its own operations and from the energy products it sells. But a win for Friends of the Earth Netherlands, the environmental campaign group suing Shell, could push even greater changes. This is the first time that a court will rule on whether a company needs to reduce its emissions in line with global climate goals, according to the group. While Shell claims that its carbon intensity targets are aligned with the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, Friends of the Earth Netherlands argues that the company’s ongoing investments into oil and gas extraction show it doesn’t take climate change seriously. The verdict will only be legally binding in the Netherlands. But it could open the door for similar cases in other countries. Watch this space: The courts are becoming a popular venue for fights on climate. According to a database from Columbia Law School and Arnold & Porter, there are currently more than 1,800 cases working their way through global legal venues. Big picture: The action comes just a week after the influential International Energy Agency told oil companies they need to stop drilling for oil and gas right now to prevent a climate catastrophe. “This is a really big deal,” Tracey Cameron, senior manager of corporate climate engagement at Ceres, said in a statement. “The IEA is what governments and companies all look to when they’re developing their strategies, so to say that new investment in oil and gas needs to stop really turns the page for this industry.” Taken together, these moves are a stark sign of how quickly public attitudes are changing — and could generate concrete results. The antitrust lawsuits have come for Amazon First, states filed antitrust lawsuits against Google (GOOGL) and Facebook (FB). Now, attorneys general are turning their attention to Amazon (AMZN). The latest: The District of Columbia sued Amazon on Tuesday, alleging the tech giant has abused its market dominance in e-commerce to harm competition and keep retail prices artificially high across the internet. DC Attorney General Karl Racine’s suit zeroes in on the tech company’s relationships with third-party sellers, alleging that Amazon’s contracts prohibit them from offering their products at a lower price on other websites. That means that the fees Amazon demands from its sellers are also baked into the prices shoppers see on Walmart’s website, for example, Racine told reporters on a conference call. In some cases, Racine said, Amazon sellers are charged fees amounting to 40% of the total product price on Amazon. “These restrictions allow Amazon to build and maintain monopoly power in violation of District law,” Racine said. The suit calls for a court order prohibiting Amazon from engaging in anticompetitive behavior and any other necessary measures — including a corporate breakup, if deemed necessary. In a statement, an Amazon spokesperson said Racine “has it exactly backwards.” “Sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store,” the statement said. “Amazon takes pride in the fact that we offer low prices across the broadest selection, and like any store we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers that are not priced competitively.” Big picture: Court cases against Big Tech companies could weigh on the sector, even if they’re expected to drag on for years. In the meantime, their clout is only growing. Amazon, whose stock is holding steady, is reportedly in talks to buy MGM, the vaunted film studio that was a staple of Hollywood’s Golden Age. A tie-up would give the tech firm a big brand to wield as competition in streaming grows fiercer. The CEO of the biggest bank to fail is worried again The banking world nearly caved in 13 years ago. The former CEO of Washington Mutual is worried that another bubble is brewing, my CNN Business colleague Paul R. La Monica reports. Kerry Killinger was named CEO of WaMu in 1990 and was fired in September 2008 — just weeks before the bank collapsed as a growing number of mortgage loans went bad. With more than $300 billion in assets, it still ranks as the biggest-ever bank failure. Killinger thinks JPMorgan Chase and other “too big to fail banks” are in much better shape now thanks to post-crisis reforms like Dodd-Frank. “The health of the industry is great, earnings are good and oversight is strong. I’m not too concerned there,” he said. But Killinger is nervous about the fact that rock-bottom interest rates and big bond purchases by the Federal Reserve have sparked a broader mania in other assets, including cryptocurrencies and meme stocks. “The bubbles today are broader and deeper in a variety of categories, not just housing,” Killinger said. “The Fed’s policy of low rates and massive asset purchases worked well to get out of the downturn, but when you keep extending it you can cause unintended consequences.” Up next Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) and Dick’s Sporting Goods (DKS) report results before US markets open. American Eagle (AEO), Nvidia (NVDA), Snowflake and Williams-Sonoma (WSM) follow after the close. Also today: Wall Street CEOs testify before the Senate Banking Committee, including JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, Citi’s Jane Fraser, Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon, and Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan. Coming tomorrow: The House Financial Services Committee gets its turn grilling Wall Street’s top brass. Source link Orbem News #Big #Climate #Day #investing #Oils #Premarketstocks:BigOil'sdayofreckoningontheclimateishere-CNN #Reckoning

0 notes

guardiannews24 · 4 years ago

Text

Draft lawsuit filed by ten US states last week says Facebook and Google agreed to "cooperate and assist one another" against possible antitrust action (Wall Street Journal)

View On WordPress

0 notes

gadgets360technews · 4 years ago

Text

Sources: the AGs of Utah, North Carolina, and NY among others are preparing a lawsuit against Google over the cut it takes from app developers in its Play Store (Bloomberg)

View On WordPress

0 notes

ladystylestores · 5 years ago

Text

With pandemic-era acquisitions, big tech is back in the antitrust crosshairs – TechCrunch

With many major sectors totally frozen and reeling from losses, tech’s biggest players are proving themselves to be the exception to the rule yet again. On Friday, Facebook confirmed its plans to buy Giphy, a popular gif search engine, in a deal believed to be worth $400 million.

Facebook has indicated it wants to forge new developer and content relationships for Giphy, but what the world’s largest social network really wants with the popular gif platform might be more than meets the eye. As Bloomberg and other outlets have suggested, it’s possible that Facebook really wants the company as a lens into how users engage with its competitors’ social platforms. Giphy’s gif search tools are currently integrated into a number of messaging platforms, including TikTok, Twitter and Apple’s iMessage.

In 2018, Facebook famously got into hot water over its use of a mobile app called Onavo, which gave the company a peek into mobile usage beyond Facebook’s own suite of apps—and violated Apple’s policies around data collection in the process. After that loophole closed, Facebook was so desperate for this kind of insight on the competition that it paid people—including teens—to sideload an app granting the company root access and allowing Facebook to view all of their mobile activity, as TechCrunch revealed last year.

For lawmakers and other regulatory powers, the Giphy buy could ring two separate sets of alarm bells: one for the further evidence of anti-competitive behavior stacking the deck in the tech industry and another for the deal’s potential consumer privacy implications.

“The Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission must investigate this proposed deal,” Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar said in a statement provided to TechCrunch. “Many companies, including some of Facebook’s rivals, rely on Giphy’s library of sharable content and other services, so I am very concerned about this proposed acquisition.”

In proposed legislation late last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called for a freeze on big mergers, warning that huge companies might view the pandemic as a chance to consolidate power by buying smaller businesses at fire sale rates.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Sen. Warren called the Facebook news “yet another example of a giant company using the pandemic to further consolidate power,” noting the company’s “history of privacy violations.”

“We need Senator Warren’s plan for a moratorium on large mergers during this crisis, and we need enforcers who will break up Big Tech,” the spokesperson said.

News of Facebook’s latest moves come just days after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that Uber is looking at buying Grubhub, the food delivery service it competes with directly through Uber Eats.

That news also raised eyebrows among pro-regulation lawmakers who’ve been looking to break up big tech. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who chairs the House’s antitrust subcommittee, called that deal “a new low in pandemic profiteering.”

“This deal underscores the urgency for a merger moratorium, which I and several of my colleagues have been urging our caucus to support,” Cicilline said in a statement on the Grubhub acquisition.

The early days of the pandemic may have taken some of the antitrust attention off of tech’s biggest companies, but as the government and the American people fall into a rhythm during the coronavirus crisis, that’s unlikely to last. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice and a collection of state attorneys general are in the process of filing antitrust lawsuits against Google, with the case expected to hit in the summer months.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/3bEgwyC

#World Wide News

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years ago

Text

House Antitrust Panel Seeks Documents From 4 Big Tech Firms

Congress showed the breadth of its investigation into the big tech companies on Friday, making a public demand for scores of documents, including the personal emails and other communications from dozens of top executives.

Republicans and Democrats alike on the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the market power and behavior of the companies, sent letters directly to Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Larry Page of Google.

The requests called for all communications to and from eight executives at Amazon, 14 at Apple, 15 at Facebook and 14 at Google.

With the request, which was posted on the committee’s website, the lawmakers sent a not-so-subtle message that executives would be held responsible for the replies, and that the investigation would continue to play out publicly. That has the potential of damaging the brands’ reputations.

The companies, once held up as beacons of American ingenuity and business acumen, have been under siege about spreading disinformation, failing to respect users’ privacy and maneuvering to minimize their taxes. In addition, President Trump and other Republicans accuse some of the companies of censoring conservative voices.

Similar inquiries are underway at the Justice Department, at the Federal Trade Commission and by attorneys general of dozens of states. The investigations are just beginning in earnest. How far they will go, what they will uncover and whether any allegations will stand up in court are all uncertain.

But the investigations show the growing angst about the power of the tech companies, which for decades faced little regulation. Now Silicon Valley’s influence on everything from how we vote to how we shop is readily apparent — and yet the technology driving it remains largely mysterious.

“There is this great and growing dependence on technology that we don’t really understand,” said A. Douglas Melamed, a former antitrust official in Justice Department. “And that frightens people.”

House lawmakers were expected to demand internal corporate documents and communications as part of their antitrust investigation. But such demands are often made to a company’s top lawyer. And the committee asked for all communications related to a long list of corporate actions, like Google’s purchase of ad companies, Facebook’s acquisitions of other social networks and Amazon’s handling of its private-label products.

By releasing its requests, the House committee offered a glimpse of the depth of the scrutiny that the companies will face and laid out the lines of investigation. The lawmakers are looking for signs of executives’ intent when they made decisions that harmed competitors, according to a person close to the congressional investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the lawmakers’ plans were private.

The information the committee collects can also feed the other investigations, and help lawmakers more sharply question witnesses under oath in hearings, said William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University.

“Those interrogations take on an entirely different tone,” said Mr. Kovacic, a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. “This is a significant escalation of the process.”

The inquiries into individual companies are complex; the tech giants span a range of digital markets, including internet search, advertising, e-commerce and social media. And the companies are likely to resist some of the requests, contending they could reveal trade secrets.

The companies will almost certainly try to narrow the scope and reduce the volume of the documents they deliver. But the House investigators have leverage. These are document “requests” but backed by the threat of subpoenas if the companies do not comply.

The communications habits of the individual companies will also play a role in determining how much evidence there is and in what form.

At Amazon, for example, Mr. Bezos writes brief emails to make announcements or delegate, but largely gives feedback and discusses issues in person. He is well known internally for forwarding customer complaints to staffers with just a “?,” leaving teams scrambling to resolve the issue.

He has developed a rigid process for making decisions at Amazon that heavily relies on paper documents — called six-pagers for their length — that lay out the plan and reasoning for a proposed strategy. They often include hefty appendices and are presented to executives in long meetings where they are read and discussed.

But there are numerous examples of tech executives’ correspondence turning up as evidence in legal cases. Emails from Steve Jobs, the Apple co-founder, were key evidence in the Justice Department’s successful lawsuit against Apple for conspiring to raise the prices of e-books.

“Wow, we have really lit the fuse on a powder keg,” Mr. Jobs wrote in a 2010 email to a colleague after Apple opened an e-bookstore that prompted Amazon to change how it sold e-books.

In response to the committee’s requests, representatives of the companies mainly pointed to their previous public statements: They have consistently said they would cooperate with the federal and state investigations, and would seek to demonstrate that they operate in dynamic, highly competitive markets.

In a statement, Representative David Cicilline, the chairman of the subcommittee on antitrust, which is leading the Judiciary Committee’s investigation, called the document requests “an important milestone” in the fact-gathering stage.

Mr. Cicilline also emphasized the effort’s bipartisan nature. The letters to chief executives are signed by Mr. Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat; Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and the ranking Republicans on the committee and the subcommittee, Representatives Doug Collins of Georgia and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

The formal requests for information begin with cover letters to the chief executives, saying the investigators are examining competition in online markets and “whether dominant firms are engaging in anticompetitive conduct.” The letters are accompanied by detailed lists of the requested documents and communications.

It is unclear how much investigative work will become public as the various inquiries progress. At later stages, when investigators are trying to lay the groundwork for a suit, they won’t want to show their hand to a potential corporate defendant.

Such work — collecting more documents, taking depositions, assembling evidence and building the narrative of corporate misbehavior — is best done in secrecy. Major antitrust investigations typically last many months or years.

Sometimes, companies themselves make disclosures about an investigation. Google, for example, said last week that its parent company, Alphabet, had received a mandatory request for information from the Justice Department about previous antitrust investigations.

The House’s document requests indicate that its staff has closely studied the companies.

The request sent to Google, for example, seeks communications to or from senior executives on a series of company moves including Google’s purchase of DoubleClick in 2008 and AdMob in 2011. Those acquisitions helped build up Google’s huge and lucrative ad business.

House investigators also want to see the executives’ communications on Google practices: One request is for communications on its policy on “whether non-Google companies can provide competing ad networks” and other services.

That part of the House inquiry echoes that of the states’ investigation of Google. The Texas attorney general’s office, which is leading that effort, sent Google a lengthy demand this week for information on its ad business, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

But the House investigation is broader. Its request touches other businesses, including smartphone software, seeking information on Google’s purchase of Android in 2005.

The House requests for the other companies are similarly detailed. From Amazon, the investigators asked for information on fees charged to sellers on its online marketplace, algorithms for ranking products for sale, favored treatment for Amazon-branded products and bundling of marketing benefits for vendors that also use the company’s distribution service, Fulfillment by Amazon.

The House committee asked Apple about its technology for ranking apps in its App Store, its policy on links to non-Apple payment systems and whether iPhone users can choose non-Apple services by default.

The document sent to Facebook asks for extensive internal information about its acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, which were potentially emerging competitors until they were bought.

The House committee asks for company documents related to the “strategic value” and “any antitrust risks associated with acquiring” those companies.

The House document also requests information on any Facebook decisions that limit third-party apps’ access, including a version of the company’s “platform policy,” which it withdrew last year and could be read as a policy intended to keep competing technology off Facebook.

According to the House document, the policy said apps should “add something unique to the community” and continued, “Don’t replicate core functionality that Facebook already provides.”

Sahred From Source link Technology

from WordPress http://bit.ly/31ntcFw via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

nersgadget · 4 years ago

Photo

Fortnite's Epic Games files antitrust lawsuit against Google – 9to5Google Epic Games, the creators of Fortnite, have now filed a lawsuit against Google for anticompetitive practices between Android and the Google Play Store. Source link

0 notes

orbemnews · 4 years ago

Link

The Big Deal in Amazon’s Antitrust Case This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays. Hoo boy, this is a moment. A government authority in the United States has sued Amazon over claims that the company is breaking the law by unfairly crushing competition. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by the attorney general for the District of Columbia, joins the recent government antitrust cases against Google and Facebook. These lawsuits will take forever, and legal experts have said that the companies likely have the upper hand in court. The D.C. attorney general, Karl Racine, however, is making a legal argument against Amazon that is both old-school and novel, and it might become a blueprint for crimping Big Tech power. It’s a longstanding claim by some of the independent merchants who sell on Amazon’s digital mall that the company punishes them if they list their products for less on their own websites or other shopping sites like Walmart.com. Those sellers are effectively saying that Amazon dictates what happens on shopping sites all over the internet, and in doing so makes products more expensive for all of us. Racine has made this claim a centerpiece of his lawsuit. Amazon has said before that merchants have absolute authority to set prices for the products they sell on its site, but that ignores that the company has subtle levers to make merchants’ products all but invisible to shoppers. If a merchant lists a product for less on another site, Amazon can respond by making it more cumbersome for a shopper to buy the item. Amazon, in a statement to my colleagues, said that merchants have the freedom to list and price their products however they wish, but that Amazon can chose “not to highlight” products that are not competitively priced. Why is the attorney general’s claim a big deal? Legal experts have said that it’s tricky to sue technology giants for breaking antitrust laws. That’s partly because of the ways U.S. competition laws have been written, interpreted and enforced over the decades. But the lawsuit against Amazon bypasses this by saying that the tech giant hurts the public the same way that 19th-century railroads and steel giants did — by strong-arming competition and raising prices at will. Last year, the legal scholar and Big Tech critic Tim Wu told me that he believed that those price claims were the strongest potential antitrust case against Amazon on legal grounds. (He has since been picked to advise the White House on corporate competition issues.) I don’t know if any of these lawsuits against Big Tech will succeed at chipping away at the companies’ tremendous influence. And I can’t definitively say whether we’re better or worse off by having a handful of powerful technology companies that make products used and often loved by billions of people. It has been remarkable, though, to see the evolution of thinking among some of the public and politicians, from justified awe of these companies and what they make to questioning the downsides of technologies and the at-times brazen companies behind them. It’s a sometimes unfair and noisy mess. But remember why we got to this point: Technology giants are among the most powerful forces in our world, and the price of power is scrutiny. How to fight back against bogus online information: The comedian Sarah Silverman and three of my colleagues are hosting a virtual event Wednesday about disinformation and how to combat it. Sign up here for the online event at 7 p.m. Eastern. It’s open only to New York Times subscribers. Before we go … Florida passed a law that will fine social media companies for permanently barring political candidates’ accounts. The measure is most likely unconstitutional and unenforceable, Democrats, libertarian groups and tech companies told my colleague David McCabe, but it’s a response to Facebook’s and Twitter’s suspension of former President Donald Trump. Posting is life. My colleague Taylor Lorenz explains how social media invitations to a teenager’s birthday party spread on TikTok and drew thousands of people and a police crackdown. The event got big partly because it was an opportunity for attendees to post compelling material online. SIGH. POTUS loves Apple News? I don’t like it when computers and smartphones come with the device makers’ apps already installed, but it’s effective — even with the president of the United States. The Washington Post reported that during the 2020 campaign Joe Biden shared with aides human interest stories from Apple News, which came on his iPhone and he apparently hadn’t deleted. Hugs to this The Linda Lindas are glorious. Here is the talented punk band of four girls between the ages of 10 and 16 — Bela, Eloise, Mila and Lucia — playing “Racist, Sexist Boy” at a Los Angeles public library. The Guardian interviewed them about their sudden internet fame. We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at [email protected]. If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns. Source link Orbem News #Amazons #Antitrust #Big #Case #deal

0 notes