Global law firm Hogan Lovells is opening a branch in Dublin, the firm announced on Tuesday.

The office will be the firm’s 17^th to open in Europe and will initially focus on financial regulatory and antitrust work. A number of the firm’s London-based lawyers, who specialise in these practice areas, will relocate to the Dublin office.

“Putting clients at the centre of everything we do is a strategic priority for the firm, and having a presence in Dublin is about doing just that,” said Christopher Hutton, Hogan Lovells’ new Dublin office managing partner, in a statement. “Hogan Lovells opening an office there is welcomed by our existing clients, and also presents new opportunities. I am excited to head up the firm’s new offering in Ireland.”

The firm has not ruled out the possibility of offering training contracts or the opportunity for trainees to be seconded to its new Dublin office.

Hogan Lovells is the latest firm to open an office in Dublin following Brexit. Ashurst launched in the Irish capital earlier this month, while Dentons did so last September.

Prior to Brexit, international firms that maintained major offices in London would serve Irish clients from the UK. Circumstances changed last November when the Law Society of Ireland ruled that English- and Welsh-qualified solicitors who had previously gained admission to the Irish roll would be required to have a physical base in Ireland to maintain their EU practice rights there.

[ymal]

Aside from the aforementioned firms, Dechert, DLA Piper, Fieldfisher and Pinsent Masons have all opened offices in Dublin following the Brexit referendum. It is likely that other international firms will soon do the same to continue to practice in Europe.

France Digitale is set to file a complaint against Apple with data privacy watchdog CNIL on Tuesday targeting the Personalised Advertising system used in the tech giant’s flagship iPhone series.

In a seven-page complaint seen by Reuters, the lobby claimed that the system – which displays ads in the App Store, Apple News and Stocks apps based on individual user data – did not ask for users’ permission before using their data to implement the targeted ads.

France Digitale states that, while iPhone users are asked for permission before installed apps gather identifying data, the devices’ default settings allow Apple to launch targeted advertisements without clearly asking users for their consent beforehand.

Under EU data privacy regulations, firms must ask digital users for permission before collecting their data using trackers or other tools.

France Digitale represents the bulk of France’s digital entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.

“It’s a startup version of David versus Goliath, but we are determined,” the llobby’s CEO, Nicolas Brien, said in a statement.

Apple has denied the claims listed in France Digitale’s complaint. “The allegations in the complaint are patently false and will be seen for what they are, a poor attempt by those who track users to distract from their own actions and mislead regulators and policymakers,” the company said in a written statement.

[ymal]

The legal action from France Digitale is reminiscent of previous complaints alleging that Apple’s systems illegally handle user data without permission. In November, the Austrian advocacy group Noyb filed a complaint with data protection watchdogs in Germany and Spain claiming that iPhones’ IDFA technology contravened GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive.

Australia has passed a world-first law that will compel Google and Facebook to pay media companies for content on their platforms.

The News Media Bargaining Code makes Australia the first nation where the government is able to set the price tech companies pay domestic media for hosting content on their platforms if private negotiations break down.

The code was fiercely opposed by US tech giants, with Facebook blocking news content from Australian users on its platform in response to its passage through the lower house of Australia’s parliament.

Facebook has now said it will restore the visibility of these pages, as well as other government- and charity-run pages that were mistakenly blocked. Its reversal follows talks with the Australian government in which it was able to negotiate four key amendments to the new code.

Aside from encouraging tech companies and media organisations to negotiate payment deals between themselves, the New Media Bargaining Code will also compel Facebook and Google to invest tens of millions of dollars in local digital content to ensure access.

In a joint statement, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said the code will “ensure news media businesses are fairly remunerated for the content they generate, helping to sustain public interest journalism.”

[ymal]

Both the Australian government and the US tech giants the new code targets have claimed victory after the completion of negotiations. Among the amendments secured by Facebook si a provision that the government may release tech giants from arbitration if they are able to prove a “significant contribution” to the domestic news industry.

The media code’s signing into law has global significance as other governments weigh the feasibility of similar laws curbing the influence of tech giants in how media is distributed online. Lawmakers in Britain, Canada and the US have expressed interest in the progress of the new Australian legislation.

Facebook has announced that it will restore news content to its users in Australia after a standoff with the country’s government last week.

"Facebook has re-friended Australia,” Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg told reports in Canberra on Tuesday, saying that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had told him that the ban would be lifted “in the coming days”.

Last Thursday, Facebook blocked Australian news sites from posting on the platform, and Australian users were prevented from viewing or sharing content from news outlets of any nationality. Also caught in the ban were various pages run by charitable organisations and government health agencies, disrupting coordination one week ahead of the country’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Facebook claimed that it had been forced to block news in Australia in response to legislation currently being debated in the Senate after passing the lower house last week. The law is intended to create a “fairer” negotiation process between tech giants and news companies and is being observed internationally as a litmus test for further regulation of tech and social media.

Now, Facebook says it has negotiated a change to the proposed media code.

"Going forward, the government has clarified we will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that we won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation," said Campbell Brown, Facebook’s Vice President of Global News Partnerships, in a statement online.

[ymal]

The Australian government will offer four amendments to the media code, including a change to the proposed mandatory arbitration mechanism to be used when tech companies cannot reach a fair payment deal with publishers for displaying news content.

The media code has also been challenged by Google, which threatened to shut down its search engine in Australia if it was instated.

Global payments giant Mastercard has come under investigation by Switzerland’s competition authority as part of a probe into whether the company broke national rules governing transactions using other banks’ cash machines.

Switzerland’s National Cash Scheme (NCS) is a new set of rules that allows bank cards to be used at any ATM operated by Swiss banks instead of being limited to those run by their issuing bank.

The initiative was created by SIX, a company which operates various facets of Switzerland’s financial infrastructure, including the national stock exchange. SIX complained last year that Mastercard was refusing to link its cards to the new system, potentially obstructing the rollout of NCS.

The Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) is now investigating these allegations.

“The obstruction occurs because Mastercard refuses to co-badge the NCS on the new debit Mastercard,” a spokesperson for the watchdog said in a statement on Tuesday, referring to the practice of adding a second payment application or brand onto a debit card.

The spokesperson added: “COMCO is now investigating whether Mastercard has abused its position as a dominant company. Precautionary measures were taken for the duration of the investigation.”

COMCO did not give any guidance as to the timing of the investigation, which may last for years.

[ymal]

A spokesperson for Mastercard said that the firm is aware of COMCO’s investigation, but noted that it is “an interim procedural step and does not imply any breach of Swiss Competition law by Mastercard or any other player.”

“Mastercard is of the opinion that the Commission’s decision to impose interim measures is not justified and intends to appeal these measures,” the spokesperson concluded.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted unlawfully when it attempted to compel US engineering company KBR to hand over documents held overseas during an investigation.

Supreme Court Judges unanimously disagreed with a 2018 High Court ruling that notices issued under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. have extra-territorial reach. The ruling deals a blow to the SFO’s ability to gather evidence held outside the UK.

"The presumption against extra-territorial effect clearly applies in this case because KBR Inc is not a UK company, and has never had a registered office or carried on business in the UK," the court stated.

The court also rejected the argument that parliament had intended Section 2(3) to grant the SFO the power to compel foreign companies to produce documents held outside the UK. In judgement, Lord Lloyd-Jones pointed to successive acts of parliament that have developed structures in domestic law that allow the UK to participate in mutual legal assistance internationally, arguing that it was “inherently improbable” that the government would have intended for a parallel system to allow the SFO to obtain evidence from abroad without any recourse to courts.

The SFO argued that Section 2 extra-territorial powers were integral to its ability to investigate multinational corporations with complex international structures, but said that it welcomed the court’s clarification.

“Given almost all of its cases involve some element of overseas evidence gathering, this decision will be disappointing for the SFO – not least since, following Brexit, it no longer has access to European Investigation Orders,” former SFO general counsel Alun Milford told City A.M.

[ymal]

The SFO opened a bribery and corruption investigation into KBR in 2017, initially with the company’s cooperation. However, when the SFO issued a Section 2 notice to a US-based senior executive during a meeting in Britain, KBR applied for a judicial review to have it quashed.

US chipmaker Qualcomm has lost its data dispute with EU antitrust regulators following a ruling from Europe’s top court on Thursday.

The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reaffirmed regulators’ right to see data held by Qualcomm, a move that is likely to strengthen the European Commission’s position in other antitrust investigations.

The case in point has already seen the chipmaker struck with a €242 million fine.

Qualcomm’s legal fight with the EU antitrust watchdog began in 2017 when it was instructed to provide more information relating to a case in which it was accused of predatory pricing in 2009 and 2011 in an attempt to crush UK-based phone software developer Icera.

Qualcomm declined to provide further information, arguing that the regulator’s request exceeded the scope of the investigation. It brought its case to the General Court – the second-highest court in Europe – and lost its challenge in 2019, subsequently appealing to the CJEU.

On Thursday, the CJEU backed the Commission.

“Having regard to the broad powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by Regulation No 1/2003, it is for the Commission to decide whether a particular item of information is necessary to enable it to bring to light an infringement of the competition rules,” court judges said.

[ymal]

The European Commission has already levelled fines of €1.2 billion against Qualcomm relating to this case and another in the past three years, both related to the company’s alleged use of its market power to thwart rival firms.

Qualcomm Is also the subject of a third case from the Commissions, which is investigating whether the chipmaker engaged in anti-competitive behaviour by leveraging its market position in 5G modem chips in the radio frequency chip market.

A third class action lawsuit has been launched against Apple over the company’s practice of planned obsolescence in its iPhone product line.

The latest lawsuit, filed by Italian consumer association Altroconsumo on Monday, seeks compensation from Apple “of at least €60 on average for owners of iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S and 6S Plus” for the devices’ having been designed to become prematurely out-of-date, which the group describes as “environmentally irresponsible” and a “deliberate unfair practice towards consumers”.

The group said that it was targeting the iPhone 6 range specifically because it represents a “very concrete example” of consumer frustration caused by the practice of planned obsolescence.

Altroconsumo’s class action lawsuit is the third in similar cases brought against Apple by European nations. Similar lawsuits were filed in December by organisations OCU and Test-Achats in Spain and Belgium respectively, each under the umbrella of Euroconsumers, the advocacy group to which Altroconsumo also belongs.

Euroconsumers said in a press release that it plans to launch a fourth lawsuit in Portugal.

Apple has denied planning the obsolescence of its devices. “We have never---and would never---do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades,” an Apple spokesperson said in an email to The Verge.

“Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that."

[ymal]

Last month, Apple agreed to pay $113 million to settle a lawsuit brought by 33 US states that alleged the company had deliberately throttled chip speeds in its iPhone 6, 7 and SE models through a software update.

Though Apple apologised for the slowdown and offered $29 battery replacements to affected users, it did not acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Google threatened on Friday to disable its search function in Australia if the government instates a new media code that would force it and Facebook to share royalties with news publishers.

Should Google make good on its promise, the move would forbid access to the Google search engine for the roughly 19 million Australians who make use of it every day.

“The code’s arbitration model with bias criteria presents unmanageable financial and operational risk for Google,” Mel Silva, Google’s managing director for Australia and New Zealand, told a Senate committee.

“If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia.”

Facebook has threatened similar action, stating that it will remove news from its feed for all Australian users should the code be passed. The social media company currently boasts around 17 million Australian users, none of whom would be able to post news articles on the Facebook platform if the company removed the function.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison fired back on Google’s warning, telling reporters on Friday that lawmakers would not yield to “threats”.

"Let me be clear: Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That's done in our parliament," he said.

[ymal]

Though Australia is not the largest market for either Google or Facebook, its world-first media code is being seen by some as a global test case for government regulation of the world’s largest tech firms. The US government this week asked Australia not to go ahead with the proposed law, suggesting that it instead pursue a voluntary code.

Amazon has filed a lawsuit against EU antitrust regulators for allowing the Italian competition watchdog to pursue its own case against the company, arguing that it should be undertaken as part of a wider EU investigation.

The case was filed in the Luxembourg-based General Court – the second-highest court in Europe – and seeks to annul the EU’s decision to allow the Italian Competition Authority to undertake its own investigation, according to a court filing.

“When the European Commission decides to investigate a matter, European law says that national competition authorities cannot investigate the same topic,” Amazon said in a statement. “This did not occur in this instance, as the Commission’s opening decision attempts to exclude Italy.”

The move follows the launch of a probe in November by the European Commission into how Amazon determines the winners of its “buy box”, which allows customers to add items from a specific retailer directly into their shopping carts. The probe will also investigate whether the eCommerce giant prioritised its own retail offers and marketplace sellers that use its logistics and delivery services.

The Italian Competition Authority’s case was launched in 2019 and was concerned with the same issue, but with a focus on the Italian logistics market.

The European Commission has said that it will defend its case in court.

[ymal]

When filing antitrust charges in November, the EU accused Amazon of gathering data from independent sellers utilising its platform to benefit its own retail arm, which would compete with those same sellers. It also raised concerns of the company’s “possible preferential treatment” of sellers that made use of its logistics and delivery services.

Amazon has disagreed with the European Commission’s allegations of anti-competitive practice, arguing that it represents “less than 1% of the global retail market” and has to compete with larger retailers in every country where it operates.