ReportWire

Tag: Meta Platforms Inc

  • The year that brought Silicon Valley back down to earth | CNN Business

    The year that brought Silicon Valley back down to earth | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    On the first trading day of 2022, Apple hit a new milestone for the tech industry: the iPhone maker became the first publicly traded company to hit a $3 trillion market cap, with Microsoft and Google not far behind. As eye-popping as that valuation was, there were headlines speculating about how long it would be before Apple and its rivals topped $5 trillion.

    The tech industry, already dominant, only seemed destined to grow even bigger at the start of this year. The spread of the Omicron variant suggested a continued pandemic-fueled demand for digital goods and services, which had buoyed many tech companies. Near 0% interest rates meant startups still had easy access to the funding that had fueled their high valuations and risky ventures.

    But the year is ending on a much different note. A perfect storm of factors have forced a dizzying reality check for the once high-flying tech sector, making it one of the biggest losers of 2022.

    Over the course of the year, pandemic-era demand for many tech tools shifted; inflation soared; interest rates rose and fears of a looming recession weighed on consumer and advertiser spending, the latter of which makes up the core business of many household names in tech.

    The result was a bloodbath unlike anything the tech industry has seen in the past decade. Tech stocks plunged, amid a broader market downturn. Tens of thousands of rank-and-file tech workers lost their livelihoods amid mass layoffs, both at tech giants like Amazon and Facebook-parent Meta as well as at smaller tech companies like Lyft, Peloton and Stripe. The crypto world all but imploded. And an entire industry known for burning cash on ambitious moonshots instead started shutting down projects and announcing cost-cutting efforts.

    Even the title of world’s richest man, which previously belonged to serial tech founder Elon Musk, ended up passing to Bernard Arnault, the chairman of French luxury goods giant LVMH, after Musk’s chaotic purchase of Twitter appeared to sour investors on his car company, Tesla.

    The sharp shift in sentiment not only removed the air of invincibility for the industry; it also exposed some of its underlying myths. For years, Silicon Valley has held up its founders as visionaries who can see far into the future. But suddenly, many of its most prominent founders had to admit a harsh truth: they couldn’t even predict two years ahead.

    As Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg put it in a memo to staff last month announcing the company would cut 11,000 employees: “Unfortunately, this did not play out the way I expected.”

    He was far from the only one in the industry caught off guard.

    When the pandemic upended the broader economy in early 2020, tech firms only seemed to grow bigger and more powerful as people were forced to live out their lives online. Facebook (now Meta) could afford to nearly double its headcount and make multi-billion-dollar bets on a future version of the internet dubbed the metaverse. Amazon similarly went on a hiring spree and doubled its fulfilment center footprint to meet the surge in online shopping demand.

    “At the start of Covid, the world rapidly moved online and the surge of e-commerce led to outsized revenue growth,” Zuckerberg wrote in his memo to staff last month. “Many people predicted this would be a permanent acceleration that would continue even after the pandemic ended. I did too, so I made the decision to significantly increase our investments.”

    Then the market shifted.

    “People are terrible at predicting the future, and we always think that what’s happening now is going to happen forever,” Angela Lee, a professor at Columbia Business School who teaches venture capital, leadership, and strategy courses, told CNN. “But the reality is that the pandemic was a black swan event, and none of us knew what would happen going forward.”

    One by one, the visionaries of Silicon Valley issued mea culpas. The founders of Stripe, Twitter and Facebook each took turns admitting they either grew their companies too quickly or were overly optimistic about pandemic-fueled growth in their sector.

    “We were much too optimistic about the internet economy’s near-term growth in 2022 and 2023 and underestimated both the likelihood and impact of a broader slowdown,” Patrick Collison, CEO of Stripe, wrote in a note to employees last month announcing 14% of the staff would be cut.

    It wasn’t only a shift in consumers living their lives offline again that hurt the industry. The tech sector was particularly pummeled by the impacts of rising interest rates this year. Silicon Valley as a whole is arguably more sensitive to interest rate hikes than other industries, as many tech companies rely on easy access to funding to pursue their ambitious projects, typically before even turning a profit.

    In a move to tame inflation, the Fed approved seven-straight rate hikes in 2022. Since the beginning of the year, the tech-heavy Nasdaq index shed more than 30% as of Dec. 21. By comparison, the Nasdaq soared more than 40% in 2020 and a further 20% in 2021. And the S&P 500’s Information Technology sector shed more than 28% this year through Dec. 21, considerably higher than the broader S&P 500’s fall of just 19% over that same period.

    Apple’s market cap now hovers just above $2 trillion. Amazon’s stock has shed some 50% year to date. And shares for Meta have been hit even harder, losing nearly two thirds of their value in 2022. Once a trillion-dollar business last year, Meta has since seen its market value drop below companies like Home Depot.

    The shift in sentiment for tech has also hit the next generation of companies that aspire to be household names.

    Global venture funding hit a nine quarter low of $74.5 billion in the third quarter of 2022, according to data from analytics firm CB Insights. This marked the largest quarterly percentage drop in a decade (34%), and a 58% decline from the investment peak reached in the fourth quarter of 2021.

    In another sign of how this played out in the startup world: more than two new unicorns (startups valued at $1 billion or more) were born on average per business day in 2021, according separate data from CB Insights. That rate dropped to a pace of less than one new unicorn for every other business day in the third quarter of 2022, per CB Insights’ most recent analysis, the lowest since the first quarter of 2020.

    Lee, who is also the founder of investing network 37 Angels, said when she met with tech founders this year, “I have said these words, which is, ‘I might have done this deal last year, but I am not going to do it now.’ And I’ve heard a lot of other people say that as well.”

    While the belt tightening might be painful for tech founders, Lee says she views it as a good thing for the tech industry overall. Many industry insiders have long said these sorts of corrections can help weed out some of the excess in the market and ensure more financially viable companies are the ones that survive.

    “Right now, there are like a lot of headlines that are just like, ‘The sky is falling, the end is near,’ and the way that I describe it is more of like a return to normalcy,” said Lee, noting that most charts tracking VC spending (from the number of mega-rounds to the number of IPOs) had a huge hump in 2020 and 2021 when interest rates were low, and now these charts are starting to look like how they did in 2019.

    “I would just call it like a ‘return to sanity,’ versus like, ‘the sky is falling,’” Lee said. “I do not think venture is cratering, or the tech industry is cratering as an industry.”

    But for now, at least, there appears to be no end in sight to the pain for Silicon Valley and those who work in it.

    In his own memo acknowledging job cuts at Amazon, CEO Andy Jassy said the layoffs at Amazon, reported to total some 10,000 roles, would continue into 2023. At a conference last month, he called the earlier hiring spree a “lesson” for everybody.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These 20 stocks were the biggest losers of 2022

    These 20 stocks were the biggest losers of 2022

    [ad_1]

    This has been the year of reckoning for Big Tech stocks — even those of companies that have continued to grow sales by double digits.

    Below is a list of the 20 stocks in the S&P 500
    SPX,
    -0.72%

    that have declined the most in 2022.

    First, here’s how the 11 sectors of the benchmark index have performed this year:

    S&P 500 sector

    2022 price change

    Forward P/E

    Forward P/E as of Dec. 31, 2021

    Energy

    57.8%

    9.6

    11.1

    Utilities

    -0.5%

    18.8

    20.4

    Consumer Staples

    -2.7%

    20.9

    21.8

    Healthcare

    -3.2%

    17.4

    17.2

    Industrials

    -6.7%

    18.0

    20.8

    Financials

    -12.1%

    11.7

    14.6

    Materials

    -13.4%

    15.6

    16.6

    Real Estate

    -27.7%

    16.2

    24.2

    Information Technology

    -28.8%

    19.6

    28.1

    Consumer Discretionary

    -37.4%

    20.7

    33.2

    Communication Services

    -40.4%

    14.0

    20.8

    S&P 500

    -19.2%

    16.5

    21.4

    Source: FactSet

    The energy sector has been the only one to show a gain in 2022, and it has been a whopper, even as West Texas Intermediate crude oil
    CL.1,
    +0.41%

    has given up most of its gains from earlier in the year. Here’s why investors are still confident in the supply/demand setup for oil and energy stocks.

    Looking at the worst-performing sectors, you might wonder why the consumer discretionary and communication services sectors have fared worse than information-technology, the core tech sector. One reason is that S&P Dow Jones Indices can surprise investors with its sector choices. The consumer discretionary sector includes Tesla Inc.
    TSLA,
    +0.70%

    and Amazon.com Inc.
    AMZN,
    -1.17%
    ,
    which has fallen nearly 50% this year. The communications sector includes Meta Platforms Inc.
    META,
    -1.21%
    ,
    along with Match Group Inc.
    MTCH,
    +0.50%
    ,
    which is down 69% for 2022, and Netflix Inc.
    NFLX,
    -0.44%
    ,
    which is down 52% this year.

    There have been many reasons easy to cite for Big Tech’s decline, such as a questionable change in strategy for Facebook’s holding company, Meta, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg has put so much of the company’s resources into developing a new world that most people don’t wish to enter, at least yet. Meta’s shares were down 64% for 2022 through Dec. 29.

    You might also blame the Twitter-related antics and sales of Tesla shares by CEO Elon Musk for the 65% decline in the electric-vehicle maker’s stock this year. But Tesla had a forward price-to-earnings ratio of 120.3 at the end of 2021, while the S&P 500
    SPX,
    -0.72%

    traded for 21.4 times its weighted forward earnings estimate, according to FactSet. Those P/E ratios have now declined to 21.7 and 16.4, respectively. So Tesla no longer appears to be a very expensive stock, especially for a company that increased its vehicle deliveries by 42% in the third quarter from a year earlier.

    Analysts polled by FactSet expect Tesla’s stock to double during 2023. It nearly made this list of 20 EV stocks expected to rebound the most in 2023.

    The worst-performing S&P 500 stocks of 2022

    Here are the 20 stocks in the S&P 500 that fell the most for 2022 through the close on Dec. 29.

    Company

    Ticker

    2022 price change

    Forward P/E

    Forward P/E as of Dec. 32, 2021

    Generac Holdings Inc.

    GNRC,
    -0.84%
    -71.4%

    13.7

    30.2

    Match Group Inc.

    MTCH,
    +0.50%
    -68.9%

    20.1

    48.5

    Align Technology Inc.

    ALGN,
    -0.52%
    -67.7%

    27.4

    48.7

    Tesla Inc.

    TSLA,
    +0.70%
    -65.4%

    21.7

    120.3

    SVB Financial Group

    SIVB,
    -0.38%
    -65.4%

    10.8

    23.0

    Catalent Inc.

    CTLT,
    -0.40%
    -64.6%

    13.0

    32.5

    Meta Platforms Inc. Class A

    META,
    -1.21%
    -64.2%

    14.7

    23.5

    Signature Bank

    SBNY,
    -0.34%
    -64.1%

    6.2

    18.6

    PayPal Holdings Inc.

    PYPL,
    -0.01%
    -62.6%

    14.8

    36.0

    V.F. Corp.

    VFC,
    +0.15%
    -62.5%

    11.9

    20.4

    Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Series A

    WBD,
    -1.64%
    -59.9%

    N/A

    7.5

    Carnival Corp.

    CCL,
    -0.23%
    -59.8%

    38.1

    N/A

    Stanley Black & Decker Inc.

    SWK,
    -0.42%
    -59.8%

    17.0

    15.9

    Lumen Technologies Inc.

    LUMN,
    -1.79%
    -57.8%

    7.7

    7.8

    Zebra Technologies Corp. Class A

    ZBRA,
    -0.44%
    -56.7%

    14.5

    30.1

    Dish Network Corp. Class A

    DISH,
    -0.96%
    -56.5%

    8.6

    10.9

    Caesars Entertainment Inc.

    CZR,
    +0.24%
    -55.7%

    51.4

    144.5

    Lincoln National Corp.

    LNC,
    +0.26%
    -55.1%

    3.4

    6.2

    Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

    AMD,
    -0.97%
    -55.0%

    17.8

    43.1

    Seagate Technology Holdings PLC

    STX,
    -0.55%
    -53.1%

    15.0

    12.4

    Source: FactSet

    Click on the tickers for more information about the companies.

    Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available for free on the MarketWatch quote page.

    Another way of measuring the biggest stock-market losers of 2022

    It is one thing to have a large decline based on the share price, but that doesn’t tell the entire story. How much of a decline have investors seen in the holdings of their shares during the year? The S&P 500’s total market capitalization declined to $31.66 trillion as of Dec. 28 (the most recent figure available) from $40.36 trillion at the end of 2021, according to FactSet.

    Shareholders of these companies have suffered the largest declines in market cap during 2022.

    Company

    Ticker

    2022 market capitalization change ($bil)

    2022 price change

    Apple Inc.

    AAPL,
    -0.63%
    -$851

    -27.0%

    Amazon.com Inc.

    AMZN,
    -1.17%
    -$832

    -49.5%

    Microsoft Corp.

    MSFT,
    -1.15%
    -$728

    -28.3%

    Tesla Inc.

    TSLA,
    +0.70%
    -$677

    -65.4%

    Meta Platforms Inc. Class A

    META,
    -1.21%
    -$465

    -64.2%

    Nvidia Corp.

    NVDA,
    -1.37%
    -$376

    -50.3%

    PayPal Holdings Inc.

    PYPL,
    -0.01%
    -$141

    -62.6%

    Netflix Inc.

    NFLX,
    -0.44%
    -$138

    -51.7%

    Walt Disney Co.

    DIS,
    -1.62%
    -$123

    -43.7%

    Salesforce Inc.

    CRM,
    -0.96%
    -$118

    -47.8%

    Source: FactSet

    So there is your surprise for today: Apple is this year’s biggest stock-market loser.

    Don’t miss: Best stock picks for 2023: Here are Wall Street analysts’ most heavily favored choices

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The tech IPO market collapsed in 2022, and next year doesn’t look much better

    The tech IPO market collapsed in 2022, and next year doesn’t look much better

    [ad_1]

    The Nasdaq MarketSite in New York.

    Michael Nagle | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Following a record-smashing tech IPO year in 2021 that featured the debuts of electric car maker Rivian, restaurant software company Toast, cloud software vendors GitLab and HashiCorp and stock-trading app Robinhood, 2022 has been a complete dud.

    The only notable tech offering in the U.S. this year was Intel’s spinoff of Mobileye, a 23-year-old company that makes technology for self-driving cars and was publicly traded until its acquisition in 2017. Mobileye raised just under $1 billion, and no other U.S. tech IPO pulled in even $100 million, according to FactSet.

    related investing news

    CNBC Pro

    In 2021, by contrast, there were at least 10 tech IPOs in the U.S. that raised $1 billion or more, and that doesn’t account for the direct listings of Roblox, Coinbase and Squarespace, which were so well-capitalized they didn’t need to bring in outside cash.

    The narrative completely flipped when the calendar turned, with investors bailing on risk and the promise of future growth, in favor of profitable businesses with balance sheets deemed strong enough to weather an economic downturn and sustained higher interest rates. Pre-IPO companies altered their plans after seeing their public market peers plunge by 50%, 60%, and in some cases, more than 90% from last year’s highs.

    In total, IPO deal proceeds plummeted 94% in 2022 — from $155.8 billion to $8.6 billion — according to Ernst & Young’s IPO report published in mid-December. As of the report’s publication date, the fourth quarter was on pace to be the weakest of the year.

    With the Nasdaq Composite headed for its steepest annual slump since 2008 and its first back-to-back years underperforming the S&P 500 since 2006-2007, tech investors are looking for signs of a bottom.

    But David Trainer, CEO of stock research firm New Constructs, says investors first need to get a grip on reality and get back to valuing emerging tech companies based on fundamentals and not far-out promises.

    As tech IPOs were flying in 2020 and 2021, Trainer was waving the warning flag, putting out detailed reports on software, e-commerce and tech-adjacent companies that were taking their sky-high private market valuations to the public markets. Trainer’s calls appeared comically bearish when the market was soaring, but many of his picks look prescient today, with Robinhood, Rivian and Sweetgreen each down at least 85% from their highs last year.

    “Until we see a persistent return to intelligent capital allocation as the primary driver of investment decisions, I think the IPO market will struggle,” Trainer said in an email. “Once investors focus on fundamentals again, I think the markets can get back to doing what they are supposed to do: support intelligent allocation of capital.”

    Lynn Martin, president of the New York Stock Exchange, told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” last week that she’s “optimistic about 2023” because the “backlog has never been stronger,” and that activity will pick up once volatility in the market starts to dissipate.

    NYSE president very optimistic about 2023 public listings: 'Backlogs never been stronger'

    Hangover from last year’s ‘binge drinking’

    For companies in the pipeline, the problem isn’t as simple as overcoming a bear market and volatility. They also have to acknowledge that the valuations they achieved from private investors don’t reflect the change in public market sentiment.

    Companies that were funded over the past few years did so at the tail end of an extended bull run, during which interest rates were at historic lows and tech was driving major changes in the economy. Facebook’s mega IPO in 2012 and the millionaires minted by the likes of Uber, Airbnb, Twilio and Snowflake recycled money back into the tech ecosystem.

    Venture capital firms, meanwhile, raised ever larger funds, competing with a new crop of hedge funds and private equity firms that were pumping so much money into tech that many companies were opting to stay private for longer than they otherwise would.

    Money was plentiful. Financial discipline was not.

    In 2021, VC firms raised $131 billion, topping $100 billion for the first time and marking a second straight year over $80 billion, according to the National Venture Capital Association. The average post-money valuation for VC deals across all stages rose to $360 million in 2021 from about $200 million the prior year, the NVCA said.

    Those valuations are in the rearview mirror, and any companies who raised during that period will have to face up to reality before they go public.

    Some high-valued late-stage startups have already taken their lumps, though they may not be dramatic enough.

    Stripe cut its internal valuation by 28% in July, from $95 billion to $74 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter. Checkout.com slashed its valuation this month to $11 billion from $40 billion, according to the Financial Times. Instacart has taken a hit three times, reducing its valuation from $39 billion to $24 billion in May, then to $15 billion in July, and finally to $13 billion in October, according to The Information.

    Klarna, a provider of buy now, pay later technology, suffered perhaps the steepest drop in value among big-name startups. The Stockholm-based company raised financing at a $6.7 billion valuation this year, an 85% discount to its prior valuation of $46 billion.

    “There was a hangover from all the binge drinking in 2021,” said Don Butler, managing director at Thomvest Ventures.

    Butler doesn’t expect the IPO market to get appreciably better in 2023. Ongoing rate hikes by the Federal Reserve are looking more likely to tip the economy into recession, and there are no signs yet that investors are excited to take on risk.

    “What I’m seeing is that companies are looking at weakening b-to-b demand and consumer demand,” Butler said. “That’s going to make for a difficult ’23 as well.”

    Butler also thinks that Silicon Valley has to adapt to a shift away from the growth-first mindset before the IPO market picks up again. That not only means getting more efficient with capital, showing a near-term path to profitability, and reining in hiring expectations, but also requires making structural changes to the way organizations run.

    For example, startups have poured money into human resources in recent years to handle the influx in people and the aggressive recruiting across the industry. There’s far less need for those jobs during a hiring freeze, and in a market that’s seen 150,000 job cuts in 2022, according to tracking website Layoffs.fyi.

    Butler said he expects this “cultural reset” to take a couple more quarters and said, “that makes me remain pessimistic on the IPO market.”

    Cash is king

    One high-priced private company that has maintained its valuation is Databricks, whose software helps customers store and clean up data so employees can analyze and use it.

    Databricks raised $1.6 billion at a $38 billion valuation in August of 2021, near the market’s peak. As of mid-2021, the company was on pace to generate $1 billion in annual revenue, growing 75% year over year. It was on everybody’s list for top IPO candidates coming into the year.

    Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi isn’t talking about an IPO now, but at least he’s not expressing concerns about his company’s capital position. In fact, he says being private today plays to his advantage.

    “If you’re public, the only thing that matters is cash flow right now and what are you doing every day to increase your cash flow,” Ghodsi told CNBC. “I think it’s short-sighted, but I understand that’s what markets demand right now. We’re not public, so we don’t have to live by that.”

    Ghodsi said Databricks has “a lot of cash,” and even in a “sky is falling” scenario like the dot-com crash of 2000, the company “would be fully financed in a very healthy way without having to raise any money.”

    Snowflake shares in 2022

    CNBC

    Databricks has avoided layoffs and Ghodsi said the company plans to continue to hire to take advantage of readily available talent.

    “We’re in a unique position, because we’re extremely well-capitalized and we’re private,” Ghodsi said. “We’re going to take an asymmetric strategy with respect to investments.”

    That approach may make Databricks an attractive IPO candidate at some point in the future, but the valuation question remains a lingering concern.

    Snowflake, the closest public market comparison to Databricks, has lost almost two-thirds of its value since peaking in November 2021. Snowflake’s IPO in 2020 was the largest ever in the U.S. for a software company, raising almost $3.9 billion.

    Snowflake’s growth has remained robust. Revenue in the latest quarter soared 67%, beating estimates. Adjusted profit was also better than expectations, and the company said it generated $65 million in free cash flow in the quarter.

    Still, the stock is down almost 20% in the fourth quarter.

    “The sentiment in the market is a little stressed out,” Snowflake CEO Frank Slootman told CNBC’s Jim Cramer after the earnings report on Nov. 30. “People react very strongly. That’s understood, but we live in the real world, and we just go one day at a time, one quarter at a time.”

    — CNBC’s Jordan Novet contributed to this report.

    WATCH: Snowflake CEO on the company’s light guidance

    Snowflake CEO on the company's light guidance

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As Buffalo officers fan out to perform welfare checks, harrowing accounts emerge of those who died in the storm | CNN

    As Buffalo officers fan out to perform welfare checks, harrowing accounts emerge of those who died in the storm | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As police in Buffalo, New York, sifted through 911 and welfare check calls dating back to the earlier days of the deadly winter storm, harrowing accounts of those lost in the storm have emerged.

    Among the victims was Monique Alexander, a 52-year-old mother who died in the Buffalo storm, her daughter Casey Maccarone said. Alexander had rushed out of the house as conditions were worsening, saying she would be right back, Maccarone said.

    Two hours later, when she had not returned, her daughter said she posted on a Buffalo blizzard Facebook group asking if anyone had seen her mom. Just minutes later, a stranger messaged her and asked to call her, Maccarone said.

    “He just instantly broke down crying,” Maccarone said. “He was stranded as well and he was walking down the street and he saw her in the snow. So he picked her up and he placed her under the awning … so that she wouldn’t get snowed on anymore.”

    “Her grand kids were waiting for her to come home. We were waiting for her to come home,” Maccarone said.

    The death toll in Erie County, New York, climbed to 37 by Tuesday evening as first responders went door-to-door and car-to-car checking on people they couldn’t reach days ago, when a blizzard swept through the area, trapping residents and snarling emergency response during the holiday weekend.

    It took until Wednesday evening for Buffalo Police to announce they were done following up on the unanswered 911 and welfare check calls – which at some point reached 1,100 calls, Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph A. Gramaglia said.

    Some officers checking on residents arrived to find that, in some cases, they were too late.

    “It’s a grueling, gruesome task that they had to do,” Gramaglia said. “They recovered a substantial amount of bodies and it’s terrible.”

    Some people have been found dead in cars, on streets or in snowbanks, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said.

    Among the storm’s victims is Anndel Taylor, 22, whose family said she was found dead in Buffalo over the holiday weekend after getting trapped in her car by the blizzard.

    After losing contact with her, her family also posted her location to a private Facebook page related to the storm to ask for help, and a man called to say he had found her without a pulse, her sister said.

    Also among the fatalities was 46-year-old Melissa Morrison, a Buffalo mother of two whose body was found in the snow near a Tim Horton’s, her mother Linda Addeo told CNN.

    Addeo had worried about her daughter after her son came across social media posts on Friday about a body that was found near the coffee shop that Morrison lived by, she said.

    On Tuesday, the coroner’s office informed the family that the same body was positively identified as that of Morrison, Addeo said.

    Another storm-related death involved a 26-year-old man, Abdul Sharifu, who left to get provisions for a family who asked for his help on Saturday morning, his cousin Ally Sharifu told CNN.

    His wife – who is pregnant and days away from giving birth – woke up that evening to find him gone. After sharing a photo of the missing man on Facebook in a desperate attempt to find him, the family got a call about a man who was found lying on the street and rushed to a children’s hospital, Ally Sharifu said.

    Ally Sharifu said he ended up identifying his cousin’s body at a hospital the next morning. Abdul Sharifu and his cousin are refugees from Congo who were resettled in the US in 2017 after they lived for about five years in a refugee camp in Burundi, Ally Sharifu said.

    “The stories are heartbreaking, just heartbreaking,” Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said.

    The police commissioner said he expects that rising temperatures in the coming days will melt the snow and uncover more storm victims. Officers will be out on Thursday searching in areas where bodies were reported but never found, Gramaglia said.

    The winter storm’s grim effects have been widespread, with reports of fatalities stretching beyond New York and across 11 other US states. There have in total been least 62 storm-related deaths reported nationwide, and they mainly involved weather-related traffic accidents or fatalities related to the cold.

    Ohio confirmed 9 weather-related deaths, Colorado recorded 2 deaths, Kansas and Kentucky confirmed 3 deaths each, South Carolina confirmed 2 deaths, and Missouri, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin each recorded one storm-related death.

    Sha'Kyra Aughtry helps a man she found stranded in the snow in Buffalo

    As emergency services were restored in Buffalo, the New York National Guard said they made at least 86 rescues, including getting a woman to the hospital just before she gave birth.

    Police were also back out, making ten arrests in Buffalo as of Wednesday in connection with suspected winter storm looting, the police commissioner said in a Wednesday news conference.

    But, Mayor Brown stressed, “This is a minority of individuals.”

    “In typical ‘city of good neighbors’ fashion, people have come together – they’ve assisted each other. Neighbors have helped neighbors. Friends have helped friends, and members of this community have helped people that they have never met before,” the mayor said Wednesday.

    One Buffalo woman, Sha’Kyra Aughtry, said she looked out her window on Christmas Eve to find a frostbitten man calling for help in the frigid cold.

    Her boyfriend carried the man, 64-year-old Joe White, into the house, and she used a blow dryer to melt the ice off his red and blistered hands, Aughtry said.

    After she called 911 and no one came to help, Aughtry said, she took to Facebook to plead for assistance and ended up getting White to the hospital with help from good Samaritans who came and snowplowed them out, she said.

    Social media also proved useful when a woman went into labor two days before Christmas.

    When Erica Thomas began having contractions, the snow from the winter storm had piled up about halfway up the front door of her Buffalo home and she and her husband, Davon Thomas, couldn’t get out.

    The soon-to-be father called 911 for help and was told they’d attempt to get an emergency vehicle there as soon as possible. He was later told responders had attempted to get to their house but couldn’t.

    Davon Thomas called a friend who made a post for the couple on a Buffalo Facebook group, asking for help and the couple ended up getting in touch with Raymonda Reynolds, an experienced doula of five years.

    Reynolds and her friend, doula and nurse Iva Blackburn, got on a video call with the couple and guided them through delivering the baby and cutting the umbilical cord.

    “We started screaming like it was a Buffalo Bills touchdown,” Reynolds said, describing the moment the baby girl was born. “It was the most beautiful thing I’ve been a part of.”

    In another act of kindness, a Buffalo barbershop owner, Craig Elston, ended up opening his store for people to seek refuge from the storm. “A lot of people slept in the barber chairs a lot of people put the chairs together,” Elston said.

    “I was just thinking about just keeping people warm. It was really that simple,” he said.

    Vehicles drive down Jefferson Avenue in Buffalo on Wednesday, December 28, 2022.

    After six days of restrictions on traveling while road conditions were unsafe, Buffalo is lifting its winter storm driving ban at midnight Thursday and replacing it with a travel advisory, Poloncarz announced.

    The driving ban had been in place in Buffalo since Friday morning.

    “We still have a ways to go but we have come a long way in just a couple of days. This will allow our residents to get back to work – allow them to get to supermarkets, pharmacies, and to get to medical appointments,” Mayor Brown said.

    Poloncarz was asked Wednesday about the timing of the driving ban, and whether there had been discussion among officials about issuing it earlier.

    Officials started discussing a potential ban Thursday, Poloncarz said, but they initially believed the snow band wouldn’t reach the Erie County until 10 a.m. the next morning.

    On Friday morning, temperatures “dropped dramatically,” but whiteout conditions didn’t hit until about 10 a.m., he noted, after the ban was issued.

    “If anyone is to be blamed, you can blame me. I’m the one who has to make the final call on behalf of the county,” Poloncarz said.

    Poloncarz also criticized how Buffalo’s mayor has handled storm cleanup efforts, saying Brown has not been on daily coordination calls with other municipalities and that the city has been slow to reopen.

    When asked about those remarks, the mayor told CNN, “I’m not concerned about those comments, my concern is for the residents of the city of Buffalo.”

    Hundreds of pieces of equipment were plowing and hauling snow on Wednesday, and most streets were passable in Buffalo by the evening, Brown announced in a Wednesday evening update.

    As temperatures warm up, there have been concerns about a possible “rapid melt” leading to flooding, Erie County officials said.

    The Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services Commissioner Daniel J. Neaverth, Jr. said they feel “very comfortable” in their positioning to be able to handle potential flooding.

    “We have an ample supply ready to go ready to be deployed with personnel in the event that we have some type of flooding,” Neaverth said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta agrees to pay $725 million to settle lawsuit over Cambridge Analytica data leak | CNN Business

    Meta agrees to pay $725 million to settle lawsuit over Cambridge Analytica data leak | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Facebook parent company Meta has agreed to pay $725 million to settle a longstanding class action lawsuit accusing it of allowing Cambridge Analytica and other third parties to access private user information and misleading users about its privacy practices.

    The proposed settlement would end the legal battle that began four years ago, shortly after the company disclosed that the private information of as many as 87 million Facebook users was obtained by Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm that worked with the Trump campaign. The data leak sparked an intense international scandal for Facebook, drawing the scrutiny of regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.

    The lawsuit involved obtaining millions of pages of documents from Facebook and other related parties and hundreds of hours of depositions, including dozens of current and former Facebook employees.

    The users settling with Facebook called the agreement the “largest recovery ever achieved in a data privacy class action and the most Facebook has ever paid to resolve a private class action” in a motion to approve the settlement filed Thursday. They estimated that between 250 and 280 million people may be eligible for payments as part of the class action settlement.

    The settlement is pending approval from a judge, who will hear the motion in March.

    “We pursued a settlement as it’s in the best interest of our community and shareholders,” Meta spokesperson Dina Luce said in a statement. “Over the last three years we revamped our approach to privacy and implemented a comprehensive privacy program. We look forward to continuing to build services people love and trust with privacy at the forefront.”

    Meta did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. In the motion to approve the settlement, the users who brought the suit pointed to changes Facebook has made in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica breach, including restricting third-party access to user data and improving communications to users about how their data is collected and shared.

    The Cambridge Analytica leak began with a psychology professor who harvested data on millions of Facebook users through an app offering a personality test, then gave it to a service promising to use vague and sophisticated techniques to influence voters during a high-stakes election where the winning presidential candidate won narrowly in several key states.

    A 2020 report by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office later cast significant doubt on Cambridge Analytica’s capabilities, suggesting many of them had been exaggerated. But the improper sharing of Facebook data triggered a cascade of events that has culminated in investigations and lawsuits.

    The scandal prompted a global outcry that led to hearings, an apology tour from Zuckerberg and various changes to the platform. Facebook agreed in 2019 to a $5 billion privacy settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission over the privacy breach, and to a $100 million settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission over claims that it misled investors about the risks of misuse of user data.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No directive: FBI agents, tech executives deny government ordered Twitter to suppress Hunter Biden story | CNN Politics

    No directive: FBI agents, tech executives deny government ordered Twitter to suppress Hunter Biden story | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Internal Twitter communications released by the company’s new owner and CEO, Elon Musk, are fueling intense scrutiny of the FBI’s efforts alongside social media companies to thwart foreign disinformation in the run-up to the 2020 election.

    At the heart of the controversy is Twitter’s decision in October 2020 to block users from sharing a New York Post story containing material from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. Conservative critics have accused Twitter of suppressing the story at the behest of the FBI, something they claim the released communications, dubbed the “Twitter Files,” demonstrate.

    Musk himself has alleged the communications show government censorship, suggesting Twitter acted “under orders from the government” when it suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story.

    But so far, none of the released messages explicitly show the FBI telling Twitter to suppress the story. In fact, the opposite view emerges from sworn testimony by an FBI agent at the center of the controversy. And in interviews with CNN, half a dozen tech executives and senior staff, along with multiple federal officials familiar with the matter, all deny any such directive was given.

    “We would never go to a company to say you need to squelch this story,” said one former FBI official who helped oversee the government’s cooperation with companies including Twitter, Google and Facebook.

    Musk and his conservative allies have insinuated the released messages provide evidence of illicit behavior by the FBI, suggesting the exchange of secret files pertaining to Hunter Biden, and improper payments made to Twitter. But CNN’s interviews with people directly involved with the interactions and with those who have reviewed the documents disprove those claims.

    Matt Taibbi, one of the journalists Musk tapped this month to comb through Twitter internal messages for evidence of free speech violations, said himself on December 2 that “there is no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story.”

    What is clear, however, is that following Russia’s meddling campaign in 2016, plus after years of interactions with federal agents about how to spot foreign disinformation efforts, Twitter executives were hyper suspicious of anything that looked like foreign influence and were primed to act, even without direction from the government.

    By the time the New York Post published its laptop story on October 14, 2020, Yoel Roth, Twitter’s then head of site integrity, had spent two years meeting with the FBI and other government officials. He was prepared for some kind of hack and leak operation.

    “There were lots of reasons why the entire industry was on alert,” Roth said at a conference in November, not long after he resigned from Twitter. Roth insists he was not in favor of blocking the story and thought the company’s decision was a mistake.

    As the released communications show, Twitter initially acted to suppress the story for a few days in part out of concerns that Hunter Biden, the son of the then-Democratic presidential candidate, was being targeted as part of a foreign election interference operation similar to the one Russia carried out in 2016.

    What Twitter did not know at the time was that Hunter Biden was the subject of a federal criminal investigation. Since as early as 2018, the Justice Department has been investigating Hunter Biden for his business activities in foreign countries. In late 2019, nearly a year before the story first emerged in the New York Post, the FBI had used a subpoena to obtain a laptop that Biden allegedly left behind at a Delaware computer repair store.

    According to sources at the FBI and at Twitter who spoke to CNN, none of that information was disclosed to Twitter executives trying to decide how to treat the laptop story, nor to anyone else for that matter.

    “It was an ongoing investigation, so I would never approve of talking about it,” said the former FBI official.

    While the released Twitter messages have yet to reveal a smoking gun showing the government ordered a social media company to suppress a story, Republicans on Capitol Hill say there are enough questions raised by the internal communications to merit calling tech executives to testify.

    Scrutiny is building around the role of Twitter’s recently-fired deputy general counsel James Baker, a former top FBI official who joined Twitter in the summer of 2020. The released documents show Baker was in regular contact with his former colleagues at the FBI, giving rise to rampant accusations from conservatives that he was the conduit for the government to pressure Twitter.

    In some of the material released by Twitter, an email shows Baker setting up a meeting – in the midst of Twitter’s internal deliberations about how to handle the New York Post story – with Matthew Perry, an attorney in the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. It is not clear what the two discussed.

    The FBI declined to discuss any communications Baker had with FBI officials once he arrived at Twitter.

    Baker is among a number of former Twitter executives called to testify this month by Republican Rep. James Comer, the incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee. Baker declined to comment for this story.

    Rep. James Comer (R-KY) attends a House Oversight Committee hearing on July 27, 2022

    Comer also wants to hear from several former US intelligence officials who, days after the laptop story broke, wrote an open letter saying it had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The group of former officials who signed the letter included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who, as a CNN contributor, appeared on the network to express his view.

    Though the former officials admitted, “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” their letter set the tone for much of the early discussion and coverage of the laptop.

    In a statement to CNN, the FBI said, “The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers.

    “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”

    Among the messages given the most attention from Musk and other critics are a series of emails between Roth and Elvis Chan, an FBI special agent based in San Francisco, where he focuses on cybersecurity and foreign influence on social media. On October 13, the day before New York Post story published, Chan instructed Roth to download ten documents on a secure portal.

    Roth responded, “received and downloaded – thanks!”

    Michael Shellenberger, who is among those Musk has entrusted with access to the internal messages, wrote about the Chan communication with Roth. Shellenberger does not describe the contents of the files, but he does insinuate that the timing of the message suggests Chan was secretly providing Roth information about the Hunter laptop.

    At the FBI’s headquarters in Washington, a team reviewing the internal communications released by Musk says it has identified the 10 documents Chan sent to Roth. “I reviewed all 10 of these documents personally and I can say explicitly there is nothing in these 10 documents about Hunter Biden’s laptop or about any related story to that,” an FBI official involved in the review told CNN.

    The official said eight of the documents pertained to “malign foreign influence actors and activities,” the FBI’s terminology for foreign government election meddling. The official said the other two documents were posts on Twitter the FBI flagged as potential evidence of election-related crimes, such as voter suppression activities.

    Another interaction that has drawn suspicion is an internal message from early 2021 that Shellenberger cites showing that the FBI paid Twitter $3.4 million beginning October 2019. In the message, an unnamed associate emails Baker saying, “I am happy to report we have collected $3,415,323 since October 2019!”

    The FBI says the bureau is obligated under federal law to reimburse companies for the cost they incur to satisfy subpoenas and other legal requests as part of the FBI’s investigative work.

    The FBI describes its discussions with Twitter as the type of information-sharing that Congress and both the Trump and Biden administrations encouraged to help tech companies and social media platforms protect themselves and their users. The released messages appear to show that FBI officials repeatedly noted that it was up to the content moderators at the company to take action if a post violated their rules.

    “All the information exchanged is about the actors and their activity,” a second FBI official who reviewed the communications told CNN. “What we are not providing is specifics about the content and the narrative. We are also not directing the platforms to do anything. We are just providing it for them to do as they see fit under their own terms of service to protect their platforms and customers.”

    After the 2016 election, social media executives knew they had a problem. Russian operatives had used their platforms to run a massive covert influence campaign to help elect Donald Trump, using bots to spread disinformation and sow division among Americans.

    To prepare for the next election, the executives set about bolstering their internal controls, including hiring former law enforcement and intelligence officials. But they also knew they had to forge a closer relationship with the US government to help root out foreign trolls and sources of disinformation.

    President Donald Trump chats with Russia's President Vladimir Putin at a summit in 2017.

    What followed were a series of regular meetings with federal agents that began in May 2018.

    The released communications as well as interviews with people involved in the meetings portray routine, friendly and sometimes tense contacts between company executives and the government officials with whom they regularly interacted. Among the released communications are lively exchanges between Twitter and the FBI, revealing some of the sensitivities — and tensions — at play as the government and Silicon Valley slowly figured out how to work together.

    One former FBI official who spoke to CNN recalls that tech executives would insist on meetings away from their campuses, in part because government agents weren’t welcome. Feelings in Silicon Valley toward the intelligence community were still raw since the Edward Snowden leaks detailed a vast data collection apparatus that targeted the tech companies.

    “Early on, who hosted the meeting was also a political football,” said a person familiar with the meetings between the government and Silicon Valley. “Each company wanted someone else to. There were worries about employees seeing a bunch of feds and leaking it in an inaccurate way.”

    One tech source, however, dismissed this and said companies offered their offices for the meetings out of a shared sense of responsibility.

    Nevertheless, the meetings went ahead. The first one took place at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park. Later meetings were held at Twitter and LinkedIn’s offices, a person familiar with the meetings told CNN.

    Some of the early interactions were terse. Reports published by CNN and other news organizations described complaints from some tech executives that the FBI was sharing only limited information, useless to help the companies protect their platforms.

    A telling moment came early on when a government lawyer lectured tech executives about the limits on what the government can do to help, multiple people who attended the meeting told CNN. One Silicon Valley executive described how the lawyer gave a 20-minute speech about the First Amendment and insisted that “government representatives can’t tell the companies to take any content down.”

    Former Twitter employees and FBI officials involved say that by 2020, their discussions had become better coordinated and useful to both sides. One indicator of how advantageous the relationship had become: By 2020, Facebook was issuing press releases about some of the discussions.

    Musk and other critics of the interactions point to released messages that they claim show a cozy relationship between the government and Twitter. But the messages also show Roth, Twitter’s then head of site integrity, repeatedly pushing back against asks from the FBI.

    At various points, the Twitter communications show Roth resisting pressure to reveal certain information about users absent a formal legal request, such as which third-party VPN services were used by some account-holders to access Twitter.

    Yoel Roth

    Roth also shut down a request that the company share more of its data with intelligence officials.

    Others within Twitter noted the US government’s interest in Twitter’s data and urged colleagues to “stay connected and keep a solid front against these efforts.”

    Conservative critics continue to blame Roth for Twitter’s suppression of the laptop story, but he insists he didn’t make the final call and says he thought it was a mistake. “It is widely reported that I personally directed the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story,” Roth said last month. “It is absolutely, unequivocally untrue.”

    Exactly who in Twitter’s leadership ultimately made the call to block the story remains unclear.

    In December 2020, Roth gave a sworn declaration to the Federal Election Commission saying the government had warned of expected hack-and-leak incidents targeting people associated with political campaigns. Roth said that he learned in the meetings with government agencies there were “rumors that a hack-and-leak operation would involve Hunter Biden.”

    Roth did not point to the government as the source of the rumor, but his claim that law enforcement agencies gave general warnings about disinformation campaigns dovetails with recent testimony from Chan, the FBI agent who played a key role in the meetings.

    Chan was deposed this year as part of a lawsuit brought by the Missouri attorney general alleging government censorship of social media. Chan disputed that the government told social media companies to “expect” hack-and-leak campaigns, saying that it would have only warned companies it was a possibility.

    That Hunter Biden might be the target of a hack-and-leak operation was being publicly discussed at the time, after it emerged that Burisma Holdings, a company he worked with in Ukraine had reportedly been hacked by Russian military intelligence early in 2020.

    Chan also testified that government agents never raised Hunter Biden specifically, and that his name came up only when a Facebook analyst asked specifically for relevant information. An FBI agent in the meeting declined to answer, Chan recalled, adding that she was likely not authorized to address the question because at the time the FBI had not publicly confirmed its Hunter Biden investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok banned on government devices under spending bill passed by Congress

    TikTok banned on government devices under spending bill passed by Congress

    [ad_1]

    Researchers at the University of Vermont analyzed 1,000 TikTok videos under the most popular hashtags related to body image and eating

    Jakub Porzycki | NurPhoto | Getty Images

    Under the bipartisan spending bill that passed both chambers of Congress on Friday, TikTok will be banned from government devices, underscoring the growing concern about the popular video-sharing app owned by China’s ByteDance.

    The bill, which still has to be signed into law by President Joe Biden, also calls on e-commerce platforms to do more vetting to help deter counterfeit goods from being sold online, and forces companies pursuing large mergers to pay more to file with federal antitrust agencies.

    related investing news

    CNBC Pro

    Congress failed to pass many of the most aggressive bills targeting tech, including antitrust legislation that would require app stores developed by Apple and Google to give developers more payment options, and a measure mandating new guardrails to protect kids online. And though Congress made more headway this year than in the past toward a compromise bill on national privacy standards, there remains only a patchwork of state laws determining how consumer data is protected.

    Center-left tech industry group Chamber of Progress cheered the exclusion of several antitrust bills that would have targeted its backers, which include Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta.

    “What you don’t see in this year’s omnibus are the more controversial measures that have raised red flags on issues like content moderation,” Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich said in a statement following the release of the package text earlier this week. The group earlier raised concerns about a prominent antitrust measure, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act.

    Another industry group, NetChoice, also applauded Congress for “refusing to include radical and unchecked progressive proposals to overhaul American antitrust law in this omnibus.”

    But the bills lawmakers passed in the spending package will still make their mark on the tech industry in other ways.

    TikTok ban on government devices

    The banning of TikTok on government devices could benefit rival platforms like Snap and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram that also fight for young consumers’ attention. The bill includes an exception for law enforcement, national security and research purposes.

    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as FBI Director Christopher Wray, have voiced fear that TikTok’s ownership structure could make U.S. user data vulnerable, since companies based in China may be required by law to hand over user information. TikTok has repeatedly said its U.S. user data is not based in China, though those assurances have done little to alleviate concern.

    The company has been working toward a deal with the administration to assuage national security fears through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.

    “We’re disappointed that Congress has moved to ban TikTok on government devices — a political gesture that will do nothing to advance national security interests — rather than encouraging the Administration to conclude its national security review,” a TikTok spokesperson said in a statement following the release of the package text. “The agreement under review by CFIUS will meaningfully address any security concerns that have been raised at both the federal and state level. These plans have been developed under the oversight of our country’s top national security agencies — plans that we are well underway in implementing — to further secure our platform in the United States, and we will continue to brief lawmakers on them.”

    Deterring online counterfeit sales

    The spending package also includes the INFORM Consumers Act, which seeks to deter counterfeit, stolen or harmful products from being sold online. The bill requires online marketplaces like Amazon to promptly collect information like bank and contact details from “any high-volume third party seller” and to verify that data.

    Though Amazon initially opposed the bill last year, writing that it was “pushed by some big-box retailers” and claiming it would punish small businesses that sell online, the company ended up supporting a version of the bill, saying it was important to have a federal standard rather than a patchwork of state laws. Etsy and eBay had earlier supported the bill.

    “Passing the bipartisan INFORM Act would be a major victory for consumers, who deserve to know who they’re buying from when they visit an online marketplace,” Kovacevich said in a statement. “This legislation has been through years of hearings and markups and has earned the support of both parties as well as brick-and-mortar stores and online marketplaces.”

    Etsy’s head of Americas advocacy and public policy, Jeffrey Zubricki, said in a statement the bill “will achieve our shared goal of protecting consumers from bad actors while avoiding overly broad disclosure requirements that would harm our sellers’ privacy and hinder their ability to run their creative businesses.”

    Higher fees for big mergers

    While more ambitious antitrust measures targeting digital platforms didn’t make it into the end-of-year legislation, there is one bill to help raise money for the antitrust agencies that scrutinize mergers. The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act will raise the cost companies pursuing large mergers must pay to file with the antitrust agencies, as they’re required to do under the law. The bill also lowers the cost for smaller deals and allows the fees to be adjusted each year based on the consumer price index.

    The measure is meant to help fund the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Antitrust Division, which have seen a large uptick in merger filings over the past few years without adequate budget increases.

    While it fell short of antitrust advocates’ hopes, the inclusion of the merger filing fee bill still gained praise.

    “This is a major milestone for the anti-monopoly movement,” said Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, backed in part by the Omidyar Network. Miller said the bill will “significantly strengthen antitrust law for the first time since 1976.”

    “Big Tech, Big Ag and Big Pharma spent extraordinary sums in an unprecedented effort to keep Congress from delivering on antitrust reform and undermine the ability of state and federal enforcers to uphold the law — and they lost,” Miller added.

    Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who sponsored the bill, said in a statement earlier this week its inclusion “is an important step to restructure merger fees after decades of the status quo so we can provide our antitrust enforcers with the resources they need to do their jobs.”

    “This is clearly the beginning of this fight and not the end,” she said. “I will continue to work across the aisle to protect consumers and strengthen competition.”

    Empowering state AGs in antitrust cases

    Another antitrust bill included in the package was a version of the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act. The bill gives state attorneys general the same power as federal enforcers in antitrust cases to choose the district in which they bring their cases and prevent them from being consolidated in a different district.

    Under the legislation, companies defending against claims of antitrust violations won’t be able to pick what they perceive to be a more favorable venue to fight the case.

    That’s what happened in an antitrust case against Google brought by a group of state attorneys general accusing the company of illegally monopolizing the digital advertising market. The company transferred the case from Texas to New York, to be heard alongside private antitrust complaints against the company in the pretrial proceedings.

    Last year, attorneys general from 52 states and territories wrote Congress in support of the legislation.

    Transparency on ransomware attacks

    The bipartisan RANSOMWARE Act also made it into the spending bill, requiring the FTC to report to Congress on the number and types of foreign ransomware or other cyberattack complaints it receives.

    The FTC also must report to Congress trends in numbers it sees in these complaints, including those that come from individuals, companies or governments of foreign adversaries like China, North Korea, Iran and Russia. And it must share information on its litigation actions related to these cases and their results.

    The FTC can also share recommendations for new laws to strengthen resilience against these attacks as well as for best practices that businesses can follow to protect themselves.

    Research into tech impacts on kids

    Lawmakers grill TikTok, YouTube, Snap executives

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes witness stand in FTC case

    Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg takes witness stand in FTC case

    [ad_1]

    SAN JOSE, California (AP) — Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook’s parent company Meta, took the witness stand Tuesday in a trial over U.S. antitrust regulators’ effort to stop the tech giant from buying a virtual reality startup called Within Unlimited.

    At issue is whether Meta’s acquisition of the small company that makes a VR fitness app called Supernatural will hurt competition in the emerging virtual reality market. If the deal is allowed to go through, the Federal Trade Commission argues, it would violate antitrust laws and dampen innovation, hurting consumers who may face higher prices and fewer options outside platforms controlled by Meta Platforms Inc.

    Meta, meanwhile, wants to poke holes in the FTC’s argument that there even exists a distinct market for what the FTC calls “VR dedicated fitness apps.”

    During his testimony at the trial in San Jose, California, Zuckerberg seemed to play down the notion that fitness is a distinct, top category in VR. He said, while fitness is one “use case” for virtual reality, other uses — namely games, communication and socializing and work — have been the primary ones that Meta has been focusing on.

    “While we focused on a number of use cases,” Zuckerberg said, there was a common order of popularity — with games, social and work as the top three and “sort of a longer tail” of other uses for VR that includes fitness.

    Whether or not VR fitness apps are a distinct market is key in the case because the FTC is arguing that Meta’s entry into this space through the Within acquisition would stifle competition. If there’s no defined market, it becomes more difficult to prove that case.

    The FTC, however, argues that not only is Meta a potential entrant into this market, but that it had the resources and ability to create its own VR fitness app instead of acquiring the top independent player in the market.

    FTC lawyer Abby Dennis pointed out that in Facebook’s early days, the company Zuckerberg founded in his Harvard dorm room rejected acquisition offers from a host of big tech companies — including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft.

    “You would agree with me that Facebook continued to successfully innovate even though it never got acquired?” she asked Zuckerberg, who replied affirmatively.

    And “the reason why Facebook has been able to succeed for 20 years is because it continues to innovate even though it never got acquired?” she continued, and Zuckerberg responded, “Yes.”

    But the Meta CEO later testified that even though his company was “looking at” developing its own VR fitness app before deciding to acquire Within Unlimited in 2021, the business environment has changed and “there is almost no chance” it would start such a project today.

    Meta, like other companies reliant on online advertising for revenue, saw a big business boost during the pandemic lockdown when people were staying home glued to their phones and computers. But that didn’t last. Online ad spending is on the decline, competition, notably from rival TikTok, is growing, and Meta recently laid off 13% of its workforce.

    Given the current business and economic environment, Zuckerberg said that if Meta had started a project to build a VR fitness app and “it didn’t have any traction,” it would have likely canceled it.

    The case, expected to wrap up Tuesday, is being heard by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, who also oversaw the trial of disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and her partner Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. Both were sentenced to over a decade in prison for their roles in the company’s blood-testing hoax.

    Meta had originally planned to close the deal by Dec. 31, but this week it extended that date to Jan. 31, pending the outcome of the case. Meta’s Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth said in Monday testimony that the company needs to get the deal done soon, and if the case isn’t resolved in a timely fashion, it will probably walk away.

    “These things, the longer they are drawn out, the harder it is for both entities to operate,” Bosworth said.

    —-

    AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Funding bill targets online sites amid retail theft concerns

    Funding bill targets online sites amid retail theft concerns

    [ad_1]

    Retailers are scoring one win in the governmentwide spending bill, which will force online marketplaces like Amazon and Facebook to verify high-volume sellers on their platforms amid heightened concerns about retail crime.

    Tucked in the $1.7 trillion funding package lies a piece of legislation brick-and-mortar retailers have been pushing Congress to pass for more than a year, part of an effort to tamp down the amount of goods being stolen from their stores and resold online.

    The bill, called the INFORM ACT, also seeks to combat sales of counterfeit goods and dangerous products by compelling online marketplaces to verify different types of information – including bank account, tax ID and contact details – for sellers who make at least 200 unique sales and earn a minimum of $5,000 in a given year.

    It’s difficult to parse out how much money retailers are losing due to organized retail crime – or if the problem has substantially increased. But the issue has received more notice in the past few years as high-profile smash-and-grab retail thefts and mass shoplifting events grabbed national attention. Some retailers have also said in recent weeks they’re seeing more items being taken from stores.

    Target executives said in November the number of thefts has gone up more than 50%, resulting in more than $400 million in losses. Its expected to be more than $600 million for the full fiscal year.

    And in an interview with CNBC earlier this month, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon noted that theft at Walmart was higher than it has historically been, and could lead to higher prices and store closures if it persists.

    Meanwhile, Joe Parisi, president and chief operating officer of New York City’s grocery chains D’Agostino’s and Gristedes, said the chains are fighting increased costs from higher levels of organized crime, and they’ve had to double the security guards at stores from a year ago. Walgreens, Best Buy and Home Depot have also pointed out similar problems.

    The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade group, said its latest security survey of roughly 60 retailers found that inventory loss – called shrink – clocked in at an average rate of 1.4% last year, representing $94.5 billion in losses.

    Shrink measures losses from sources other than external theft, including theft by employees and product damage. The greatest portion of shrink – 37% – came from external theft, including products taken during organized shoplifting events, the trade group said. It also noted retailers, on average, saw a 26.5% uptick in organized theft incidents last year.

    The funding package that contains the bill seeking to tame the problem was passed by the U.S. House on Friday. It now goes to President Joe Biden to be signed into law.

    Amazon, Ebay and Etsy had initially opposed the verification bill, saying it would damage seller privacy and favor brick-and-mortar retailers over their online competitors. The online marketplaces later threw their support behind the legislation after some changes, including modifications to limit the amount of sellers who disclose their contact information to customers to those making $20,000 or more in annual revenue.

    Under the bill, customers can get a hold of a seller’s name, phone number, email and physical address, with certain exceptions to protect merchants who sell goods out of their homes. The bill says sellers don’t have to disclose their personal address or phone number, provided they respond to customer questions over email or other forms of online messaging provided by the marketplace.

    The federal bill would also override similar state laws, a win for e-commerce sites who no longer have to deal with a patch-work of state-level requirements.

    Meta, which operates Facebook Marketplace, didn’t reply to a request for comment regarding the bill.

    ————

    AP Business Writer Anne D’Innocenzio contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Stocks making the biggest moves premarket: Tesla, Nutanix, Meta and more

    Stocks making the biggest moves premarket: Tesla, Nutanix, Meta and more

    [ad_1]

    Check out the companies making headlines before the bell:

    Tesla (TSLA) – Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he would refrain from selling any more Tesla stock for 18 to 24 months. Musk has sold about $39 billion in stock over the past year, amid his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. Tesla gained 1.2% in the premarket.

    Nutanix (NTNX) – Nutanix tumbled 16.6% in the premarket following a report that Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) has ended talks to acquire the cloud computing company.

    Meta Platforms (META) – Meta and users of its Facebook platform settled a privacy class action lawsuit, with Meta agreeing to pay $725 million. The suit stemmed from the 2018 revelation that data firm Cambridge Analytica had collected information from tens of millions of Facebook users.

    Mission Produce (AVO) – The avocado producer reported lower-than-expected profit and revenue as the rise in volume was not enough to offset a plunge in avocado prices. Mission Produce slumped 13.7% in premarket trading.

    3M (MMM) – 3M was barred by a judge from shifting liability to a subsidiary in a case involving combat earplugs. The case stems from injuries suffered by members of the military who used the allegedly defective earplugs.

    Toro (TTC) – The lawn care and outdoor products company was upgraded to outperform from market perform at Raymond James, which set a price target of $130 compared with yesterday’s close of $111.15 per share. Toro also reported better-than-expected quarterly earnings earlier this week. The stock added 1% in premarket action.

    Biogen (BIIB) – Biogen’s Japanese partner Eisai has confirmed to Reuters reports of a third death in a trial of their experimental Alzheimer’s treatment and said the cause is being investigated.

    Oilfield services stocks – Halliburton (HAL) gained 1.4% in the premarket, with Schlumberger (SLB) up 1.3% and Baker Hughes (BKR) rising 1%. The gains come as the price for crude rises more than 2% in early trading.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Zuckerberg weighed naming Cambridge Analytica as a concern in 2017, months before data leak was revealed | CNN Business

    Zuckerberg weighed naming Cambridge Analytica as a concern in 2017, months before data leak was revealed | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Mark Zuckerberg considered disclosing in 2017 that Facebook

    (FB)
    was investigating “organizations like Cambridge Analytica” alongside Russian foreign intelligence actors as part of an election security assessment before ultimately removing the reference at his advisers’ suggestion, according to a 2019 deposition conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and reviewed by CNN.

    The omitted reference provides insight into Zuckerberg’s thinking on Cambridge Analytica in the critical months before press reports would reveal that the data analysis firm affiliated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign had improperly gained access to tens of millions of Facebook users’ personal information. The data leak prompted a global outcry that led to hearings, an apology tour from Zuckerberg and Facebook’s $5 billion privacy settlement with the US government.

    The deposition transcript suggests that in 2017, Zuckerberg considered Cambridge Analytica a potential election concern on par with Russian election meddling efforts even though he said he did not know about the data leak first discovered by Facebook staffers in 2015. It also points to how Facebook staffers had opportunities to brief Zuckerberg on that leak, but chose not to, prior to reports about the incident that surfaced in 2018.

    Zuckerberg’s remarks in the deposition offer the clearest picture yet of what Zuckerberg knew about Cambridge Analytica, and when. The timeline of events has previously been scrutinized intensely by US lawmakers, state attorneys general and investors who have sued Facebook, now known as Meta, for allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties in connection with the data leak incident.

    Meta declined to comment on the release of the transcript, saying its case with the SEC involving the deposition had been settled for more than three years. The settlement in 2019 for $100 million resolved US government allegations that Facebook had misled investors for years after staffers first discovered the data leak.

    The SEC deposition transcript was released Tuesday by the Real Facebook Oversight Board, a watchdog group, that had obtained the document via a public records request. The transcript was first reported on Tuesday by Reuters, which had obtained the document through a separate records request.

    “This transcript reveals that something changed between January 2017 and September 2017 for Zuckerberg to deem Cambridge Analytica a threat commensurate with Russian Intelligence,” said Zamaan Qureshi, policy advisor at the Real Facebook Oversight Board. “But for reasons the Facebook CEO has still not disclosed, the world would only learn about Cambridge Analytica in March 2018.”

    In September 2017, Zuckerberg released a public statement about Facebook’s efforts to safeguard election integrity, saying the company would look into the impact that foreign actors, “Russian groups and other former Soviet states,” and “organizations like the campaigns” had on Facebook during the 2016 elections.

    But according to the court documents, Zuckerberg had originally proposed naming Russian foreign intelligence and Cambridge Analytica in the same breath.

    “We are already looking into foreign actors including Russian intelligence, actors in other former Soviet states and organizations like Cambridge Analytica,” Zuckerberg initially wrote, according to the draft the SEC produced in the deposition and that Zuckerberg testified was authentic.

    Zuckerberg testified that the reference to Cambridge Analytica was removed after a staffer recommended against naming specific organizations. “This was not something I think was particularly important to the overall communication,” he said, according to the transcript. “So I think when people raised this, I just took it out.”

    The testimony suggests he became aware of Cambridge Analytica around the same time as the general public, through press reporting around the 2016 election on the firm’s marketing claims. But it also suggests that he was kept in the dark about the Cambridge Analytica-linked data leak that predated the election and would eventually lead to Facebook’s broader reckoning with regulators and policymakers.

    The Cambridge Analytica saga began with a psychology professor who harvested data on millions of Facebook users through an app offering a personality test, then gave it to a service promising to use vague and sophisticated techniques to influence voters during a high-stakes election where the winning presidential candidate won narrowly in several key states.

    A 2020 report by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office later cast significant doubt on Cambridge Analytica’s capabilities, suggesting many of them had been exaggerated. But the improper sharing of Facebook data triggered a cascade of events that has culminated in numerous investigations and lawsuits.

    After hearing about Cambridge Analytica’s claims that it could use personal data to build “psychographic profiles” of voters who could then be targeted with effective political advertising, Zuckerberg began asking subordinates whether the firm’s marketing had any merit.

    In one January 2017 email produced by the SEC, Zuckerberg asked staffers to “explain to me what they actually did from an analytics and ad perspective and how advanced it was.”

    Explaining his thought process further, Zuckerberg testified: “Like, are these folks actually doing anything novel? Or are they just talking about data in a puffed-up way …. My understanding from those conversations is that, to summarize it very quickly, it was much closer to the latter.”

    But even though Facebook as an organization knew by that point, in 2017, that Cambridge Analytica had obtained Facebook users’ personal information in violation of the platform’s policies, that incident was never raised to Zuckerberg as a piece of potentially relevant context, according to the deposition. Following Facebook’s discovery of the leak, the company required Cambridge Analytica to delete the data it had improperly obtained through a third party and ordered the firm to sign a certification indicating its compliance.

    Zuckerberg testified that he did not get “fully up to speed” on the 2015 data leak, and Facebook’s response to it, until March 2018, when public reports about the incident emerged.

    In the deposition, Zuckerberg explained that he was not briefed earlier likely because Facebook considered the 2015 incident a “closed case until 2018, when new allegations came up that suggested that maybe Cambridge Analytica had lied to us” about having deleted the Facebook data. (The UK ICO’s report later found that Cambridge Analytica did appear to take some steps toward deleting the data, but it also expressed doubts about whether those steps were effective enough.)

    Zuckerberg reaffirmed in his testimony that had Facebook moved more swiftly to implement an existing and separate plan restricting app developers’ access to Facebook information, the data leak could likely have been avoided from the start.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google tells employees more of them will be at risk for low performance ratings next year

    Google tells employees more of them will be at risk for low performance ratings next year

    [ad_1]

    CEO of Alphabet and Google Sundar Pichai during press conference at the Chancellery in Warsaw, Poland on March 29, 2022.

    Mateusz Wlodarczyk | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    More Google employees will be at risk for low performance ratings and fewer are expected to reach high marks under a new performance review system that starts next year, according to internal communications obtained by CNBC.

    In a recent Google all-hands meeting and in a separate presentation last week, executives presented more details of its new performance review process. Under the new system, Google estimates 6% of full-time employees will fall into a low-ranking category that puts them at higher risk for corrective action, versus 2% before. Simultaneously, it will be harder to achieve high marks: Google projects 22% percent of employees will be rated with in one of the two highest categories, versus 27% before.

    As an example, in order to make the new, highest rated category, “Transformative Impact,” an employee must have “achieved the near-impossible” and contributed “more than we thought possible.”

    Earlier this year, Google announced the new process for performance reviews, known as Google Reviews and Development, or GRAD.

    But CNBC recently reported that employees have complained about procedural and technical issues with GRAD close to the year-end deadlines, making them anxious they won’t be accurately rated. The anxiety is compounded by a wave of layoffs in the tech industry. While Google has so far avoided the widespread job cuts that have hit other tech companies like Meta, employees have grown anxious if they could be next.

    In a December all-hands meeting on the topic, employees expressed frustration with executives, who have long touted transparency but are not providing direct answers to questions about headcount. Some employees believe new performance review system might be a way for the company to reduce headcount.

    Headcount has been a subject of employee concern throughout the latter part of 2022. CEO Sundar Pichai found himself on the defensive in September, as he was forced to explain the company’s changing position after years of supercharged growth. Executives said at the time that there would be small cuts, and they didn’t rule out layoffs.

    And in November, a number of employees in an all-hands meeting asked for clarification on executives’ plans around headcount, and even asked if executives mismanaged headcount when Google grew its workforce by 24% year-over-year in Q3 2022.

    As of Q3, the company employed 186,779 full-time employees. It also employs a similar amount of contractors.

    Recent documents about the GRAD also say the company will be looking at bonuses, pay and equity and expects to “spend more per capita on compensation overall.” It also states the company still plans on paying within the top 5% to 10% of market rates.

    Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    ‘A lot of distress and anger’

    At the company’s most recent all-hands meeting on Dec. 8, many of the top-rated questions described stress around year-end performance reviews, according to audio of the meeting obtained by CNBC. The questions also suggested some employees don’t trust the company’s leadership is being transparent in how it handles headcount.

    “Why did Google push support check-in quotas to front line managers days before the deadline?,” one employee asked, in a question read aloud by Pichai. “I’ve been through a lot in Google in 5+ years but this is a new low.”

    “It seems like a lot of last-minute support check-ins were forced through part of Cloud in order to meet a quota, causing a lot of distress and anger,” another employee asked. “With only two weeks to correct course, how is this helpful feedback? How do we prevent this from happening in the future?”

    “The support check-in process is confusing, increasingly becoming a cause of stress and anxiety in Googlers, especially given the current economic situation and rumors around layoffs,” said another top-rated employee question.

    Earlier this month, CNBC reported employees began receiving “support check-ins” often associated with lower performance ratings in the final days leading up to year-end deadlines. They also said executives changed parts of the process in the final days.

    “I know it’s been bumpy,” Google’s chief people officer Fiona Cicconi, eventually said, briefly acknowledging the issues with GRAD in a recent all-hands meeting.

    “It’s not ideal to have support check-ins occur so late in the review cycle and we know that people need time to absorb the feedback and take action on it,” admitted Cicconi, adding that “Googlers should have plenty of time to course-correct.”

    Several employees also asked executives whether they had quotas for placing people in lower performance categories in order to reduce headcount in 2023. Even though executives said they don’t have quotas, it didn’t seem to convince employees.

    One question asked executives if Google was becoming “a stack-ranking company like Amazon,” referring to the process of using quotas to place employees in certain performance buckets. 

    “Uncertainties around GRAD processes have been putting a lot of pressure on lower level managers to pass down information” about performance reviews and sometimes force “conflicting items,” another highly-rated question stated.

    Another read: “Layoffs across the industry has been a topic impacting Googlers, raising stress, anxiety and burnout,” another read. There’s been no official comms on this, which raises even more concern around this. When will the company address this topic?” 

    But executives largely avoided answering the questions directly. CEO Sundar Pichai kept saying he “doesn’t know what the future holds.”

    “What we’ve been trying hard to do is we are trying to  prioritize where we can so we are set up to better weather the storm, regardless of what’s ahead,” Pichai said. “We really don’t know what the future holds so unfortunately I cannot make forward looking commitments but everything we’ve been planning on as a company for the past six to seven months has been do all the hard work to try and work our way through this as best as possible so, that’s all I can say.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Semiconductor maker Micron announces 10% staff reduction, suspends bonuses

    Semiconductor maker Micron announces 10% staff reduction, suspends bonuses

    [ad_1]

    Semiconductor maker Micron announced Wednesday that it would reduce its headcount by about 10% in 2023, in the latest example of a technology industry slowdown affecting employment.

    Shares of Micron fell more than 1% in extended trading.

    related investing news

    Here are Tuesday's biggest analyst calls: Apple, Tesla, Hostess, Home Depot, Rivian, Netflix & more

    CNBC Pro

    Idaho-based Micron has about 48,000 employees, according to a recent SEC filing. The company said it would hit its reduction target through voluntary departures as well as layoffs.

    Micron also said it is suspending 2023 bonuses.

    “On December 21, 2022, we announced a restructure plan in response to challenging industry conditions,” the company said in an SEC filing. “Under the restructure plan, we expect to reduce our headcount by approximately 10% over calendar year 2023, through a combination of voluntary attrition and personnel reductions.”

    Micron said it expected a $30 million charge in the current quarter related to the restructuring, which will also include less investment into manufacturing capacity and cost-cutting programs.

    The move comes as Micron reported fiscal first-quarter 2023 results where it missed analyst estimates for earnings and revenue, and forecast a larger loss per share than expected in the current quarter.

    Here’s how Micron did versus Refinitiv consensus estimates for the quarter ending in December:

    • Loss per share: $0.04, adjusted, versus $0.01 estimated
    • Revenues: $4.09 billion versus $4.11 billion estimated

    Micron said it expected a loss of 62 cents per share on revenue of $3.8 billion in the current quarter. Analysts had expected guidance of a loss of 30 cents per share on $3.75 billion in sales.

    Micron is best known for supplying memory to computer makers, but it is facing an environment where PC sales have already started to slow or shrink, while server sales are expected to show little growth in 2023.

    Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said in prepared remarks that there is too much memory supply and not enough demand, which has resulted in the company keeping more inventory and losing pricing power.

    “In the last several months, we have seen a dramatic drop in demand,” Mehrotra said, according to the prepared remarks.

    He said he expects the company’s profitability to “remain challenged” through the end of 2023 but that the firm expects revenue and free cash flow to recover later in 2023. Micron said it has suspended share repurchases.

    Micron’s restructuring comes after other semiconductor companies have announced hiring freezes or layoffs. In October, Intel announced that it would lay off workers as part of a plan to cut $10 billion in spending. Nvidia announced a hiring slowdown over the summer, and Qualcomm announced its hiring freeze in November.

    But it’s not just semiconductor companies adjusting after two pandemic-fueled years of growth and supply issues. Tech companies including Meta, Twitter, Snap, Stripe and Tesla have also cut staff as companies gird for a potential recession and higher interest rates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon to make big business changes in EU settlement

    Amazon to make big business changes in EU settlement

    [ad_1]

    Amazon will make major changes to its business practices to end competition probes in Europe by giving customers more visible choices when buying products and, for Prime members, more delivery options, European Union regulators said Tuesday.

    The EU’s executive Commission accepted the legally binding commitments from Amazon to resolve two antitrust investigations, allowing the company to avoid a legal battle with the E.U.’s top antitrust watchdog that could potentially have ended with fines worth up to 10% of annual worldwide revenue.

    The agreement marks another advance by EU authorities as they clamp down on the power of Big Tech companies, and comes just a day after the Commission accused Facebook parent Meta of distorting competition in the classified ads business. The 27-member bloc has hit Google with billions in fines, opened investigations into Apple and is set to enact sweeping regulations by 2024 aimed at preventing so-called digital gatekeepers from dominating online markets.

    “Today’s decision sets the rules that Amazon will need to play by in the future instead of Amazon determining these rules for all players on its platform,” the EU’s competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said at a press briefing in Brussels. “With these new rules, competing independent retailers, carriers and European customers, well, they will have more opportunities and more choice.”

    The agreement only applies to Amazon’s business practices in Europe and will last for seven years. Amazon will have to make the changes by June.

    “We are pleased that we have addressed the European Commission’s concerns and resolved these matters,” Amazon said in a prepared statement, adding that it still disagrees with some of the Commission’s preliminary conclusions.

    Amazon had offered concessions in July to resolve the two investigations. It improved those initial proposals after the commission tested them out and received feedback from consumer groups, delivery companies, book publishers and academics.

    The company promised to give products from rival sellers equal visibility in the “buy box,” a premium piece of website real estate that leads to higher sales.

    European customers will get a second buy box underneath the first one for the same product, but with a different price or delivery offer.

    “As Amazon cannot populate both Buy Boxes with its own retail offers, this will give more visibility to independent sellers,” Vestager said. Regulators will monitor how the second box performs.

    John E. Lopatka, an antitrust scholar and law professor at Penn State University, said the terms of the deal represent a significant change for Amazon’s business and could become a precedent for U.S. antitrust regulators.

    “The countries that are included in the EU’s association are a significant – and growing – market for Amazon,” Lopatka said. “It’s hard for Amazon to say ‘we can’t do that here’ when they’re already doing it in Europe.”

    As part of the deal, Amazon is also easing access for merchants and couriers to its Prime membership service. It will stop discriminating against Prime sellers that don’t use its own logistics and delivery services and will let Prime members freely choose any delivery service. Currently, couriers can only deliver Prime parcels if they’re approved by Amazon.

    The company also pledged to stop using “non-public data” from independent sellers on its platform to provide insights on how to compete against those merchants through its own sales of branded goods or “private label” products.

    “They will have to take the same risks as everyone else on the platform because they cannot rely on everyone else’s data,” Vestager said.

    Amazon uses the data to decide what kind of products to launch, prices, which suppliers to choose, or how to manage inventories, Vestager said. She said the company has committed to stop doing this with seller data, including sales, revenues, shipments, transaction prices, performance, and consumer visits.

    Monique Goyens, the director general of European consumer group BEUC, said the settlement allows consumers greater choice when they shop on Amazon.

    “That said, consumers will only feel the benefits of these remedies if the Commission ensures that they are applied in practice,” Goyens said, adding regulators should “closely monitor” Amazon’s compliance with its commitments and insist on improvements if necessary.

    Some believe the settlement doesn’t go far enough. Stacy Mitchell, an Amazon critic and co-director for the anti-monopoly group Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said its provisions are too weak and allows Amazon to self-police, “leaving the tech company with plenty of latitude to continue abusing sellers and blocking competition.”

    Amazon faces similar scrutiny in the U.S. and Britain.

    In September, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office sued Amazon, accusing the company of stifling competition and increasing prices for products across the market. His office said Amazon effectively barred third-party sellers and wholesale suppliers from offering lower prices elsewhere through contract terms that harmed the ability of other businesses to compete.

    The company says it considers an item competitively priced when it’s offered at or below a price displayed by other retailers, which can spur higher prices elsewhere. Some vendors who pay more to sell on Amazon could lower their prices on other sites, but they don’t do so out of fear they will lose valuable Amazon real estate or face suspensions, the lawsuit said.

    California is accusing Amazon of violating the state’s antitrust and unfair competition laws. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been pushing bipartisan antitrust legislation aiming to rein in Big Tech companies, but hopes for the bill have dimmed amid intense pushback from the tech industry.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Twitter bans links to other social media sites, including Facebook and emerging rivals | CNN Business

    Elon Musk’s Twitter bans links to other social media sites, including Facebook and emerging rivals | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Twitter will ban links to other social media services and suspend accounts that try to direct Twitter users to alternative platforms, the company announced Sunday, in an apparent attempt to stem user defections to competitors.

    Under the new policy, links to content on Facebook and Instagram are prohibited, as well as links to content on emerging Twitter alternatives, including Mastodon and Post. The rule also covers Truth Social, the Twitter clone backed by former President Donald Trump.

    Twitter’s move signals a shift toward a more closed environment, one that still accepts incoming traffic from other sites but makes it more difficult for users to leave Twitter’s website for other destinations.

    “Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post,” Twitter’s support account tweeted.

    Despite the bans, Twitter says it will still “allow paid advertisement/promotion for any of the prohibited social media platforms.”

    Notably absent from the list is TikTok, one of the internet’s fastest-growing social media platforms whose links to China have sparked national security concerns among US policymakers. Musk’s own significant stake in China through his other company, Tesla, have raised doubts among critics as to whether the CEO would stand up to China if the country’s leaders sought to apply pressure on Twitter.

    Twitter’s announcement prompted confusion from the platform’s former CEO, Jack Dorsey, who replied: “Why?” Dorsey followed up with: “doesn’t make sense.”

    The policy change comes after some Twitter users announced their intention to move to other platforms last week, in the wake of Twitter’s suspension of a number of journalists who cover Musk. Amid the backlash to the journalists suspensions, Twitter quietly began blocking links to Mastodon.

    Now, that practice has been formalized into official Twitter policy, a move that could further raise eyebrows among Twitter’s regulators.

    As part of Twitter’s new policy, users may not “link out” to social media platforms subject to the restrictions. Users are also prohibited from updating their Twitter profiles to include their account names on other platforms, a way to inform followers where they might be found elsewhere on social media.

    For example, posting encouragement to “follow me @username on Instagram” or “username@mastodon.social” is restricted, Twitter said in a blog post.

    Attempts to circumvent that policy will also be enforced against, the company said. For example, use of link-shortening services to obscure the true destination of a URL or attempts to spell out a URL in plain text will also run afoul of Twitter’s rules, the company said.

    “If violations of this policy are included in your bio and/or account name, we will temporarily suspend your account and require changes to your profile to no longer be in violation,” the blog post said. “Subsequent violations may result in permanent suspension.”

    First offenses or isolated incidents may result in temporary suspensions or requirements that users delete the violating content, Twitter said.

    Users may continue to use third-party software to simultaneously publish their social media content to multiple sites, including Twitter, the company said.

    Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, as well as Truth Social’s parent Trump Media & Technology Group, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Frustrated virtual reality pioneer leaves Facebook’s parent

    Frustrated virtual reality pioneer leaves Facebook’s parent

    [ad_1]

    BERKELEY, Calif. — A prominent video game creator who helped lead Facebook‘s expansion into virtual reality has resigned from the social networking service’s corporate parent after becoming disillusioned with the way the technology is being managed.

    John Carmack cut his ties with Meta Platforms, a holding company created last year by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, in a Friday letter that vented his frustration as he stepped down as an executive consultant in virtual reality.

    “There is no way to sugar coat this; I think our organization is operating at half the effectiveness that would make me happy,” Carmack wrote in the letter, which he shared on Facebook. “”Some may scoff and contend we are doing just fine, but others will laugh and say, ‘Half? Ha! I’m at quarter efficiency!’”

    In response to an inquiry about Carmack’s resignation and remarks, Meta on Saturday directed The Associated Press to a tweet from its chief technology officer and head of its reality labs, Andrew Bosworth. “”It is impossible to overstate the impact you’ve had on our work and the industry as a whole,” Bosworth wrote in his grateful tweet addressed to Carmack.

    Carmack’s departure comes at a time that Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, has been battling widespread perceptions that he has been wasting billions of dollars trying to establish the Menlo Park, California, company in the “metaverse” — an artificial world filled with avatars of real people.

    While the metaverse losses have been mounting, Facebook and affiliated services such as Instagram have been suffering a downturn in advertising that brings in most of the company’s revenue. The decline has been brought on by a combination of recession fears, tougher competition from other social networking services such as TikTok and privacy controls on Apple’s iPhone that have made it tougher to track people’s interests to help sell ads.

    Those challenges have caused Meta’s stock to lose nearly two-thirds of its value so far this year, wiping out about $575 billion in shareholder wealth.

    Although Carmack had only been working part time at Meta, the dismay that he expressed seems likely to amplify the questions looming over Zuckerberg’s efforts to become as dominant in virtual reality as Facebook has been in social networking since he started the service nearly 20 years ago while attending Harvard University.

    Zuckerberg began to explore virtual reality in earnest in 2014 with Facebook’s $2 billion purchase of headset maker Oculus. At the time, Carmack was Oculus’ chief technology officer and then joined Facebook after the deal closed. Before joining Oculus, Carmack was best known as the co-creator of the video game Doom.

    Federal regulators are now trying to limit Zuckerberg’s sway in virtual reality by preventing his attempt to buy Within Unlimited, which makes a fitness app designed for the metaverse.

    Carmack testified earlier this week in a trial pitting the Federal Trade Commission against Meta over the fate of the deal. Zuckerberg is expected to testify at some point in the trial, which is scheduled to resume Monday in San Jose, California.

    Despite his frustration with the way things have been going at Meta, Carmack praised its latest virtual reality headset, the Quest 2, in his resignation letter. He described the headset as “”almost exactly what I wanted to see from the beginning” of his Oculus tenure.

    “It is successful, and successful products make the world a better place,” Carmack said of the Quest 2. “It all could have happened a bit faster and been going better if different decisions had been made, but we built something pretty close to The Right Thing.”

    But Carmack ended his letter with this entreaty: “Maybe it actually is possible to get there by just plowing ahead with current practices, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Make better decisions and fill your products with ‘Give a Damn!’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Frustrated virtual reality pioneer leaves Facebook’s parent

    Frustrated virtual reality pioneer leaves Facebook’s parent

    [ad_1]

    BERKELEY, Calif. — A prominent video game creator who helped lead Facebook‘s expansion into virtual reality has resigned from the social networking service’s corporate parent after becoming disillusioned with the way the technology is being managed.

    John Carmack cut his ties with Meta Platforms, a holding company created last year by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, in a Friday letter that vented his frustration as he steeped down as an executive consultant in virtual reality.

    “There is no way to sugar coat this; I think our organization is operating at half the effectiveness that would make me happy,” Carmack wrote in the letter, which he shared on Facebook. “”Some may scoff and contend we are doing just fine, but others will laugh and say, ‘Half? Ha! I’m at quarter efficiency!’”

    In response to an inquiry about Carmack’s resignation and remarks, Meta on Saturday directed The Associated Press to a tweet from its chief technology officer and head of its reality labs, Andrew Bosworth. “”It is impossible to overstate the impact you’ve had on our work and the industry as a whole,” Bosworth wrote in his grateful tweet addressed to Carmack.

    Carmack’s departure comes at a time that Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, has been battling widespread perceptions that he has been wasting billions of dollars trying to establish the Menlo Park, California, company in the “metaverse” — an artificial world filled with avatars of real people.

    While the metaverse losses have been mounting, Facebook and affiliated services such as Instagram have been suffering a downturn in advertising that brings in most of the company’s revenue. The decline has been brought on by a combination of recession fears, tougher competition from other social networking services such as TikTok and privacy controls on Apple’s iPhone that have made it tougher to track people’s interests to help sell ads.

    Those challenges have caused Meta’s stock to lose nearly two-thirds of its value so far this year, wiping out about $575 billion in shareholder wealth.

    Although Carmack had only been working part time at Meta, the dismay that he expressed seems likely to amplify the questions looming over Zuckerberg’s efforts to become as dominant in virtual reality as Facebook has been in social networking since he started the service nearly 20 years ago while attending Harvard University.

    Zuckerberg began to explore virtual reality in earnest in 2014 with Facebook’s $2 billion purchase of headset maker Oculus. At the time, Carmack was Oculus’ chief technology officer and then joined Facebook after the deal closed. Before joining Oculus, Carmack was best known as the co-creator of the video game Doom.

    Federal regulators are now trying to limit Zuckerberg’s sway in virtual reality by preventing his attempt to buy Within Unlimited, which makes a fitness app designed for the metaverse.

    Carmack testified earlier this week in a trial pitting the Federal Trade Commission against Meta over the fate of the deal. Zuckerberg is expected to testify at some point in the trial, which is scheduled to resume Monday in San Jose, California.

    Despite his frustration with the way things have been going at Meta, Carmack praised its latest virtual reality headset, the Quest 2, in his resignation letter. He described the headset as “”almost exactly what I wanted to see from the beginning” of his Oculus tenure.

    “It is successful, and successful products make the world a better place,” Carmack said of the Quest 2. “It all could have happened a bit faster and been going better if different decisions had been made, but we built something pretty close to The Right Thing.”

    But Carmack ended his letter with this entreaty: “Maybe it actually is possible to get there by just plowing ahead with current practices, but there is plenty of room for improvement. Make better decisions and fill your products with ‘Give a Damn!’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC didn’t stop Facebook-Instagram. How about Meta-Within?

    FTC didn’t stop Facebook-Instagram. How about Meta-Within?

    [ad_1]

    SAN JOSE, California — Facebook parent Meta is sparring with government regulators in federal court over its pending acquisition of a virtual reality fitness company Within Unlimited

    CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify as a witness at the trial in San Jose, California.

    At issue is whether Meta’s acquisition of the small company that makes a VR fitness app called Supernatural will hurt competition in the emerging virtual reality market. If the deal is allowed to go through, the Federal Trade Commission argues, it would violate antitrust laws and dampen innovation, hurting consumers who may face higher prices and fewer options outside of Meta-controlled platforms.

    Meta, the FTC argued in court this week, scrapped its own plans to enter the nascent VR fitness market in the summer of 2021 when it decided to buy Within. Without the competitive threat of the tech giant’s entry into the market, the agency asserts, innovation stalls, hurting end users.

    “The threat is what keeps firms going,” testified economist Hal Singer, a witness for the FTC. “If I know there is a chance that someone could come in and steal my lunch,” he said, companies will innovate and constrain pricing.

    But Meta says it had no concrete plans to create a competing app beyond the initial discussion stage, where it concluded it had no ability to do so. Mark Rabkin, a vice president at Meta who leads its VR efforts, testified that while Meta could definitely build a VR fitness app, its chances of success would be “very low.”

    “Achieving what Supernatural has achieved is remarkable and it would be very difficult for us to replicate that,” Rabkin said during a Zoom hearing Friday.

    Meta, in fact, has a history of trying — and often failing — to copy rival platforms or their features, sometimes when it’s not able to purchase a company or product outright. Meta owns Instagram, which has a Stories feature, for instance, that is very similar to the Story feature on Snapchat. Meta also briefly redesigned Instagram this year to make it look more like rival TikTok, but scrapped the change after an outcry from users, including celebrities.

    The agency and Meta also disagree on how to define the market that Within’s popular app falls into. The FTC defines it narrowly as “VR dedicated fitness apps,” while Meta’s definition includes a wider swath of competitors, many of which don’t need VR goggles to work — such as Peloton, for instance.

    “Meta has talked about how they want to make virtual reality as ubiquitous as your cellphone,” said Lee Hepner, legal counsel, American Economic Liberties Project, an organization that advocates for government action against business consolidation. “It’s the next platform for widespread communication in Meta’s eyes.”

    If the FTC can preserve and boost competition at this stage, Hepner said, there are “different paths that this market could take instead of Meta controlling the whole path, the whole forward trajectory of this market in the next several years.”

    The FTC’s challenge to Meta’s acquisition reflects agency chair Lina Khan’s aggressive stance on Big Tech and antitrust.

    The case, expected to wrap up Tuesday, is being heard by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila, who also oversaw the trial of disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and her partner Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. Both were sentenced to over a decade in prison for their roles in the company’s blood-testing hoax.

    The FTC also sued this month to block Microsoft’s planned $69 billion takeover of video game company Activision Blizzard, saying it could suppress competition for Microsoft’s Xbox game console and its growing games subscription business.

    In 2020 the agency sued Meta, then called Facebook, over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp that could force a spinoff of Instagram and WhatsApp. Unraveling those deals, which were made 10 and nine years ago, respectively — and previously approved by the FTC — may be more difficult than blocking the Within purchase, which Meta and Within want to close by the end of this year.

    Under Zuckerberg’s, Meta moved aggressively into virtual reality in 2014 with its acquisition of headset maker Oculus VR. Since then, Meta’s VR headsets have become the cornerstone of its growth in the virtual reality space, the FTC noted in its suit. Fueled by the popularity of its top-selling Quest headsets, Meta’s Quest Store has become a leading U.S. app platform with more than 500 apps available to download, according to the agency.

    Meta bought seven of the most successful virtual-reality development studios, and now has one of the largest virtual-reality content catalogs in the world, the FTC says.

    “It may be true that Meta has become more effective at acquisitions than they are at product innovation,” Hepner said. “But just because they’re better at acquiring and innovating doesn’t mean that it’s legal to do that. The entire tech industry … for the past 20 years has gotten so effective at acquisitions, knowing that they won’t be challenged on it.”

    ———

    This story has been updated to correct the spelling of the FTC chair’s last name. It’s Khan, not Kahn.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here are Friday’s biggest analyst calls: Apple, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia, Carvana, Delta, Walmart & more

    Here are Friday’s biggest analyst calls: Apple, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia, Carvana, Delta, Walmart & more

    [ad_1]

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CES 2023: Tech world to gather and show off gadgets

    CES 2023: Tech world to gather and show off gadgets

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — CES, the annual tech industry event formerly known as the Consumer Electronics Show, is returning to Las Vegas this January with the hope that it looks more like it did before the coronavirus pandemic.

    The show changed its name to CES to better reflect the changing industry and the event, which had expanded beyond audio and video to include automotive, digital health, smart phones, wearables and other technologies.

    Companies and startups will showcase innovations in virtual reality, robotics and consumer tech items to the media and others in the tech industry during next month’s gadget show and organizers say their goal is to draw 100,000 attendees.

    That would be a marked contrast with the look and feel of the past two shows — the last of which saw a 70% drop in in-person attendance amid the spread of the Omicron variant. The one before that was held virtually, replacing in-person displays and meet and greets with video streams and chats.

    Even if organizers reach their goal for next month’s event, which runs from Jan. 5-8, it would still represent a 41% dip in attendance compared to the in-person show held in early 2020, before the pandemic consumed much of everyday life.

    Kinsey Fabrizio, senior vice president at the trade group Consumer Technology Association, said more than 2,800 companies have signed up to attend CES 2023.

    Exhibitors include many startups and routine visitors like Amazon and Facebook parent Meta, both of which have recently cut jobs and implemented hiring freezes after beefing up their staff during the pandemic. Other tech companies have also been tightening their belts and laying off workers amid concerns about the economic environment.

    The Associated Press spoke with Fabrizio about CES and what consumers should expect at the show. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

    ———

    Q: The tech industry has been going through a rough time in the past few months. How do you expect that to impact the show?

    A: Yeah, for the last two years, the tech industry was booming. We’re seeing a recalibration now and as part of the recalibration, there are layoffs. But in terms of CES, the companies are coming big. And they’re going to be showcasing some of these solutions that were critical during the pandemic, and a lot of the solutions that have continued to change the way consumers live and behave. The momentum and excitement we’re seeing for the show hasn’t been impacted.

    Q: Are most of the exhibitors startups?

    A: We have a lot of startups and new companies. Over 1,000 new exhibitors for CES this year, which is on par with prior years. There will be some repeat customers in Eureka Park, where our startups are primarily stationed. They can be there for up to two years. But we will also have a lot of companies who’ve been at CES for a while.

    Q: The theme for the show is human security. How did you land on that?

    A: We were approached by The World Academy of Art and Science, which has been working with the United Nations for a long time on human security. You can think of it as basic human rights — access to food, health care, etc. And they wanted CES to really use this theme because our exhibitors are showcasing how they’re solving some of these big global challenges with technology.

    Q: Historically, CES has been more focused on convenience and personal tech. So this is going to be a shift.

    A: This is the shift. We’ve talked about how tech solves challenges in the world. But we’ve never had a theme at CES before. It’s always been about innovation and great products for the consumer. But for this show, you will be able to see the theme on the show floor and other places. For example, John Deere is showcasing some of their agricultural technology that really contributes to sustainability and access to food. Another company created a secure voting technology on the blockchain, which aligns with the U.N. theme of political security.

    Q: The metaverse is going to be another big topic. A lot of companies are investing in it. What can visitors expect to see at the show?

    A: The metaverse is a key theme. We’ll have a dedicated part of the show floor for Web3 technology. There’s also going to be shared and immersive virtual experiences. Automaker Stellantis and Microsoft have a partnership to create a showroom in the metaverse. There’s a company called OVR that has created a solution where you can smell in the metaverse. People are talking about unique ways to reach their customers, and different experiences people can have there. So that will be a big theme among both big and small exhibitors.

    [ad_2]

    Source link