Google has filed a set of proposed remedies in its high-profile antitrust case concerning its dominance in the online search market, a case that has drawn significant scrutiny from regulators and competitors alike.

Background to the Antitrust Case

The case centres on allegations brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of state attorneys general that Google’s business practices have unlawfully entrenched its dominance in online search. The central issue lies in Google’s agreements with companies such as Apple, Mozilla, and various Android device manufacturers to make Google Search the default search engine on their devices and browsers. Critics have argued that these deals stifle competition, leaving little room for rivals to gain a foothold.

Finally, in August 2024, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that certain Google agreements violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by substantially foreclosing competition. The ruling stopped short of accusing Google of acquiring its dominance through anti-competitive conduct but concluded that some of its contracts were exclusive and unlawful. This judgement marked a significant development in the case, prompting the court to require Google to propose remedies while preparing its appeal.

Google’s Proposed Remedies

In a recent detailed legal filing, Google has outlined several measures it believes should address the court’s findings. For example, the proposed remedies aim to grant more flexibility to device manufacturers, browser developers, and partners, while allowing Google to continue competing on the merits of its products.

To summarise what Google said in the filing, the key proposals (remedies) relate to:

– Browser Agreements

Google has said that it will allow browser developers, such as Apple (Safari) and Mozilla (Firefox), to “continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users”, i.e. to be able to enter into deals with alternative search engines. These agreements will include provisions for browsers to set different default search engines across platforms or browsing modes, as well as the ability to change default providers annually.

– Android Flexibility

Device manufacturers will have the option to preload multiple search engines and apps without being compelled to preload Google Search or Chrome. Also, Google will no longer tie the licensing of its Google Play Store to the preloading of its search engine. Google’s filing noted that these changes would provide “additional flexibility” to manufacturers and allow rivals “more chances to bid for placement.”

– Generative AI Products

Addressing concerns over the emerging field of generative AI, Google’s new proposal includes measures to ensure its Gemini Assistant chatbot does not gain an unfair advantage. Manufacturers can license Google’s other products without being required to include Gemini, and rivals’ chatbots can be preloaded without restrictions.

– Oversight and Compliance

Google has suggested that it will have a robust oversight mechanism to ensure adherence to the remedies without granting excessive governmental control over its operations. Google emphasised that its proposal aims to balance regulatory compliance with its ability to innovate and compete.

– Duration of Remedies

Interestingly (and in contrast to the DOJ’s recommendation of a decade-long duration), Google has proposed only a three-year term for the remedies. Google has justified this by saying that “regulating a fast-changing industry like search with an invasive decree” would harm competition and innovation.

Google’s Defence of Its Proposals

As may be expected, in its filing, Google characterised the proposed remedies as “overbroad” and warned of potential harm to both consumers and American technological leadership. For example, the company stated, “Markets are often more effective than the heavy hand of judicial power when it comes to enhancing consumer welfare,” citing the pace of innovation in artificial intelligence as a key factor.

Google also argued that its contracts have benefited users and partners, with the filing noting that “Google’s partners value its quality, and they continue to select Google as the default because its search engine provides the best bet for monetising queries.” Google was also keen to point out that people use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to.

Potential Impact of the Remedies

If accepted, Google’s proposals could reshape the search market, offering competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing and DuckDuckGo a greater chance to gain prominence. Device manufacturers and browser developers would have increased flexibility, potentially leading to more diverse search options for consumers.

However, the three-year duration of the remedies has raised questions. Critics argue that this timeframe may be insufficient to dismantle Google’s entrenched dominance. Additionally, some observers view Google’s ability to continue entering revenue-sharing agreements as a potential loophole that may maintain its market position.

Reactions to Google’s Filing

Unfortunately for Google, the DOJ appears sceptical of the proposals, suggesting that they fall short of addressing the root issues. In fact, the DOJ lawyers have called for more stringent measures, including a prohibition on revenue-sharing contracts and the potential divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser. For example, the DOJ argued in its own filings that, “Structural remedies are necessary to restore competition.”

Google’s competitors in the search world have also, as expected, voiced concerns. Microsoft has reportedly expressed scepticism, suggesting that Google’s proposed remedies are unlikely to fundamentally change the dynamics of a market Google has dominated for years.

However, some industry analysts have noted the significance of Google’s inclusion of generative AI in its proposals in terms of Google perhaps acknowledging AI as a potential disruptor to traditional search.

The Road Ahead

As regards the next steps in this case, the judge (Judge Mehta) is expected to issue a decision on the remedies by August 2025, following hearings in April. The court’s ruling will determine whether Google’s proposed remedies are sufficient to address its antitrust violations or if more aggressive measures are warranted. As the case progresses, its outcome could have lasting implications for the tech industry and the competitive landscape of online search.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although the proposed remedies in Google’s high-profile antitrust case have been presented as a balanced approach that addresses regulatory concerns without stifling innovation, the measures have drawn mixed reactions from stakeholders, raising questions about their adequacy and long-term impact.

For businesses and consumers, the outcome of this case could reshape how search engines are integrated into devices and browsers, potentially increasing competition and providing more diverse options. Google’s willingness to grant manufacturers and developers greater flexibility in preloading search engines and apps could foster a more level playing field for rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo. Similarly, its commitments around generative AI reflect an awareness of the evolving landscape and the need to address concerns in emerging technologies.

However, scepticism surrounding the three-year duration of the remedies and the continued use of revenue-sharing agreements highlights lingering doubts about whether these changes will meaningfully curb Google’s dominance. Critics argue that such a short timeframe might not provide sufficient opportunity for competitors to challenge Google’s entrenched position, while the proposed oversight mechanisms may lack the robustness needed to ensure compliance.

The scepticism from the DOJ and competitors, therefore, highlights the challenges of addressing monopolistic behaviour in what is a particularly dynamic, fast-evolving industry with some very wealthy, powerful and influential key players. Calls for structural remedies, such as divesting Chrome or imposing stricter limits on Google’s contracts, suggest that some stakeholders believe only more dramatic interventions can restore genuine competition.

This case, which is still ongoing, serves as a kind of litmus test for how regulators can try to balance promoting innovation with curbing monopolistic practices in the tech sector. It seems that Judge Mehta’s eventual decision will have far-reaching implications, not only for Google and its rivals but also for the broader regulatory framework governing dominant players in technology. As the case moves towards its next hearings, the tension between fostering competition and preserving innovation remains at the heart of the debate, making this what appears to be a defining moment for the future of the online search market.

Following a recent Wall Street Journal article highlighting how Microsoft has made Copilot part of its 365 subscription service in several markets and raised prices, we now look at Microsoft’s strategies for deploying its AI assistant, and the broader implications of its AI initiatives.

Microsoft’s AI Expansion Through Copilot

As the recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted, Microsoft has embarked on an ambitious strategy to integrate its AI assistant, Copilot, into its flagship Microsoft 365 software suite, comprising tools such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. This effort has, however, raised eyebrows due to its apparently aggressive implementation approach, particularly in markets like Australia and several Southeast Asian countries. In these markets, Microsoft has bundled Copilot into its 365 subscription service, thereby mandating its inclusion for all users and accompanying the move with price hikes – hence the WSJ’s accusation that Microsoft is essentially forcing its AI assistant on people and making them pay for the privilege. It’s perhaps no surprise, therefore, that these developments have sparked discussions about user choice, AI utility, and Microsoft’s long-term vision for AI.

Not Quite The Same In The UK

Before continuing, it’s worth noting here that Microsoft 365 Copilot is available in the UK as an optional add-on for both individual and enterprise users and, unlike in Australia and certain Southeast Asian countries, UK users have the choice to add Copilot to their existing Microsoft 365 subscriptions, i.e. UK users are not subject to the mandatory inclusion and price hikes experienced in other regions. The pricing for Copilot in the UK is around £24.70 plus VAT per user per month, or £296.40 plus VAT per user per year. That said, Microsoft’s offer of allowing customers to pay on a monthly basis rather than making an upfront annual payment will mean a 5 per cent higher cost than the annual billing option.

A Controversial Approach?

Copilot’s forced inclusion in Australia and several Southeast Asian countries has been met with mixed reactions. For example, it’s been reported that some users have found the AI’s pop-ups (offering unsolicited assistance while using Word) a source of frustration, especially since being charged more for their monthly subscription. Some have likened this pop-up intrusion to Microsoft’s ill-fated “Clippy” from the late 1990s.

Also, it’s been reported that Microsoft’s pricing strategy has added to user dissatisfaction. For example, in the US, the premium consumer version of Copilot is offered at $20 per month on top of the $7 base fee for an individual 365 subscription. For enterprise customers, Copilot costs $30 per user per month. This apparently aggressive monetisation approach is being seen by some commentators as Microsoft’s determination to recoup its significant investments in AI.

The Stakes Behind Copilot

It’s worth noting here that Microsoft’s AI efforts are not just about enhancing productivity tools but are a critical part of CEO Satya Nadella’s strategy to dominate the AI landscape, and Copilot, built on technology developed by OpenAI, is central to this plan. Microsoft’s $14 billion investment in OpenAI highlights the high stakes of its AI ambitions.

Copilot Still A Long Way Behind ChatGPT

Since its launch, Copilot has been positioned as a tool to transform workflows with its capabilities including drafting emails, summarising meetings, and creating presentations. However, despite Microsoft’s efforts to highlight these potential benefits, Copilot has struggled to gain traction compared to OpenAI’s ChatGPT. For example, Sensor Tower data shows that from May 2023 to December 2023, the Copilot app was downloaded 37 million times, dwarfed by ChatGPT’s 433 million downloads over the same period. This disparity appears to have intensified internal and external scrutiny of Copilot’s performance and value.

Business and Consumer Reception

Incorporating AI into productivity tools is not a new idea, yet Microsoft’s execution appears to have polarised opinion. For example, for corporate clients, Copilot’s utility has come under question. Concerns about the accuracy of its outputs, privacy safeguards, and overall cost-effectiveness remain unresolved. Microsoft maintains that Copilot adheres to stringent data protection standards and meets privacy regulations across multiple jurisdictions, although it has refrained from disclosing detailed sales figures or comprehensive user satisfaction metrics.

That said, Microsoft’s AI revenue looks set to surpass $10 billion annually, driven by both Copilot and its broader AI services, including cloud computing solutions. The company also claims that nearly 70 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted Copilot in some capacity, an indicator of its traction in the enterprise market.

Competitive Pressures

Microsoft’s Copilot faces fierce competition not only from established tech companies like Salesforce but also from OpenAI, its key partner and rival. OpenAI’s ChatGPT Enterprise directly challenges Copilot in the corporate space, offering advanced language model capabilities with robust customisation options. Jared Spataro, head of Microsoft’s workplace AI efforts, reportedly identified ChatGPT Enterprise as Copilot’s biggest competitor internally.

The competitive landscape is further complicated by Microsoft’s roadmap for AI. While Copilot represents the first phase of its AI strategy, the next phase (i.e. AI agents) aims to provide more advanced functionalities such as customer service automation and travel booking. These tools will rely heavily on Copilot’s adoption as a stepping stone, raising the stakes for its current deployment.

Balancing Innovation and User Trust

The forced integration of Copilot highlights broader industry trends where AI tools are often marketed aggressively before reaching full maturity. For example, a recent critique from Michael Parekh, an industry analyst, summarised this as “selling AI before it’s time.” The comparison draws parallels to past instances of over-promised and under-delivered tech products, raising questions about whether Copilot’s current capabilities justify its premium pricing.

Attracting Attention From Regulators

Microsoft’s bundling strategy is not unique to the tech sector, but it has rekindled scrutiny from regulators. The company’s history of bundling products (e.g. from Internet Explorer to Teams) has previously attracted antitrust investigations and Copilot’s integration could prompt similar concerns, particularly in regions with stricter competition laws.

A Broader AI Vision

Despite these challenges, Microsoft’s long-term AI vision appears to remain clear. By embedding Copilot into its software ecosystem, the company is aiming to familiarise users with AI tools as an integral part of daily workflows. This approach seeks to ensure smoother transitions to more advanced AI applications in the future. However, user satisfaction will be pivotal to achieving this vision, as evidenced by the recent backlash in Australia.

Microsoft’s expansive investments in AI, coupled with its dominance in the software market, therefore, appear to place it in a strong position to shape the future of AI in productivity. However, the balance between innovation, user experience, and ethical deployment may likely determine the ultimate success of Copilot and subsequent AI initiatives.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The integration of Copilot into Microsoft’s ecosystem highlights both the promise and the challenges of adopting AI-driven tools in productivity software. On the one hand, what some would say is Microsoft’s aggressive strategy highlights its confidence in AI’s transformative potential, underpinned by substantial investments in OpenAI and the vision of embedding AI at the heart of daily workflows. For businesses, this offers the possibility of improved efficiency through tools designed to streamline communication, automate repetitive tasks, and generate content.

However, the controversy surrounding Copilot’s deployment illustrates the fine line between innovation and imposition. The backlash in markets like Australia, where the bundling of Copilot with mandatory inclusion and price hikes left users with no choice, reflects the risks of pushing technology too hard, too fast. Such an approach can alienate customers, particularly if the perceived value does not justify the cost or if the tools are seen as intrusive rather than helpful. Comparisons to Microsoft’s infamous Clippy, for example, have highlighted the enduring challenges of balancing user engagement with overreach.

Microsoft’s approach in the UK and other regions where Copilot is offered as an optional add-on shows a more tempered strategy, allowing businesses and individuals to decide whether the tool meets their needs. This model may be better for fostering adoption while respecting user choice. That said, the question of value remains central. With Copilot facing stiff competition from established players like Salesforce and even its partner-turned-rival OpenAI, businesses will scrutinise whether the AI assistant’s benefits outweigh its costs.

Also, from a regulatory perspective, Microsoft’s history of bundling products raises important questions about competition and consumer rights. As Copilot becomes a central feature of Microsoft 365, scrutiny from regulators looks likely to increase, particularly in regions with stringent antitrust laws. This highlights the importance of transparency and fair pricing in the rollout of new AI services.

Microsoft’s success (or failure) with Copilot will likely serve as an indicator for how the market responds to this new wave of AI-driven innovation.

Kyivstar (Ukraine’s largest telecom operator) has announced an agreement with Starlink (a division of Elon Musk’s SpaceX) to introduce direct-to-cell satellite connectivity to the whole country.

Attacks On Communications Infrastructure By Russia

The partnership promises to be a significant technological advancement for Ukraine’s connectivity infrastructure that could revolutionise the way Ukrainians stay connected, particularly in remote and underserved areas. Since the Russian invasion began, Ukraine’s telecommunications infrastructure has faced relentless attacks, with over 1,200 base stations damaged or destroyed and countless others reliant on backup power due to energy blackouts. As well as providing a new way for Ukrainians to stay connected, the partnership could also enhance the resilience of the nation’s communications network.

Kyivstar

Kyivstar, which is partnering with SpaceX to provide the new connectivity, is a household name in Ukraine, serving over 23 million mobile subscribers and more than one million home internet customers. Throughout the ongoing conflict with Russia, Kyivstar has played a critical role in maintaining network availability, reportedly averaging over 90 per cent despite very challenging circumstances (e.g. energy blackouts). Its substantial investments in 4G expansion and network resilience have also solidified its position as a cornerstone of Ukrainian telecommunications.

Owned by the VEON Group, a global digital operator headquartered in Dubai, Kyivstar benefits from VEON’s experience in connecting nearly 160 million customers across six countries. VEON has also been a significant investor in Ukraine, committing over USD 10 billion since 2013 and pledging an additional USD 1 billion towards the nation’s recovery and reconstruction efforts between 2023 and 2027.

Starlink Offers Connectivity from Space

Starlink, a division of SpaceX, which has Elon Musk as its CEO (now also essentially a member of the U.S. government), provides high-speed internet via a constellation of low-earth orbit satellites. During the war in Ukraine, Starlink terminals have been instrumental in maintaining internet access in conflict zones and areas affected by infrastructure damage.

Satellites Acting Like Virtual Cell Towers In Space

The newly announced direct-to-cell service leverages Starlink’s satellite technology to act as virtual cell towers in space. For example, these satellites, equipped with eNodeB modems, enable direct connections to standard mobile devices without the need for specialised hardware or apps. This direct connectivity from Starlink satellites is designed to work wherever there is an unobstructed view of the sky, offering text, voice, and data services to users, even in remote locations where traditional networks fall short.

Crucially, with Russia still waging war in Ukraine, the direct-to-cell service from Starlink effectively bypasses traditional ground-based infrastructure such as phone masts, which are vulnerable to attacks and damage. Therefore, by using satellites as virtual cell towers, communications can be maintained even if terrestrial infrastructure is destroyed or compromised.

The Agreement and Its Implications

Kyivstar’s partnership with Starlink actually makes it one of the first nations to adopt direct-to-cell satellite connectivity. The rollout, scheduled to begin in late 2025 with SMS and over-the-top (OTT) messaging services, will eventually expand to include voice and data, hopefully addressing some of the most pressing connectivity challenges facing Ukraine as the nation continues to endure attacks on its infrastructure.

For Ukrainians living in conflict zones or remote areas, the significance of this agreement can’t be overstated, i.e. by bypassing vulnerable terrestrial infrastructure such as phone masts, the direct-to-cell service ensures that people can stay connected even in the aftermath of targeted attacks. This resilience is vital not only for personal communication but also for emergency services, humanitarian coordination, and economic activity in affected regions.

As Kyivstar CEO Oleksandr Komarov recently said, “Kyivstar has been the backbone of Ukraine’s resilience throughout the war, and we are committed to leaving no stone unturned to keep Ukraine connected”. His comments reflect the company’s determination to meet the needs of a population under extraordinary strain. Komarov has also described the partnership with Starlink as a “game-changer,” particularly in the context of Kyivstar’s ‘LTE everywhere’ vision, which aims to extend reliable mobile coverage across the country.

VEON Group

Kyivstar is VEON Group’s digital operator in Ukraine and, in addition to acknowledging the partnership’s potential for supporting Ukraine’s people and economy during a period of immense difficulty, and ensuring that the country can recover and thrive in the future, VEON Group CEO Kaan Terzioglu has highlighted the broader implications of the agreement. For example, on the company’s website, Terzioglu says, “Today’s announcement helps us take our commitment to Ukraine’s connectivity to the next level, exponentially amplifying the resilience of our services with satellite connectivity”. He also points to the potential for this collaboration to serve as a model for other markets in VEON’s portfolio, which collectively encompass 520 million people.

Advantages

The introduction of direct-to-cell technology in Ukraine, therefore, offers several key advantages, which are:

– Enhanced resilience. With satellite-powered connectivity, Kyivstar customers will remain connected even during terrestrial network outages. This is particularly crucial in a country grappling with war and frequent energy blackouts.

– Reaching the unreachable. Remote and underserved areas will benefit significantly, bridging the digital divide and ensuring no community is left behind.

– Emergency response. The capability to maintain communication during crises will bolster disaster management and humanitarian efforts.

– Economic development. Improved connectivity can stimulate economic growth by enabling businesses in rural areas to access global markets and services.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the promise of the partnership, some challenges remain. For example, regulatory hurdles have already surfaced, with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deferring a SpaceX request to operate at higher signal strengths. Also, competitors such as AST SpaceMobile are vying for a share of the burgeoning satellite-to-cell market, having secured partnerships with major telecom operators like Vodafone, Verizon, and AT&T.

The ambitious timeline for deployment, set against the backdrop of a war-torn Ukraine, may also require meticulous planning and execution, while ensuring affordability for end-users in a country where the economy has been significantly impacted by conflict could be a key concern.

It’s An Important Step Forward

Although challenges exist, the Kyivstar-Starlink agreement could represent a much-needed step forward for Ukraine’s telecommunications landscape. The combination of Kyivstar’s local expertise with Starlink’s cutting-edge satellite technology could mean that this partnership has the potential to redefine connectivity for millions of Ukrainians, and perhaps set a precedent for innovation in the face of serious adversity.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Unlike other announcements of tech/comms business partnerships, the Kyivstar-Starlink partnership represents more than just a possible technological advancement, i.e. it could be a lifeline for a nation under siege. By leveraging satellite technology to bypass vulnerable ground infrastructure, this initiative has the potential to address critical challenges facing Ukraine’s communication network amidst ongoing conflict. With over 1,200 base stations already damaged and significant reliance on backup power during energy blackouts, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity is vital for personal communication, emergency response, and economic activity.

For the Ukrainian people, particularly those in remote or conflict-affected regions, this collaboration promises to bridge connectivity gaps and provide reliable communication channels during times of crisis. It also underscores the resilience and ingenuity of Ukraine’s telecom sector, with the VEON Group and its operator in Ukraine, Kyivstar, demonstrating a steadfast commitment to keeping the nation connected against all odds.

However, it’s also worth noting that the broader implications of this partnership go beyond Ukraine. For example, it sets a precedent for how satellite technology can be deployed to support connectivity in regions with disrupted or limited infrastructure. While challenges such as regulatory approvals, competition from other satellite providers, and affordability concerns remain, the groundwork laid by Kyivstar and Starlink could offer a compelling model for other markets facing similar challenges.

Recent developments in US tech policy have halted the return of net neutrality rules and put the looming TikTok ban on pause, thereby raising significant questions about internet governance, corporate power, and digital rights.

What Is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality, the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all data equally, ensures that ISPs cannot prioritise, throttle, or block access to specific websites or online services based on their content, source, or payment arrangements. It is designed to maintain an open and fair internet, where all users and businesses have equal access to information and services, regardless of their size or resources.

A Saga of Reversals

Although net neutrality has been a cornerstone of digital fairness debates, its history in the US to date has unfortunately been marked by policy reversals tied to political administrations. For example, under the Obama administration, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) classified ISPs as telecommunications services, thereby subjecting them to stringent neutrality rules. This decision was then reversed under Trump-era FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who championed deregulation. Next, the Biden administration attempted to reinstate neutrality rules, but recent judicial developments have derailed these efforts.

What’s Happened Now?

On 2 January 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld its stay on the FCC’s Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order. The court essentially ruled that ISPs are classified as ‘information services’, thereby exempting them from net neutrality regulations. The decision leaned heavily on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling ending the Chevron deference principle, which previously required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. The Sixth Circuit’s decision concluded that the FCC lacked statutory authority to reimpose neutrality rules.

“We hold that Broadband Internet Service Providers offer only an ‘information service,’ and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose its desired net-neutrality policies,” stated the court order. This effectively nullifies the FCC’s authority to enforce net neutrality under current legislation.

Implications for Internet Users and Businesses

The absence of net neutrality rules ushers in an unregulated internet landscape. It means that ISPs can now legally prioritise or throttle specific traffic, potentially leading to a tiered internet where services like video streaming or cloud computing are accessible only to those who can pay premium fees. For businesses, particularly small enterprises, this raises concerns about equitable access to online resources, such as reliable video conferencing platforms for remote work or affordable e-commerce tools essential for reaching customers. The disparity could stifle innovation and hinder the competitiveness of smaller players.

The latest judgment also means that larger corporations with deep pockets may find it easier to secure prioritised bandwidth for their services, leaving smaller firms struggling to compete. Also, consumers could face higher costs for accessing content and services without the assurance of unbiased treatment by ISPs. Critics argue that the lack of neutrality poses a risk to free speech, as ISPs gain more control over the flow of information.

Brendan Carr To Champion Deregulation (and More ISP Freedom)

Brendan Carr is the person set to assume the role of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair (replacing Jessica Rosenworcel) on 20 January 2025, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. In the US, Mr Carr is known for his strong support of market-driven approaches to internet regulation. He is also known for consistently arguing that innovation and progress are best achieved through competition and minimal government intervention, rather than through federal regulations like net neutrality. It seems likely, therefore, that under his leadership, the FCC will give ISPs more freedom to manage their networks as they see fit, reinforcing the current administration’s deregulatory agenda.

TikTok Ban in Limbo

At the same time a court has just ruled that ISPs are again exempt from net neutrality regulations, it seems that TikTok still faces a perhaps precarious future in the US. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (set to take effect on 19 January 2025) requires ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to sell the app or face an outright ban. Proponents of the law cite national security concerns, alleging that TikTok could be used by the Chinese government for data collection or propaganda. However, the issue has become a flashpoint for debates on free speech and economic competition.

Ban Delayed

In what some may see as a surprising move, President-elect Donald Trump has requested that the Supreme Court delay the implementation of the ban. Trump’s lawyers argue that the timing of the ban, coinciding with his inauguration, complicates his ability to negotiate a resolution. The filing notes that Trump has 14.7 million TikTok followers, which he views as critical for political engagement and freedom of expression.

Civil Liberties Groups Have Also Challenged TikTok Ban

It’s also worth noting here that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit organisation dedicated to defending civil liberties in the digital world, has criticised the US government’s case against TikTok in a supporting brief. The EFF argues that the government “has not presented credible evidence of ongoing or imminent harm caused by TikTok.” This is a sentiment echoed by other civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which contend that the government’s claims rely on speculative threats rather than concrete evidence. Both organisations warn that banning TikTok without sufficient justification could set a troubling precedent, potentially undermining free speech and digital rights.

Hearing 10 January

The US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on 10 January, and its decision will likely determine TikTok’s fate in the US. If the court grants a pause, the new administration could explore alternative solutions, such as data localisation or third-party audits, to address security concerns while preserving the app’s availability.

The Broader Implications of Both

The developments in both net neutrality and TikTok’s future could be regarded as a reflection of broader tensions in tech governance. For example, whereas the rollback of neutrality rules highlights the growing influence of corporate interests in shaping internet policy, the TikTok case highlights the complex interplay between US national security, free speech, and global economic competition.

Turning Point?

For consumers and businesses alike, these decisions could represent a turning point. Without neutrality protections, the internet risks becoming a space where access and quality are dictated by financial clout. Also, the TikTok debate raises questions about how governments can balance security concerns with the rights of users and companies in a globalised tech ecosystem.

As the dust settles, the outcomes of these cases will likely influence not only US policy but also the global discourse on digital rights and internet regulation. Both issues serve as reminders of the profound impact legal and political decisions have on the digital lives of billions.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The recent rulings on net neutrality and the TikTok ban highlight the evolving and often contentious landscape of internet governance (in the United States). Both cases show the delicate balance policymakers must strike between fostering innovation, protecting national security, and upholding the principles of fairness and free expression.

The decision to block the return of net neutrality appears to signal a significant shift towards a market-driven internet, with ISPs gaining greater autonomy in how they manage their networks. While proponents argue this could spur innovation and competition, critics warn that it risks creating inequities that could disadvantage smaller businesses and marginalised users. The absence of regulation raises the spectre of a tiered internet, where those with financial resources receive preferential access, potentially stifling competition and undermining the democratic ethos of an open web.

Meanwhile, the debate over TikTok highlights the complexity of addressing security concerns in a globalised tech environment. While the app’s Chinese ownership has sparked legitimate fears about data privacy and propaganda, the lack of concrete evidence has raised concerns about overreach and the potential suppression of free speech. Also, President-elect Trump’s intervention introduces a political dimension to the debate, with his own social media presence on TikTok cited as a key consideration. The upcoming Supreme Court decision will be pivotal, not just for TikTok’s future in the US, but for the precedent it sets in handling foreign-owned platforms.

At their core, both cases illuminate the growing tension between corporate and governmental power in the digital age. The rollback of net neutrality highlights the influence of corporate interests on internet policy, while the TikTok ban raises questions about the extent to which governments should intervene in the digital economy. Together, these developments both highlight the profound implications of regulatory decisions on the digital lives of billions.

As these stories unfold, the outcomes will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of internet governance in the US and elsewhere. They serve as a reminder that the policies we adopt today will have far-reaching consequences, influencing not just the accessibility and fairness of the digital landscape but also the broader principles of freedom and equity in the information age.

Apple has agreed to pay $95m (£77m) to settle a lawsuit claiming its Siri virtual assistant recorded users without their consent and shared voice data with advertisers.

The class action, filed in Northern California, accused Apple of eavesdropping through unintentional Siri activations, collecting sensitive voice recordings without permission. Claimants alleged these recordings were then used by advertisers to target users with tailored ads. Apple denies any wrongdoing, maintaining it has never disclosed unauthorised recordings and permanently deleted earlier collected data before October 2019.

Lead plaintiff Fumiko Lopez claimed both she and her daughter were recorded without permission and subsequently targeted with ads for products they had only discussed aloud. The lawsuit highlighted the potential risks of smart devices inadvertently capturing private conversations, sparking privacy concerns among consumers globally.

Under the settlement, US-based claimants who owned Siri-enabled devices between 2014 and 2019 could receive up to $20 per device. However, legal fees and expenses will claim nearly $30m of the settlement, leaving the remainder to be distributed among eligible claimants. By settling, Apple avoids the possibility of a larger payout if the case went to trial.

This case is part of a broader wave of lawsuits challenging tech giants over privacy violations. Apple, while maintaining its commitment to user privacy, has faced multiple class actions in recent years, including a $500m settlement over deliberately slowing iPhones and a UK-led lawsuit over alleged iCloud overcharging.

For Apple, the settlement highlights the growing scrutiny tech companies face regarding data privacy. While the payout is modest for a company with quarterly revenues nearing $95bn, it signals a pressing need for stricter safeguards and transparency in handling user data. For businesses, it serves as a warning, i.e. prioritising user privacy is no longer optional, but essential to maintaining consumer trust.

Apple is under fire for enabling its Enhanced Visual Search feature by default on iOS 18.1 and macOS 15.1 devices, analysing users’ photos for landmarks without prior notice or consent.

The feature uses local machine learning to identify landmarks in photos, encrypts the data, and sends it to Apple’s servers for matching against a global database. Apple claims privacy is safeguarded through homomorphic encryption, differential privacy, and Oblivious HTTP (OHTTP) relays, ensuring it cannot access photo contents or user data.

Critics, however, have flagged transparency and consent issues, suggested that Apple has taken the choice out of users’ hands, and expressed frustration over an alleged lack of timely communication. Concerns have also been raised about metadata possibly being processed before users can disable the feature, even for non-iCloud photos.

Businesses can prevent similar privacy issues by communicating transparently about new features, requiring explicit consent for data sharing, and giving users clear control over their data to build trust and ensure compliance.