When [Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook) first launched as a college-based social network 20 years ago this week, there was little indication that it would become what it is today. The company, now rebranded as Meta, controls the critical infrastructure of our information and communications systems and access to the public sphere, and is central to the digital economy. Who would have predicted that a company that started as a way to connect college students would be blamed for deteriorating mental health, genocidal violence and the rise of anti-democratic populism around the world? Yet here we are. Over the past decade, the company’s social media and messaging channels have been linked to deterioration in [self-esteem](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958821000695) and [mental health](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3919760), including increases in [anxiety](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-know/202210/facebook-caused-poor-mental-health-the-beginning), [depression](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340790303_Consequences_of_Facebook_on_student%27s_mental_health_-A_Conceptual_Analysis) and [addiction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/24/meta-lawsuit-facebook-instagram-children-mental-health/). They have been shown to foster feelings of [envy and jealousy](https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-02-2020-0103), contribute to [eating disorders and body image issues](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739), [impinge on sleep](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e031161.citation-tools) and enable [cyberbullying](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11121-021-01259-y). The company’s platforms have been used to fuel the spread of terrorism and violent extremism, [mass](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html) [violence](https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg897a/hate-speech-on-facebook-is-pushing-ethiopia-dangerously-close-to-a-genocide) and online harassment. Meta’s core products – Facebook, Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp – enable [human trafficking](https://traffickinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2022-Federal-Human-Trafficking-Report-WEB-Spreads_compressed.pdf), [drug trafficking](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-drug-cartels-human-traffickers-response-is-weak-documents-11631812953?mod=article_inline) and the [illegal wildlife trade](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade0843), along with the [proliferation](https://www.wsj.com/articles/instagram-vast-pedophile-network-4ab7189) of [child sexual abuse material](https://www.wsj.com/tech/meta-facebook-instagram-pedophiles-enforcement-struggles-dceb3548) and [child exploitation](https://www.reuters.com/legal/zuckerberg-meta-are-sued-failing-address-sex-trafficking-child-exploitation-2023-03-21/). People [use](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4192038) Meta’s social media and messaging platforms to spread propaganda, disinformation and information warfare, undermining the integrity of our [information ecosystems](https://www.transparency-initiative.org/what-makes-for-a-healthy-information-ecosystem-new-visual-tool) and [elections](https://www.wired.com/story/meta-disinformation-elections/) around the world. Nearly [4 billion people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/947869/facebook-product-mau/) regularly use Meta’s core products, making the tech giant one of the most powerful companies across a range of sectors, from data gathering and processing to digital advertising and publishing. Meta controls access to the internet in many countries, and determines viability and profitability for content creators, businesses and politicians around the world. Meta has fundamentally reshaped our political economy through its influence over the public sphere, contributing to widespread [democratic deterioration](https://v-dem.net/publications/democracy-reports/) and the rise of demagogic populism and [digital authoritarianism](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4466472). Businesses of all types rely on access to the data, audiences and digital advertising that Meta controls, alongside Google, while political campaigns, publishers and content creators rely on the same infrastructure. As we enter the age of AI, Meta [will](https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/report-ai-in-the-public-interest-confronting-the-monopoly-threat) control access to critical components of AI’s underlying infrastructure, from vast data and computational resources to scarce chips and cloud services. How did we get to this point? It was not inevitable. Rather, a combination of tech exceptionalism, brazen defiance and lots and lots of money have enabled Mark Zuckerberg’s company to accumulate vast market power over the two decades of its existence amid sclerotic antitrust oversight and “[repeated and deliberate policy failures](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/11/08/ftc-created-facebook-it-has-power-take-it-down),” in the words of Daniel A Hanley of the Open Markets Institute. Over the past two decades, Meta and its ilk have enjoyed [unprecedented exemptions](https://www.journalismliberty.org/publications/report-how-to-fund-independent-news-media-in-the-21st-century) from libel law and intermediary liability, anti-discrimination and product safety requirements, privacy and [intellectual property constraints](https://www.journalismliberty.org/publications/open-markets-submits-public-comment-on-artificial-intelligence-copyright), and restraints on competition. Meta has not been held responsible in any meaningful way. Fines are just a cost of doing business, and [efforts to subvert](https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/cjl-director-courtney-radsch-testifies-before-the-canadian-parliaments-standing-committee) oversight and regulation have allowed the company and its founder to continue to operate with impunity and immense profitability. Since its founding, Facebook has [acquired](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46739) more than 60 companies, with none of those acquisitions stopped by regulators, and is now poised to control [core AI infrastructure](https://www.journalismliberty.org/publications/report-ai-in-the-public-interest-confronting-the-monopoly-threat), from supercomputers to [foundation models](https://about.fb.com/news/2023/12/metas-2023-progress-in-ai-and-mixed-reality/) on which other companies rely to run their own applications. In the absence of federal privacy legislation, public interest data governance and meaningful antitrust enforcement, Meta, along with Google, was able to create a new economic order built on the parasitic logic of surveillance and behavior modification in what technologist Shoshana Zuboff has aptly dubbed [surveillance capitalism](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zuboff-surveillance-capitalism-assault-human-automomy-digital-privacy). We did not vote for or acquiesce to this system. It was foisted upon us by Zuckerberg’s “[move fast and break things](https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-2010-10)” ethos and the failure to prevent the vast consolidation of power in a handful of Big Tech firms, whose insatiable quest for “permissionless innovation” has come at great cost. Now generative AI is posed to upend labor markets and democratic institutions around the world. If the past 20 years have taught us anything about this one-time upstart turned tech titan, it is that [Meta](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/meta) and Zuckerberg must not be allowed to unilaterally shape the next era of humanity. As the tech world celebrates this milestone, it is time to demand accountability for the harms propagated by powerful tech companies such as Meta and break up the tech behemoth before it wreaks further havoc on individuals, society and the economy. Dismantling Meta’s digital legacy is imperative if we want to wrest back control and save democracy. * Courtney C Radsch is the director of the center for journalism and liberty at Open Markets Institute and the author of Cyberactivism and Citizen Journalism in Egypt: Digital Dissidence and Political Change

/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/73207773/896009962.0.jpg) Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and his wife Louise Linton hold a 2017 sheet of $1 dollar notes bearing Mnuchin’s name for a photograph at the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington, DC, in 2017. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images The Senate is now considering a bipartisan bill that could force a sale of [TikTok](https://www.vox.com/tiktok), with the House having already passed a similar measure and [President Joe Biden](https://www.vox.com/joe-biden) throwing his support behind it. If the legislation is signed into law — and if it survives [likely legal challenges](https://www.vox.com/politics/24094839/tiktok-ban-bill-congress-pass-biden) — the question then becomes: Who would buy TikTok? The bill would require the app’s Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell the social media platform within 165 days of the law going into effect or else the platform will be banned from US app stores. But TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has said that the company wouldn’t go down without a fight: “We will continue to do all we can including exercising our legal rights to protect this amazing platform we have built with you,” he [said in a video statement](https://x.com/TikTokPolicy/status/1768045785311035820?s=20) on Wednesday. The Chinese government has also expressed opposition to the bill and would have to [approve any divestiture plan](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-13/tiktok-ban-or-sale-what-us-bill-means-for-the-app?sref=qYiz2hd0). TikTok’s US market has a roughly [$100 billion](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/tech/buyer-tiktok-for-sale-bytedance/index.html#:~:text=At%20%24100%20billion%2C%20there%20are,certainly%20run%20into%20regulatory%20roadblocks.) valuation by some estimates, however, and investors believe that ByteDance could ultimately consider a sale as a last resort. The companies with the resources to buy TikTok outright probably can’t do so because of [antitrust](https://www.vox.com/antitrust) concerns, though. And if they can’t buy it, it’s not clear anybody else could pull together the money to make an alternative offer. Still, some individual investors have expressed interest in putting together a group bid for the company. If any of the prospective buyers hold controlling stakes or seats on the board of competing tech firms, however, that could potentially raise antitrust concerns, said [Abraham L. Wickelgren](https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/abraham-l-wickelgren/), a professor at the University of Texas Law School specializing in antitrust and law and economics. Steven Mnuchin, the former US Treasury secretary during the [Trump administration](https://www.vox.com/trump-administration) and current head of Liberty Strategic Capital, says he supports the bill and is gathering investors to buy TikTok. “It’s a great business and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok,” he [told CNBC on Thursday](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/former-treasury-secretary-mnuchin-is-putting-together-an-investor-group-to-buy-tiktok.html?taid=65f2e855a60cbb000181a9b6&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter%7Cmain). “This should be owned by US businesses. There’s no way that the Chinese would ever let a US company own something like this in China.” Bobby Kotick, former CEO of the gaming titan Activision Blizzard, is also looking for potential partners in a deal, according to the [Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/tech/why-the-new-effort-to-ban-tiktok-caught-fire-with-lawmakers-7cd3f980). But it’s not clear who Mnuchin or Kotick’s partner investors could be or what their preexisting holdings are. “TikTok is a juggernaut — someone will want to buy it,” said [Thomas Smale](https://feinternational.com/team/thomas-smale/), CEO of the mergers and acquisitions advisory firm FE International. “They only have a few months to find a deal — obviously not an ideal situation for TikTok, but a great opportunity for investors looking to capitalize.” ### Could Google or Meta buy TikTok? [Google](https://www.vox.com/google) parent company [Alphabet](https://www.vox.com/alphabet) and [Meta](https://www.vox.com/meta) are some of the only companies capable of single-handedly paying TikTok’s price tag at its current $100 billion valuation. Google CEO Sundar Pichar [previously ruled out](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-rules-out-buying-tiktok-1.1485333) buying TikTok in 2020 when former [President Donald Trump](https://www.vox.com/donald-trump) was trying to ban the app. (However, the company reportedly considered joining a group bid as a minority investor at the time.) Meta CEO [Mark Zuckerberg](https://www.vox.com/mark-zuckerberg) [previously tried](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/zuckerberg-musically-tiktok-china-facebook) to buy ByteDance and TikTok’s predecessor Musical.ly, which later merged with TikTok to create the app as it’s known today, before he started decrying TikTok as a threat to [American values and tech supremacy](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-stoked-washingtons-fears-about-tiktok-11598223133). But even if either company has an interest in buying TikTok, the acquisition would likely raise antitrust concerns. Both Meta and Google have [sought to compete with TikTok](https://digiday.com/marketing/how-google-meta-and-snaps-battle-with-tiktok-in-short-form-video-is-playing-out/) in the short-form video space by introducing [Instagram](https://www.vox.com/instagram-news) Reels and [YouTube](https://www.vox.com/youtube) Shorts, respectively. “I think any potential acquisition by another social media company, such as Meta, would raise substantial antitrust concern, and is almost certain to draw intense regulatory scrutiny, particularly given the \[Federal Trade Commission’s\] willingness to look closely at concentration in technology industries,” said [Tejas Narechania](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/tejas-narechania/), faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. “On the other hand, I do think it is unlikely that a small company will have the resources to acquire TikTok.” The FTC has brought antitrust cases against Meta in the past, unsuccessfully attempting to block its acquisition of the [virtual-reality startup Within Unlimited](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-loses-antitrust-challenge-to-facebook-parent-meta-11675272525) and to [force it to sell Instagram](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-rejects-bid-by-states-revive-antitrust-lawsuit-against-facebook-2023-04-27/). (The first failed after a federal court found that the government had not provided [sufficient evidence](https://apnews.com/article/technology-meta-platforms-inc-production-facilities-business-8a80845f7d328c3ba0ab4f4dfa71b642) that consumers would have directly benefited had Meta entered the VR market itself instead of acquiring Within Unlimited, and in the second case, a federal judge decided that the government had not proven that [Meta was operating a monopoly](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/06/28/judge-dismisses-ftc-antitrust-complaint-against-facebook.html).) Google is also staring down two major antitrust cases brought by the Justice Department concerning its [search engine](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/technology/google-antitrust-cases.html) and [online ad business](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html), both of which will likely be decided this year. Even if Google or Meta were allowed to go through with a deal, it could take longer than the 165-day period specified in the bill during which ByteDance would have to divest, Wickelgren said. That may force the company to focus on other buyers who can complete a sale more quickly, if the legislation currently being considered by [Congress](https://www.vox.com/congress) does become law. “It’s possible that you could get a merger review of this magnitude in that time, but it’d be tough. They’d certainly be motivated to comply quickly,” he said. “There would probably be a push for a buyer with significantly less antitrust concerns where maybe they could get a deal approved by the DOJ or the FTC more quickly.”

Mar 25, 2024 9:33 AM The probes are the first to take place under Europe’s landmark Digital Markets Act—and add to Apple’s mounting antitrust woes.  Apple is among three tech giants being [investigated for failing to comply](https://www.wired.com/story/apple-target-dma-europe-tough-new-law/) with the [European Union’s new competition rules](https://www.wired.com/story/europe-dma-breaking-open-big-tech/), in another blow to the [embattled smartphone maker](https://www.wired.com/story/doj-sues-apple-antitrust/). Apple was the primary focus of an EU press conference on Monday morning. But authorities also opened formal investigations into Meta and Alphabet, Google’s parent company. The trio are the first to be subject to formal probes under the EU’s new [Digital Markets Act](https://www.wired.com/story/digital-markets-act-messaging/), the bloc’s landmark competition law, which took effect on March 7. Under the new rules, six of the world’s largest tech companies, known in the EU as “gatekeepers,” were asked to provide evidence that they were not harming competition. “We are not convinced that the solutions by Alphabet, Apple, and Meta respect their obligations for a fairer and more open digital space for European citizens and businesses,” said Thierry Breton, EU industry chief, in a [statement](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_24_1689) on Monday. “Should our investigation conclude that there is lack of full compliance with the DMA, gatekeepers could face heavy fines.” Under the Digital Markets Act, officials can levy fines of up to 10 percent of tech giants’ global revenue or 20 percent for repeat violations. Following weeks of criticism [directed at Apple by developers](https://www.wired.com/story/developers-revolt-apple-dma/), the EU’s competition chief Margrethe Vestager said a formal investigation would focus on two elements of the smartphone maker’s business: the limits Apple places on developers trying to link from the App Store to their own websites, and how hard Apple makes it to replace default, native apps like Photos or iCloud with third-party alternatives. “Gatekeepers have an obligation to enable easy uninstallation of apps and easy change of default settings,” Vestager said in the press conference. “Apple’s compliance model does not seem to meet the objective of this obligation.” EU officials are also considering another formal investigation into whether [Apple’s rules for alternative app stores](https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-sideloading-europe-dma/)—allowing users to download apps from places other than the official App Store—comply with the Digital Markets Act rules. Apple is confident its business is compliant, company spokesperson Rob Saunders told WIRED. “Teams across Apple have created a wide range of new developer capabilities, features, and tools to comply with the regulation,” he said in a statement. “At the same time, we’ve introduced protections to help reduce new risks to the privacy, quality, and security of our EU users’ experience.” Apple has emerged as a focal point for competition officials in both the EU and the US. The EU announcement on Monday follows a lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice last week that claimed the smartphone maker had [established an iPhone monopoly](https://www.wired.com/story/antitrust-case-apple-stranglehold-on-the-future/) that was suppressing competition and [harming consumers](https://www.wired.com/story/antitrust-case-against-apple-weaponizes-the-cult-of-cupertino/). The lawsuit cited [four internal Apple emails](https://www.wired.com/story/4-internal-apple-emails-helped-doj-build-antitrust-case/) that, the DOJ claimed, illustrate how executives knowingly restrict users and developers in unfair ways. In one exchange from 2010, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs and an unnamed Apple executive discussed how a new ad for Amazon’s Kindle gave the impression that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. “Not fun to watch,” the executive wrote. The Apple crackdown also comes amid wider scrutiny of the ways tech giants have managed to maintain dominance. On Monday, the EU announced Alphabet was also subject to a formal investigation into the limits placed on developers selling their apps through the Android app store. In December of last year, a US court ruled that the [Google Play Store was a monopoly](https://www.wired.com/story/googles-app-store-monopoly-ruled-illegal-jury-epic/). EU officials added that they were concerned by the way Alphabet ranks results in Google Search, according to Breton. “Gatekeepers should not use their power to promote their own services over their rivals and ranking should be based on transparent, fair, and nondiscriminatory terms,” Breton said in Monday’s press conference. “Based on our preliminary assessment, this does not seem to be the case when it comes to how results are presented on Google Search.” Google plans to defend its approach. “To comply with the Digital Markets Act, we have made significant changes to the way our services operate in Europe,” said Oliver Bethell, the company’s director of EMEA competition, in a statement. “We have engaged with the European Commission, stakeholders and third parties in dozens of events over the past year to receive and respond to feedback, and to balance conflicting needs within the ecosystem.” Meanwhile, the Meta investigation will focus on the company’s [“pay or consent” model](https://www.wired.com/story/meta-facebook-pay-for-privacy-europe), Breton said. In November, Facebook-parent Meta announced that its users could [opt out of seeing ads for a fee of $10 a month](https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-get-ad-free-facebook-instagram-meta-privacy/). After critics suggested users were essentially being asked to pay for privacy, the company [offered](https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-offers-cut-facebook-instagram-monthly-fees-599-euros-2024-03-19/) last week to halve that monthly price to €5.99 ($6.50). “This has forced millions of users across Europe into a binary choice: Pay or consent,” said Breton in the press conference, noting that if users consent, their data from messaging app Messenger can be used for targeted ads on Instagram. “We have serious doubts that that consent is really free when you are confronted with a binary choice.” Ad-free subscriptions are a well-established business model, Meta spokesperson Matthew Pollard told WIRED. “We designed Subscription for No Ads to address several overlapping regulatory obligations, including the DMA,” he said. The Digital Markets Act dictates investigations should be concluded in 12 months. It’s unclear how the deadline will be affected by the European elections, which are due to take place in June.

Do you remember [Facebook Watch](https://gizmodo.com/facebooks-new-watch-tab-does-not-look-like-a-youtube-ki-1797699486)? Me neither. Mark Zuckerberg’s short-lived streaming service never really got off the ground, but court filings unsealed in [Meta’s antitrust lawsuit](https://gizmodo.com/project-ghostbusters-facebook-meta-wiretap-snapchat-1851366093) claim “Watch” was kneecapped starting in 2018 to protect Zuckerberg’s advertising relationship with Netflix CEO Reed Hastings. “For nearly a decade, Netflix and Facebook enjoyed a special relationship,” said plaintiffs in [filings](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.369872/gov.uscourts.cand.369872.739.0_1.pdf) made public on Saturday. “It is no great mystery how this close partnership developed, and who was its steward: from 2011-2019, Netflix’s then-CEO Hastings sat on Facebook’s board and personally directed the companies’ relationship…” The filings detail Hastings’ uncomfortably close relationship with Meta’s upper management, including Zuckerberg and [Sheryl Sandberg](https://gizmodo.com/sheryl-sandberg-leaving-meta-board-facebook-zuckerberg-1851174908). During these years, Netflix was allegedly granted special access to Facebook users’ private message inboxes, among other privileged analytics tools, in exchange for hundred-million-dollar advertising deals. This gave Facebook greater dominance in its all-important ad division, plaintiffs allege, so the company was fine to retreat from Netflix’s streaming territory by shuttering Watch. In 2017, Facebook Watch began signing deals to populate its streaming service with [original TV Shows](https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/bill-murray-brian-doyle-murray-facebook-show-1202613033/) from movie stars such as Bill Murray. A year later, the service attempted to license the popular ‘90s TV show Dawson’s Creek. Facebook Watch had meaningful reach on the home screen of the social media platform, and an impressive budget as well. Facebook and Netflix appeared ready to [butt heads in the streaming world](https://www.inc.com/business-insider/facebook-tv-watch-tab-original-videos-mobile-app-desktop.html), and the Netflix cofounder found himself in the middle as a Facebook board member. “[There’s not a big conflict yet](https://www.vox.com/2017/5/31/15720730/facebook-netflix-reed-hastings-video-bidding),” Hastings said onstage at the 2017 Recode conference when asked about Facebook Watch. “We’re not bidding on the same shows,” he said, though Hastings later regretted these words in an email. “Let me know if you think there was a better way to handle,” Hastings wrote in an [email](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.369872/gov.uscourts.cand.369872.739.0_1.pdf) to Zuckerberg unsealed in this case. “In hindsight, I wish I added a materiality qualifier like ‘not generally bidding on the same content.’” These unsealed court filings stem from a class action antitrust case against Meta, first [spotted on X](https://x.com/jason_kint/status/1772468861071130907?s=20) by Jason Kint. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of consumers and advertisers, alleges Meta is a monopoly in the social media market. Netflix was a large advertiser to Facebook, and plaintiffs allege Zuckerberg shuttered its promising Watch platform for the sake of the greater advertising business. Zuckerberg personally emailed the head of Facebook Watch in May of 2018, Fidji Simo, to tell her their budget was being slashed by $750 million, just two years after Watch’s launch, according to court filings. The sudden pivot meant Facebook was now dismantling the streaming business it had spent the last two years growing. During this time period, Netflix increased its ad spend on Facebook to roughly $150 million a year and allegedly entered into agreements for increased data analytics. By early 2019, the ad spend increased to roughly $200 million a year. Hastings left Facebook’s board later in 2019. Meta said its agreements and relationships with Netflix are commonplace in a statement to Gizmodo. However, the spokesperson did not answer our questions about whether competition with Netflix was a reason for Facebook Watch being shuttered. “We are confident the facts will show this complaint is meritless,” said a Meta spokesperson. It’s entirely possible that Facebook Watch was shuttered for other reasons, though Netflix is certainly an important partner to Meta. Tech companies shutter projects for all kinds of reasons. However, Hastings found himself squarely in the middle of this conflict, as a Facebook board member and CEO of Netflix, and it seems Watch was never really given a chance to shine. [_A version of this article originally appeared on Gizmodo_](https://gizmodo.com/facebooks-streaming-watch-killed-sell-netflix-ads-1851367876).

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: _Do you remember [Facebook Watch](https://about.fb.com/news/2017/08/introducing-watch-a-new-platform-for-shows-on-facebook/)? Me neither. Mark Zuckerberg's short-lived streaming service never really got off the ground, but court filings unsealed in [Meta's antitrust lawsuit](https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/03/26/186217/facebook-accused-of-using-your-phone-to-wiretap-snapchat) claim "Watch" was [kneecapped starting in 2018 to protect Zuckerberg's advertising relationship with Netflix CEO Reed Hastings](https://gizmodo.com/facebooks-streaming-watch-killed-sell-netflix-ads-1851367876?utm_source=vip). "For nearly a decade, Netflix and Facebook enjoyed a special relationship," said plaintiffs in [filings](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.369872/gov.uscourts.cand.369872.739.0_1.pdf) (PDF) made public on Saturday. "It is no great mystery how this close partnership developed, and who was its steward: from 2011-2019, Netflix's then-CEO Hastings sat on Facebook's board and personally directed the companies' relationship"_ _The filings detail Hastings' uncomfortably close relationship with Meta's upper management, including Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. During these years, Netflix was allegedly granted special access to Facebook users' private message inboxes, among other privileged analytics tools, in exchange for hundred-million-dollar advertising deals. This gave Facebook greater dominance in its all-important ad division, plaintiffs allege, so the company was fine to retreat from Netflix's streaming territory by shuttering Watch. In 2017, Facebook Watch began signing deals to populate its streaming service with original TV Shows from movie stars such as Bill Murray. A year later, the service attempted to license the popular '90s TV show Dawson's Creek. Facebook Watch had meaningful reach on the home screen of the social media platform, and an impressive budget as well. Facebook and Netflix appeared ready to [butt heads in the streaming world](https://www.inc.com/business-insider/facebook-tv-watch-tab-original-videos-mobile-app-desktop.html), and the Netflix cofounder found himself in the middle as a Facebook board member. \[...\]_ _ Netflix was a large advertiser to Facebook, and plaintiffs allege Zuckerberg shuttered its promising Watch platform for the sake of the greater advertising business. Zuckerberg personally emailed the head of Facebook Watch in May of 2018, Fidji Simo, to tell her their budget was being slashed by $750 million, just two years after Watch's launch, according to court filings. The sudden pivot meant Facebook was now dismantling the streaming business it had spent the last two years growing. During this time period, Netflix increased its ad spend on Facebook to roughly $150 million a year and allegedly entered into agreements for increased data analytics. By early 2019, the ad spend increased to roughly $200 million a year. Hastings left Facebook's board later in 2019. _

The [sweeping antitrust lawsuit Apple faces](https://qz.com/apple-lawsuit-us-doj-iphone-app-store-antitrust-1851355450) from the Department of Justice takes a broader aim at its business than cases against Big Tech rivals including Google, Facebook, and Amazon. It’s also more grounded in antitrust law than some of those suits, experts say. The DOJ alleged in [its complaint](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline) filed last week that Apple has created an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market. The [DOJ’s two cases against Google parent Alphabet](https://qz.com/what-google-has-to-prove-in-the-first-major-antitrust-c-1850824213), and the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuits against Amazon and Facebook parent Meta, focus on their dominance of different markets: digital advertising, online retail, and personal social networking. The flurry of litigation from the DOJ and FTC is an attempt to enforce regulation of Big Tech [where lawmakers have largely failed](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/chatgpt-ai-regulation-altman-1.6846448). Their success would give other smartphone makers a better shot at competing with Apple, other search engines a stronger chance against Google, and other online retailers a fighting chance against Amazon. The arguments at issue in the five recent Big Tech antitrust lawsuits are distinct. And it’s “good for the \[tech\] industry” that regulators are casting a wide net, said Barak Richman, a law professor at Duke University. **Read more**: [Apple says the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit is misleading](https://qz.com/apple-doj-antitrust-lawsuit-iphone-apps-imessage-1851375442) Thomas Nachbar, a professor at the University of Virginia’s law school, echoed that sentiment. “As a matter of policy and politics, winning against one Big Tech firm will make it easier for enforcers to bring cases against others,” he said. But there are also drawbacks to the varied antitrust approaches. “The fact that the cases present slightly different theories and very different facts means that I’m not sure how strong a precedent they would set for each other,” Nachbar said. Here’s a look at the case against Apple, and how it compares to suits against its tech rivals. Apple vs. the DOJ ----------------- In a damning, 88-page complaint, the Department of Justice took broad aim at Apple. The DOJ said the company’s anti-competitive practices not only hurt smartphone competitors but also developers of apps, smartwatches, and digital wallets. Apple’s alleged actions — inhibiting non-Apple smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection to iPhones, for example — actually make the iPhone a worse product, the lawsuit said, all in the name of maintaining a monopoly. “It makes no economic sense for Apple to sacrifice the profits it would earn from new features and functionality unless it has some other compensating reason to do so, such as protecting its monopoly profits,” the DOJ said in its complaint. The claims levied against Apple, [which the company vehemently denies](https://qz.com/apple-doj-antitrust-lawsuit-iphone-apps-imessage-1851375442), are more intuitive and far-reaching than those against the other four tech giants, Nachbar said. Facebook vs. the FTC -------------------- The [Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit against Facebook parent Meta](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/2021-09-08_redacted_substitute_amended_complaint_ecf_no._82.pdf) also alleged that it violated antitrust law and stifled competition — but through mergers. The FTC said Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were meant to “eliminate threats to its monopoly,” violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. But Nachbar believes the allegations against the social media company “are less well-connected to antitrust law.” Richman, of Duke, went even further, calling the Facebook suit “antithetical” to federal antitrust law. “It seems to malign Facebook for buying something that could do something that it itself could not do,” he said. “And I think that that’s exactly the kind of acquisition you want companies to engage in.” The [FTC’s case against Amazon](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power) — which said the e-retail giant made life hard for lower-priced sellers on its site — is stronger than its suit against Facebook, according to Richman. Still, it’s Apple in hotter water because the DOJ suit attacks it on so many fronts. Google vs. the DOJ ------------------ Perhaps the strongest of regulators’ Big Tech antitrust cases is [the DOJ’s 2020 lawsuit against Google](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-monopolist-google-violating-antitrust-laws) for maintaining a monopoly over search engine services. That ongoing case is more like the landmark 1998 antitrust action against Microsoft than the DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple, Richman said. “The Google case has the benefit of drawing strong analogies to a previous case that the government won,” he said, “so to the degree that you can convince a court that \[the lawsuit is\] doing something that its predecessor did, that’s a good legal strategy.” While the DOJ itself drew connections between its claims against Apple and the 1990s Microsoft case — Microsoft is mentioned 26 times in the complaint — [those comparisons are less clear](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/23/business/dealbook/apple-microsoft-antitrust.html).

TechCrunch [reports this week](https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/02/meta-again-denies-that-netflix-read-users-private-facebook-messages/) that Meta "is denying that it [gave Netflix access to users' private messages](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/03/28/2125231/facebook-allegedly-killed-its-own-streaming-service-to-help-sell-netflix-ads)..." _The claim references a [court filing](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24520332/merged-fb.pdf) that emerged as part of the discovery process [in a class-action lawsuit](https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/26/facebook-secret-project-snooped-snapchat-user-traffic/) over data privacy practices between a group of consumers and Facebook's parent, Meta. The document alleges that Netflix and Facebook had a "special relationship" and that Facebook even [cut spending on original programming](https://qz.com/facebooks-streaming-watch-netflix-ads-antitrust-1851373314) for its Facebook Watch video service so as not to compete with Netflix, a large Facebook advertiser. It also says that Netflix had access to Meta's "Inbox API" that offered the streamer "programmatic access to Facebook's user's private message inboxes...." Meta's communications director, Andy Stone, [reposted the original X post](https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1775178770904764504) on Tuesday with a statement disputing that Netflix had been given access to users' private messages. "Shockingly untrue," Stone wrote on X. "Meta didn't share people's private messages with Netflix. The agreement allowed people to message their friends on Facebook about what they were watching on Netflix, directly from the Netflix app. Such agreements are commonplace in the industry...." Beyond Stone's X post, Meta has not provided further comment. However, The New York Times had previously reported in 2018 that [Netflix and Spotify could read users' private messages](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html), according to documents it had obtained. Meta denied those claims at the time via [a blog post](https://about.fb.com/news/2018/12/facebooks-messaging-partnerships/) titled "Facts About Facebook's Messaging Partnerships," where it explained that Netflix and Spotify had access to APIs that allowed consumers to message friends about what they were listening to on Spotify or watching on Netflix directly from those companies' respective apps. This required the companies to have "write access" to compose messages to friends, "read access" to allow users to read messages back from friends, and "delete access," which meant if you deleted a message from the third-party app, it would also delete the message from Facebook. "No third party was reading your private messages, or writing messages to your friends without your permission. Many news stories imply we were shipping over private messages to partners, which is not correct," the blog post stated. In any event, Messenger didn't implement [default end-to-end encryption until December 2023](https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/06/meta-finally-starts-rolling-out-default-end-to-end-encryption-for-messenger/), a practice that would have made these sorts of claims a non-starter, as it wouldn't have left room for doubt. _

The ‘Gram is doing a lot of heavy lifting for Meta. That’s one of the key takeaways from [court documents](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24534787/support-facts-for-metas-motion-for-summary-judgment-v-ftc.pdf) filed by Meta last week, as the company attempts to get a federal antitrust lawsuit dismissed. Specifically, the documents say that Instagram generated advertising revenue totaling $32.4 billion in 2021, and $16.5 billion during the first half of 2022—up from $11.3 billion for all of 2018. The $32.4 billion in 2021 comprised 27% of Meta’s overall [revenue that year](https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2022/Meta-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2021-Results/default.aspx). The revelations show that Instagram is Meta’s cash cow, and likely will continue to be for some time, even as it competes with similar social media networks and apps such as TikTok. But the court filings also contained some additional interesting data points: * **R&D costs**: In 2022, Meta spent more than $35 billion on research and development across its business. Between 2012 and 2023, the filings say that Meta “spent approximately $126.25 billion” on R&D. * **More R&D:** Further, Meta invested 29% of total revenues into R&D in 2022 and 2023, which, it says, is more (proportionately) than Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple. * **Facebook’s evolution:** It can be easy to forget how sprawling the Facebook ecosystem is. The filing notes that Meta “released more than 160 new features on Facebook between September 2011 and July 2023,” which include Facebook Stories, Facebook Marketplace, Facebook Live, and more. * **Facebook’s still a time suck:** The amount of time users spend on Facebook has increased significantly over the years, and the filing says monthly time on the platform in the U.S. “more than doubled from 2012 to 2022.” There are plenty of other nuggets from the 295-page filing, but again, the filing itself is a part of a larger and lengthy battle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over antitrust concerns. Meta’s filing argues that the case should be tossed since the FTC has not been able to prove that consumers have been harmed. In fact, Meta’s chief legal officer, Jennifer Newstead, [writes that](https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-files-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-ftc-lawsuit-relating-to-instagram-and-whatsapp/) “our acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp have benefited consumers.” The FTC will need to respond to the latest filings by the end of May. In the meantime, the court documents do show that Instagram remains Meta’s most profitable and strongest asset, especially when it comes to younger users. [Data from Pew Research](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social-media-and-technology-2023/), published in December, shows that 59% of teens in the U.S. between the ages of 13 and 17 use Instagram—roughly equal with Snapchat (60%) and TikTok (63%). Meta’s other two big platforms, Facebook and WhatsApp, are used by only 33% and 21% of teens, respectively, per Pew’s data. _ Recognize your company's culture of innovation by applying to this year's [Best Workplaces for Innovators Awards](https://www.fastcompany.com/apply/best-workplaces-for-innovators) before the extended deadline, April 12. _ Sam Becker is a freelance writer and journalist based near New York City. He is a native of the Pacific Northwest, and a graduate of Washington State University, and his work has appeared in and on Fortune, CNBC, TIME, and more. [More](https://www.fastcompany.com/user/sambecker)

The U.S. government’s landmark antitrust trial against Google’s search business [is nearing its conclusion](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/technology/google-antitrust-trial-closing-arguments.html). But the parade of major federal cases challenging Big Tech’s power is just getting going. Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission started investigating Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta, the parent company of Instagram and WhatsApp, for monopolistic behavior. The government has since sued all four companies — Google twice — in what it says is an effort to rein in their power and promote more competition. The companies have denied the claims and are fighting back. Closing arguments wrap up on Friday in Google’s first antitrust suit on allegations that it has a monopoly in internet search. [The judge’s ruling](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/business/judge-mehta-google-antitrust.html#:~:text=narrowed%20its%20scope.-,Judge%20Mehta%20decided%20that%20the%20government%20could%20proceed%20to%20trial,default%20on%20smartphones%20and%20browsers.), expected in the coming weeks or months, is likely to set precedents for the remaining cases. Here’s the latest on the state of the U.S. government v. Big Tech. In September, the [F.T.C. and 17 states sued Amazon](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/technology/ftc-amazon.html), accusing it of protecting a monopoly by squeezing sellers on its vast marketplace and favoring its own services. The practices also harmed consumers, the F.T.C. argued, and resulted in some cases of “artificially higher prices” because Amazon prevented those selling goods on its site from offering the same products on other online sites for less. A judge in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington set the beginning of the trial for October 2026. Amazon has asked the judge to dismiss the case and has argued that it often offers low prices to consumers and doesn’t hurt sellers on its marketplace. The lawsuit shows a “fundamental misunderstanding of retail,” the company has argued. The chair of the F.T.C., Lina Khan, who is [famous in certain circles](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antitrust-lina-khan-amazon.html) for a 2017 Yale Law Journal antitrust paper on how to rein in Amazon, has vowed to take on Big Tech monopolies. Amazon has described the F.T.C.’s lawsuit as “misguided” and warned that if agency prevailed in its suit, it would “force Amazon to engage in practices that actually _harm_ consumers and the many businesses that sell in our store.” In March, the [Department of Justice sued Apple](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html), accusing the company of using a monopoly in the smartphone market to block competition, inflate prices for consumers and stifle competition. The department joined 15 states and the District of Columbia in its suit after a nearly two-year investigation. In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court of New Jersey, the department said Apple blocked companies from offering applications that competed with Apple products like cloud-based streaming apps, messaging and the digital wallet. Apple has said that it plans to file a motion to dismiss the case and that its business decisions don’t violate antitrust laws. It has also argued that those decisions make the iPhone a better experience. “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets,” Apple said in a statement. “We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.” In addition to the search lawsuit, the Justice Department filed a [separate suit against Googl](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html)e in January over online advertising. That case is expected to go to trial in September. The department and eight states sued in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, saying Google acquired rivals through anticompetitive mergers and bullied publishers and advertisers into using the company’s ad technology. Last month, Google asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the ad technology market is competitive and that the lawsuit could harm innovation and thousands of small businesses that rely on the online advertising market. In the search lawsuit, if the judge rules against Google, he will need to suggest changes to the company’s business to fix anything determined illegal. The F.T.C. sued Meta in December 2020, accusing the company of creating a monopoly in social media by buying Instagram and WhatsApp. The mergers deprived consumers of alternative social media platforms, the F.T.C. argued. The lawsuit has taken more twists and turns that the other Big Tech antitrust cases. It was filed in U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia before the company changed its name to Meta, from Facebook. In 2021, Judge James Boasberg dismissed the complaint, saying the F.T.C. didn’t adequately define the market that it accused Meta of monopolizing. But he allowed the agency to refile its lawsuit, and it moved forward the next year. The F.T.C. joined 40 states in [accusing Facebook of buying](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/technology/ftc-facebook-antitrust.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-big-tech&variant=show&region=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc) both Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago to [illegally squash competition](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/facebook-antitrust-monopoly.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-big-tech&variant=show&region=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc) that could have one day challenged the company’s dominance. The regulators have called for the deals to be unwound. Meta has argued that it didn’t acquire Instagram and WhatsApp to kill competition and that it has invested heavily in developing innovations for the apps.

Tech and competition watchdog groups have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to probe [YouTube](https://www.fastcompany.com/91125784/google-risks-youtube-rift-with-ai-push), saying the video-streaming platform could enable Google and its parent company, Alphabet, to [dominate home entertainment](https://www.fastcompany.com/91037376/youtube-most-innovative-companies-2024). In a letter to Justice Department antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter dated Tuesday, the American Economic Liberties Project, Demand Progress, and nine other groups expressed concern about YouTube’s growth as a competitor to cable and streaming services and its pre-installation on smartphones and TVs sold in the U.S. The groups called on the regulator to investigate YouTube, which is among the top streaming services in the U.S. Google already dominates the internet search market and is a leader in online advertising technology. “YouTube has a decade-long record of using its dominance across numerous markets to crowd out competitors, lock in customers, and force the purchase of bundled services,” the groups wrote. The growth of YouTube TV, the company’s subscription streaming service, increases Google’s “prospects for living room dominance,” the groups said. “Anyone looking for something to watch can see this space is very competitive,” said a YouTube spokesperson, adding that the company goes head to head with both streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+ and other video platforms like Meta’s Instagram and TikTok. In April, Alphabet reported YouTube quarterly ad revenue of more than $8 billion, up 21% from the same period last year. Google executive Philipp Schindler said at the time that the platform had been the most-watched U.S. streaming service for more than a year, citing data from audience analytics firm Nielsen. Google is already fighting two antitrust lawsuits brought by the Justice Department and several states. One claims the company monopolizes the online search market and another that it dominates the market for digital advertising technology. Google has fought both cases, saying its successes came by lawful means. YouTube, according to the advocacy groups, is “the third leg of the stool that supports Google’s monopoly.” Lee Hepner, a lawyer at the American Economic Liberties Project, compared the groups’ concerns about YouTube to the conduct challenged in the search case, where antitrust enforcers have alleged that multibillion-dollar revenue sharing agreements with smartphone makers have allowed Google to maintain online search dominance. “What is Google TV if not principally a distribution system for Google’s own streaming service?” Hepner said. Antitrust concerns over Big Tech have spanned administrations, with a case against Google and one against Facebook parent Meta Platforms filed under President Donald Trump’s administration. President Joe Biden’s antitrust enforcers have followed with a second case against Google and cases against Amazon.com and Apple. _—Jody Godoy, Reuters_ _ Recognize your brand’s excellence by applying to this year’s [Brands That Matter Awards](https://www.fastcompany.com/apply/brands-that-matter) before the extended deadline, June 14. Sign up for Brands That Matter notifications [here](https://fastcompany.swoogo.com/24btmnotifications/register?ref=article). _

When ChatGPT took everyone by storm in November 2022, it was [OpenAI,](https://www.economist.com/business/2023/09/18/could-openai-be-the-next-tech-giant) the startup behind it, that seized the business world’s attention. But, as usual, big tech is back on the front foot. [Nvidia](https://www.economist.com/business/2024/06/20/nvidia-is-now-the-worlds-most-valuable-company), maker of accelerator chips that are at the core of generative artificial intelligence (AI), is now duelling with Microsoft, a tech giant of longer standing, to be the world’s most valuable company. Like Microsoft, it is investing in a diverse ecosystem of startups that it hopes will strengthen its lead. Predictably, given the “techlash” mindset of the regulatory authorities, both firms are high on the watch list of antitrust agencies. Don’t roll your eyes. The trustbusters may have infamously overreached in recent years in their attempts to cut big firms down to size. Yet for years big-tech incumbents in Silicon Valley and elsewhere have shown just as infamous a tendency to strut imperiously across their digital domains. What is intriguing is the speed at which the antitrust authorities are operating. Historically, such investigations have tended to be labyrinthine. It took 40 years for the Supreme Court to order E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, a large American chemical firm, to divest its anticompetitive stake in General Motors, which it first started to acquire in 1917 when GM was a fledgling carmaker. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an American antitrust agency, is still embroiled in a battle with Meta, a social-media giant, to unwind Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, done 12 and ten years ago, respectively.

While the economy, legal matters, and questions of competency are likely to be the main points of contention between the candidates in Thursday’s presidential debate, one lobbyist group is hoping to steer people’s focus to artificial intelligence. The American Edge Project (AEP), [an industry front group](https://www.fastcompany.com/90761546/how-jon-oliver-helped-take-the-issue-of-tech-antitrust-into-the-mainstream), will air [a commercial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcOtBlLeuq8) during the debate pushing lawmakers and candidates to ensure America leads the way in the development of AI technology, rather than letting other nations gain the edge. (Presumably by not regulating the American AI industry too stringently.) “American leadership in artificial intelligence is crucial for the future of our economy and the success of small businesses across the nation,” said Doug Kelly, CEO of the American Edge Project, in a statement. “However, we must not overlook the threats posed by China and other foreign adversaries aiming to surpass us.” The AEP is an advocacy group [that was formed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/12/facebook-lobbying-american-edge/) in 2019 by Meta and other tech organizations. In 2020 and 2021, it [fought against antitrust reforms](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/01/facebook-primary-donor-group-antitrust-fight.html) with a series of ads, arguing that small-business innovation could be impacted if the legislation passed. Legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee and a separate bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee never got a full vote, though, in part due to opposition from Big Tech companies. CNBC reported Facebook had given the group a $34 million donation to back that battle. AEP’s most recent [Form 990 filing](https://causeiq.s3.amazonaws.com/form990s/2023_09_EO/843837074_2023_09_EO_93493256001463.pdf?response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&response-content-disposition=filename%3Dform990-843837074-american-edge-2022-10.pdf&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6QW4APNZUQPWEJQ&Signature=bMeKTLx3GsthVqqzjQIm5sJap24%3D&Expires=1719508035) with the Internal Revenue Service showed it had revenue of $47.5 million in the 2021 tax year, up from $34 million the year prior. The source (or sources) of those funds were not listed. AEP did not reply to a request for comment on the contributions. The group’s board of directors is made up of many high-profile names, including former New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, former U.S. Representative Chris Carney, and former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith. The ad—featuring Sarah Haggard, founder of a mentorship platform called [Tribute](https://www.tributeapp.co/), based in Seattle—is the one commercial (out of eight) that will run nationally during the debate. It’s not clear if AEP plans to run it on CNN or one of the other networks carrying the feed of the debate. Meta’s AI efforts to force AI features onto users of its social media platforms have lately [drawn some criticism](https://www.fastcompany.com/91113437/ai-making-meta-apps-basically-unusable). Like Google and other AI companies, Meta is rushing to catch up with ChatGPT, though Meta’s large language model is reportedly a [formidable rival](https://www.fastcompany.com/91110823/meta-ai-facebook-instagram-whatsapp-messenger) for GPT-4 technically. Overseas rivals include China’s ByteDance (parent of TikTok), which is [reportedly working with Broadcom](https://www.fastcompany.com/91145382/tiktok-owner-bytedance-broadcom-developing-advanced-ai-chip-sources-say) to develop an AI processor. The company is also said to have stockpiled Nvidia chips. The AEP ad that airs Thursday does not specifically mention foreign competitors by company name, but it does note that “foreign competitors like China want to surpass America in AI. Our leaders need to protect America’s competitive edge.” _ Recognize your technological breakthrough by applying to this year’s [Next Big Things in Tech Awards](https://www.fastcompany.com/apply/next-big-things-in-tech) before the final deadline, July 12. Sign up for Next Big Things in Tech Awards notifications [here](https://events.fastcompany.com/2024nbtnotifications/register?ref=article). _

The European Union said Monday that Meta’s “pay or consent” advertising model violates its new digital competition law, which both [Apple](https://qz.com/apple-app-store-rules-dma-europe-eu-charges-1851556354) and [Microsoft](https://qz.com/microsoft-office-teams-bundle-antitrust-europe-apple-1851558729) have also been nailed for. The EU [said](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3582) Meta’s policy “forces users to consent to the combination of their personal data and fails to provide them a less personalised but equivalent version of Meta’s social networks,” which doesn’t comply with the Digital Markets Act. Meta created the “pay or consent” model in response to EU regulatory changes, making Facebook and Instagram users in Europe choose between a paid ad-free version of the service or a free version with personalized ads. But the EU found this didn’t go far enough because it “does not allow users to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads’ based service. If the Commission comes to a final conclusion that Meta broke the DMA’s rules, the company could be fined as much as 10% of its worldwide revenue. Repeated violations of the law could shoot up fines to as much as 20%. A final decision is required by March 25, 2025, or 12 months after [regulators began investigating a slew of tech firms’ compliance with the DMA](https://qz.com/apple-google-facebook-european-union-dma-probes-1851362482). “Our investigation aims to ensure contestability in markets where gatekeepers like Meta have been accumulating personal data of millions of EU citizens over many years,” Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President in charge of competition policy, said in a statement. “Our preliminary view is that Meta’s advertising model fails to comply with the Digital Markets Act. And we want to empower citizens to be able to take control over their own data and choose a less personalised ads experience.” The EU accused Apple last month of failing to comply with the law by preventing app developers from freely directing consumers to alternative ways to make purchases. It also said in June that Microsoft violated the law by including Teams in the Microsoft 365 suite — even if consumers [don’t have a plan for the service](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployoffice/teams-install) — or by providing a free one-year trial in the Office 365 service, Microsoft is hurting competition.

European Union regulators say Meta violated the bloc’s new competition law in requiring Instagram and Facebook users to pay if they don’t want their personal data used to generate targeted ads. “We want to empower citizens to be able to take control over their own data and choose a less personalised ads experience,” Margrethe Vestager, the European Commission’s executive vice president for competition policy, [said in a statement](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_24_3582) Monday. The preliminary findings come as part of a longer investigation into whether the social media giant is out of compliance with [the E.U.’s Digital Markets Act](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/07/eu-digital-markets-act-biden-dma/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5), or DMA, the first antitrust law focused on Big Tech companies in a major economy. Meta could face fines of as much as 10 percent of its annual global revenue if the commission upholds the stance in its final decision. The E.U. said that Meta’s requirement for users to pay if they don’t want personalized ads does not allow them the right to freely consent to the use of their personal data, and that the company has failed to offer them an equivalent service using less of their personal data, as required under the DMA. Meta said in a statement that it believes its “subscription for no ads” model complies with the DMA. “We look forward to further constructive dialogue with the European Commission to bring this investigation to a close,” the company said. The DMA fully went into effect in March, with proponents hailing it as a landmark law that would keep big internet companies from abusing their market power to the detriment of consumers. Critics warned that overregulation of the internet sector will result in a chilling effect on innovation. Since then, E.U. regulators have moved swiftly. The same month that the DMA took effect, the E.U. opened probes into Apple, Meta and Alphabet, with a time limit of a year for the investigations to be completed. Meta had introduced the pay-or-consent choice for ads in the E.U. market in November, in a show to E.U. regulators that it was complying with the requirements of the DMA to allow users control over how their personal data is used. Regulators were apparently not convinced. The E.U. has also informed [Apple](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/24/apple-european-union-steering-dma/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16) and [Microsoft](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/25/microsoft-teams-european-union/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16) in recent days that their business practices are in violation of antitrust rules.

[European Union](https://www.fastcompany.com/section/european-union) regulators accused social media company Meta Platforms on Monday of breaching the bloc’s new [digital competition rulebook](https://apnews.com/article/apple-google-meta-european-union-digital-3a76665ad5b64f0a3a166013bf352bd0) by forcing Facebook and Instagram users to choose between seeing ads or paying to avoid them. Meta began giving European users the option in November of paying for ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram as a way to comply with the continent’s [strict data privacy rules](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-data-privacy-fine-europe-9aa912200226c3d53aa293dca8968f84). Users can pay at least 10 euros ($10.75) a month to avoid being targeted by ads based on their personal data. The U.S. tech giant rolled out the option after the European Union’s top court ruled [Meta must first get consent](https://apnews.com/article/facebook-data-privacy-targeted-ads-europe-c373e233f5335aec6966ca6660702310) before showing ads to users, in a decision that threatened its business model of tailoring ads based on individual users’ online interests and digital activity. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, said preliminary findings of its investigation show that Meta’s “pay or consent” advertising model was in breach of the 27-nation bloc’s Digital Markets Act. Meta’s model doesn’t allow users to exercise their right to “freely consent” to allowing their personal data from its various services, including Facebook, Instagram, Marketplace, WhatsApp, and Messenger, to be combined to target them with personalized online ads, the commission said. Meta’s model also doesn’t give users the option of a service that’s less personalized but still equivalent to its social networks, it said. “Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and complies with the DMA,” Meta said in a statement. “We look forward to further constructive dialogue with the European Commission to bring this investigation to a close.” The commission had opened its investigation shortly after the rulebook, also known as the DMA, took effect in March. It’s a [sweeping set of regulations](https://apnews.com/article/digital-markets-act-european-union-rules-apple-5162872791b985e794df9b3a7b46aed1) aimed at preventing tech “gatekeepers” from cornering digital markets under threat of heavy financial penalties. One of the DMA’s goals is to rein in the power of Big Tech companies that have collected vast amounts of personal data on their users, giving them an edge on rivals competing in online ad or social media services. The commission indicated that in order for Meta to comply, it would like to see an option that doesn’t rely on a user’s full personal information being shared for advertising. “The DMA is there to give back to the users the power to decide how their data is used and ensure innovative companies can compete on equal footing with tech giants on data access,” European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who oversees the bloc’s digital policy, said in a statement. Meta now has a chance to respond to the commission, which must wrap up its investigation by March 2025. The company could face fines worth 10% of its annual global revenues, which could run into the billions of euros. Under the Digital Markets Act, Meta is classed as one of seven online gatekeepers while Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and its online ad business are among two dozen “core platform services” that need the highest level of scrutiny. Monday’s decision is the latest in a flurry of regulatory activity by Brussels targeting Big Tech companies. The EU leveled its first charges under the DMA a week ago, [accusing Apple](https://apnews.com/article/apple-european-union-digital-regulation-rules-app-store-07c34a80a5c98d0014e1c669a86af6a4) of preventing app makers from pointing users to cheaper options outside its App Store. It also recently [charged Microsoft](https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-teams-eu-european-union-antitrust-26d11ada00f504d537d1b054dd6f6bbf) with violating the bloc’s antitrust laws by by bundling its Teams messaging and videoconferencing app with its widely used Office business software. _—Kelvin Chan, Associated Press business writer_ _ Recognize your technological breakthrough by applying to this year’s [Next Big Things in Tech Awards](https://www.fastcompany.com/apply/next-big-things-in-tech) before the final deadline, July 12. Sign up for Next Big Things in Tech Awards notifications [here](https://events.fastcompany.com/2024nbtnotifications/register?ref=article). _

Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, a [federal judge ruled on Monday](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html), a landmark decision that strikes at the power of tech giants in the modern internet era and that may fundamentally alter the way they do business. Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in a 277-page ruling that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business. The Justice Department and states had sued Google, accusing it of illegally cementing its dominance, in part, by paying other companies, like Apple and Samsung, billions of dollars a year to have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web browsers. “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta said in his ruling. The ruling is a harsh verdict on the rise of giant technology companies that have used their roots in the internet to influence the way we shop, consume information and search online — and indicates a potential limit of Big Tech’s power. It is likely to influence [other government antitrust lawsuits](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/technology/google-apple-amazon-meta-antitrust.html) against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The last significant antitrust ruling against a tech company targeted Microsoft more than two decades ago. “This is the most important antitrust case of the century, and it’s the first of a big slate of cases to come down against Big Tech,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt University’s law school who studies antitrust. “It’s a huge turning point.” The decision is a major blow to Google, which was built on its search engine and has become so closely associated with online search that its name has become a verb. The ruling could have major ramifications for Google’s success, especially as the company spends heavily to compete in the race over artificial intelligence. Google faces another federal antitrust case over ad technology that is scheduled to go to trial next month. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F05%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-antitrust-ruling.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F05%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-antitrust-ruling.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F05%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-antitrust-ruling.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F08%2F05%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-antitrust-ruling.html).

This week Mark Zuckerberg sent Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) a letter outlining how the Biden administration pressured his company to “censor” free speech on Facebook — specifically misinformation about Covid-19. The letter also made reference to Hunter Biden’s laptop and Zuckerberg’s lack of plans to spend money on the election. This sounds bad. But none of this information is new. It’s interesting that Zuckerberg decided to dive into the free speech snake pit this week. It’s also not surprising that Republicans, who have been on [a book-banning spree](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-04-22/book-bans-soaring-schools-new-laws-republican-states) at schools nationwide, are propping up old facts as if they were new revelations in their ongoing quest to blame Democrats for censorship. It’s election season, and questioning reality is part of the fun. As we enter the final two months before the election, there are [fewer guardrails for misinformation in place](https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-misinformation-ai-social-media-trump-6119ee6f498db10603b3664e9ad3e87e) on major social media platforms, and writing a letter about the Biden administration and censorship, Zuckerberg seems to be throwing Republicans a political grenade, something that can fire up the base and use to get mad about Democrats. In reality, though, Zuckerberg is probably just trying to keep his company out of more hot water and to [continue revamping his own public image](https://www.wsj.com/style/fashion/mark-zuckerberg-meta-gold-chain-outfits-76533bb2). To understand how Zuckerberg’s letter could do this, it helps to know why he sent it to Rep. Jordan in the first place. Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has [singled out](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/27/how-mark-zuckerberg-became-a-republican-punching-bag-00108403) the Meta CEO in an ongoing investigation that alleges the Biden administration and tech companies colluded to censor free speech online. Jordan even [threatened](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/27/jordan-postpones-zuckerberg-contempt-of-congress-vote-00108570) to hold Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena for documents. Zuckerberg now seems rather forthcoming. In [his letter](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/27/meta-zuckerberg-covid-misinformation-jordan-white-house/), Zuckerberg acknowledges that the Biden administration pressured the company “to censor certain Covid-19 content, including humor and satire” and says that the pressure was “wrong.” Zuckerberg added that his company was “ready to push back if something like this happens again.” This is not news. The Biden administration did pressure Meta, as well as its competitors, to crack down on Covid-19 misinformation throughout the pandemic. In 2021, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy [called it “an urgent threat,”](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/15/1016013826/the-u-s-surgeon-general-is-calling-covid-19-misinformation-an-urgent-threat) and Biden himself said that misinformation was “killing people,” [a statement he later walked back](https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/19/politics/joe-biden-facebook/index.html). This pressure was also at the center of a recent Supreme Court case, in which justices [ruled in favor of the Biden administration](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-free-speech.html). We also knew that Meta, then known simply as Facebook, pushed back at efforts to stop the spread of misinformation on its platforms. Not long after Biden’s “killing people” remark, leaked company documents [revealed that Facebook knew](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-vaccinated-11631880296?mod=article_inline) that vaccine misinformation on its platforms was undermining its own goal of protecting the vaccine rollout and was causing harm. It even studied the broader problem and produced several internal reports on the spread of misinformation, but despite pressure from Congress, Facebook [failed to share that research with lawmakers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/28/facebook-covid-misinformation/) at the time. We actually learned about the specific kind of pressure the White House put on Facebook a year ago, [thanks to documents](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-bowed-to-white-house-pressure-removed-covid-posts-2df436b7) the company turned over to, you guessed it, Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee. The Biden administration issued a statement after [Zuckerberg’s latest letter](https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828201780544504064) became public. It said, in part, “Our position has been clear and consistent: We believe tech companies and other private actors should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people, while making independent choices about the information they present.” But the Zuckerberg letter didn’t stop with details of the well-known crackdown on Covid misinformation. It also reminds the public of the time the Biden administration asked social media companies to slow the spread of a New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election. Without mentioning any direct pressure from the government, Zuckerberg says in the letter that his company [demoted the laptop story](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/08/27/meta-zuckerberg-covid-misinformation-jordan-white-house/) while it conducted a fact-check. He [told podcaster Joe Rogan something similar in a 2022 interview](https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twitters-handling-of-the-posts-hunter-biden-laptop-story/), when he mentioned that [an FBI misinformation warning](https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack) contributed to the decision to suppress the story. Twitter also suppressed the laptop story, and its executives [denied that there was pressure](https://apnews.com/article/technology-politics-united-states-government-us-republican-party-business-6e34ad121a1e52892b782b0b7c0e59c3) from Democrats or law enforcement to do so. Zuckerberg also addresses some donations he made to voting access efforts in the 2020 election through his family’s philanthropic foundation. “My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another — or to even appear to be playing a role,” the billionaire said. “So I don’t plan on making a similar contribution this cycle.” The House Judiciary Committee [responded in a tweet](https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828204002187587867), “Mark Zuckerberg also tells the Judiciary Committee that he won’t spend money this election cycle. That’s right, no more Zuck-bucks.” Neither party mentioned that Zuckerberg [also declined to make a contribution in the 2022 cycle](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/zuckerberg-money-wont-aid-elections-rcna24002) for the same reasons. The right is taking a victory lap over this Zuckerberg letter. Others are simply wondering why on earth, on an otherwise quiet week in August, did Zuckerberg even bother to remind us of all of these familiar facts? One theory comes [from Peter Kafka at Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-letter-jim-jordan-meta-facebook-censorship-politics-meaning-2024-8): “Zuckerberg very carefully gave Jordan just enough to claim a political victory — but without getting Meta in any further trouble while it defends itself against a federal antitrust suit.” To be clear, Congress is not behind the antitrust lawsuit. The case, which dates back to 2021, comes from the FTC and 40 states, which say that Facebook [illegally crushed competition](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/technology/ftc-facebook-antitrust.html) when it acquired Instagram and WhatsApp, but it must be top of mind for Zuckerberg. In a landmark antitrust case less than a month ago, a federal judge [ruled against Google](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html), and called it a monopoly. So antitrust is almost certainly on Zuckerberg’s mind. It’s also possible Zuckerberg was just sick of litigating events that happened years ago and wanted to close the loop on something that has caused his company massive levels of grief. Plus, allegations of censorship have been a distraction from his latest big mission: [to build artificial general intelligence](https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/18/24042354/mark-zuckerberg-meta-agi-reorg-interview). Zuckerberg, according to his new style, is [a newly minted member of Gen Z](https://www.wsj.com/style/fashion/mark-zuckerberg-meta-gold-chain-outfits-76533bb2), one who’s future-focused and patriotic in a way. For all we know, dashing off controversial-seeming letters to Congress is part of this revamped image and yet another way of reminding the world that he [does not want to be involved in politics again](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/02/10/politics-meta-threads-instagram/). You’ve read 1 article in the last month Here at Vox, we believe in helping everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help to shape it. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism to empower understanding and action. If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a _Vox Member_. Your support ensures Vox a stable, independent source of funding to underpin our journalism. If you are not ready to become a Member, even small contributions are meaningful in supporting a sustainable model for journalism. Thank you for being part of our community.  Swati Sharma Vox Editor-in-Chief [Join for $10/month](https://vox.memberful.com/checkout?plan=99544&itm_campaign=swati-launch-banner&itm_medium=site&itm_source=footer) We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via [](https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VSP4PYJX98SHL)

For years, Google has faced complaints about how it dominates the online advertising market. Many of the concerns stem from the internet giant’s suite of software known as Google Ad Manager, which websites around the world use to sell ads on their sites. The technology conducts split-second auctions to place ads each time a user loads a page. The dominance of that technology has [landed Google in federal court](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html). On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will preside over the start of a trial in which the Department of Justice accuses the company of abusing control of its ad technology and violating antitrust law. It would be Google’s second antitrust trial in less than a year. In August, [a federal judge ruled in a separate case](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html) that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search, a major victory for the Justice Department. The new trial is the [latest salvo by federal antitrust regulators against Big Tech](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/antitrust-google-amazon-apple-meta.html), testing a century-old competition law against companies that have reshaped the way people shop, communicate and consume information. Federal regulators have also filed antitrust lawsuits against [Apple](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/technology/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust.html), [Amazon](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/technology/amazon-ftc-lawsuit-antitrust.html) and [Meta](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/technology/ftc-facebook-antitrust.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-big-tech&variant=show&region=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc), which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, saying those companies have also abused their power. The Justice Department declined to comment on its latest courtroom fight with Google. Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said in a blog post on Sunday that the Justice Department was “picking winners and losers in a highly competitive industry.” “With the cost of ads going down and the number of ads sold going up, the market is working,” she said. “The DOJ’s case risks inefficiencies and higher prices — the last thing that America’s economy or our small businesses need right now.” Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F09%2F09%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-ads-antitrust-trial.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F09%2F09%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-ads-antitrust-trial.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F09%2F09%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-ads-antitrust-trial.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F09%2F09%2Ftechnology%2Fgoogle-ads-antitrust-trial.html).

174961208 story [](//tech.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=google)[ ](//tech.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=advertising)[ ](//tech.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=government)[](//tech.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=court) Posted by [BeauHD](https://www.linkedin.com/in/beauhd/) on Monday September 09, 2024 @06:00PM from the get-your-popcorn-ready dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: _For years, Google has faced complaints about how it dominates the online advertising market. Many of the concerns stem from the internet giant's suite of software known as Google Ad Manager, which websites around the world use to sell ads on their sites. The technology conducts split-second auctions to place ads each time a user loads a page. The dominance of that technology has landed Google in federal court. On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will preside over the start of a trial in which the Department of Justice [accuses the company of abusing control of its ad technology and violating antitrust law](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/technology/google-ads-antitrust-trial.html) _(Warning: source may be paywalled; [alternative source](https://www.reuters.com/technology/googles-antitrust-trial-over-online-advertising-set-begin-2024-09-09/))_. It would be Google's second antitrust trial in less than a year. In August, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that Google had [illegally maintained a monopoly in online search](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/08/05/1859251/google-loses-doj-antitrust-suit-over-search), a major victory for the Justice Department. The new trial is the latest salvo by federal antitrust regulators against Big Tech, testing a century-old competition law against companies that have reshaped the way people shop, communicate and consume information. Federal regulators have also filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple,Amazon and Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, saying those companies have also abused their power. _Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said in a [blog post](https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/google-ad-tech-sept-2024/) on Sunday that the Justice Department was "picking winners and losers in a highly competitive industry." "With the cost of ads going down and the number of ads sold going up, the market is working," she said. "The DOJ's case risks inefficiencies and higher prices -- the last thing that America's economy or our small businesses need right now."

The European Commission ruled against Apple ([AAPL](https://qz.com/quote/AAPL)) and Google ([GOOGL](https://qz.com/quote/GOOGL)) in two landmark legal cases — and is collecting billions in back taxes and fines. Europe’s top court issued final decisions on two cases involving the tech giants Tuesday, upholding rulings that Ireland granted Apple unlawful aid, and that Google Shopping violated antitrust laws. The decisions are a major step forward in the European Union’s attempt to wrangle Big Tech within the bloc. “Today is a big win for European citizens and for tax justice,” Margrethe Vestager, executive vice president of the European Commission, said in a statement. Cupertino, California-based Apple was ordered to pay up to 13 billion euros ($14.34 billion) to Ireland, after the Commission concluded in 2016 that tax rulings in the country, which artificially lowered taxes for the iPhone maker since 1991, constituted illegal state aid. In one example provided by the court, one of Apple’s Irish subsidiaries recorded profits of approximately 16 billion euros ($17.65 billion) in 2011 but paid less than 10 million euros ($11 million) of taxes that year — an effective tax rate of about 0.05%. An Apple spokesperson did not immediately return Quartz’s request for comment. The court also upheld a 2017 decision to fine Google 2.4 billion euros ($2.65 billion) for favoring its own comparison-shopping service, Google Shopping, over that of competitors within its general search results. “The Google Shopping case is a landmark in the history of regulatory actions against big tech companies,” Vestager said. “It was one of the first significant antitrust cases brought by a competition agency against a major digital company. And I think this case marked a pivotal shift in how digital companies were regulated and also perceived.” Vestager noted that the Google case paved the way for further regulatory actions, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a 2022 law that regulates large online platforms. A Google spokesperson said the company made changes back in 2017 to comply with the Commission’s decision, which has generated “billions of clicks for more than 800 comparison shopping services.” Google appealed the decision in 2021. “We are disappointed with the decision of the Court,” the spokesperson said. “This judgment relates to a very specific set of facts.” Apple and Google, [along with other tech giants](https://qz.com/microsoft-nvidia-openai-doj-ftc-investigation-antitrust-1851522748), including [Meta](https://qz.com/meta-in-europes-antitrust-hot-seat-dma-law-1851569692) and Microsoft ([MSFT](https://qz.com/quote/MSFT)), have been hit with lawsuits and heightened regulatory scrutiny both in the U.S. and abroad this year. After [losing a major antitrust battle](https://qz.com/google-loses-tech-antitrust-case-1851613659) last month, Google found itself [back in court this week](https://qz.com/google-adtech-market-antitrust-trial-doj-wedbush-1851640403) to argue its case against the Department of Justice over its dominance in the advertising market. In March, the Justice Department [sued Apple](https://qz.com/apple-doj-antitrust-lawsuit-amazon-google-facebook-tech-1851375153) for monopolizing the smartphone market with its iPhone.

At a [meeting with Google’s Larry Page, Apple’s Tim Cook](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/technology/trump-tech-summit.html) and other tech leaders in 2016, President-elect Donald J. Trump told the gathering, “I’m here to help you folks do well.” Instead, Mr. Trump’s treatment of the tech industry during his first term was unpredictable and at times lashing. His regulators filed antitrust charges against [Meta](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/facebook-antitrust-monopoly.html) and [Google](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/technology/google-antitrust.html) and launched investigations into Apple and Amazon. He accused Meta and Twitter of censorship, resulting in Republican-led congressional hearings grilling tech executives. He moved to ban TikTok and blasted Amazon for shirking its tax obligations. Now with Mr. Trump’s election victory on Tuesday, tech executives face the prospect of another four years of similar uncertainty. The president-elect has promised to put the tech billionaire Elon Musk in a newly created position to bring efficiencies to the government and vowed to deregulate industry. He has indicated that [the government’s efforts to break up Google](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/us/politics/trump-google-monopoly-china.html) for a monopoly in search [may go too far](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/us/politics/trump-google-monopoly-china.html), even though the investigation into the company started in his term. He has flip-flopped on the fate of TikTok, which again faces a U.S. ban. And he has promised more tariffs, which could affect chipmakers and smartphone manufacturers. The stakes are high. American tech companies — some of the most valuable in the world — are central to how people shop, communicate and consume information online. The industry pours billions of dollars into new and existing technologies, including most recently [artificial intelligence](https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/artificial-intelligence). The industry is also in the middle of a geopolitical battle with China and other nations over technological supremacy. “He’s been incredibly unpredictable on tech and seems prone to changing positions on any topic,” said Scott Babwah Brennen, director of the Center on Technology Policy at New York University. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and [log into](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2Ftechnology%2Ftrump-apple-amazon-google-meta.html&asset=opttrunc) your Times account, or [subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2Ftechnology%2Ftrump-apple-amazon-google-meta.html) for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? [Log in](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?response_type=cookie&client_id=vi&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2Ftechnology%2Ftrump-apple-amazon-google-meta.html&asset=opttrunc). Want all of The Times? [Subscribe](https://www.nytimes.com/subscription?campaignId=89WYR&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F11%2F07%2Ftechnology%2Ftrump-apple-amazon-google-meta.html).

European Union regulators hit Facebook parent Meta with a fine of nearly 800 million euros on Thursday for what it calls “abusive practices” involving its Marketplace online classified ads business LONDON -- European Union regulators issued their first antitrust fine to Facebook parent Meta on Thursday with a penalty of nearly 800 million euros for what they call “abusive practices” involving its Marketplace online classified ads business. The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc's executive branch and top antitrust enforcer, issued the 797.72 million euro ($841 million) penalty after its [long-running investigation](https://apnews.com/article/europe-technology-business-a44f2f093471ffa7ea8ff8e23f8282da) found that the company abused its dominant position and engaged in anti-competitive behavior. It’s the first time the EU has imposed a fine on the social media giant for breaches of the bloc’s competition law. Brussels has already slapped Big Tech rivals [Google](https://apnews.com/article/google-european-union-antitrust-shopping-court-a281e4e4722efa816e929a52a9939d86) and [Apple](https://apnews.com/article/apple-antitrust-fine-music-streaming-europe-439e3e8af91d844dee3dc8ff8012c68f) with billions in antitrust penalties. The commission had [accused Meta](https://apnews.com/article/technology-europe-business-european-union-f688beadd49ab55e326e163960675f19) of distorting competition by tying its online classified ad business to its social network, automatically exposing Facebook users to Marketplace “whether they want it or not" and shutting out competitors. It was also concerned that Meta was imposing unfair trading conditions with terms of service that authorized the company to use ad-related data — generated from competing classified ad platforms who advertise on Facebook or Instagram — to benefit Marketplace. Meta's practices gave it “advantages that other online classified ads service providers could not match,” Margrethe Vestager, the commission's executive vice-president in charge of competition policy, said in a press release “This is illegal under EU antitrust rules. Meta must now stop this behaviour.” Meta said in a statement that the decision fails to prove any “competitive harm” to rivals or consumers and “ignores the realities of the thriving European market for online classified listing services.” The company said the Commission's case ignores the fact that Facebook users can choose to ”engage with Marketplace, and many don't." It said online marketplaces, including global sites like eBay, Europe-wide platforms like Vinted, and national services are continuing to grow. Meta said it would comply with the Commission's order to end the offending conduct and not repeat it, but also vowed to appeal. The case dates back to 2021, when European Union regulators and their counterparts in Britain opened dual investigations into the classified business. The British regulator [wrapped up its investigation](https://apnews.com/article/amazon-meta-britain-antitrust-a63bf08544e67bd3e5eda5c4077f37c8) last year after Meta made concessions. The company continues to face EU scrutiny on other fronts, including investigations into whether Facebook and Instagram [child safety](https://apnews.com/article/facebook-instagram-meta-european-union-digital-services-act-61653e20757e75671092fb746e41ed4b) and [election integrity](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-instagram-1fea720aeb5def876a6d415ed6136463) measures comply with the bloc’s digital rulebook. Meta has previously been hit with a series of [fines](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-privacy-e40ab7bfa674b91bffb2813dce9b04d1) for breaches of the EU’s stringent privacy laws, including a [record 1.2 billion euro penalty](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-data-privacy-fine-europe-9aa912200226c3d53aa293dca8968f84) last year.

European Union regulators hit Facebook parent Meta with a fine of nearly 800 million euros on Thursday for what it calls “abusive practices” involving its Marketplace online classified ads business LONDON -- European Union regulators issued their first antitrust fine to Facebook parent Meta on Thursday with a penalty of nearly 800 million euros for what they call “abusive practices” involving its Marketplace online classified ads business. The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc's executive branch and top antitrust enforcer, issued the 797.72 million euro ($841 million) penalty after its [long-running investigation](https://apnews.com/article/europe-technology-business-a44f2f093471ffa7ea8ff8e23f8282da) found that the company abused its dominant position and engaged in anti-competitive behavior. It’s the first time the EU has imposed a fine on the social media giant for breaches of the bloc’s competition law. Brussels has already slapped Big Tech rivals [Google](https://apnews.com/article/google-european-union-antitrust-shopping-court-a281e4e4722efa816e929a52a9939d86) and [Apple](https://apnews.com/article/apple-antitrust-fine-music-streaming-europe-439e3e8af91d844dee3dc8ff8012c68f) with billions in antitrust penalties. The commission had [accused Meta](https://apnews.com/article/technology-europe-business-european-union-f688beadd49ab55e326e163960675f19) of distorting competition by tying its online classified ad business to its social network, automatically exposing Facebook users to Marketplace “whether they want it or not" and shutting out competitors. It was also concerned that Meta was imposing unfair trading conditions with terms of service that authorized the company to use ad-related data — generated from competing classified ad platforms who advertise on Facebook or Instagram — to benefit Marketplace. Meta's practices gave it “advantages that other online classified ads service providers could not match,” Margrethe Vestager, the commission's executive vice-president in charge of competition policy, said in a press release “This is illegal under EU antitrust rules. Meta must now stop this behaviour.” Meta said in a statement that the decision fails to prove any “competitive harm” to rivals or consumers and “ignores the realities of the thriving European market for online classified listing services.” The company said the Commission's case ignores the fact that Facebook users can choose to ”engage with Marketplace, and many don't." It said online marketplaces, including global sites like eBay, Europe-wide platforms like Vinted, and national services are continuing to grow. Meta said it would comply with the Commission's order to end the offending conduct and not repeat it, but also vowed to appeal. The case dates back to 2021, when European Union regulators and their counterparts in Britain opened dual investigations into the classified business. The British regulator [wrapped up its investigation](https://apnews.com/article/amazon-meta-britain-antitrust-a63bf08544e67bd3e5eda5c4077f37c8) last year after Meta made concessions. The company continues to face EU scrutiny on other fronts, including investigations into whether Facebook and Instagram [child safety](https://apnews.com/article/facebook-instagram-meta-european-union-digital-services-act-61653e20757e75671092fb746e41ed4b) and [election integrity](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-instagram-1fea720aeb5def876a6d415ed6136463) measures comply with the bloc’s digital rulebook. Meta has previously been hit with a series of [fines](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-privacy-e40ab7bfa674b91bffb2813dce9b04d1) for breaches of the EU’s stringent privacy laws, including a [record 1.2 billion euro penalty](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-data-privacy-fine-europe-9aa912200226c3d53aa293dca8968f84) last year.

 Outgoing U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan said Tuesday that she hopes her successor in the incoming Trump administration will not cut a “sweetheart” deal with Amazon ([AMZN\-2.48%](https://qz.com/quote/AMZN)) and Facebook’s parent company Meta ([META\-2.28%](https://qz.com/quote/META)), as the agency continues its antitrust cases against the tech giants. With only eight business days remaining in her tenure, Khan appeared on CNBC Tuesday morning, where she was asked about recent efforts by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to win favor with President-elect Donald Trump. “It is true that the FTC has been very successful, including in its ongoing litigations against Amazon and Facebook. And so it’s only going to be natural that those companies are going to want to come in and see \[if\] can they get some type of sweetheart deal,” [Khan told CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/07/lina-khan-ftc-amazon-facebook-trump.html). “Can they get some type of settlement that’s cheap, that settles for pennies on the dollar and lets them escape from a liability finding in court.” [Amazon](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power) and [Facebook](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/191-0134-facebook-inc-ftc-v) are both facing FTC lawsuits accusing them of engaging in anticompetitive practices to maintain monopoly power in their respective sectors. Khan said she hopes lenient deals won’t be made, but that she can’t predict what the new chair will do. Her comments come after Amazon chairman Jeff Bezos and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg both visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. The billionaires declined to endorse a candidate during the election, but their companies have since made [big donations](https://qz.com/trump-inauguration-fund-donors-amazon-openai-meta-1851724468) to the president-elect’s inauguration fund. Meta recently added [Trump-ally Dana White to its board](https://qz.com/ufc-ceo-dana-white-metas-board-trump-zuckerberg-1851733659) and today announced plans to [replace its third-party fact-checking program](https://qz.com/meta-fact-check-elon-musk-trump-x-community-notes-1851733906) with the community-driven system popularized by Elon Musk’s X. Moves that continue to signal a warmer approach to President-elect Donald Trump. For its part, Amazon is reportedly paying [$40 million](https://www.businessinsider.com/melania-trump-amazon-documentary-40-million-license-first-lady-2025-1) to license a documentary on incoming first lady Melania Trump. Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.

 Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg [announced Tuesday](https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/) that the social media company, which owns Facebook and Instagram, would stop working with third-party fact-checking organizations. Repeating talking points long used by President-elect Donald Trump and his allies, in a video Zuckerberg said the company's content moderation approach resulted too often in "censorship". "After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth," Zuckerberg said. "But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S." Meta set up one of the most extensive [partnerships with fact checkers](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/15/505728377/facebook-details-its-new-plan-to-combat-fake-news-stories) after the 2016 presidential election, in which [Russia spread false claims](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903616315/senate-releases-final-report-on-russias-interference-in-2016-election) on Facebook and other online platforms. The company created what has become a standard for how tech platforms limit the spread of [falsehoods and misleading information](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/19/502692075/misinformation-on-facebook-zuckerberg-lists-ways-of-fighting-fake-news). But the 2020 election and the COVID pandemic accelerated a backlash among conservatives who cast content moderation as a form of [censorship](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/16/924625825/dont-censor-stop-the-hoaxes-facebook-twitter-face-a-catch-22). Facebook, along with Twitter and YouTube, banned Trump from their platforms after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, but eventually [allowed him to return](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1146961818/trump-meta-facebook-instagram-ban-ends) ahead of his second run for office. In recent years, fact checkers, researchers of false narratives, and social media content moderation programs have become targets of [Republican-led Congressional probes and legal challenges](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/10/1211929764/election-false-claims-social-media-cisa-trump). Zuckerberg said his views on content moderation have changed. Meta has made "too many mistakes" in how it applied its content policies, he said, and pointed to Trump's election to a second term as "a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech." "So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms," he said. **Tech companies prepare for Trump 2.0** ---------------------------------------- The move comes as Meta and other tech companies are working to smooth what has been a rocky relationship with Trump. The president-elect and other Republicans have long accused Silicon Valley of harboring anti-conservative bias that has muzzled their speech online. Trump has accused Zuckerberg personally of election interference and [threatened him](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-election-book-00176639) with life in prison. Last week Meta elevated Joel Kaplan, a veteran company executive and Republican who once worked in George W. Bush's White House, to head of global policy, replacing former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. On Monday, the company named Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO [Dana White](https://www.npr.org/2025/01/06/nx-s1-5250310/meta-dana-white-ufc), a longtime supporter of Trump, to its board of directors. Zuckerberg is among the tech titans who have traveled to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump since the election, and [Meta donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund](https://www.npr.org/2024/12/13/nx-s1-5227874/trump-bezos-zuckerberg-amazon-facebook-open-ai-meta-inauguration-fund) (Amazon and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman made similar pledges). Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College and longtime Meta observer, said it is distressing seeing business leaders "showing performative fealty" to the incoming administration. "Meta clearly perceives a great deal of political risk of being targeted," Nyhan said in an interview. "And the way Zuckerberg presented the announcements, and the timing, was obviously intended to play to a Republican audience." Some observers say Meta may be hoping for a lighter touch from regulators in the Trump administration.  Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission, said in an interview with [CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/01/07/ftc-chair-lina-khan-hopes-facebook-and-amazon-wont-get-a-sweetheart-deal-from-trump-2point0.html) on Tuesday that she worries executives at Meta are seeking a "sweetheart deal" in the Trump White House. A sweeping antitrust case against Meta brought by the FTC and [attorneys general from 48 states and territories](https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/facebook_complaint_12.9.2020.pdf) during Trump's first term is set to go to trial in April. In a recent court filing, government lawyers wrote Mark Zuckerberg is expected to be among the first witnesses called to the stand. "Well, look, I can't predict what future people in my position are going to do. It is true that the FTC has been very successful, including in its ongoing litigations against Amazon and Facebook," Khan said. "And so it's only going to be natural that those companies are going to want to come in and see, can they get some type of sweetheart deal?" Republicans welcomed Meta's announcement as validation of their long-running complaints. "I think they've come a long way," Trump said during a press conference on Tuesday. Asked if he thought Zuckerberg was "directly responding to the threats that you have made to him in the past," Trump responded: "Probably." "Meta finally admits to censoring speech…what a great birthday present to wake up to and a huge win for free speech," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) [posted on X](https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1876614145275015357). [Research](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8) has shown that Republicans [circulated more unfounded claims](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Political_Rumors/smquEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=republicans+spread+rumors&pg=PA145&printsec=frontcover). One study also found that [far right content was more engaging on Facebook](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Political_Rumors/smquEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=republicans+spread+rumors&pg=PA145&printsec=frontcover), and that far-right sources known for spreading misinformation significantly outperformed non-misinformation sources. Data to definitively prove bias on a platform level is [not available](https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/918520692/facebook-keeps-data-secret-letting-conservative-bias-claims-persist) to researchers. **Meta to follow Elon Musk's cues on fact-checking** ---------------------------------------------------- Meta said instead of working with third-party fact checkers, it would shift to a "community notes" program where users write and rate notes that appear next to specific posts. That's similar to the approach Elon Musk has championed on X, the platform formerly known as [Twitter](https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/965839888/twitters-birdwatch-aims-to-crowdsource-fight-against-misinformation). "I think Elon's played an incredibly important role in moving the debate and getting people refocused on free expression," Meta's Kaplan told [Fox & Friends on Tuesday](https://www.foxnews.com/video/6366768224112). Meta also said it would change how it enforces its policies, dialing back automated systems except for "illegal and high-severity violations" including terrorism, child sexual exploitation, and fraud. The company's U.S. content moderation team will move from California to Texas. The move should "help us build trust to do this work in places where there is less concern about the bias of our teams," Zuckerberg said. Fact checkers who have worked with Meta for years pushed back against Zuckerberg's accusation of bias. "It was particularly troubling to see him echo claims of bias against the fact checkers because he knows that the ones that participated in his program were signatories of a code of principles that requires that they be transparent and nonpartisan," said Bill Adair, co-founder of the International Fact Checking Network. He founded PolitiFact, one of the first participants in Facebook's third party fact checker's program, which he left in 2020. "Meta, up until this morning, has always appreciated the independence of fact checkers," Adair said. Since Meta pays fact checkers for their work, some fact-checking organizations — most of which are non-profits — heavily rely on the company to survive. "We'll see fewer fact-checking reports published and fewer fact checkers working," said Angie Drobnic Holan, the director of International Fact Checking Network. "I think the fact-checking programs on social media have been really positive for helping to reduce hoax content and conspiracy theories. And to see it so quickly curtailed this way without a whole lot of discussion is disappointing," Holan said. Meta's funding of fact checkers reverberated beyond its own platforms, said Kate Starbird, a University of Washington disinformation researcher who co-founded its Center for an Informed Public. "Though integrated with Facebook's infrastructure, their work had a much broader impact, and was often cited in other spaces, including the Community Notes program at X, which Meta says it will now copy." "In short, it is going to be more difficult for people to find information that they can trust online," she said. Researchers also rely on the work of fact checkers to better understand what's happening on social media platforms. While the effects on some fact checkers will be immediate, the announcement is light on details about how Meta will change what its users see on their feeds, said Katie Harbath, global affairs officer at the technology consulting firm Duco Experts who formerly worked at Facebook. But women and LGBTQ communities might be affected more, she said, given the few specific topics Meta mentioned. "We're going to simplify our content policies and get rid of a bunch of restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are just out of touch with mainstream discourse." Zuckerberg said in the video. "It's not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms," Kaplan wrote in Meta's press release about the new policies. "I think those folks could be particularly negatively impacted \[by\] this and may have to make decisions about not being on these platforms and not having those audiences to engage with," Harbath said.

On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta—the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—will be forswearing its traditional approach to content moderation. In its place, Meta will rely on X-style Community Notes, where rank-and-file users can attach comments to individual posts to provide corrections or clarifications, going forward. The decision was part of a wider one to redress issues with Meta’s content moderation, Zuckerberg said [in a video](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/1525382954801931/) published on his personal Facebook page. “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression,” Zuckerberg said, claiming that Meta’s current rules around discussion of immigration and gender were “out of touch with mainstream discourse.” The decision came as a shock to many as Meta had long been seen as one of the best among a relatively bad bunch of tech companies when it comes to content moderation efforts thanks in large part to a [40,000-person](https://www.theverge.com/policy/2024/1/31/24057167/how-big-is-each-companys-content-moderation-workforce) moderation staff (although those efforts have yielded [mixed results](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/)). It’s also the latest indication that Zuckerberg is trying to buddy up to incoming president Donald Trump, and is in that respect becoming more like Trump’s current right-hand man in tech: [Elon Musk](https://www.fastcompany.com/91255505/the-european-political-establishment-has-had-enough-of-elon-musk). Zuckerberg said in his video on Tuesday he would be working with Trump, to whose inauguration fund he [donated $1 million](https://apnews.com/article/trump-meta-zuckerberg-inauguration-donation-c540bf7c638def11b8428e633965c718), “to push back against foreign governments going after American companies to censor more.” The content moderation announcement comes days after he replaced his centrist global affairs chief Nick Clegg with Republican Joel Kaplan, and installed Trump acolyte Dana White to Meta’s board. “Zuckerberg is clearly concerned that his position as the most important and influential social media tech bro has been weakened in recent years,” says Steven Buckley, a U.S. politics and social media researcher at City, University of London. “Elon Musk has clearly taken that mantle ever since his relationship with Trump blossomed late last year.” Given Musk’s tight relationship with Trump, it seems prudent for Zuckerberg to try and cozy up to the president-elect. Doing so could help insulate Meta from any decisions that could negatively impact the company during Trump’s second term—say, by imposing strong antitrust action or lodging complaints about what Meta chooses to prioritize on its large platforms. “It’s difficult to determine if Zuckerberg actually supports Trump and his tech policies or if this is a purely cynical move by him in order to get close to power and have some say over the direction of policy in the coming administration,” says Buckley. Expand to continue reading ↓

Mark Zuckerberg [famously boasted](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/move-fast-break-things-facebook-motto/) that Facebook had a saying: “Move fast and break things”. His product has not just destroyed industry models but also social mores and expectations of the reliability of information and, in the global south, has upended people’s lives. The technology writer Kara Swisher [described him](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/kara-swisher-on-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-papers.html) as “not just a technologist; he’s a social engineer”. Meta’s [Tuesday announcement](https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-mark-zuckerberg-announces-major-changes-to-metas-content-moderation-policies-and-operations/) shows that it still moves at speed. Having previously been pressured into insufficient [improvements in moderation](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/15/facebook-flag-fake-news-fact-check), it is abruptly scrapping factcheckers on platforms including Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, starting in the US, and loosening other content restrictions. This purportedly addresses overreach by moderators. Other controls remain. But the signal is clear. Its new guidelines will allow users [to call others mentally ill](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/meta-new-hate-speech-rules-allow-users-call-lgbtq-people-mentally-ill-rcna186700) on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. Meta will also [“recommend more political content based on ... personalized signals”](https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/) – which sounds a lot like buttressing echo chambers. But Meta can no longer claim to act in haste and repent at leisure. It is retreating from harm prevention knowing what will result: Mr Zuckerberg acknowledged that “we’re going to catch less bad stuff”. An internal memo leaked in 2021 [acknowledged](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-admits-site-appears-hardwired-misinformation-memo-reveals) that core parts of its platform appeared hardwired for spreading misinformation and divisive content. And 3.3 billion people now access one of its core products daily. Mr Zuckerberg is ingratiating himself with Donald Trump – who complains of bias at Meta and [has threatened the billionaire](https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gloats-meta-changed-rules-203205042.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC-HVhj-VTeiE6ZnCvxjxLAI7gO3YP7Dpha1MvDdmz-GFPFuJtCrmHJ69ALEZS7ri8nT6aRoWA2TtmMJ_84X60vppwb7sNzCBGNTV3CoFSAYTNXZGvajEW7yImt1Q1olc_fZcpXIlcjfIihcRTPEV1NE23BVabQ318GnwbaF8A2R) – while cutting costs by outsourcing moderation to users. Mr Trump will soon have the power to kill the [federal anti-trust case](https://www.reuters.com/legal/meta-will-face-antitrust-trial-over-instagram-whatsapp-acquisitions-2024-11-13/) against Meta, release regulatory pressure on big tech and offer a supportive environment for AI. Mr Zuckerberg also pledged to work with him “to push back on governments around the world. They’re going after American companies and pushing to censor more”. To put it another way: democratically elected leaders are seeking to hold powerful businesses accountable and protect their citizens and societies. The UK’s [Online Safety Act](https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/aug/08/what-is-uk-online-safety-act-new-legislation-laws) and the [EU Digital Services Act](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/25/how-the-eu-digital-services-act-affects-facebook-google-and-others) are imperfect but essential tools which must be used to their full effect. Advertisers don’t like being promoted next to hate content. But [Meta’s dominance](https://www.marketingweek.com/social-media-spend-200bn/) means that few want to quit its platforms. In the US, accountability will probably fall to states, like the [more than 30 who are suing](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/24/instagram-lawsuit-meta-sued-teen-mental-health-us) Instagram on the grounds that its addictive nature has contributed to a youth mental health crisis. There are even greater concerns abroad. Former Meta employee Frances Haugen said that [she became a whistleblower](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/24/frances-haugen-i-never-wanted-to-be-a-whistleblower-but-lives-were-in-danger) “to save the lives of people, especially in the global south, who I think are being endangered by Facebook’s prioritisation of profits over people”. In Myanmar, [UN investigators blamed the spread of hate speech on Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/13/myanmar-un-blames-facebook-for-spreading-hatred-of-rohingya) for fuelling pogroms which killed tens of thousands of Rohingya Muslims. The platform [acknowledged](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46105934) that it had been used to incite offline violence. In India, Meta has been accused of [failing to stop the spread of Islamophobic hate speech](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/20/revealed-meta-approved-political-ads-in-india-that-incited-violence), calls to violence and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories on its platforms. As the Nobel peace laureate Maria Ressa [warned](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/08/facebook-end-factchecking-nobel-peace-prize-winner-maria-ressa), this is about safety. These changes will be damaging everywhere. But they threaten the greatest harm in countries where Meta has [extraordinary market dominance](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/how-facebooks-free-internet-helped-elect-a-dictator.html), where governments themselves foment hate speech or disinformation, and where such material has already spread to devastating and sometimes deadly effect. * _**Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our [letters](https://www.theguardian.com/tone/letters) section, please [click here](mailto:[email protected]?body=Please%20include%20your%20name,%20full%20postal%20address%20and%20phone%20number%20with%20your%20letter%20below.%20Letters%20are%20usually%20published%20with%20the%20author%27s%20name%20and%20city/town/village.%20The%20rest%20of%20the%20information%20is%20for%20verification%20only%20and%20to%20contact%20you%20where%20necessary.).**_

Meta is [testing a feature](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-08/meta-floats-ebay-ads-solution-to-comply-with-eu-antitrust-order) that will let Facebook users browse eBay listings on Facebook Marketplace before being redirected to complete the purchase on eBay. The test, which is being launched to a small group in Germany, France, and the U.S. starting Wednesday, is an attempt to resolve charges by the European Union that the social media giant uses anticompetitive behavior. Antitrust enforcers argued that Meta illegally shut out competition by linking Marketplace to its social media network and advertises Marketplace to consumers regardless of opting in or not. Meta said it is still continuing to appeal the European Commission’s decision. In November, it was [fined $840 million](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/14/tech/meta-fine-europe-facebook-marketplace-intl/index.html) over abusive practices meant to benefit Marketplace. “While we disagree with and continue to appeal the European Commission’s decision on Facebook Marketplace, we are working quickly and constructively to build a solution which addresses the points raised,” Meta said in a [statement](https://about.fb.com/news/2024/11/our-response-to-the-european-commissions-decision-on-facebook-marketplace/). Ebay said in a [blog post](https://community.ebay.com/t5/Announcements/Introducing-eBay-s-partnership-with-Facebook-Marketplace/ba-p/34868556#:~:text=Will%20my%20items,set%20on%20eBay.) that a select number of listings from “a variety of categories” will start showing up on some users’ Marketplaces. That includes both local and shipped items. Shares of eBay were up on the news. “This could benefit people using both platforms,” Meta said. “EBay sellers will gain exposure to Facebook’s audience while people using Marketplace will be able to discover a broader array of listings from the eBay community.” Expand to continue reading ↓

[Meta](https://www.fastcompany.com/section/meta) said Wednesday that it will allow some Facebook users to view eBay listings on its Marketplace service, as it tries out a possible way to resolve European Union charges of [anticompetitive behavior](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-competition-fine-6886192353a344126a15886d6ca7c627) that the bloc leveled last year. The social media company said it’s launching a test that will let Facebook users in Germany, France and the U.S. browse eBay listings directly on its Marketplace online classifieds service but complete the transaction on eBay. Meta is carrying out the trial after [Brussels slapped the company in November with a penalty of nearly 800 million euros ($824 million)](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-competition-fine-6886192353a344126a15886d6ca7c627) for what it called “abusive practices” involving Marketplace. European Union antitrust enforcers accused Meta of illegally shutting out competition by tying Marketplace to its social network and automatically exposing Facebook users to Marketplace whether or not they wanted it. They also accused Meta of gaining an unfair advantage through ad-related data. “While we disagree with and continue to appeal the European Commission’s decision on Facebook Marketplace, we are working quickly and constructively to build a solution which addresses the points raised,” Meta said in a blog post, adding that its solution could benefit people on both platforms. The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s top antitrust enforcer, said it had “no specific comment,” saying only that Meta must comply with the decision issued in mid-November within 90 days. Shares of eBay jumped on the news. The company said that starting Wednesday a “select number of eBay listings” in the three countries “will be seamlessly integrated and viewable on Facebook Marketplace.” The listings will be from a “variety of categories,” based on factors including shopping trends and listing quality, it said, without being more specific. Expand to continue reading ↓

Meta says it will allow some Facebook users to view eBay listings on its Marketplace service Meta said Wednesday that it will allow some Facebook users to view eBay listings on its Marketplace service, as it tries out a possible way to resolve European Union charges of [anticompetitive behavior](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-competition-fine-6886192353a344126a15886d6ca7c627) that the bloc leveled last year. The social media company said it's launching a test that will let Facebook users in Germany, France and the U.S. browse eBay listings directly on its Marketplace online classifieds service but complete the transaction on eBay. Meta is carrying out the trial after [Brussels slapped the company in November with a penalty of nearly 800 million euros ($824 million)](https://apnews.com/article/meta-facebook-european-union-competition-fine-6886192353a344126a15886d6ca7c627) for what it called “abusive practices” involving Marketplace. European Union antitrust enforcers accused Meta of illegally shutting out competition by tying Marketplace to its social network and automatically exposing Facebook users to Marketplace whether or not they wanted it. They also accused Meta of gaining an unfair advantage through ad-related data. “While we disagree with and continue to appeal the European Commission’s decision on Facebook Marketplace, we are working quickly and constructively to build a solution which addresses the points raised,” Meta said in a blog post, adding that its solution could benefit people on both platforms. The European Commission, the 27-nation bloc's top antitrust enforcer, said it had “no specific comment," saying only that Meta must comply with the decision issued in mid-November within 90 days. Shares of eBay jumped on the news. The company said that starting Wednesday a “select number of eBay listings” in the three countries “will be seamlessly integrated and viewable on Facebook Marketplace.” The listings will be from a “variety of categories,” based on factors including shopping trends and listing quality, it said, without being more specific. Buyers will complete their transactions following the same process as they would when buying directly through the eBay website and will be covered by the platform's money-back guarantee and other protections, it said.