Core Points - Google is making a final effort in the European Court of Justice to overturn a €2.42 billion antitrust fine related to Google Shopping [1] - The European Commission imposed the fine in June 2017, citing that Google favored its own service, Google Shopping, while downgrading competitors [1] - Google has appealed the decision multiple times, with the General Court rejecting its appeal in November 2021 [1] Group 1 - Google's lawyer, Thomas Graf, argued that the European Commission failed to prove that Google's different treatment of competitors constituted abuse, stating that competition inherently involves distinguishing oneself from rivals [1] - Graf emphasized that labeling any different treatment, especially between first-party and third-party services, as abuse is unreasonable and could undermine competition and innovation [1] - In contrast, the European Commission's lawyer, Fernando Castillo de la Torre, contended that Google unfairly favored its own shopping service through its algorithms, violating EU antitrust laws [2] Group 2 - The European Court is expected to make a final ruling on the case in the coming months [2] - In addition to Google Shopping, Google faces antitrust fines for two other services: €1.49 billion for AdSense and €4.34 billion for Android, all of which have been appealed by Google [2]

Core Points - The European Union (EU) has initiated an antitrust investigation into Microsoft's bundling of its Teams application with other Office applications, marking the first such investigation in over a decade [1] - The EU Commission is concerned that Microsoft's practices may constitute anti-competitive bundling, potentially hindering competition in the office communication and video application market [1][2] - If found in violation of EU antitrust regulations, Microsoft could face fines of up to 10% of its global annual revenue [1] Summary by Sections - **Antitrust Investigation**: The EU's investigation focuses on whether Microsoft provides a distribution advantage to Teams by not allowing users to opt-out of the application when purchasing the Microsoft 365 suite [1] - **Previous Complaints**: Concerns about Teams' potential monopoly first arose in 2020 when Slack, a competitor, filed a complaint with the EU, claiming that Microsoft's bundling practices forced millions of users to install Teams without the option to remove it [2] - **Microsoft's Response**: A Microsoft spokesperson stated that the company respects the EU's work on the case and is committed to cooperating with the EU Commission to address its concerns [2] - **Historical Context**: The last time Microsoft faced an EU antitrust investigation was in 2009 regarding its Internet Explorer browser, which was also bundled with the Windows operating system [2] - **Recent Transactions**: Microsoft's recent $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard is also under EU scrutiny due to potential impacts on competition in the gaming console and cloud gaming markets [2]

Core Viewpoint - Meta is attempting to resolve disputes with the EU antitrust authority by proposing policy adjustments, but these proposals have been met with skepticism from the EU [1] Group 1: Proposed Adjustments - Meta's proposal includes limiting the use of competitors' advertising data for Facebook Marketplace classified ads [1] - The proposal also suggests moderation in using advertising data to develop products that compete with rivals [1] Group 2: Regulatory Context - Since June of last year, the EU has been investigating Meta, which has been seeking a resolution [1] - In December, the EU antitrust authority accused Meta of abusing market power by bundling Facebook Marketplace with the Facebook social network [1] - Concerns were raised by UK authorities regarding Meta's proposals, indicating that further measures may be necessary to address EU dissatisfaction [1]

Core Points - The Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has initiated an antitrust investigation against Apple regarding its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) mechanism, which is suspected of providing Apple with an asymmetric advantage in its advertising business [1][3] - UOKiK's investigation is part of a broader scrutiny of Apple's ATT policy by antitrust authorities in Germany, Italy, and Romania, following a €150 million fine imposed by French regulators for Apple's abuse of its market dominance in distributing mobile applications on iOS and iPadOS [3] - UOKiK's chairman, Tomasz Chróstny, emphasized that while ATT claims to protect user data, it may discriminate against third-party developers, as Apple operates as a hardware manufacturer, operating system owner, app publisher, and advertising platform [3][4] Summary by Sections Investigation Details - UOKiK suspects that Apple's custom definition of "tracking" only considers cross-app data sharing as tracking, while data collection within its own apps is labeled as "personalized advertising," which does not trigger the same permission prompts [3] - The prompts for third-party apps are designed with negative connotations, while those for Apple's pre-installed apps are more neutral, potentially misleading users into granting data access to Apple over third-party applications [3][4] Impact on Developers - UOKiK is concerned that this unequal authorization mechanism will limit independent developers' access to user data, reduce the value of their advertising space, and weaken their negotiating power with advertisers, particularly affecting local Polish businesses [4] - The investigation highlights that even though operating system owners can set rules, they must not violate competition laws, raising suspicions that ATT misleads users about privacy protection while reinforcing Apple's dominance in the advertising market [4] Potential Consequences - If found guilty of abusing its market dominance, Apple could face fines up to 10% of its annual revenue in Poland [4]

Core Points - The European Union is set to launch a formal antitrust investigation into Microsoft's bundling of the Teams application with the Office suite, marking Microsoft's first such investigation by the EU in 15 years [1][3] - Despite Microsoft's attempts to address competition concerns, insiders indicate that these concessions have not been sufficient, and formal charges could be brought as early as this fall [1][4] Group 1: Background and Context - In July 2020, Slack Technologies filed a complaint with the EU, accusing Microsoft of unfair competition by bundling Teams with its popular Office software, which allegedly eliminated competition for Teams [3] - Microsoft Teams is a chat-based collaboration tool that offers document sharing and instant communication features, including voice and video conferencing, similar to products offered by Slack Technologies [3] Group 2: Current Developments - Negotiations between the EU and Microsoft have reportedly stalled, with disagreements over Teams' pricing and insufficient concessions from Microsoft [4] - Microsoft has stated its willingness to cooperate with the EU and seek practical solutions to address concerns, while the EU continues to evaluate the complaint [4] Group 3: Historical Context - Over the past decade, Microsoft has faced fines totaling €2.2 billion (approximately $2.6 billion) from the EU for bundling practices [4] - Other companies that offer similar products to Microsoft Teams include Zoom Video Communications, Google, Meta, and Cisco [4]

Core Points - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed for a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing potential harm to competition in various markets, including gaming consoles, subscription services, and cloud gaming [1][2] - The FTC argues that if the merger is completed, Microsoft’s Xbox could gain exclusive access to Activision's games, limiting access for competitors like Nintendo and Sony [1] - Microsoft disputes the FTC's claims, asserting that the acquisition would benefit players and game companies, and has proposed a legally binding agreement to provide the game "Call of Duty" to competitors for ten years [2] Group 1 - The FTC's hearing is expected to last five days, with key Microsoft executives, including Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty and Bethesda Softworks' senior vice president Pete Hines, testifying [1] - Microsoft’s legal representative argues that the merger would allow for broader access to Activision's games across multiple platforms, countering the FTC's concerns [1] - The FTC believes that the merger could lead to Microsoft having the ability and incentive to withhold or diminish Activision's content, thereby reducing competition in the gaming industry [2] Group 2 - The acquisition is noted as Microsoft's largest in history and the biggest in the gaming industry [2] - The outcome of the merger hinges on winning several antitrust lawsuits globally, with the U.S. being a critical battleground [2] - The hearing is set to continue until June 29, with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick also expected to testify [2]

Core Points - The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has identified unfair competition practices by Google Automotive Services and plans to prohibit these practices [1] - Google Automotive Services offers a range of services to car manufacturers, including Google Maps, Google Play Store, and Google Assistant [1] - The FCO is concerned that Google's bundling of services may hinder market competition and further entrench Google's dominant position in other markets [1] Group 1 - The FCO criticizes Google's bundling of infotainment system services, as it reduces opportunities for competitors to sell their services independently [1] - Google claims that the connected car market is highly competitive, with thousands of applications compatible with Google Automotive Services [1] - Google intends to engage in constructive dialogue with German regulators to address their concerns [1] Group 2 - In addition to bundling practices, Google's revenue-sharing agreements with car manufacturers may also violate German antitrust laws [2] - The FCO states that default settings for Google services could make alternative services less noticeable and rarely used, a strategy previously successful for Google in mobile devices [2] - The FCO is reviewing terms related to Google Maps that prohibit users from integrating the service with competing services, which could hinder the development of alternatives [2]

Core Viewpoint - Apple and Epic Games are requesting the court to reconsider its antitrust ruling, which allows developers to place links in their apps but does not oppose Apple's 30% commission on App Store sales [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Both Apple and Epic submitted independent court documents challenging the ruling made by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [1]. - The companies are seeking either a rehearing by the three-judge panel or a hearing by all 11 judges of the appeals court [1][2]. - The original lawsuit dates back to 2021 when a federal district court in California ruled that Apple's 30% commission on developers' sales was illegal [1]. Group 2: Arguments from Apple and Epic - Apple argues that its commission structure promotes fair market competition and does not violate any antitrust laws, opposing a nationwide injunction against this policy [1]. - Epic contends that Apple's commission policy directly impacts the core mission of federal antitrust laws to promote market competition, claiming the appeals court did not adequately balance the effects of the commission on consumers and competition [2]. Group 3: Current Status of the Case - The district court's ruling is currently on hold and not enforced as the case is in the appeals process [5]. - The presiding judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, indicated that Apple cannot prevent third-party developers from providing alternative payment links to consumers [5]. - However, Rogers did not provide detailed guidance on how the App Store should accommodate external payment links or buttons [6]. Group 4: Global Context - Apple's enforcement of its in-app payment system has sparked controversy globally, with antitrust regulators in countries like South Korea, the Netherlands, and Japan demanding that Apple open up payment channels for third-party applications [6].

赫罗斯特尼说："我们怀疑ATT政策可能在隐私保护水平上误导了用户，同时增强了苹果相对于独立出 版商的竞争优势，从而巩固了苹果在广告市场的地位。此类行为可能构成滥用市场支配地位，依法可处 以最高营业额10%的罚款。" 苹果表示ATT框架的创建是为消费者提供一种控制公司是否可以跟踪其活动的方式，帮助他们保护隐 私。 智通财经APP获悉，波兰竞争与消费者保护办公室已启动调查，以确定苹果(AAPL.US)是否通过其隐私 政策限制移动广告市场的竞争。 该国反垄断监管机构UOKiK表示，苹果于2021年推出了一项名为"应用跟踪透明度框架"（ATT）的新用 户隐私政策。该政策适用于iOS和iPadOS操作系统14.5及更高版本。 UOKiK指出，苹果会收集用户信息，用于向其展示个性化广告。然而，苹果为其对用户"跟踪"行为引入 了自己的定义。该机构补充称，这一定义的后果是iPhone和iPad屏幕上会显示不同的信息。对于苹果自 身的内容，它是请求同意"个性化广告"，而在第三方应用的信息中，按钮的顺序和内容却是"要求应用 不跟踪"和"允许"。 UOKiK主席托马什·赫罗斯特尼表示："这些同意信息的措辞——结合其设计——可能导致 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing antitrust case against Google in the digital advertising market, highlighting the potential for a landmark ruling that could lead to the forced breakup of the tech giant's advertising business [1][2]. Group 1: Antitrust Case Developments - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google recently concluded a three-hour hearing regarding remedies for Google's alleged monopoly in the digital advertising market [1]. - Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema is expected to make a final ruling next year on whether Google should be split up, which could set a precedent for breaking up tech giants in the internet era [1][2]. - The DOJ is advocating for the divestiture of Google's core advertising trading platform and the public disclosure of certain advertising tool source codes [1]. Group 2: Google's Response and Legal Arguments - Google is willing to open more auction data and make some business model adjustments to facilitate competition but firmly opposes asset divestiture, arguing that the government's demands are extreme and lack sufficient legal precedent [1][2]. - Judge Brinkema raised concerns about the potential delays in the divestiture process, noting that Google would likely appeal any breakup decision, which could prolong the timeline and alter the competitive landscape [2]. Group 3: Timeline and Industry Implications - DOJ attorney Matthew Hooper stated that the sale of Google's advertising trading platform could be completed within two years, which he believes would not hinder the restoration of competition [2]. - In contrast, Google's chief litigation attorney, Karen Dunn, argued that the timeline proposed by the DOJ is overly optimistic, citing the complexities of data and technology migration [2]. - The article notes that Google recently avoided divestiture in a separate antitrust case related to online search, where only limited data sharing and business adjustments were mandated [2].