Tag Archives: Legal

Google Allegedly Monopolized Internet Search For A Decade

google,

The watershed antitrust trial pitting the US Government against Google began on Tuesday in a Washington district court, as the government started to argue its case that the tech giant illegally abused its power to monopolize internet search, The Guardian reported. The case is the biggest test of antitrust law in decades and the first such case against Google to go to trial in the US.

According to The Guardian, the trial is set to last 10 weeks, over the course of which the government will make its case that Google leveraged its market power and wealth to strangle competition. Google spent billions on deals with companies such as Apple and Samsung to make itself the default search browser on their devices, which the government alleges shut out competition and allowed Google to attain a monopoly on searching the internet.

Google denies the justice department’s allegations. The company’s longtime chief legal officer, Kent Walker, has argued that consumers can still freely use any rival search engines and that Google’s services represent a fraction of the ways that people browse the internet.

The Guardian also reported that Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee from 2014, is presiding over the case and will decide on a ruling. There is no jury in the trial. Throughout the first day, Mehta challenged attorneys in both sides of the case to clarify their argument that people could easily switch internet browsers from their default setting, asking how often people actually do that.

CNBC reported lawyers for the Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general led by Colorado faced Google on Tuesday, as the 10-week trial kicked off in Washington, D.C., District Court. Day one of the trial set the stage for how the government and Google would argue their opposing views of how the company has maintained a large slice of the search market for years.

According to CNBC, the government’s case is that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance.

Google says it’s simply been the preferred choice of consumers. That popularity, the company says, is why browser makers and phone manufacturers have chosen Google as their default search engine through revenue-sharing agreements.

TechCrunch reported that the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust case against Google marks the beginning of a trial that will stretch on for months, potentially upending the tech world in the process.

At issue is Google’s search business. The Justice Department says that Google has run afoul of antitrust laws in the course of maintaining its top spot in search, while the tech giant argues that it maintains its dominance naturally by offering consumes a superior product.

According to TechCrunch, the Justice Department filed the civil antitrust against Google in late 2020 after examining the company’s business for more than a year.

A large coalition of state attorneys general also filed their own parallel suit against Google, but Judge Amit Mehta decided that the states did not clear the bar that would allow them to go to trial with their own complaints about Google’s search ranking practices.

Personally, I think it is obvious that this is a court case that is going to take a very long time to sort out. We will just have to wait and see what Judge Mehta decides.

Appeals Court Rules Government May Have Violated 1st Amendment

Legal, ,

A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on misinformation surrounding vaccines, The Hill reported.

In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said government actors “likely coerced or encouraged” social media companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon General. According to The Hill, the three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by Republicans.

The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was reviewing the decision and its options going forward.

“This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the statement said. “Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

Here are some pieces of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

For the last few years – at least since the 2020 presidential transition – a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials – hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies – urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.

And, the platforms, seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.

Enter this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs – three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist and two states – had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings – they “coerced, threatened and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]” through private communications and legal threats.

So, they sued the officials for First Amendment violations and asked the district court to enjoin the officials’ conduct. In response, the officials argued that they only “sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation” by “calling attention to content” that violated the “platforms’ policies,” a form of permissible government speech.

USA Today reported that the decision from the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals partly upheld an order from a Louisiana federal judge that blocked many federal agencies from having contact with companies like Facebook, YouTube, and X, formerly Twitter, about content moderation.

But the 75-page opinion from three-judge panel also significantly narrowed the scope of the order that was a major victory for conservatives. USA Today also reported that the Biden administration has 10 days to seek a Supreme Court review of the ruling.

In my opinion, social media platforms that allow people to post misinformation typically have options for users who don’t want to see that sort of content. For example, X gives users the ability to mute and/or block content they are not interested in.

FTC Loses Appeals Court Bid To Temporarily Block Microsoft-Activision Deal

Microsoft, , ,

In a victory for Microsoft, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit late on Friday denied the Federal Trade Commission’s motion to temporarily stop Microsoft from closing its $68.7 billion acquisition of video game publisher Activision Blizzard, CNBC reported.

Microsoft is still working to resolve concerns about the transaction from the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority. The two companies have been looking to close the deal by July 18.

“We appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s swift response denying the FTC’s motion to further delay the deal. This bring us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and vice chair, said in a statement.

A federal judge in San Francisco, after five days of court hearing, ruled against the FTC on Tuesday, and the federal filed its appeal on Wednesday…

…In an emergency motion filed with the 9th Circuit on Thursday, the FTC said the district judge “denied preliminary relief, applying the wrong legal standard: the court effectively required the FTC to prove its full case on the merits with the court as the arbiter of the merger’s legality.” The agency requested a temporary injunction while the court considered an appeal of the district court’s conclusion, CNBC reported.

The Wall Street Journal reported that an appeals court on Friday denied a last-ditch bid by the Federal Trade Commission to halt Microsoft’s planned $75 billion acquisition of videogame publisher Activision Blizzard.

In a brief order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FTC’s request for a court order that would have blocked Microsoft and Activision from merging while the agency appeals a July 11 decision by a trial court judge.

Friday’s order helps clear the way for Microsoft and Activision to close the merger, and puts pressure on the FTC to drop its appeal of the July 11 ruling.

In the July decision, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said the agency hadn’t shown that Microsoft’s ownership of Activision titles, including the hit shooter-game series “Call of Duty,” would hurt competition in the console or cloud-gaming markets.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FTC declined to comment.

The Verge also reported the FTC appealed the decision by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied its request for emergency relief to prevent Microsoft from closing the deal until the result of the FTC’s appeal is complete.

Microsoft welcomed the denial late on Friday. “We appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s swift response denying the FTC’s motion to further delay the deal. This brings us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” says Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President of Microsoft, in a statement to The Verge.

According to The Verge, this means Microsoft is now free to close its Activision Blizzard deal after a temporary restraining order, part of Judge Corley’s order, expired at 11:59PM PT, Friday July 14. Microsoft has until July 18th to close its deal; otherwise, it may need to renegotiate terms with Activision Blizzard, pay $3 billion in breakup fees if Activision wants to walk away, or simply let the deal deadline naturally extend if both parties are happy to.

The Verge also reported that the UK’s Competitions and Market’s Authority blocked Microsoft’s deal earlier this year, citing competition fears in the emerging cloud gaming market. Both CMA and Microsoft have agreed to pause their legal battles to figure out how the transaction might be modified in order to address the CMA’s cloud gaming concerns.

In my opinion, I think Judge Corley, and the Ninth Circuit Court, made the right decision. Both appear to have determined that the FTC’s case was not enough for a judgement to be made in their favor, and have instead decided in favor of Microsoft.

Microsoft-Activision Deal Approved By Judge

Microsoft, ,

A federal judge in San Francisco has denied the Federal Trade Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Microsoft from completing its acquisition of video game publisher Activision Blizzard, CNBC reported.

The deal isn’t completely in the clear, though. The FTC can now bring the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and the two companies must find a way forward to resolve opposition from the Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom.

“This Court’s responsibility in this case now is narrow. It its to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted – perhaps even terminated – pending resolution of the FTC administrative action,” Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley wrote in her decision, published Tuesday. “For the reasons explained, the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.”

Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith tweeted: “Our statement on today’s decision: We’re grateful to the Court in San Francisco for this quick and thorough decision and hope other jurisdictions will continue working towards a timely resolution. As we’ve demonstrated consistently throughout this process, we are committed to working creatively and collaboratively to address regulatory concerns.”

Activision posted the following on its corporate news website:

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotik sent the following email to employees on Tuesday:

Today, a U.S. federal judge ruled in our favor, denying the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to block our merger with Microsoft.

We’re grateful to the court for the way this process was handled and the thoughtfulness of the decision. The U.S. joins the 38 countries where our deal can proceed – these decisions are based on facts and data that show our merger is good for players and for competition in the industry.

We’re optimistic that today’s ruling signals a path to full regulatory approval elsewhere around the globe, and we stand ready to work with the UK regulators to address any remaining concerns so our merger can quickly close.

We’ll continue to keep you updated on our progress. Thank you for all you do for our players, for our company, and for each other.

With gratitude,
Bobby

The Verge reported that in a statement, the FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said the FTC was still planning its next move. “We are disappointed in this outcome given the clear threat this merger poses to open competition in cloud gaming subscription services, and consoles. In the coming days we’ll be announcing our next step to continue our fight to preserve competition and protect consumers,” said Farrar.

According to The Verge, the judge’s ruling now allows Microsoft to close its Activision Blizzard deal ahead of the July 18th deadline, but only if the company is willing to close around the UK or if the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) is willing to negotiate some form of remedy. The UK regulator moved to block Microsoft’s proposed acquisition in April, and Microsoft is currently appealing that decision with a hearing set to start on July 28th.

The CMA confirmed the decision in a statement to The Verge, noting that the regulator is “ready to consider any proposals from Microsoft to restructure the transaction in a way that would address the concerns set out in our Final Report.”

The Competition Appeal Tribune (CAT) will need to approve or deny this request, but it’s more than likely that it will be approved to allow both parties to negotiate further.

In my opinion, it appears that the Microsoft -Activision acquisition has a good chance of happening. The CMA appears to want to work with Microsoft to come to some sort of agreement. If this goes well, Microsoft will have one more country that approves the acquisition.

California Court Affirms Right To Treat Uber And Lyft Drivers as Contractors

Legal, , , ,

Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other companies scored a victory with a California court ruling that preserves their independent contractor model in the state and could boost their efforts to maintain that model elsewhere, The Wall Street Journal reported.

A state appeals court reversed a lower-court ruling that found a California ballot measure known as Proposition 22 illegal. Proposition 22, which passed in November 2020, allowed these companies to continue to treat their drivers as independent contractors.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Uber and others are in a global tug of war with regulators over whether and how to grant more benefits such as paid sick leave and health insurance to workers in the so-called gig economy, where apps distribute individual tasks to a poll of people whom companies generally regard as independent contractors.

California sued Uber and Lyft in 2020, saying they were in violation of a new state law that sought to reclassify their drivers as employees. A legal battle ensued, culminating in Proposition 22, in which Uber, Lyft, DoorDash Inc. and Instacart Inc. asked state voters to exempt them from the law. The companies spent a record amount of money for a California ballot measure, about $200 million.

The New York Times reported that the decision by three appeals court judges overturned the ruling late last year by a California Superior Court judge, who said the Proposition was “unenforceable.” It was a victory for companies like Uber, which use gig drivers to transport passengers and to deliver food, but does not pay costs that an employer would have to. Those costs can include drivers’ unemployment insurance, health insurance, and business expenses.

According to The New York Times, the appeals court ruling was not the final say. The Service Employees International Union, which, along with several drivers, filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition 22 in early 2021, is expected to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, which would then have several months to decide whether to hear the case.

The opponents of the proposition argued that the ballot measure was unconstitutional under several grounds. It set limits on the State Legislature’s ability to oversee workers’ compensation for gig drivers. It included a rule restricting them from collective bargaining that critics said was unrelated to the rest of the measure, and it set a seven-eights majority vote of the Legislature as a bar for passing amendments to the measure related to collective bargaining – a requirement that was considered nearly impossible to achieve.

CNBC reported that Proposition 22 created a set of criteria which determined whether ride-share drivers were employees or independent contractors. In practice, it exempted Uber and similar companies from following certain minimum wage, overtime, or workers compensation laws for hundreds of thousands of Californian rideshare drivers.

Instead, according to CNBC, the ballot measure required companies to provide compensation and healthcare “subsidies” based on “engaged” driving time, as well as the benefits, including safety training as “sexual harassment training.”

To me it sounds like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart are desperately trying to suppress drivers ability to form a union, (also known as “collective bargaining”). Unionization would require the large companies to provide drivers with the same types of benefits that other workers, who have unionized, would be expected to receive. It also make it harder for the big companies to fire them.

FTC Sues To Block Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision

Microsoft, , ,

The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued to block Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of the video game publisher Activision Blizzard, charging that the massive deal would allow the Washington tech giant to suppress its competitors in gaming, The Washington Post reported.

According to The Washington Post, the lawsuit represents the FTC’s most significant effort to rein in consolidation in the tech industry since prominent tech critic Lina Khan (D) became the commission’s chair and was expected to usher in an era of antitrust enforcement characterized by a willingness to bring cases in court rather than pursue settlements with companies.

The FTC lawsuit against Microsoft could foil the company’s ambitions to become a heavier hitter in gaming frontiers. Activision is the owner of popular titles such as Candy Crush and Call of Duty, and its acquisition could bolster Microsoft in its competition with Japanese console makers Nintendo and Sony.

The Washington Post also reported that the commission voted Thursday on a party-line vote to issue the lawsuit in administrative court, with the three Democrats in favor of the complaint and one Republican against it.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) posted the following:

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block technology giant Microsoft Corp. from acquiring leading video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc. and its blockbuster gaming franchises such as Call of Duty, alleging that the $69 billion deal, Microsoft’s largest ever and the largest ever in the gaming industry, would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.

In a complaint issue today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda’s titles, including Starfield and Redial Microsoft exclusives despite assurances that it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles…

…Activision is one of only a very small number of top video game developers in the world that create and publish high-quality video games for multiple devices, including video game consoles, PCs, and mobile devices. It produces some the most iconic and popular video game titles, including Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch, and has millions of monthly active users around the word, according to the FTC’s complaint. Activision currently has a strategy of offering its games on many devices regardless of producer.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Sony has been the loudest critic of the planned Activision deal, arguing that it could hurt competition if Microsoft restricts access to Activision games, especially Call of Duty, due to the franchise’s exceptional popularity.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft has said it doesn’t plan to deny Sony and others access to Activision games and that its deal for the company wouldn’t hurt competition. The company has publicly pledged to give Sony and Nintendo access to new Call of Duty games on their consoles for the next 10 years. Though Microsoft doesn’t disclose Xbox sales, it has said it would still be the third-largest video game console maker after Sony and Nintendo after merging with Activision.

What does this mean for gamers? It seems to me that the FTC’s decision to sue Microsoft over the Activision Blizzard acquisition means there could be a lengthy court battle. There is no way to know how a court will decide this case. Based on what I’ve seen on social media, there are a lot of gamers who hoped the acquisition would happen. The FTC’s decision to sue is disappointing.

Uber Settles Discrimination Lawsuit

cars, Law, , ,

uberlogo[1]Ride-sharing service Uber agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against them by the National Federation of the Blind. The suit contended that Uber was engaging in discriminatory practices by refusing to pick up blind passengers with service dogs. The settlement is still being reviewed by a judge and pending approval. The terms of the settlement force Uber to notify all of its drivers that they must take all passengers with service animals. The suit also awards $225,000 to the National Federation of the Blind over three years.

From a statement released by Uber:

As part of this settlement, we have agreed to take steps to make clear to drivers using Uber that they are obligated to transport to any passenger with a service animal. If the settlement is approved, drivers will see a pop-up in the Uber app reminding them of this obligation. We will also send periodic email reminders to drivers.

We have also agreed to publish a service animal policy which, in addition to our code of conduct and new deactivation policy, makes clear that any driver found to have refused someone with a service animal will be barred from using the Uber platform.

The National Federation of the Blind will deploy blind passengers with service animals to help test the new measures put in place by the settlement.