Antitrust Laws and Competition Issues

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares32 Views

    Judge Rebukes Apple and Orders It to Loosen Grip on App Store

    by

    The ruling was a stinging defeat for Apple in a long-running antitrust case brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, on behalf of app developers.A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Apple must loosen its grip on its App Store and stop collecting a commission on some app sales, capping a five-year antitrust case brought by Epic Games that aimed to change the power that Apple wields over a large slice of the digital economy.The judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, rebuked Apple for thwarting a previous ruling in the lawsuit and said the company needed to be stopped from further disobeying the court. She criticized Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, and accused other executives at the company of lying.In her earlier ruling, Judge Gonzales Rogers ordered Apple to allow apps to provide users with external links to pay developers directly for services. The apps could then avoid the 30 percent commission that Apple charges in its App Store and potentially charge less for services.Instead, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said on Wednesday, Apple created a new system that forced apps with external sales to pay a 27 percent commission to the company. Apple also created pop-up screens that discouraged customers from paying elsewhere, telling them that payments outside the App Store may not be secure.“Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this court’s injunction,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.In response, she said Apple could no longer take commissions from sales outside the App Store. She also restricted the company from writing rules that would prevent developers from creating buttons or links to pay outside the store and said it could not create messages to discourage users from making purchases. In addition, Judge Gonzalez Rogers asked the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate the company for criminal contempt.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

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Asks Judge to Break Up Google

      by

      The Justice Department said that the best way to address the tech company’s monopoly in internet search was to force it to sell Chrome, among other measures.The Justice Department said on Monday that the best way to address Google’s monopoly in internet search was to break up the $1.81 trillion company, kicking off a three-week hearing that could reshape the technology giant and alter the power players in Silicon Valley.Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in August that Google had broken antitrust laws to maintain its dominance in online search. He is now hearing arguments from the government and the company over how to best fix Google’s monopoly and is expected to order those measures, referred to as “remedies,” by the end of the summer.In an opening statement in the hearing on Monday, the government said Judge Mehta should force Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser, which drives users to its search engine. Government lawyers also said the company should take steps to give competitors a leg up if the court wants to restore competition to the moribund market for online search.“Your honor, we are not here for a Pyrrhic victory,” David Dahlquist, a Justice Department lawyer, said in his opening statement. “This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening, and they are listening, that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws.”The outcome in the case, U.S. v. Google, could drastically change the Silicon Valley behemoth. Google faces mounting challenges, including a breakup of its ad technology business after a different federal judge ruled last week that the company held a monopoly over some of the tools that websites use to sell open ad space. In 2023, Google also lost an antitrust suit brought by the maker of the video game Fortnite, which accused the tech giant of violating competition laws with its Play app store.The legal troubles could hurt Google as it battles OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta to lead a new era of artificial intelligence. Google has increasingly woven A.I. into its search. But the Justice Department has told Judge Mehta he should make sure Google cannot parlay its search monopoly into similar dominance in A.I.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 Shares123 Views

      in Elections

      Google Makes History With Rapid-Fire Antitrust Losses

      by

      Within a year, two federal judges declared the tech giant a monopoly in search and ad technology. The tide may be turning for antitrust.Silicon Valley’s tech giants have long regarded antitrust scrutiny as an irritating cost of doing business. There will be investigations, filings, depositions and even lawsuits.Yet courts move slowly, while technology rushes ahead. Time works to the companies’ advantage, as the political winds shift and presidential administrations change. That dynamic often opens the door to light-touch settlements.But the stakes rose sharply for Google on Thursday, when a federal judge ruled that the company had acted to illegally to build a monopoly in some of its online advertising technology. In August, another federal judge found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior to protect its monopoly in online search.Antitrust experts said two big antitrust wins for the government against a single company in such a short time appeared to have no precedent.“Two courts have reached similar conclusions in product markets that go to the heart of Google’s business,” said William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. “That has to be seen as a real threat.”The Google decisions are part of a wave of current antitrust cases challenging the power of the biggest tech companies. This week, the trial began in a suit by the F.T.C. claiming that Meta, formerly Facebook, cemented an illegal monopoly in social media through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.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 Shares84 Views

      in Elections

      Google Is a Monopolist in Online Advertising Tech, Judge Says

      by

      The ruling was the second time in a year that a federal court had found that Google had acted illegally to maintain its dominance.Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in some online advertising technology, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, adding to legal troubles that could reshape the $1.88 trillion company and alter its power over the internet.Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said in a ruling that Google had broken the law to build its dominance over the largely invisible system of technology that places advertisements on pages across the web. The Justice Department and a group of states had sued Google, arguing that its monopoly in ad technology allowed the company to charge higher prices and take a bigger portion of each sale.“In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” said Judge Brinkema, who also dismissed one portion of the government’s case.Google has increasingly faced a reckoning over the dominant role its products play in how people get information and conduct business online. Another federal judge ruled in August that the company had a monopoly in online search. He is now considering a request by the Justice Department to break the company up.Judge Brinkema, too, will have an opportunity to force changes to Google’s business. In its lawsuit, the Justice Department pre-emptively asked the court to force Google to sell some pieces of its ad technology business acquired over the years.Together, the two rulings and their remedies could check Google’s influence and result in a sweeping overhaul of the company, which faces a potential major restructuring.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

    • 150 Shares113 Views

      in Elections

      At Trial, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta Calls TikTok a Major Competitive Threat

      by

      The Meta chief executive testified for a third day in a landmark antitrust trial accusing his company of quashing competition through acquisitions.Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, took the witness stand in a landmark antitrust trial for a third day, saying on Wednesday that the video app TikTok has emerged as a serious competitor in social networking.In a friendly exchange led by lawyers for Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg said that the fast growth of the Chinese-owned app was “probably the highest competitive threat for Instagram and Facebook over the last few years.”Mr. Zuckerberg’s lawyers were trying to poke holes in the case, Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, which went to trial on Monday. The F.T.C. has accused the social media company, which was previously known as Facebook, of acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp when they were tiny start-ups in a “buy-or-bury strategy” to snuff out competition. Meta’s core function is connecting friends and family, making Snapchat its only serious social media competitor, the F.T.C. has said.Mr. Zuckerberg countered during his more than seven hours of testimony so far this week that Meta faces significant competition in the world of social networking, including from TikTok and Apple’s iMessage. On Wednesday, he said Meta’s addition of a short-video feature known as Reels to Instagram and Facebook was in large part a response to TikTok’s rise. Users continue to engage more on TikTok than with his apps, he said.“TikTok is still bigger than either Facebook or Instagram, and I don’t like it when our competitors do better than us,” Mr. Zuckerberg said.Judge James E. Boasberg, who is presiding over the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, must decide whether Meta broke the law. The government plans to seek a breakup of the company if it wins.Judge James E. Boasberg will rule on whether Meta violated antitrust law.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesWe 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

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Meta’s Antitrust Trial Begins as FTC Argues Company Built Social Media Monopoly

      by

      The tech giant went to court on Monday in an antitrust trial focused on its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The case could reshape its business.The Federal Trade Commission on Monday accused Meta of creating a monopoly that squelched competition by buying start-ups that stood in its way, kicking off a landmark antitrust trial that could dismantle a social media empire that has transformed how the world connects online.In a packed courtroom in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, the F.T.C. opened its first antitrust trial under the Trump administration by arguing that Meta illegally cemented a monopoly in social networking by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp when they were tiny start-ups. Those actions were part of a “buy-or-bury strategy,” the F.T.C. said.Ultimately, the purchases coalesced Meta’s power, depriving consumers of other social networking options and edging out competition, the government said.“For more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed,” said Daniel Matheson, the F.T.C.’s lead litigator in the case, in his opening remarks. “The reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.”“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” he added.The trial — Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms — poses the most consequential threat to the business empire of Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s co-founder. If the government succeeds, the F.T.C. would most likely ask Meta to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, potentially shifting the way that Silicon Valley does business and altering a long pattern of big tech companies snapping up younger rivals.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 Shares174 Views

      in Elections

      What If Mark Zuckerberg Had Not Bought Instagram and WhatsApp?

      by

      Meta’s antitrust trial, in which the government contends the company killed competition by buying young rivals, hinges on unknowable alternate versions of Silicon Valley history.In 2012, when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg cut a $1 billion check to buy the photo-sharing app Instagram, most people thought he had lost his marbles.“A billion dollars of money?” joked Jon Stewart, then the host of The Daily Show. “For a thing that kind of ruins your pictures?”Mr. Stewart called the decision “really lame.” His audience — and much of the rest of the world — agreed that Mr. Zuckerberg had overpaid for an app that highlighted a bunch of photo filters.Two years later, Mr. Zuckerberg opened his wallet again when Facebook agreed to buy WhatsApp for $19 billion. Many Americans had never heard of the messaging app, which was popular internationally but was not well known in the United States.No one knew how these deals would turn out. But hindsight, it seems, is 20/20.On Monday, the government argued in a landmark antitrust trial that both acquisitions — now considered among the greatest in Silicon Valley history — were the actions of a monopolist guarding his turf. Mr. Zuckerberg, in turn, was set to contend that were it not for these deals, his company — which has been renamed Meta — would just be an afterthought in the social media landscape.Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, is set to contend in the company’s antitrust trial that were it not for buying Instagram and WhatsApp, his firm might just be an afterthought in the social media landscape.Jason Andrew for The New York TimesWe 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

      Home Sellers and Buyers Accuse Realtors of Blocking Lower Fees

      by

      A year after a landmark settlement called for a disruption in how real estate agents are paid, people say they still feel forced to pay them excessive commissions.When Mike Chambers was ready to sell his house in Boulder, Colo., last month, he interviewed a handful of real estate agents who promised he could fetch $2.75 million or more if he listed with them. But the promise would come at a cost: Each agent wanted him to pay a commission of at least 5 percent, or $137,500. Frustrated that not a single agent was willing to budge on the rate, Mr. Chambers, 39, decided to sell his house on his own, and he took to social media with the handle @realtorshateme to chronicle the process. His reels drew 50,000 views or more.Within days, local agents were making their own social media posts that countered his points — an action that Mr. Chambers described as an aggressive campaign aimed at preventing him from making a sale on his own. Realtors told Mr. Chamber he could get at least $2.75 million for his house. But he didn’t want to pay 5 percent commission, and none of the agents he met would negotiate.Chet Strange for The New York TimesCall it the Realtor recoil. One year after the National Association of Realtors agreed, as part of a legal settlement, to change a key rule on real estate commissions — a rule that had long upheld a tradition of commissions between 5 and 6 percent, little has changed.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

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      One Month into the Trump Presidency

      by

      The president has moved swiftly to remake Washington. But for business leaders, that volatility has often been hard to navigate. In his first month back in office, President Trump has rapidly begun to remake Washington. But with that has come big questions about what’s next.Al Drago for The New York TimesThe good, bad and puzzlingCorporate leaders and investors expected a bit of volatility to accompany President Trump’s second term. In many ways, that’s exactly what has happened one month in, with the radical cutting of the federal government, threats of trade wars and more.But amid a flurry of unexpected announcements — talks over a possible Ukraine peace plan that exclude Kyiv, the retention of tough Biden-era deal guidelines and a potential Elon Musk-enabled stimulus plan, for starters — and a lack of clarity over where Trump stands on a host of issues, many executives are asking themselves: How do we navigate this?Trump has made good on some of his campaign promises. He has vowed to impose tariffs to bolster American manufacturing. He has waged war on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and more and more companies have fallen into line.And most notably, he has unleashed subordinates and Musk to raze huge portions of the Washington bureaucracy, with some courts refusing to stand in the way. The latest on that: The I.R.S. fired 6,700 workers on the eve of tax-filing season; Trump claimed the power to dismiss administrative law judges at will; and he reportedly plans to take control of the U.S. Postal Service, according to The Washington Post.But there’s a lot that business leaders and others are trying to figure out:Where does Trump actually stand on tariffs? He has spoken of a potential wide-ranging trade deal with China, even as he threatens Europe with huge levies.Trump’s position on Ukraine is increasingly unclear, as he publicly embraces Russia and castigates Kyiv and Europe. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is said to have pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to hand over billions’ worth of Ukrainian mineral resources, according to The Wall Street Journal, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio privately told European leaders that Washington wasn’t looking to disrupt the diplomatic status quo.The administration’s antitrust cops have kept in place Biden era merger rules, dampening hopes for a deal resurgence. And despite efforts by tech companies like Meta to forge closer ties to Trump, the Federal Trade Commission’s new chief is weighing a scrutiny of Big Tech over censorship concerns.Trump’s efforts to gain more control over independent agencies may reach further into the Fed, with Musk vaguely promising an audit of the central bank.The president’s floating of potentially inflationary taxpayer payouts, funded by Musk’s government cost-cutting (whose true extent appears to change frequently), is drawing lukewarm support from congressional Republicans.Trump’s legislative agenda is in limbo, with the president splitting Republican lawmakers over matters like the budget.For now, corporate America appears to be along for the ride. A new survey by the Conference Board found that C.E.O. confidence recently reached a three-year peak, reflecting “confident optimism.”Whether that will persist — Americans appear increasingly worried about rising inflation and the Musk cost-cutting — remains to be seen. Stay tuned.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