Tech companies of a certain size have long expected an easy ride from authorities, and for good reason. They always got it. Apple Inc for years abused loopholes to pay virtually zero tax in the EU while generating record profits there, thanks to special treatment from Ireland, where it bases its European headquarters. Alphabet Inc’s Google for years was able to entrench its dominance in search thanks to the special treatment the company gave its own shopping service over competitors.
Now Google and Apple are getting slapped for those blatantly unfair advantages. The EU is forcing Apple to pay 13 billion euros (US$14.4 billion) in back taxes to the Irish government, and Google to pay a 2.4 billion-euro fine for rigging its platform. For both, it is the end of the line on appeals. Of course, the payments are just a cost of doing business — pocket change, really — and the companies can pat their lawyers on the back for dragging the cases out in court for years with endless appeals.
However, the era of protracted cases is fading. The EU is transitioning to a period where its trust busters can be quicker and, as much as you can use the word to describe regulators, nimble, harnessing a more efficient legal framework to combat anticompetitive behavior from the likes of Alphabet, Apple, Meta Platforms Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Microsoft Corp and Nvidia Corp.
Until now, regulators had to be clever about how they used old, outdated rules to pursue their court cases. It is why proceedings took so long to play out. The European Commission based Apple’s Irish tax case on a misuse of state aid, deploying laws that typically do not have anything to do with tax.
Legally, “it was a very creative approach,” EDHEC Business School’s Augmented Law Institute professor Anne Witt said.
At the heart of the case was figuring out how to prove Ireland was giving Apple selective aid, which was also technically challenging to calculate, Witt added.
However, from this year onward, Europe’s authorities have a whizzy new tool, a regulatory innovation as meaningful to antitrust policy as ChatGPT was to generative artificial intelligence. It is the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a law that large tech platforms had to start complying with in March. With any luck, the EU would not be caught on the back foot quite as much, chasing after wrongdoing with investigations that run longer than it takes to put a child through school.
Now the big tech platforms have clear rules they must follow upfront. For instance, the DMA states that Apple and Google must allow their users to uninstall default apps on their devices, such as Apple Maps and Gmail, to promote competition. Google searches also do not highlight results on Google Maps as easily as they did before.
Instead of drawn-out legal battles and appeals, the DMA should also lead to swifter resolution: fines of as much as 10 percent of a company’s worldwide earnings, for instance. Additionally, instead of narrow investigations such as the Google shopping case, the law covers far more ground, applying to everything from app stores to social media.
Spokespeople for Apple and Google said the companies were “disappointed” with the court decisions this week.
However, Margarethe Vestager, the EU’s outgoing competition chief for whom these cases are a validating swan song, said they showed even the most powerful tech companies can be held accountable.
That is a growing sentiment across the Atlantic, where a US judge ruled last month that Google had rigged the search engine market and was a monopolist — and where for the first time in history, the prospect of breaking up a big tech firm (Google) is looking possible. The goal is to eventually create some more room for smaller companies to innovate and enter markets dominated by the giants, and reduce the pressure to sell to those firms.
For the tech monoliths, the payoff for lobbying lawmakers and keeping watchdogs tied up in court is looking less certain as regulations gather momentum. The DMA is one of the most radical approaches yet for keeping monopolistic practices in check, giving Europeans more control than anyone else in the world over what apps they can put on their smartphones and how their data is shared.
How smoothly that transpires through the end of this year and into the next is still an open question, but it is clear that Apple, Google and other big players would have to start waving goodbye to the advantages they have clung to for far too long.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is the author of We Are Anonymous.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS