Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal from TikTok on US ban in January
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday, Dec. 18, it will hear an appeal from TikTok challenging a U.S. law that could end up banning the social media app next month. The court’s announcement comes after an appeal by TikTok this week.
The Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments on Jan. 10 before deciding on the law’s fate. Currently, the app used by millions of people is set to be banned in the U.S. come Jan. 19, unless its Chinese owner, ByteDance, sells the company.
Earlier this year, Congress passed, and President Joe Biden signed, a law that requires the China-based company to divest the app over national security concerns.
In an emergency filing, TikTok’s lawyers argued the law violated the First Amendment by banning the company’s right to free speech.
A lower court upheld the law earlier in December, siding with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), over concerns about Chinese influence on the company.
As Straight Arrow News previously reported, U.S. lawmakers recently sent a letter to Google and Apple that warns the tech giants to prepare to remove the platform from their app stores.
Some lawmakers say the social media app is a threat to the country’s security, noting laws in Beijing that require social media platforms to work with the Chinese government when asked.
The DOJ also warns the app could be used by China to spy on Americans and steal sensitive information. Other U.S. officials have voiced support for the app.
For instance, President-elect Donald Trump said following a meeting with TikTok’s CEO he has a “warm spot” in his heart for the platform, despite efforts during his first term to ban the app.
Trump said, “You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points, and there are those that say that TikTok has something to do with that. So, I have a little bit of a warm spot in my heart, I’ll be honest.”
Mexico’s president refutes Trump’s claim she promised to close the border
President-elect Donald Trump said Mexico has agreed to stem the tide of migrants flowing into the United States, but Mexico’s president is now saying that’s not quite accurate. And Amazon workers are using Black Friday to make a statement about their labor situation. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Friday, Nov. 29, 2024.
Mexico’s president refutes Trump’s claim she promised to close the border
As President-elect Donald Trump gets ready to return to office, he’s already making moves to follow through on some of his biggest campaign promises. After announcing this week his plans to impose tariffs on goods from China, Canada and Mexico, he turned his attention to another hot-button issue: immigration.
It’s a bit of a case of “he said, she said” after Trump had a call with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Wednesday, Nov. 27. President-elect Trump posted on his Truth Social platform after the call saying Sheinbaum agreed to stop migration into the U.S. through Mexico, “effectively closing our southern border.”
Sheinbaum appeared to contradict Trump in a post of her own on X, saying in part, “Mexico’s position is not to close borders…”
She did, however, lay out Mexico’s “comprehensive strategy” for addressing the migration issue. In a separate post on X, Sheinbaum said during the call, she told President-elect Trump, “No caravans are arriving at the border because they are being attended to in Mexico.”
En nuestra conversación con el presidente Trump, le expuse la estrategia integral que ha seguido México para atender el fenómeno migratorio, respetando los derechos humanos. Gracias a ello se atiende a las personas migrantes y a las caravanas previo a que lleguen a la frontera.…
The two leaders also talked about how they’re addressing the U.S. fentanyl crisis.
The call was scheduled after Trump unveiled plans to slap 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico to the U.S. as part of the effort to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. through Mexico.
Not only would that impact the prices of avocados and agave — both very popular in the U.S. — Mexico’s economy secretary said Wednesday 88% of all North American pickup trucks come from Mexico. Sheinbaum then suggested Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own.
“I hope he rethinks it,” Biden said. “I think it’s a counterproductive thing to do. You know, one of the things you’ve heard me say before is that we are – we have an unusual situation in America. We’re surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, and two allies: Mexico and Canada. The last thing we need to do is begin to screw up those relationships.”
Economists forecast Trump’s planned tariffs would increase prices for American shoppers, costing the average U.S. household about $2,600 per year, according to an estimate from the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Israel and Hezbollah both claim ceasefire violations
Barely three days into a 60-day ceasefire between Israel and the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon, both sides are claiming violations.
Yesterday, Hezbollah had a precision-guided missile manufacturing site—today, they don’t.
Hezbollah’s largest precision-guided missiles manufacturing site, 1.4km wide and 70m underground, was struck and dismantled by IAF fighter jets yesterday.
Lebanese authorities also said two people, who were trying to return to southern Lebanon, were shot and wounded by Israeli forces. Lebanon’s health ministry said they were civilians, but the IDF claimed they were suspected of violating terms of the truce.
The agreement, brokered by the United States and France, includes an initial two-month ceasefire during which Hezbollah militants will withdraw north of the Litani River and Israeli forces are to return to their side of the border.
Thousands of Amazon workers to strike from Black Friday to Cyber Monday
Amazon workers in more than 20 countries, including the U.S., are on strike on some of the busiest pre-Christmas shopping days across the world. It started on Black Friday, Nov. 29, a day for bargain hunters to score some of the biggest discounts from stores across the country as holiday shopping kicks into high gear.
Organizers told the United Nations the so-called “days of resistance” are to hold Amazon accountable for alleged labor abuses, as well as “environmental degradation and threats to democracy.” According to ABC News, the strike could delay holiday deliveries.
The organizers said this is their fifth year of labor action against Amazon during the beginning of the holiday shopping season.
In a statement, Amazon said the group that organized the strikes is being “intentionally misleading” and promoting a “false narrative.” Management said the company offers great pay and benefits.
Canada sues Google over control of online ads
Canada’s antitrust watchdog said it is suing Google over alleged anti-competitive conduct in the company’s online advertising business. They’re calling for Google to sell off two of its ad tech services and pay a penalty.
The Competition Bureau said it’s necessary because an investigation into Google found the company “unlawfully” tied together its ad tech tools to maintain its dominant market position. Google insists the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector and is fighting the allegations.
This comes just a week after the U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal judge to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, saying it continues to crush the competition through its dominant search engine.
America facing a live Christmas tree shortage again
As millions of Americans get ready to begin their search for the perfect Christmas tree, growers are having historic challenges getting them to sale lots, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The day after Thanksgiving is usually the biggest day for live tree sales, but since Thanksgiving came so late this year, it’s a very short selling season. On top of that, a nationwide shortage is expected thanks to severe weather across the country this year, such as a northeastern drought and North Carolina floods caused by Hurricane Helene. North Carolina is the second-biggest supplier of Christmas trees in the country.
Shoppers bought roughly 21.6 million real Christmas trees in the U.S. last year, according to the National Christmas Tree Association. The Department of Agriculture said the number of trees harvested in the U.S. has declined 30% since 2002, while the American population has grown 16% over the same period.
Alaska native air drops Thanksgiving turkeys to families in remote areas
In the most remote parts of Alaska a Thanksgiving turkey is hard to come by. So, one woman made sure families in roadless parts of the state had their holiday feast.
Pilot Esther Keim calls it “Alaska Turkey Bomb.” She flies in a small plane to off-the-grid homes and air drops frozen turkeys for families to enjoy for Thanksgiving.
Keim said it’s a tribute to a family friend who did the same thing for her family when she was growing up.
She started the tradition in 2022 after somebody that she knew told her they did not have much of a holiday dinner — and no turkey at all. Since then, she has delivered 30 to 40 turkeys every year to families living in remote areas of Alaska.
DOJ to squeeze Google to sell Chrome to bust search monopoly: Report
The federal government is seeking to break up a tech giant for the first time in more than two decades. Antitrust officials are preparing to ask a federal judge to force Google to sell its Chrome operating system, according to a report from Bloomberg.
Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google monopolized the search engine space. The case dates back to 2020, when the Department of Justice and attorneys general from 38 states and territories sued Google for anticompetitive practices.
The lawsuit focused on Google’s practice of paying billions of dollars to companies like Apple and Samsung to have Google be the default search provider on those devices. The New York Times reported the company paid $18 billion in 2021 to secure the right.
The Justice Department is expected to ask Mehta for a number of remedies to reduce Google’s monopoly in the industry, according to Bloomberg, who spoke with people familiar with the matter.
The biggest action would be forcing Google to sell Chrome, which is the most-used web browser on the planet, according to Statcounter. The DOJ contends the browser is a gateway for users to end up on Google’s search engine.
But with more than 3 billion monthly active users, a Bloomberg analyst estimates Chrome could be worth up to $20 billion. The hefty price tag would make it hard to find a buyer with the capital and know-how to take over the product. While a company like Amazon could entertain the option, it has also been fighting accusations of anticompetitive practices.
If the judge does force the sale, it’ll give regulators the corporate-busting victory they failed to secure against Microsoft decades ago. But this step is one of the tallest orders. Bloomberg reports the officials could choose to go a lesser route if other actions make the search market more competitive
“The DOJ continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case,” Google Regulatory Affairs Vice President Lee-Anne Mulholland told Straight Arrow News in a statement. “The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed.”
Initially, regulators contemplated having Google sell off the Android mobile operating system but chose not to go that direction. Instead, they are planning to force the company to unbundle Android from its other products, including the Google Play store and the search engine.
DOJ officials may also require Google to share more information with advertisers and give them greater power over where their ads are shown. They will also recommend Google sell its search data to competitors, which could boost rivals and, by nature, make for a more competitive environment.
Google said it would appeal the August ruling and the states are still proposing remedies, according to Bloomberg. Meanwhile, Mehta set a two-week hearing in April 2025 on what remedies Google should take and plans to issue a final ruling by August 2025.
“If all of these appeals come about, we’re a good two years away from a final answer with respect to liability and remedies for a case that began in the second half of 2020,” former Federal Trade Commission Chair William Kovacic told Straight Arrow News in August. “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.”
Russia fines Google impossible sum for blocking YouTube channels
A Russian court has fined Google an unprecedented $20 decillion after the tech giant blocked Kremlin-linked channels on YouTube. The fine, which doubles every week Google refuses to pay, reflects the widening rift between Russia and global tech companies over sanctions and content controls.
The court’s ruling stems from lawsuits filed in 2020 by Russian outlets Tsargrad TV and RIA FAN, which allege unlawful censorship after YouTube restricted their channels. Since then, 15 additional Kremlin-backed channels have joined the suits, citing U.S. sanctions and policy violations as reasons for the blocks.
The cumulative fine, now larger than the combined GDP of every nation by a trillionfold, underscores Russia’s symbolic pushback against Silicon Valley’s content restrictions.
Getty Images
In response to mounting fines, Google declared bankruptcy in Russia in 2022 after authorities seized over $100 million from its Russian subsidiary.
Legal analysts say that while Google is unlikely to pay the fine, which now stands at 2 undecillion rubles (equivalent to $20 decillion), the case illustrates growing geopolitical strains as governments worldwide confront Big Tech’s influence.
Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has countersued in various countries, including Turkey, South Africa, Serbia, and Kyrgyzstan, aiming to shield its assets from further claims.
Legal experts say that while the unprecedented fine carries mostly symbolic weight, it reflects the intensifying battle between technology firms and state control in content regulation.
YouTube’s blocks began with sanctions on Konstantin Malofeyev, a Russian oligarch linked to Tsargrad TV, after he was accused by the U.S. of aiding Russia’s military interventions in Ukraine.
RIA FAN, founded by Yevgeny Prigozhin of Wagner Group fame, was also targeted by YouTube for policy violations after Prigozhin’s 2023 mutiny against the Kremlin. Since then, hundreds of Russia-associated channels have been removed from YouTube for either sanction compliance or content deemed to minimize violence.
Getty Images
As the fine continues to double each week, the amount could reach 1 googol — a 1 followed by 100 zeros — within 219 weeks if left unpaid, though Google’s current market capitalization is $2 trillion, far from the fine’s demands.
Legal analysts suggest Russia’s court decision is largely symbolic but highlights how Google, and tech companies at large, are being forced to confront national laws and international sanctions that affect their operations.
The case remains a potent symbol of the political clashes shaping today’s digital media landscape. Google has yet to comment on the current status of the fine but continues to challenge claims on its assets beyond Russian borders.
Microsoft accuses Google of ‘shadow campaigns’ to influence EU regulators
Microsoft publicly accused rival tech company Google of running “shadow campaigns” to discredit the competition to EU regulators. The accusations include funding a fake grassroots campaign to “mislead the public.”
“I’ve taken pains to tell the truth, even when that might make things more complicated for Microsoft,” Microsoft’s Deputy General Counsel Rima Alaily wrote in a blog post. “It’s not comfortable or natural for me to pen something critical of someone else, but in this case, I think it’s important because it concerns me when someone attacks us and, I believe, does so dishonestly.”
Microsoft claims Google hired an advisory firm to set up “an astroturf group” called the Open Cloud Coalition that is set to launch this week. A flyer linked in Microsoft’s blog post says it is a group of cloud platforms “being formed to advocate for a fair, competitive and open cloud services industry across the UK and EU.”
“It is designed to discredit Microsoft with competition authorities, and policymakers and mislead the public,” Alaily wrote. “Google has gone through great lengths to obfuscate its involvement, funding, and control, most notably by recruiting a handful of European cloud providers, to serve as the public face of the new organization.”
Alaily says Microsoft found out about the scheme from a company that chose not to join the Open Cloud Coalition.
“One of the companies approached, who ultimately declined, told us that the organization will be directed and largely funded by Google for the purpose of attacking Microsoft’s cloud computing business in the European Union and the United Kingdom,” Alaily said.
Google ranks third globally in the cloud market behind Amazon and Microsoft and has made multiple attempts to paint Microsoft as anti-competitive in the space.
“We’ve been very public about our concerns with Microsoft’s cloud licensing,” a Google Cloud spokesperson told Straight Arrow News in an email. “We and many others believe that Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices lock-in customers and create negative downstream effects that impact cybersecurity, innovation, and choice. You can read more in our many blog posts on these issues.”
“We’ve been speaking to many business and public sector organizations,” Google Cloud’s Head of Platforms Amit Zavery said in September. “What we’re seeing is a lot of restrictions Microsoft has created using their dominance in the on-premises software and not letting customers have a choice of moving that workload to any cloud provider of their choice.”
It’s not the first time Microsoft has faced criticism for bundling items and forcing users to adopt their products. The landmark antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s ruled Microsoft acted like a monopoly by restricting the ability to remove Internet Explorer and use other programs to surf the web. Microsoft avoided getting broken up on appeal and settled the case in 2001.
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.”
Is Google just better? Company defends advertising tech after losing search case
Court is back in session and Google is back on the defense. A month after a federal judge ruled Google is a monopoly because of its search engine, the Big Tech firm is defending its advertising practices. The cases could multiply calls to break up Google.
In a new antitrust trial starting Monday, Sept. 9, the Department of Justice will argue that “Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies.”
Essentially, the government is arguing Google has an unlawful monopoly as the leading buyer and seller of digital ads.
The case centers around Google Ad Manager, which websites use to sell advertising space on their sites. The tech comes from Google’s $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick in 2008.
“DoubleClick, which was founded in 1996, provides display ads on Web sites like MySpace, The Wall Street Journal and America Online as well as software to help those sites maximize ad revenue.”
While MySpace and AOL are irrelevant today, the DoubleClick acquisition helped make Google a display ad powerhouse in a space that was just getting started. Back then, the Federal Trade Commissionapproved the DoubleClick acquisition, saying it was unlikely to substantially lessen competition. The European Commission also approved the deal.
Today, the government is trying to walk back that approval. Google is now more than 10 times the size it was when it bought DoubleClick. Additionally, ad business generated more than $30 billion in revenue in 2021, according to the government.
“In court, we will show that ad buyers and sellers have many options, and when they choose Google they do so because our ad tech is simple, affordable, and effective,” Google’s vice president of Regulatory Affairs wrote in a blog post Sunday, Sept. 8. “In short – it works.”
It is similar to the argument Google made defending its search engine practice; that its product is just better than the competition. And while Google lost that case, it’s appealing it.
When the search ruling came down, Straight Arrow News asked antitrust expert and former FTC Chair Bill Kovacic about the merits of Google’s argument.
“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,” Kovacic said. “So 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,” Kovacic continued. “But there are still limits on the steps they can take to reinforce the preeminence. But their overriding theme is going to be, ‘We are successful because we have a good product, and not because we use improper business tactics, the very proper tactic we use is offering users a better experience.’”
The advertising trial will not be as financially consequential as the search case: search is more than half of Google’s annual revenue. On Friday, Sept. 6, federal judge Amit Mehta, who ruled Google is a search monopoly, said he’d decide on a remedy by next August.
