The Competition and Markets Authority said on Tuesday it will take a fresh look at Microsoft’s approaches, months after deciding not to act on earlier findings.

This time, the regulator is considering whether to give Microsoft “strategic market status” in business software, and this would allow closer oversight and direct intervention.

At the centre of the case is how Microsoft links its software, including Windows Server and Microsoft 365, to its own cloud platform. Regulators have noted that customers face extra costs when they try to run these tools on rival services.

That, they say, makes it harder for businesses to switch providers or spread workloads across different clouds.

Companies want flexibility and when pricing or licensing regulations get in the way, it limits choice and raises expenses.

The UK cloud market is tough. Amazon and Microsoft each control about 30 to 40% of the sector, covering services such as storage, processing and networking.

Google follows with a much smaller share of around 5 to 10%. Earlier findings from the regulator said this level of concentration was already affecting competition.

The CMA noted that both Microsoft and Amazon have recently taken steps to ease some of the pressure. These include reducing certain fees tied to moving data between platforms and improving how systems work together. Still, the watchdog expects more changes in the coming months.

CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said the regulator is acting in a “flexible, pragmatic way to deliver real impact, as quickly as possible for UK customers”.

She added: “Cloud remains central to our approach – we’ve seen real progress through our engagement with Microsoft and Amazon to drive meaningful improvements on egress fees and interoperability and we expect more action from them over the coming months.”

Microsoft says the cloud licensing adjustments it has agreed to focus on data transfers, switching between providers and system compatibility.

Its vice chairman and president, Brad Smith, said: “The changes address the CMA’s commitment to ensuring that UK customers can continue to move, deploy, and operate their workloads in the clouds of their choice with confidence, flexibility, and ever-reduced friction.”

Amazon, for its part, said the steps it has taken formalise its support for customer choice, including the ability to run services across multiple cloud platforms.

Beyond the UK, regulators in both the European Union and the United States are examining similar issues in cloud computing. The focus is largely the same, reviewing whether large providers are using their position in software and infrastructure to limit competition.

A source familiar with the matter said the revised bid improves on Paramount’s earlier $30 per share all-cash proposal, which valued the company at about $108.4 billion.

The exact terms of the new offer were not disclosed, but analysts expect it could fall between $31 and $34 per share.

Warner Bros shareholders are due to vote on Netflix’s $82.7 billion cash offer, priced at $27.75 per share, on 20 March 2026. Under the terms of that agreement, Netflix has the right to match any superior proposal.

Warner Bros’ board had asked Paramount to submit its “best and final offer” after rejecting a previous enhanced bid. That earlier proposal included covering Netflix’s $2.8 billion termination fee and adding a quarterly 25-cent per share ticking fee from next year to compensate investors for any delay in closing the deal.

The board said on February 10 that the offer still fell short and set a seven-day deadline for a revised bid.

Neither Warner Bros nor Paramount commented, and Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centres on some of the most valuable assets in entertainment, including the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises, as well as the HBO Max streaming platform.

Warner Bros also plans to spin off cable television assets such as CNN and HGTV into a separate company, Discovery Global. The company estimates the spin-off could be worth between $1.33 and $6.86 per share.

Netflix argues its proposal offers shareholders additional upside from the planned separation. Paramount, however, has said the cable spin-off that underpins Netflix’s case is effectively worthless.

Regulators are already reviewing the competing bids, with the U.S. Department of Justice examining whether Netflix’s proposal leads to antitrust concerns, including its claim that it needs Warner Bros to compete with YouTube, the most-watched distributor on American television screens.

As part of that review, officials are also looking at whether Netflix engaged in anti-competitive practices.

Paramount says it has secured foreign investment clearance in Germany and is in discussions with regulators in the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom. The company maintains it has a clearer path to approval than Netflix.

Lawmakers in Washington have also spoken. Some Democratic senators warned that a Paramount deal would give the Ellison family control over CNN and CBS and could concentrate too much power over what Americans watch on television.

Others said either transaction could reduce consumer choice and harm creative workers.

For Netflix, a merger with HBO Max would create the largest global streaming platform, with roughly half a billion subscribers.

Co-chief executive Ted Sarandos has said the combination would be better for Hollywood because it would avoid job cuts in an industry already under stress from fewer productions and uneven box office returns.

He has also said consumers could benefit from lower prices through bundled offerings.

Paramount’s bid is backed by Larry Ellison’s financial support and ties to Oracle. Netflix, by contrast, has pointed to its strong cash reserves and the flexibility to raise its offer if necessary.

Investors such as Ancora Capital have accumulated a roughly $200 million stake in Warner Bros and are urging the board to engage more seriously with Paramount.

The activist investor warned that if the company refuses to reopen discussions, it will vote against the Netflix deal and hold directors accountable at the annual meeting.

Analysts at MoffettNathanson said earlier that an offer around $34 per share from Paramount would likely end the bidding war and “avoid further debate over Discovery Global’s value.”

Shares of Paramount rose 1.3% to $10.70 in extended trading following news of the revised bid.

The outcome now rests with Warner Bros shareholders. A vote in favour of Netflix would move that deal forward, though it would still face detailed reviews by competition authorities in the United States and Europe.

If Paramount’s higher offer is deemed superior, the board will have to decide whether to change its recommendation.

The interim order, issued on Wednesday by the Italian antitrust agency (AGCM), targets clauses that regulators say risk locking competitors out of WhatsApp. 

This is meant to prevent harm while the investigation runs its course, not to prejudge the outcome. Still, it lands heavily on Meta at a time when Europe is stepping up its monitoring of Big Tech companies, keeping a close eye on their policies and market influence.

AGCM first opened the case in July, focusing on how Meta integrated its own AI assistant into WhatsApp. In November, investigators widened the scope to include updated terms tied to WhatsApp’s business platform. 

By December 24, the watchdog concluded that immediate action was needed. Its concern is that Meta’s behaviour could limit output, choke access to the market, and slow technical progress in AI chatbot services, with knock-on effects for users.

“These contractual conditions completely exclude Meta AI’s competitors in the AI chatbot services market from the WhatsApp platform,” the regulator said. 

Given WhatsApp’s scale, that is important. With more than two billion users worldwide, exclusion from the platform can decide which tools survive and which never get traction.

A Meta spokesperson described the decision as “fundamentally flawed,” adding that the rise of AI chatbots “put a strain on our systems that they were not designed to support”. The company’s line is that opening WhatsApp more widely to third-party AI would risk stability and performance.

This is not just an Italian fight. The European Commission launched its own parallel investigation earlier this month, examining whether Meta’s policies breach EU competition rules across the bloc. 

If regulators ultimately find wrongdoing, penalties could reach up to 10% of Meta’s global annual turnover, a figure that runs into tens of billions.

The case fits the European pattern. Brussels and national authorities have taken tough action against Apple over App Store rules, Google over advertising technology, and Amazon over marketplace practices. 

The approach contrasts with the United States, where enforcement has been looser, drawing complaints from the administration of President Donald Trump that Europe is singling out American firms.

Italy’s watchdog says it is working closely with the European Commission to address Meta’s conduct “in the most effective manner”. 

The Lazio Regional Administrative Court confirmed on Tuesday that Amazon restricted competition in Italy’s e-commerce logistics sector. 

However, it ruled that the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM) had wrongly applied a discretionary 50% surcharge to the original figure. The judges said the regulator failed to adequately justify why Amazon’s global turnover should trigger such an increase.

Although the court did not provide a revised figure, removing the surcharge would bring the penalty closer to €750 million, according to calculations cited by Reuters. Amazon has yet to respond to the ruling.

The fine, handed down in December 2021, was one of the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a U.S. tech giant in Europe. Regulators accused Amazon of favouring its own logistics service, Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA), at the expense of independent providers. 

Sellers who chose FBA were reportedly rewarded with better visibility and access to Prime benefits, tilting the playing field in Amazon’s favour.

The court’s decision preserves the core finding of Amazon being engaged in anti-competitive issues. What it does change is the financial weight of the punishment. 

In striking out the surcharge, the ruling exposes a weakness in how competition regulators calculate penalties against multinational corporations with revenues that far exceed the scale of their local operations.

Across Europe, Amazon is still facing some issues. Authorities in Germany, France and at the European Commission have launched similar investigations, many centred on platform self-preferencing, data use, and unfair treatment of third-party sellers.

The case reveals that European regulators are determined to hold Big Tech accountable, and applying financial penalties in proportion to global tech revenues is still legally and politically complex.

Elon Musk’s AI startup, xAI, has sued Apple and OpenAI, accusing them of conspiring to shut out rivals in the fast-growing artificial intelligence market.

The lawsuit, filed in a Texas federal court on 25 August, is the latest escalation in Elon Musk’s long-running disagreement with OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman.

According to the complaint, Apple has given OpenAI an unfair advantage by integrating ChatGPT into iPhones, iPads, and Macs while sidelining Musk’s xAI products, including the Grok chatbot. 

xAI claims that Apple manipulates App Store rankings to exclude Grok from its curated lists, despite the app’s high user ratings. Musk himself reinforced this point on X, writing: “A million reviews with 4.9 average for @Grok and still Apple refuses to mention Grok on any lists.”

The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s dominance in the smartphone market, holding roughly 65% in the United States, combined with OpenAI’s estimated 80% control of the generative AI chatbot market, has created what Musk calls a “duopoly.” 

Lawyers for xAI argue that this exclusive arrangement violates U.S. antitrust law, particularly Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The company is seeking billions of dollars in damages.

OpenAI, in response, dismissed the filing, saying: “This latest filing is consistent with Mr. Musk’s ongoing pattern of harassment.” Apple has so far declined to comment.

Legal experts say the case could become a watershed moment for how American courts define the AI market and apply competition law to emerging technologies. Christine Bartholomew, a law professor at the University at Buffalo, described it as “a canary in the coal mine in terms of how courts will treat AI, and treat antitrust and AI.”

Musk’s issue with OpenAI is not new. He co-founded the company in 2015 but left three years later after disagreements over its direction. Since then, he has repeatedly criticised its shift from nonprofit to for-profit, even filing a separate lawsuit to block the move. Earlier this year, Musk attempted to buy OpenAI outright for $97.4 billion, an offer the company rejected.

Beyond the fight, Musk is pursuing ambitions for xAI and his social media platform X. He envisions turning them into a “super app,” combining social networking, payments, and AI tools in a model similar to China’s WeChat. 

Experts say Apple’s partnership with OpenAI could be seen as an attempt to neutralise that threat by locking users into its ecosystem.

The case draws comparisons to the U.S. government’s antitrust issue with Google, which centred on exclusive search deals with Apple.

If the CMA designates Google under this new status, enabled by powers granted under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act that took effect earlier this year, the tech giant would face a set of binding obligations. 

These include offering users alternatives to Google Search, giving publishers more control over how their content is used, and ensuring that businesses have fair access to search visibility. Simply put, the UK is moving to weaken Google’s grip on online discovery.

“Google search accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries in the UK, with millions of people relying on it as a key gateway to the internet,” said Sarah Cardell, CEO of the CMA. “If competition was working well, we would expect these costs to be lower.”

The regulator is particularly concerned about the implications of Google’s market monopoly on innovation, business costs, and user choice. In 2023 alone, UK businesses reportedly spent over £33,000 per advertiser on Google search ads, a figure the CMA believes reflects limited competitive pressure.

Should the SMS designation go through, Google would be required to implement “choice screens” that allow users to switch easily between competing search engines, including potentially AI-driven assistants. 

It would also have to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory search result rankings, a demand long stated by publishers and rival firms.

Another focus is how Google’s AI-enabled search features, such as AI Overviews, use third-party content. The CMA wants publishers to have more say in how their work is used, particularly given that such content often drive these AI-generated results without sufficient visibility or compensation.

The regulator hasn’t shied away from the fact that this is a transition in oversight. While the EU has already introduced digital regulations under the Digital Markets Act, the UK is opting for a case-by-case, targeted approach that still carries substantial consequences. 

The CMA now has the authority to impose fines and enforce decisions directly, a post-Brexit empowerment it intends to wield.

Google, unsurprisingly, has objected. “Punitive regulation could stop us bringing new features and services to Britain,” warned Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director for competition. He added, “Proportionate, evidence-based regulation will be essential to preventing the CMA’s roadmap from becoming a roadblock to growth in the UK.”

Though the CMA is quick to stress that its proposed intervention is not a judgment of wrongdoing, it’s also clear that the agency believes Google has used its authority to suppress innovation. 

Beyond traditional search, the CMA also plans to monitor how generative AI technologies, which Google is increasingly embedding into search, may further entrench the company’s position. 

For now, the Gemini AI Assistant will not be covered under the proposed designation, but the regulator says this could change depending on how the technology evolves and is adopted.

This isn’t the only front on which Google faces such in the UK. The CMA is also examining its control over the Android mobile operating system in a separate probe, which could lead to an additional SMS designation targeting mobile software.

Globally, Google’s regulatory issues are increasing. It’s been hit with landmark antitrust cases in the United States, and in the EU it faces accusations of violating digital platform rules. 

The CMA is currently collecting input from industry stakeholders. Its final decision is expected by 13 October 2025.

The tech company filed its appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, aiming to overturn a decision that could alter how developers operate within its iOS ecosystem.

The appeal comes in response to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ April 30 decision, which held Apple in contempt for defying a 2021 injunction. 

The original order was intended to prevent Apple from obstructing app developers from directing users to alternative, often cheaper, payment options outside the App Store.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers did not mince words in her ruling. “Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this court’s injunction,” she wrote. She refused Apple’s request to pause the enforcement of her decision, accusing the company of deliberate noncompliance and misleading conduct.

The judge referred Apple and one of its senior executives to the U.S. Department of Justice for a possible criminal contempt investigation—an unusual escalation in corporate litigation that signals the severity of the court’s view on Apple’s conduct.

Apple has rejected the court’s claims, asserting that its App Store rules were not in violation of the injunction and are aimed at ensuring safety and maintaining user trust. In its notice of appeal, Apple did not publicly disclose its full legal reasoning but confirmed that it would challenge the contempt finding in detail.

At the core of the case is a 2020 lawsuit filed by Epic Games, creator of Fortnite, which accused Apple of monopolistic behaviour by restricting developers’ access to third-party payment systems and charging what it described as unreasonable fees. 

The company claimed that Apple’s policies gave it unfair control over app distribution and in-app commerce on iPhones and iPads.

Following the contempt ruling, Apple was ordered to eliminate new practices that the judge deemed obstructive. This included a controversial 27% commission imposed on developers when users completed purchases outside the App Store—a tactic the court viewed as undermining the spirit of the original injunction. 

The judge also banned the use of warning prompts, often labelled “scare screens,” which Apple displayed to dissuade users from using alternative payment options.

The ruling has triggered immediate ripple effects across the tech industry. Companies such as Spotify, which had long criticised Apple’s grip on app payments, are reportedly adjusting their in-app user experiences to embrace the new legal framework and allow external payments.

Neither Apple nor Epic Games responded to media inquiries at the time of filing this report.

The outcome of this appeal carries significant implications for the digital economy. Should Apple fail to overturn the ruling, the decision could reshape how major platforms manage their app marketplaces, setting a precedent that other jurisdictions may follow. 

Meanwhile, the prospect of a criminal contempt probe adds further issues to Apple’s legal standing.