The penalty, announced on Monday, is the largest fine issued so far under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a law that requires online platforms to assess and reduce risks linked to harmful content and activities.

According to the Commission, AliExpress failed to carry out adequate checks on the risks created by the sale of illegal products, while its systems allowed some harmful listings to remain available to users for extended periods.

The regulator said counterfeit goods, unsafe toys and dangerous cosmetics were among products that appear on the platform despite AliExpress’ efforts to remove them.

EU officials have also spoken about the company’s ability to monitor sellers and enforce penalties against traders who repeatedly violate its policies.

“AliExpress did not properly evaluate whether it had sufficient staff to review potentially illegal products,” the Commission said, adding that the platform had overestimated the effectiveness of its detection and removal systems.

The investigation found that AliExpress relied heavily on automated systems but did not have enough human oversight to manage the volume of potentially harmful listings on its marketplace.

The Commission also criticised the platform’s recommendation and advertising systems, saying they sometimes helped promote illegal products before they were removed.

It said AliExpress used limited measurements to assess the effectiveness of its moderation system, which meant the company could not accurately determine whether illegal products were being prevented from returning to the platform.

The regulator further found weaknesses in AliExpress’ seller penalty system. Some businesses that had been sanctioned for selling illegal products were reportedly able to continue operating on the platform.

The Commission said the platform’s mandatory “brand authorisation” system, designed to prevent counterfeit sales, was ineffective and lacked enough staff to properly verify sellers.

As a result, some traders were able to bypass the process and list fake products before they were later removed.

EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen said the failure created risks for consumers and unfair competition for companies that comply with European regulations.

“This is very dangerous for consumers, unfair for companies which are complying with all our rules,” Virkkunen told reporters.

She also highlighted the size of AliExpress’ European user base, noting that the platform had 193 million users in the region last year, compared with 156 million for Shein and 130 million for Temu.

“One in five Europeans say they shop once a month from Shein, Temu and AliExpress,” Virkkunen said.

AliExpress rejected the Commission’s decision, describing the fine as excessive.

“We disagree with today’s decision and the disproportionate fine, which does not adequately reflect our established framework and the significant, proactive enhancements we have made,” the company said in an email.

“We are carefully reviewing the decision and considering all available options.”

The Commission said AliExpress must submit an action plan by October 20, 2026, outlining how it will address the identified failures. Regulators will review the plan before deciding whether further measures are required.

If the company fails to comply, AliExpress could face additional penalties.

The European Commission began investigating AliExpress in March 2024 over possible breaches of the Digital Services Act, including issues around product safety, transparency, advertising systems, seller traceability and content moderation.

The regulator later accepted some commitments from the platform in June 2025 but continued examining issues linked to illegal product risks.

The €550 million penalty is higher than previous DSA fines issued against other major platforms, including Elon Musk’s X and Temu.

The post EU Fines AliExpress $629m Over Illegal, Counterfeit Products on Platform appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Thursday backed Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, saying Google could be held responsible for videos promoting online gambling if they were uploaded by creators with whom the company had commercial partnership agreements.

The case dates back to 2020, when AGCOM fined Google after gambling advertisements appeared on YouTube channels linked to the company’s commercial partnerships.

Google challenged the decision in an Italian administrative court in 2022. That court then asked the Luxembourg-based CJEU to clarify how EU rules should apply.

Google argued that it was protected under EU rules covering online intermediary services, which generally shield platforms from liability for content uploaded by third parties when they act only as passive hosts.

However, the CJEU said that protection has limits.

“Google may be held liable for the YouTube videos of a content creator with whom it has a commercial partnership,” the court said.

The judges explained that online platforms can rely on the liability exemption only when they “act as an intermediary service provider carrying out a strictly technical, automated and passive activity, excluding any knowledge or control over the information which is transmitted or stored.”

The court added: “That is not the case where an operator reviews, for the purpose of concluding a commercial partnership contract, the main theme of a video channel, that channel’s most viewed videos or newest videos and the associated metadata.”

In other words, once a platform becomes involved in assessing creators before entering commercial partnerships, it can no longer claim to be a purely passive intermediary for that content.

The ruling does not settle the dispute itself, instead, the Italian court will now decide the case based on the CJEU’s interpretation of EU law.

Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Beyond the cash, the judgment reinforces the position that online platforms may face legal responsibility when they play an active commercial role in content published by creators, even if they did not upload the material themselves.

The post Google Loses EU Court Fight Over Fine for Gambling Ads on YouTube appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

The decision, which brings an eight-year case to an end, was made by the Court of Justice of the European Union on July 2, 2026.

It upheld earlier findings that Google used its Android mobile operating system to strengthen its authority in search and app services.

The case dates back to 2018 when the European Commission imposed a €4.34 billion penalty. Regulators said Google required smartphone makers to pre-install Google Search, Chrome, and the Play Store on Android devices. They also said the company restricted the use of competing versions of Android.

In 2022, the General Court reduced the fine slightly to €4.125 billion after it struck out parts of the original decision linked to revenue-sharing conditions. However, the core findings against Google stayed in place.

The latest decision confirmed those findings in full as Judges said the behaviour amounted to a “single and continuous infringement.” They also accepted the regulator’s position on how pre-installed apps affect competition.

“The appeal brought by Google and its parent company Alphabet against the judgment of the General Court is dismissed, thereby confirming the penalty imposed for Google Search’s abuse of a dominant position in the ‌context of ⁠the Android operating system,”

The court further addressed how default placement impacts user behaviour, agreeing that pre-installation creates a “status quo bias,” which limits choice for users and makes it harder for rival services to compete.

Again, the court ruled that authorities did not need to prove what the market would have looked like without Google’s conduct in order to establish abuse.

A Google spokesperson said the company disagreed with the decision and pointed to changes already made since the original decision.

“In any event, we adapted our agreements to comply with the initial decision back in 2018 and we remain ⁠focused on continued innovation and openness for our users, partners and developers”,

The case adds to a pattern of enforcement against Google in the EU, where total fines now approach €11 billion across several competition cases. Those include earlier rulings on search shopping services and advertising practices.

Regulators are also working under the Digital Markets Act, which gives them faster powers to intervene in platform behaviour. Google already faces a separate case under that law over search results and app store rules.

The post Google Loses Appeal Over €4.1bn EU Android Antitrust Fine appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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.

The post China Orders Meta to Reverse $2bn Deal for AI Startup Manus appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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.

The post EU Moves to Stop Meta Blocking AI Competitors on WhatsApp appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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 post Meta Taken to Court Over Scam Ads and Child Safety Failures appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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 post Meta Ordered to Stop WhatsApp Terms That Block Rival AI Chatbots appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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.

The post Australia Sues Microsoft Over Copilot Bundling, Accuses Tech Giant of Misleading 2.7 Million Users appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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 post EU Investigates Snapchat, YouTube, Apple, and Google Over Child Safety Compliance appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

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 post Meta, TikTok Win Court Case Against EU Over Digital Services Act Fees appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.