Daily Archives: March 31, 2021

Facebook has asked Australia's competition watchdog to go back to the drawing board with its probe into the local advertising tech (ad tech) space, saying some of its proposals would have a significant impact far beyond the intended focus of its inquiry.

"Digital services, including those that generate revenue through personalised advertising (such as Facebook's), create substantial benefits for Australian businesses and consumers," it said in a submission [PDF] to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC).

"Consequently, Facebook considers the ACCC should undertake detailed further consideration, analysis and stakeholder engagement is required to assist the ACCC in assessing the potential broad impact of its proposals and to ensure that those proposals do not stifle innovation, hinder competition, harm businesses and consumers, or otherwise have unintended consequences across the advertising ecosystem."

The ACCC is currently focusing its efforts, again, on Google, saying it's concerned with "Google's industry-leading position".

Facebook is off the hook for now as the ACCC said, despite submissions to the contrary, unlike Google, Facebook does not sell its own ad inventory in the "open display market" or through the ad tech supply chain. Instead, Facebook uses its own closed systems to sell inventory directly to advertisers.

"[The interim report] makes conclusions about Facebook's use of data and transparency for advertising which are incorrectly conflated with the analysis by the interim report of Google's leading position in the supply of ad tech services," Facebook said.

"The interim report misconstrues Facebook's position in relation to access to data without undertaking proper inquiry or consultation."

The ACCC formed the preliminary view that "the inability of smaller rivals to access the necessary types and volumes of data to compete effectively with Google and Facebook is likely to raise barriers to entry or expansion".

"In light of Facebook's very limited role in ad tech services (as recognised by the ACCC), it is not appropriate for the ACCC to draw conclusions on the role of data in Facebook's wider business (in ad tech or more generally) by reference to an assessment of how players in the ad tech supply chain access and use data," Facebook said.

"In fact, the ACCC's wide-ranging conclusions are simply not supported by the more narrowly focussed evidence and analysis in the interim report and have been reached without proper inquiry or consultation on that wider scope."

In line with data protection regulations such as Europe's GDPR, Facebook considers that data portability should be user-initiated and the ACCC should accordingly focus on user-initiated data portability proposals.

"Further, the interim report does not provide evidence to support the notion that advertiser-initiated or publisher-initiated data portability is in fact necessary or desirable," it added.

Facebook said its access to data has not prevented or inhibited new entry and growth by rivals in the advertising sector.

Facebook argues that it operates in a "highly competitive and dynamic advertising landscape".

"A number of companies are well-established in the online advertising space, including Google, Amazon, and Twitter. There are also many new entrants that have expanded rapidly, including Snap whose revenue from digital advertising has been increasing significantly, and TikTok the barriers for further new entrants are not high," it claims.

"Facebook competes vigorously with offline advertising channels and a range of online services that offer search and/or display advertising services, all of which seek to capture user engagement and corresponding advertiser spend. While the Inquiry focuses on online display advertising, it is also necessary to consider the impact of any proposals on other online and offline advertising channels."

It considers the ACCC's work to date as a "starting point". It's asked the watchdog pay proper recognition to the highly competitive and dynamic nature of the advertising sector.

"The digital ecosystem is rapidly evolving and the debate on regulating digital services is a global one that stretches beyond competition and consumer law considerations," it said. In particular, the impact of the ACCC's proposals on users' privacy rights and expectations requires careful thought and consideration. Facebook urges the ACCC not to act unilaterally in developing regulatory proposals that cut across privacy and data protection expectations and regulations."

The social media giant also believes the ACCC should continue to monitor the impact of evolving web browser and mobile operating system changes; exercise caution to avoid undermining personalised advertising services; andnot draw conclusions on the role of data or impose data-related proposals that have implications far beyond the ad tech stack.

Twitter, meanwhile, believes the ACCC's interim report raises a number of important issues affecting innovation, competition, and dynamism of markets for digital advertising services in Australia.

It therefore "encourages" the ACCC to resist over intervention that risks stifling innovation and competition to the detriment of advertisers, publishers, and consumers when it comes to contemplating new rules or enforcement activities in the ad tech supply chain.

Rather, it considers the ACCC's proposed interventions should be targeted only to those market participants whose dominant position in the supply chain "undermines competitive tension, creates or entrenches barriers to entry or expansion, or gives rise to consumer harm".

"Regulation should not be a one-size-fits-all approach," it wrote in its submission [PDF].

Pointing to proposed data portability requirements, Twitter said applying the rule to all firms regardless of their market position and power may inhibit new entrants and smaller market participants.

"Rules or requirements introduced to manage self-preferencing, conflicts of interest and/or interoperability should be directed and only applicable to firms which the ACCC considers to have a market dominance or power and that engage in problematic or anticompetitive conduct," it said.

"We caution that industry-wide interoperability requirements may harm competition by imposing significant design, implementation and compliance costs on smaller competitors, disincentivising new entrants or stifling the innovation that drives competing business models and services in digital markets."

Read this article:

Facebook says ACCC's ad tech probe makes a number of incorrect assumptions - ZDNet

SILICON VALLEY, CA About 900 Asian American business leaders across the country signed onto a campaign to stand against the recent rise in hate incidents targeting Asians and Asian Americans.

The "Stand With Asian Americans" pledge calls to fight violence against Asians, support Asian employees and ensure representation, and has the signatures of top executives at tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Apple and at other prominent brands such as Amazon, Nike and Airbnb.

The group is expected to launch a website on Wednesday and publish ads in mainstream publications.

Justin Zhu, the co-founder and CEO of San Francisco-based Iterable, helped organize the campaign he described as an "organic, underground spread" motivated by the mass murder earlier this month at three Atlanta spas that killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent.

Zhu and fellow Silicon Valley tech executives Dave Lu, managing partner at Hyphen Capital, and Wendy Nguyen, senior vice president at Propeller Health, are frustrated by what they believe is an inadequate response from mainstream media and corporations to the rise in anti-Asian hate during the COVID-19 pandemic. They seek to unite as many Asian American business leaders as possible to form a collective voice.

"The goal is to bring this issue into the mainstream because for our community to be safe, it's not just donations or passing new policies," Zhu told Patch. "The 300-plus million people in America need to recognize that Asian racism is not OK. This is about a culture shift that needs to happen because donations aren't going to cut it. It's really in the hearts of Americans."

Early backers of the pledge included Steve Chen, co-founder of YouTube, and Eric Yuan, the CEO of Zoom, Zhu said. Others quickly joined them.

The website's homepage featured a picture of Xiao Zhen Xie, the older Asian woman who fought back after being attacked in San Francisco earlier this month while she waited at an intersection. Across the header is the word "enough" in all caps.

"We, the Asian American business leaders of America, are tired, angry and afraid and not for the first time," the site said. "We are tired of being treated as less than American, subject to harassment and now, every day, we read about another member of our community being physically attacked simply for being Asian."

The site asked visitors to sign up as either an "Asian" or "Ally" and to donate to the Asian Pacific Fund. It also listed the names of all the business leaders and allies who have signed on in support.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rise in hate crimes targeting Asians, including countless documented attacks against older Asian people in the Bay Area. The Stop AAPI Hate organization reported more than 3,700 incidents of anti-Asian hate in the country since the pandemic began.

Zhu was born in Shanghai and immigrated to Canada at 8, moved to the U.S. for middle school and became a citizen in 2012. But he said he never quite felt like he belonged. Zhu landed a software engineering position at Twitter right out of college; two years later, he founded Iterable, which is now a 400-employee cross-channel marketing platform that raised more than $140 million in funding, according to CrunchBase.

"When I walk on the street and someone sees me, I'm seen as another Asian person," Zhu said. "We don't walk outside with our job titles."

Asian Americans make up half of the Bay Area's technology workforce, The Mercury News reported, based on U.S. Census data. But the tech industry's response to anti-Asian hate has been "lackluster," Zhu said. Some people signed the pledge but then removed their names because their companies had policies restricting political statements, he added.

"We've had companies who are essentially preventing their employees from speaking their truth," Zhu said. "This is our experience. It's nothing about politics. This is about our elderly, our women just not feeling safe."

Zhu wants the movement to help ease more Asian Americans into positions of influence. Asians held only 13.9 percent of executive positions at tech firms despite making up a much larger proportion of the workforce, The Mercury News reported in 2016. And even fewer Asian Americans are elected to political office.

"We need to change that," Zhu said. "If you don't have people at the table who are making the laws, who are making decisions, making sure our interests are shared, that our stories are shared it's just a lack of awareness that becomes insensitive of Asian needs, because they're not aware of it."

Many Asian Americans who emigrated from countries where speaking up politically is risky don't historically organize. "The first thing we have to do is strengthen the Asian American movement," Zhu said. "This is us moving the movement along until it gets to the critical mass. Then it can fuel itself."

Continued here:

Silicon Valley Tech Executives Pledge To Stand Against Asian Hate - Patch.com

Introduction

A recent influx of proposed federal and state legislation seeks to strengthen and modernise the antitrust laws and expand antitrust enforcement. The political momentum behind these attempts reflects noisy bipartisan support for legislators to do something about the ever-growing economic power and political influence of Google, Facebook, Amazon and other so-called 'tech giants'. Similar to the 1970s, when the political concerns caused by a combination of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, inflation and the Watergate scandal caused Congress to make Sherman Act offences serious felonies and establish pre-merger antitrust review of significant mergers, today's proposed legislative 'solutions' may go well beyond the original causes of political concern. The scope of the proposed bills is much broader than big tech and, even if only partially enacted, the bills could substantially affect companies of every type, across geographies and from both state and federal perspectives.

Although some new anti-monopoly legislation seems likely to pass as a result of broad public concerns about tech giants, the business community has an important stake in which, if any, of the broader proposals make it into law. At the federal level, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee Amy Klobuchar (Democrat-Minnesota) recently introduced the proposed Anti-competitive Exclusionary Conduct Prevention Act. Klobuchar's bill proposes a variety of changes, ranging from a likely-to-pass proposal for additional funding for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to more extreme measures that seem unlikely to gain sufficient bipartisan support. Nonetheless, even Klobuchar's more modest proposals could dramatically change the state of US antitrust enforcement from what it was under the Trump administration. For example, while Trump favoured deregulation, strengthened enforcement agencies, bolstered by additional funding, would mean more government investigations.

While much attention has been focused on Klobuchar's bill, there are also important legislative developments happening at the state level. Perhaps the most significant of these is the Twenty-First Century Antitrust Act, a proposed amendment to New York's state antitrust law that is intended to target technology companies, but goes much further. The bill was reintroduced by State Senator and Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris (Democrat-Queens, New York) after it was first introduced in the prior legislative session. Gianaris was one of the principal figures in keeping Amazon's HQ2 out of his district. He is sceptical of big business and his bill, if passed, will be one of the most aggressive state antitrust laws in the nation, potentially affecting any company that conducts business in New York. Further, New York is a legally prominent state and, if Gianaris's bill is enacted which the Democrat supermajority in the New York legislature makes more likely similar or lesser versions of it may begin to appear in state legislatures elsewhere.

Federal legislation

The likely increases in DOJ and FTC budgets, as proposed by Klobuchar, will have practical effects on businesses across the country. Armed with more money and enlarged staff resources, the agencies can be expected to conduct more grand jury investigations of suspected cartels in more localised markets and more aggressive merger investigations. Having more resources will likely enhance the agencies' ability to take more cases to trial, thus strengthening their willingness to bargain harder in settlement negotiations.

As Klobuchar has a serious interest in promoting antitrust reform and will release a book on the subject in April 2021, it is unsurprising that she is proposing major substantive reforms that go well beyond what might be needed to curb the activities of a few dominant digital platforms. Accordingly, Klobuchar's bill includes new legal presumptions designed to strengthen the government's anti-monopoly enforcement. Thus, the bill defines illegal 'exclusionary conduct' as anything that "materially disadvantages actual or potential competitors" or "tends to foreclose or limit the ability or incentive of potential competitors to compete". The existence of exclusionary conduct can be presumed when caused by any enterprise that "has a market share of greater than 50 percent as a seller or buyer" or "otherwise has significant market power in the relevant market". As presently drafted, the bill contains no dollar floors that would prevent the application of this new exclusionary conduct prohibition to small firms that dominate small or local markets. It will be critically important for many businesses to watch how far these anti-monopoly remedies may be trimmed back, particularly as there is bipartisan support for tougher rules to take on the digital giants.

Klobuchar's bill also introduces a new civil penalties remedy that would enable the FTC or the DOJ to recover significant sums of money for the US Treasury for violations of the proposed new anti-monopoly rules, presumably to deter future exclusionary conduct. The proposed penalties could be substantial up to 15% of the offending company's total US revenues for the previous calendar year or 30% of US revenues in the areas affected by the exclusionary conduct during the period of such conduct.

In addition, Klobuchar's bill appears to substantially expand the scope of private antitrust litigation, and it does so without even mentioning this subject explicitly. By defining the 'antitrust laws' to include the bill's proposed new anti-monopoly provisions and 'unfair methods of competition' in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 US Code Section 45), any alleged victim of exclusionary conduct could sue for treble damages and litigation costs under Section 4 of the Clayton Act or for an injunction action under Section 16 thereof. Thus, this seemingly 'technical' change could convert many ordinary common law business disputes into treble damage antitrust cases.

New York state legislation

Gianaris's Twenty-First Century Antitrust Act would make it illegal for "any person or persons with a dominant position in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in [New York] to abuse that dominant position". While this standard would be a unique addition to the antitrust rules in the United States, it mirrors a concept extensively enforced in the European Union and several countries following the EU approach to competition law. However, unlike the governing EU prohibition on this misconduct, Gianaris's bill does not define what constitutes a 'dominant position' or 'abuse'. Instead, the bill leaves it to New York's attorney general to define the critical terms. Opponents of the bill understandably fear that abuse of a dominant position could come to encompass offences well beyond those traditionally within the antitrust realm, such as unfair employee payment practices.

Moreover, the Twenty-First Century Antitrust Act would raise the limits of penalties from $100,000 to $1 million for individuals and from $1 million to $100 million for corporations. Gianaris's bill also explicitly expands the scope of private antitrust litigation. Specifically, the bill would allow for private antitrust class action lawsuits, which are not permitted under New York's current antitrust law.

In addition, Gianaris's bill would create a first-of-its-kind state merger notification requirement. Specifically, the bill would require any person subject to the jurisdiction of the New York courts to file a notification with the New York attorney general at least 60 days before acquiring, directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets if "as a result of such acquisition, the acquiring person would hold an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and assets of the acquired person in excess of eight million dollars". As such, any company that conducts business within New York could be required to file a pre-merger notification with the New York attorney general.

Comment

Pending legislative proposals in Washington DC and Albany could dramatically change the US antitrust landscape, even if only partially enacted. Although nominally aimed at reining in the tech giants, the bills currently have no floors limiting the sizes of enterprises or the markets to which the new rules would extend. Counsel for companies of all types would be well advised to keep a wary eye on these bills to see whether, and how much, they are narrowed as they work their way through the legislative process.

Continued here:

Pending legislative attempts to curb tech giants have much broader implications - Lexology

The pandemic along with itself brought huge lifestyle change and we all were in confinement within the four walls of our homes for the entire past year. With everything literally moving online whether be schools that were conducting classes online or work from home. Considering all this companies are trying to make their video calling features better in order to provide people more convenience to call loved ones they cannot meet, for schools to host classes easily or companies to conduct meetings for professional work.

Considering all of these factors, Google is also trying to improve their video calling or conferencing in Chrome so that people can have easier access to video calls through their browser and can attend their meetings while at home or talk to their loved ones when in distance. But how will the company do it?

Well, the company has a feature which is called Picture in Picture (PiP) which basically lets you open two programs together with one displayed in full size along with the other in an inset on Windows.

Google Chrome is now planning to update their Picture-in-Picture window to support common video calling actions. The company plans on making the picture in picture more useful in terms of video calling by providing users the basic tools to conduct video calls within PiP and also enable the user to mute and unmute their microphone, enable and disable their camera, or hang up the call directly from the PIP window. In short it wants to provide its users the basic tools to accomplish video calling through their features to make life easier for their community.

The company says that to accomplish such tools and features it needs to add new actions for these to the Media Session API and let websites declare handlers for those actions.

The tech giants realize that the pandemic has affected the lives of people greatly and the way of living has changed drastically therefore they are showing the best efforts they can to make communication easier and let people interact with each other more comfortably despite the large distances between them. It is great to see the tech giants and social media companies wanting to do so much for the society at such times and we cannot wait to see what else do they have in store for their community.

Read more:

Google Chrome Is Working Towards Providing Users A Better Video Calling Accessibility Through Picture in Picture Mode - Digital Information World