Google Et Al: A Small Matter Perhaps?
May 24, 2022
In India, the Lok Sabha is a bit like the US Congress. Like its US equivalent, the group of distinguished individuals can be frisky, intellectually speaking, of course. “Standing Committee On Finance To Discuss Big Tech Firms’ Practices” reports:
…the parliamentary panel will be hearing views of hospitality, restaurants and travel agents associations on the subject ‘Anti-Competitive Practices by Big-tech companies…
By itself, this type of investigation and questioning is chugging along in the US, the EU, and India. In Russia, the country has seized the Google’s assets, and it is not clear what the future will hold for other US Big Tech Firms.
I noted this statement in the source article:
Representatives of Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and others too were summoned by the panel.
I anticipate that the answers to the interlocutors’ questions will be along the line, “Thank you for the question. I will collect the information and provide it to your office.”
However, this sentence suggests that India may be considering adding some teeth to its approach to the alleged monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior of the Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter outfits:
The CCI Act was initiated in 2002 and last amended in 2007. A bill to amend the Act is also under consideration wherein provisions are likely to be introduced to deal with anti-competition practices of tech giants.
Worth watching? India? Is that a significant market? Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2022
Scraping By: A Winner Business Model
May 23, 2022
Will Microsoft-owned LinkedIn try, try, try again? The platform’s latest attempt to protect its users’ data from being ransacked has been thwarted, TechCrunch reveals in, “Web Scraping Is Legal, US Appeals Court Reaffirms.” The case reached the Supreme Court last year, but SCOTUS sent it back down to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals for a re-review. That court reaffirmed its original finding: scraping publicly accessible data is not a violation of the decades-old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). It is a decision to celebrate or to lament, depending on one’s perspective. A threat to the privacy of those who use social media and other online services, the practice is integral to many who preserve, analyze, and report information. Writer Zack Whittaker explains:
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a major win for archivists, academics, researchers and journalists who use tools to mass collect, or scrape, information that is publicly accessible on the internet. Without a ruling in place, long-running projects to archive websites no longer online and using publicly accessible data for academic and research studies have been left in legal limbo. But there have been egregious cases of web scraping that have sparked privacy and security concerns. Facial recognition startup Clearview AI claims to have scraped billions of social media profile photos, prompting several tech giants to file lawsuits against the startup. Several companies, including Facebook, Instagram, Parler, Venmo and Clubhouse have all had users’ data scraped over the years. The case before the Ninth Circuit was originally brought by LinkedIn against Hiq Labs, a company that uses public data to analyze employee attrition. LinkedIn said Hiq’s mass web scraping of LinkedIn user profiles was against its terms of service, amounted to hacking and was therefore a violation of the CFAA.”
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Twice. In the latest decision, the court pointed to last year’s Supreme Court ruling which narrowed the scope of the CFAA to those who “gain unauthorized access to a computer system,” as opposed to those who simply exceed their authorization. A LinkedIn spokesperson expressed disappointment, stating the platform will “continue to fight” for its users’ rights over their data. Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, May 23, 2022
Meta Logo Mimic?
May 16, 2022
Suing the Big Tech company Meta is like tilting windmills. Most of these lawsuits are dismissed, but sometimes the little guy has a decent chance at beating the giant. Fast Company details one of Meta’s latest fiascos: “Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Logo.” The Swiss blockchain nonprofit organization Dfinity filed a trademark infringement against Meta in a Northern California court. Dfinity’s lawsuit alleges that Meta’s new logo, shaped like an M infinity sign, bears a striking resemblance to their infinity logo.
Dfinity claims that Meta’s logo puts their reputation at stake, because Meta has a horrible record of violating people’s privacy and the association would prevent them from attracting users. The infinity symbol is in the public domain. Only original variations on it, such as the Meta and Dfinity logo, can be trademarked. Dfinity probably does not have a leg to stand on or curve to rest on with their lawsuit, but they might win. The infinity symbol is not unique to Dfinity, so if Meta had purloined the “Dfinity” name there would be a better case.
While Dfinity’s case could be dismissed, it could mean something worse:
“But even if Dfinity fails to prove its case, the lawsuit could jeopardize Meta’s attempts to earn trademark protection for its logo. That’s because it could highlight how unremarkable the logo really is. (Meta filed for trademark protection in March.) Says Lee: ‘The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office might find that [Meta’s logo] is not inherently distinctive on its own and require more evidence that consumers associate the symbol with a single company.’”
Lately, Meta is not getting a decent press. The little guy will not likely win, especially if Meta has a good legal team. Meta could ultimately lose control of their logo and it could be a fiasco as bad as Disney losing the copyright on Mickey Mouse.
Whitney Grace, May 16, 2022
NSO Group Knock On: Live from Madrid
May 10, 2022
The NSO Group fan Paz Esteban has been gored (metaphorically speaking, of course). “Spain’s Spy Chief Sacked after Pegasus Spyware Revelations” reports that “Paz Esteban reportedly loses job after Catalan independence figures were said to have been targeted.” How about those hedging Latinate structures. The write up alleges:
Paz Esteban reportedly confirmed last week that 18 members of the Catalan independence movement were spied on with judicial approval by Spain’s National Intelligence Centre.
I suppose spying on the Barcelona football team makes sense if one roots for Real Madrid. It is a stretch that 18 individuals who want to do a 180 degree turn away from Madrid’s approach to maintaining law, order, health, peace, prosperity, etc. etc.
The write up notes:
Esteban reportedly confirmed last week to a congressional committee that 18 members of the Catalan independence movement were spied on with judicial approval by Spain’s National Intelligence Centre (CNI), leaving the Catalan regional government demanding answers.
Yep, the action was approved. Life would have been more like a late dinner than a burger from a fantastic American fast food restaurant. That’s the problem. The gobbling of the fries was approved by lawyers.
That’s a crisis. Making the spry 64 year old Ms. Esteban López the beard is unfortunate. My hunch is that some youthful whiz kids found the NSO Group’s Pegasus a fun digital horse to ride. The idea floated upwards for approval and ended up in front of the “judiciary.” That mysterious entity thought letting the kids ride the Pegasus was a perfectly okay idea.
Now a crisis is brewing. The gored Ms. Esteban López may only be one of the first in the intelligence, law enforcement, and judiciary to feel the prick of the digital bull’s horns and the knock from the beastie’s hooves.
Several observations:
- Who else will be implicated in this interesting matter? Who will be tossed aloft only to crash to the albero del ruedo?
- Will a parliamentary inquiry move forward? What will that become? A romp with Don Quixote and Sancho?
- Is a new Spanish inquisition about to begin?
Excitement in the Plaza de Toros de Las Ventas perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, May 10, 2022
Some Real News People Are Never Happy
May 10, 2022
The European Publishers Council has joined the fight against Googley ad practices. Reuters reveals, “Google’s Advertising Tech Targeted in European Publishers’ Complaint.” Reporter Foo Yun Chee suggests the move could strengthen the current EU antitrust investigation into the company, but we have seen how Google tends to shrug off European efforts to constrain it. We are not sure this is the straw to break the behemoth’s back. Nevertheless, the write-up tells us:
“The European Commission opened an investigation in June into whether Google favors its own online display advertising technology services to the detriment of rivals, advertisers and online publishers. read more The publishers’ trade body, whose members include Axel Springer (SPRGn.S), News UK, Conde Nast, Bonnier News and Editorial Prensa Iberica, took its grievance to the European Commission, alleging Google has an adtech stranglehold over press publishers. ‘It is high time for the European Commission to impose measures on Google that actually change, not just challenge, its behavior,’ EPC Chairman Christian Van Thillo said in a statement. ‘Google has achieved end-to-end control of the ad tech value chain, boasting market shares as high as 90-100% in segments of the ad tech chain,’ he said.”
Indeed, which is why it is difficult to imagine consequences strong enough to make the company change its rapacious practices. Naturally Google denies any wrongdoing, gesturing at the billions of dollars it pays out to publishers each year. We appreciate the effort at redirection, but the real issue is whether publishers and other advertisers would be making more if Google played fair.
Cynthia Murrell, May 10, 2022
Facebook and Litigation: A Magnet for Legal Eagles
May 6, 2022
Facebook now called Meta is doing everything it can to maintain relevance with kids and attract advertisers. A large portion of Facebook’s net profits comes from advertising fees. Meta has not been entirely clear with its customers, because CNN Business explains in the story: “Facebook Advertisers Can Pursue Class Action Over Ad Rates” that the company lied about the ability of its “potential reach” tool.
San Francisco US District Judge James Donato ruled that millions of people and businesses that paid for Facebook ads and Instagram, a subsidiary, can sue as a group. Facebook’s fiasco started in pre-pandemic days:
“The lawsuit began in 2018, as DZ Reserve and other advertisers accused Facebook of inflating its advertising reach, by increasing the number of potential viewers by as much as 400%, and charging artificially high premiums for ad placements. They also said senior Facebook executives knew for years that the company’s “potential reach” metric was inflated by duplicate and fake accounts, yet did nothing about it and took steps to cover it up.”
Knowingly deceiving customers is a common business tactic among executives. They do not want to disappoint their investors, or lose face, or money. It is such a standard business tactic that many bigwigs do get away with it, but some are caught with hands so red that ghee would make a bull angry (along with their customers). Facebook argued that a class action lawsuit was not possible, because the litigants were too diverse. The litigants are large corporations and individuals with home businesses. Facebook claimed they would not know how to calculate images.
Judge Donato said it made more sense for Facebook’s irate customers to sue as a group, because “ ‘no reasonable person’ would sue Meta individually to recover at most a $32 price premium.”
Ticketmaster faced a similar scandal when they charged buyers absurd fees for tickets. The fees went directly into the pockets of the executives. Ticketmaster’s class-action lawsuit resulted in all plaintiffs reaching $3-4 Ticketmaster gift certificates for every ticket they bought. The gift certificates could not be combined and had expiration dates.
Big businesses should be held accountable for their actions, but the payoff is not always that great for the individual.
Whitney Grace, May 6, 2022
Google: The Dog Ate My Homework and I Want a Free Pass to the Circus
May 3, 2022
I read “Google Urges Court To Scrap $1.6 Billion EU Antitrust Fine.” I interpreted the headline to mean that Google wants the court to forget the actions, legal decision, and fine. When I was in graduate school, I taught a class (I know it is hard to believe) and students came up with some wild and crazy explanations for missing group meetings, turning in papers late, and screwing up an examination question. Yep, the “dog ate my homework” was offered to me. I also liked the reasoning of a student to qualify for a free pass to the circus. Yes, that happened.
The write up reports as actual factual:
Alphabet unit Google on Monday urged Europe’s second-highest court to dismiss a 1.49-billion-euro ($1.6 billion) fine imposed by EU antitrust regulators three years ago for hindering rivals in online search advertising.
Imagine. Hindering rivals.
Stephen E Arnold, May 3, 2022
NCC April Vendor Contracts: How to Be Slick and Lose Customer Trust
April 28, 2022
I read “Build Vs. Buy: Vendor Contract Shenanigans.” The write up is an excellent reminder of the character traits of MBAs and lawyers; that is, you lose if we provide you with a contract you sign without understanding. The article contains a number of examples of legal behavior which might strike some people as fraud. Oh, well, that is a signed contract, and your firm must comply. I love it when the lawyer tells a contracting officer, “Hey, we are sorry. These are standard terms.” Yep, standard for whom?
Let me highlight three of the methods used to inflict maximum gain for the vendor and delivering discomfort to the customer. Please, consult the original write up for the fourth item on the list.
First, the vendor (in this case, the Google) specifies that when the guaranteed level of service fails, the customer must get everyone in the chain to notify one another that the Googley service did not deliver. A failure to complete this notification within 30 days means you forfeit a “service credit.” (I don’t know what a service credit means, but I don’t think it means cash money.)
Second, the vendor collects the money before service begins. If you don’t use what you bought, there is no refund.
Third, sign our deal and our company will use your logo forever.
The MBAs and lawyers involved in deals with these types of clauses have an ideal rationalization: We are just doing our jobs.
Yes, these individuals are. Just following orders. Where have I heard that before?
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2022
Equality: Man Versus Company (A Big Company)
April 26, 2022
I read “DC Attorney General Says Fighting Big Tech Is Like David Versus Goliath.” I learned:
“In a real way, when you take on tech, it’s David versus Goliath,” Racine said in a recent interview with CNBC in his office. “Which means you’ve got to be thorough, studied and precise. And willing to go the distance.”
This statement allegedly comes from District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine.
The article added:
He said he’s not surprised that the tech companies would hire the most experienced lawyers to back them up and engage in a process that “grinds down smaller players and plaintiffs.” And, he said, he has faith that the courts, with a little bit of extra explanation on the particulars of their cases, will come around. “We are willing to take on that David role,” Racine said. “And after all, I think, David won.”
David, as I understand it, used a sling and maybe some help from a higher power. Today’s battle is digital, legal, and informational.
The interesting question is, “Which is more equal in the US men (who in theory enjoy certain rights) or companies (which I believe are persons under current rules and regulations)?”
My hunch is that money decides equality because cash can intervene in the digital, legal, and informational world. Very few are clued into this ability to put the finger on the scales of justice. She’s blind, isn’t she or is it them? (Sorry, I cannot get my pronouns straight.)
Stephen E Arnold, April 26, 2022
Has the Softie Been Winged by EU Antitrust Regulators?
April 25, 2022
I read “ Microsoft on EU Antitrust Regulators’ Radar after Cloud Practices Complaints by Rivals.” The big outfit in Redmond has been keeping a low profile, allowing Amazon, Apple, Facebook / Zuckbook, and Google take the glow in the dark paint ball pellets. Now the Softie has been splatted in acid green polyethylene glycol. Lookin’ good in spring colors I suppose.
The write up states:
Microsoft’s rivals and customers have been served a questionnaire with various queries by EU antitrust regulators seeking information about the company’s business and licensing deals. The latest action hints at a possible formal investigation into Microsoft’s cloud business that might take place down the line.
Paint balls can sting, but direct hits are fairly safe, just messy. Take two or three in one eye, and the target might stumble around looking for a safe haven.
What competitors are not happy with Microsoft’s approach to the cloud market? The write up names NextCloud and OVHcloud, and others may have shared their thoughts.
The next volley of shots may not be from paint ball guns. More lethal weapons might be flown over the customer centric folks in Redmond. Microsoft has coughed up money in the past, and it may have to bleed some cash to make the possible legal drones stop dropping grenades from the clouds.
Stephen E Arnold, April xx, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
