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].

随着美国司法部(DOJ)反垄断诉讼接近尾声，Alphabet旗下谷歌(GOOGL.US)将于周五在美国法庭进行最 终辩护，力求避免其广告技术业务被拆分。 此前，在两党政府针对大型科技公司垄断地位的法律打击中(这一行动始于美国总统唐纳德·特朗普第一 任期)，谷歌基本未受影响。 周五的最终辩论标志着谷歌与美国司法部之间长达数年的诉讼案结束了证据听证阶段，双方争议核心围 绕谷歌在在线广告和搜索领域的垄断地位展开。 接下来，诉讼将进入上诉法院审理阶段，这一过程可能耗时数年。 谷歌已明确表示将对布林克马法官作出的垄断裁决提起上诉。此外，该公司还计划挑战华盛顿特区一名 法官此前的裁决，该裁决认定谷歌在在线搜索及相关广告领域存在非法垄断行为。在那起案件中，谷歌 虽避免了Chrome浏览器被强制出售的结果，但被责令向竞争对手共享数据。 目前，美国针对Meta Platforms(META.US)、亚马逊(AMZN.US)和苹果(AAPL.US)的反垄断诉讼仍在审 理中。 但这一局面可能发生改变，最终取决于弗吉尼亚州亚历山德里亚市美国地区法院法官莱奥妮·布林克马 (Leonie Brinkema)的裁决。 布林克马法官已于4月 ...

Core Viewpoint - The release of the "Internet Platform Antitrust Compliance Guidelines (Draft for Comments)" marks a significant step in China's regulatory framework for platform economies, particularly following the "Double Eleven" shopping festival, addressing new competitive issues that emerged during this period [1][10]. Group 1: Regulatory Positioning - The new guidelines and the previously issued "Price Behavior Rules" form a comprehensive regulatory system, with the former focusing on platforms with significant market power while the latter applies to all operators [2][3]. - The "Price Behavior Rules" aim to maintain basic price order and transparency, while the new guidelines specifically target monopolistic risks and behaviors of dominant platforms [3]. Group 2: Key Breakthroughs in the New Guidelines - The new guidelines introduce an "ecological" perspective, emphasizing the responsibility of platform managers in maintaining healthy platform ecosystems [6]. - The guidelines require platforms to conduct self-examinations of their algorithms, addressing risks associated with algorithmic collusion and ensuring compliance through dynamic monitoring [7][8]. - Eight specific risk scenarios are provided in the guidelines, enhancing operational clarity for platforms and addressing potential anti-competitive behaviors [9]. Group 3: Addressing Issues from "Double Eleven" - The guidelines prohibit irrational price wars initiated by dominant platforms, establishing boundaries for competitive practices during promotional events [11]. - The use of AI for price discrimination and customer profiling is restricted, ensuring that platforms cannot justify differential pricing based on user data [12]. - The guidelines protect merchants' pricing autonomy, preventing platforms from coercing them into participating in promotional activities or bearing costs that should be the platform's responsibility [13][14]. - Restrictions on "blocking and shielding" behaviors are detailed, promoting interconnectivity and reducing operational costs for merchants [15]. Group 4: Conclusion - The "Internet Platform Antitrust Compliance Guidelines" establish a more refined and forward-looking compliance framework, guiding platform economies towards high-quality development driven by technology and ecological cooperation [16].

Core Viewpoint - Matter has achieved a significant legal victory against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which had alleged that the company's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp violated antitrust laws. The judge ruled in favor of Matter, indicating that the competitive landscape has changed significantly since the lawsuit was initiated five years ago [1][2]. Legal Reasoning - The judge's decision was based on the current competitive environment, noting that the social media landscape has evolved dramatically since the FTC's initial lawsuit [2]. - The FTC's argument centered around the competition from MIUI and Snap, with the judge acknowledging the fierce competition in the market, particularly from TikTok [3]. Implications for Matter - This ruling means that Matter is not required to divest Instagram or WhatsApp, which had been a significant concern for the company. Analysts had anticipated this outcome, suggesting it was already priced into the market [6]. - However, the judge's comments indicate that Matter must address the perception that it is not differentiated from its competitors and that TikTok is impacting its market share [4]. Future Considerations - While the current legal challenges appear to be resolved, there is uncertainty regarding potential future legal issues. Analysts do not expect an appeal process to proceed, but the situation remains under observation [5].

Core Viewpoint - A U.S. District Court judge ruled that Meta does not constitute an illegal monopoly in the current social media market, dismissing the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against the company [2] Group 1: Market Dynamics - The ruling highlighted significant changes in the U.S. social media market, with users increasingly shifting towards short video platforms and YouTube, creating intense competitive pressure on Meta [2] - The FTC failed to demonstrate that Meta maintained its monopoly through the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp [2] Group 2: Competitive Landscape - The judge referenced industry evidence indicating that platforms like YouTube have become strong competitors to Meta, with consumers frequently switching between different services [2]