Court separates claim from administrative case vụ In 2015, Mr. Tien (Mrs. Ngoc’s husband) won the auction of two stalls in Cao Lanh City’s cage and signed a contract with the management board of the market to sell sports equipment. After that, he asked to switch to selling cosmetics and was approved by the Finance – Planning Department, so he bought more than 500 million dong of goods for sale. More than a month later, he had his license to sell cosmetics revoked. The market management board of Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province seized the goods of Mrs. Dang Thi Bich Ngoc and her husband. Photo: YC In July 2016, Chairman of the City People’s Committee Cao Lanh fined Ms. Ngoc 2.5 million dong for doing business as a household business without a business household registration license in accordance with the law. Ms. Ngoc complained but was denied. Because she still sells cosmetics, the chairman of the City People’s Committee again fined her 3 million dong. Ms. Ngoc sued all three of the above decisions. Then she closed the counter, waiting for the trial, the market management board unlocked the stall by itself, seizing all the cosmetics. In 2018 and 2019, the People’s Court of Dong Thap province and the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City both accepted the petition of Ms. Ngoc and her husband, declaring to cancel all three decisions. The claim was separated by the court into another case. Accepted for nearly two years, brought to trial three times and then suspended According to the instructions of the two judgments above, Ms. Ngoc and her husband went to sue the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City for compensation. Specifically, regarding the compensation claim, the first instance court said that it was not related to administrative decisions but to civil business and commercial relations, so it should be separated into another case. As for the appellate court, it clearly states that “the fact that the market management board officers counted, counted and sealed the goods Ms. Ngoc was selling, if causing damage to Ms. Ngoc, she has the right to sue these people to demand compensation for the damage. by another case”. Since then, she has sued the president and Cao Lanh City People’s Committee for compensation as instructed by the two courts. However, the Cao Lanh City People’s Court, after accepting this case for nearly two years and bringing it to trial three times, suspended it on the grounds that the lawsuit claim had been settled by a legally effective judgment. Previously, at the trial on March 25, 2021, the trial panel paused the trial and transferred the file to the police agency to see if there were signs of criminal offense when losing her box… As soon as she received the decision, Ms. Ngoc appealed the request to cancel the suspension decision and asked the court to continue the settlement. According to Ms. Ngoc, the court’s suspension is to deprive her of her right to sue, which is an illegal act. At the same time, Ms. Ngoc also filed a complaint against the judge who was handling the case because she thought that the judge was not objective, lacked transparency, and issued an illegal suspension decision. Court accepted the reason there was “misunderstanding” Talking to PV, the judge dealing with the case said that Ms. Ngoc must sue the market management board about a contract dispute or a civil dispute for compensation for damage from the contract. The judge analyzed: Ms. Ngoc asked the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City to pay compensation due to the administrative decision, the appellate judgment of the High People’s Court was resolved (rejecting the request because the above decisions were not the original reason). directly causing damage to Ms. Ngoc). Reporter asked: “If so, why is the court still accepting, after nearly two years and three times of trial, it has been suspended?”. The judge admitted the court also had a “misunderstanding”. After a period of research, she realized that the court stopped her and allowed her to sue again with another case. Court suspension: Wrong or right? Commenting on this issue, Dr. Nguyen Van Tien, Deputy Dean of the Civil Faculty of Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, said that: According to the notice not to prosecute the case of Cao Lanh City Police and the decision to settle the complaint of the Procuracy. It was found that due to the direction of the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City, the market management board came to seize the goods. Therefore, the fact that Ms. Ngoc sued the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City is grounded. However, even if the market management board follows the instructions, they are still the ones who directly seize the goods leading to damage, so the market management board must be responsible. The Finance – Planning Department (with written consent for Ms. Ngoc to convert the counter into a cosmetic business) together with the Market Management Board to seize the goods, should also be jointly responsible. According to Dr. Tien, the general rule is that whoever causes damage must compensate. Therefore, Ms. Ngoc can sue the Chairman of the People’s Committee, the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City, the Market Management Board and the Finance – Planning Department to jointly compensate for damage caused by the illegal seizure of goods. Dr. Tien said that the court’s suspension on the grounds that Ms. Ngoc’s request was resolved was not convincing. In this case, the court needs to clarify the cause-and-effect relationship between the decision-making and direction of the City People’s Committee and the seizure of goods by the market management board. It can be seen that the cause of the incident was partly from the direction of the City People’s Committee, but the market management board did not voluntarily implement it. Therefore, Ms. Ngoc’s lawsuit to request the defendants to jointly compensate must be considered an unresolved claim as determined by the first-instance and appellate judgments in the previous administrative case. Sued additional market management board, why still suspend? Before filing the lawsuit, I reported the seizure of goods to the police to investigate the crime of openly appropriating property. However, the police and the People’s Procuracy of Cao Lanh city said that the market management board performed the tasks assigned by the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City, with no signs of crime. Therefore, my wife and I sued the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City. My third additional claim is that the Chairman of the People’s Committee, Cao Lanh City People’s Committee, Market Management Board, Finance – Planning Department (under Cao Lanh City People’s Committee, participating as a related person) must jointly compensate usually the amount of goods illegally seized (nearly 500 million dong), not a claim for compensation caused by an administrative decision. Mrs DANG THI BICH NGOC

Social network icon Facebook. Photo: AFP/VNA This is the first antitrust investigation that European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager has launched against the world’s number one social media provider and the latest she has launched into an American “tech giant”. Ms. Vestager had previously forced Alphabet – Google’s parent company to pay a fine of 8 billion euros (about 9.7 billion USD) and is conducting a similar investigation to Amazon and Apple. During the Facebook investigation, Ms. Vestager said she would review Facebook’s huge data warehouse collected from 7 million companies that have participated in advertising on this social network. The European Commission (EC) and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) are investigating the possibility of Facebook exploiting its dominant position in the social network or digital advertising by collecting collects and uses data, and examines Facebook’s “distortion” of the advertising market through service classification. Ms. Vestager stressed that in today’s digital economy, data should not be used in ways that undermine competition. This tech giant may have to change its business model with large fines. Reacting to the EU and UK’s decision, Facebook said it will fully cooperate with the authorities of both sides to demonstrate that Facebook’s integrated “Marketplace” and dating platform provides all people with more choices and all operate in a highly competitive environment. In the role of “gatekeeper”, Facebook as well as other social networking platforms have collected a large amount of personal private information of users based on privacy terms to develop an integrated platform. Marketplace aims to increase competitive advantage over competitors. In the past, the UK has rarely conducted independent antitrust investigations into US tech giants. Since withdrawing from the EU, the UK’s antitrust division has become an independent global regulator. Andrea Coscelli, CEO of the CMA, has pledged to tackle companies like Google and Facebook with a series of antitrust lawsuits, and said he is open to working alongside colleagues in Brussels.

According to this leader, he never intended to experiment with opening 3rd-party app stores for its devices, because that would push users closer to the risk of malware exposure. Tim Cook appeared in court on May 21. Photo: Yahoo Finance. The view of Apple CEO received approval from Professor Justin Cappos, working at Tandon School of Engineering , belonging to New York University . “Clearly it is not possible for users to arbitrarily install software from their own application store,” Professor Justin Cappos stated on the website. Yahoo Finance . “Even if it’s a familiar app, there’s still the potential for increased malware and phishing on the iPhone.” Of course, Apple’s blocking of 3rd party app stores on iPhones is not simply about protecting consumers. The company also collects a 30% fee on transactions made through the App Store. In other words, while Apple is right when it comes to consumer protection, the dominance of the App Store still gets it in trouble with antitrust regulation. Tim Cook’s stance In an antitrust lawsuit being considered by the court, Epic claims Apple abused the position of the App Store, forcing developers to use a payment system it managed and paying a 30% fee. From summer 2020, Epic kicks things off with a Fortnite update, adding the option to pay for in-game currency through its own channel at a cheaper price than the App Store. Apple responded by removing Fortnite from the app store and locking down Epic’s developer account. The game company quickly filed a lawsuit against Apple for monopoly behavior, demanding a reduction in transaction fees through the App Store or allowing 3rd party app stores to operate on the iPhone. CEO Epic appeared in court on May 20. Photo: Yahoo Finance. The trial took place in May with many fierce arguments, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is expected to announce the ruling next week. Here, Epic argues that if a 3rd-party app store appeared on the iPhone, developers could reduce the price of the app because it wouldn’t cost Apple 30% of the fee. Present in court, Tim Cook defended its stance on not allowing external app stores to appear on the iPhone. By comparing the amount of malware on iOS with platforms that allow the installation of 3rd party applications – Cook asserts that the iPhone accounts for only 1-2% of malware infections, while this rate on Android, Windows up to 30-40%. “If you look at the malware on iOS compared to Android and Windows, it’s really insignificant.” The numbers are on Apple’s side Cook’s view is reinforced by Report on smart device threats in 2020 published by Nokia. Accordingly, 26.64% of malware infections come from Android devices. This number is down from 47.15% in 2019. Nokia believes that security on Android has improved compared to before, in addition, hackers are gradually shifting attacks to IoT devices. Meanwhile, 38.92% of all malware infections originate from Windows PCs. The corresponding rate on Apple’s iPhone is only 1.72%. The rest belongs to other IoT devices. The rate of malware infection on iPhone is much lower than on other platforms. Photo: Yahoo Finance. Why the difference between the 3 operating systems? Professor Cappos says there are several factors at play, including iOS being updated more frequently than Android and Windows. Operating system updates will patch bugs that hackers can exploit with malware, making devices harder to jailbreak. In addition, Android and Windows are two of the most used platforms in the world, which makes them attractive targets for cybercriminals. Both the App Store and Play Store have automated malware detection processes, but Google has trouble allowing users to access 3rd-party app stores. Most security experts recommend not downloading it. download applications from these places due to the risk of malicious code insertion. Meanwhile, Windows allows users to install apps through the Windows Store or download them from anywhere on the web. Can’t “Security Flag” protect Apple? Apple does not disclose revenue from the App Store, instead, it bundles it with Services. This business, which includes Apple TV+, Apple Music+, and iCloud, will bring in $53.7 billion in 2020, or 20 percent of Apple’s $274 billion in total revenue. That proves the App Store is generating a lot of money for the company. With huge profits and strict controls on the app store, Apple may face accusations of unfair competition. According to Professor Shubha Ghosh of Syracuse University of Law , Apple needs to demonstrate that this business is up to the level of security it offers. Sometimes in the eyes of Judge Gonzalez Rogers, the 30% commission per transaction and the security of the platform don’t go together. Even security may not be the judge’s concern. “Antitrust courts don’t care so much about safety – they care about competition,” says Professor Sam Weinstein of Cardozo Law School explain. Why does Apple want to repair the iPhone itself? Apple wants to repair iPhones themselves instead of empowering 3rd parties or users.

The accident happened at night, when a driver did not see Schwartz appear on the highway. The impact was so strong that Schwartz’s tracking collar broke, resulting in a loss of signal. An anteater collapsed on the highway. Photo: Guardian. According to the researchers, the beast trudged off the highway until it collapsed dead. But they could not find the body of this animal. Schwartz is just one of thousands of wild animals that are stabbed to death each year on the BR-262 highway in Brazil, according to reports. Guardian . The route was built in the 1960s, when safety regulations were not established. BR-262 also cuts through the habitat of many wildlife species, leading to many serious impacts on the environment. Now, activists have joined a class-action lawsuit, forcing Brazilian authorities to recognize how dangerous the highway is. Highway of death BR-262 stretches east-west, passing through the states of Espírito Santo, Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Mato Grosso do Sul. The route also cuts through the Atlantic forest, the Cerrado savanna and the Pantanal wetlands. The deadliest stretch of road stretches for nearly 300 kilometers, running through the cities of Aquidauana and Corumbá, lined with trucks and metal mining vehicles. According to research from the University of Mato Grosso do Sul, every year more than 3,000 wild animals are stabbed to death on this stretch of road. An anteater collapsed on the highway. Photo: Guardian. In 2020, the Pantanal region experienced a severe drought. Biologist Gustavo Figueirôa explains: “When the river level is low, mining companies have to transport by road.” Drought has also caused fires to increase, forcing many species to leave their habitats. When they suddenly cross the highway, drivers easily lose visibility and cause a collision. Environmental and infrastructure agencies are working together to improve old roads like the BR-262. Their goal is to minimize their impact on the natural environment. But this task is not easy, especially when many large animals often appear on the highway. According to biologist Fernanda Abra, some sections of the road of BR-262 have been fenced, but this measure has not worked. “The fence is very low,” Ms. Abra said. Animals can break, climb or jump over.” Class action lawsuit Fernanda Abra, co-founder of environmental consulting firm ViaFauna, began tracking animal stabbings on the BR-262 in 2018. That’s when Abra learned of the class action lawsuit against the Department of Facilities. National Transportation Infrastructure (DNIT). The lawsuit, initiated by many activists, asks the DNIT to come up with more effective measures to protect wildlife in the area. According to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Mato Grosso do Sul, DNIT has taken measures such as installing speedometers or installing signs. But these efforts have not resulted in improvement. The Prosecutor’s Office said DNIT is prioritizing the installation of fences and safe passages specifically for animals. Luiz Guilherme Rodrigues de Mello, head of DNIT, said the ministry understands the problems with the BR-262 motorway. But the class action is a wake-up call, forcing them to turn their thoughts into actions. “Fortunately, the Prosecutor’s Office helped us realize a critical situation. And we need to look at how we can do better,” said Luiz Guilherme Rodrigues de Mello. After the lawsuit, DNIT signed a contract with ViaFauna to monitor the highway for one year. Co-founder Fernanda Abra said ViaFauna will release a report in December 2021 or January 2022. In particular, the company offers many specific measures for the problem of stabbing animals to death on the BR-262 highway. An anteater in its natural habitat. Photo: Guardian. Ms. Abra and many experts want people to understand that collisions can be dangerous to both wildlife and people. In addition, these accidents also cause significant damage to infrastructure. According to a study by Ms. Abra, each year the state of São Paulo records about 3,000 collisions caused by wildlife. These incidents killed 22 people and cost about 10.6 million USD to the state budget. Another study, also conducted by Ms. Abra and the Highway Project, concluded the average cost per wildlife collision is around $885. The team believes that finding a solution will prevent the number of accidents and reduce the cost of damage. Crocodiles roam the streets after the blockade order in the US After the blockade order in the US, many streets were deserted, only a few wild animals roamed.

The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Karl Racine’s office, accuses Amazon of controlling nearly 70% of e-commerce sales, leading to high consumer prices. Holding nearly 70% of commercial sales, Amazon is sued against antitrust in the US The complaint was received by the District of Columbia Attorney’s Office, which said: “This online retail platform benefits and is protected by Amazon’s anti-competitive business practices. That leaves consumers vulnerable. do not have access to the best products at the lowest cost”. In addition, Amazon also caused prices across the entire online retail market to increase virtual prices for products sold on Amazon.com as well as on competitors’ online retail sales platforms. Also in the lawsuit, the e-commerce group used methods to prevent third-party sellers on its platform from offering products at lower prices than competitors. Amazon also responded to AFP that sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in Amazon’s stores, and this response contradicts comments made by the Justice Department. This e-commerce group also prides itself on offering the lowest prices with the best selection unlike any other online platform, so Amazon reserves the right not to attach deals to products that don’t have it. competitive price for customers. This lawsuit has Amazon possibly forced to charge higher prices on its e-commerce platform. The lawsuit is intended to block Amazon from anticompetitive practices as well as claims for damages and other penalties. According to eMarketer, Amazon’s e-commerce market share in the US in 2020 is 39.8% and will increase in 2021 to 44.1%, equivalent to the amount of 367.19 billion USD. According to statistics, Amazon’s profit in the first 3 months of 2021 reached 8.1 billion USD, 3 times higher than the same period in 2020. In 2020, the US Federal and State Antitrust Enforcement Agency filed lawsuits against Facebook and Google for allegedly dominating illegal markets.

At the center of this long-running lawsuit is Fortnite, a popular video game produced by Epic that was removed from Apple’s App Store last summer for violating Apple’s rules on technical billing. due to have arbitrarily established a payment system of their own. Apple takes 30% of the value of in-app purchases on iOS devices and does not allow the use of alternative payment systems. Fortnite’s removal from the App Store prompted Epic to file a lawsuit against Apple. Squeeze the developer Epic accuses Apple of having monopolistic control over the “ecosystem” of the iOS operating system, with app makers forced to abide by its strict restrictions if they want access to hundreds of thousands of users. million iPhone and iPad users, Apple also countered that there are several other places where users can buy apps and their commissions help the company make its devices better and more secure. The CEO has his first court appearance since taking power at Apple. Photo: Getty. Several executives from both sides also testified, including Craig Federighi, Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering, and Phil Schiller, Apple’s former chief marketing officer, now serving as Apple’s senior vice president of software engineering. new role as Apple Fellow. Both were subpoenaed by the court earlier this week. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is the first witness in the nearly three-week trial and is expected to end on Monday. Tim Cook and Apple are facing many dangers, not only this cult lawsuit. Cook’s testimony on Friday is likely to spark a battle against the growing antitrust pressure it is facing. Other “Frenemy” (meaning both friends and enemies) like Spotify and Match Group, the owner of Tinder, have all accused Apple of anti-competitive behavior. Even legal authorities in some countries including the US and UK have launched investigations into Apple’s regulations. Despite numerous defenses before Congress and numerous public appearances and interviews, Mr Cook appears to be preparing for his day in court. According to a report from Wall Street Journal , he spent many hours mock interrogation with former prosecutors to simulate what he might face during the trial. “The scary thing for Epic is that Tim Cook is such a compelling witness,” said Herbert Hovenkap, professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He’s doing what he’s been paid to do, which is bringing Apple’s lawsuit to the public.” According to the list of witnesses presented to the court, Mr. Cook will speak about “Corporate Values; Apple’s business operations and the development and launch of the App Store; the competition that Apple faces.” An Apple representative said Mr. Cook is likely to share more from his personal perspective on security and privacy issues – issues he has often criticized companies in the past – and the importance of them to Apple’s product philosophy. Roses come with quality Mr. Cook is expected to synthesize and strengthen the arguments that other Apple lawyers, experts and executives have made during the trial – that the iPhone’s App Store is not a proprietary trademark. The company argues that the 30% commission it receives through in-app purchases is not an illegal gain, but rather to make Apple devices better, more secure like their strict management of applications on Apple devices. In his testimony, Schiller highlighted the amount of money Apple has spent on research and development — an estimated $100 billion over the past 15 years — to make product improvements that developers are benefiting from. it. He also sought to counter Epic’s efforts to accuse Apple of being a monopolist. The lawsuit between Apple and Epic will determine the future of the relationship between app developers and Apple. Photo: Cnet. Epic Games company says Apple is forcing developers to play by its draconian rules such as only using the App Store and means of paying for in-app purchases if it wants to gain access to a market of more than a billion dollars. iPhone and iPad users. (Michael Schmid, Apple’s head of game business development for the App Store, revealed during the trial that Apple made more than $100 million in commissions from Fortnite.) Schiller also listed a range of Apple competitors: Google, Samsung, Motorola, Huawei and even game consoles like Sony’s PlayStation, Microsoft’s Xbox and Nintendo’s Switch. Apple claims that many of these companies also take 30% commissions and have similar restrictions on outside apps. “There are still a lot of other competitors in the distribution of applications, not just Apple,” he added. Federighi, the company’s chief software officer, further emphasized the importance of Apple’s security measures for the iOS operating system on its mobile devices. He even heavily criticized the company’s MacOS computer operating system during the trial. Unlike iPhones, Macbook laptops allow the use and download of applications from outside, a process known as “side-loading”. Epic has repeatedly pointed out and called on Apple to emulate this approach with its mobile devices. However, Apple’s lawyers and executives argue that the iPhone needs to be more secure because the risk of the device being exposed to security holes and exploitation is great, especially when smartphones are used. often contain more sensitive personal data of users than other devices such as computers, laptops… “If you take Mac security techniques and apply them to the iOS ecosystem, with so many devices and value for it, things are going to be a lot worse than they already are. on Mac,” said Mr. Federighi. “We now have a bunch of malware on Mac, which is much worse than iOS. It’s not acceptable!”. Florian Ederer, an economics professor at the Yale School of Management, thinks Cook will stick to his earlier arguments. “It is very difficult to get any new information or arguments from this CEO’s testimony that have not yet been brought to the attention of the judge,” he said. “Basically, having Cook in court is Apple’s best move to show the judge that they are taking this matter completely seriously. If there is any other purpose, perhaps it is the respect of Cook in particular and Apple in general for this lengthy litigation process,” Ederer added.

Accordingly, the group is asking Apple to return money to UK customers, with about 19.6 million people will be compensated a total of 1.5 billion pounds (equivalent to 2.1 billion USD). They believe that the US technology company has a monopoly when the App Store is the only “door” to download many applications to iPhone and iPad. The application emphasizes that after 13 years, the App Store is still the only source for Apple devices to access applications, proving that the company has been selfish, charging login fees and using this mechanism unfairly. They claim this is proprietary behavior. According to the lawsuit, Apple receives about 30% of the cost of purchasing an app. Apple, for its part, calls this a planned lawsuit and shouldn’t have happened. The company insists it is committed to its customers and that the App Store has greatly benefited the UK creative economy.
In addition, Apple is currently facing many legal challenges related to exclusivity when using the App Store because of a lawsuit for the same reason by Epic Games – the maker of the famous Fortnite game. according to iMore

Illustration. The Beijing-based smartphone giant sued the government earlier this year, after the US Department of Defense under former President Donald Trump issued an order designating the company as a Chinese military company. This will result in the deletion of US exchanges and deletion of names from global benchmark indices. The US Department of Defense has now agreed that the final order ignores the designation “would be appropriate,” according to a filing filed in US courts on May 11. Hong Kong-listed Xiaomi did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Pentagon representative was not immediately available for comment. Shares of Xiaomi rose 6.7% during the session in Hong Kong on May 12. “The parties have agreed to a direction that will resolve this lawsuit without the need for a controversial press conference,” according to the filing. Stakeholders are negotiating specific terms and will submit a joint proposal by May 20. Xiaomi, which makes robot vacuums, electric bicycles and wearable devices along with smartphones, was an unexpected target for the Trump administration. Co-founded by billionaire businessman Lei Jun more than 10 years ago, with US chip technology company Qualcomm as one of the earliest investors, Xiaomi insists it is not owned or controlled by the Chinese military. National. The deal comes after a US court in March sided with Xiaomi in the lawsuit and halted the ban. US regional judge Rudolph Contreras said at the time that Xiaomi was likely to gain a complete reversal of the ban once the lawsuit opened and issued an initial order to prevent the company from suffering “irreparable damages. “. The deal marks a rare victory for China’s tech giants to get caught in the sights of the US government, as the two countries clash on issues ranging from trade to human rights and the right to rule. of Hong Kong. In November, Mr. Trump signed a ban on US investment in military-owned or controlled Chinese companies aimed at exerting pressure on Beijing over what the US describes as abusive businesses. use. The order against Xiaomi, along with a number of other Chinese companies, was issued during the weak days of his administration. Trump has also pursued other Chinese giants including ByteDance, owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok and Tencent Holdings, which owns the WeChat super app. Telecom equipment maker Huawei Technologies Co was hit hardest after it was banned from buying US-made parts and shutting down infrastructure projects around the world.

Photo: Sina Technology According to CNBC, Apple today released a report on its App Store-related data, mainly describing the work the App Store has done in the direction of security and fraud prevention over the past year, and published a lot of related data. This is the first time Apple publishes such data, in this report, Apple does not point out what they bring to developers and users, but what they refuse to ensure safety and experience. App Store experience. Denied 1 million applications Since its inception in 2008, the Apple App Store has become the world’s largest distribution channel and app download platform. According to official data, up to now, there are a total of 1.8 million apps distributed on the app store in 175 different countries and regions around the world. In addition to the quantity, quality and safety of the App Store are also important reasons for many to choose, and even the reason why users switch from Android to iPhone. But the average user rarely thinks behind millions of apps is Apple’s attempt to secure apps on the platform. In fact, security threats have existed since the App Store was launched in 2008, and are becoming more sophisticated as the App Store has grown. Of course, Apple is also working to raise and improve its own security standards. In order for high-quality apps to be listed on the App Store and for developers and users to have the best experience, behind that is the efforts of the Apple App Store review team, including machines (the program AI detects), but Apple believes humans are the last line of defense. On the one hand, the review team develops relevant guidelines and is constantly updating to measure if an app meets Apple’s security standards at launch. On the other hand, many developers have encountered the case of having to submit apps multiple times before they hit the shelves, behind this being the tight scrutiny of Apple’s review team. The reason may be because their application is incomplete / not good enough or not satisfied Apple with the security requirements. In 2020, Apple’s app review team supported 180,000 new developers to bring their work to the App Store for the first time; However, due to the stringent app store rating criteria, many applications were rejected. According to Apple’s disclosure, they rejected 1 million new apps and 1 million app update requests last year. Let’s take a closer look at the apps that were denied on the list, partly because of a breach; There were also 215,000 applications rejected for asking for too much user data on mobile phones; 48,000 apps were rejected because they contained hidden functions, 150,000 apps were rated as spam or otherwise copied apps. All will affect the quality of the apps in the App Store in varying degrees, thereby affecting the user experience. These numbers represent Apple’s ambition to pursue its own high-quality app store and ecosystem, and is also the reason why many Android users “admire” the iOS ecosystem as mentioned above. . “Stone” 470,000 toxic developers Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) at the San Jose Convention Center in 2018. In addition to denying apps, Apple sometimes punishes developers for violating the rules. For example, some developers intentionally change application functionality after passing a review or even engaging in criminals / crimes. The most common are gambling-related apps, illegal lending, and pornography; there are even apps for drug trafficking, sex chat, and more. According to Apple data, by 2020, about 95,000 apps will be removed from the App Store due to fraud and fraud. If a developer’s violation is severe or recurring, their account will be permanently closed. In 2020, Apple terminated 470,000 developer accounts because of the risk of fraud. In the past month alone, Apple blocked more than 3.2 million app installs through the Apple Developer Enterprise Program. The original purpose of this project was to allow large organizations like companies and businesses to develop apps for internal use only, not open to the public. But some people use this approach to “bypass” the internal application review and abuse process. Of course, no matter how tight the controls are, it’s inevitable that there are up to 1.8 million apps on the App Store. Apple has also opened up a feedback mechanism, users or developers can choose to “report a problem” function in the App Store or call Apple support. Stop $ 1.5 billion in fraud suspected transactions Problem security of Android is often compared with Apple. Since the Apple ID is tied to the payment account and is the “key” of the Apple ecosystem, it is also very easy to become a target for criminals. As a result, Apple is building more secure payment technologies, such as Apple Pay and StoreKit. Currently, more than 900,000 apps in the App Store are using these technologies to sell goods and services. For example, credit card information in Apple Pay won’t be shared with the merchant (and the merchant won’t see it), which eliminates risk factors in the checkout process. However, criminals can also use the App Store to purchase goods and services for money laundering or other improper purposes. According to official data, by 2020, Apple prevented more than 3 million stolen credit cards from being used to purchase goods or services through technical means + manual review. In addition, they block more than $ 1.5 billion in “potentially fraudulent transactions”. The revelation comes amid Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit against Apple and focuses on the App Store failures. The Fortnite maker is looking to force Apple to remove 30% of the commission on in-app purchases. Epic lawyers have argued that Apple’s App Store is too “wall-bound,” hindering app makers from competing, and that Apple’s rules are unevenly applied to different developers. . The lawsuit filed by Epic Games calls for changes to the existing app review process and the use of other in-app payment systems. Epic also says Apple’s process is unfair, sometimes approving malware in the store. Apple employees argued in court that the number of errors it made was very small given the size of the App Store. Apple also strongly denies the abuse of market power, saying that the lawsuit Epic filed with is an “attack” on a business model that benefits developers as well as consumers. Apple has protected the App Store as an essential part of its business. Last week, an Apple lawyer argued that allowing users to install software from outside the App Store, like Android, creates a security risk and that Apple doesn’t want to be Android.

The malware affected 128 million iPhone users. The XcodeGhost malware was spread by hackers through the hidden installation of a version of Xcode programming software, then sharing on forums for iOS developers. Some of these malicious applications at that time included many popular names such as WeChat, the Chinese version of Angry Birds 2. Statistics show that about 2500 applications were infected with malware and up to 203 million users who downloaded these anti-malware applications Security experts believe that the XcodeGhost malware can collect information such as infected application name, device model, network information and some other data. Later, Apple said it did not record the data associated with the user’s identity, or the iCloud login password was collected. After the problem was discovered, Apple asked developers to use the official version of Xcode to compile the app before re-releasing it on the App Store. According to the 9to5mac Apple also strengthens the security process when installing Xcode, checking the application’s malicious code before releasing it on the App Store after the incident.

Google faces many legal challenges globally, especially in Europe. The European Commission (EC) fined this giant billions of dollars in three different lawsuits and were appealed by Google. In any case, the world’s largest search company denies misconduct and maintains a view that they make choices that benefit consumers. Since 2010, the EU has launched three different antitrust investigations against Google, involving Google Shopping, Google AdSense and Android, resulting in three fines of nearly tens of billions of dollars. At the same time, Google must adjust its behavior to comply with regulatory requirements. On October 10, 2010, the EC officially investigated Google’s behavior in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 after receiving complaints from ICOMP Organization and a number of other companies. They complain that Google changed its Universal Search algorithm to promote Google Shopping products on the search results page, lowering the ranking of competitors. Therefore, they believe that Google discriminates against, anticompetitive through presentation of search results, depriving users of the ability to choose products and services. On June 27, 2017, Google was found guilty and convicted a fine of EUR 2.4 billion (2.7 billion USD), is the largest penalty for an abuse of monopoly at that time. Google denies the accusations and claims their services have helped the region’s digital economy grow. The penalty is equivalent to 2.5% of Google’s 2016 revenue. Currently, the company in the appeals process wants to mitigate or overturn the penalty. In addition, the EU Competition Commission (EUCC) decided to oversee Google’s PageRank algorithm. Google is responsible for reporting to the EUCC every 4 months. After being penalized, Google split the Google Shopping shopping service into its own company, operating independently. A year later, the EC fined Google again for forcing Android device manufacturers (OEMs) to install Google Search and Android suite of apps. The EC investigates Google based on two lawsuits, one from FairSearch, and one from Aptoide. FairSearch is a consortium founded in 2010, initially consisting of travel-related websites such as Expedia, TripAdvisor, and then a number of big names such as Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle. In April 2013, they filed a lawsuit against the EU, denouncing Google’s behavior with its Android operating system in violation of the EU’s anti-competition law. Meanwhile, Aptoide was filed in June 2014. Aptoide is an Android app market, competing with Google’s Play Store. Aptoide emphasizes Google’s approach making it very difficult for services like them to be installed on users’ devices. In addition, some components that used to belong to the Android Open Source Project have been migrated to the Google service suite, including Gmail, Google Maps and Play Store. So, on April 15, 2015, the EC started an investigation into Google based on the above two lawsuits. Google argues that what it does with Android is no different from what Apple, Microsoft do with iOS and Windows Phone. Device manufacturers can still release an Android phone without the Google suite of apps. On July 19, 2018, the EU declared penalty Google 4.3 billion EUR (5 billion USD). Google appealed in October 2018. According to a company spokesperson, Android makes more options available to users. This is by far the largest penalty imposed by the EU for a company for its anti-competitive behavior. Google has changed the way apps are distributed in the EU, charging OEMs for Play Store access, and in return OEMs no longer have to install Google Search and Google Chrome. In March 2019, Google said European Android users can choose which browser and search engine they want to use on the device. Most recently, March 2019, EU Google penalty 1.49 billion EUR (1.7 billion USD) for preventing competition in the online advertising market. The commission said Google had an exclusive contract with website owners, preventing them from cooperating with Google’s competitors. The investigation involved Google search-mediated search boxes and display ads. These ads are provided by Google AdSense for Search. This is a division of Google that allows websites and apps to monetize search ads. Google’s terms for website owners change over time, from a 2006 monopoly to a “flexible monopoly” a few years later. But EU authorities still believe it hurts competition and allows Google to control how competitors display their search ads, including the size, colors and fonts they use. According to Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, this is a legal offense under EU law. That behavior lasted more than 10 years and deprived other brands of competitiveness, innovation as well as the interests of users. Google stopped using exclusive contract terms in 2016 only after the EC made a formal objection. In June 2019, the company announced an appeal. However, the three above-mentioned penalties do not seem to “disgrace” anything to Google. Shares of Alphabet, the parent company Google, are still growing close to 30% in 2020. Investors seem accustomed to the oversight of countries with Google. Not to mention, the prolonged legal process also makes the authorities tired. The effect that the punishment brings is not clear. For example, despite the change in Google Shopping, less than 1% of service traffic is diverted to other shopping websites. Therefore, the EC is about to overhaul digital regulations, related to the business models of companies like Google. They want Big Tech to be more accountable for content across platforms and ensure that competitors have a chance to compete with the big boys. It is expected to make a big change in business practices, even Big Tech’s business model. Law professor Ioannis Kokkoris from Queen Mary University said this is a move that shows the EU wants to strengthen its leadership position in the enforcement of the technology market. Many other national competition authorities will follow. Meanwhile, Alec Burnside – partner of the law firm Dechert – said that the new EU proposal reflects the increasingly recognized government must have new power to deal with technology giants. For its part, Google or another company may use legal process to highlight the negative impact of regulation on innovation and the overall economy, making the final regulation less stricter than the proposed ban. head. Other than lobbying, however, there is nothing they can do about it to discourage new regulation in the short term. Du Lam (Synthetic)

However, the accusations of Chanel did not receive the consent of the court. Although Chanel tried to argue that if the Huawei logo were rotated horizontally, there would be similarities between the two symbols, the court disagreed with this argument. Chanel accused Huawei of “stealing” their logo ideas. Photo: Android Authority. “The differences have to be compared like what was registered, not changing its direction,” said the reviewer. This is the second time that Huawei and Chanel have entered into a legal struggle in European courts. Prior to that, Chanel was sued. According to the Android Authority , the famous fashion brand still has a chance to appeal this ruling, when the case will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the highest authority in the country. Logo is an important element in the brand identity of any company. Well-known logos not only signify brand status, but can also become cultural markers. Some well-known brands show cultural symbols such as Coca-Cola, Nintendo and FedEx.

Icon of Tik Tok video-sharing application on smartphone screen in Paris, France. Photo: AFP / VNA Former UK children’s commissioner Anne Longfield, and the law firm Scott + Scott, on behalf of children under the age of 13 in the UK and 16 years old in the European Economic Area (EEA) filed a lawsuit against TikTok and the public. parent company ByteDance. The lawsuit alleges TikTok and ByteDance violate the data protection laws of children (GDPR) of the UK and the European Union (EU) and deceive parents about the extent of personal information leakage of the children. kids when they use this app. TikTok’s behavior is believed to affect more than 3.5 million children in the UK. In a statement dated April 21, Ms. Longfield emphasized “TikTok is an extremely popular social media platform that helps children keep in touch with their friends during the past extremely difficult year. Behind the hilarious songs, choreography challenges and the lip-sync movement is something much more damaging. According to her, parents as well as children have the right to personal information, including phone number, physical location and illegally collected videos. The former UK children’s commissioner stated that the lawsuit is intended to force TikTok to “terminate data collection”, and to ask the platform to remove any personal information that has been “illegally processed”. when kids use this app. The lawsuit states that since May 2018, every child using TikTok, regardless of having an account or possible privacy settings, has been illegally collected by ByteDance through TikTok for the benefit of Unidentified third parties. The lawsuit also mentioned recent hefty fines for TikTok in the US and South Korea following cases of child data leaks. In response, TikTok insists the app has “robust policies, procedures and technologies to help protect all users, especially teen users”. TikTok will strongly protect itself, while asserting that privacy and safety are always the “top priority” of this platform.

Gökçe is the owner of the Nusr-Et Steakhouse restaurant chain with branches in many countries around the world. Gökçe became famous after a clip of his expressive salt spraying went viral on Twitter and Instagram.

Salt Bae “Holy Salt” performs his signature salt sprinkle show at the Nusr-Et steakhouse in Manhattan. (Photo: Cole Wilson / The New York Times)

According to the New York Post, the extremely famous male chef on this social network is currently caught in a $ 5 million lawsuit due to copyright infringement by American artist William Hicks.

Specifically, William Hicks accused Salt Bae of using his work for commercial purposes without his permission.

Previously, in September 2017, Salt Bae “holy salt” hired William Hicks and colleague Josphe Iurato to make a mural of him in the famous “salt sprinkling” pose.

A painting by painter William Hicks and his colleague Josphe Iurato of Salt Bae in the famous “salt spray” pose. (Photo: NYPost)

Until early 2020, Hicks discovered that Gökçe and the male chef’s company used the image on a variety of products such as digital signage, restaurant menus, napkins, paper bags and spices. without permission from 2 original artists.

In February 2021, Gökçe launched a special line of spices for baking, and continued to use images created by the duo artists Hicks and Iurato.

Salt Bae was accused of using the work of painter William Hicks for commercial purposes without his permission. (Photo: New York Times)

“The defendants unilaterally adapt and distribute the derivative versions of the original works for display at the Nusr-et steak restaurants in many cities and countries such as Abu Dhabi, Ankara, Etiler, Mykonos and Bodrum Yalikavak Marina, “the allegation said.

Previously, Hicks sent a letter asking chef Nusr-et Gökçe to stop using the original painting in off-agreement products in April 2020.

Salt Bae “Holy Salt” became famous after the clip recording his expressive salt spraying scene went viral on Twitter, Instagram. (Photo: JERRITT CLARK / GETTY IMAGES)

However, Salt Bae and the company still “doubled the scope of violations, intentionally using images in other locations”.