Competition authority Antitrust Office targets Apple

As of: June 21, 2021 2:46 p.m.

The Federal Cartel Office is now also investigating Apple. Above all, the US group’s business conduct in the App Store wants to investigate. Similar proceedings are in progress against other large tech companies. The Federal Cartel Office initiates investigations against the technology group Apple. The authority wants to find out whether the US group with parts of its business a “cross-market importance” has in competition. Cartel Office President Andreas Mundt said: “We will now examine whether Apple has built a digital ecosystem across several markets around the iPhone with the proprietary iOS operating system.” After all, the US group also produces tablets, computers, headphones and watches and sells them at the same time “a range of device-related services and services”. The Group’s Services division includes the App Store, iCloud, technical support at AppleCare, the Apple Music music service, the range of games in front of Apple Arcade, the Apple TV + streaming service and other services.

EU sees unfair competition

During its investigation, the Cartel Office will also examine Apple’s technical and financial resources as well as access to data, according to Mundt. One focus of the investigation will be on the operation of the app store, as this enables the group in many cases to influence the business activities of third parties.

Apple’s app store system is already being investigated by the EU Commission, which accuses the group of unfair competition with other providers of music streaming services. Among other things, it is controversial that 15 to 30 percent of the digital revenues in the App Store go to Apple. “We look forward to discussing our approach with the Federal Cartel Office and engaging in an open dialogue about any concerns”it said in a response from Apple. The group is “proud to be an engine for innovation and jobs”. The iOS platform alone supports more than 250,000 workplaces in Germany.

Cartel office can intervene earlier

The background to the investigation is a reform of the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB) in January. A central component is the modernization of abuse control. The supervisory authorities can now intervene earlier in the event of suspected violations by large digital corporations and prohibit anti-competitive practices.

This also makes it easier for the Cartel Office to take action against large digital companies that are important to competition across borders between different market areas. This has already had consequences: the last time the Bonn authority was against the online network Facebook and in May against the mail order company Amazon and against the internet company Google Investigation started.

According to the cartel office, an expansion of the investigation against Apple is imminent. The authority intends to “to take a closer look at Apple’s specific behavior in a possible further procedure”. The Office has received various complaints against potentially anti-competitive practices

Because of the Karlsruhe ECB judgment EU initiates proceedings against Germany

As of: June 9th, 2021 2:58 p.m.

The EU Commission considers the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on bond purchases by the ECB to be a “dangerous precedent”. That is why she is now initiating infringement proceedings against Germany. From Klaus Hempel, ARD legal editors The Brussels Commission believes that the Federal Constitutional Court violated the primacy of EU law with its controversial ruling on the ECB’s bond purchases last year. In doing so, Germany violated the basic principles of EU law. With the initiation of the infringement proceedings, the federal government now has two months to respond to the allegations in writing.

A judgment with explosive political power

In May 2020 the The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the multi-billion dollar bond purchase program “PSPP” of the ECB was partially unconstitutional . The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had previously ruled that at the request of the Constitutional Court the program is legally in order and there is no violation of EU law . The Karlsruhe judges did not accept this, however, and thus opposed the ECJ – for the first time ever. They called his judgment “objectively arbitrary” and “methodologically no longer justifiable”. Your main criticism of the bond purchase program: The ECB had not justified why the program was proportionate and the significant economic impact on all citizens should be justified. The ECB and, through the ruling, also the ECJ had exceeded competences. The Bundestag and the Federal Government would have to work towards ensuring that the ECB subsequently provides this reason. In June 2020 the Governing Council looked again at the PSPP program and its proportionality. A little later, the Bundestag decided in a resolution that the proportionality test carried out by the Governing Council met the requirements resulting from the judgment. In a decision from the end of April 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court finally found that the Bundestag and the Federal Government had implemented the ruling. For the Federal Constitutional Court, the case was closed. But not for the EU Commission.

EU Commission sees dangerous precedent

The Commission sees a need for further clarification. In their view, the judgment represents “a serious precedent both for the future practice of the court itself and for the constitutional courts of other Member States”. The Brussels authority fears that the German example could set a precedent. The fear: EU states such as Poland or Hungary, which the Commission accuses of violating the rule of law, could no longer follow judgments of the European Court of Justice and refer to Germany. A year ago, shortly after the verdict was announced, had Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made it clear that infringement proceedings could be initiated against Germany . Judgments by the European Court of Justice are binding on all national courts, she explains. “The last word on EU law is always spoken in Luxembourg. Nowhere else.” It is about holding the EU together as a community of values ​​and rights. The reaction of the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki shortly after the ruling from Karlsruhe showed that the fears in Brussels are not entirely unjustified. He spoke of one of the most important judgments in the history of the European Union. The judgment makes it clear that the individual member states determine where the competency limits lie for the EU institutions. In Poland, the national-conservative PiS government has been restructuring the judiciary for years. The ECJ has already intervened several times and found that parts of the reforms violated EU law.

Federal government now on the train

With the initiation of infringement proceedings, the federal government now has two months to take a position. If the Brussels Commission is satisfied with the answer, the procedure would be ended relatively quickly. In the most extreme case, however, the EU Commission could ultimately sue Germany before the European Court of Justice. In this case, the conflict between the ECJ and the Federal Constitutional Court would most likely escalate for good. Shortly after the Karlsruhe ruling, Luxembourg had already expressed its displeasure and officially declared that its rulings would be binding on a national court like the Federal Constitutional Court if it had appealed to the ECJ. Regardless of how the Federal Government will express itself: It cannot impose any requirements on the completely independently acting Federal Constitutional Court, let alone prescribe not to oppose judgments of the ECJ in the future. In previous rulings on Europe, Karlsruhe had always reserved a kind of “emergency brake”, the right to the “last word” in certain cases, as it were. At the moment it cannot be assumed that the Federal Constitutional Court will move away from this line of jurisdiction. The EU Commission is obviously interested in exactly that. She wants to ensure that the court grants the ECJ the final decision-making right with regard to European law issues – with the big, actual goal in mind that other constitutional courts of problem countries such as Poland will then also permanently bow to the ECJ rulings. But how it should succeed in persuading the very self-confident Federal Constitutional Court to give up its previous dogmatics, no one currently has a conclusive answer. As expected, the Constitutional Court did not comment on today’s decision by the EU Commission in Brussels.

From Matthias Reiche, ARD studio Brussels The potential of artificial intelligence, or AI for short, is great. As are the risks associated with AI. The EU Commission therefore wants to create trust with clear rules, says Vice President Margrethe Vestager. “Our proposal is therefore not concerned with the AI ​​itself, but with its applications.” The EU Commission has chosen a proportional and risk-based approach based on a simple logic: “The higher the risk of a specific type of use of the AI, the stricter the rules.”

Four categories of “hazard potential”

On this basis, Brussels has drawn up four categories into which the individual applications can be classified. In the opinion of the EU Commission, most AI systems fall into the categories of “small” or “no” risk, such as video games or filters for spam messages. The bill does not provide for any regulations here. However, even with the more harmless applications, it should always be completely clear when you are dealing with artificial intelligence in a telephone hotline, for example. But you have to be particularly vigilant with the so-called high-risk applications, explains Commission Vice-President Vestager: “For example, this is about AI that is used to select applications for university or a job. It can also be about systems that the creditworthiness of evaluate someone. Or software that is used in self-driving cars or in medical products, which could also pose a risk to our safety. ” In these cases, the respective providers must guarantee that their product complies with the rules. There should be precise documentation for the development and use of such systems, as well as precise control of the data used. The use of artificial intelligence in generalized surveillance or manipulation of the population is completely forbidden, as is so-called social scoring, in which people are rated on the basis of their social behavior.

Biometrics inadequately regulated?

The FDP politician Nicola Beer is still not really satisfied with the paper. Because it lacks a clear ban on facial recognition in public spaces, as the Vice-President of the EU Parliament criticizes: “The current draft would enable mass surveillance with the help of biometric AI algorithms. In my opinion, a red line will be crossed here. We must not allow this . ” Patrick Breyer, who sits for the Pirate Party in the EU Parliament, sees it similarly: The new AI law can also be interpreted by the EU countries, for example in criminal prosecution, in such a way that it enables biometric mass surveillance where it is illegal today . “The fact that the Commission wants to enable mass surveillance of our telecommunications and biometric mass surveillance to a large extent is completely unacceptable.” The draft has yet to be approved by the EU Parliament and the Council of Member States. This legislative process can take up to two years.

The manufacturers BioNTech and Pfizer want to deliver an additional 50 million doses of corona vaccine to Germany and the other EU countries by the end of June. This was announced by the EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels. It is a delivery that will be brought forward from the fourth quarter. In the second quarter from April to June, a total of 250 million doses of vaccine would come from BioNTech / Pfizer, said von der Leyen. The delivery will be distributed to the 27 EU countries according to the proportion of the population, she added. For Germany this is 18.6 percent. The Federal Republic of Germany can therefore expect a good nine million cans from the additional delivery. This could partially offset potential failures in Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine. The US manufacturer had postponed its delivery to the EU countries on Tuesday. The background to this are reports of sinus vein thrombosis. The group is investigating the cases, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is also examining them. It is unclear when deliveries will resume in Europe.

Negotiations over 1.8 billion vaccine doses

Von der Leyen also announced negotiations with BioNTech / Pfizer for the delivery of a further 1.8 billion vaccine doses for the period from 2021 to 2023. These should be used for refresher courses and vaccinations for children. Part of the agreements should be a full EU manufacture, not just of the vaccine, but of all the essential ingredients, as von der Leyen said. They hope that the negotiations will be concluded quickly. Von der Leyen emphasized that they wanted to focus on vaccine technologies that had proven their worth. That speaks in favor of mRNA vaccines like those produced by BioNTech / Pfizer. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, on the other hand, use a different mode of action for their vaccines with the help of so-called adenoviruses. Von der Leyen also announced that the EU has now passed the 100 million vaccination threshold. 26 million people are now fully vaccinated with two doses. “This is a milestone that we can be proud of,” said the German politician. The Commission is doing everything possible to increase the supply of vaccines in the coming weeks and months.