TikTok removes Russian state media accounts for ‘covert influence’ operations
TikTok removed accounts linked to Russian state media outlets for allegedly engaging in covert influence operations ahead of the U.S. election. TikTok previously restricted the Russian state media accounts’ visibility in the European Union and United Kingdom.
The social media company cited violations of community guidelines, particularly the ban on deceptive behavior. TikTok defined these alleged Russian operations as “coordinated, inauthentic behavior” where account networks collaborate to mislead users and influence public discourse.
The platform’s move coincides with federal charges against two employees at RT, a Russian state-controlled TV network, accused of running a $10 million project to promote Russia-aligned narratives while concealing the funding source.
Meta recently implemented a global ban on RT and other Russian state media networks. Facebook and Instagram’s parent company cited deceptive tactics used for online influence campaigns.
The Kremlin claimed that tech companies are “discrediting themselves” by banning Russian networks.
Meanwhile, TikTok itself faces a potential ban in the United States due to data security concerns.
Some other social media platforms, such as X, have maintained a different stance, allowing RT and Sputnik accounts to remain active.
EU to guide Apple in providing support for third-party headphones, watches
The European Commission, a branch of the European Union, wants to ensure Apple products like iPhones and iPads interact properly with headphones and smartwatches not designed by Apple. This is something Apple must comply with under the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
The commission announced Friday, Sept. 20, it is starting two “specification proceedings to assist Apple in complying with its interoperability obligations.” But first, what is interoperability?
Amazon Web Services has a good primer on the subject. It says: “Interoperability refers to the standards, protocols, technologies, and mechanisms that allow data to flow between diverse systems with minimal human intervention. It allows diverse systems to talk to each other and share information in real time.”
Under Article 6 of the DMA, “gatekeepers,” which are large digital companies the EU deems to have the most impact on the digital economy — of which Apple is one — must provide free and effective interoperability to third-party developers and businesses. In this case, the EU refers to those who have developed hardware and software features controlled by Apple’s operating systems.
The first proceeding focuses on iOS features and functions such as “notifications, device pairing, and connectivity.” The commission said companies offering third-party products “depend on effective interoperability with Apple’s phones and systems.”
The second proceeding focuses on the process Apple has set up to address interoperability requests submitted by developers. The commission said it is “crucial that the request process be transparent, timely, and fair.”
The commission said it would conclude the proceedings within six months, at which point it will explain its findings to Apple and release a non-confidential summary to the public. Should Apple ultimately not comply with the DMA obligations, it faces up to a fine of 10% of its global annual turnover.
“To comply with the DMA, we’ve also created ways for apps in the European Union to request additional interoperability with iOS and iPads while protecting our users,” Apple said. “Undermining the protections we’ve built over time would put European consumers at risk, giving bad actors more ways to access their devices and data.”
In a statement along with the EU’s announcement, the European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager spoke about keeping digital markets fair:
“Today is the first time we use specification proceedings under the DMA to guide Apple towards effective compliance with its interoperability obligations through constructive dialogue. We are focused on ensuring fair and open digital markets. Effective interoperability, for example with smartphones and their operating systems, plays an important role in this. This process will provide clarity for developers, third parties and Apple. We will continue our dialogue with Apple and consult third parties to ensure that the proposed measures work in practice and meet the needs of businesses.”
Apple said it will continue to work constructively with the commission on a path forward that protects both its European users and clarifies the regulation.
EU using funds from seized Russian assets to aid Ukraine’s energy sector
As the conflict in Ukraine stretches on, about half of the nation’s energy infrastructure is estimated to have been destroyed as a result of Russia’s invasion. In response, the European Union (EU) is stepping up efforts to help ensure that Ukrainians have access to electricity and heating during the upcoming harsh winter months, when temperatures can plummet to an average of 23 degrees Fahrenheit.
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen is visiting Ukraine on Friday, Sept. 20, to pledge $180 million to aid in the restoration of the country’s decimated energy sector.
The EU announced that the funds would be sourced from the proceeds of seized Russian assets, with von der Leyen saying “It is only right that Russia pays for the destruction it caused.”
“As temperatures are dropping down, the European Union is ready to step up its support to Ukraine,” von der Leyen said. “We are preparing for the winter together.”
Since the onset of the Russian invasion in 2022, the EU estimates that it has provided over $2 billion in energy-related support to Ukraine. A report earlier this year by the Ukrainian government, World Bank Group, European Commission and United Nations estimated it would require a total of $11 billion to completely rebuild the nation’s power sector.
State of calamity declared in Portugal, wildfires consume nearly 40,000 acres
Portugal is battling one of its worst wildfire outbreaks in recent years, with more than 100 fires stretching the resources of thousands of firefighters and volunteers to their limits. The outbreak turned deadly this week during the week of Sept. 15, with seven lives lost and dozens of injuries.
The lives of four firefighters and three civilians, including a volunteer firefighter, were lost this week. Now, a state of calamity has been declared by Portuguese Prime Minister Luis Montenegro in the hardest hit areas. He’s mobilized additional resources, calling on police to intensify efforts to find the arsonists responsible for sparking the fires.
The Portuguese government has also pledged support for those who have lost their homes or been evacuated. So far, police have arrested seven men suspected of involvement.
Meanwhile, environmental experts are pointing to climate change and the abandonment of traditional farming methods as key contributors to the scale of the wildfires.
Weather has also been a factor in the spread of the fire. Consistent winds on Monday, Sept. 16, around 45 mph have been a key contributor to the spread of the flames as well, with high temperatures and very low humidity.
Since the fires erupted over the weekend, an area roughly the size of 90,000 football fields has been scorched across mainland Portugal. The fires have reduced entire villages to ash, with local residents joining firefighters in battling the flames however they can, with buckets, hoses, rakes and even tree branches.
The European Union has also has stepped in, deploying planes and firefighters from Spain, France and Italy. Even Morocco recently sent aircraft to assist in dousing the flames. Despite international support, the thick smoke and winds are hampering air operation, with visibility in some areas greatly reduced.
In a televised address, the prime minister warned that the situation was far from over, calling for continued support from Portugal’s European neighbors.
Does EU content moderation law impact free speech in America?
Does a European Union law regulating online content impact free speech in America? House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is concerned the law might have an impact and he is going to receive a briefing from the European Commission on the subject.
It all started with the interview between Elon Musk and Donald Trump on X in August. Just before the interview, European Commission member Thierry Breton sent an open letter to Musk urging him to take what he called “effective mitigation measures” against harmful content that could incite “violence, hate and racism.”
Breton said the EU’s Digital Services Act has a due diligence requirement, and because X has approximately 100 million users in the EU, what he calls harmful content from Trump could spillover even though it originated in the United States.
He also reminded Musk that there are ongoing proceedings against X under the Digital Services Act and that any “illegal content” in the Trump interview could be relevant to those proceedings.
Jordan accused the European Commission of trying to intimidate, threaten or coerce Musk.
“Your threats against free speech do not occur in a vacuum, and the consequences are not limited to Europe,” Jordan wrote in a letter to Breton. “The harms caused by EU-imposed censorship spill across international borders, as many platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally.”
Jordan also rejected Bretton’s statements to the committee that “the DSA does not regulate content” and that he would “never interfere in the American democratic process.”
Jordan explained his philosophy on censorship.
“To oppose censorship of so-called ‘disinformation’ is not to defend or to endorse the content,” Jordan said. “It is to respect the right and the ability of citizens to consume content and to make decisions about what speech is persuasive, what is truthful, and what is accurate.”
“To oppose censorship is to acknowledge that a government with the authority to define disinformation will inevitably do so in a way that benefits those in power at the expense of the truth,” Jordan continued.
Jordan accepted Bretton’s offer to brief the committee on the subject. Their staff are working on scheduling.
Apple and Google lose billions in back taxes, EU fines across the pond
The European Commission scored two big wins against major U.S. tech companies on Tuesday, Sept. 10. Both Apple and Google will have to pay billions of euros after nearly a decade of fighting in EU courts.
Apple lost its final appeal to avoid paying $14.34 billion in back taxes to Ireland. The European Court of Justice ruled the iPhone-maker received too sweet of a deal to make Ireland its European headquarters.
The ruling stems from a practice known as a “Double Irish” scheme.
For U.S. companies that operate in multiple countries, it was a way for them to shield non-U.S. profits from U.S. corporate tax. But they didn’t pay much in Ireland either; the money would get funneled from Ireland to a tax haven.
The tax loophole was used by Ireland to attract major tech companies to its shores for European headquarters. After pressure from the EU and U.S., Ireland was forced to close the loophole in 2014. However, existing companies like Apple were grandfathered in and could take advantage of the law until 2020.
In 2016, the European Commission ruled Ireland provided illegal state aid to Apple by not collecting 13 billion euros in taxes from 2004 to 2014.
“No one did anything wrong here and we need to stand together,” Apple CEO Tim Cook told the Irish Independent back in 2016. “Ireland is being picked on and this is unacceptable.”
Cook also called claims made by European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager that the company only paid 0.005% in taxes “total political crap.” He said the company paid $400 million in taxes in 2014, making Apple the highest taxpayer in Ireland that year.
Eight years later, Vestager said winning the final appeal against Apple made her cry.
“Today marks a step forward and it’s encouraging,” Vestager said Tuesday. “It’s encouraging for us to do more. The commission will continue its work on harmful tax competition and aggressive tax planning, both in terms of legislative proposals but also enforcement.”
Other major multinational companies, like Amazon and Starbucks, have avoided paying back taxes, unlike Apple. But the commission’s case against Ireland and Apple proved stronger after getting documents where Irish officials were upfront about just how good of a deal they gave Apple.
The Luxembourg-based court also upheld a $2.7 billion antitrust fine against Google on the same day, giving the commission its second victory in 24 hours.
The Google fine has been in limbo since it was levied back in 2017. At the time, the commission accused Google of giving prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service and burying its rivals in the same results. Google had a 90% market share for search in the EU when the case first started.
“The Google shopping case is a landmark in the history of regulatory actions against Big Tech companies,” Vestager said. “It was one of the first significant antitrust cases brought by a competition agency against a major digital company. And I think this case marked a pivotal shift in how digital companies were regulated and also perceived.”
“In essence, the Google shopping case was a catalyst for change, inspiring a more vigilant and proactive approach to regulating Big Tech and of course, ensuring also a fairer digital marketplace,” she added.
Google is a frequent target of the competition committee and has been fined more than 8 billion euros in the last 10 years. Google is still waiting for final rulings on challenges to cases involving the Android operating system for mobile phones and its advertising platform.
Google also has antitrust concerns to deal with in the U.S. In a trial that started Monday, Sept. 9, over its advertising practices, the Department of Justice argued, “Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies.”
Telegram CEO Durov released from custody amid investigation
After four days of questioning, Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov has been released from French police custody and has not yet been formally charged. Prosecutors said he will be transferred to court where he will appear in front of a judge before a possible indictment.
Durov’s detention was part of an investigation into Telegram’s alleged criminal violations, including child sexual abuse material, drug trafficking and organized crime. The investigation has drawn international attention and raised questions about his messaging app’s global operations, compliance with legal standards, and content moderation practices.
Telegram faces increasing scrutiny from European authorities, highlighting the ongoing struggle between privacy-focused messaging platforms and government demands for accountability.
Despite the legal challenges, Telegram maintains it is complying with EU laws, stating that its moderation practices are “within industry standards and constantly improving.”
Telegram’s navigation through complex political landscapes reveals its pivotal role in regions grappling with censorship and conflict. The platform has faced pressure from Russian authorities to compromise user privacy.
In Ukraine, Telegram plays a vital role in disseminating war-related information, with media outlets and officials using it to share updates and issue critical alerts.
Telegram is banned in Iran, however, leaders of Iranian-backed Hamas have frequently posted on the messaging site regarding the ongoing conflict with Israel.
With nearly a billion users worldwide, Telegram’s global influence is undeniable, making the outcome of this legal challenge potentially far-reaching for digital communication and privacy.
Canada imposing 100% tariffs on Chinese-made EVs to protect trade
Canada announced on Monday, Aug. 26, that it will be imposing a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles and a 25% tariff on Chinese-made aluminum and steel. The move puts Canada in line with the U.S on EV tariffs in an effort to enhance the West’s competitiveness with China.
The value of Chinese electric vehicles imported by Canada surged in 2023 to 2.2 billion, up from less than $100 million in 2022.
In May, the Biden administration added tariffs on Chinese EV-makers, batteries, solar cells, steel aluminum and medical equipment. President Joe Biden said that China’s subsidies for EVs and other goods ensure Chinese companies don’t have to turn a profit and gives them an unfair advantage in global trade, a sentiment echoed by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday.
“Actors like China, have chosen to give themselves an unfair advantage in the global marketplace, compromising the security of our critical, critical industries and displacing dedicated Candian auto and metal workers,” Trudeau said.
The decision by Canada comes after a 30-day consultation this summer on how to best address China’s alleged efforts to “oversupply” the global market. Currently, no Chinese EVs are sold in Canada. However, the country’s tariffs aim to address future concerns over Chinese EVs flooding the Canadian market.
Google’s antitrust loss ‘a warning’ to Big Tech: The government can win
Pressure is building on Big Tech after a federal court ruled Google is a monopoly. Google isn’t the only one the government is going after. Apple, Meta and Amazon are actively fighting lawsuits.
While Google’s appeal plays out, tech firms will be eyeing the courts, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice for clues to a shift in the regulatory landscape.
For how Google’s ruling might impact current and future antitrust cases, Straight Arrow News interviewed former FTC chair and commissioner Bill Kovacic.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Watch the interview in the video above.
Simone Del Rosario: Does this serve as a flashing red light for other Big Tech firms?
Bill Kovacic: It does indeed. They’ve seen the light flashing yellow for several years because, not only in the United States but around the world, we find competition authorities and individual jurisdictions beginning new investigations, initiating cases, and in the case of the European Union adopting new regulatory frameworks, theirs called the Digital Markets Act.
The Big Tech sector has seen gathering storm clouds now for a number of years, going back to, I’d say, the middle of the previous decade. But we’re now seeing the delivery of policy measures that foreshadowed evermore significant forms of intervention. And this is an indication, not only that the government can win, it can marshal the resources to do this kind of work well, it can bring the cases to a successful conclusion at the trial.
It’s a warning that the government can prevail. The government can make well-founded arguments.
Bill Kovacic, former FTC chair and commissioner
But also it means that there will be more to come and there are other significant matters in the pipeline: another Department of Justice case involving Google involving ad serving; a case by the FTC challenging Meta for its acquisition of Instagram 10 years ago; an FTC case against Amazon; a Department of Justice case against Apple; state government cases attacking a number of these large enterprises.
I think for the business community, especially for the tech community, it’s an indication of things to come and that the successful defense of their position is not going to be something they can take for granted.
Simone Del Rosario: How does [the Google ruling] measure up to the Amazon situation where they’re being accused of having self-preference for their own products?
Bill Kovacic: This involves, I think in some ways, a harder case for the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is arguing that you’ve given your own products, your own services, a better display compared to others, that you’re favoring them. I think the FTC is going to have a somewhat harder time dealing with the argument [of], ‘I’m a successful firm, don’t I have the freedom to offer consumers not only the better product, but to put my product first? To say, look at my product. Why should I have to display the products of my rivals in a better light?’
Amazon would not have unlimited freedom to make certain choices that are going to be the subject of the case. But Amazon’s arguments are arguably more within the framework of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has been encouraging of the ability of dominant firms to decide who they’ll deal with and how they’ll deal. And a concern on the part of judges that they shouldn’t be involved in making technical decisions about how companies operate, determining who they can deal with, the terms on which they can deal with other parties. So I think the FTC in some ways faces a somewhat harder challenge in the light of this existing jurisprudence.
But from Amazon’s point of view, watching the outcome in this first important [Google] case, it’s a warning that the government can prevail. The government can make well-founded arguments. They can present them capably. They’re probably going to be found to be a dominant enterprise and the real question will be, is this self-preferencing behavior acceptable?
I think what all leading firms learn from the experience we’ve just observed is you can take absolutely nothing for granted in this process. And it’s an environment in which judges might well be persuaded that you made an incorrect judgment about where the line of illegality is and you stepped over it. At a very basic level, this is an important caution that says you can lose these cases if you’re a defendant.
Simone Del Rosario: I’m curious what your take is on the types of cases against Big Tech that current FTC Chair Lina Khan has been taking. What do you make of her strategy when it comes to going after Big Tech?
Bill Kovacic: She has put in motion one significant case on her own watch: that’s the Amazon case we mentioned before. The other major case that she has she inherited from the Trump administration. That’s the challenge to Meta for its acquisition of Instagram.
But the Amazon case is a very ambitious case. It is trying to define a new conception of what dominant firms can do, especially dominant firms that act as the owners of a platform on which products are sold, but their own products and the products of other parties operate on the same platform; to identify what a dominant firm can do by way of featuring its own products and perhaps treating the products of third parties on its platform, its competitors, differently.
That would be a significant development in the jurisprudence. I guess to put it in a very general way, it is a riskier case than the case that the DOJ is running against Google, the case that’s running against Apple, the other case that’s running against Google. And this is consistent, I think, with the chair’s philosophy, that a major role of the FTC should be to take on cases that involve more ambiguity, to take on cases that aren’t squarely within a framework where liability has been routinely found, but to move the frontiers outward.
So there’s a greater risk appetite at work there. The DOJ cases are very ambitious as well, but I’d say a signature element of the chair’s own program is to be willing to push the frontiers and to accept the risk that there will be judicial resistance and to accept the risk that there’ll be judicial rejection.
But for the sake of provoking the conversation with the courts and bringing these issues to the courts on a repeated basis, there’s a willingness, not simply in the area of Big Tech, but in other areas of the commission’s jurisdiction, to try to move the frontiers of enforcement outward and to acknowledge and accept the risk that these are hard cases to win. And [she does] not expect to prevail every time, but the very fact of bringing the cases, continuing the conversation with the courts, will have real value.
Break up Google? How the search giant might be punished for antitrust ruling
The antitrust ruling against Google on Monday, Aug. 5, is groundbreaking. By declaring Google is a monopoly, it marked the biggest tech antitrust ruling since Microsoft in the ’90s.
It’s not that the government never takes up these cases; it’s that the government doesn’t often win. And to be fair, it hasn’t won yet. Google plans to appeal and the tech world is closely watching how this one shakes out.
For what punishments Google could face to how long this case will drag out, Straight Arrow News tapped the expertise of Bill Kovacic, a former FTC chair and commissioner.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Watch the interview in the video above.
Simone Del Rosario: What do you make of Google’s assertion that its product is just better?
Bill Kovacic: The language and the music of earlier decisions from the Supreme Court has been one that’s very solicitous of the successful firm that achieves prominence through superior performance. So in making that argument, they are appealing directly to a policy position that has appeared in a number of earlier decisions that you can’t take a successful enterprise and punish it for offering a better product.
Through the trial and certainly through the appeals, they will say, “We may not be the perfect company, but there’s no way to explain our position except for our ability to provide our users a better and better experience and certainly superior to anyone else’s.”
That’s a very important argument, but there are still limits on the steps they can take to reinforce the preeminence.
Simone Del Rosario: Let’s say that this judgment stands. What’s going to happen to Google? What are the likely punishments that Google will face?
Bill Kovacic: Judge Mehta, who is the trial judge in the Google case, decided to split the proceedings into two parts. The first part was going to be the trial on whether the law had been broken. That part has been concluded with his opinion that finds that yes, indeed, in some respects, the law was broken.
The second part was that if there was a finding of liability, we’re going to have a separate proceeding on remedies. He’s going to have a meeting with the parties in early September to schedule the hearing or hearings that will take place to address the remedy.
We’re a good two years away from a final answer with respect to liability and to remedies.
Bill Kovacic, former FTC Chair and Commissioner
We probably will see, I suppose, several days of testimony by experts who lay out their views about what the remedy should be. Should it simply be an injunction that tells Google not to engage in the same behavior? Should it mandate that the company take affirmative steps to correct the effects of the behavior that it’s engaged in so far? Will the court go further to say a restructuring of the company is important? That a divestiture of some kind, say, for example, divesting the Android franchise would be an appropriate solution.
The judge is going to have a significant proceeding on the remedy, I suspect, by the end of this calendar year. He will reach his decision about what that remedy should be. We’ll see the final opinion on remedy come out, again, by the end of 2024 with inevitable appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia, which would be step one. That would take up most of 2025.
The Supreme Court is not obliged to review this case. It has complete discretion over its docket with respect to antitrust matters. My intuition is that this will be a compelling case for them to review. This will be a case that they want to review to come in on these basic questions about the application of the antitrust law to Big Tech, to dominant firms generally. So my own quiet wager is that the Supreme Court would take the case. That takes us through most of 2026.
So if all of these appeals come about, we’re a good two years away from a final answer with respect to liability and to remedies. And for a case that began in 2020, in the second half of 2020, I guess all of us can look at that and say, “Is that a sensible way to make decisions about such fundamental matters of economic policy and operation,” a case that lasts the better part of seven years? But that’s what we’re in for going ahead. That’s roughly the timeline that might unfold.
Simone Del Rosario: And just to clarify, the remedies can be prescribed before this appeal process goes through even if they can’t be enforced, is that correct?
Bill Kovacic: Correct. The appeal would take place after the decision on remedies so that the parties would be filing their appeals with respect to decisions about whether the law was broken and with respect to the judge’s decision about what the appropriate remedy will be. It’s proceeding on remedies next, then the parties can appeal any part of what’s taken place before.
Simone Del Rosario: And you mentioned some relatively low-level remedies, an injunction, fines. Would that be enough to stop this behavior that the courts found was monopolistic?
Bill Kovacic: This is a point of enormous and contentious debate. I would say if you go back to the beginning of the U.S. antitrust system, the remedy that generally has been seen to be, by many observers, the necessary remedy for illegal monopolization, is structural relief, simply put, a breakup. You force the company to make major divestitures.
That is the big visible solution that many observers look for. By contrast, the injunction that you referred to is seen as often being too timid a solution, too difficult to oversee and apply, too easily evaded by companies that will adapt immediately to any control on conduct that you put before them.
Part of what makes up the debate today is a more sympathetic view about these injunctions. And the more sympathetic view basically goes like this. One is that the injunction forces the company to change its decision-making process. It means that more matters are run by the lawyers first. And instead of the business people simply acting immediately and impulsively on ideas they have, it’s got to go through the legal department.
The legal department, being somewhat more inherently cautious as a matter of culture, applies the brakes a bit to this process so that there’s an internal decision-making process that means that the company is less aggressive in the way in which it operates.
A second consequence is that there’s an awareness on the part of other firms that they have a bit more room to maneuver. They take advantage of the hesitation and limits on the dominant firm to find crevices in the market in which they can enter to expand their operations over time.
Now one theory is that when the government settled its monopolization case against Microsoft, a case brought in the late ’90s and settled in the early 2000s – in parallel with a case that was settled by the European Union, also involving claims of illegal conduct against Microsoft – initially the conduct-related remedies were heavily criticized as being too weak.
A new reinterpretation of that is that those remedies actually gave breathing room for what were then nascent tech competitors named Google, for example, and that it opened the path for Google to prosper.
So I’d say there’s an important strand of modern commentary that says conduct remedies can be a lot more potent than you might think. They may take longer to unfold. They don’t have the big bang explosion of a giant fireworks display. They’re less visible in that respect. But then they can have a powerful impact on the way that the market operates.
I think that even the specialists in the field would say there’s a lot of uncertainty about what the best solution is. You make your best judgment. It’s partly an act of faith that you’ve got the right solution in place. But I’d say that there’s a somewhat more sympathetic view of conduct remedies emerging that might incline the judge to say, that would be enough.