Posts

netflix

Trump Says Netflix’s WBD Deal ‘Could Be a Problem’ Amid Hostile Paramount Bid

/in /by

President Donald Trump cast fresh doubt Sunday night on Netflix’s surprise move to buy major pieces of Warner Bros. Discovery, signaling that the massive entertainment deal may face significant scrutiny from his administration. Speaking on the Kennedy Center red carpet, Trump said the acquisition “could be a problem” given the size of the streaming platform’s footprint.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, when asked directly whether regulators should allow the transaction, Trump replied, “Well, that’s the question.”

“They have a very big market share. And when they have Warner Brothers, you know, that share goes up a lot. So, I don’t know, that’s going to be for some economists to tell. I’ll be involved in that decision, too.”

Netflix’s proposed purchase, announced Friday, would include WBD’s famed film studio and streaming properties such as HBO Max and comes with an enterprise value of roughly $83 billion. A senior Trump administration official told CNBC that the White House is looking at the proposal with “heavy skepticism.”

Trump also remarked that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, whom he met with in the Oval Office last week, made “no guarantees” about the outcome of the merger. Still, Trump offered praise.

Embed from Getty Images

“He’s a great person. He’s done one of the greatest jobs in the history of movies and other things, and he’s got a lot of interesting things happening, aside from what you’re talking about. But it is a big market share. There’s no question. It could be a problem.”

The uncertainty around Netflix’s bid has opened an opportunity for rivals. Paramount and Skydance announced Monday that they are moving ahead with a hostile effort to purchase all of WBD after losing out to Netflix in the initial round.

David Ellison, Skydance’s CEO, told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” “We’ve had great conversations with the president about this, but I don’t want to speak for him.” His father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, is a longtime Trump ally.

Paramount disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that its offer is being supported in part by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former White House advisor, through his firm Affinity Partners. The filing further revealed that investment funds tied to Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are also participating.

Embed from Getty Images

According to the document, Affinity Partners and the Gulf state investors “have agreed to forgo any governance rights,  including board representation, associated with their non-voting equity investments.” Because of that structure, the filing argues, “the Transaction will not be within CFIUS’s jurisdiction,” referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The competing bids come as lawmakers and industry competitors raise alarms about potential anticompetitive effects. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called the proposed Netflix–WBD deal “an anti-monopoly nightmare.” Paramount, in a recent letter cited by The Wall Street Journal, warned WBD’s legal team that any sale to Netflix would “never close” due to expected regulatory challenges both domestically and abroad.

Comcast had also explored acquiring WBD’s film and streaming divisions before Netflix emerged as the preferred buyer.

WBD, meanwhile, has laid out broader restructuring plans. Alongside the potential asset sale to Netflix or Paramount, the company intends to spin out Discovery Global — a new entity encompassing CNN, TNT Sports, and Discovery-branded channels.

credit card

Visa and Mastercard Settle 20-Year Swipe-Fee Dispute With Merchants

/in /by

Visa and Mastercard have reached a revised settlement with U.S. merchants who spent two decades accusing the card giants and their partner banks of inflating fees to process credit card payments. The new agreement comes months after a federal judge dismissed an earlier $30 billion proposal, calling it insufficient.

The latest accord aims to end the long-running antitrust battle that began when merchants claimed the card networks conspired to maintain high “swipe fees,” also known as interchange fees. These fees are paid each time a customer swipes or taps a card.

Under the new proposal, Visa and Mastercard would reduce swipe fees, which typically range from 2% to 2.5% by 0.1 percentage point for a period of five years.

Merchants would also gain the right to choose which types of cards to accept. Categories include commercial cards, standard consumer cards, and premium or rewards cards.

Rates for standard consumer cards would be capped at 1.25% for eight years, a reduction of more than 25%. Businesses would also have expanded options to add surcharges when customers pay with credit cards.

Despite the new concessions, some of the nation’s largest merchant groups argue that the deal still falls short of their expectations.

The National Retail Federation (NRF) and the Merchants Payments Coalition, among others, have voiced strong opposition, insisting the settlement fails to address the very concerns that led U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie in Brooklyn to reject the previous version in June 2024.

The previous $30 billion proposed settlement had promised a modest 0.07 percentage point reduction in fees over five years, along with more leeway for merchants to impose surcharges.

Embed from Getty Images

Judge Brodie dismissed that version as insufficient, saying it would still leave fees above competitive levels and describing the projected $6 billion in annual merchant savings as “paltry.”

She also criticized the plan’s continuation of the controversial “Honor All Cards” rule, which forces merchants to accept every Visa and Mastercard product—or none at all.

Merchants have also long accused the networks of using “anti-steering” rules to prevent them from encouraging customers to choose cheaper payment methods.

Stephanie Martz, general counsel for the NRF, pointed out the unique position of power that card companies hold over businesses.

“You can’t just suddenly tell more than 80% of your card customers you’re not going to take their cards. You would lose a lot of business.”

According to NRF data, swipe fees in the U.S. totaled $111.2 billion in 2024, up from $100.8 billion in 2023, and roughly four times higher than in 2009.

“This is the third attempt to settle this case, and the card industry either just doesn’t get it or just doesn’t care. Once again, this proposal is all window dressing and no substance. The reduction in swipe fees doesn’t begin to go far enough, and the change in the honor-all-cards rule would accomplish nothing. If the courts can’t fix this, it’s time for Congress to take action.”

Although the overall settlement value has not been disclosed, it’s expected to exceed the earlier deal.

In a statement to CNN, Visa, headquartered in San Francisco, said the agreement will ultimately give businesses more agency over their payment structures.

Embed from Getty Images

“After more than 20 years of litigation, Visa and Mastercard have reached a proposed settlement with U.S. merchants of all sizes that would provide meaningful relief, more flexibility and options to control how they accept payments from their customers.”

Mastercard, based in Purchase, New York, echoed the sentiment, noting that “smaller merchants will gain in this settlement – more acceptance choices, reduced costs and simplified rules.”

“Even more, it allows us to focus our energies on continuing to give consumers, small businesses, and larger merchants what they expect from Mastercard – a better payments experience, strong value and peace of mind,” the company told Fox Business.

Neither company admitted wrongdoing as part of the deal. Shares of both card networks rose less than 1% in morning trading.

While retailers remain skeptical, the Electronic Payments Coalition, which represents major card issuers such as Bank of America, Chase, Capital One, and Citibank, is firmly in support of the settlement.

Its executive chairman, Richard Hunt, said the accord would actually reduce swipe fees more effectively than a bipartisan Senate bill proposed by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), legislation that much of the banking industry opposes.

“You tell me the last time Walmart reduced any of its prices by more than 25%, and kept it for eight years.”

However, Doug Kantor, general counsel for the National Association of Convenience Stores and a member of the Merchants Payments Coalition’s executive committee, argued the deal doesn’t go far enough.

The settlement doesn’t give banks any incentive to lower rates, Kantor said. It lets Visa and Mastercard, “without any limitation,” raise theirs. “Merchants ought to be able to negotiate and get prices set with different banks, but this settlement prohibits that.”

facebook

Zuckerberg Testifies in Landmark Antitrust Trial Against Meta

/in /by

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared as the first witness in a landmark antitrust trial defending his company, which owns Facebook, against accusations that it holds a monopoly in the social media industry. The trial is anticipated to last for another two months.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated the case in 2020, alleging Meta unfairly cemented its dominance in the market by acquiring Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. The FTC aims to dismantle Meta by requiring the spin-off of Instagram or WhatsApp. In his opening statements Monday, Daniel Matheson, lead attorney for the FTC, stated, “There’s nothing wrong with Meta innovating. It’s what happened next that is a problem.”

Dressed in a dark suit and pale blue tie, Zuckerberg took the stand Monday, where he argued that there were enough competitors in the space, citing TikTok, YouTube, and X as significant rivals.

Central to the FTC’s case are internal emails from Zuckerberg dating back to 2011, in which he noted Instagram’s rapid growth. Another email in 2012 revealed Zuckerberg’s concern that his company was falling “so far behind that we don’t even understand how far behind we are… I worry that it will take us too long to catch up.”

“Acquiring these competitive threats has enabled Facebook to sustain its dominance—to the detriment of competition and users—not by competing on the merits, but by avoiding competition.”

On the stand, Zuckerberg dismissed these as “relatively early” thoughts on acquiring the app and emphasized that Meta substantially enhanced Instagram post-acquisition.

Zuckerberg further insisted that Instagram’s appeal was its advanced camera technology rather than its social networking capabilities and maintained that the company sought acquisitions to enhance its services rather than stifle competition.

Embed from Getty Images

“Acquisitions to improve and grow have never been found unlawful, and they should not be found unlawful here,” Meta’s lead lawyer, Mark Hansen, argued. He characterized the FTC lawsuit as “misguided” and insisted that Meta “acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to improve and grow them alongside Facebook.”

“How can the FTC maintain this monopolization case when [Meta] has never charged users a cent?”

However, Matheson highlighted how Zuckerberg spoke about “neutralizing” Instagram, calling it “a smoking gun” back in his 2012 memo.

“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them.”

Meta, boasting 3.27 billion daily active users across its platforms as of last year, anticipates Instagram will generate more than half of its U.S. advertising revenue in 2025, according to market research firm Emarketer. “Instagram has also been picking up the slack for Facebook on the user front, particularly among young people, for a long time,” Emarketer analyst Jasmine Enberg told the Associated Press.

“The trial also comes as Meta is trying to bring back OG Facebook in an effort to appeal to Gen Z and younger users as they join social media. Social media usage is far more fragmented today than it was in 2012 when Facebook acquired Instagram, and Facebook isn’t where the cool college kids hang out anymore. Meta needs Instagram to continue growing, especially as more advertisers think Instagram-first with their Meta budgets.”

The trial unfolds amidst claims that Zuckerberg actively sought former President Trump’s intervention to dismiss the FTC’s case. The Wall Street Journal reported meetings between Zuckerberg and Trump, coinciding with Meta’s notable actions favoring Trump and his allies.

Embed from Getty Images

These include a $1 million donation to Trump’s inaugural fund, the appointment of Trump ally and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) president Dana White and former Trump advisor Dina Powell McCormick to Meta’s board. In January, Meta rolled back content moderation policies frequently criticized by Republicans as censorship. Additionally, Meta agreed to pay Trump $25 million to settle litigation over his account suspension following the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot.

When asked by the BBC to confirm Zuckerberg’s lobbying efforts, Meta spokesperson Chris Sgro avoided a direct response, instead focusing on the broader impact of any decision.

“Regulators should be supporting American innovation, rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI.”

“The FTC’s lawsuit against Meta defies reality. The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others.”

This trial coincides with another significant antitrust case against Google. The Department of Justice recently succeeded in establishing Google’s monopoly over online search, where they hold a market share of around 90%, prompting ongoing discussions about potential divestitures.

However, experts like Laura Phillips-Sawyer, an associate professor of business law at the University of Georgia, suggest the FTC faces greater difficulty proving Meta’s market dominance, highlighting the comparatively competitive landscape in the social networking industry.

“I think they have a real uphill battle. They have a long road before any consideration of divestiture of Instagram or WhatsApp is considered.”

Amazon and Apple also remain subjects of ongoing antitrust litigation by U.S. authorities.

jetblue

Justice Department Files Lawsuit to Block JetBlue’s Acquisition of Spirit Airlines

/in , /by

The United States Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to halt JetBlue’s $3.8 billion bid to acquire Spirit Airlines. It has been over 20 years since the government last intervened to prevent a merger between US airlines.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the lawsuit on Tuesday. President Joe Biden’s administration has long advocated for increased competition among businesses, particularly in the airline industry, to protect consumers and reduce prices

Spirit Airlines is well-known for providing customers with affordable flight options and is the country’s largest ultra-low-cost competitor to major carriers. Garland is concerned that the merger will negatively impact customers who rely on the company’s affordable fares.

“If not blocked, the merger of JetBlue and Spirit would result in higher fares and fewer choices for tens of millions of travelers across the country. The Justice Department is suing to prevent that from happening. Companies in every industry should understand by now that this Justice Department will not hesitate to enforce antitrust laws and protect American consumers.”

Within the last 22 years, five airline mergers have been allowed by the Justice Department, resulting in the consolidation of nine major airlines into four national carriers in the United States (American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines). Currently, around 80% of all domestic flights in the U.S. are serviced by just four airlines.

JetBlue argues that the new merger would create a stronger competitor to those four major airlines, causing fares to fall rather than rise. According to JetBlue, due to the four airlines dominating the U.S. market, JetBlue and Spirit can only compete with each other rather than larger carriers.

However, according to the lawsuit, average fares on routes have fallen by 17% once Spirit began to serve them.

Embed from Getty Images

To foster healthy competition, the company has proposed forfeiting landing and takeoff slots and gates at overcrowded airports to other low-cost airlines.

“The combination of JetBlue and Spirit plus the rapid growth of ultra-low-cost carriers will assure increased competition and low fares,” JetBlue said in a statement.

“JetBlue’s combination with Spirit allows it to create a compelling national challenger to these dominant airlines while also ensuring ultra-low-cost carrier options remain available in overlap markets. While JetBlue, with its highly unique combination of low fares and great service, will be able to expand with new national breadth as a result of the transaction, it will remain a significantly smaller player than each of the Big Four airlines. According to the data, a combined JetBlue and Spirit will have only about 9% market share, compared to about 16-24% for each of the four largest airlines, but the added scale and ability to further grow will result in meaningful competition on more routes to more destinations and greater opportunities for Crewmembers and Team Members of both airlines.”

JetBlue plans to close its deal with Spirit by the year’s end and hopes to get the lawsuit dismissed by then. The merger would form the fifth-largest airline in the U.S.. JetBlue has also spent the past 18 months defending itself against a separate lawsuit brought forward by the Justice Department alleging its Northeast alliance with American Airlines is predatory.

The Justice Department claims that the two airlines conspired to increase prices and limit options for travelers flying to and from major Northeastern cities in the United States. The companies traded information on flight schedules, pilot rosters, and aircraft sizes to use for each flight. They also shared revenues earned at these airports and pooled their gates and takeoff/landing authorizations.

“Approximately 75% of JetBlue’s total capacity is tied up in the Northeast Alliance,” the Justice Department stated in the recent lawsuit.

“That means JetBlue today coordinates its capacity decisions and shares its revenues with American Airlines on the vast majority of its flights. In other words, JetBlue no longer competes with American Airlines on those flights — and if this acquisition happens, Spirit won’t either.”

Embed from Getty Images

Initially, Spirit Airlines was opposed to the merger with JetBlue on the grounds that it would increase fares and therefore present too many obstacles for regulatory approval. Instead, it planned to merge with Frontier Airlines—another ultra-low-cost airline carrier. However, it has now abandoned that plan since JetBlue outbid Frontier Airlines.

In his statement, Garland referenced the Spirit Airlines board’s statement back when they opposed the merger with JetBlue.

“A court will be very concerned that a JetBlue-Spirit combination will result in a higher cost, higher fare airline that would eliminate a lower cost, lower fare airline and eliminate about half of lower cost capacity in the United States.”

“We agree,” Garland added after reading the quote.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division stated, “This transaction occurs against the backdrop of years of airline consolidation in the United States.”

“JetBlue’s proposed acquisition of Spirit eliminates a disruptive, low-cost option for millions of Americans. Whether they fly Spirit or not, travelers throughout the United States benefit from an independent Spirit because where Spirit competes, other airlines – including JetBlue – are forced to compete more vigorously by lowering fares, offering greater innovations and delivering more consumer choice.”

The Justice Department and two other federal agencies—the Department of Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission—will need to approve the deal before it can be finalized. However, the decision ultimately rests with the federal courts that will hear the case.

google

Texas Sues Google Over Facial Data Collection

/in , /by

The state of Texas is suing Google for illegally collecting Texans’ facial and voice recognition information without their consent, according to a statement issued by the state attorney general’s office on Thursday.

For over a decade, a Texas consumer protection law has barred companies from collecting data on Texans’ faces, voices or other biometric identifiers without receiving prior informed consent. Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, said Google violated this law by recording identifiers such as “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or record of hand or face geometry.”

“In blatant defiance of that law, Google has, since at least 2015, collected biometric data from innumerable Texans and used their faces and their voices to serve Google’s commercial ends. Indeed, all across the state, everyday Texans have become unwitting cash cows being milked by Google for profits.”

The law imposes a $25,000 fine for every violation. According to reports, millions of users in Texas had their information stored. The complaint explicitly references the Google Photos app, Google’s Nest camera, and Google Assistant as means of collection.

Embed from Getty Images

A spokesman for Google, José Castañeda, accused Paxton of “mischaracterizing” products in “another breathless lawsuit.”

“For example, Google Photos helps you organize pictures of people by grouping similar faces, so you can easily find old photos. Of course, this is only visible to you, and you can easily turn off this feature if you choose and we do not use photos or videos in Google Photos for advertising purposes. The same is true for Voice Match and Face Match on Nest Hub Max, which are off-by-default features that give users the option to let Google Assistant recognize their voice or face to show their information. We will set the record straight in court.”

This lawsuit is the latest in a string of major cases brought against the company. Earlier this month, Arizona settled a privacy suit against Google for $85 million. Indiana, Washington and the District of Columbia also sued Google in January over privacy invasions related to location tracking.

In a much larger antitrust case, 36 states filed a lawsuit against Google in July over its control of the Android app store.

Paxton has gone after large technology corporations in the past for their privacy and monopolizing practices. In 2020, his office joined nine other states in filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google, which accused it of “working with Facebook Inc. in an unlawful manner that violated antitrust law to boost its already-dominant online advertising business.”

Embed from Getty Images

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, Paxton demanded Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google to be transparent about their content moderation procedures. This year, he also opened an investigation into Twitter over its reported percentage of fake accounts, saying that the company may be disingenuous about its numbers to inflate its value and raise its revenue.

In February, Paxton sued Meta for facial recognition software it provided users to help tag photos. The lawsuit is ongoing. However, Instagram is now required to ask for permission to analyze Texans’ facial features to properly use facial filters.

“Google’s indiscriminate collection of the personal information of Texans, including very sensitive information like biometric identifiers, will not be tolerated. I will continue to fight Big Tech to ensure the privacy and security of all Texans.”

In 2009, Texas revealed its privacy law, which covered biometric identifiers. Other states were implementing similar laws around the country during this same time. Texas was unique in that in the case of violations, the state of Texas would have to sue on behalf of the consumers.

Zillow Facing Antitrust Lawsuit After Accusations Of Favoring Certain Listings 

/in , /by

A real estate startup company is suing Zillow within a federal court over allegations that the website is violating antitrust laws by “deceptively steering customers to home listings from a subset of agents.” 

The suit was filed in a US federal court in Seattle in which the startup Rex alleges that Zillow and its affiliate Trulia are illegally favoring certain listings by brokers who belong to the National Association of Realtors (NAR); the most prominent US real estate trade association. The startup has claimed that non-NAR real estate agents are now located in a “hidden tab” on the website. 

Embed from Getty Images

Rex’s general council Mike Toth was recently interviewed to discuss the suit regarding one of the nation’s most popular real estate listing websites. “The change by Zillow and Trulia forces all non-NAR listings to have permanent low visibility. This is the real estate web returning to this old vision of data segregation rather than data democratization for consumers.”

The suit could potentially shift the way in which certain online real estate platforms operate and allow more opportunities to arise for more buyers and sellers to negotiate the type of agent they want. Zillow and Trulia account for 75% of the online home search market in America, and when they made changes to their sites in the beginning of January, listings began being segregated to hidden areas of the site. 

“Zillow and Trulia started segregating listings, giving preferential treatment to the 1.3 million real estate agents who belong to NAR. Other listings, including those posted by brokers not affiliated with NAR, foreclosures and homes listed for sale by owners without agents, are now relegated to a separate tab. We are asking the court to block Zillow and Trulia from segregating listings,” Rex claimed. 

Embed from Getty Images

NAR has their own real estate listing site, Realtor.com, which is the second-most viewed site for agents throughout the nation. That platform is known for only showing listings by NAR’s agents, and understandably so considering it’s their own website. So the issue now is that the changes Zillow and Trulia made means that three out of the four most popular real estate listing sites are favored for NAR’s agents and their listings exclusively. 

Those listings in particular tend to be more expensive because they require the seller to pay a commission, often 6% of the homes sale price, which is split between the agents of the buyer and seller. Rex has now raised these antitrust concerns with the Justice Department and 35 state attorney generals. 

Viet Shelton is a spokesperson for Zillow who claims the company “made the change in January after it became a participant in the Multiple Listing Services Internet Data Exchange feeds, which are operated by NAR. Zillow’s rules for the IDX feeds require participants to segregate listings. Zillow is committed to giving consumers the most up-to-date housing information on the most amount of listings possible on a single platform. We made changes to the way some listings appear on the site in order to be compliant with MLS rules.” The suit will likely begin unfolding within the next month or so.

Technology

Tech Companies Face Threat of Regulators

/in , /by

As time goes on, the cutting edge of technology has proven to become an essential part of our daily lives. As such, the massive corporations that produce this technology continue to grow even bigger and more influential. Amazon, for instance, plans to fill 30,000 open positions in the United States before the end of the year, and Google’s Android operating system powers roughly half of all smartphones. As these companies grow more powerful, so too do their potential to commit business practices that are anti-competitive or infringe upon the rights of consumers. Accordingly, some governmental bodies are initiating antitrust investigations against Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google in response to concerns about corruption and fraud.

Amazon dominates the online shopping market by offering a massive selection of products, lower prices than its competitors, and a Prime membership that includes free two-day shipping as well as unlimited access to streaming music and video content. In addition to its own products, the company sells products from Amazon warehouses as well as through third-parties. However, the company has recently come under fire due to claims that it unfairly promotes its own products over products by other manufacturers in search results and in its recommendation algorithm. More specifically, Italy’s antitrust authority is investigating whether or not the company gives preferential treatment to retailers that use Amazon’s fulfillment network, rather than outside shipping and handling services. Amazon claims that the reason these retailers do better on the site is that their consumers prefer their fulfillment network to others, but investigators are skeptical.

Embed from Getty Images

Similarly, Apple has drawn controversy over the iron-clad grip the company maintains over its App Store, which requires developers to adhere to strict guidelines and which seems to highlight apps developed by Apple more prominently than apps developed by third parties. The company maintains that it has the right to curate content on its marketplace as stringently as it pleases, and does so to reduce the incidence of fraudulent or otherwise harmful applications. However, regulators worry that this practice unfairly mitigates the potential success of competing developers, and several software companies, such as Spotify, have issued formal complaints.

Facebook, on the other hand, is facing criticism for its history of acquiring smaller social networking services and integrating them into their platform, expanding their reach and influence. The Federal Trade Commission is looking into the company’s pattern of acquiring other businesses, including Instagram and WhatsApp, to determine whether these purchases constituted anticompetitive practices. Given the company’s dominance in the realm of social networks, it’s challenging for smaller start-ups to gain traction, and potentially even more so in the event of violations of antitrust laws.

Embed from Getty Images

Google, too, has been accused of modifying its search result pages unfairly, giving the impression of presenting content objectively while actually giving prominence to results that benefit the company financially. As time has progressed and the company’s business model evolved, the search engine transitioned from mostly providing users with links to other websites towards responding to users’ search queries directly. While this approach serves consumers better and more quickly, it also raises questions about whether this monopolization of information in search results creates an opportunity for the company to shape public opinion for the company’s benefit. Both the FTC and the European Union have investigated Google; the company settled with the former organization, which did not conclude there was harm to customers, and the EU fined Google for favoring its shopping service over others. Additionally, given the near-total dominance of Android among smartphone manufacturers that are not Apple, there are concerns that the company is a monopoly in this field.

This article is based on information from the New York Times article, How Each Big Tech Company May Be Targeted by Regulators.