Apple and Google Face UK Investigation into Mobile Browser Dominance

The logo of Google LLC is shown at an entrance to one of their buildings in San Diego, California, US, October 9, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake
The logo of Google LLC is shown at an entrance to one of their buildings in San Diego, California, US, October 9, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake
TT

Apple and Google Face UK Investigation into Mobile Browser Dominance

The logo of Google LLC is shown at an entrance to one of their buildings in San Diego, California, US, October 9, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake
The logo of Google LLC is shown at an entrance to one of their buildings in San Diego, California, US, October 9, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Apple and Google aren't giving consumers a genuine choice of mobile web browsers, a British watchdog said Friday in a report that recommends they face an investigation under new UK digital rules taking effect next year.

The Competition and Markets Authority took aim at Apple, saying the iPhone maker's tactics hold back innovation by stopping rivals from giving users new features like faster webpage loading. Apple does this by restricting progressive web apps, which don't need to be downloaded from an app store and aren't subject to app store commissions, the report said, The AP reported.

“This technology is not able to fully take off on iOS devices,” the watchdog said in a provisional report on its investigation into mobile browsers that it opened after an initial study concluded that Apple and Google effectively have a chokehold on “mobile ecosystems.”

The CMA's report also found that Apple and Google manipulate the choices given to mobile phone users to make their own browsers “the clearest or easiest option.”

And it said that the a revenue-sharing deal between the two US Big Tech companies “significantly reduces their financial incentives” to compete in mobile browsers on Apple's iOS operating system for iPhones.

Both companies said they will “engage constructively” with the CMA.

Apple said it disagreed with the findings and said it was concerned that the recommendations would undermine user privacy and security.

Google said the openness of its Android mobile operating system “has helped to expand choice, reduce prices and democratize access to smartphones and apps" and that it's “committed to open platforms that empower consumers.”

It's the latest move by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic to crack down on the dominance of Big Tech companies. US federal prosecutors this week unveiled their proposals to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser as they target its monopoly in online search.

The CMA's final report is due by March. The watchdog indicated it would recommend using the UK's new digital competition rulebook set to take effect next year, which includes new powers to rein in tech companies, to prioritize further investigation into Apple’s and Google’s “activities in mobile ecosystems."



US Supreme Court Tosses Case Involving Securities Fraud Suit against Facebook

A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
TT

US Supreme Court Tosses Case Involving Securities Fraud Suit against Facebook

A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)
A 3D-printed Facebook logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph. (Reuters)

The US Supreme Court sidestepped on Friday a decision on whether to allow shareholders to proceed with a securities fraud lawsuit accusing Meta's Facebook of misleading investors about the misuse of the social media platform's user data.
The justices, who heard arguments in the case on Nov. 6, dismissed Facebook's appeal of a lower court's ruling that had allowed a 2018 class action led by Amalgamated Bank to proceed. The Supreme Court opted not resolve the underlying legal dispute, determining that the case should not have been taken up. Its action leaves the lower court's decision in place, Reuters reported. 
The court's dismissal came in a one-line order that provided no explanation. The Facebook dispute was one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month involving the right of private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud. The other one, involving the artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia, was argued on Nov. 13. The Supreme Court has not ruled yet in the Nvidia case.
The plaintiffs in the Facebook case claimed the company unlawfully withheld information from investors about a 2015 data breach involving British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that affected more than 30 million Facebook users. They accused Facebook of misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a 1934 federal law that requires publicly traded companies to disclose their business risks. Facebook's stock fell following 2018 media reports that Cambridge Analytica had used improperly harvested Facebook user data in connection with Donald Trump's successful US presidential campaign in 2016. The investors have sought unspecified monetary damages in part to recoup the lost value of the Facebook stock they held.
At issue was whether Facebook broke the law when it failed to detail the prior data breach in subsequent business-risk disclosures, and instead portrayed the risk of such incidents as purely hypothetical.
Facebook argued that it was not required to reveal that its warned-of risk had already materialized because "a reasonable investor" would understand risk disclosures to be forward-looking statements. President Joe Biden's administration supported the shareholders in the case.
US District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the lawsuit but the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals revived it.
The Cambridge Analytica data breach prompted US government investigations into Facebook's privacy practices, various lawsuits and a US congressional hearing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 brought an enforcement action against Facebook over the matter, which the company settled for $100 million. Facebook paid a separate $5 billion penalty to the US Federal Trade Commission over the issue.
The Supreme Court in prior rulings has limited the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that polices securities fraud.