logo
Google loses appeal in antitrust battle with Fortnite maker

Google loses appeal in antitrust battle with Fortnite maker

Independent18 hours ago
A federal appeals court has upheld a jury verdict condemning Google 's Android app store as an illegal monopoly, clearing the way for a federal judge to enforce a potentially disruptive shakeup that's designed to give consumers more choices.
The unanimous ruling issued Thursday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivers a double-barreled legal blow for Google, which has been waylaid in three separate antitrust trials that resulted in different pillars of its internet empire being declared as domineering scofflaws monopolies since late 2023.
The unsuccessful appeal represents a major victory for video game maker Epic Games, which launched a legal crusade targeting Google's Play Store for Android apps and Apple's iPhone app store nearly five years ago in an attempt to bypass exclusive payment processing systems that charged 15% to 30% commissions on in-app transactions.
The jury's December 2023 rebuke of Google's app store for Android-powered smartphones began a cascade of setbacks that includes monopoly judgements against the company's ubiquitous search engine last year and the technology underlying its digital ad network earlier this year.
Although not as lucrative as Google's search engine or ad system, the Play Store for Android apps has long been a gold mine that generated billions of dollars in annual revenue by taking a 15% to 30% cut from in-app transactions funneled through the company's own payment processing system.
Following a month-long trial, a nine-person jury determined that Google had rigged its system to thwart alternative app stores from offering better deals to consumers and software developers. That verdict resulted in U.S. District Judge James Donato ordering Google to tear down digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition, triggering the company's appeal to overturn the jury's finding and void the judge's mandated shakeup.
But a three-judge panel that heard Google's appeal in February rejected its lawyers' contention that Donato erred by allowing the case to be determined by a jury that deviated from the market definition outlined by another federal judge who mostly sided with Apple in Epic's case against the iPhone maker's app store.
Epic's lawsuit "was replete with evidence that Google's anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance, causing the Play Store to benefit from network effects," the judges wrote in the decision.
Unless Google can extend the enforcement delay placed on Donato's order issued last October, the company will have to begin an overhaul that includes making the Play Store's entire library of more than 2 million Android apps available to would-be rivals and also help distribute the alternative options. Google has argued that the required revisions will raise privacy and security risks by exposing consumers to scam artists and hackers masquerading as legitimate app stores.
But Epic's lawyers have ridiculed Google's warnings about the changes as scare tactics in a desperate attempt to protect the fortunes of its corporate parent Alphabet Inc.
Although Epic fell short in its attempt to have the iPhone's app store declared a monopoly, that case resulted in a judge issuing an order that required Apple to surrender exclusive control over the payment processing of in-app transactions and allow links to alternative systems without collecting a commission.
Besides being hit with Donato's order, Google still faces further trouble ahead that could leave an even bigger dent in its finances.
As part of the effort to address Google's illegal monopoly in search, a federal judge is weighing a proposal by the U.S. Justice Department that would require the sale of its Chrome web browser and ban the multibillion dollar deals that company has been making with Apple and others to lock-in its search engine as the main gateway to the internet.
Google is also facing a proposed breakup of its advertising technology as part of the countermeasures to its monopoly in that business. A trial on that proposal is scheduled to begin in September.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oakley Meta HSTN vs. Ray-Ban Meta: The Smart Glasses Showdown
Oakley Meta HSTN vs. Ray-Ban Meta: The Smart Glasses Showdown

Geeky Gadgets

time32 minutes ago

  • Geeky Gadgets

Oakley Meta HSTN vs. Ray-Ban Meta: The Smart Glasses Showdown

Smart glasses have transitioned from science fiction to reality, and two standout options in this space are the Meta Oakley HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta. These devices combine advanced technologies such as Meta AI, open-ear audio, and seamless app connectivity, but they cater to distinct user preferences. This detailed comparison video from HotshotTek will help you determine which model best suits your lifestyle and needs. Watch this video on YouTube. Design and Comfort The Ray-Ban Meta emphasizes versatility and style, offering a range of designs, including Wayfarer, Highlander, and Skylers, alongside numerous color and lens options. This makes it an excellent choice for those who prioritize personalization and aesthetics. In contrast, the Oakley HSTN adopts a sporty, performance-driven design with a single frame style. While its initial color options are limited, future releases are expected to expand its variety. Comfort is another critical factor. The Ray-Ban Meta glasses are designed for prolonged wear and are particularly accommodating for users with wider face shapes. On the other hand, the Oakley HSTN may feel tighter on broader faces, making it less ideal for extended use. If your priorities include style and all-day comfort, the Ray-Ban Meta is likely the better option. Camera and Recording Capabilities For those who value high-quality content creation, the Oakley HSTN stands out with its 12MP ultra-wide camera, capable of recording in 3K resolution. This makes it a strong choice for users who need professional-grade photography and videography. In comparison, the Ray-Ban Meta offers 1080p recording, which is sufficient for casual use but falls short for more demanding projects. Both models incorporate advanced features such as HDR, image stabilization, and a 1-second shutter delay to minimize accidental captures. However, if superior resolution is a priority for your creative endeavors, the Oakley HSTN is the clear winner. Battery Life Battery performance is a crucial consideration for any wearable device. The Oakley HSTN excels in this area, offering 7-8 hours of real-world usage compared to the Ray-Ban Meta's 4-5 hours. Both models include charging cases, but the Oakley HSTN's case provides an additional 48 hours of battery life, while the Ray-Ban Meta's case offers 38 hours. For users who require extended battery life for long days or intensive recording sessions, the Oakley HSTN delivers greater reliability and endurance. Audio and Microphone Performance Both models feature open-ear audio technology, allowing you to remain aware of your surroundings while enjoying clear sound quality. Noise cancellation is effective on both devices, making sure crisp audio even in noisy environments. Additionally, their microphones are designed to deliver excellent voice clarity, making them suitable for calls and recordings. Whether you're listening to music, taking calls, or recording audio, both the Oakley HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta provide a comparable and satisfying audio experience. Meta AI Integration Meta AI is a standout feature in both models, offering a range of capabilities that enhance their functionality. These include hands-free commands, live translation, and real-time text message notifications. Additional features such as live streaming, object recognition, and even solving equations using the camera further expand their utility. These AI-driven features make the glasses versatile tools for both professional and personal use, adding significant value to the user experience. Controls and Connectivity Both glasses use intuitive touchpad controls for managing volume, media playback, and activating Meta AI. They also connect seamlessly to the Meta app, where users can customize settings and access features like live streaming. This robust app integration ensures a smooth and user-friendly experience for both models. Storage and Durability With 32GB of internal storage, both models can store up to 100 videos or 500 photos, providing ample space for your media needs. Additionally, their IPX4 water resistance protects against light rain or splashes, making sure durability for everyday use. Potential Drawbacks While both models offer impressive features, they are not without limitations: Neither model includes a 'find my device' feature, increasing the risk of misplacement. The Oakley HSTN 's limited design options and snug fit may not suit all users. 's limited design options and snug fit may not suit all users. Both models record in portrait mode by default, which may require cropping for landscape-oriented content. The anticipated third-generation Ray-Ban glasses, rumored to include significant upgrades, are not yet available. Which Smart Glasses Should You Choose? Your decision between the Oakley HSTN and Ray-Ban Meta ultimately depends on your specific needs and preferences: Oakley HSTN: Best for content creators and professionals who prioritize superior camera resolution and extended battery life. Best for content creators and professionals who prioritize superior camera resolution and extended battery life. Ray-Ban Meta: Ideal for casual users who value stylish designs, personalization, and all-day comfort. Both models represent the forefront of wearable technology, offering a blend of functionality and innovation. Whether you prioritize style, performance, or battery life, these smart glasses are designed to enhance your daily life and keep you connected in a modern, seamless way. Here are more detailed guides and articles that you may find helpful on Meta AI Integration. Source & Image Credit: HotshotTek Filed Under: Gadgets News, Guides, Technology News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.

Why I steer clear of ‘safe' dating apps like Tea
Why I steer clear of ‘safe' dating apps like Tea

The Independent

time32 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Why I steer clear of ‘safe' dating apps like Tea

Say you meet a man: single, charming, intelligent, all his own teeth sort of thing. Then jitters kick in, and you find yourself wondering if he is as perfect as he seems. You go through all the usual channels: Google, LinkedIn, Instagram – possibly even ChatGPT – to see what you can find. His digital footprint is clean, but something still seems… a little off. Maybe it's the way he speaks so vaguely about his childhood, or makes subtle, persistent digs at an ex-girlfriend that even your tireless investigative work hasn't been able to find online. This is where the Tea dating app comes in. Launched in 2023, the US-based platform allows women to share safety information and 'spill the tea' about men they are considering dating. So, in theory, you could meet a man, look him up on the app, and discover that he's married, has a criminal record, or is a potential catfish. Marketing itself as 'the largest women's group chat in the US', Tea lets users 'review' single men in the hope of ensuring safe dating for heterosexual women everywhere. It's popular too, with 1.6 million users to date. Unfortunately, what seemed like a long-awaited, even vital, tool has been attacked. Last week, Tea announced that it had been hacked in a suspected misogynistic backlash, exposing around 72,000 images, including the photo identification of its users. Tea later updated users that some of their direct messages (DMs) had also been accessed by hackers. It has since turned off its messaging functionality, and says it will be offering 'free identity protection services' to any users it identifies as having been exposed. I'm not remotely surprised by any of this. Even before the hacking incident, which has sparked discussion around sensitive information being shared online, Tea was seen as controversial and accused of being fundamentally misandrist. Its intentions were good: founder Sean Cook launched Tea after becoming privy to his mother's online dating experiences. She was catfished and matched with a man who, unbeknownst to her, had criminal records. Tea was designed to rectify this – and in another world, perhaps it could. But in this one, I fear that platforms like this may end up causing more problems than they solve. It's important to know if someone you're about to date has a criminal record, isn't who they say they are, is on a sex offender registry, or has a history of abusive behaviour. But beyond those parameters, do single women really need to know about another woman's – largely subjective – red flags? How is writing off any man because of what his exes have said about him at all helpful? To me, it seems myopic, insulting, and deeply unfair. Many of us behave badly in relationships. It's human nature; we mess up, and that's true of both men and women. I'm sure my exes could rack up a list of terrible things I've said and done, which, taken out of context, could put off any future suitor. But people change. We learn and grow into ourselves, often becoming different versions of who we are in different relationships. Apps like Tea don't allow for that nuance. It's a binary system where bad reviews leave a permanent stain and add to the pessimism characterising the dating landscape, particularly for straight women. Consider the rising popularity of terms like ' heterofatalism ' – used to describe the increasing despair among women who feel there are no 'good men' left. Equally troubling is that app's showcasing of green flags. Just because one man was a great boyfriend to one woman does not guarantee good behaviour with every other female partner. Isn't thinking that it does potentially as risky as going out with someone whose reviews are littered with red flags? In an ideal world, we would all of us – men and women – go on dates with people who've been vetted. There would be no risk of being ghosted, stood up, or manipulated. Sure, it would be lovely. But we don't live in an ideal world, as Tea has neatly reminded us.

Victims of killer self-driving Tesla on autopilot get a huge payout after four-year legal battle
Victims of killer self-driving Tesla on autopilot get a huge payout after four-year legal battle

Daily Mail​

time33 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Victims of killer self-driving Tesla on autopilot get a huge payout after four-year legal battle

A Miami jury has found Tesla was partly responsible for the 2019 crash of a self-driving vehicle that killed a woman and left her boyfriend badly injured to the tune of $242million in damages. Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, died after a Tesla Model S slammed in to her and boyfriend Dillon Angulo, then 27, in 2019. The couple had pulled over to look at the stars at the side of a road near Key Largo, Florida, when they were struck by the vehicle after driver George McGee took his eye off the road to reach for his phone. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Footage from the Tesla's front camera showed McGee blow through a red light as he speeds down the road at nearly 70mph. The car passes a stop sign and crashes through several other road signs before striking the couple's vehicle, which was parked 40 feet off Card Sound Road by County Road 905. Benavides Leon was thrown 75 feet and died at the scene, while Angulo suffered serious injuries, according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Tesla by the woman's estate. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of Leon and for her injured boyfriend Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn´t thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' The decision comes as Elon Musk (pictured) seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today´s verdict is wrong,' Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla´s and the entire industry´s efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla´s compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla´s, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It´s not clear how much of a hit to Tesla´s reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs´ lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla´s decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don´t rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they´re playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn´t crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver´s admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store