the insurance company If:n CR:to the complaint of not coming to a solution for a while yet.we are currently in active dialogue with the OP with the Group , said director Kirsi Leivo Finnish Competition and consumer authority.If doubts of OP financial Group's dominant market position abuse.It did report a request to the end of 2015.Ifiä interested in whether the CR group, the approach of the competition law prohibited restriction of competition and is there a way to tie banking services and insurance services each other the competition law of the spirit.Bake said that the matter of sorting out is the very crucial point it is decided in this context to intervene in OP's bonus system.
Last week came reports that the European Commission intends to request 28 billion in fines by Google that it believes that the company violates competition law. A few months ago denounced the French Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés out a fine of a much more modest amount, EUR 112 000, more than a million. Now, stated the European Commission consider introducing a special tax for the players, like Google, that aggregate content from others. Finally, it is also about tax schemes. Like their counterparts among US IT giants Google is good at finding ways to keep the treasure. The EU Commission is currently examining a tax agreement with the United Kingdom since the amount of 130 million pounds, or 1.5 billion, suspected to be too low.
France s competition authority on Monday opened an inquiry into possible antitrust issues in the online-advertising market, saying it will examine the market power of Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc. s Google.The Autorité de la Concurrence said its inquiry, which it expects to complete next year, will examine the role of the thicket of firms that help advertisers and websites buy and sell ads targeted at people and based on their demographic backgrounds and Web-browsing habits.The probe will also look at whether some firms, including Facebook and Google, have dominant positions in the online advertising market, which continues to grow rapidly.The probe highlights the growing interest by European antitrust regulators in the role played by big Internet companies and the large sets of personal data they collect about individuals.A French sector inquiry doesn t begin with the assumption that there is a market problem that needs resolution or there is anticompetitive behavior.But France s competition authority, one of the world s most active, has at times issued recommendations and launched antitrust probes into companies on the back of such sector inquiries.
Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt Photo by Guillaume Paumier An Alphabet shareholder is suing company executives – including exec chairman Eric Schmidt, CEO Larry Page, and president Sergey Brin – for their roles in Google's EU antitrust case.Robert Jessup has filed suit PDF in a California state court against more than three dozen people, including the Google cofounders and long-time CEO Schmidt, as well as the board of directors and Alphabet itself, under allegations that their actions in Europe represent breach of duty and a waste of corporate assets.Submitted before a San Mateo court, the complaint alleges that the money invested in Alphabet by Jessup and others was put at risk when Google engaged in practices that have led to the EU investigation and possible €3bn fine.The European Commission has accused Alphabet and Google of using their dominant position in the search market and with the Android mobile OS to help push its other services over those of competitors.Jessup, in his claim, argues that by engaging in these actions, Alphabet execs have wronged the company's shareholders."The Company has already incurred and will continue to incur significant damages and costs associated with its EU antitrust violations, including the imposition of remedial measures ordered by the Commission and monetary fines that could total as high as $7.4 billion."
A Utah apartment complex is going one better: instead of squelching negative reviews, owners of the complex are trying to coerce tenants into giving positive feedback.Last week, tenants at City Park Apartments, located in Salt Lake City, received a "Facebook Addendum" posted on their doors, outlining what's expected of them.The predictable results are already rolling in.I don t want to be forced to be someone s friend and be threatened to break my lease because of that, tenant Jason Ring told KSL-TV.In general, contracts that require customers to give up their rights to review services haven't held up in court.In 2003, a New York judge found that a contract barring customers from publishing reviews of software programs "without prior consent" violated that state's unfair competition law.
According to Reuters, the Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Alphabet/Google concerning an advertiser class action.The plaintiff advertisers sued under California s Unfair Competition Law and Fair Advertising Law.They claimed Google had deceived them by failing to disclose the possibility that their ads would potentially show up on so-called parked domains and error pages.In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower federal court, saying that the conduct at issue was the same and that there was a Google-sanctioned formula in place to determine potential damages.The Ninth Circuit cited precedent for the principle that damages calculations alone cannot defeat class certification.Class actions generally favor plaintiffs because they consolidate legal resources and often present the prospect of massive damage awards.
Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt said European governments should work more on promoting entrepreneurs and expanding the economy instead of focusing on protection from US rivals.Speaking at the Brilliant Minds conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Schmidt said Europe should spend less time arguing on zero sum games and trying to protect domestic industries from US technology rivals.Bloomberg quoted Schmidt as saying Google had a "good, healthy relationship with all our regulators."Schmidt said Europe should fix university funding, giving more money to graduate departments to carry out experiments and develop new technology.At the last month's Startup Fest Europe conference in the Netherlands, Schmidt said Google hires people that come out of the European universities.Schmidt was quoted by Business Insider as saying, "Universities themselves are underfunded relative to the American universities, by a lot."
At issue is a delicate political balance in the EU over tech policy between countries, including the U.K. and Nordic and Baltic countries, that favor lighter regulation and others, led by France and Germany, that argue the rise of big global technology firms necessitates new rules to help level the playing field.While most big U.S. tech firms have declined to comment on the vote, some executives acknowledge privately that if the U.K. were to remove or lighten some EU restrictions on, for instance, the use of personal data or corporate tax rules, it might help their U.K. operations.In the case of Brexit, I would be worried about the direction of European technology policy, said Dan Rogers, co-founder of Peakon, a Danish startup that offers employee-analytics platforms to businesses.Without the U.K., it will be very complex I think.Officials in France and Germany, for their part, say that regulatory proposals they have made to rein in big Internet platforms are aimed at giving smaller businesses more of a shot to compete against a new class of gatekeepers.The body s executive arm has alleged that Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., struck sweetheart deals respectively with Ireland and Luxembourg that violate so-called state-aid rules—allegations the countries and the companies deny.
Intel paid the fine in 2009, but is still fighting for a rebateThe Intel logo, displayed on the company's booth at Computex 2015 in Taipei.Then with a 70 percent share of the worldwide x86 processor market, Intel granted exclusivity rebates to four PC and server manufacturers, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC, the Commission found.Intel also made payments to Media-Saturn on condition that the German distributor sold PCs with only Intel processors inside, the Commission said.The court has had plenty of time to study the appeal, the Commission's defense, Intel's reply and the Commission's rejoinder, filed in April 2015.Judgement won't come so quickly, however.First will come a report -- a kind of advisory verdict -- from Nils Wahl, one of the court's Advocates General.
Intel's rearguard action to avoid a billion-Euro-plus fine continued this week in a Luxembourg court, with the company arguing that the 2009 European Commission penalty was unfair.The ancient spat – it began with an October 2000 complaint by AMD – concerns whether or not rebates Intel paid to OEMs to use its processors constitutes anti-competitive conduct.After a supplementary filing by AMD in 2003, the European Commission ground into action in 2004, in an investigation that drew Acer, Dell, Lenovo, HP and NEC into its orbit.After five years, the commission imposed a €1.06 billion-dollar penalty – and in 2012, Intel's formal appeal against the decision was kicked off.Bloomberg quotes the European Commission's lawyer Nicholas Khan as saying the rebate prevented computer makers from seeking out lower prices for processors.No date has been set for a decision, so there's every chance we'll be singing "twenty-one today" to the original filing.
In recent years, the European Commission has been coming down hard on U.S. tech giants with antitrust fines, but Intel is continuing its fight over a 2009 ruling made against it.In the original ruling, the commission, which is the executive arm of the EU, ruled that Intel had abused its position as a dominant chipmaker by offering rebates to PC makers and retailers from 2002 to 2005 that would lower retail prices.Intel counsel Daniel Beard claimed this week in the European Union s Court of Justice that the ruling did not consider all relevant circumstances of Intel s rebate program.As a result, he said, it did not thoroughly investigate whether Intel rivals were truly put at an unfair disadvantage.These kinds of strategies can lead to the marginalization or even the elimination of its only competitor, said Nicholas Khan, a lawyer for the European Commission.By undermining its competitors ability to compete on the merits of their products, Intel s actions undermined competition and innovation, stated the ruling handed down in 2009.
It s the first time the processor manufacturer has visited Chinese courts since losing its 2015 anti-trust case.Last year, after a lengthy investigation into anti-competitive practices by the National Development and Reform Commission in China NDRC , Qualcomm was fined $975 million for abusing its position as market leader over licensing costs and royalties.In addition to the fine — which has the dubious honor of being the largest imposed by Chinese anti-trust authorities — Qualcomm agreed to change its licensing practices.Last year, it also lost a legal battle, when ZTE s Nubia division sued over patents related to the home button design on certain phones.At the end of 2015, Meizu boasted it had sold 20 million smartphones over the year, a massive 350 percent increase over the number reported in 2014.It hoped this would help place the company in China s top five smartphone manufacturers.
View photosMoreThe logo of the German publisher Axel Springer is seen outside its headquarters in Berlin in this August 7, 2013 file photo.REUTERS/Thomas PeterCOLOGNE, Germany Reuters - A German court on Friday handed publisher Axel Springer a partial victory on Friday in its fight against so-called ad-blockers, which users can install on computers or mobile devices to prevent advertising from being shown.But said it did not have objections to ad-blockers as such, confirming earlier rulings.Eyeo said it would appeal against the ruling, which it said depended on "an obscure, newly passed statute in German unfair competition law".Springer hailed the ruling as a victory over what it called an "unacceptably aggressive business practice".As of March, 419 million people, or 22 percent of the world's 1.9 billion smartphone users, were blocking ads on the mobile web, according to Dublin-based analytics and advisory firm PageFair, which develops "ad blocker-friendly" advertising.
Reuters – A German court on Friday handed publisher Axel Springer a partial victory on Friday in its fight against so-called ad-blockers, which users can install on computers or mobile devices to prevent advertising from being shown.The court said ad-blocking provider Eyeo should not charge Axel Springer for putting it on its white list of publishers and advertisers it exempts from blanket blocking by consumers.Springer, which depends on advertising to pay for its publications, is one of the most vocal opponents of ad-blocking software.Last year, the German publisher started banning readers who use ad-blockers from its Bild tabloid website.Eyeo provides software to block all ads but then offers publishers the chance to join a white list to enable ads to be shown on their sites.In most cases, being added to the white list is free subject to a check that the advertising is acceptable, but Eyeo takes a share of the extra revenues the biggest advertisers make.The regional court in Cologne on Friday found Springer not to be one of those larger companies who must pay.But said it did not have objections to ad-blockers as such, confirming earlier rulings.Eyeo said it would appeal against the ruling, which it said depended on an obscure, newly passed statute in German unfair competition law .Springer hailed the ruling as a victory over what it called an unacceptably aggressive business practice .It had appealed against an earlier ruling in favor of Eyeo.Cologne-based Eyeo s Adblock Plus serves the fast-growing market for software to block Internetadvertising that many users find intrusive or interferes with their experience of websites.As of March, 419 million people, or 22 percent of the world s 1.9 billion smartphone users, were blocking ads on the mobile web, according to Dublin-based analytics and advisory firm PageFair, which develops ad blocker-friendly advertising.Reporting by Nikola Rotscheroth and Harro ten Wolde; Editing by Georgina Prodhan
Margrethe Vestager, the European Commission's competition commissioner, speaks at a news conference in Brussels on April 20, 2016.Google may soon be the target of a third set of charges from Europe's top antitrust authority, this time concerning the advertising services that generate the majority of its revenue.The Commission has already filed two previous sets of antitrust charges against Google.The first charges, filed the day the Android antitrust investigation began, concerned the company's comparison shopping service, and grew out of an investigation begun in November 2010.As part of that same initial investigation, the Commission said it would examine whether Google imposed exclusivity obligations on its advertising and distribution partners, or prevented advertisers from moving their campaign data over to competing online advertising platforms, but as time went on it seemed to be losing interest in pressing charges related to the advertising business.If found guilty of abusing a dominant market position, Google could face a fine for each of the charges of up to 10 percent of its worldwide revenue, which last year totaled US$74.5 billion.
The European Commission has asked rival companies to permit disclosure to Google of confidential information they submitted that support allegations that it abuses its dominance in advertising.As in previous antitrust cases, the commission typically circles back to companies to make specific information nonconfidential because it will have to show Google the evidence it has based its charges on.Margrethe Vestager, the EU s antitrust chief, has already slapped Google with formal antitrust charges for allegedly skewing its search results to favor its own shopping service, and more recently in April, over Google s conduct with its Android mobile operating system.The EU is also looking into whether Google restricts advertisers that use Google s auction-based advertising service, where they bid for the placement of ads on search result pages, from moving to other search advertising platforms.The U.S. Federal Trade Commission closed a similar investigation in 2013 after Google committed to removing restrictions imposed on advertisers trying to coordinate their online advertising campaigns across several platforms.News Corp, NWSA -4.81 % publisher of The Wall Street Journal, has filed formal complaints with the commission regarding Google s business practices, including an allegation the U.S. tech giant reinforces its dominance in general search by scraping or copying content from publishers to display the results of news articles.
View photosMoreA 3D printed Apple logo is seen in front of a displayed stock graph in this illustration taken April 28, 2016.REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File PhotoSEOUL Reuters - South Korea's Fair Trade Commission FTC is investigating "some matters" relating to tech giant Apple Inc, the head of the anticompetition body said during a parliamentary hearing, without disclosing further details.Speaking at the hearing on Tuesday, FTC Chairman Jeong Jae-chan declined to comment on the specifics of the regulator's investigation when asked to do so by a South Korean lawmaker.Domestic media reports said earlier this month the FTC was reviewing details of the U.S. firm's contracts with South Korean mobile telecoms carriers.Apple didn't immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Apple Antitrust InvestigationA report on Tuesday morning reveals that South Korea s Fair Trade Commission FTC is investigating some of Apple s business practices in the region.Rumors emerged as recently as last week suggesting that an investigation would soon be underway, and the FTC s head confirmed as much during a parliamentary hearing on Tuesday.Earlier this month, local media including The Korea Times reported that Apple would be targeted in an upcoming FTC investigation.Unnamed sources told the website that Apple was believed to be pressuring some South Korean carriers into purchasing a minimum number of promotional iPhones, though it is unclear how that might violate regulations in the region.Apple hasn t yet commented publicly on the investigation.Thanks to the sharing economy, living in five different cities in five years has never been more doable.
The European Union's antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager has already filed formal antitrust charges against Google, claiming that the company is distorting its search results to benefit its own shopping service.Vestager said that the agency is stepping up its probe into whether Google is resorting to abusive practices with its dominant position in advertising services.In May, The Telegraph reported that Google could face a fine of about €3bn by the European Commission in a long-running antitrust case that alleged company's misuse of its dominant position in the online search market.The European Commission says in its antitrust factsheet: "The starting point for the fine is the percentage of the company's annual sales of the product concerned in the infringement up to 30 percent .This is then multiplied by the number of years and months the infringement lasted.limited involvement .
As one of the largest companies in the world, Apple regularly runs into legal troubles.The Cupertino organization is often caught up in various patent disputes, but it looks as if it s about to face a different problem in South Korea.During a parliamentary hearing, FTC Chairman Jeong Jae-chan refused to discuss the details of the FTC s investigation when asked to do so by lawmakers, Reuters reported.Reports surfaced on South Korean media outlets earlier this month that claimed the FTC was reviewing Apple s contracts with local wireless carriers.The company filed formal antitrust complaints against Samsung in 2012, which claimed the local tech giant was abusing its wireless technology patents to gain an unfair advantage in the competitive mobile industry.The company won a decade old class-action lawsuit in 2014 that accused it of trying to monopolize online music distribution, and it is one of many US companies to face questions over its business practices in Europe.