ReportWire

Tag: Monopoly and antitrust

  • McDonald’s says focus on value is bringing back customers

    [ad_1]

    McDonald’s focus on value is paying off.

    The fast food giant said Wednesday that its global same-store sales — or sales at locations open at least a year — jumped 5.7% in the October-December period. That’s better than the 3.9% Wall Street was expecting, according to analysts polled by FactSet.

    Chicago-based McDonald’s fourth quarter revenue and earnings also beat analysts’ expectations.

    McDonald’s cut prices on some U.S. combo meals in September. Those Extra Value Meal promotions came on top of discounts that began earlier in 2025, including the McValue menu. McDonald’s popular Snack Wraps, which returned to menus in July for $2.99, also helped improve value perceptions.

    The price cuts came after years of steady declines in visits from customers with annual household incomes of $45,000 or less. In a conference call with investors last summer, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski warned that those consumers, in particular, no longer saw McDonald’s as a good value.

    The company also boosted U.S. traffic in the fourth quarter with limited-time offers, including the return of its Monopoly game in October and a Grinch-themed meal in December. McDonald’s said its same-store sales rose 6.8% in the U.S. in the October-December period.

    The playbook has been similar in international markets. In Australia, for example, McDonald’s saw higher store traffic after it locked in pricing on its value items for 12 months starting in July.

    McDonald’s revenue rose 10% to $7.01 billion in the fourth quarter. That beat Wall Street’s forecast of $6.84 billion.

    Net income rose 7% to $2.16 billion. Adjusted for one-time items, including restructuring charges, McDonald’s earned $3.12 per share. That also beat analysts’ forecast of a $3.05 per share profit.

    Other chains have also been focused on their value message over the last year. Taco Bell, which expanded its value menu in January 2025, said last week that its same-store sales jumped 7% in the October-December period.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NASCAR settles federal antitrust case, gives all teams the permanent charters they wanted

    [ad_1]

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Michael Jordan and NASCAR chairman Jim France stood side-by-side on the steps of a federal courthouse as if they were old friends following a stunning settlement Thursday of a bruising antitrust case in which the Basketball Hall of Famer was the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit accusing the top racing series in the United States of being a monopolistic bully.

    The duo was flanked by three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin and Curtis Polk, the co-owners of 23XI Racing with Jordan, Front Row Motorsports owner Bob Jenkins and over a dozen lawyers as they celebrated the end to an eight-day trial that ultimately led NASCAR to cave and grant all its teams the permanent charters they wanted.

    “Like two competitors, obviously we tried to get as much done in each other’s favor,” Jordan said, towering over the 81-year-old France. “I’ve said this from Day 1: The only way this sport is going to grow is we have to find some synergy between the two entities. I think we’ve gotten to that point, unfortunately it took 16 months to get here, but I think level heads have gotten us to this point where we can actually work together and grow this sport. I am very proud about that and I think Jim feels the same.”

    France concurred.

    “I do feel the same and we can get back to focusing on what we really love, and that’s racing, and we spent a lot of time not really focused on that so much as we needed to be,” France said. “I feel like we made a very good decision here together and we have a big opportunity to continue growing the sport.”

    A charter is the equivalent of the franchise model used in other sports and in NASCAR it guarantees 36 teams a spot in every top-level Cup Series race and a fixed portion of the revenue stream. The system was implemented in 2016 and teams have argued for over two years that the charters needed to be made permanent — they had been revokable by NASCAR — and the revenue sharing had to change.

    NASCAR, founded and privately owned by the Florida-based France family, never considered making the charters permanent. Instead, after two-plus years of bitter negotiations, NASCAR in September 2024 presented a “take-it-or leave-it” final offer that gave teams until end of that day to sign the 112-page document.

    23XI and Front Row refused and sued, while 13 other organizations signed but testimony in court revealed many did so “with a gun to our head” because the threat of losing the charters would have put them out of business.

    Jordan testified early in the trial that as a new team owner to NASCAR — 23XI launched in 2021 — he felt he had the strength to challenge NASCAR. Eight days of testimony went badly for NASCAR, which when it began to present its case seemed focused more on mitigating damages than it did on proving it did not violate antitrust laws.

    Although terms of the settlement were not released — NASCAR was in the process of scheduling a Thursday afternoon call with all teams to discuss the revenue-sharing model moving forward — both Jordan and NASCAR said that charters will now be permanent for all teams. 23XI and Front Row will receive their combined six charters back for 2026.

    An economist previously testified that NASCAR owes 23XI and Front Row $364.7 million in damages, and that NASCAR shorted 36 chartered teams $1.06 billion from 2021-24.

    “Today’s a good day,” Jordan said from the front-row seat he’s occupied since the trial began Dec. 1 as he waited for the settlement announcement.

    U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, who had presided over two days of failed settlement talks before the trial began, echoed the sentiment. Bell told the jury that sometimes parties at trial have to see how the evidence unfolds to come to the wisdom of a settlement.

    “I wish we could’ve done this a few months ago,” Bell said in court. “I believe this is great for NASCAR. Great for the future of NASCAR. Great for the entity of NASCAR. Great for the teams and ultimately great for the fans.”

    The settlement came after two days of testimony by France and the Wednesday night public release of a letter from Bass Pro Shops founder Johnny Morris calling for NASCAR Commissioner Steve Phelps to be removed.

    The discovery process revealed internal NASCAR communications in which Phelps called Hall of Fame team owner Richard Childress a “redneck” and other derogatory names; Bass Pro sponsors Childress’ teams, as well as some others, and Morris is an ardent NASCAR supporter.

    Childress gave fiery testimony earlier this week over his reluctance to sign the charter agreement because it was unfair to the teams, which have been bleeding money and begged NASCAR for concessions. Letters from Hall of Fame team owners Joe Gibbs, Rick Hendrick, Jack Roush and Roger Penske were introduced in which they pleaded with France for charters to become permanent; France testified he was not moved by the men he considers good friends.

    Hendrick and Penske, who were both scheduled to testify Friday, expressed gratitude that a settlement had been reached. Penske called it “tremendous news” and said it cleared the way to continue growing the series.

    “Millions of loyal NASCAR fans and thousands of hardworking people rely on our industry, and today’s resolution allows all of us to focus on what truly matters — the future of our sport,” Hendrick said. “This moment presents an important opportunity to strengthen our relationships and recommit ourselves to building a collaborative and prosperous future for all stakeholders. I’m incredibly optimistic about what’s ahead.”

    The settlement came abruptly on the ninth day of the trial. Bell opened expecting to hear motions but both sides asked for a private conference in chambers. When they emerged, Bell ordered an hourlong break for the two sides to confer. That turned into two hours, all parties returned to the courtroom and Kessler announced an agreement had been reached.

    “What all parties have always agreed on is a deep love for the sport and a desire to see it fulfill its full potential,” NASCAR and the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. “This is a landmark moment, one that ensures NASCAR’s foundation is stronger, its future is brighter and its possibilities are greater.”

    ___

    AP auto racing: https://apnews.com/hub/auto-racing

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Economist says NASCAR owes $364.7M to teams in antitrust case

    [ad_1]

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — An economist testified in Michael Jordan’s federal antitrust trial against NASCAR that the racing series owes a combined $364.7 million in damages to the two teams suing it over a revenue-sharing dispute.

    Edward Snyder, a professor of economics who worked in the antitrust division of the Department of Justice and has testified in more than 30 cases, including “Deflategate” involving the NFL’s New England Patriots, testified on Monday. He gave three specific reasons NASCAR is a monopoly participating in anticompetitive business practices.

    Using a complex formula applied to profits, a reduction in market revenue, and lost revenue to 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports from 2021-24, Snyder came up with his amount of damages owed. Snyder applied a 45% of revenue sharing he alleged Formula 1 gives to its teams in his calculations; Snyder found that NASCAR’s revenue-sharing model when its charter system began in 2016 gave only 25% to the teams.

    The suit is about the 2025 charter agreement, which was presented to teams on a Friday in September 2024 with a same-day deadline to sign the 112-page document. The charter offer came after more than two years of bitter negotiations between NASCAR and its teams, who have called the agreement “a take-it-or-leave-it” ultimatum that they signed with “a gun to their head.”

    A charter is similar to the franchise model in other sports, but in NASCAR it guarantees 36 teams spots in the 40-car field, as well as specific revenue.

    Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin for 23XI, along with Front Row Motorsports and owner Bob Jenkins, were the only two teams out of 15 to refuse the new charter agreement.

    Snyder’s evaluations found NASCAR was in fact violating antitrust laws in that the privately owned racing series controls all bargaining because “teams don’t have anywhere else to sell their services.” Snyder said NASCAR controls “the tracks, the teams and the cars.”

    Snyder repeatedly cited exclusivity agreements NASCAR entered into with racetracks after the charter system began. The agreements prevent tracks that host NASCAR from holding events with rival racing series. Prior to the long-term agreements, NASCAR operated on one-year contracts with its host racetracks.

    The Florida-based France family founded NASCAR in 1948 and, along with Speedway Motorsports, owns almost all the tracks on the top Cup Series schedule. Snyder’s belief is that NASCAR entered into exclusivity agreements with tracks to stave off any threats of a breakaway startup series. In doing so, he said it eliminated teams’ ability to race stock cars anywhere else, forced them to accept revenue-sharing agreements that are below market value, and damaged their overall evaluations.

    Snyder did his calculations for both teams based on each having two charters — each purchased a third charter in late 2024 — and found 23XI is owed $215.8 million while Front Row is owed $148.9 million. Based on his calculations, Snyder determined NASCAR shorted 36 chartered teams $1.06 billion from 2021-24.

    Snyder noted NASCAR had $2.2 billion in assets, an equity value of $5 billion and an investment-grade credit rating — which Snyder believes positions the France family to be able to pivot and adjust to any threats of a rival series the way the PGA did in response to the LIV Golf league. The PGA, Snyder testified, “got creative” in bringing in new revenue to pay to its golfers to prevent their defections.

    Snyder also testified NASCAR had $250 million in annual earnings from 2021-24 and the France family took $400 million in distributions during that period.

    NASCAR contends Snyder’s estimations are wrong, that the 45% F1 model he used is not correct, and its own two experts “take serious issue” with Snyder’s findings. Defense attorney Lawrence Buterman asked Snyder his opinion on NASCAR’s upcoming expert witnesses and Snyder said they were two of the best economists in the world.

    Slow pace of trial

    Snyder testified for almost the entirety of Monday’s session — the sixth day of the trial — and will continue on Tuesday. The snail’s pace has agitated U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, who heard arguments 30 minutes early Monday morning because he was annoyed that objections had been submitted at 2:55 a.m. and then 6:50 a.m.

    He needed an hour to get through the rulings, and testimony resumed 30 minutes behind schedule. When the day concluded, he asked the nine-person jury if they were willing to serve an hour longer each day the rest of the week in an effort to avoid a third full week of trial. He all said all motions must be filed by 10 p.m. each evening moving forward.

    Bell wants plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Kessler to conclude his case by the end of Tuesday, but Kessler told him he still plans to call NASCAR chairman Jim France, NASCAR commissioner Steve Phelps and Hall of Fame team owner Richard Childress, who was the subject of derogatory text messages amongst NASCAR leadership and has said he’s considering legal action.

    NASCAR has a list of 16 potential witnesses and Bell said he wanted the first one on the stand before Tuesday’s session concludes.

    ___

    AP auto racing: https://apnews.com/hub/auto-racing

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New limits for a rent algorithm that prosecutors say let landlords drive up prices

    [ad_1]

    Landlords could no longer rely on rent-pricing software to quietly track each other’s moves and push rents higher using confidential data, under a settlement between RealPage Inc. and federal prosecutors to end what critics said was illegal “algorithmic collusion.”

    The deal announced Monday by the Department of Justice follows a yearlong federal antitrust lawsuit, launched during the Biden administration, against the Texas-based software company. RealPage would not have to pay any damages or admit any wrongdoing. The settlement must still be approved by a judge.

    RealPage software provides daily recommendations to help landlords and their employees nationwide price their available apartments. The landlords do not have to follow the suggestions, but critics argue that because the software has access to a vast trove of confidential data, it helps RealPage’s clients charge the highest possible rent.

    “RealPage was replacing competition with coordination, and renters paid the price,” said DOJ antitrust chief Gail Slater, who emphasized that the settlement avoided a costly, time-consuming trial.

    Under the terms of the proposed settlement, RealPage can no longer use that real-time data to determine price recommendations. Instead, the only nonpublic data that can be used to train the software’s algorithm must be at least one year old.

    “What does this mean for you and your family?” Slater said in a video statement. “It means more real competition in local housing markets. It means rents set by the market, not by a secret algorithm.”

    RealPage attorney Stephen Weissman said the company is pleased the DOJ worked with them to settle the matter.

    “There has been a great deal of misinformation about how RealPage’s software works and the value it provides for both housing providers and renters,” Weissman said in a statement. “We believe that RealPage’s historical use of aggregated and anonymized nonpublic data, which include rents that are typically lower than advertised rents, has led to lower rents, less vacancies, and more procompetitive effects.”

    However, the deal was slammed by some observers as a missed opportunity to clamp down on alleged algorithmic price-fixing throughout the economy.

    “This case really was the tip of the spear,” said Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, whose group advocates for government action against business concentration.

    He said the settlement is rife with loopholes and he believes RealPages can keep influencing the rental market even if they can only use public, rather than private, data. He also decried how RealPages does not have to pay any damages, unlike many companies that have paid millions in penalties over their use of the software.

    Over the past few months, more than two dozen property management companies have reached various settlements over their use of RealPage, including Greystar, the nation’s largest landlord, which agreed to pay $50 million to settle a class action lawsuit, and $7 million to settle a separate lawsuit filed by nine states.

    The governors of California and New York signed laws last month to crack down on rent-setting software, and a growing list of cities, including Philadelphia and Seattle, have passed ordinances against the practice.

    Ten states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington — had joined the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit. Those states were not part of Monday’s settlement, meaning they can continue to pursue the case in court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google and US government battle over the future of internet advertising

    [ad_1]

    Google will confront the U.S. government’s latest attempt to topple its internet empire in federal court on Friday as a judge considers how to prevent the abusive tactics that culminated in parts of its digital ad network being branded as an illegal monopoly.

    The courtroom showdown in Alexandria, Virginia, will pit lawyers from Google and the U.S. Department of Justice against each other in closing proceedings focused on the complex technology that distributes millions of digital ads across the internet each day.

    After a lengthy trial last year, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in April that pieces of Google’s ad technology had been rigged in a way that made it an illegal monopoly. That set up another 11-day trial earlier this fall to help Brinkema determine how to remedy its anti-competitive practices.

    Friday’s closing arguments will give both Google and the Justice Department a final chance to sway Brinkema before she issues a ruling that probably won’t come until early next year.

    The Justice Department wants Brinkema to force Google to sell some of the ad technology that it has spent nearly 20 years assembling, contending a breakup is the only way to rein in a company that the agency’s lawyers condemned as a “recidivist monopolist” in filings leading up to Friday’s hearing.

    The condemnation refers not only to Google’s practices in digital advertising but also to the illegal monopoly that it unleashed through its dominant search engine. Federal prosecutors also sought a breakup in the search monopoly case, but the judge handling that issue rejected a proposal that would have required Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser.

    Although Google is still being ordered to make reforms that it’s resisting, the outcome in the search monopoly case has been widely seen as a proverbial slap on the wrist. The belief that Google got off easy in the search case is the main reason the market value of its parent company Alphabet surged by about $950 billion, or 37%, to nearly $3.5 trillion since U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s decision came out in early September.

    That setback hasn’t discouraged the Justice Department from arguing for a breakup of an ad tech system that handles 55 million requests per second, according to estimates provided by Google in court filings.

    The huge volume of digital ads priced and distributed through Google’s technology is one of the main reasons that the company’s lawyers contend it would be too risky to force a dismantling of the intricate system.

    “This is technology that absolutely has to keep working for consumers,” Google argues in documents leading up to Friday’s hearing. The company’s lawyers blasted the Justice Department’s proposal as a package of “legally unprecedented and unsupported divestitures.”

    Besides arguing that its own proposed changes will bring more price transparency and foster more competition, Google is also citing market upheaval triggered by artificial intelligence as another reason for the judge to proceed cautiously with her decision.

    In his decision in the search monopoly case, Mehta reasoned that AI was already posing more competition to Google.

    But the Justice Department urged the judge to focus on the testimony from a litany of trial witnesses who outlined why Google shouldn’t be trusted to change its devious behavior.

    The witnesses “explained how Google can manipulate computer algorithms that are the engine of its monopolies in ways too difficult to detect,” the Justice Department argued in court papers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta prevails in historic FTC antitrust case, won’t have to break off WhatsApp, Instagram

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Meta has prevailed over an existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.

    U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling Tuesday after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision runs in sharp contrast to two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing regulatory blows to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.

    The Federal Trade Commission “continues to insist that Meta competes with the same old rivals it has for the last decade, that the company holds a monopoly among that small set, and that it maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive acquisitions,” Boasberg wrote in his ruling. “Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now. The Court’s verdict today determines that the FTC has not done so.”

    The federal agency had argued that Meta maintained a monopoly by pursuing an expression CEO Mark Zuckerberg made in 2008: “‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”

    During his April testimony, Zuckerberg pushed back against claims that Facebook bought Instagram to neutralize a threat. In his line of questioning, FTC attorney Daniel Matheson repeatedly brought up emails — many of them more than a decade old — written by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram.

    While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote the emails early in the acquisition process and that the notes did not fully capture the scope of his interest in the company. But the case was not about the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago, which the FTC approved at the time, but about whether Meta holds a monopoly now. Prosecutors, Boasberg wrote in the ruling, could only win if they proved “current or imminent legal violation.”

    The FTC’s complaint said Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.

    Meta said Tuesday’s decision “recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition.”

    “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America,” said Jennifer Newstead, chief legal officer, in a statement.

    The social media landscape has changed so much since the FTC filed its lawsuit in 2020, Boasberg wrote, that each time the court examined Meta’s apps and competition, they changed. Two opinions to dismiss the case — filed in 2021 and 2022 — didn’t even mention popular social video platform TikTok. Today, it “holds center stage as Meta’s fiercest rival.”

    Quoting the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, “that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” Boasberg said the same is true for the online world of social media as well.

    “The landscape that existed only five years ago when the Federal Trade Commission brought this antitrust suit has changed markedly. While it once might have made sense to partition apps into separate markets of social networking and social media, that wall has since broken down,” he wrote.

    Emarketer analyst Minda Smiley said Meta’s win “is not necessarily surprising considering the lengths it’s gone to in recent years to keep up with TikTok.”

    “But from a regulatory standpoint, Meta is far from out of the woods: next year, major social networks will face landmark trials in the US regarding children’s mental health,” she added. “Still, today’s win is surely a boost for the company as it battles criticism and questions over how its massive AI spending will ultimately benefit Meta in the long run.”

    Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.

    Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Up until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a type of popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.

    WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Meta’s competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp.

    Investors didn’t appear surprised at the ruling. Shares of the Menlo Park, California-based company were down $1.52 at $600.49 in afternoon trading Tuesday, in line with broader market trends.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Epic Games and Google say they’re settling 5-year legal fight over Android app store

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — Video game maker Epic Games has reached a “comprehensive settlement” with Google that could end its 5-year-old legal crusade targeting Google’s Play Store for Android apps.

    Epic and Google revealed the settlement agreement in a joint legal document they filed in a San Francisco federal court Tuesday.

    They said it “would allow the parties to put their disputes aside while making Android a more vibrant and competitive platform for users and developers.”

    Epic, which makes the hit online game Fortnite, won a victory over the summer when a federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict condemning Google’s Android app store as an illegal monopoly. The unanimous ruling cleared the way for a federal judge to enforce a potentially disruptive shake-up that’s designed to give consumers more choices.

    The specific terms of the settlement agreement remain under seal and must be approved by U.S. District Judge James Donato, but the two companies broadly outlined some of their agreements in their joint filing.

    They said the settlement closely follows Donato’s October 2024 ruling ordering Google to tear down the digital walls shielding its Android app store from competition. That included a provision that will require its app store to distribute rival third-party app stores so consumers can download them to their phones, if they so desire.

    Google had hoped to void those changes with an appeal, but the ruling issued in July by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a legal blow for the tech giant, which has been waylaid in three separate antitrust trials affecting different pillars of its internet empire.

    Epic Games filed lawsuits targeting Google’s Play Store as well as Apple’s iPhone app store in 2020 in an attempt to bypass exclusive payment processing systems that charged 15% to 30% commissions on in-app transactions. The settlement agreement proposed Tuesday calls for Google to limit those payments to between 9% and 20%, depending on the transaction.

    Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the settlement an “awesome proposal” in a social media post. A hearing is set for Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s corporate parent posts first-ever quarter with $100B in revenue in latest show of its power

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — Google’s corporate parent on Wednesday announced its first-ever quarter with more than $100 billion in revenue, a milestone that illustrates the unwavering power of its internet empire amid legal and competitive threats.

    The news of Alphabet Inc.’s accelerating growth in revenue and profit comes on the heels of a court ruling in the U.S. Justice Department’s landmark monopoly case against Google’s dominant search engine that was widely seen as a mild rebuke that wouldn’t hobble the company.

    Alphabet performed like a powerhouse during the July-September period, delivering a profit of nearly $35 billion, or $2.87 per share, a 33% increase from the same time last year. Revenue rose 16% from last year to $102.3 billion. Both figures easily exceeded the analysts’ projections that steer the stock market.

    Investors celebrated the third-quarter numbers by driving up Alphabet’s stock price nearly 5% in Wednesday’s extended trading.

    That’s on top of a 30% surge in Alphabet’s shares that has created nearly $770 billion in stockholder wealth since early September. That’s when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected a Justice Department proposal to break up Google to curb the abuses of a search engine that was declared an illegal monopoly last year.

    Mehta’s cautious handling of Google’s search monopoly largely reflected his belief that rapid advances in artificial intelligence technology have already been spawning conversational “answer engines” from rising tech stars such as ChatGPT and Perplexity that are giving consumers more options.

    ChatGPT’s creator OpenAI and Perplexity have released AI-powered web browsers to compete against Google’s industry-leading Chrome browser that the Justice Department had unsuccessfully tried to persuade Mehta to order to be sold.

    But Google has been implanting more AI features into both its search engine and Chrome, as well as its other products, as part of its effort to protect its turf while also expanding into new technological frontiers. In a sign of the inroads those efforts are making, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai disclosed Wednesday that Google’s AI-powered Gemini app now has 650 million monthly users.

    Like other major tech companies, Google has been bankrolling its AI ambitions with a spending spree that has raised worries about a potential bubble that will eventually burst. Alphabet now expects to budget $91 billion to $93 billion for capital expenditures this year, up from $85 billion in its previous quarterly report issued in July, with most of the money earmarked for the massive data centers needed to power AI.

    Alphabet has the luxury of drawing upon a lucrative ad network that Google has spent a quarter century building. Google’s ad sales totaled $74.2 billion in the third quarter, a 13% increase from last year.

    The AI craze has been a boon for Google’s Cloud division that oversees data centers for other companies, an endeavor that has turned into the fastest growing part of Alphabet. Google Cloud posted revenue of $15.2 billion in the past quarter, up 34% from last year.

    Although Google appears to have fared relatively well in the legal attack on its search engine, it still faces a potentially damaging blow in another case brought by the Justice Department against the technology underlying its ad network.

    After condemning parts of Google’s ad technology as an illegal monopoly earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema is considering ways to handcuff the company in the future. The Justice Department is seeking a court order to force Google to sell pieces of its ad network — an issue that Brinkema isn’t expected to rule on until early next year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michael Jordan laughs at NASCAR’s claims as bitter antitrust feud barrels toward a trial

    [ad_1]

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. — CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — NASCAR and two of its teams returned to court Thursday after two failed days of mediation and resumed their bitter antitrust fight with a hearing that included team owner Michael Jordan laughing in disbelief at some of the testimony as the two sides hurtle toward a trial.

    “Today’s hearing confirmed the facts of NASCAR’s monopolistic practices and showed NASCAR for who they are — retaliatory bullies who would rather focus on personal attacks and distract from the facts,” Jeffrey Kessler, who represents the two teams, said afterward. “My clients have never been more united and committed to ensuring a fair and competitive sport for all teams, partners, drivers and fans. We’re going to trial to hold NASCAR accountable.”

    The lawsuit was filed a year ago by 23XI Racing, co-owned by Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, and Bob Jenkins-owned Front Row Racing. They are the only two organizations out of 15 to refuse to sign extensions for new charter agreements following more than two years of negotiations. Charters are at the heart of NASCAR’s business model, guaranteeing revenue and access to weekly races, and without them both teams say they will almost surely go out of business.

    Other teams have called for a settlement to clear the air and move the stock car series forward, but three mediation sessions have apparently gone nowhere and the hearing laid bare how far apart they are. The trial is scheduled for Dec. 1.

    U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell and Jeffrey Mishkin, a former executive vice president and chief legal officer of the NBA, both participated in mediation Monday and Tuesday and Bell opened the session by thanking both sides for working in good faith during the sessions. NASCAR wants Bell to throw the lawsuit out and the hearing focused on the series’ bid to narrow the scope of damages the two teams say they are owed.

    NASCAR has accused 23XI and FRM of manipulating other teams and conducting themselves with “classic cartel behavior, ultimately because they received less than they would have” under charter extensions signed late last year. It struggled to make those arguments Thursday.

    NASCAR repeatedly insisted that teams are free to compete in both IndyCar and F1, failing to disclose that entry into F1 is nearly impossible and the financials of IndyCar are simply not even close to the value of competing in the stock car series. Kessler likened a NASCAR move to IndyCar to a Major League Baseball team moving to the minors.

    “Experts found that the (IndyCar) prize money and TV ratings were too low to make them a minor league team,” Kessler argued. “Michael Jordan, if you put a gun to his head and said you have to join IndyCar, it better be a pretty big gun.”

    NASCAR also mischaracterized Chip Ganassi Racing’s sale of its NASCAR team to Trackhouse Racing ahead of the 2021 season as an opportunity for Ganassi — whose name was repeatedly mispronounced by NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates — to reinvest in IndyCar and expand that program to four cars. Ganassi has long run three to four cars in IndyCar and for more than three decades has been considered one of the top two teams in IndyCar.

    Jordan multiple times laughed and smiled at NASCAR’s claims, and at one point Hamlin and Jenkins vehemently shook their heads at NASCAR’s assertion that it pays its teams a higher percentage of revenue than F1 does to its teams. Jordan did not speak with reporters afterward.

    The original charters lasted from 2016 through 2020 and were automatically renewed to continue through Dec. 31, 2024. NASCAR contends they have added more than $1 billion in equity for its teams but owners have pushed for changes.

    23XI and FRM initially won a preliminary injunction to be recognized as chartered teams this season while the case played out, but that was overturned and the combined six cars have competed as “open” teams as the season nears its season finale Nov. 2.

    Kessler argued that damages in the case should date to the 2021 season because of 28 exclusionary items he says prevent NASCAR teams from competing in any motorsports series that closely resembles their version of stock car racing. NASCAR conceded that there was at least one exclusionary item in that charter agreement that began in 2021.

    Bell was supposed to hear testimony from expert witnesses but scheduled two November court dates, two weeks after Hamlin will race for the Cup Series title in suburban Phoenix.

    ___

    AP auto racing: https://apnews.com/hub/auto-racing

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google and Apple face extra UK scrutiny over ‘strategic’ role in mobile platforms

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — LONDON (AP) — Britain’s antitrust watchdog on Wednesday targeted Google and Apple for their “strategic” roles in mobile ecosystems, opening the door for regulators to impose changes to their business practices to improve competition.

    The Competition and Markets Authority escalated scrutiny of the two U.S. tech companies by labeling them with “strategic market status.” It follows separate investigations that the CMA opened at the start of the year into Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS using newly acquired digital market regulations designed to protect consumers and businesses from unfair practices by Big Tech companies.

    The regulator’s decision was expected. It proposed the classifications in July but sought feedback before releasing its final decision.

    Google called the decision “disappointing, disproportionate and unwarranted,” and has contended previously that Android has saved app developers money because they didn’t have to adapt to different operating models for each smartphone.

    “Following the CMA’s decision today, our mobile business in the UK faces a set of new – and, as of yet, uncertain – rules,” said Oliver Bethell, senior competition director at Google. “The CMA’s next steps will be crucial if the UK’s digital markets regime is to meet its promise of being pro-growth and pro-innovation.”

    Google was already given the “strategic market status” designation earlier this month, when the CMA wielded its new powers for the first time by targeting the company’s role in a separate investigation into the online search advertising market.

    The CMA says being labeled with “strategic market status” doesn’t imply any wrongdoing. But it means the watchdog has the power to use targeted measures to open up competition and ensure consumers and businesses are treated fairly.

    The watchdog has said Apple and Google hold an “effective duopoly,” with 90-100% of mobile devices in Britain running on either mobile platform. Its investigation found a range of concerns affecting businesses and consumers such as unpredictable app reviews, inconsistent app store search rankings and commissions on in-app purchases of as much as 30%.

    The CMA had unveiled separate “road maps” for each company outlining possible measures to improve competition, including “fair and transparent” app reviews and app store rankings to give British app developers “certainty.”

    The watchdog had also recommended letting app developers “steer” users to channels outside of app stores where users can make purchases, mirroring similar efforts by the European Union.

    Apple has said it was worried the CMA’s moves could pose increase risks for users and jeopardize the U.K.’s “developer economy.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s Play Store shake-up looms after court refuses to delay overhaul of monopoly

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to protect Google from a year-old order requiring a major makeover of its Android app store that’s designed to unleash more competition against a system that a jury declared an illegal monopoly.

    The rebuff delivered in a one-sentence decision by the Supreme Court means Google will soon have to start an overhaul of its Play Store for the apps running on the Android software that powers most smartphones that compete against Apple’s iPhone in the U.S.

    Among other changes, U.S. District Judge James Donato last October ordered Google to give its competitors access to its entire inventory of Android apps and also make those alternative options available to download from the Play Store.

    In a filing last month, Google told the U.S. Supreme Court that Donato’s order would expose the Play Store’s more than 100 million U.S. users to “enormous security and safety risks by enabling stores that stock malicious, deceptive, or pirated content to proliferate.”

    Google also said it faced an Oct. 22 deadline to begin complying with the judge’s order if the Supreme Court didn’t grant its request for a stay. The Mountain View, California, company was seeking the protection while pursuing a last-ditch attempt to overturn the December 2023 jury verdict that condemned the Play Store as an abusive monopoly.

    In a statement, Google said it will continue its fight in the Supreme Court while submitting to what it believes is a problematic order. “The changes ordered by the U.S. District Court will jeopardize users’ ability to safely download apps,” Google warned.

    Google had been insulated from the order while trying to overturn it and the monopoly verdict, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that attempt in a decision issued two months ago.

    In its filing with the Supreme Court, Google argued it was being unfairly turned into a supplier and distributor for would-be rivals.

    Donato concluded the digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition needed to be torn down to counteract a pattern of abusive behavior. The conduct had enabled Google to to reap billions of dollars in annual profits, primarily from its exclusive control of a payment processing system that collected a 15-30% fee on in-app transactions.

    Those commissions were the focal point of an antitrust lawsuit that video game maker Epic Games filed against Google in 2020, setting up a month-long trial in San Francisco federal court that culminated in the jury’s monopoly verdict.

    Epic, the maker of the Fortnite game, lost a similar antitrust case targeting Apple’s iPhone app store. Even though U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rodgers concluded the iPhone app store wasn’t an illegal monopoly, she ordered Apple to begin allowing links to alternative payment systems as part of a shake-up that resulted in the company being held in civil contempt of court earlier this year.

    In a post, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney applauded the Supreme Court for clearing the way for consumers to choose alternative app payment choices “without fees, scare screens, and friction.”

    Although the Play Store changes will likely dent Google’s profit, the company makes most of its money from a digital ad network that’s anchored by its dominant search engine — the pillars of an internet empire that has been under attack on other legal fronts.

    As part of cases brought by the U.S. Justice Department, both Google’s search engine and parts of its advertising technology were declared illegal monopolies, too.

    A federal judge in the search engine case earlier this year rejected a proposed break-up outlined by the Justice Department i n a decision that was widely seen as a reprieve for Google. The government is now seeking to break up Google in the advertising technology case during proceedings that are scheduled to wrap up with closing arguments on Nov. 17 in Alexandria, Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s Play Store shake-up looms after Supreme Court refuses to delay overhaul of the monopoly

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to protect Google from a year-old order requiring a major makeover of its Android app store that’s designed to unleash more competition against a system that a jury declared an illegal monopoly.

    The rebuff delivered in a one-sentence decision by the Supreme Court means Google will soon have to start an overhaul of its Play Store for the apps running on the Android software that powers most smartphones that compete against Apple’s iPhone in the U.S.

    Among other changes, U.S. District Judge James Donato last October ordered Google to give its competitors access to its entire inventory of Android apps and also make those alternative options available to download from the Play Store.

    In a filing last month, Google told the U.S. Supreme Court that Donato’s order would expose the Play Store’s more than 100 million U.S. users to “enormous security and safety risks by enabling stores that stock malicious, deceptive, or pirated content to proliferate.”

    Google also said it faced an Oct. 22 deadline to begin complying with the judge’s order if the Supreme Court didn’t grant its request for a stay. The Mountain View, California, company was seeking the protection while pursuing a last-ditch attempt to overturn the December 2023 jury verdict that condemned the Play Store as an abusive monopoly.

    In a statement, Google said it will continue its fight in the Supreme Court while submitting to what it believes is a problematic order. “The changes ordered by the U.S. District Court will jeopardize users’ ability to safely download apps,” Google warned.

    Google had been insulated from the order while trying to overturn it and the monopoly verdict, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that attempt in a decision issued two months ago.

    In its filing with the Supreme Court, Google argued it was being unfairly turned into a supplier and distributor for would-be rivals.

    Donato concluded the digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition needed to be torn down to counteract a pattern of abusive behavior. The conduct had enabled Google to to reap billions of dollars in annual profits, primarily from its exclusive control of a payment processing system that collected a 15-30% fee on in-app transactions.

    Those commissions were the focal point of an antitrust lawsuit that video game maker Epic Games filed against Google in 2020, setting up a month-long trial in San Francisco federal court that culminated in the jury’s monopoly verdict.

    Epic, the maker of the Fortnite game, lost a similar antitrust case targeting Apple’s iPhone app store. Even though U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rodgers concluded the iPhone app store wasn’t an illegal monopoly, she ordered Apple to begin allowing links to alternative payment systems as part of a shake-up that resulted in the company being held in civil contempt of court earlier this year.

    In a post, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney applauded the Supreme Court for clearing the way for consumers to choose alternative app payment choices “without fees, scare screens, and friction.”

    Although the Play Store changes will likely dent Google’s profit, the company makes most of its money from a digital ad network that’s anchored by its dominant search engine — the pillars of an internet empire that has been under attack on other legal fronts.

    As part of cases brought by the U.S. Justice Department, both Google’s search engine and parts of its advertising technology were declared illegal monopolies, too.

    A federal judge in the search engine case earlier this year rejected a proposed break-up outlined by the Justice Department i n a decision that was widely seen as a reprieve for Google. The government is now seeking to break up Google in the advertising technology case during proceedings that are scheduled to wrap up with closing arguments on Nov. 17 in Alexandria, Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Global shares trade mixed as markets eye Fed decision

    [ad_1]

    Wall Street inched a tad higher early Monday as markets look ahead to what most expect will be an interest rate cut by the U.S. Federal Reserve later this week.

    Futures for the S&P 500 and Dow Jones industrials each ticked up 0.2% before the bell, while futures for the Nasdaq were up just 0.1%.

    Nvidia dipped 1.5% in premarket after China accused the company of violating the country’s antimonopoly laws. China said it would step up scrutiny of the world’s leading chipmaker, escalating tensions with Washington as the two countries hold trade talks this week.

    Chinese regulators said a preliminary investigation found that Nvidia didn’t comply with conditions imposed for its $6.9 billion purchase of Mellanox Technologies, a network and data transmission company. The one-sentence statement from Chinese regulators didn’t mention punishment, but said it would carry out “further investigation.”

    Tesla shares climbed 8.5% after CEO Elon Musk disclosed the purchase of more than 2.5 million shares worth approximately $1 billion.

    Musk purchased various amounts of shares at different prices on Friday, according to a regulatory filing. Markets tend to view such insider purchases as the confidence in the company’s future.

    With earnings season effectively wrapped up, investors are looking ahead to Wednesday, when the Federal Reserve is widely expected to cut its benchmark interest rate for the first time this year, despite inflation that remains above the central bank’s 2% target.

    Even as prices remain high, Fed officials have publicly acknowledged that a slowing labor market is now their biggest concern. That’s what is primarily driving market optimism for a rate cut this week.

    The central bank will also release its quarterly economic projections Wednesday, and economists forecast that they will show one or two additional cuts this year followed by several more next year.

    Also coming this week is the latest government data on retail sales, which will give a glimpse into whether Americans are still spending freely against the headwinds of still-elevated inflation and a weakening job market..

    Elsewhere, in Europe at midday, France’s CAC 40 jumped 1.2%, while the German DAX gained 0.5%. Britain’s FTSE 100 was unchanged.

    In Asia, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng added 0.2% to 26,446.56. The Shanghai Composite edged down 0.3% to 3,860.50.

    Worries are simmering about China’s economy, as analysts say the data for August aren’t strong enough to reflect ongoing dynamic growth, especially given the damage from U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

    “China’s economy continued to slide in August, with all key activity readings falling short of market forecasts once more,” Lynn Song of ING Economics said in a report.

    “Given the slowdown of the past few months, we expect that there’s a strong case for additional short-term stimulus efforts,”

    China’s industrial production grew 5.2%, a 12-month low that was down from 5.7% in July and 6.8% in June. Retail sales rose 3.4%, the slowest pace since last November.

    “The underlying flow is shifting. For years, Beijing leaned on exports as the carry trade that kept growth rolling even as property cracked. But with Trump’s tariffs slicing through supply chains, that leg of the trade is gone,” said Stephen Innes, managing partner at SPI Asset Management.

    Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 lost 0.1% to 8,853.00, while South Korea’s Kospi gained 0.4% to 3,407.31. Stock trading was closed Monday for a national holiday in Japan.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Ken Moritsugu in Beijing contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google hit with $3.5B fine from European Union in ad-tech antitrust case

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — European Union regulators on Friday hit Google with a 2.95 billion euro ($3.5 billion) fine for breaching the bloc’s competition rules by favoring its own digital advertising services, marking the fourth such antitrust penalty for the company.

    The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive branch and top antitrust enforcer, also ordered the U.S. tech giant to end its “self-preferencing practices” and take steps to stop “conflicts of interest” along the advertising technology supply chain.

    EU regulators had previously threatened a breakup of the company but held off on that threat for the time being.

    Google said the decision was “wrong” and that it would appeal.

    “It imposes an unjustified fine and requires changes that will hurt thousands of European businesses by making it harder for them to make money,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s global head of regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

    The decision was long overdue, coming more than two years after the European Commission announced antitrust charges against Google.

    The commission had said at the time that the only way to satisfy antitrust concerns about Google’s lucrative digital ad business was to sell off parts of its business. However, this decision made only a brief mention of possible divestment and comes amid renewed tensions between Brussels and the Trump administration over trade, tariffs and technology regulation.

    Top EU officials had said earlier that the commission was seeking a forced sale because past cases that ended with fines and requirements for Google to stop anti-competitive practices have not worked, allowing the company to continue its behavior in a different form.

    It’s the second time in a week that Google has avoided a breakup.

    Google is also under fire on a separate front in the U.S., where prosecutors want the company to sell off its Chrome browser after a judge found the company had an illegal monopoly in online search.

    On Tuesday, a U.S. federal judge found that Google had illegal monopoly in online search and ordered a shake-up of its search engine but rebuffed the government’s attempt to break up the company by forcing a sale of its Chrome browser.

    But the EU indicated that breakup option is not totally off the table. Google has 60 days to tell the Commission its proposals to end its conflicts of interest, and if the regulators aren’t satisfied they will propose an “appropriate remedy.”

    “The Commission has already signaled its preliminary view that only the divestment by Google of part of its services would address the situation of inherent conflicts of interest, but it first wishes to hear and assess Google’s proposal,” it said in a press release.

    The commission’s penalty follows a formal investigation that it opened in June 2021, looking into whether Google violated the bloc’s competition rules by favoring its own online display advertising technology services at the expense of rival publishers, advertisers and advertising technology services.

    Its investigation found that Google “abused” its dominant positions in the ad-technology ecosystem, the commission said.

    Online display ads are banners and text that appear on websites and are personalized based on an internet user’s browsing history.

    Mulholland said, “There’s nothing anticompetitive in providing services for ad buyers and sellers, and there are more alternatives to our services than ever before.”

    Google is facing pressure on other fronts.

    In a separate U.S. case, the Justice Department asked a federal judge in May to force the company to sell off its AdX business and DFP ad platform — tools that are also at the heart of the EU case. They connect advertisers with publishers who have ad space to sell on their sites. The case is scheduled to move to the penalty phase, known as remedy hearings, in late September.

    Authorities in Canada and Britain are also targeting the company over its digital ad business.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge orders search shakeup in Google monopoly case, but keeps hands off Chrome

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a shake-up of Google’s search engine in an attempt to curb the corrosive power of an illegal monopoly while rebuffing the U.S. government’s attempt to break up the company and impose other restraints.

    The 226-page decision made by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., will likely ripple across the technological landscape at a time when the industry is being reshaped by breakthroughs in artificial intelligence — including conversational “answer engines” as companies like ChatGPT and Perplexity try to upend Google’s long-held position as the internet’s main gateway.

    The innovations and competition being unleashed by AI also reshaped the judge’s approach to the remedies in the nearly five-year-old antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department during President Donald Trump’s first administration and carried onward by President Joe Biden’s administration.

    “Unlike the typical case where the court’s job is to resolve a dispute based on historic facts, here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge’s forte,” Mehta wrote.

    The judge is trying to rein in Google by prohibiting some of the tactics the company deployed to drive traffic to its search engine and other services. The ruling also will pry open some of the prized databases of closely guarded information about search that have provided Google with a seemingly insurmountable advantage.

    The handcuffs being slapped on Google will preclude contracts that give its search engine, Gemini AI app, Play Store for Android and virtual assistant an exclusive position on smartphone, personal computers and other devices.

    But Mehta stopped short of banning the multi-billion dollar deals that Google has been making for years to lock in its search engine as the default on smartphones, personal computers and other devices. Those deals, involving payments of more than $26 billion annually, were one of the main issues that prompted the judge to conclude Google’s search engine was an illegal monopoly, but he decided banning them in the future would do more harm than good.

    The judge also rejected the U.S. Justice Department’s effort to force Google to sell its popular Chrome browser, concluding it was an unwarranted step that “would be incredibly messy and highly risky.”

    Partially because he is allowing the default deals to continue, Mehta is ordering Google to give its current and would-be rivals access to some of its search engine’s secret sauce — the data stockpiled from trillions of queries that it used to help improve the quality of its search results. That is a measure that Google had also fiercely opposed, contending it was unfair and would raise privacy and security risk for the billions of people who have posed questions to its search engine — sometimes delving into sensitive issues.

    The Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Gail Slater, hailed the decision as a “major win for the American people,” even though the agency didn’t get everything it sought. “We are now weighing our options and thinking through whether the ordered relief goes far enough,” Slater wrote in a post.

    In its own post, Google framed Mehta’s ruling as a vindication of its long-held position that the case never should have been brought. The decision “recognizes how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information,” wrote Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs. “This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want.”

    The Mountain View, California, company has already vowed to appeal the judge’s monopoly findings issued 13 months ago that led to Tuesday’s ruling.

    “You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot,” said Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project.

    Investors seemed to interpret the ruling as a relatively light slap on the wrist for Google, as the stock price of its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., surged more than 7% in extended trading. That would translate into a nearly $200 billion increase in Alphabet’s market value, if the shares follow a similar trajectory in Wednesday’s regular trading session.

    Allowing the default search deals to continue is more than just a victory for Google. It’s also a win for Apple, which receives more than $20 billion annually from Google, and other recipients of the payments.

    In hearings earlier this year, Apple warned the judge that banning the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own innovative research. The Cupertino, California, company also cautioned that the ban could have the unintended consequence of making Google even more powerful by pocketing the money it had been spending on deals while most consumers will still end up flocking to Google’s search engine anyway.

    Others, such as the owners of the Firefox search engine, asserted that losing the Google contracts would threaten their future survival by depriving them of essential revenue.

    Apple’s shares rose 3% in extended trading after the ruling came out.

    Mehta refrained from ordering a sale of Chrome because he decided there wasn’t adequate proof the browser served as an essential ingredient in Google’s search monopoly, making a divestiture “a poor fit for this case.”

    Chrome would have been a hot commodity had the judge forced Google to put it on the auction block. Perplexity submitted an unsolicited $34.5 billion offer to buy Chrome last month. And during court testimony earlier this year, a ChatGPT executive left no doubt that service’s owner, OpenAI, would be interested in be interested in buying Chrome, too.

    But the judge decided forcing Google to open up parts of its search data to rivals such as DuckDuckGo, Bing, and others will offer he best and fairest way to foster more compelling competition. In doing so, Mehta still narrowed the scope of the Justice Department’s request and will limit the access to Google’s search index and query histories.

    While the wrangling over Mehta’s ruling continues, Google is facing another potentially debilitating threat in another antitrust case brought by the Justice Department targeting the digital ad empire that was built up around its search engine. After different federal judge in Virginia declared that some of the technology underlying the ad network to be an illegal monopoly earlier this year, the Justice Department plans to make its case for another proposed breakup in a trial scheduled to begin later this month.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump administration is investing in US rare earths in a push to break China’s grip

    [ad_1]

    OMAHA, Neb. — U.S. production of crucial components in electric vehicles, smartphones and fighter jets is set to expand rapidly in the coming years, as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to build up the critical mineral industry in the United States to work to break the chokehold that China has on the global supply chain.

    The federal government is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into American companies, has made an agreement with one firm to set a minimum price for some U.S.-produced critical minerals, and has launched an investigation into foreign-made supplies.

    “This is the Manhattan Project moment for rare earths,” said Joshua Ballard, CEO of USA Rare Earth, which plans next year to start making the rare-earth magnets that appear in many products.

    The White House has made it a priority to revive the domestic critical minerals industry, which is proving urgent after Beijing leveraged its near-monopoly on the products to force the U.S. to the negotiating table during a trade war.

    President Donald Trump said this week that China “intelligently went and they sort of took a monopoly of the world’s magnets,” but he expressed confidence in securing supplies because the U.S. has “much bigger and better cards.”

    “We’re going to have a lot of magnets in a pretty short period of time. In fact, we’ll have so many, we won’t know what to do with them,” he said as he hosted South Korean President Lee Jae Myung.

    Industry insiders, analysts and lawmakers have warned for years that America’s dependence on China for critical minerals — a list of 50 minerals that includes 17 sought-after rare-earth elements — is a national vulnerability.

    The hard-to-pronounce elements are needed in smartphones, wind turbines and robots as well as missiles, submarines and fighter jets.

    “Our national and economic security are now acutely threatened by our reliance upon hostile foreign powers’ mineral production,” an executive order from Trump declared in March.

    It was not until Beijing rolled out export restrictions on several rare earths in April — leading to a temporary halt of Ford’s electric vehicle production — that “the problem that for over a decade seemed far away hit close to home,” said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Trump said Monday that he could charge 200% tariffs on Chinese goods if Beijing does not export magnets to the U.S. but noted “that’s perhaps behind us.” Instead, he said he could withhold airplane parts to ground China’s American-made Boeing jets.

    When asked about the leverage, Guo Jiakun, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said Tuesday that Beijing “follows the principle of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation” in dealing with the U.S.

    “We hope the U.S. will work with us to jointly promote the steady, sound and sustainable development of bilateral ties,” Guo said.

    The Pentagon is investing $400 million in rare-earth producer MP Materials. It gave the U.S. company a $150 million loan this month, has promised to ensure every magnet made at its massive new plant is bought and set a minimum price for its neodymium and praseodymium products for a decade.

    “It looks like we’re going to finally do something to address that issue and make these projects a reality,” said Mark Smith, CEO of NioCorp, an American company working to raise $1.2 billion to produce niobium, titanium, scandium and rare earths in Nebraska.

    Over four decades, Smith said he’s seen how the U.S. ceded the industry to China, which came to dominate the supply chain by brushing aside environmental concerns, investing in mines worldwide, developing advanced processing technology and setting low prices to squeeze out competition.

    Previous efforts by U.S. companies to eke out a viable business proved futile when China flooded the market with low-priced products, chasing away potential investors.

    NioCorp recently secured up to $10 million from the Pentagon, which helped pay for exploratory drilling this summer.

    While it is unclear if the government would extend a minimum-price deal to other U.S. companies, Smith said the current support is “unbelievable” compared with the past. A price floor, he said, “just takes away the Chinese modus operandi that they’ve had for forever.”

    About 220 miles away from where MP Materials is building a magnet plant in Fort Worth, Texas, Noveon Magnetics runs America’s only factory currently making rare-earth magnets. Located south of Austin, it is ramping up production to make 2,000 tons of magnets a year.

    “I certainly hope and think it actually is not what may be the last of the efforts by the U.S. government,” Noveon Magnetics CEO Scott Dunn said of the Pentagon-MP Materials partnership.

    Even with all the new production aiming to come online in the next few years, American companies are still nowhere near being able to satisfy North America’s demand for roughly 35,000 tons of magnets a year, analysts at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence estimate. And the demand could double in the next decade.

    Ballard, whose USA Rare Earth plans to start making about 600 tons of magnets in Oklahoma next year, said the government can provide incentives to stop American buyers from falling back on cheap Chinese products once they are widely available again.

    This year’s big tax and spending cut bill includes $2 billion for the Pentagon to boost the U.S. stockpile of critical minerals and $5 billion more through 2029 to invest in those supply chains.

    Between 2020 and 2024, the Pentagon said it had awarded more than $439 million to establish supply chains for domestic rare earths.

    Domestic investments aside, Trump has tried to secure access to critical minerals outside of the U.S., including from Greenland and Ukraine. A peace deal the administration helped broker between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda might provide access to critical minerals, but it’s too early to tell if those efforts will succeed.

    Derek Scissors, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said he’s concerned that Trump could consider it a success if China agrees to guarantee rare-earth supplies in trade talks.

    “I don’t think there will be such a deal or, if there is, that it will last,” Scissors said. “But it is a threat to U.S. economic independence.”

    David Abraham, a rare-metals expert who wrote the book “The Elements of Power,” said new U.S. mines are years away.

    “Everyone agrees the U.S. still has to work out a deal with the Chinese because American companies need more rare earths and specialized magnets than can be produced domestically,” he said.

    ___

    Tang reported from Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk accuses Apple and OpenAI of stifling AI competition in antitrust lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk on Monday targeted Apple and OpenAI in an antitrust lawsuit alleging that the iPhone maker and the ChatGPT maker are teaming up to thwart competition in artificial intelligence.

    The 61-page complaint filed in Texas federal court follows through on a threat that Musk made two weeks ago when he accused Apple of unfairly favoring OpenAI and ChatGPT in the iPhone’s app store rankings for top AI apps.

    Musk’s post insinuated that Apple had rigged the system against ChatGPT competitors such as the Grok chatbot made by his own xAI. Now, he is detailing a litany of grievances in the lawsuit — filed by xAI and another of his corporate entities, X Corp. — in an attempt to win monetary damages and a court order prohibiting the alleged illegal tactics.

    The double-barreled legal attack weaves together several recently unfolding narratives to recast a year-old partnership between Apple and OpenAI as a veiled conspiracy to stifle competition during a technological shift that could prove as revolutionary as the 2007 release of the iPhone.

    “This is a tale of two monopolists joining forces to ensure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence,” the lawsuit asserts.

    The complaint portrays Apple as a company that views AI as an “existential threat” to its future success, prompting it to collude with OpenAI in an attempt to protect the iPhone franchise that has long been its biggest moneymaker.

    Some of the allegations accusing Apple of trying to shield the iPhone from do-everything “super apps,” such as the one Musk has long been trying to create with X, echo an antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple last year by the U.S. Department of Justice.

    The complaint casts OpenAI as a threat to humanity bent on putting profits before public safety as it tries to build on its phenomenal growth since the late 2022 release of ChatGPT. The depiction mirrors one already being drawn in another federal lawsuit that Musk filed last year, alleging OpenAI had betrayed its founding mission to serve as a nonprofit research lab for the public good.

    OpenAI has countered with a lawsuit against Musk accusing him of harassment — an allegation that the company cited in its response to Monday’s antitrust lawsuit. “This latest filing is consistent with Mr. Musk’s ongoing pattern of harassment,” OpenAI said in a statement.

    Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The crux of the lawsuit revolves around Apple’s decision to use ChatGPT as an AI-powered “answer engine” on the iPhone when the built-in technology on its device couldn’t satisfy user needs. The partnership announced last year was part of Apple’s late entry into the AI race that was supposed to be powered mostly by its own on-device technology, but the company still hasn’t been able to deliver on all its promises.

    Apple’s own AI shortcomings may be helping drive more usage of ChatGPT on the iPhone, providing OpenAI with invaluable data that’s unavailable to Grok and other would-be competitors because it’s currently an exclusive partnership.

    The alliance has provided Apple with an incentive to improperly elevate ChatGPT in the AI rankings of the iPhone’s app store, the lawsuit alleges. Other AI apps from DeekSeek and Perplexity have periodically reached the top spot in the Apple app store’s AI rankings in at least some parts of the world since Apple announced its deal with ChatGPT.

    The lawsuit doesn’t mention the potential threat that ChatGPT could also pose to Apple and the iPhone’s future popularity. As part of its expansion efforts, OpenAI recruited former Apple designer Jony Ive to oversee a project aimed at building an AI-powered device that many analysts believe could eventually mount a challenge to the iPhone.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US considers asking court to break up Google as it weighs remedies in the antitrust case

    US considers asking court to break up Google as it weighs remedies in the antitrust case

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Justice is considering asking a federal judge to break up Google after its ubiquitous search engine was declared an illegal monopoly, but it is just one of many possible remedies under review, according to a court filing.

    In court papers filed late Tuesday, government lawyers outlined a series of potential remedies it may pursue, including restrictions on how Google’s artificial intelligence mines other websites to deliver search results, and blocking Google from paying companies like Apple billions of dollars annually to ensure that Google is the default search engine presented to consumers on gadgets like iPhones.

    Tuesday’s filing is the first step in a monthslong legal process to come up with remedies that could reshape a company that’s long been synonymous with online search.

    “For more than a decade, Google has controlled the most popular distribution channels, leaving rivals with little-to-no incentive to compete for users,” the antitrust enforcers wrote in the filing. “Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow.”

    U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta r uled in August that Google’s search engine has been illegally exploiting the dominance of its search engine to squash competition and stifle innovation. He has outlined a timeline for a trial on the proposed remedies next spring and plans to issue a decision by August 2025.

    The court filing is the first time that the government has given any indication of the types of remedies it will pursue, but under the meticulous approach ordered by Mehta, the government may ultimately opt not to pursue remedies like divestiture.

    The Justice Department will conduct discovery over the coming weeks and put forth a more detailed proposal next month.

    Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in response to the filing that the Department of Justice was “already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues” in this case. “Government overreach in a fast-moving industry may have negative unintended consequences for American innovation and America’s consumers.”

    Google has already said it plans to appeal Mehta’s ruling, but the tech giant must wait until he finalizes a remedy before doing so. The appeals process could take as long as five years, predicts George Hay, a law professor at Cornell University who was the chief economist for the Justice Department’s antitrust division for most of the 1970s.

    During a lengthy trial in Washington, much of the evidence centered on deals Google made with other tech companies to ensure that Google is the default search engine on consumer technology. In 2021 alone, Google spent more than $26 billion to lock in those default agreements, according to trial testimony.

    As a result, much of the speculation about potential remedies has focused on whether Google would be barred from making such deals. In Tuesday’s filing, lawyers referred to those distribution deals as a “starting point for addressing Google’s unlawful conduct.”

    To that end, the department said it is also considering asking for structural changes to stop Google from leveraging products such as its Chrome browser, Android operating system, AI products or app store to benefit its search business.

    “We’ve invested billions of dollars in Chrome and Android,” Mulholland wrote. “Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store.”

    Another proposal floated by the government allowing companies to opt out of having their information used by Google when it delivers AI-enhanced responses to consumers’ search queries.

    “Google’s ability to leverage its monopoly power to feed artificial intelligence features is an emerging barrier to competition and risks further entrenching Google’s dominance,” government lawyers wrote.

    Google’s blog post response noted that artificial intelligence is a rapidly emerging technology that is the subject of fierce competition in the commercial market.

    “There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry,” Mulholland wrote.

    After the government submits its more detailed proposal next month for how to tackle Google’s anticompetitive practices. Google in turn will offer its own ideas for how to make fixes in December. Prosecutors will then make their final proposal in March 2025.

    Google has been facing intensifying regulatory pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, with European Union antitrust enforcers also suggesting that breaking up the company is the only way to satisfy competition concerns about its digital ad business.

    On Monday a federal judge ordered Google to open up its Android app store to competition as punishment for maintaining an illegal monopoly in that market. And a federal judge in Virginia is weighing whether Google holds an illegal monopoly in the online advertising technology.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge orders Google to open its Android app store to competition

    Federal judge orders Google to open its Android app store to competition

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Monday ordered Google to tear down the digital walls shielding its Android app store from competition as punishment for maintaining an illegal monopoly that helped expand the company’s internet empire.

    The injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Donato will require Google to make several changes that the Mountain View, California, company had been resisting. Those include a provision that will require its Play Store for Android apps to distribute rival third-party app stores so consumers can download them to their phones, if they so desire.

    The judge’s order will also make the millions of Android apps in the Play Store library accessible to rivals, allowing them to offer up a competitive selection.

    Donato is giving Google until November to make the revisions dictated in his order. The company had insisted it would take 12 to 16 months to design the safeguards needed to reduce the chances of potentially malicious software making its way into rival Android app stores and infecting millions of Samsung phones and other mobile devices running on its free Android software.

    The court-mandated overhaul is meant to prevent Google from walling off competition in the Android app market as part of an effort to protect a commission system that has been a boon for one of the world’s most prosperous companies and helped elevate the market value of its corporate parent Alphabet Inc. to $2 trillion.

    Google said in a blog post that it will ask the court to pause the pending changes, and will appeal the court’s decision.

    Donato also ruled that, for a period of three years ending Nov. 1, 2027, Google won’t be able to share revenue from its Play Store with anyone who distributes Android apps or is considering launching an Android app distribution platform or store. It also won’t be allowed to pay developers, or share revenue, so that they will launch an app in the Google Play Store first or exclusively, and can’t make deals with manufacturers to preinstall the Google Play store on any specific location on an Android device. It also won’t be able to require apps to use its billing system or tell customers that they can download apps elsewhere and potentially for cheaper.

    The Play Store has been earning billions of dollars annually for years, primarily through 15% to 30% commissions that Google has been imposing on digital transactions completed within Android apps. It’s a similar fee structure to the one that Apple deploys in its iPhone app store — a structure that prompted video game maker Epic Games to file antitrust lawsuits four years ago in an effort to foster competition that could help drive down prices for both app makers and consumers.

    A federal judge mostly sided with Apple in a September 2021 decision that was upheld by an appeals court. Still, a jury favored Epic Games after the completion of a four-week trial completed last year and delivered a verdict that tarred the Play Store as an illegal monopoly.

    That prompted another round of hearings this year to help Donato determine what steps should be taken to restore fair competition. Google argued that Epic Games was seeking some extreme changes, saddling the company with costs that could run as high as $600 billion. Epic contended Google could level the playing field for as little as $1 million. It’s unclear how much the changes ordered by Donato will cost Google.

    Although Epic lost its antitrust case against Apple, Donato’s ruling could still have ripple effects on the iPhone app store as another federal judge weighs whether Apple is making it easy enough to promote different ways that consumers can pay for digital transactions. Apple was ordered to allow in-app links to alternative payment systems as part of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ decision in that case, but Epic contends the provision is being undermined with the creation of another commission system that stifles consumer choice.

    The forthcoming Play Store shakeup could be just the first unwelcome shock that antitrust law delivers to Google. In the biggest antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department in a quarter century, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in August declared Google’s dominant search engine to be an illegal monopoly, too, and is now getting ready to start hearings on how to punish Google for that bad behavior. Google is appealing Mehta’s ruling in the search engine case in hopes of warding off a penalty that could hurt its business even more than the changes being ordered in the Play Store.

    “Provided the ruling survives the appeals process, Google will almost certainly take a revenue hit,” said Emarketer analyst Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf. “No doubt some of the largest app developers like Epic Games will start encroaching on Google Play Store’s market share, meaning Google will lose out on its usual cut of subscription and in-app purchases.”

    The analyst added that, while the Google Play Store will likely continue to benefit from brand recognition since it was the default Android app store for so long, “some consumers may defect if they can get better deals on their favorite apps elsewhere.” And app developers will likely take advantage of the opportunity to let consumers know about direct downloads.

    “So Google may see fewer Play Store revenues even among the Android users that stick to the default,” Mitchell-Wolf said.

    Alphabet’s shares fell $4.08, or 2.4%, to close Monday at $162.98.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Department of Justice sues Visa, alleges the card issuer monopolizes debit card markets

    Department of Justice sues Visa, alleges the card issuer monopolizes debit card markets

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — The U.S. Justice Department has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Visa, alleging that the financial services behemoth uses its size and dominance to stifle competition in the debit card market, costing consumers and businesses billions of dollars.

    The complaint filed Tuesday says Visa penalizes merchants and banks who don’t use Visa’s own payment processing technology to process debit transactions, even though alternatives exist. Visa earns an incremental fee from every transaction processed on its network.

    According to the DOJ’s complaint, 60% of debit transactions in the United States run on Visa’s debit network, allowing it to charge over $7 billion in fees each year for processing those transactions.

    “We allege that Visa has unlawfully amassed the power to extract fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive market,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a statement. “Merchants and banks pass along those costs to consumers, either by raising prices or reducing quality or service. As a result, Visa’s unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing – but the price of nearly everything.”

    The Biden administration has aggressively gone after U.S. companies that it says act like middlemen, such as Ticketmaster parent Live Nation and the real estate software company RealPage, accusing them of burdening Americans with nonsensical fees and anticompetitive behavior. The administration has also brought charges of monopolistic behavior against technology giants such as Apple and Google.

    According to the DOJ complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Visa leverages the vast number of transactions on its network to impose volume commitments on merchants and their banks, as well as on financial institutions that issue debit cards. That makes it difficult for merchants to use alternatives, such as lower-cost or smaller payment processors, instead of Visa’s payment processing technology, without incurring what DOJ described as “disloyalty penalties” from Visa.

    The DOJ said Visa also stifled competition by paying to enter into partnership agreements with potential competitors.

    In 2020, the DOJ sued to block the company’s $5.3 billion purchase of financial technology startup Plaid, calling it a monopolistic takeover of a potential competitor to Visa’s ubiquitous payments network. That acquisition was eventually later called off.

    Visa previously disclosed the Justice Department was investigating the company in 2021, saying in a regulatory filing it was cooperating with a DOJ investigation into its debit practices.

    Since the pandemic, more consumers globally have been shopping online for goods and services, which has translated into more revenue for Visa in the form of fees. Even traditionally cash-heavy businesses like bars, barbers and coffee shops have started accepting credit or debit cards as a form of payment, often via smartphones.

    KBW analyst Sanjay Sahrani said in a note to investors that he estimates that U.S. debit revenue is likely at most about 10% of Visa revenue.

    “Some subset of that may be lost if there is a financial impact,” he said. Visa’s “U.S. consumer payments business is the slowest growing piece of the aggregate business, and to the extent its contribution is affected, it is likely to have a very limited impact on revenue growth.”

    He added the lawsuit could stretch out for years if it isn’t settled and goes to trial.

    Visa processed $3.325 trillion in transactions on its network during the quarter ended June 30, up 7.4% from a year earlier. U.S. payments grew by 5.1%, which is faster than U.S. economic growth.

    Visa, based in San Francisco, did not immediately have a comment. Visa shares fell $13.53, or 4.7%, to $275.10 in afternoon trading.

    [ad_2]

    Source link