The European Commission rightly decided that Google breached antitrust law by placing illegal restrictions on makers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators to consolidate its dominant position in the search market, the European Court of Justice General Court ruled Wednesday. However, it reduced the fine set in the 2018 decision (see 1807180003) from 4.34 billion euros ($5.1 billion then) to 4.125 billion euros ($4.1 billion today). The EC found Google breached competition rules by imposing several contract restrictions: (1) It required mobile device manufacturers to pre-install its general search app (Google Search) and browser app (Chrome) in order to obtain a license to use its app store. (2) It barred manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling devices running versions of Android not approved by Google. (3) It granted mobile device makers and MNOs a percentage of its advertising revenue only if they agreed not to pre-install a competing search service on any device within an agreed portfolio. The company contested the decision. The high court, however, upheld most of the EC judgment, annulling only the part that found the portfolio-based revenue share agreements themselves amounted to an antitrust abuse. It lowered the fine based on its own assessment of how intentional Google's actions were and the value of relevant sales the search giant made in the last years it fully participated in the infringement. Google emailed it's "disappointed that the Court did not annul the decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and around the world." The EC emailed that it "takes note of" the judgment and will decide on possible next steps. The ruling won cheers from consumers and Google competitors. It confirmed that European consumers must have a meaningful choice among search engines and browsers on their devices, said European Consumer Organisation Director General Monique Goyens. The decision vindicates the EC and the 2013 FairSearch complaint that started the case, FairSearch counsel Thomas Vinje emailed: "This victory will embolden the Commission in enforcing its new regulation in Big Tech, the Digital Markets Act."

Amazon “stifled competition and caused increased prices” in California through “anticompetitive contracting practices” that violate state law, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) alleged in a lawsuit announced Wednesday. To avoid competing with other e-commerce platforms, Amazon “requires merchants to enter into agreements that severely penalize them if their products are offered for a lower price off-Amazon,” resulting in higher prices for consumers, Bonta’s office said. The case is “exactly backwards’ much like a similar case from Washington, D.C., AG Karl Racine (D), the company said in a statement: “Sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store. Amazon takes pride in the fact that we offer low prices across the broadest selection, and like any store we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers that are not priced competitively.” The relief Bonta seeks “would force Amazon to feature higher prices to customers, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law,” Amazon said.

Seventeen states can proceed with their lawsuit claiming Google monopolized digital advertising through an agreement with Facebook, the U.S. District Court in Manhattan ruled Tuesday in 1:21-md-03010 (see 2203220062). The state attorneys general, from states and territories including Texas, Nevada, Puerto Rico and Utah, “have plausibly alleged that Google has monopoly power in and willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct,” the court said. Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) said his office looks forward to a “jury hearing how this Big Tech giant abused its monopoly power by harming consumers to reap billions in monopoly profits.” His office noted the court allowed the states to proceed on all counts related to Sherman Act Section 2. The decision shows the states’ case is “deeply flawed,” Google said in a statement, noting the court dismissed allegations regarding Google’s open bidding agreement with Meta, the “centerpiece” of the case. “Advertising technology is a fiercely competitive industry -- and our products increase choice for publishers, advertisers and consumers while enabling small businesses to affordably find new customers,” the company said.

Congress should consider comprehensive privacy legislation that enhances consumer protections and includes the “oversight authorities agencies should have,” the GAO said Tuesday. Though the FTC oversees internet privacy across all industries, it lacks a privacy law “governing private companies’ collection, use, or sale of internet users’ data, leaving consumers with limited assurance that their privacy will be protected,” the GAO said. Congress should strengthen the federal privacy framework to “reflect changes in technology and the marketplace,” the report said.

Global AI market revenue, including software, hardware and services, totaled $383.3 billion in 2021, a 20.7% increase from 2020, reported IDC Monday. IDC expects the AI market value will reach nearly $450 billion in 2022 and maintain a year-over-year growth rate in the high teens throughout the five-year forecast period ending in 2026, it said. "Across all industries and functions, end-user organizations are discovering the benefits of AI technologies, as increasingly powerful AI solutions are enabling better decision-making and higher productivity," said IDC analyst Rasmus Andsbjerg. “AI can be a source for fast-tracking digital transformation journeys, enable cost savings in times of staggering inflation rates and support automation efforts in times of labor shortages."

Google closed on its $5.4 billion buy of cybersecurity platform Mandiant in an all-cash deal (see 2203080002), said the buyer Monday. It will incorporate Mandiant into Google Cloud and keep the Mandiant brand, it said. Combining Google Cloud’s existing security portfolio with Mandiant’s cyberthreat intelligence “will allow us to deliver a security operations suite to help enterprises globally stay protected at every stage of the security lifecycle,” blogged Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian Monday.

Comments are due Nov. 14 for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s cyber incident reporting requirements, CISA announced Friday. The Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (see 2203160051), which President Joe Biden signed into law in March, requires public comment for proposed regulations on cyber incident and ransom payment reporting. CISA will host a series of listening sessions. “I’m excited to see CISA move forward with implementing this cybersecurity law, which will help us counter the growing threat of cyberattacks against our institutions and allies,” said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., who co-authored the law.

The FTC will hold an open meeting at 1 p.m. Thursday, the agency announced. The tentative agenda includes a vote on a policy statement on “enforcement against unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices related to gig work,” which often involves digital apps. FTC staff will deliver a report on dark patterns, and the commission will vote on whether to issue the report. Staff will also present findings from public comments related to the agency’s NPRM to address “government, business, and nonprofit impersonation fraud.” The commission will vote on whether to formally initiate a rulemaking.

The FTC doesn’t have to produce documents Meta requested about the agency’s review of the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions, Judge James Boasberg ruled Tuesday in 1:20-cv-03590 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, denying Meta’s motion to compel the documents (see 2208010050). Meta argued the FTC’s recommendation packages from its Competition and Economics bureaus contain “relevant factual information about the contemporaneous state of market competition that is unavailable anywhere else.” The FTC argued the materials are privileged, most notably due to deliberative-process privilege. Meta said the privilege doesn’t apply, and if it did, the agency waived that privilege when it shared the materials with the House Judiciary Committee in 2019. Boasberg ruled the release of the documents would harm “deliberative processes of the government by chilling the candid and frank communications necessary for effective governmental decision-making.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., should block the House Commerce Committee’s privacy bill and not let it override California’s privacy law, consumer groups wrote the speaker Wednesday. Consumer Action, Children’s Advocacy Institute, Consumer Protection Policy Center, Consumer Watchdog and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse signed. Their letter follows a separate letter from other consumer groups urging Pelosi to hold a floor vote (see 2208250040). Pelosi issued a statement a few days after the first letter saying the House bill isn’t strong enough (see 2209010066). “The bill will exempt companies that provide data to government agencies, leave the law vulnerable to weakening by industry lobbyists, and swiftly cancel years of progress in California,” the groups said in the latest letter.