Connect with us

America

Google avoids breakup in landmark antitrust ruling, faces new restrictions

Published

on

A federal judge has rejected a bid to break up Google for monopolizing online search and advertising markets, instead imposing more modest restrictions to limit the company’s power.

In a closely watched antitrust case pitting the US government against one of the world’s largest technology companies, District Judge Amit Mehta on Tuesday denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and Android products.

However, Mehta agreed with the government that Google must allow competitors to gain a foothold in the market and ordered the company to make more limited changes.

Google will now be required to share some of its search data with rivals and is prohibited from making deals that establish its products, including artificial intelligence, as the “default tools” on mobile devices.

Mehta’s opinion is considered the most significant antitrust ruling concerning the business practices of Big Tech companies since a federal judge’s failed attempt to break up Microsoft in the early 2000s.

Legal experts predict that Google will appeal the decision, which could eventually be reviewed by the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, Google announced that it was concerned by Mehta’s opinion and was reviewing the decision.

The lawsuit, which began during Trump’s first administration, offers a glimmer of hope for other technology companies, including Meta, Amazon, and Apple, that are also facing the risk of being broken up.

This decision was the first of two major antitrust cases Google has faced this year. In the other case, also filed by the Department of Justice, its advertising technology business is at risk of being divested.

The technology sector, particularly the handful of giants that now dominate the digital economy and are the world’s most valuable companies, has faced a series of antitrust pressures under both President Trump and President Joe Biden.

The European Union has also attempted to intervene, using strong online antitrust rules to regulate an industry that the US created and supported with a more “hands-off” approach.

However, it remains unclear how aggressively either government will continue to pursue this issue. Tech CEOs are trying to curry favor with Trump by promising to invest in US projects and donate to his inauguration fund should he win a second term.

Attorney General Pam Bondi praised Judge Mehta’s opinion on Tuesday, stating that the administration “will continue its legal efforts to hold companies accountable for monopolistic practices.”

In Europe, Google received a last-minute reprieve from a penalty for its practice of placing online ads in search results.

The intervention by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič to delay the fine came as Trump threatened to block the sale of chips and other technology to countries he said were discriminating against American companies.

Looming over many of the cases targeting the largest tech companies is the question of how to apply long-standing antitrust law to a new type of business, like Google, that offers its services to consumers for free.

Bill Kovacic, an antitrust law professor at George Mason University who served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at the end of the George W. Bush administration, said this case demonstrates that the federal government can win by applying old competition laws to modern digital markets.

In August 2024, Mehta had ruled that Google illegally captured 90% of the internet search market by partnering with iPhone maker Apple to become the default search provider in the Safari web browser.

This agreement essentially excluded potential competitors. Google had made similar deals with phone manufacturers and mobile carriers like Samsung and Verizon. Mehta also found that Google had illegally monopolized the market for ads displayed alongside search results.

Mehta’s decision also points to how the technology sector has changed since the case began in October 2020, prohibiting Google from making Gemini its default AI product on mobile devices.

The ruling notes that the generative AI (GenAI) market is significantly more competitive than the search market, listing models from competitors such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic.

Mehta’s initial ruling was delivered after a 10-week trial, followed by a remedies hearing in April. During the second hearing, the Department of Justice asked Mehta to break up the company to dismantle its illegal monopoly.

Other significant antitrust cases that could fundamentally change how the technology sector operates in America and around the world are also pending.

These lawsuits and investigations have emerged as lawmakers and regulators worry that tech companies will corner the artificial intelligence market just as they have in e-commerce, social media, and online search.

Amazon is set to go to trial in early 2027 over allegations that it stifles competition to defraud sellers and consumers, offering a poor shopping experience filled with confusing ads.

Apple faces allegations that by selling billions of iPhones since 2007, it has locked users into its products through designs intended to increase costs for consumers, developers, and artists. Discovery and evidence gathering in that case will continue until early 2027.

Chipmaker Nvidia is the subject of a Department of Justice investigation over its acquisition of the artificial intelligence startup Run:ai.

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

on

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

on

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

on

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey