Core Argument - The US government is attempting to prove that Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to eliminate them as competitors, which could lead to Meta being forced to divest these apps [1][2]. Antitrust Case Details - The case, initiated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is being heard in a federal court in Washington, presided over by Judge James Boasberg [2]. - The trial is expected to last several more weeks, with key Meta executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, testifying [4]. Market Competition - The government argues that Meta's unique ability to connect friends and family across its apps is a significant factor in its success, positioning Snap as a distant competitor [3][5]. - Meta counters that its real competitors are platforms like YouTube and TikTok, emphasizing a broader and more dynamic market landscape [3][9]. Financial Performance and Market Position - The government claims that Meta's dominance allows it to generate substantial profits, despite reports of customer dissatisfaction with its products [5]. - Meta executives assert that the company is facing challenges, particularly as younger users shift towards TikTok-style content, indicating a changing market environment [6][7]. Testimonies and Evidence - Testimonies have included statements from Instagram's founder, Kevin Systrom, suggesting that Zuckerberg may have undermined Instagram's success post-acquisition, supporting the government's argument [8]. - Meta has begun presenting its own witnesses, arguing that the FTC has not met the legal standards required for an antitrust case [9].

Core Viewpoint - A federal court jury found Amgen liable for antitrust violations, awarding Regeneron $135.6 million in compensatory damages and $271.2 million in punitive damages due to Amgen's anticompetitive practices that hindered competition for Praluent [1][3]. Summary by Relevant Sections Antitrust Violations - Amgen was found to have violated multiple laws, including the Clayton Act and Sherman Act, by using cross-therapeutic bundled rebates to favor Repatha over Praluent, thereby preventing fair competition [1][2]. Jury Verdict and Damages - The jury awarded Regeneron a total of $406.8 million, comprising $135.6 million in compensatory damages and $271.2 million in punitive damages aimed at deterring similar future conduct [3]. Company Statements - Regeneron emphasized the importance of fair competition in the biotech industry, stating that anticompetitive tactics undermine patient access to innovative therapies and hinder medical advancements [4]. Product Information - Praluent, developed by Regeneron and Sanofi, is designed to lower LDL cholesterol levels by inhibiting PCSK9, and is approved in 60 countries [6][7]. Technology and Innovation - Regeneron's proprietary VelocImmune technology has been instrumental in developing fully human monoclonal antibodies, contributing to a significant portion of FDA-approved treatments [8][9].

In a letter dated Tuesday (May 13) and addressed to the commission's antitrust chief, financial services commissioner and economy chief, the associations also called for price controls on interchange fees, transparency and non-discriminatory obligations for International Card Schemes (ICSs), and a tool for regulators to scrutinize ICSs' actions, Reuters reported Wednesday (May 14), citing a copy of the letter. "International Card Schemes (ICS) have been able to increase their fees without competitive challe ...

Core Viewpoint - Rumble has strengthened its legal position in its antitrust lawsuit against Google by adding prominent lawyer David Boies to its litigation team, aiming to challenge Google's preferential treatment of YouTube in search results, which Rumble claims harms competition and its own growth [1][2]. Company Overview - Rumble is a high-growth video-sharing platform and cloud services provider, founded in 2013 by Chris Pavlovski, with a mission to create an independent infrastructure that resists cancellation or censorship by major tech companies [2]. - The company aims to restore the internet to its original principles of being free and open [2].

Core Viewpoint - Google has agreed to pay $1.375 billion to settle lawsuits regarding unauthorized tracking of users' personal data, marking a significant legal outcome in privacy enforcement against the company [1][2]. Group 1: Settlement Details - The settlement amount of $1.375 billion is the highest recovery against Google for any attorney general's enforcement of state privacy laws [2]. - The lawsuits were initiated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2022, focusing on issues such as tracking users' location, incognito searches, and voice and facial data without consent [1][2]. Group 2: Company Response - Google stated that the settlement does not imply any admission of wrongdoing or liability, and it will not require changes to its products [2]. - A Google spokesperson emphasized that the settlement resolves old claims related to product policies that have already been modified [3]. Group 3: Legal Context - The settlement follows major antitrust rulings against Google, which found the company acted illegally to maintain monopolies in web search and advertising technology [5]. - Google has indicated plans to appeal the antitrust rulings, which include proposed remedies such as divesting Chrome [5].

Core Points - The trial regarding Google's search remedies is concluding, focusing on potential penalties for the company due to its illegal monopoly in the internet search market [2] - Google may need to reallocate between 1,000 and 2,000 employees, approximately 20% of its search organization, to implement some proposed remedies [1] DOJ Proposals - The Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested that Google share data used for generating search results, including click data [3] - The DOJ also seeks to eliminate "compelled syndication," which involves agreements that ensure Google's search engine remains the default option on browsers and smartphones [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Justice Department's proposals to increase competition against Google in online search may negatively impact investments in artificial intelligence, according to AI startup Anthropic, which is a partner of Google [1][3]. Group 1: DOJ Proposals and AI Investments - The DOJ's requirement for Google to notify them of proposed AI investments and partnerships could deter Google from investing in smaller AI companies, creating a "significant disincentive" [1]. - Anthropic argues that the DOJ's proposals would harm AI competition by limiting partnerships and investments from Google, potentially leading to a market dominated by only the largest tech giants [3]. Group 2: Google's Market Position - US District Judge Amit Mehta is exploring ways for Google to open up the online search market after ruling that Google holds an illegal monopoly [3]. - Concerns have been raised by the DOJ and state attorneys general that Google could extend its dominance into the AI sector [7]. Group 3: Industry Reactions - Tech industry groups, including Engine Advocacy and TechNet, have supported Anthropic's position against the DOJ's proposals [4]. - Google has indicated that making its agreements non-exclusive is a suitable approach to address competition concerns [8].

Core Viewpoint - Epic Games and Spotify are testing Apple's new App Store policies by submitting apps that were previously restricted, indicating a shift in the competitive landscape of app distribution [1][5]. Group 1: Epic Games - The submission of a new version of Fortnite could lead to its return to the App Store after being removed in 2020 due to a challenge against Apple's payment rules [2]. - Epic Games' actions are part of a broader strategy to enhance its revenue streams following a legal ruling that required Apple to modify its App Store policies [5][8]. Group 2: Spotify - Spotify aims to enable users to purchase individual audiobooks directly and allow Premium subscribers to buy additional hours for audiobook listening, reflecting a shift towards more flexible monetization options [3]. - The recent approval of Spotify's updates follows Apple's acceptance of similar changes in other apps, indicating a trend towards more competitive practices in the App Store [3][5]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The new App Store policies are expected to encourage more apps to adopt innovative business models, potentially benefiting larger tech companies while posing challenges for smaller developers [4]. - Apple's previous requirement for developers to seek permission for linking to external payment options has been relaxed, allowing for greater flexibility in payment processing without additional commissions [7][8].

Apple requested that a federal appeals court temporarily pause a district judge's ruling requiring it to allow more competition in the Apple App Store, arguing it will suffer irreparable harm if the decision isn't paused. A district court judge ordered Apple to ease restrictions on app developers after holding Apple in contempt of an order issued in a 2020 antitrust lawsuit that was brought by Epic Games, the creator of the video game Fortnite. Among those was a 27% fee that Apple assessed on app developers ...

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain Google last year began offering some artificial intelligence firms a way to anchor chatbot responses in its search results, but still reserves key features for its own AI service, Gemini, a company executive testified. Liz Reid, Google's head of search, was describing in court Tuesday how the ...