tag

When a US federal judge ruled in late November that Meta does not maintain an illegal monopoly in social media, it was a reminder that even the strongest evidence can look weak when enforcers act too late. Rejecting the US Federal Trade Commission’s narrow market definition, the court instead concluded that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, competes against a broad array of rivals such as TikTok and YouTube. While legal scholars can and will dissect the opinion, the biggest takeaway is that timing matters in dynamic markets, implying that antitrust authorities must develop a preventive approach, rather than relying solely on reactive measures. The case centred on Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, when both were unmistakably competitive threats. Facebook said so itselfBut the case collapsed under the weight of today’s market reality. Instead of considering the world as it existed when the mergers occurred, the court (incorrectly) cited the rise of TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube Shorts as evidence that Facebook lacked monopoly power. The flaws in the court’s reasoning reflect a deeper problem with litigating consummated mergers: it asks judges to travel back in time and forget what they now know. Questions like “Would Instagram have become this significant without Facebook’s investment?” or “What competition might have emerged if the acquisitions had not taken place?” are inherently counterfactual. It is very difficult to measure the impact of competition that never existed. This suggests that the acquisitions should have been challenged when they were first proposed – a difficult task, but not as hard as challenging consummated deals. Predicting the future is less formidable than reconstructing the present on the basis of an imaginary past. The flaws of late enforcement were also on display in the Google antitrust trial. Even as a US federal judge ruled in 2024 that Google had illegally monopolised general-search services, the remedy was softened by the perception that AI chatbots were already reshaping the market. Even the boldest proposed remedies centred less on restoring competition in search and more on ensuring that the next tech frontier remains open. Regulators should have prevented Facebook from acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp in the first place, but erred on the side of caution, fearing false positives and believing that the market would self-correct. But that decision has proved impossible to unwind, even though Facebook’s acquisition of direct competitors in a competitive market should have been a straightforward win for antitrust authorities – the very kind of textbook harm the law is designed to prevent. To their credit, the FTC and the department of justice under former US president Joe Biden had begun to develop and use their preventive toolkit. They challenged several mergers (including Nvidia-Arm, Illumina-GRAIL, and Microsoft-Activision Blizzard), examined practices in nascent industries such as AI partnerships, and launched early probes into emerging monopolies in the cloud computing and semiconductor markets. But the pendulum has swung back under Donald Trump’s second administration, which has pursued merger settlements, dialled back investigations into AI giants, and revived the myth that tech firms are the guardians of innovation and national security. It doesn’t have to be this way. US antitrust regulators now have stronger merger guidelines and a clearer understanding of how digital markets work. What they need is the political will to act early and decisively. The same applies to other governments. The most consequential tech mergers are reviewed simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions, and regulators in the European Union and the UK also have powerful preventive tools, including merger review and market studies. Even just initiating an investigation can create enough friction and uncertainty for parties to abandon a deal, as happened with Nvidia-Arm and Visa-Plaid. But the global scramble to attract AI investment has pushed competition enforcement into retreat. Amid increasing geopolitical turbulence, regulators are forgetting the hard-earned lessons of the platform era and pulling back precisely when they should be applying those lessons to block anti-competitive AI mergers and prevent the emergence of AI monopolies. The result is a classic collective-action problem, even though all it takes is one courageous competition authority to block a global deal and change the trajectory of an entire market. The Meta decision can seem like much ado about nothing: one case that was too difficult to win despite overwhelming evidence. But viewed in a broader context, it becomes clear that timing makes all the difference in antitrust enforcement. Regulators must learn to flex their preventive muscle to have any hope of taming Big Tech. - Project Syndicate 

The US is seeking to significantly expand its vetting of social media accounts for people who want to enter the country. In 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, the US imposed a requirement that visa applicants disclose their social media accounts. The Department of Homeland Security now aims to apply a similar requirement to another group: travellers from countries such as the UK, Japan and Australia whose citizens can enter the US without a visa.The Trump administration argues that the rule change is necessary to ensure travellers entering the country “do not bear hostile attitudes” to the US and its citizens. Civil-liberties groups warn that the approach marks a sweeping expansion of federal surveillance over routine travel. Here’s what to know: What exactly is the US proposing? The US is proposing that foreign visitors from countries whose citizens can travel to the US without a visa, but must still apply online for advance authorisation, provide their social media history from the last five years.DHS did not respond to a query about what information applicants from visa-waiver countries would need to supply for the social media screening. (Visa applicants are required to list all social media identifiers they have used in the past five years).Applicants would also be required to supply, when “feasible,” a broad set of additional personal information: telephone numbers used in the last five years; email addresses used in the last ten years; IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos; family members’ names, residences, places and dates of birth, and phone numbers used in the last five years; and personal biometrics — fingerprints, DNA samples, iris scans, and facial images. The proposal does not clarify how biometric information would be collected.The proposal was announced on the Federal Register by the US Customs and Border Protection on December 10. The public was given 60 days to provide comments before the rule is finalised.Currently, would-be foreign visitors from the countries approved for visa-free travel are only required to submit basic biographic information, including a valid e-mail address, any aliases or prior names they have used, a home and work address and an emergency contact. Whom would the new rules affect? The US’s visa waiver programme allows citizens from 42 countries to come to the US for 90 days for tourism or business travel without a visa. Roughly 17mn people used the visa waiver programme to enter the US during the 2023 federal fiscal year, according to arrival data published by the Department of Homeland Security. What types of online language or associations could be flagged by US authorities? When asked for details regarding what types of language or associations could be flagged by US authorities during the social media vetting process, a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson did not answer. However, in the executive order that the new rule is designed to realise, the Trump administration said the US must be vigilant to prevent entrants who may “intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”Earlier this year, the State Department launched an effort to cancel the visas of foreign students whose social media activity officials judged to show support for Hamas or other designated terrorist groups. It has also directed officials not to admit H-1B high-skilled worker applicants who have worked in areas including misinformation and disinformation analysis, content moderation or fact-checking, which the administration says contribute to the “censorship” of free speech. Do other countries screen travellers’ social media? Other countries do use social media in vetting foreign nationals, but mostly via review of publicly available content or “targeted checks” after an applicant is flagged for deeper scrutiny, immigration attorney Shanon Stevenson said.The visa form for the Schengen Area — a group of 29 European countries that allow passport-free travel across their mutual borders — does not have a field requiring applicants to list social media handles. However, local media reported that German federal police have recommended officials make “intensive use” of open source research, including checking social media profiles as part of risk profiling and fraud prevention.Canada’s immigration authorities review public online information, including social media, when they see discrepancies or need to verify facts, but there is no mandate that all applicants list their social media handles.The UK’s immigration services use open source intelligence and may look at social media in certain cases but do not require all applicants to disclose every social media identifier. What happens if applicants delete their accounts, use privacy settings, or have no social media presence? The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a query about what happens if applicants delete their accounts, use privacy settings, or have no social media presence.In June, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered US consular officers to scrutinise the social media profiles of student visa applicants, who were required to make their postings publicly accessible, he said that applicants’ lack of an online presence might be grounds to deny a visa. As of December 15, H-1B visa applicants were also required to set their social media accounts to public.Immigration lawyers have been advising clients against deleting accounts right before or after scheduling a visa appointment, Stevenson said. Are civil-liberties groups raising privacy-related concerns? In the aftermath of the proposal’s publication, advocacy groups and civil rights lawyers have assailed the proposal, citing privacy concerns. If implemented, the proposal could garner legal challenges arguing that it exceeds the government’s rule-making authority, improperly expands government surveillance powers, and infringes on fundamental privacy and civil-liberties protections. Critics say that past online posts could be misinterpreted and, more broadly, that such invasive searches of travellers’ social media could chill free speech.In December 2019, the Knight Institute, Brennan Center for Justice, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett filed a lawsuit challenging the State Department’s rules requiring nearly all visa applicants to register with the government all social media handles they have used in the past five years. The case was later dismissed, but an appeals court revived it in part in 2025 to allow the plaintiffs to amend their claims.According to Stevenson, the odds of winning on the merits against the new policy for travellers who can enter the country without a visa are likely low: Courts tend to give the government substantial deference in immigration and national-security screening.There could also be lawsuits over claims the policy proposal, if enacted, would hurt businesses. If implemented, the new requirements would likely upend the travel and tourism industry, which the US Travel Association says contributes about $2.9tn to the US economy and supports around 15mn jobs. 

At least 17 protesters were killed Monday when Nepal police dispersed young demonstrators in Kathmandu demanding the government lift its social media ban and tackle corruption.Several social media sites -- including Facebook, YouTube and X -- have been inaccessible in Nepal since Friday after the government blocked 26 unregistered platforms, leaving users angry and confused.Police used rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannon and batons when the demonstrators pushed through barbed wire and tried to storm into a restricted area near parliament. "Seventeen people have died," Shekhar Khanal, spokesman for the Kathmandu valley police, told AFP.Khanal said about 400 people were injured, including over 100 police.Following the violence, home minister Ramesh Lekhak resigned at a cabinet meeting in the evening, local media reported."I had been there for a peaceful protest, but the government used force," said Iman Magar, 20, who was hit in his right arm."It was not a rubber bullet but a metallic one, and it took away a part of my hand. The doctor says I need to undergo an operation."Sirens wailed through the city as the injured were taken to hospitals."I have never seen such a disturbing situation at the hospital," said Ranjana Nepal, information officer at the Civil Hospital, which received many of those wounded."Tear gas entered the hospital area as well, making it difficult for doctors to work," she told AFP.The United Nations demanded a swift and transparent probe of the violence."We are shocked by the killings and injury of protesters in Nepal today and urge a prompt and transparent investigation," UN rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said in a statement."We have received several deeply worrying allegations of unnecessary or disproportionate use of force by security forces."Amnesty International also called for an investigation, and said live ammunition had been used against protesters.The district administration imposed a curfew in several key areas of the city, including the parliament, the president's residence and Singha Durbar, which houses the prime minister's office.Some of the demonstrators had climbed over the wall into the parliament premises and its gate was vandalised.Similar protests were organised in other districts across the country.Popular platforms such as Instagram have millions of users in Nepal who rely on them for entertainment, news and business."We were triggered by the social media ban but that is not the only reason we are gathered here," said student Yujan Rajbhandari, 24."We are protesting against corruption that has been institutionalised in Nepal."Another student, Ikshama Tumrok, 20, said she was protesting the "authoritarian attitude" of the government."We want to see change. Others have endured this, but it has to end with our generation," she told AFP.Demonstrators had started their protest in Kathmandu with the national anthem and waving the country's flag, before chanting against the social media stoppage and corruption.There have been several corruption cases reported in the last few years involving ministers, former ministers and high-profile officials.Since the ban, videos contrasting the struggles of ordinary Nepalis with the children of politicians flaunting luxury goods and expensive vacations have gone viral on TikTok, which is still operating."There have been movements abroad against corruption, and they are afraid that might happen here as well," said protester Bhumika Bharati.The cabinet decided last month to give the affected social media firms seven days to register in Nepal, establish a point of contact and designate resident grievance and compliance officers.The decision came after a Supreme Court order in September last year.In a statement on Sunday, the government said it respected freedom of thought and expression and was committed to "creating an environment for their protection and unfettered use".Nepal has restricted access to popular online platforms in the past.The government blocked access to the Telegram messaging app in July, citing a rise in online fraud and money laundering.It lifted a nine-month ban on TikTok in August last year after the platform agreed to comply with Nepali regulations.UN urges probe The United Nations demanded a swift and transparent investigation on Monday after a rights group accused police in Nepal of firing on people protesting against corruption, social media ban, killing at least 17. "We are shocked by the killings and injury of protesters in Nepal today and urge a prompt and transparent investigation," UN rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said in a statement.