ReportWire

Tag: Economic policy

  • First on CNN: New bipartisan bill in Senate could address TikTok security concerns without a ban | CNN Business

    First on CNN: New bipartisan bill in Senate could address TikTok security concerns without a ban | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Five US senators are set to reintroduce legislation Wednesday that would block companies including TikTok from transferring Americans’ personal data to countries such as China, as part of a proposed broadening of US export controls.

    The bipartisan bill led by Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and Wyoming Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis would, for the first time, subject exports of US data to the same type of licensing requirements that govern the sale of military and advanced technologies. It would apply to thousands of companies that rely on routinely transferring data from the United States to other jurisdictions, including data brokers and social media companies.

    The legislation comes amid a flurry of proposals to regulate how TikTok and other companies may handle the sensitive and valuable data of Americans — not just their names, email addresses and phone numbers but also potentially their behavioral data such as location information, search and browsing histories and personal interests.

    “Massive pools of Americans’ sensitive information — everything from where we go, to what we buy and what kind of health care services we receive — are for sale to buyers in China, Russia and nearly anyone with a credit card,” Wyden said in a statement. “Our bipartisan bill would turn off the tap of data to unfriendly nations, stop TikTok from sending Americans’ personal information to China, and allow nations with strong privacy protections to strengthen their relationships.”

    Lawmakers have scrutinized TikTok, in particular, for its ties to China through its parent company, ByteDance. Much of the existing legislation addressing TikTok at the federal and state level has focused on bans of the app. But Wyden’s bill subjecting US data to export licensing could address the issue without wading into the thorny legal issues surrounding a potential ban, an aide said, and simultaneously avoid giving broad new powers to the executive branch.

    Wednesday’s legislation, known as the Protecting Americans’ Data From Foreign Surveillance Act, does not identify TikTok by name. Instead, it directs the Commerce Department to maintain lists of countries that are considered trustworthy and untrustworthy for the purposes of receiving US data.

    There would be no restrictions applied to personal information transferred to trustworthy states, and no restrictions on individual internet users’ own transfers of their personal data, but companies seeking to transfer Americans’ personal information to countries outside of the trustworthy list would be required to apply for a license. Transfers to countries on the untrustworthy list would be automatically prohibited unless companies could prove they have a valid reason for a transfer, according to a copy of the bill text reviewed by CNN.

    Factors the Commerce Department would need to consider when building its lists include whether a country has enough of its own privacy safeguards — reflected in laws, regulations and norms — to prevent sensitive US data from being transferred further to one of the untrustworthy countries. Another factor includes whether a country has engaged in “hostile foreign intelligence operations, including information operations, against the United States,” language that appears to refer to China, Russia and other foreign adversaries.

    The Commerce Department would also be authorized to identify the specific types of information that would be subject to licensing requirements, based on their sensitivity, as well as how much information a company could transfer to a non-approved country before needing a license.

    A previous version of the bill was introduced last summer. The newest version, the Wyden aide said, includes fresh language that targets TikTok indirectly by prohibiting data transfers from one company to a parent company that may receive data requests by a hostile foreign government, when the company holds data on more than one million users.

    TikTok has faced criticism from US officials who say the company’s links to China pose a national security risk. TikTok has said it has never received a request for US user data from the Chinese government and would never comply with such a request.

    TikTok has also said it is working on securing US user data by storing it on servers controlled by Oracle and by establishing special US access protocols to prevent unauthorized use of the information.

    Should TikTok abide by its plan, known as Project Texas, Wednesday’s legislation would not affect the company, according to the Wyden aide, but if TikTok or ByteDance did seek to move US user data to China, then those transfers would potentially be subject to the proposed Commerce Department restrictions.

    Congress has made several attempts in recent months to address data transfers to foreign adversaries. In February, House lawmakers advanced a bill that would all but require the Biden administration to ban TikTok over national security concerns about the app. The next month, Senate lawmakers introduced a bill that would give the Commerce Department wide latitude to assess all foreign-linked technologies and to take virtually any measures, up to and including imposing a nationwide ban, to restrict their domestic use.

    Those bills have provoked a backlash from industry and civil liberties groups, as well as among some fellow lawmakers. Among the concerns are their potential impact on Americans’ First Amendment rights and a potential conflict with laws facilitating the free flow of media to and from foreign rivals. Other concerns include whether the breadth of the legislation could give the US government too much power and whether it could end up harming industries that are not the target of the legislation.

    The new bill includes language requiring more input from privacy, civil rights and civil liberties experts, said Justin Sherman, founder and CEO of the research firm Global Cyber Strategies and a senior fellow at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy who has seen the bill.

    “You don’t load up Excel sheets in a shipping crate and send them to a foreign port,” Sherman said, but data transfers are a “hugely and often ignored problem in national security.”

    “We need to get beyond just looking at a couple mobile apps and platforms, and start looking at all parts of this ecosystem, including how data gets sold and transferred,” Sherman added, “and this bill takes an important look at that issue.”

    Other senators co-sponsoring Wednesday’s legislation include Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty, New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich and Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio. A companion bill in the House will also be unveiled Wednesday, sponsored by Ohio Republican Rep. Warren Davidson and California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Italy ties China’s hands at Pirelli over fears about chip technology | CNN Business

    Italy ties China’s hands at Pirelli over fears about chip technology | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Italy has imposed several curbs on Pirelli’s biggest shareholder, Sinochem, in a move aimed at blocking the Chinese government’s access to sensitive chip technology.

    The Italian government decided last week to make use of its so-called “Golden Power” regulations, designed to protect assets of strategic importance to the country, Pirelli said in a statement Sunday.

    The government order risks inflaming tensions between Europe and Beijing, and follows similar intervention by Germany and the United Kingdom to protect their semiconductor technology.

    Earlier this year, Europe joined a US-led effort to restrict China’s access to the most advanced chipmaking technology when the Netherlands — home to ASML Holding, a key supplier to the global semiconductor industry — said it would introduce export controls.

    Italy’s move comes as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken wraps up a high-stakes visit to China aimed at repairing strained relations between the world’s two biggest economies.

    Sinochem, owned by the Chinese government, is Pirelli’s biggest single shareholder, with a 37% stake, and has 60% of seats on the board of the Italian tire maker. CNN has contacted Sinochem for comment.

    In a statement Friday, the Italian government said Pirelli’s Cyber Tyre, which uses chip technology to collect vehicle data, is “configured as a critical technology of national strategic importance.”

    “Improper use of this technology can pose significant risks not only to the confidentiality of user data, but also to the possible transfer of information relevant to security,” the statement added.

    The order sets a host of limitations on Sinochem’s involvement in Pirelli, including a bar on it devising the company’s strategy and financial plans, or appointing a CEO.

    The government said these curbs would protect the “autonomy” of Pirelli and its management, as well as “information of strategic importance.”

    Europe is heavily reliant on China for trade and investment, but relations have come under strain from ideological differences, including over Russia’s war in Ukraine, and recent moves by European Union regulators and governments to limit China’s access to sensitive technology.

    The order takes a page out of this playbook. It requires that Pirelli refuse any requests from Sinochem’s owner — China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council — for information sharing, including any information connected to the “know-how” of proprietary technologies.

    The government said “some” strategic decisions would require approval from at least 80% of board directors, a further limitation on Sinochem’s influence.

    Separately, Rome is also assessing whether to renew its partnership with Beijing on the Belt and Road Initiative — China’s global infrastructure and investment megaproject. Italy is the only Group of Seven nation to have joined the initiative.

    In a further sign of the steps multinational companies are beginning to consider to protect their operations from growing geopolitical friction, drugmaker AstraZeneca

    (AZN)     has drawn up plans to spin off its China business and list it separately in Hong Kong, according to the Financial Times. AstraZeneca

    (AZN)     declined to comment.

    Earlier this month, Sequoia Capital, the Silicon Valley venture capital group, said it would separate its China investments into an independent unit.

    On Tuesday, the European Commission will unveil measures — possibly including screening of outbound investments and export controls — to keep prized EU technology from countries such as China, Reuters reported.

    — Laura He in Hong Kong contributed to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Seagate to pay $300 million penalty for shipping Huawei hard drives in violation of US export control laws | CNN Business

    Seagate to pay $300 million penalty for shipping Huawei hard drives in violation of US export control laws | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    Reuters
     — 

    Seagate Technology has agreed to pay a $300 million penalty in a settlement with US authorities for shipping over $1.1 billion worth of hard disk drives to China’s Huawei in violation of US export control laws, the Department of Commerce said on Wednesday.

    Seagate

    (STX)     sold the drives to Huawei between August 2020 and September 2021 despite an August 2020 rule that restricted sales of certain foreign items made with US technology to the company. Huawei was placed on the Entity List, a US trade blacklist, in 2019 to reduce the sale of US goods to the company amid national security and foreign policy concerns.

    The penalty represents the latest in a string of actions by Washington to keep sophisticated technology from China that may support its military, enable human rights abuses or otherwise threaten US security.

    Seagate shipped 7.4 million drives to Huawei for about a year after the 2020 rule took effect and became Huawei’s sole supplier of hard drives, the Commerce Department said.

    The other two primary suppliers of hard drives ceased shipments to Huawei after the new rule took effect in 2020, the department said. Though they were not identified, Western Digital

    (WDC)     and Toshiba

    (TOSBF)     were the other two, the US Senate Commerce Committee said in a 2021 report on Seagate.

    The companies did not respond to requests for comment.

    Even after “its competitors had stopped selling to them … Seagate continued sending hard disk drives to Huawei,” Matthew Axelrod, assistant secretary for export enforcement at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said in a statement. “Today’s action is the consequence.”

    Axelrod said the administrative penalty was the largest in the history of the agency not tied to a criminal case.

    Seagate’s position was that its foreign-made drives were not subject to US export control regulations, essentially because they were not the direct product of US equipment.

    “While we believed we complied with all relevant export control laws at the time we made the hard disk drive sales at issue, we determined that … settling this matter was the best course of action,” Seagate CEO Dave Mosley said in a statement.

    In an order issued on Wednesday, the government said Seagate wrongly interpreted the foreign product rule to require evaluation of only the last stage of its manufacturing process rather than the entire process.

    Seagate made drives in China, Northern Ireland, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the United States, the order said, and used equipment, including testing equipment, subject to the rule.

    In August, the US Department of Commerce sent the company a “proposed charging letter,” warning the company that it may have violated export control laws. The letter kicked off some eight months of negotiations.

    Seagate’s $300 million penalty is due in installments of $15 million per quarter over five years, with the first payment due in October. It also agreed to three audits of its compliance program, and is subject to a five-year suspended order denying its export privileges.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The largest newspaper publisher in the US sues Google, alleging online ad monopoly | CNN Business

    The largest newspaper publisher in the US sues Google, alleging online ad monopoly | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the United States, is suing Google, alleging the tech giant holds a monopoly over the digital ad market.

    The publisher of USA Today and more than 200 local publications filed the lawsuit in a New York federal court on Tuesday, and is seeking unspecified damages. Gannett argues in court documents that Google and its parent company, Alphabet, controls how publishers buy and sell ads online.

    “The result is dramatically less revenue for publishers and Google’s ad-tech rivals, while Google enjoys exorbitant monopoly profits,” the lawsuit states.

    Google controls about a quarter of the US digital advertising market, with Meta, Amazon and TikTok combining for another third, according to eMarketer. News publishers and other websites combine for the other roughly 40%. Big Tech’s share of the market is beginning to erode slightly, but Google remains by far the largest individual player.

    That means publishers often rely at least in part on Google’s advertising technology to support their operations: Gannett says Google controls 90% of the ad market for publishers.

    Michael Reed, Gannett’s chairman and CEO, said in a statement Tuesday that Google’s dominance in the online advertising industry has come “at the expense of publishers, readers and everyone else.”

    “Digital advertising is the lifeblood of the online economy,” Reed added. “Without free and fair competition for digital ad space, publishers cannot invest in their newsrooms.”

    Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, told CNN that the claims in the suit “are simply wrong.”

    “Publishers have many options to choose from when it comes to using advertising technology to monetize – in fact, Gannett uses dozens of competing ad services, including Google Ad Manager,” Taylor said in a statement Tuesday. “And when publishers choose to use Google tools, they keep the vast majority of revenue.”

    He continued: “We’ll show the court how our advertising products benefit publishers and help them fund their content online.”

    The legal action from Gannett comes as Google faces a growing number of antitrust complaints in the United States and the European Union over its advertising business, which remains its central moneymaker.

    EU officials said last week that Google’s advertising business should be broken up, alleging that the tech giant’s involvement in multiple parts of the digital advertising supply chain creates “inherent conflicts of interest” that risk harming competition.

    Earlier this year, the Justice Department and eight states sued Google, accusing the company of harming competition with its dominance in the online advertising market and similarly calling for it to be broken up.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court tosses state antitrust suit seeking to break up Meta | CNN Business

    Federal appeals court tosses state antitrust suit seeking to break up Meta | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A group of states that sued to break up Facebook-parent Meta in 2020 were years too late to file their challenge and failed to make a persuasive case that the company’s data policies harmed competition, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a sweeping victory for the tech giant.

    In siding with Meta, the decision by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld a lower-court decision tossing out the suit initially filed by New York and dozens of other states.

    The decision is a blow to regulators who have cited Meta as a prime example of the way tech giants have allegedly abused their dominance. And it casts a shadow over a parallel antitrust case against Meta that was brought by the Federal Trade Commission at around the same time.

    The states’ original complaint had sought to unwind Meta’s past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, accusing the company of a “buy-or-bury” approach that violated antitrust laws.

    In 2021, a federal judge dismissed the complaint, saying that the lawsuit came long after the acquisitions had been completed in 2012 and 2014. Thursday’s appellate decision agreed.

    “An injunction breaking up Facebook, ordering it to divest itself of Instagram and WhatsApp under court supervision, would have severe consequences, consequences that would not have existed if the States had timely brought their suit and prevailed,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph.

    In addition, Randolph wrote, state allegations claiming that Meta’s — then Facebook’s — policies placing restrictions on app developers were anticompetitive didn’t hold up.

    The policies in question, Randolph wrote, simply told app developers they could not use Facebook’s platform “to duplicate Facebook’s core products,” and did not rise to the level of an antitrust violation under federal law.

    Although the states argued that Facebook’s policies at the time — which have since been removed — discouraged innovation by the company’s rivals, the complaint failed to establish how widely the policies affected Facebook’s third-party developers.

    “The States thus have not adequately alleged that this policy substantially foreclosed Facebook’s competitors, giving us an additional reason to reject their exclusive dealing theory,” the court held.

    A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement, Meta said the state’s case reflected a mischaracterization of “the vibrant competitive ecosystem in which we operate.”

    “In affirming the dismissal of this case, the court noted that this enforcement action was ‘odd’ because we compete in an industry that is experiencing ‘rapid growth and innovation with no end in sight,’ Meta said. “Moving forward, Meta will defend itself vigorously against the FTC’s distortion of antitrust laws and attacks on an American success story that are contrary to the interests of people and businesses who value our services.”

    In spite of Thursday’s decision, Meta must still face a similar lawsuit by the FTC, which also seeks to break up the company in connection with its Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions.

    Last year, the same federal judge who dismissed the state suit, James Boasberg, allowed the federal suit to proceed. Boasberg had tossed out the FTC suit as well in 2021, saying the agency had failed to make an initial showing that Meta holds a monopoly in personal social networking. But he permitted the FTC to re-file its complaint with changes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft faces off against US government over Activision deal, with top execs set to testify | CNN Business

    Microsoft faces off against US government over Activision deal, with top execs set to testify | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Microsoft

    (MSFT)     and the video game giant Activision Blizzard

    (ATVI)     will face off Thursday against the US government in a high-stakes battle over one of the largest technology acquisitions in history.

    The showdown in federal court will have the CEOs of both companies taking the stand to defend their $69 billion merger against claims that the combination could violate US antitrust law and harm millions of consumers.

    The outcome of the fight will shape the future of the multibillion-dollar games industry. It will also impact enormously popular gaming franchises such as “Call of Duty” and “World of Warcraft,” which Activision owns and would be transferred to Microsoft under the deal.

    Also testifying will be the top financial executives from both companies; senior leaders from Microsoft’s Xbox division; the CEO of Microsoft Gaming, Phil Spencer; and a vocal critic of the deal, Sony gaming CEO Jim Ryan.

    The days-long affair begins Thursday and is scheduled to run through next week.

    In bringing the case, the Federal Trade Commission is asking a US district court judge for an injunction that would temporarily halt the deal. That would keep the companies from closing their merger, at least until the FTC’s in-house court rules in a separate proceeding on whether the acquisition is anticompetitive.

    But this week’s fight over a preliminary injunction may prove decisive for the deal as a whole. Microsoft has said that a victory for the FTC at this stage “will effectively block the transaction” overall.

    In this hearing, the FTC does not need to prove that the deal is anticompetitive. It just needs to show that the agency would be likely to succeed in doing so if the case moves ahead, and that otherwise its ability to enforce US antitrust law would be harmed.

    The clash comes as Microsoft and Activision face down a contractual July 18 deadline to consummate the deal. Failure to close, or any permanent court order to block the merger, could force Microsoft to pay a $3 billion breakup fee to Activision, according to the deal’s terms.

    The FTC lawsuit has put Microsoft under the harshest antitrust scrutiny in the US in more than two decades. It also could be a crucial test for the FTC at a time when it’s trying to rein in the tech industry broadly, with mixed success.

    In its initial challenge to the merger in its in-house court last year, the FTC alleged the deal would harm competition by turning Microsoft into the world’s third-largest video game publisher — allowing it to raise video game prices with impunity, restrict Activision titles from rival platforms and harm game quality and player experiences on consoles and gaming services.

    Some of those concerns have also been raised internationally. The UK government has challenged the acquisition, and the New Zealand government on Tuesday warned that the deal could be anticompetitive.

    Microsoft has sought to address the concerns by hammering out multi-year licensing agreements with competitors such as Nintendo and Nvidia to ensure that their platforms will continue to receive popular titles if the deal goes through.

    The company has also put forth an 11-point pledge to keep its platforms open, a commitment that applies not only to the Activision Blizzard deal but to virtually all of Microsoft’s gaming business going forward.

    Last month, Microsoft said the European Union would require it to license Activision games “automatically” to competing cloud gaming services as a condition of allowing the merger to proceed in the EU. That commitment, Microsoft said, “will apply globally and will empower millions of consumers worldwide to play these games on any device they choose.”

    Although EU regulators have said the concession addresses their concerns, officials in the US and the UK are continuing with their legal opposition to the deal.

    The standoff particularly focuses attention on FTC Chair Lina Khan, a tech industry critic who has argued for litigating difficult cases and for introducing novel legal theories to help adapt US antitrust law to the digital age.

    Khan won a significant victory last year when the FTC forced Nvidia to abandon its attempted acquisition of the chipmaker Arm. The deal would have combined two companies in adjacent industries in what is known as a vertical merger, a type of deal that is rarely blocked in the United States.

    But Khan also suffered a setback when the FTC unsuccessfully tried to block Facebook-parent Meta from acquiring Within Unlimited, a virtual reality startup. The FTC had argued that the acquisition was an attempt by Meta to quash competition in the nascent VR industry, but earlier this year, a federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction of the kind the FTC now seeks against Microsoft. The FTC dropped its case against Meta soon after.

    [ad_2]

    Source link