The order, one of Beijing’s strongest moves yet against a foreign purchase of a Chinese tech company, came on Monday from China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which said foreign investment in Manus would be prohibited under Chinese law, and the deal must be unwound.

Beijing is now concentrating on AI talent, software and intellectual property, and areas once taken over by chip restrictions now include artificial intelligence, as competition between China and the United States gets stronger

Chinese authorities began examining the acquisition in January, shortly after Meta completed the purchase in December. The review later intensified, and in March, Manus co-founders Xiao Hong and Ji Yichao were reportedly called to Beijing for talks with regulators and then barred from leaving China.

Neither founder publicly responded to requests for comment.

Meta has also not issued a public response.

Manus had drawn attention in China after launching what it described as a general AI agent in 2025. State-backed media had commended the company as a possible successor to DeepSeek, one of China’s most-watched AI firms.

Unlike model developers who build large language systems from scratch, Manus focused on agent software designed to complete multi-step tasks with limited human input. These tasks include coding, research and workflow automation.

Before the takeover, Manus raised $75 million in funding led by Benchmark in May 2025.

The company later shut its China offices and moved operations to Singapore, where its parent company, Butterfly Effect, was restructured. That move was seen as an attempt to attract foreign capital while easing both U.S. and Chinese restrictions.

Chinese regulators now appear determined to challenge that route.

The practice, sometimes called “Singapore washing”, involves Chinese-founded startups shifting legal structures or operations abroad while keeping roots in China. The latest development with Beijing reveals that strategy may no longer guarantee protection from investigations.

Startups moving overseas may not be enough as authorities may now demand proof of where management is headquartered, where research is done, where data is stored and who controls the company’s technology.

The China ruling could also create some problems for Meta, as some Manus staff had already moved into Meta’s Singapore offices, while parts of the startup’s work were reportedly being integrated into Meta projects.

Any reversal may now require separating teams, contracts and technology already tied together.

This is coming weeks before a planned summit in Beijing between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May.

That meeting was expected to cover trade and technology tensions, but this issue now adds another case.

China has previously criticised foreign-linked deals involving strategic assets, but forcing the breakup of a completed transaction is rare.

China does not want core AI assets leaving its reach, no matter where a company later relocates.

Regulators say the U.S. tech giant could be abusing its position in the messaging market.

On January 15, Meta allowed only its own AI assistant to operate on WhatsApp, blocking access to third-party AI rivals. 

The European Commission responded by issuing a statement of objections to Meta and said it is considering interim measures to prevent “serious and irreparable harm” to competitors while the investigation continues.

“We must protect effective competition in this vibrant field, which means we cannot allow dominant tech companies to illegally leverage their dominance to give themselves an unfair advantage,” EU antitrust chief Teresa Ribera said. 

“That is why we are considering quickly imposing interim measures on Meta, to preserve access for competitors to WhatsApp while the investigation is ongoing and avoid Meta’s new policy irreparably harming competition in Europe.”

Meta defended its policy, arguing that the WhatsApp Business API is not a crucial channel for AI tools. “There are many AI options and people can use them from app stores, operating systems, devices, websites and industry partnerships,” a Meta spokesperson said. 

“The Commission’s logic incorrectly assumes the WhatsApp Business API (software) is a key distribution channel for these chatbots.”

Italy’s competition authority took a similar step last December, restricting Meta’s ability to block AI rivals. In contrast, a Brazilian court recently suspended an interim measure against Meta over the same issue.

Filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on St Croix, the case claims Meta knowingly allows harmful and fraudulent adverts to circulate because they boost engagement and profits. 

This is the first time a territorial attorney general has moved directly against the company over these issues.

“Meta knowingly and intentionally exposes its users to fraud and harm. It does so to maximise user engagement and, in turn, its revenue,” the lawsuit states.

At the heart of the case is reporting that revealed Meta internally expected around 10% of its 2024 revenue, roughly $16 billion, to come from scam ads, illegal gambling and banned products. 

The same reporting showed that advertisers suspected of fraud were not blocked unless Meta’s internal systems reached a 95% certainty threshold, allowing many harmful ads to remain live.

Two U.S. senators urged the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to step in and investigate the company’s advertising practices, calling for strong enforcement where needed. That now appears to be spilling beyond Washington and into the courts.

Virgin Islands Attorney General Gordon C. Rhea said the lawsuit “marks the first effort by an attorney general to address reports of rampant fraud and scams on Meta’s platforms.” 

The case seeks penalties under local consumer protection laws and accuses Meta of misleading users, parents and regulators about how safe its platforms really are.

“Meta repeatedly touts the ‘safety’ of its platforms to its users, parents, regulators, and Congress,” the lawsuit states. “Meta consistently, and intentionally, fails to implement the policies it writes.”

More than 42 U.S. state attorneys general have already sued Meta over assertions that it has failed to shield young users from harmful content. The Virgin Islands case builds on that and could open the door for other territories to follow suit.

Child safety is a major theme. Earlier reporting also revealed complaints about internal guidelines governing Meta’s automated systems, which allowed them to “engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.” 

Meta later said it removed those sections, but the lawsuit argues that the company’s public assurances do not match its internal practices.

Meta responded with spokesman Andy Stone dismissing the accusations and pointing to earlier company statements rejecting the allegations.

“We aggressively fight fraud and scams because people on our platforms don’t want this content, legitimate advertisers don’t want it and we don’t want it either,” he said. He added that reports of scams from users have fallen by half over the past 18 months.

On youth protection, Stone was equally firm. “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” he said.

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 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) claims that from October 2024, Microsoft misled about 2.7 million users into thinking they had to upgrade to more expensive Microsoft 365 personal and family plans that included Copilot. 

Prices for the personal plan jumped 45% to A$159 annually, while the family plan increased 29% to A$179.

According to the ACCC, Microsoft failed to clearly inform customers that a cheaper “classic” version of Microsoft 365, without Copilot, remained available. The regulator said that users only discovered this lower-priced option after starting the cancellation process, a design choice it believes violated Australian consumer law.

“Microsoft’s conduct created the impression that customers had no choice but to pay more if they wished to continue using Microsoft 365,” the ACCC alleged. The watchdog said the company’s emails and blog posts also omitted any mention of the cheaper plan, instead informing users that the higher price would automatically apply at renewal.

The ACCC accuses Microsoft of breaching sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations about goods and services. It argues that Microsoft’s approach amounted to “dark patterns,” design tactics that subtly manipulate user behaviour to achieve commercial gain.

In response, a Microsoft spokesperson said the company was “reviewing the ACCC’s claim in detail.” The tech firm has not indicated whether it plans to alter its subscription messaging or reinstate clearer disclosures for customers.

If found guilty, Microsoft could face financial penalties. Under Australian law, the maximum penalty per breach is the greater of A$50 million, three times the benefit gained, or 30% of the company’s adjusted turnover during the period of violation if the benefit cannot be determined.

“Any penalty that might apply to this conduct is a matter for the Court to determine and would depend on the Court’s findings,” the ACCC stated. “The ACCC will not comment on what penalties the Court may impose.”

The regulator is also seeking consumer redress, injunctions, and legal costs against both Microsoft Australia Pty Ltd and its U.S. parent, Microsoft Corp.

The way technology companies bundle AI tools into existing products and communicate subscription choices is currently being investigated, with similar efforts underway in the European Union under the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, while the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is examining subscription “traps” and AI-related disclosures.

Brussels is pressing these platforms, classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) due to their reach of over 45 million EU users, to prove that they are taking real steps to shield children from illegal and harmful content. This includes exposure to drugs, vaping products, and material that promotes eating disorders.

The EU request centres on the companies’ age verification tools and internal measures for restricting harmful material regarding child safety. Officials also want explanations on how their algorithms handle potentially addictive recommendation systems and how app stores manage access to gambling, sexual content, and so-called “nudify” applications.

“Today, alongside national authorities in the member states, we are assessing whether the measures taken so far by the platforms are indeed protecting children,” said EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen.

The case is part of an enforcement under the DSA, the EU’s digital law designed to make tech giants more accountable for content circulating on their platforms. The Commission has issued formal Requests for Information (RFIs), a step that could lead to full investigations and fines reaching up to 6% of global turnover if breaches are confirmed.

Beyond enforcement, the EU is exploring policy changes, including setting a bloc-wide “digital age of majority” that could restrict minors’ access to certain online services, an idea inspired by Australia’s under-16 social media ban.

In the United States, several states such as Utah and Arkansas now require parental consent for minors to use social media. Meanwhile, within Europe, Denmark is pushing for a national social media ban for users under 15, while France and Spain have publicly backed tighter digital age limits.

The EU child safety investigation follows its child protection guidelines published in July 2025, which laid out clearer expectations for compliance with the DSA.

The General Court in Luxembourg ruled that regulators relied on the wrong legal procedure to calculate the levy, which currently stands at 0.05% of each company’s annual global net income. 

The methodology, judges said, should have been set through a delegated act rather than through implementing decisions. In other words, the Commission acted outside the precise legal framework of the DSA.

The judgment provides the Commission with a year to correct its approach, but importantly, it does not oblige regulators to refund the 2023 fees paid by Meta and TikTok. Both companies had argued that the formula was disproportionate and unfair, especially for platforms with large user bases but tighter profit margins.

In its reaction, the Commission downplayed the impact of the decision. A spokesperson stated: “The Court’s ruling requires a purely formal correction on the procedure. We now have 12 months to adopt a delegated act to formalise the fee calculation and adopt new implementing decisions.” 

Officials stressed that the ruling does not sabotage the principle of the supervisory fee itself, nor the amounts already collected.

The DSA, which came into force in November 2022, obliges very large online platforms to combat illegal and harmful content or risk fines of up to 6% of their global turnover. Compliance monitoring is expensive, and the supervisory fee is meant to fund that effort. 

The size of the fee is tied to two key factors: the average number of monthly active users and the financial results of the company in the previous year.

While Meta and TikTok led the challenge, other major platforms also fall under the DSA’s obligations. These include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Booking.com, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Elon Musk’s X platform. All are classified as “Very Large Online Platforms” because they exceed the threshold of 45 million active monthly users in the EU.

The ruling does not cancel the supervisory fee, but it does underline the need for procedural accuracy in the EU’s enforcement of digital rules. Analysts say the result may complicate future enforcement if other companies decide to contest the Commission’s methods.

The penalty, announced Thursday by the Turkish Competition Authority (TCA), is the latest signal that regulators are losing patience with what they see as continuous misconduct by the tech giant.

At the heart of the issue is Google’s failure to follow through on commitments made during the compliance phase of an earlier investigation. 

Instead of correcting the anti-competitive behaviour flagged by Turkish authorities, Google rolled out new interface designs that allegedly deepened its market dominance, particularly in local search and digital advertising.

The TCA accused Google of deliberately introducing changes that “violated the obligations determined during the compliance process,” a move the agency said weakened competitors in search and ad markets rather than levelling the playing field.

But the financial penalty is just one piece of a bigger case. Turkish regulators have now opened a separate probe into Google’s Performance Max (PMAX) advertising campaigns. 

According to the TCA, the company is exploiting its dominance in search-based ads to expand its grip across other advertising verticals. Authorities allege that Google combines user data across multiple platforms in a way that distorts competition and unfairly advantages its own services.

This is not Google’s first regulatory penalty in Turkey, and certainly not the largest. In December 2024, the tech company was fined $75 million (₺2.61 billion) for anti-competitive conduct that included limiting third-party access to YouTube ad inventory and tilting the ad ecosystem in its favour. 

Earlier still, it was hit with a ₺482 million fine over hotel search results, followed by daily penalties until full compliance was verified.

Globally, the pattern is familiar. Regulatory agencies across jurisdictions are tightening their grip. In the United States, the Department of Justice has gone so far as to call for the forced separation of Google Chrome from the rest of the company’s services.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Commission is scrutinising Google’s advertising partnership with Meta, with regulators probing whether the alliance undermines market competition.

The Turkish authority’s act stresses the international momentum building against Big Tech monopolies. They say corrections must be genuine, and compliance is not optional.

The company argues that the fine and the obligations tied to it go far beyond what the law actually requires.

The issue traces back to the European Commission’s April ruling, which found Apple guilty of restricting app developers from directing users to cheaper alternatives outside the App Store.

According to the Commission, Apple’s actions violated the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a law designed to curb the dominance of major tech companies.

On Monday, the final day allowed for a legal challenge, the iPhone maker submitted its appeal. In a statement, Apple said:

“Today we filed our appeal because we believe the European Commission’s decision—and their unprecedented fine—go far beyond what the law requires. As our appeal will show, the EC is mandating how we run our store and forcing business terms which are confusing for developers and bad for users. We implemented this to avoid punitive daily fines and will share the facts with the Court.”

The company believes the European Commission is now telling it how to manage its own business in ways that damage the developer community and worsen user experience.

In June, Apple tried to revise its App Store policies across the European Union to comply with the DMA and avoid further daily fines, which could have reached as high as €50 million per day, about 5% of Apple’s average daily global turnover.

The changes Apple introduced, however, have triggered new controversy. The company unveiled a complex, tiered commission system: developers now face either a 5% or 13% fee, plus a separate 2% user acquisition charge if they want better visibility in the App Store, such as appearing in search suggestions or getting promotional spots. Apple insists these adjustments were forced by the Commission’s demands.

The company is also now allowing developers to steer users to payment options outside the App Store, but Apple claims the Commission’s definition of “steering” was unlawfully expanded, covering more developer activities than it should.

While Apple argues that no other app store in the world operates under such conditions, the European Commission is pressing ahead. It is currently gathering feedback from developers to assess whether Apple’s latest changes are sufficient or if more corrective measures will be needed.

Over the years, the European Commission has issued fines against several tech giants, including Alphabet’s Google, which has accumulated more than $8 billion in penalties. Apple itself was previously ordered to pay Ireland €13 billion in back taxes.

Apple’s latest appeal adds yet another chapter to its long-running legal battles over the control and structure of its App Store, not just in Europe, but globally. In the United States, Apple has already been forced to allow developers to direct users to external payment options, potentially threatening billions in annual revenue.

The new app, internally named “M2”, is expected to hit U.S. app stores on 5 September 2025,  just days before the extended deadline for its parent company ByteDance to sell its U.S. operations.

This version, unlike the global one, is being built to run on an entirely separate infrastructure by engineers in the U.S. and Singapore, aimed squarely at addressing American data privacy and national security concerns. 

According to sources familiar with the matter, users will be allowed to continue using the current TikTok app until March 2026, but will eventually be forced to migrate.

This drastic restructuring results from the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, signed into law in April, which mandates ByteDance’s full divestment from TikTok’s U.S. operations or risk being barred in the country.

President Donald Trump, whose administration pushed through the law, said recently: “We pretty much have a deal.”

He noted that the prospective buyers are a group of “very wealthy people”, though no names have been officially confirmed. Reports suggest Oracle and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz are part of the investor consortium.

Despite the positivity from Washington, the obstacle lies thousands of miles away in Beijing. Chinese authorities have made it clear that they oppose what they view as a forced sale.

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce previously stated that any technology export must go through its approval process, pointing that the final decision might rest on geopolitical rather than commercial terms.

This makes the entire operation fragile. With Trump’s trade issues against China escalating, including 145% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and tech components earlier this year, analysts suggest Beijing could use TikTok as a bargaining chip. In other words, the U.S. might have a buyer and a timeline, but China still holds the key.

For TikTok, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The platform commands more than 170 million users in the U.S. and serves over 7.5 million American businesses.

A sudden disruption, whether by government order or technical transition, could upend content creators’ incomes, freeze digital ad spending, and fragment a platform deeply embedded in U.S. popular culture.

There’s also the question of whether users will willingly adopt a new version of the app. Forced migration in digital products often faces resistance, and TikTok’s power lies in its network effects.

Fragmenting that network, even temporarily, could open doors for competitors or cause users to disengage altogether.

ByteDance has not issued a public statement regarding “M2” or the ongoing sale process. The Information, which first reported the app development, says internal testing is already underway.