Antitrust Laws and Competition Issues

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares129 Views

    Amazon Sued Over Slow Deliveries to Low-Income Areas

    by

    The District of Columbia’s attorney general said the company deliberately outsourced Prime member deliveries in certain ZIP codes.The attorney general of the District of Columbia sued Amazon on Wednesday, accusing it of violating consumer protection laws by making slower deliveries to Prime members in historically lower-income neighborhoods.In one of the first complaints of its kind, which was filed with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb said Amazon had deliberately and secretly stopped its fastest delivery service to the nearly 50,000 Prime subscribers in certain ZIP codes that were lower-income neighborhoods.According to the lawsuit, Amazon has used third parties like United Parcel Service and the Postal Service to make Prime deliveries in those areas for the past two years. That resulted in slower deliveries than those made by Amazon’s own delivery drivers, who serve other Washington residents.Amazon “cannot covertly decide that a dollar in one ZIP code is worth less than a dollar in another,” Mr. Schwalb said in a statement. “We’re suing to stop this deceptive conduct and make sure District residents get what they’re paying for.”Amazon told Mr. Schwalb that it had made the change because of safety concerns in those neighborhoods, the attorney general said. He said the company had violated consumer protection laws by failing to disclose the change to consumers.Amazon said that it disagreed that it had deceived customers and that it had informed Prime subscribers in those areas about each stage of the delivery process. The company said it tried to work with the office of the attorney general to support crime prevention and improve safety for drivers in those areas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Canada Accuses Google of Creating Advertising Tech Monopoly

      by

      The case largely echoes an antitrust action in the United States and seeks to force Google to sell off sections of its online ad business.Canada’s competition authority on Thursday accused Google of abusing its tools for buying and selling online advertising to create a monopoly, and filed a complaint seeking to force the company to sell two of its main advertising technology services.The case strikes at the heart of Google’s business and echoes an ongoing U.S. antitrust lawsuit against the Silicon Valley giant.Both cases come amid four other lawsuits filed in the United States against Google since 2020 and other efforts by officials around the world to reign in the power that large technological companies like Google, Amazon and Apple hold over information and commerce online.Canada is also attempting to use new laws to limit harms caused by social media and to require tech companies to compensate traditional news organizations.In a statement, Canada’s Bureau of Competition Policy, a law enforcement agency, charged that Google has used its position as the largest provider of software for buying and selling ads, its marketplace for ad auctions and its services for showcasing the ads to illegally dominate the sector.The company’s conduct, it said, ensured that the Alphabet-owned Google “would maintain and entrench its market power,” adding that it “locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, prevents rivals from being able to compete on the merits of their offering.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Plans to Propose Breakup of Google to Fix Search Monopoly

      by

      In a landmark antitrust case, the government will ask a judge to force the company to sell its popular Chrome browser, people with knowledge of the matter said.The Justice Department and a group of states plan to ask a federal court late Wednesday to force Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, two people with knowledge of the decision said, a move that could fundamentally alter the $2 trillion company’s business and reshape competition on the internet.The request would follow a landmark ruling in August by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that found Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search. Judge Mehta asked the Justice Department and the states that brought the antitrust case to submit solutions by the end of Wednesday to correct the search monopoly.Beyond the sale of Chrome, the government is set to ask Judge Mehta to bar Google from entering into paid agreements with Apple and others to be the automatic search engine on smartphones and in browsers, the people said. Google should also be required to share data with rivals, they said.The proposals would likely be the most significant remedies to be requested in a tech antitrust case since the Justice Department asked to break up Microsoft in 2000. If Judge Mehta adopts the proposals, they will set the tone for a string of other antitrust cases that challenge the dominance of tech behemoths including Apple, Amazon and Meta.Being forced to sell Chrome would be among the worst possible outcomes for Google. Chrome, which is free to use, is the most popular web browser in the world and part of an elaborate Google ecosystem that keeps people using the company’s products. Google’s search engine is bundled into Chrome.Google is set to file its own suggestions for fixing the search monopoly by Dec. 20. Both sides can modify their requests before Judge Mehta is expected to hear arguments on the remedies this spring. He is expected to rule by the end of the summer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Biden Administration Coming for Chrome?

      by

      The Justice Department is reportedly targeting Google’s web browser as its antitrust enforcers seek to cement a major win before Donald Trump takes office.Can the Biden administration’s antitrust enforcers succeed in breaking up Google before they leave office?Josh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA parting antitrust shot by Biden’s enforcersBefore the Biden administration’s antitrust leaders step down, they’re taking their final shots at Big Tech. That will reportedly include an effort to break up Google as a consequence of the Justice Department’s successful competition lawsuit against the company.A forthcoming request to force the sale of the Chrome browser, according to Bloomberg, would be one of the most sweeping competition demands in years. But it will also be a test of the second Trump administration’s own antitrust agenda.Chrome is a crucial part of Google’s business. The industry’s dominant web browser — it controls about 61 percent of the U.S. market, according to Bloomberg — is a potent data-collection portal, steering people to the company’s search engine. That gives Google the ability to track users when they are signed in, and can be used to for targeted ads.Chrome has also become a gateway for Google’s A.I. services, including its Gemini chatbot, which some say could eventually follow user activity across the web.The Justice Department decided against requesting the divestiture of Google’s Android smartphone operating system, Bloomberg reports. But it wants the company to stop bundling it with services including search and the Google Play app store.If successful, the split would cement a crucial legacy for Biden’s antitrust team. It’s unclear how much of the aggressive approach promoted by Lina Khan of the F.T.C. and Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department will survive. A Chrome divestiture would achieve the kind of corporate breakup that regulators failed to force upon Microsoft two decades ago.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      What Can the Department of Government Efficiency Do?

      by

      President-elect Trump has indicated the entity will operate outside the government, a position that comes with legal limits.In between the cabinet nominations that President-elect Donald Trump announced this week was an unusual appointment: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead a newly created Department of Government Efficiency.While Trump has not detailed how the entity will operate, he said in a statement that it would “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies” and “provide advice and guidance from outside of government.”Conventionally, what outsiders can do in the government has been pretty limited. But with Trump and Musk both known for pushing boundaries, it’s not clear what “DOGE” will look like.The federal code’s primary conflict-of-interest law is a big deterrent to adopting government authority. It bans government employees from participating in government matters where they have a financial stake. But it doesn’t apply to outside contractors or advisers, which could be important to Musk, whose businesses interact with many federal agencies and who would most likely be required to make divestments if he became a federal employee.Things get complicated if an outsider acts on behalf of the government. Just saying you’re not a government employee doesn’t mean the law will treat you that way, even if you’re not paid. Acting like a government employee — for example, by managing government employees — may open the door to being charged with a felony under the conflict-of-interest law.“What he shouldn’t do is pretend he’s not a government employee and then come in there and start running around acting like a government employee — supervising government employees, giving orders, performing the functions of a government employee,” Richard Painter, who was the principal lawyer responsible for clearing financial conflicts of interest in the George W. Bush administration, said of Musk.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Tapestry and Capri End Plans for ‘Accessible Luxury’ Merger

      by

      Tapestry, the owner of Coach, said it would abandon its $8.5 billion deal to buy Capri, the parent company of Michael Kors, after the Federal Trade Commission successfully sued to stop the transaction.An attempt to assemble an “accessible luxury” powerhouse in the United States has unraveled.Tapestry, the owner of Coach and Kate Spade, and Capri Holdings, the parent company of Versace and Michael Kors, on Thursday called off their plan to merge, which was first announced last year. The Federal Trade Commission had sued to block the $8.5 billion deal last spring over antitrust concerns, and a federal judge sided with the agency last month.At the center of the F.TC’s case was a worry that consumers would end up paying more for the relatively less expensive handbags and other fashion items sold by Coach, Kate Spade and Michael Kors in what the industry calls the accessible luxury market.While Tapestry and Capri argued that it was not a defined category, the federal judge ruled that accessible luxury handbags appeared to have traits that distinguished them from true luxury brands. The court determined that the category was defined by bags that start with a price of about $100 and “heavily rely on discounting.”Tapestry and Capri said that they had “mutually agreed that terminating the merger agreement was in the best interests of both companies.” The decision to abandon their appeal suggested that the companies were not more optimistic about a judge’s ruling under the Trump administration, and that they did not think putting in the time and money required by a lengthy appeal process would result in a viable pathway to acquisition.“We are now focusing on the future of Capri and our three iconic luxury houses,” John Idol, Capri’s chief executive, said in a statement. Mr. Idol stressed Capri’s strong customer loyalty and store base, with more than 1,200 retail locations worldwide.Joanne Crevoiserat, the chief executive of Tapestry, said in a statement that “we have always had multiple paths to growth, and our decision today clarifies the forward strategy.”“Tapestry remains in a position of strength,” she added.Tapestry also said its board had approved a program in which the company would buy an additional $2 billion of its own shares.The company’s shares rose about 10 percent, and shares of Capri fell 4 percent, in early trading on Thursday. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Meta Fined $840 Million in Europe for Boosting Marketplace Unfairly

      by

      Meta said it would appeal the decision by the European Union, which said the company had abused its dominance in social networking to strengthen its shopping and classified ads service.​The European Union on Thursday fined Meta roughly $840 million for breaking competition laws with Facebook Marketplace, its shopping and classified ads platform, the latest action by regulators trying to limit the ability of tech giants to expand into new product areas.In issuing the 800 million euro fine, European regulators said Meta had given itself an unfair advantage over rival services by bundling Marketplace into Facebook’s wider social network, providing it with immediate access to millions of potential users. They added that Meta had abused its dominance in online advertising to impose unfair business terms on rival shopping services, allowing it to collect data that could be used to strengthen Marketplace.European regulators, led by Margrethe Vestager, the E.U. competition chief, have for years sought to limit the ability of tech companies to use their power in one area, like social networking, to gain a foothold in new markets such as shopping. Authorities in Europe have also accused Apple of using its dominance in smartphones to bolster music and payment services.In linking Marketplace to Facebook’s social network, the company gave itself “advantages that other online classified ads service providers could not match,” Ms. Vestager said in a statement. “This is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules. Meta must now stop this behavior.”The company said it would appeal the decision, setting up a legal battle that could drag out for years. Meta said Marketplace, introduced in 2016, was created in response to consumer demand and had not hindered competition from companies such as eBay and Vinted.On Marketplace, people buy, sell and trade items with others, including furniture, clothing, sports equipment, cars and home goods.“Facebook users can choose whether or not to engage with Marketplace, and many don’t,” the company said in a statement. “The reality is that people use Facebook Marketplace because they want to, not because they have to.”Meta has been a target of efforts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean to crimp the power of the largest technology companies. Last year, the company was fined 1.2 billion euros, or about $1.26 billion, for violating regional data protection rules. In the United States, the company is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission for antitrust violations.Whether the United States and Europe will stay aligned on tech regulation with President-elect Donald J. Trump returning to office is an open question. Some of his supporters, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have raised concerns about the power of Silicon Valley firms like Meta and Google, while others have pushed for less regulation.The European Union started the Marketplace investigation in 2019. In 2023, the company reached a settlement with British regulators on a similar case, but was unable to find an agreement with E.U. authorities. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How FTC Chair Lina Khan Became an Election Hot Topic

      by

      The Federal Trade Commission chair drew increasing political vitriol as the presidential vote neared. Her political future hangs in the balance.In the run-up to the election, Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, was called a dope, partisan and unhelpful by Democrats and Republicans. Democratic donors including the billionaires Reid Hoffman, Barry Diller and Mark Cuban called for her ouster from the agency. Last week, a report from the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee accused her of having a far-left agenda and weaponizing the agency.Ms. Khan “will be fired soon,” Elon Musk, the owner of X and a supporter of former President Donald J. Trump, wrote on his platform on Thursday.Few government officials elicited such intense bipartisan attention ahead of the election, making speculation regarding the future of Ms. Khan — nominated in 2021 by President Biden — one of the most avid parlor games in Washington.The fixation on Ms. Khan, 35, is uncommon for a leader at the long-under-the-radar F.T.C., which regulates companies that subvert competition and deceive consumers. It reflects the high stakes of the Biden administration’s wide-ranging program to dampen the power of America’s biggest corporations — which either presidential candidate could reverse if victorious.Scrutiny from the F.T.C. and the Justice Department has led to the collapse of billions of dollars in recent corporate deals. Lawsuits filed by the agencies could break up big American brands like Google, Amazon and the parent company of Ticketmaster. Ms. Khan has argued to regulate artificial intelligence, ordered companies to make it easier to cancel online subscriptions and banned noncompete agreements, which stop workers from taking a job with a rival employer.The backlash from the business world and its Washington allies has been fierce — and it ramped up before the vote.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Outlines Google Search Changes It’s Weighing in Antitrust Case

      by

      They include making Google’s data available to rivals and forcing it to break off parts of the company, the Justice Department said in a court filing.The Justice Department said Tuesday night that it was considering asking a federal court to force Google to break off parts of the company or change its practices in order to eliminate its monopoly in search, moves that could redefine the $2 trillion company’s core business.In a filing, the government said it could ask the court to require Google to make the underlying data that powers its search engine available to competitors.It said it was considering asking for “structural” changes to Google to stop the company from leveraging the power of its Chrome browser, Android operating system or Play app store to benefit its search business. But it stopped short of identifying what those changes could be.“Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets,” the government said in its filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “These markets are indispensable to the lives of all Americans, whether as individuals or as business owners, and the importance of effectively unfettering these markets and restoring competition cannot be overstated.”Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a blog post in response to the filing that the company was concerned the Justice Department was “already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”In a landmark ruling in August, a judge on that court, Amit P. Mehta, said Google “is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” It crossed a line when it paid companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine in web browsers and on smartphones, Judge Mehta ruled in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More