Category Archives: Economics

Palo Alto Networks inks $25b deal to buy human and machine identity manager CyberArk

Posted on by

Palo Alto Networks will buy Israeli security biz CyberArk in a $25 billion cash-and-stock deal confirmed today.

It’s Palo Alto Networks’ largest purchase to date, and one of the most expensive acquisitions this year coming in behind Google paying $32 billion for cloud security upstart Wiz in March.

CyberArk provides identity security and privileged access management tools, which have become increasingly important to enterprises who need to not only verify and secure human identities, but also machines and AIs.

“Today, the rise of AI and the explosion of machine identities have made it clear that the future of security must be built on the vision that every identity requires the right level of privilege controls,” Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora said in a statement announcing the purchase.

Machine identities outnumber those of humans by 40 to one, according to CyberArk, and this number is expected to skyrocket as more companies use AI agents.

[…]

Under the terms of the deal, CyberArk investors will receive $45 in cash and 2.2005 shares of Palo Alto Networks common stock for each CyberArk share they own. The transaction is expected to close in the second half of Palo Alto Networks’ fiscal 2026.

Source: Palo Alto Networks inks $25b deal to buy CyberArk • The Register

Proton joins anti-Apple lawsuit to force App Store changes in the US

Posted on by

Secure comms biz Proton has joined a lawsuit that alleges Apple’s anticompetitive ways are harming developers, consumers, and privacy.

Proton is a Switzerland-based (for now) provider of encrypted communications services and on Monday filed a legal complaint [PDF] against Apple, claiming the iGiant is abusing its control of iOS and the App Store in ways that reduce competition.

Apple has been fighting legal battles on this front for some time. Most notably, Epic Games sued in 2020 to try and allow itself and other app makers to sell its wares for use on Apple devices through channels other than Apple’s own App Store and payment systems. While Apple mostly won that case, the court said it had to allow third-party developers to inform customers of payment systems other than Apple’s own. (A judge recently questioned whether Apple has complied and pondered whether the company is in contempt of court.)

In Europe, regulators have taken a harder line, forcing the mega-biz to allow sales of iOS apps on third-party app stores.

Proton would like to see that happen in the US and has therefore asked the US District court for Northern California to require Apple to get out of the way and give app developers direct access to customers. The company’s filing suggests making that happen by requiring Apple to allow alternative app stores, expose those stores through its own Apple App Store, plus allowing developers to disable Apple’s in-app payment system and to gain fill access to Apple APIs.

[…]

Secure comms biz Proton has joined a lawsuit that alleges Apple’s anticompetitive ways are harming developers, consumers, and privacy.

Proton is a Switzerland-based (for now) provider of encrypted communications services and on Monday filed a legal complaint [PDF] against Apple, claiming the iGiant is abusing its control of iOS and the App Store in ways that reduce competition.

Apple has been fighting legal battles on this front for some time. Most notably, Epic Games sued in 2020 to try and allow itself and other app makers to sell its wares for use on Apple devices through channels other than Apple’s own App Store and payment systems. While Apple mostly won that case, the court said it had to allow third-party developers to inform customers of payment systems other than Apple’s own. (A judge recently questioned whether Apple has complied and pondered whether the company is in contempt of court.)

In Europe, regulators have taken a harder line, forcing the mega-biz to allow sales of iOS apps on third-party app stores.

Proton would like to see that happen in the US and has therefore asked the US District court for Northern California to require Apple to get out of the way and give app developers direct access to customers. The company’s filing suggests making that happen by requiring Apple to allow alternative app stores, expose those stores through its own Apple App Store, plus allowing developers to disable Apple’s in-app payment system and to gain fill access to Apple APIs.

Rather than suing anew, Proton is joining a group of Korean developers that took Apple to a US court in May [PDF] on similar grounds.

“We believe that Apple’s conduct constitutes further violations of US antitrust law,” Proton said in a blog post.

“Without this case, Apple could get away with behavior in the US that is already outlawed in the European Union. If this were to happen, American consumers, and developers focused on the American market, would have to pay higher prices for fewer choices, and be left at a disadvantage.”

Proton’s complaint covers many of the same issues raised by Epic and other app makers, and adds a novel argument that Apple’s system also harms user privacy. The Swiss company argues that developers of free apps usually harvest user data and sell that to cover their bills. Companies like Proton that don’t collect or sell user data have no choice but to charge subscriptions for revenue. Apple’s pricing model particularly penalizes these companies by taking a cut of annual subscriptions sold on its App Store.

The post also revisits Proton’s 2020 run-in with Apple that saw the iBiz reject an update to Proton’s VPN after the Swiss company pointed out it could be used to “unblock censored web sites.” Apple eventually relented but the episode shows how Apple puts profit before privacy, Proton argued.

“We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit,” it wrote.

[…]

Source: Proton joins anti-Apple lawsuit to force App Store changes • The Register

Security pro counts the cost of Microsoft dependency

Posted on by

A sharply argued blog post warns that heavy reliance on Microsoft poses serious strategic risks for organizations – a viewpoint unlikely to win favor with Redmond or its millions of corporate customers.

Czech developer and pen-tester Miloslav Homer has an interesting take on reducing an organization’s exposure to security risks. In an article headlined “Microsoft dependency has risks,” he extends the now familiar arguments in favor of improving digital sovereignty, and reducing dependence on American cloud services.

The argument is quite long but closely reasoned. We recommend resisting the knee-jerk reaction of “don’t be ridiculous” and closing the tab, but reading his article and giving it serious consideration. He backs up his argument with plentiful links and references, and it’s gratifying to see several stories from The Register among them, including one from the FOSS desk.

He discusses incidents such as Microsoft allegedly blocking the email account of International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, one of several incidents that caused widespread concern. The Windows maker has denied it was responsible for Khan’s blocked account. Homer also considers the chances of US President Donald Trump getting a third term, as Franklin Roosevelt did, the lucrative US government contracts with software and services vendors, and such companies’ apparent nervousness about upsetting the volatile leader.

We like the way Homer presents his arguments, because it avoids some of the rather tired approaches of FOSS advocates. He assigns financial value to the risks, using the established measurement of Return on Security Investment [PDF]. He uses the Crowdstrike outage from last July as a comparison. For instance, what if a US administration instructed Microsoft to refuse service to everyone in certain countries or even regions?

He tries to put some numbers on this, and they are worryingly large. He looks at estimated corporate Microsoft 365 usage worldwide, and how relatively few vendors offer pre-installed Linux systems. He considers the vast market share of Android on mobile devices compared to everything else, with the interesting comparison that there are more mobile phone owners than toothbrush owners. However, every Android account is all but tied to at least one Google account – another almost unavoidable US dependency.

There is a genuine need for people to ask questions like this. And, importantly, many of the decisions are made by people who are totally tech-illiterate – as many movers and shakers are these days – so it’s also important to express the arguments in terms of numbers, and specifically, in terms of costs. Few IT directors or CEOs know what an OS is or how it matters, but they’re all either former beancounters or guided by beancounters.

Another issue we rarely see addressed is the extreme reach of Microsoft in business computing. The problem is not just bigwigs who mostly don’t know a hypervisor from an email server; the techies who advise them are also a problem. We have personally talked to senior decision-makers and company leaders who know nothing but Windows, who regard Macs as acceptable toys (because they can run MS Office and Outlook and Teams), but who have never used a Linux machine.

There’s a common position that a commodity is only worth what you pay for it, and if you don’t have to pay for it, then it’s worthless. Many people apply this to software, too. If it’s free, it must be worthless.

It’s hard to get through to someone who is totally indifferent to software on technical grounds. When choices of vendors and suppliers are based on erroneous assumptions, challenging those false beliefs is hard.

(We’ve had a few abusive comments and emails from anti-vaxxers following our coverage of Xlibre. They’re wrong, but it’s tricky to challenge the mindset of someone who doesn’t believe in the basic concepts of truth, falsehood, or evidence.)

One way to define “information” is that it is data plus context. We all need contrast and context and comparisons to understand. Any technologist who only knows one company’s technologies and offerings lacks necessary context. In fact, the more context the better. Looking around the IT world today, it would be easy to falsely conclude that Windows NT and various forms of Unix comprise everything there is to know about operating systems. That is deeply and profoundly wrong. Nothing in computing is universal, not even binary; there have been working trinary or ternary computers, and you can go and see a working decimal computer at Bletchley Park.

Lots of important decision-makers believe that Microsoft is simply a given. It is not, but telling them that is not enough. It’s like telling an anti-vaxxer that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and there are no such things as chemtrails. After all, some US legislators want to ban chemtrails, so they must be real, right?

But if you can put a price on false beliefs, and then show that changing those beliefs could reduce risk in a quantifiable way, you can maybe change the minds of IT decision-makers, without needing to tell them that they’re science deniers and the Earth isn’t flat. ®

Source: Security pro counts the cost of Microsoft dependency • The Register

Apple thinks it can argue its’ way out of EU DMA with a single comma. No it can’t and this fight will cost it billions in Europe

Posted on by

It’s just a comma in a 66-page document. But a comma that will cost Apple billions of euros in Europe. Starting June 23, the Cupertino-based company will no longer be able to collect commissions on external transactions made from an iPhone or iPad. In other words, all app developers will be able to redirect their users to a website to make a purchase or subscribe to a service without paying Apple a single cent.

This bombshell, which comes just after an unfavorable ruling in the US, is the result of a months-long syntactic battle with the European Commission over the exact meaning of an article in the Digital Markets Act (DMA), designed to strengthen competition in the digital space. In late April, Apple had already been fined €500 million.

Enacted last year, the DMA bans the so-called anti-steering practice, which Apple has enforced since the launch of the App Store. This required developers to use its payment platform and pay it 15% or 30%. Officially, Apple has abandoned this, though Brussels still accuses it of maintaining “technical and commercial restrictions.”

However, Apple has not given up on collecting commissions. It initially set them at 12% or 27% for purchases made within seven days after redirection. It has since introduced a more complex system, with fees of up to 25% on transactions during the twelve months following installation or update of an app. According to the EU, these commissions not only go “beyond what is strictly necessary”—as noted a year ago—but they also violate the DMA.

A comma that changes everything?

The disagreement between Apple and Brussels centers on Article 5.4. In its English version, the article states that the gatekeeper—the term used by the Commission for the seven major tech companies subject to the DMA—“shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions […], and to conclude contracts with those end users.”

This lengthy sentence creates ambiguity: what exactly does “free of charge” apply to? Apple claims it only applies to “communicate” and “promote,” meaning the right to insert redirect links in an app. But not to “conclude contracts,” meaning making purchases. Based on that, Apple argues it can still charge commissions on those external transactions.

The European Commission interprets it differently: contract conclusion must also be free of charge. It relies on the comma before the phrase “and to conclude contracts,” turning the sentence into an “enumeration.” “That ‘free of charge’ applies to all that is being enumerated after”, it explains in its detailed decision sent to Apple as part of the €500 million fine, which was made public last week.

“In other words, the price for app developers to pay [for external purchases] is zero,” writes the Commission. However, its case could be weakened by inconsistencies in the French and German translations of the text, which it acknowledges are “ambiguous.” Still, “other linguistic versions leave no room for interpretation,” notes Brussels.

Daily penalties of up to €47 million

To complicate matters further, the regulator acknowledges that Apple can be compensated for the initial acquisition of a customer by a developer. But this commission—whose rate must be determined by the company—can only apply within a “limited initial time window” after the first installation of an app.

Crucially, it only concerns the very first transaction, even if the user deletes and later reinstalls the app. “An end user can only be acquired once,” says the Commission. Apple contests this, arguing that “the value of the initial purchase is a poor measure of value delivered by App Store” since it only represents a “small fraction of acquisition value to developer”.

[…]

For a year now, it has adopted a very combative stance toward the DMA, aiming to concede as little as possible. But it faces daily penalties of up to €47 million. In April, European officials said they would not hesitate to apply them if necessary.

[…]

Source: A simple comma is going to cost Apple billions in Europe

Apple has been putting spanners in the works of the EU DMA since inception and has been pissing off developers, the EU and customers since then. The EU is toughening it’s stance – the spirit of the law is more important than a single comma in a huge document in Europe.

EU to force Apple to open up IOS for developers

Posted on by

Apple has filed an appeal with the European Union’s General Court in Luxembourg challenging the bloc’s order requiring greater iOS interoperability with rival companies’ products under the Digital Markets Act. The EU executive in March directed Apple to make its mobile operating system more compatible with competitors’ apps, headphones, and virtual reality headsets by granting developers and device makers access to system components typically reserved for Apple’s own products.

Apple contends the requirements threaten its seamless user experience while creating security risks, noting that companies have already requested access to sensitive user data including notification content and complete WiFi network histories. The company faces potential fines of up to 10% of its worldwide annual revenue if found in violation of the DMA’s interoperability rules designed to curb Big Tech market power.

Europe warns giant e-tailer SHEIN to stop cheating consumers

Posted on by

The European Commission has warned Chinese e-tailer SHEIN to clean up its act, after finding several practices on its website breach local consumer law.

The Commission and Europe’s Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC), a network of national consumer authorities, on Monday warned the e-tailer that an investigation found the following breaches of EU law on SHEN’s website:

  • Fake discounts: pretending to offer better deals by showing price reductions that are not based on the actual ‘prior prices’.
  • Pressure selling: putting consumers under pressure to complete purchases using tactics like false purchase deadlines.
  • Missing, incorrect and misleading information: displaying incomplete and incorrect information about consumers’ legal rights to return goods and receive refunds and failing to process returns and refunds in accordance with consumers’ relevant rights.
  • Deceptive product labels: using product labels that suggest that the product offers something special when in fact the relevant feature is required by law.
  • Misleading sustainability claims: Providing false or deceptive information about the sustainability benefits of its products.
  • Hidden contact details: Consumers cannot easily contact SHEIN for questions or complaints.

The regulator also asked SHEIN to provide info on how it complies with other legal obligations, including how it ensures that product rankings, reviews, and ratings are not presented in a misleading manner. Another item of concern is whether SHEIN properly informs shoppers about contracts with third-party sellers on the Chinese company’s platform.

The CPC gave SHEIN a month to respond to its findings and explain how it proposes to respond to the regulator’s findings. If the Chinese company fails to do so, it faces fines and punishment by regulators in different EU member nations.

The EU’s concerns are another worry for SHEIN, which is already impacted by the USA’s decision to impose significant tariffs on imports from China and to end the de minimis rule that saw packages valued at under $800 exempted from import duties. SHEIN specializes in cheap and cheerful items, usually sold for much less than $800.

[…]

Source: Europe warns giant e-tailer to stop cheating consumers • The Register

M&S warns of £300M dent in profits from cyberattack

Posted on by

Marks & Spencer says the disruption related to its ongoing cyberattack is likely to knock around £300 million ($402 million) off its operating profits for the next financial year (2025/26).

The beleaguered high street retailer made the admission in its fiscal 2025 profit and loss accounts for the year ended March 29, published on Wednesday, following reports that it could be gearing up to make a maximum claim on its cyber insurance policy to the tune of £100 million ($134 million).

The £300 million figure will be reduced through cost mitigations, insurance, and trading actions, M&S said, and it’s expected that the total costs related to the attack itself and technical recovery will be communicated at a later date as an adjustment item.

[…]

Various divisions suffered an overall decline in operating profits. M&S said that early on into the attack, which has been ongoing for about a month now, that some franchise stores, such as those inside train stations, were experiencing shortages of certain foods, such as “meal deal” sandwiches.

This reduced availability has affected food sales, and M&S also incurred additional waste and logistics costs owing to the shift toward manual processes.

After briefly managing to keep online and app sales running post-breach, these were eventually taken offline along with other systems, and the company said online sales and trading profit was “heavily impacted” as a result.

Online sales in its fashion, home, and beauty divisions remain unavailable and are not expected to return until July, M&S revealed today.

[…]

After posting its results this morning, M&S’s share price was down 3 percent at the time of writing, and about 12 percent down since the start of the attack, representing a more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) loss to its market valuation.

However, there are green shoots for the retailer, whose pre-tax and pre-adjusted profits were up 22.2 percent on the previous year at £875.5 million ($1.17 billion), which is the company’s best performance in more than 15 years.

Overall, sales also grew 6.1 percent to £13.9 billion ($18.6 billion), and M&S reaffirmed its commitment to reduce its costs by £500 million ($670 million) in time for the 2027/28 financial year.

[…]

M&S disclosed the attack on April 22, and responsibility was soon ascribed to the English-speaking group known as Scattered Spider, who reportedly used DragonForce ransomware to infect the retailer’s systems.

Nothing is officially confirmed on this front, although DragonForce took credit for the attack when speaking to the BBC.

DragonForce said it was also involved in the attacks on Co-op and Harrods, but none of the companies have yet appeared on its leak site, which is unexpected for intrusions that took place nearly a month ago.

M&S confirmed last week that those responsible stole customer data including names, dates of birth, telephone numbers, home addresses, household information, email addresses, and online order histories.

It told the London Stock Exchange that the data did not include full payment card numbers or account credentials

Source: M&S warns of £300M dent in profits from cyberattack • The Register

VMware price hikes 800-1,500%, claim Euro customers

Posted on by

Broadcom has upped VMware licensing costs by between eight to 15 times since it took over the organization, and a lack of alternatives in the tech industry means trade and end customers have no choice but to play ball.

This is the according to the European Cloud Competition Observatory (ECCO), an independent body formed by customer organizations, and CISPE – a trade association of 37 cloud providers in the region – to monitor the behavior of software vendors accused of abusing their monopoly position.

The latest report issued today by ECCO on Broadcom-owned VMware says most CISPE members were forced to renew licensing agreements.

“However, these agreements were often signed under significant pressure, influenced by a lack alternatives, abrupt contract terminations, and financial incentives such as rebates for longer-term commitments,” it claims.

Despite putting pen to paper, “these customers continue to face substantial financial burdens and operational disadvantages due to the imposed terms” of the Broadcom’s revamped licensing framework for VMware.

The chips ‘n’ software giant killed the perpetual licenses and monthly “pay-as-you-go” pricing models on VMware products, and rationalized the portfolio into a few large bundles that are only available on subscription with a three-year minimum commitment.

ECCO likens this to an electricity provider deciding to charge you based on the assumption you run your heating full-blast 24×7 rather than on actual usage, and insisting you pay up front a year or more in advance.

Broadcom, ECCO says, “unilaterally and without sufficient notice” terminated existing licensing agreements, some of which had been in place for over 10 years, in order to compel customers holding them to accept the new terms.

As The Register reported last year, it also ditched VMware’s channel program for Cloud Services Providers (CSPs) and only invited the largest such operators to join its own Broadcom partner program.

This latest report highlights that recent actions by Broadcom have, in ECCO’s words, “worsened the situation for European cloud infrastructure providers, their customers, both private and public sector, which depend on VMware virtualization software.”

[…]

 

Source: VMware price hikes? 800-1,500%, claim Euro customers • The Register

Apple Hit with Class-Action Lawsuit for App Store Injunction Violation after Judge rules apple execs lied and willfully ignored injunction – join here

Posted on by

[…]The new lawsuit was filed May 2, 2025, following news that a federal judge found the tech giant in contempt of court for violating a 2021 antitrust injunction which required Apple to permit its app developers to sell subscriptions and other in-app products directly to their customers using links within their apps. Without the injunction in place Apple charges app developers uniform transaction fees (defaulting at 30%, and 15% under some programs). The court found that Apple implemented a scheme to violate the injunction and prevent developers from directing customers to their own websites and payment platforms.

“It appears as though Apple has been caught red-handed blatantly seeking to undercut the law,” said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman managing partner and co-founder. “We believe app developers deserve a fair market to promote and sell their products, and the world’s largest corporation doesn’t get to bully them out of this billion-dollar revenue stream.”

If you sold an in-app digital product (including subscriptions) through Apple’s App Store after Jan. 16, 2024, find out your rights as an iOS app developer.

[…]

The court ultimately held that Apple willfully violated the injunction to protect its revenues, and then “reverse engineered justification[s] to proffer to the Court” often with “lies on the witness stand,”

[…]

The lawsuit’s named plaintiff is Pure Sweat Basketball Inc., a corporation offering an app used by players across the country to train and improve their basketball skills. Had Apple complied with the injunction, as required, Pure Sweat would have been able to sell subscriptions to its app directly to its customers, using “link-out” buttons directing customers to Pure Sweat’s own website.

As a result of Apple’s misconduct, attorneys estimate that potentially more than 100,000 similarly situated app developers were prevented from selling in-app products (including subscriptions) directly to their customers, and were forced to pay Apple commissions on in-app sales that Apple was not entitled to receive.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Apple on behalf of iOS app developers.

[…]

Source: Apple Hit with Class-Action Lawsuit for App Store Injunction Violation by Same Law Firm That Secured $100M iOS Developer Win | Hagens Berman

Judge: Apple Lied In Fortnite Case, chose to not comply with court order, must immediately allow external payments without a cut

Posted on by

Epic Games v. Apple judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled that, effective immediately, Apple can no longer take a cut from purchases made outside apps and has blocked the tech giant from restricting how developers can point people to third-party payment options. The judge was also not happy that Apple has seemingly not complied with a previous court order and has referred the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for possible contempt charges. Apple is already planning to appeal the ruling.

This is the latest development in the Epic v Apple court case that started back in 2020 after Epic added its own payment option to Fortnite on iOS and Apple pulled the game as a result. The Fortnite maker’s case against Apple was focused primarily on the large fees the tech giant took from all in-app purchases and its strict restrictions against allowing other app stores and third-party options on iOS devices.

In 2021 the judge sided with Apple on most points, but declared the company needed to allow app makers to use third-party payment systems that could avoid Apple’s cut. In 2023, after a series of appeals, Apple declared a “resounding victory” over Epic, though it was still forced by the court to allow third-party payment options and to not take a cut of outside app purchases. Epic alleges that Apple never complied with that order. Now Apple finds itself in a lot of trouble with judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

“That [Apple] thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation,” wrote the judge in a ruling filed on April 30 in California. “Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive.”

Elsewhere in the filing, the judge says that an Apple executive lied under oath when talking about forcing devs to pay a 27 percent fee for outside app purchases and wrote that Apple CEO Tim Cook “chose poorly” when listening to execs at the company who convinced him to ignore the injunction.

“Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly,” wrote the judge. In the filing the judge also suggested that Apple’s actions might constitute contempt charges and has referred the case to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

As explained in the filing, Apple must now “immediately” comply with the court’s orders to allow developers to include third-party payment options, to not take a cut of those purchases, and to not block or hinder devs from including these outside payment methods through various means and UI messages.

[…]

Source: Judge: Apple Lied In Fortnite Case And Just Blew App Store Open

EC fines Meta, Apple €700M for DMA compliance failures

Posted on by

Meta and Apple have earned the dubious honor of being the first companies fined for non-compliance with the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which experts say could inflame tensions between US President Donald Trump and the European bloc.

Apple was penalised to the tune of €500 million ($570 million) for violating anti-steering rules and Meta by €200 million ($228 million) for its “consent or pay” ad model, the EU said in a press release.

The fines are a pittance for both firms, whose most recent quarterly earnings statements from January saw Apple report $36.33 billion in net income, and Meta $20.83 billion.

Apple’s penalty related to anti-steering violations – for which it’s already paid a €1.8 billion penalty to the EU – saw it found guilty of not allowing app developers to direct users outside Apple’s own in-app payment system for cheaper alternatives. The European Commission also ordered Apple to “remove the technical and commercial restrictions on steering” while simultaneously closing an investigation into Apple’s user choice obligations, finding that “early and proactive” moves by Cupertino to address compliance shortcomings resolved the issue.

Meta, on the other hand, was fined for the pay-or-consent model whereby it offered a paid, ad-free version of its services as the only alternative to allowing the company to harvest user data. The strategy earned it considerable ire in Europe for exactly the reason the EU began investigating it last year: That it still ingested data even if users paid and that it wasn’t clear about how personal data was being collected or used.

“The Commission found that this model is not compliant with the DMA,” the EC said, because it gave users no choice to opt into a service that used less of their data, nor did it allow users to freely consent to having their data combined.

That fine only applies to the period between March and November 2024 when the consent-or-pay model was active, however. The EU said that a new advertising model introduced in November of last year resolved many of its concerns, which European Privacy advocate Max Schrems says will likely still be an issue.

“Meta has moved to a system with a ‘pay,’ a ‘consent’ and a ‘less ads’ option,” Schrems explained in a statement emailed to The Register. Schrems said the “less ads” option is nothing but a distraction.

“It has massive usability limitations – nothing any user seriously wants,” Schrems said. “Meta has simply created a ‘fake choice’, pretending that it would overcome the illegal ‘pay or okay’ approach.”

Alongside the fines, the EU also said that it was removing Facebook Marketplace’s designation as a DMA gatekeeper, as it had too few commercial users to qualify as “an important gateway for business users to reach end users.”

[… followed by stuff about how Americans don’t like the fines in usual snowflakey Trump style crying tantrums]

Source: EC fines Meta, Apple €700M for DMA compliance failures • The Register

Google Found Guilty of Illegal Ad Tech Monopoly in US Federal Court Ruling

Posted on by

A federal judge has ruled that Google maintained illegal monopolies in the digital advertising technology market.

In a landmark case, the Department of Justice and 17 states found Google liable for antitrust violations.

Federal Court Finds Google Violated Sherman Act

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google illegally monopolized two key markets in digital advertising:

  • The publisher ad server market
  • The ad exchange market

The 115-page ruling (PDF link) states Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power.”

It also found that Google unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) together.

Judge Brinkema wrote in the ruling:

“Plaintiffs have proven that Google possesses monopoly power in the publisher ad server for open-web display advertising market. Google’s publisher ad server DFP has a durable and ‘predominant share of the market’ that is protected by high barriers both to entry and expansion.”

Google’s Dominant Market Position

The court found that Google controlled approximately 91% of the worldwide publisher ad server market for open-web display advertising from 2018 to 2022.

In the ad exchange market, Google’s AdX handled between 54% and 65% of total transactions, roughly nine times larger than its closest competitor.

The judge cited Google’s pricing power as evidence of its monopoly. Google maintained a 20% take rate for its ad exchange services for over a decade, despite competitors charging only 10%.

The ruling states:

“Google’s ability to maintain AdX’s 20% take rate under these market conditions is further direct evidence of the firm’s sustained and substantial power.”

Illegal Tying of Services Found

A key part of the ruling focused on Google’s practice of tying its publisher ad server (DFP) to its ad exchange (AdX).

The court determined that Google effectively forced publishers to use DFP if they wanted access to real-time bidding with AdWords advertisers, a crucial feature of AdX.

Judge Brinkema wrote, quoting internal Google communications:

“By tying DFP to AdX, Google took advantage of its ‘owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network’ of advertising demand.”

This was compared to “Goldman or Citibank own[ing] the NYSE [i.e., the New York Stock Exchange].”

[…]

What’s Next?

Judge Brinkema has yet to decide on penalties for Google’s violations. Soon, the court will “set a briefing schedule and hearing date to determine the appropriate remedies.”

Possible penalties include forcing Google to sell parts of its ad tech business. This would dramatically change the digital advertising landscape.

This ruling signals that changes may be coming for marketers relying on Google’s integrated advertising system.

Google intends to appeal the decision, extending the legal battle for years.

[…]

Source: Google Found Guilty of Illegal Ad Tech Monopoly in Court Ruling

Germany’s ‘Universal Basic Income’ Experiment Proves It Doesn’t Encourage Unmployment

Posted on by

People “are likely to continue working full-time even if they receive no-strings-attached universal basic income payments,” reports CNN, citing results from a recent experiment in Germany (discussed on Slashdot in 2020): Mein Grundeinkommen (My Basic Income), the Berlin-based non-profit that ran the German study, followed 122 people for three years. From June 2021 to May 2024, this group received an unconditional sum of €1,200 ($1,365) per month. The study focused on people aged between 21 and 40 who lived alone and already earned between 1,100 euros (around $1,250) and 2,600 euros ($2,950) a month. They were free to use the extra money from the study on anything they wanted. Over the course of three years, the only condition was that they had to fill out a questionnaire every six months that asked about different areas of their lives, including their financial situation, work patterns, mental well-being and social engagement.

One concern voiced by critics is that receiving a basic income could make people less inclined to work. But the Grundeinkommen study suggests that may not be the case at all. It found that receiving a basic income was not a reason for people to quit their jobs. On average, study participants worked 40 hours a week and stayed in employment — identical to the study’s control group, which received no payment. “We find no evidence that people love doing nothing,” Susann Fiedler, a professor at the Vienna University of Economics and Business who was involved with the study, said on the study’s website.

Unlike the control group, those receiving a basic income were more likely to change jobs or enroll in further education. They reported greater satisfaction in their working life — and were “significantly” more satisfied with their income…

And can more money buy happiness? According to the study, the recipients of a basic income reported feeling that their lives were “more valuable and meaningful” and felt a clear improvement in their mental health.

Source: Germany’s ‘Universal Basic Income’ Experiment Proves It Doesn’t Encourage Unmployment

UK finally gets around to banning fake reviews and ‘sneaky’ fees for online products

Posted on by

The United Kingdom has banned “outrageous fake reviews and sneaky hidden fees” to make life easier for online shoppers. New measures under the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumer Act 2024 came into force on Sunday that require online platforms to transparently include all mandatory fees within a product’s advertised price, including booking or admin charges.

The law targets so-called “dripped pricing,” in which additional fees — like platform service charges — are dripped in during a customer’s checkout process to dupe them into paying a higher price than expected. The ban “aims to bring to an end the shock that online shoppers get when they reach the end of their shopping experience only to find a raft of extra fees lumped on top,” according to Justin Madders, the UK’s Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets.

The legislation will apply to things like food delivery services and ticket booking platforms, requiring that obligatory delivery and administration fees be baked into the overall price or clearly displayed at the start of the checkout process. Optional fees, however, such as those applied to choosing airline seats or upgrading luggage allowances, will be unaffected.

The new rules also ban businesses from using or commissioning fake reviews in an attempt to artificially inflate online ratings. Website providers are responsible for moderating their online reviews. According to CMA guidance, “anyone who publishes or provides access to consumer reviews or consumer review information” will be under obligation to take “reasonable and proportionate steps” to remove and prevent fake reviews, or face an infringement investigation. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) can impose fines for non-compliance of up to 10 percent of a company’s annual global turnover.

Source: UK bans fake reviews and ‘sneaky’ fees for online products | The Verge

In the EU these practices have been banned for years

EU action to protect consumers from ‘junk fees’

Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission (2023)

How much foreign aid is spent domestically rather than overseas?

Posted on by

Much of foreign aid is spent on goods that are shipped overseas: food supplies, medicines, or humanitarian assistance in emergency situations.

But a surprising amount of what’s reported as foreign aid is not sent abroad; it’s spent domestically. Foreign aid budgets in rich countries can include the costs of hosting refugees, some scholarships to foreign students, and some administrative costs that are spent domestically. These domestic expenses are reported by countries to the OECD, which tracks and measures foreign aid allocations, so they are included in the widely quoted aid figures you’ll typically see. We’ll refer to these combined costs as “aid money spent at home”.

In 2023, 22% of total foreign aid for all countries was spent at home. The DAC countries are a group of 32 high-income countries; from this point onwards, we’ll refer to them as “rich donor countries”.

In this article, we’ll look at how aid money spent at home varies across countries and categories, how this has changed over time, and what this means for the amount of money available for support overseas.

More foreign aid is spent domestically, mostly to host refugees

So, in 2023, 22% of foreign aid was spent domestically in rich donor countries. That was a record year, both in absolute and relative terms. Domestic spending has more than tripled from $14 billion to $48 billion since 2010. As a share of total aid, it has increased from 10% to 22%.

[…]

Source: How much foreign aid is spent domestically rather than overseas? – Our World in Data

FTC removes posts critical of Big Tech from its website

Posted on by

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has removed over 300 blog posts published during the agency’s leadership under former chair Lina Khan, Wired reports. These include posts that are critical of companies like Amazon and Microsoft for their handling of customer data.

The FTC did not respond to a request for comment.

As FTC chair during the Biden years, Khan was known as a tough enforcer of antitrust law, seeking to hold mega-corporations accountable for their potential to stifle competition in American markets. In an interview with TechCrunch, she once referred to Big Tech leaders as “mob bosses.” But in the Trump era, the FTC is unlikely to be as vigilant about Big Tech.

The deletion of these blogs could potentially violate laws on how government data is handled; meanwhile, the behavior is consistent with the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to remove certain words and phrases from public and private government documents. These terms include “Black,” “disability,” “feminism,” “genders,” “Latinx,” “LGBTQ,” “transgender,” “victims,” and “women,” among others.

Source: FTC removes posts critical of Big Tech from its website | TechCrunch

Apple must allow app sideloading in Brazil within 90 days, judge orders

Posted on by

Brazil has ordered Apple to allow users to bypass the App Store and sideload apps within 90 days, according a report in Valor Econômico seen by 9to5Mac. The new ruling follows similar orders issued in Europe and elsewhere that were referenced by the Brazilian court. “[Apple] has already complied with similar obligations in other countries, without demonstrating a significant impact or irreparable damage to its business model,” wrote judge Pablo Zuniga.

Late last year, Brazil’s antitrust regulator CADE ordered Apple to allow users to download apps and make purchases from outside its App Store, with a 20-day deadline and fines for not complying. However, Apple appealed that ruling on the grounds that the changes would be too difficult to implement within the time frame. The court agreed, calling the injunction “disproportionate and unnecessary,” buying Apple more time but forcing it to face a public hearing in Brazil.

Following another appeal, this time by CADE, the court ordered Apple to allow sideloading and third-party app stores within the next three months or face fines.

The litigation was launched by the Latin American e-commerce firm Mercado Libre, which complained about developers being forced to pay hefty commissions through Apple’s App Store. That was followed later by other developers including Match and Epic Games.

An Apple spokesperson told Valor Econômico that it “believes in vibrant and competitive markets,” but said that the changes will “harm the privacy and security” of iOS users. Apple plans to appeal the decision.

Source: Apple must allow app sideloading in Brazil within 90 days, judge orders

GameStop CEO Scapegoats DEI for Company Troubles. So much for diamondhands then.

Posted on by

GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen took to X on Tuesday to blame wokeness and DEI for the retail chain’s impending exit from Canada and France. The company, which managed to survive the pandemic thanks to the infamous memestock frenzy, has closed more than 700 stores since 2020 as more game distribution moves digital.

In a release, GameStop said that “as part of an evaluation of its international assets,” the company, “intends to pursue a sale of its operations in France and Canada.” Shortly thereafter, Cohen took to X with his comments on “wokeness” and “DEI.”

“Email M&A@gamestop.com if you’re interested in buying GameStop Canada or Micromania France,” Cohen wrote. “High taxes, Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Wokeness, and DEI included at no additional cost if you buy today.”

[…]

Source: GameStop CEO Scapegoats DEI for Company Troubles

Meta slashes staff and their stock options, but it’s ok: executives’ annual bonuses just went from 75% base salary to 200% and stock is around 2000% of salary

Posted on by

After another round of mass layoffs and reports of slashed stock options for remaining employees, Meta has like clockwork opted to reward its top executives with a substantial bonus increase.

The Facebook giant revealed in a government filing that its Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee (CNGC) approved a target annual bonus increase for its top executive officers bar CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The bonus was raised from 75 percent of base salary to a whopping 200 percent, effective with the 2025 annual performance period.

[…]

According to Meta’s April 2024 proxy statement [PDF], CTO Andrew Bosworth’s base salary was $945,000. His actual eligible earnings were slightly lower due to the timing of his raise. However, factoring in a 75 percent target bonus and Meta’s 150 percent company performance multiplier for 2023, his total bonus payout amounted to about $1.05 million.

Assuming Bosworth’s salary remains the same, and Meta’s company performance percentage stays at 150 percent in 2025, the new 200 percent target bonus would push his bonus to nearly $3 million. That’s before any stock-based compensation and other add-ons. And he’s not even the highest-paid member of Meta’s named executive team.

For balance’s sake, and some might find this hard to swallow but, $3 million annual cash compensation for a CTO in Bosworth’s position is about right for Silicon Valley; it’s nothing outrageous, relatively speaking. The vast majority of his pay package is in shares; in 2023 for instance, he was awarded more than $20 million in stock. The salary, like for many in his role, is the cherry on top of an enormous cake.

[…]

Some of that bonus cash, though, might be coming from Meta’s latest round of layoffs, which saw around 3,700 people – about five percent of its workforce – axed this month. The cut reportedly targeted low performers, and followed a year in which the biz reported a net income of $62.36 billion, a 59 percent year-over-year increase.

This comes reports surfaced this week that Meta has cut back on its yearly distribution of stock options by 10 percent to most staff, though we do note that the corp’s share price has climbed 10 percent in the past month, and 46 percent for the past year.

[…]

Source: Meta executives’ annual bonuses just got a bit bigger • The Register

The economics of greed – gut the company and grab the money. In the meantime blame people for drinking Starbucks coffee that they can’t pay their rent.

Amazon Is Making It Harder to Move Your E-Books Around

Posted on by

Amazon is once again demonstrating that buying things in today’s world does not mean you actually own them. The company is closing a loophole that enabled owners of Kindle books to strip them of their anti-piracy protection and take them elsewhere.

Some avid digital books enthusiasts prefer other e-reading applications to Amazon’s Kindle—perhaps because another e-reader has a better color screen or other features not present on Kindle. The “Download & transfer via USB” tool was an old Kindle feature that allowed owners of e-books purchased through Amazon to be downloaded and transferred to another Kindle without using WiFi or Bluetooth. Clever individuals found that some older e-books used a file format with security measures that are easy to circumvent, meaning they could use the tool alongside other hacks to successfully transfer their books elsewhere. Now, books purchased through Amazon are effectively stuck there.

[…]

A standard security format would enable books to be transferred while protecting copyrights, but Amazon does not have an incentive to go with that.

That has, of course, been great for Amazon. The company was early into the e-book industry and the Kindle is synonymous with e-books; it accounts for 70% of the market. If you have a large collection of books you have purchased on Kindle, you kind of have to stay in its ecosystem. Furthermore, some books are only available on Amazon’s marketplace, and the company will always match the price of competing marketplaces since it really makes its money off the ads littering the site these days. While Amazon does have a monopoly in digital books, it would likely argue it is not a monopoly in the broader book category as Barnes and Noble sees a resurgence in popularity.

Users on sites like Reddit have shared workarounds over the years to take their purchased books elsewhere, but it has been something of a cat-and-mouse game, with successive updates by Amazon closing loopholes.

[…]

 

Source: Amazon Is Making It Harder to Move Your E-Books Around

Stellantis Introduces Pop-Up Ads in Vehicles, Bombarding your Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler display every time you stop

Posted on by

Car technology is supposed to make driving safer, smoother, and more enjoyable. But Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, and Ram, seems to have taken a different approach—one that prioritizes ad revenue over user experience.

In a move that has left drivers both frustrated and bewildered, Stellantis has introduced full-screen pop-up ads on its infotainment systems. Specifically, Jeep owners have reported being bombarded with advertisements for Mopar’s extended warranty service. The kicker? These ads appear every time the vehicle comes to a stop

[…]

One Jeep 4xe owner recently shared their frustration on an online forum, detailing how these pop-ups disrupt the driving experience. Stellantis, responding through their “JeepCares” representative, confirmed that these ads are part of the contractual agreement with SiriusXM and suggested that users simply tap the “X” to dismiss them.

[…]

A Symptom of a Bigger Problem: Subscription Fatigue

The automotive industry is heading into murky waters with the increasing push toward subscription-based features. BMW tried charging for heated seats. Mercedes locked performance boosts behind a paywall. Now, Stellantis has decided to monetize its infotainment screens with intrusive advertising.

It’s a trend that consumers are growing increasingly tired of. New vehicles already come with a hefty price tag—averaging $48,700 in 2024—so the expectation is that premium pricing should come with a premium experience, not one riddled with ads and additional fees. Instead of making customers feel like valued buyers, automakers are making them feel like they’re merely users in an ad-supported ecosystem.

The Off-Roading Community’s Response: “AdBlock for Jeeps?”

The off-roading community has always been passionate about modifying their vehicles, but no one expected that “blocking ads” would become a must-have Jeep upgrade. Some tech-savvy drivers are already exploring ways to disable these pop-ups permanently, with discussions surfacing about potential software hacks or third-party solutions to remove intrusive in-car advertising.

[…]

Source: Stellantis Introduces Pop-Up Ads in Vehicles, Sparking Outrage Among Owners – TechStory

Buy now, pay later installment payments increase retail spending, study finds

Posted on by

[…]Buy now, pay later (BNPL) is an increasingly popular payment method, allowing customers to spread payment into interest-free installments over a few weeks or months. Worldwide BNPL spending was $316 billion in 2023 and is expected to grow to $450 billion by 2027. With major retailers such as Walmart and H&M partnering with BNPL providers like Affirm, Klarna, and Afterpay, over 45 million U.S. customers have adopted this payment method.

When customers choose BNPL installments at the checkout of a participating retailer, the bill is paid in full by the BNPL provider to the retailer. Customers pay the BNPL provider for the first installment at the time of purchase and repay the remaining interest-free installments over a short time period.

However, despite the growing popularity of BNPL installment payments, little is known about their impact on retail sales.

In this new study, the researchers use transactional data from a major U.S. retailer and find that BNPL installment payments boost spending. By allowing customers to pay for purchases in smaller, interest-free installments, BNPL boosts both the number of purchases and the average amount spent.

The study compares BNPL installment payments to upfront and delayed lump sum payments. BNPL consistently boosts spending across various products (e.g., party supplies, apparel, flights, mugs, coffee pods) and number of installments (e.g., three installments, four installments, six installments).

[…]

This research offers actionable insights for various stakeholders:

  • Consumers can benefit by using BNPL installments as a tool for managing expenses by making them feel more in control of their budgets and less financially constrained.
  • Retail managers should consider integrating BNPL options to boost sales. Ang says that “Retailers benefit because adoption of installment payments leads to more frequent purchases and larger basket amounts. The difference is significant, with an increase in purchase incidence of approximately 9% and a relative increase in purchase amounts of approximately 10%.”
  • Policymakers need to be aware of the significant impact BNPL has on consumer spending to ensure regulations that protect consumers while fostering financial flexibility.
  • Societal stakeholders, including consumer advocates, should monitor BNPL’s growing influence to promote responsible practices.

Understanding the benefits and potential risks associated with BNPL is crucial as this payment method continues to reshape the retail landscape.

More information: Stijn Maesen et al, Buy Now, Pay Later: Impact of Installment Payments on Customer Purchases, Journal of Marketing (2024). DOI: 10.1177/00222429241282414

Source: Buy now, pay later installment payments increase retail spending, study finds

Billion-pound lawsuit against Apple over App Store opens in UK

Posted on by

The complaint, filed in May 2021, accuses Apple of breaching European and UK competition laws by “its exclusion of any other app stores from iOS devices” like iPhones and iPads.

It claims that some 20 million Apple users may have been overcharged by the company “due to its ban on rival app store platforms”.

The complainants says a “30 percent surcharge” that the company “imposes” on apps purchased through Apple’s App Store comes at “expense of ordinary consumers”.

The case, which Apple has called “meritless”, has been brought by Kings College London academic Rachael Kent and the law firm Hausfeld & Co.

The trial is set to last seven weeks at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London.

At the heart are accusations that Apple used the App Store to exclude competitors, forcing users to use its system and boosting profits in the process.

“The 30 percent surcharge relates to most of the applications that you’re going to be using when you’re downloading and making in-app purchases on the App Store,” Kent told AFP, citing dating platform Tinder as an example.

However, it does not apply to applications offering physical products such as the delivery services Deliveroo and Uber Eats, the academic specifies.

Any user who purchased applications or subscriptions in the British version of the App Store between 1 October 2015 and 15 November 2024 may be entitled to compensation from Apple, believes Kent, a lecturer in the digital economy.

The claim seeks total estimated damages of £1.5 billion (EUR1.8 billion).

According to British law, in this type of class action, all potentially affected persons are included in the procedure by default, and may benefit from possible compensation, unless they voluntarily opt out.

[…]

Source: Billion-pound lawsuit against Apple over App Store opens in UK – Euractiv

A 30% surcharge is ridiculous, especially when you are rabid about not allowing anyone else have a marketplace – yes, they do allow 3rd party marketplaces but the prices for that are extortionate.

2024 Open Source Software Funding Report

Posted on by

This report summarizes insights from the inaugural 2024 Open Source Software Funding Survey, a collaboration between GitHub, the Linux Foundation, and researchers from Harvard University. The objective of this study was to better understand how organizations fund, contribute to, and otherwise support open source software.

Key Findings
Scale
Challenges
Lessons learned
  • Leave “fingerprints” on your organization’s OSS efforts to help managers, researchers, and other observers more easily collect this information.
  • Empower employees to self report contributions made under the organization’s banner.
  • Make OSS contribution part of your monitoring pipeline by conducting brief, regular surveys within your organization to collect key metrics.
  • Consider sharing data to public OSS funding index.
Toolkit

Source: 2024 Open Source Software Funding Report

DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to help Break Search Monopoly

Posted on by

Top Justice Department antitrust officials have decided to ask a judge to force Alphabet Inc.’s Google to sell off its Chrome browser in what would be a historic crackdown on one of the world’s biggest tech companies.

The department will ask the judge, who ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized the search market, to require measures related to artificial intelligence and its Android smartphone operating system, according to people familiar with the plans.

Antitrust officials, along with states that have joined the case, also plan to recommend Wednesday that federal judge Amit Mehta impose data licensing requirements, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.

[…]

Owning the world’s most popular web browser is key for Google’s ads business. The company is able to see activity from signed-in users, and use that data to more effectively target promotions, which generate the bulk of its revenue. Google has also been using Chrome to direct users to its flagship AI product, Gemini, which has the potential to evolve from an answer-bot to an assistant that follows users around the web.

[…]

Source: DOJ Will Push Google to Sell Chrome to Break Search Monopoly – Bloomberg

It’s a start.