Tag: antitrust

The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) filed a lawsuit against Google today (April 15) under its antitrust law, accusing it of restricting Android smartphone manufacturers from using search services provided by other companies, thereby creating a monopoly in the market. The JFTC alleges that Google not only requires the Google Play Store to be pre-installed on devices, but also requires manufacturers to pre-install apps such as Google Search and the Chrome browser, placing them on the default homepage for intuitive user experience. The JFTC's proposed adjustments require Google to cease these monopolistic practices and to have an independent third-party organization monitor the situation for the next five years to confirm whether Google continues to exert similar influence on market competition, and to report to the JFTC annually. Google was previously identified by the JFTC as having engaged in monopolistic practices in December of last year, and has also faced similar accusations of monopolistic behavior in the US and European markets. In the US, Google was required to break up its Chrome browser business and implement corresponding adjustments, or face further pressure to break up its Android business. In its earlier proposed adjustments, Google would allow Apple's Safari and Mozilla's Firefox to use search engines from other providers as default options on different platforms. It also agreed to allow OEMs to decide whether to pre-install Google apps, including the Google Play Store, and to choose to pre-install apps from non-Google marketplaces or services like Maps. Although it was also found to have violated market monopoly regulations in the European market, the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg subsequently overturned the European Commission's decision against Google, arguing that the Commission's previous assessment was flawed. This spared Google from a hefty fine for market monopoly. However, the European Commission stated that it would take possible action, including an appeal, after reviewing the judgment, and therefore, it is still possible that Google will be required to dismantle its disparate advertising business through other means.

Following its previous ruling that Google violated market monopoly regulations and its recommendation to sell its Chrome browser business, the U.S. Department of Justice, in another lawsuit, argues that Google's bundling of its advertising technology with its service platform forces publishers to rely on Google for higher advertising revenue, thereby impacting competitors' competitive advantage. Aaron Teitelbaum, the Department of Justice's attorney, cited a News Corp. executive who stated that abandoning Google's advertising platform could result in a loss of up to $9 million in revenue in 2017 alone, and that long-term reliance on Google's technology is tantamount to the company being "held hostage" by Google. However, Google's lawyer, Vidushi Dyall, refuted this, arguing that the allegations are baseless and emphasizing that the Department of Justice has failed to provide evidence of direct impact on competitors from Google's advertising technology. Judge Leonie Brinkema, presiding over the case, also requested the Department of Justice to provide testimony from advertising companies that have been substantially affected. The U.S. Department of Justice has successfully accused Google of monopolizing the search market and has demanded that Google split its browser business. If necessary, it may further demand the split of its Android business. If Google is also required to split its advertising business, it will inevitably have a significant impact on Google's revenue. In response to the Department of Justice's previous demands, Google must submit its proposed remedial measures to the court by December 20th. It is also expected to appeal other lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California earlier ruled that Google must grant Epic Games access to its Google Play Store to facilitate the platform's app offerings. Google stated it will appeal. Prior to this, Epic Games filed a lawsuit against Google for violating competition rules, and also sued Samsung, alleging that the two platform operators made it difficult to install and use Epic Games Store apps on Android. Epic Games stated that Samsung has added an automatic installation blocker to its new devices, defaulting to allowing users to download and install apps only through the Google Play Store or Samsung's Galaxy Store. Unless users manually disable this blocker, they will be unable to install third-party apps. While lacking direct evidence, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney believes that Google and Samsung are colluding to restrict users from installing and using third-party apps obtained through other channels. Earlier, Judge James Donard of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Google violated market monopoly regulations. He found that Google did indeed pay to have its services pre-installed on hardware manufacturers' products using the Google Play Store, required service providers to conduct in-app transactions through the Google Play Store payment service, prohibited advertising discounted app purchase information through websites, and even paid to allow specific apps to be exclusively or preemptively listed on the Google Play Store platform, or to prevent competition from similar services. Therefore, the court ordered Google to...

The U.S. Department of Justice and attorneys general from eight states recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against rental service provider RealPage, accusing it of manipulating rental prices through algorithms. The allegations allege that RealPage uses software called YieldStar to collect sensitive information between landlords and rental companies, thereby inflating rental prices across the U.S. and forcing tenants to pay higher rents to find suitable housing. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that people should not be forced to pay higher rents to find suitable housing due to a single company's unfair manipulation of market prices. Currently, RealPage manages over 24 million properties, and it also alleged that RealPage collaborates with landlords who use other rental service platforms to obtain their rental prices and lease terms on those platforms. This data is then used to train algorithms that allow landlords to invisibly rent out their properties at higher prices. With attorneys general from states such as North Carolina, California, and Colorado joining the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that RealPage's superior service restricts competition, thereby gaining greater market control and driving up rental prices. The lawsuit cites internal RealPage documents and supporting evidence showing that RealPage's service aims to maximize landlords' rental income and emphasizes its ability to drive up rents. Recently, the US government has launched stricter investigations into market monopolies, including Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple. Google has been found to have engaged in monopolistic practices and may be required to break up its advertising and search businesses.

The report alleges that Google offered €470 million (approximately $5.12 million) to the European Cloud Infrastructure Providers Association (CISPE) to continue their fight against Microsoft, in response to the recent settlement reached between Microsoft and CISPE. The aim was clearly to force Microsoft to face investigation by EU regulators into potential monopolistic practices. Previously, CISPE argued that Microsoft's bundling of its business software with Azure cloud services made it difficult for businesses to switch between different cloud services as needed. The report claims that Google planned to offer a five-year license to Google Cloud worth €4.55 million, along with €14 million in cash, to persuade CISPE to maintain its accusations against Microsoft. If Microsoft continues to face these accusations, it could trigger further market monopoly investigations by EU regulators, meaning that Google Cloud and AWS could profit from competing in the European cloud service market. Amazon appears to have provided approximately €6 million to the European Cloud Infrastructure Providers Association (ECIA), but Amazon emphasizes that it is a member of the ECIA and makes regular contributions like other members. Google responded that it is currently considering joining the ECIA to promote fair licensing principles for software use. Following its settlement with the ECIA, Microsoft's president, Brad Smith, stated that he welcomed the settlement and saw it as paving the way for more competition. However, reports suggest that Microsoft paid approximately €20 million for the settlement. The ECIA confirmed receiving the funds but declined to provide further details.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched an investigation into Microsoft's hiring of former Inflection AI employees to acquire its artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The first phase of the investigation is expected to conclude on September 11th, at which point the CMA will assess the results and determine whether further investigation is necessary. The CMA believes that Microsoft appears to be deliberately avoiding antitrust scrutiny by hiring former Inflection AI employees, such as poaching Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of DeepMind and Inflection AI, to serve as Executive Vice President of Microsoft's AI division, rather than directly acquiring the company. Therefore, the CMA will investigate whether this constitutes a market monopoly. Microsoft has issued a statement saying that it strengthens its technological competitiveness through talent recruitment and that it will cooperate with the CMA investigation and provide necessary information. In addition to the CMA investigation, Microsoft has also faced investigations in the US market from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine whether its partnership with OpenAI constitutes a monopoly in AI technology development, and in the EU market, it faces accusations of market monopoly through its Microsoft Teams service.

Following an investigation launched in late July last year into Microsoft's bundling of Microsoft Teams with Office 365, the European Commission initially determined that Microsoft had violated market monopoly regulations. Even though Microsoft subsequently announced the separation of Microsoft Teams from Office 365 and the Microsoft 365 service in the EU, allowing users to choose not to bundle Microsoft Teams or use it independently, the European Commission clearly believed this was insufficient to absolve Microsoft of market monopoly violations. The Commission's statement argued that Microsoft might still intentionally increase the ease of connecting Microsoft Teams to its subscription-based software-as-a-service productivity tools, and might even increase the difficulty of integrating competing services with Microsoft products, thus influencing users to choose Microsoft Teams and potentially impacting innovation and fair competition within the EU. However, Microsoft President Brad Smith later responded that by separating Microsoft Teams from Office 365 and providing clear subscription options, Microsoft would continue to seek appropriate solutions to alleviate the European Commission's concerns. If the European Commission ultimately determines that Microsoft is involved in market manipulation and monopolistic practices, it could face a fine of 10% of its annual revenue. Besides Microsoft, the European Commission has previously investigated Apple, Google, and Amazon. Apple was recently found to have violated digital markets law and may face a fine of 10% of its annual revenue. Like Apple, Microsoft can appeal the European Commission's preliminary findings and potentially avoid penalties through subsequent adjustments.

In contrast to the investigations launched by British and US government agencies into Microsoft's $130 billion investment in OpenAI, EU antitrust regulators have apparently determined that the investment did not affect market development. According to a Reuters report, the EU antitrust regulators have decided not to investigate Microsoft's investment in OpenAI, and neither Microsoft nor OpenAI has responded to the report. Previously, Microsoft stated that it had invested $130 billion in OpenAI and obtained a non-voting board seat, emphasizing that it did not acquire any substantial ownership within OpenAI, but this still attracted investigations from the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Currently, Microsoft's approach to artificial intelligence (AI) development involves not only deep cooperation with OpenAI, but also collaboration with other AI companies and startups, and continuous investment in AI application development itself. This avoids collaborating only with specific companies and maintains a competitive advantage in the AI ​​field.

Apple recently stated in its new developer support document that, due to numerous requests from developers to continue creating PWA (Progressive Web Application) applications, it will restore the tools and resources for creating such applications within the European Union. This adjustment is clearly related to recent reports that EU antitrust regulators will investigate Apple's ban on developers creating PWA applications to clarify whether it constitutes market monopoly. Previously, Apple made several adjustments to its App Store policies within the EU in accordance with EU digital market law, including requiring third-party browsers to use their own engines, not just Apple's WebKit browser engine. Apple, citing potential security and privacy issues, banned EU developers from creating PWA applications, leading to an investigation by EU antitrust regulators into whether this affected market competition. However, it is currently unclear how Apple will adjust its approach, but it is expected that after the official release of iOS 17.4, EU developers will be able to continue offering PWA applications, and EU iPhone users will continue to use these applications.

In the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit accusing Google of violating market monopoly regulations, documents indicate that Microsoft approached Apple at least six times between 2009 and 2020, hoping to make Bing the default search engine for its Safari browser. Documents provided by Google show that Apple chose Google as the default search engine for Safari because of the quality issues with Microsoft's Bing search engine, leading Apple to refuse to use Microsoft's service. The documents further cite Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of services, who commented that the search engine service was not ideal and that Apple did not need to invest in building its own search engine, making cooperation with Google the most appropriate approach. However, the documents also show that Eddy Cue revealed that if Apple did not cooperate with Google, it would invest in building its own search engine. In September of last year, Bloomberg News also reported that Microsoft considered selling its Bing search engine to Apple around 2020 to make it the default search engine for iOS devices. However, Apple still chose to continue its partnership with Google, with Google paying Apple billions of dollars annually to ensure that Google Search becomes the default search service on iOS devices and to increase the usage rate of Google Search by leveraging the market share of iOS devices.