Even while the row between Apple and Epic Games remains unresolved, the other big app store will soon get its time under the legal spotlight. It’s really no surprise that Google would eventually be the target of an antitrust lawsuit but the bigger question is if it will be able to stick. As many as 36 states in the US have finally filed a complaint alleging that Google used its position to impose a 30% tax from developers on Google Play Store.
The 30% cut that app store owners get has been the subject of much controversy and even legal actions for the past years, but things didn’t come to a head until Epic Games made its bold move to try and bypass those fees for Fortnite in-app purchases. That set off a chain of events that ended up with Apple and the gaming giant in court. It may have also nudged other digital content store owners to adjust their fees or offer other incentives to pacify developers and regulators.
Google hasn’t exactly changed its tune, although it did start a new tier for developers earning less than $1 million per year. Google Play Store still retains a 30% cut for app and in-app purchases, and a new lawsuit puts that business practice in a slightly different light.
According to the complaint, Google used its position and resources to pay off manufacturers like Samsung from developing a competing app store. It allegedly also paid developers to discourage them from distributing their Android app anywhere else other than Google Play Store. This situation led to conflated prices for consumers buying apps, according to the state attorneys general.
One critical difference between Apple’s situation and Google’s is that Google Play Store isn’t the only app store available. The presence of Amazon’s Appstore and Samsung’s own Galaxy Store, and the ability to sideload apps on Android could weaken the states’ case a bit. That said, it doesn’t clear Google of anti-competitive practices that could still leave competing app stores at a disadvantage.
Zippia, a career website, has a fun bit of research for the Independence Day holiday: which states spend the most money on fireworks, at least based on population and firework imports. The list is a bit surprising — Texas, for example, doesn’t make the Top Ten list despite its popular association with independence and firepower.
The research is a basic, yet fun look into the fireworks habit of each state in the US. Though many states, counties, and cities have their own regulations involving the use of fireworks at home, including which products are allowed and whether they can be set off in residential areas, people tend to blow them up regardless and enforcement is typically reserved to cases of reckless behavior.
Based on US trade Census data on firework imports for each state, as well as US Census data on state populations, it turns out that Missouri collectively spends the most on fireworks for the 4th of July, followed by neighboring states Nebraska and Kansas. Alabama ranks #4 on the list, followed by South Carolina, Wyoming, Nevada, North Dakota, Indiana, and Ohio at 10th place.
The states that seem to enjoy the least amounts of fireworks, at least based on import data, include Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, California, Oregon, Louisiana, and New York. This is likely due to local laws that reduce how many fireworks are imported, but keep in mind that many people near borders will cross state lines to purchase their goods in another state, then drive the products back to their home state.
While fireworks are a lot of fun, they’re also dangerous, and not just because you may accidentally lose a finger if the fuse is too short. A recent study found that the amount of risky fine particulate matter in the air increases sharply the week before Independence Day and remains that way the week after the holiday, at least in Calfornia, putting public health at risk.
More than two years after it initially began trials, Google’s AI-powered reservation service Duplex is now available in 49 US states. This looks like it’ll be the limit of Duplex’s coverage in the US for the time being, as Google tells The Verge it has no timeline to launch the service in the last hold-out state — Louisiana — due to unspecified local laws.
Adapting to local legislation is one of the reasons Duplex has taken so long to roll out across the US. Google tells The Verge it’s had to add certain features to the service (like offering a call-back number for businesses contacted by Duplex) to make it legal in some states. In others, it’s simply waited for legislation to change.
The new milestone of 49 states was spotted by AndroidPolice, based on a Google support page that lists Duplex’s availability. In each of these states Duplex will be able to book appointments (like reservations at restaurants) and call businesses to check information like opening hours.
Google wowed audiences when it first unveiled Duplex at its 2018 I/O conference. As a feature of Google Assistant, Duplex uses AI to call local businesses, making reservations at restaurants and hairdressers on your behalf using a realistic-sounding artificial voice.
Initially, it seemed Google promised more than it could deliver. In 2019 it was revealed that 25 percent of Duplex calls are made by humans, and that 19 percent of calls started by the automated system have to be completed by people. And in our own reporting, we found that restaurants often confused Duplex with automated spam robocalls. As of October last year, though, Google says 99 percent of Duplex calls are fully automated.
As businesses begin to open up again this year, it’ll be interesting to see if Duplex can keep up.
Update April 1, 12:45PM ET: Story has been updated with most recent data on the percentage of Duplex calls that are fully automated.
Concerned about growing momentum behind efforts to regulate the commercial use of personal data, Big Tech has begun seeding watered-down “privacy” legislation in states with the goal of preempting greater protections, experts say.
The swift passage in March of a consumer data privacy law in Virginia, which Protocol reported was originally authored by Amazon with input from Microsoft, is emblematic of an industry-driven, lobbying-fueled approach taking hold across the country. The Markup reviewed existing and proposed legislation, committee testimony, and lobbying records in more than 20 states and identified 14 states with privacy bills built upon the same industry-backed framework as Virginia’s, or with weaker models. The bills are backed by a who’s who of Big Tech–funded interest groups and are being shepherded through statehouses by waves of company lobbyists.
Meanwhile, the small handful of bills that have not adhered to two key industry demands—that companies can’t be sued for violations and consumers would have to opt out of rather than into tracking—have quickly died in committee or been rewritten.
Experts say Big Tech’s push to pass friendly state privacy bills ramped up after California enacted sweeping privacy bills in 2018 and 2020—and that the ultimate goal is to prompt federal legislation that would potentially override California’s privacy protections.
“The effort to push through weaker bills is to demonstrate to businesses and to Congress that there are weaker options,” said Ashkan Soltani, a former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission who helped author the California legislation. “Nobody saw Virginia coming. That was very much an industry-led effort by Microsoft and Amazon. At some point, if multiple states go the way of Virginia, you might not even get companies to honor California’s [rules].”
California’s laws, portions of which don’t go into effect until 2023, create what is known as a “global opt out.” Rather than every website requiring users to go through separate opt-out processes, residents can use internet browsers and extensions that automatically notify every website that a user wishes to opt out of the sale of their personal data or use of it for targeted advertising—and companies must comply. The laws also allow consumers to sue companies for violations of the laws’ security requirements and created the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s rules.
“Setting up these weak foundations is really damaging and really puts us in a worse direction on privacy in the U.S.,” said Hayley Tsukayama, a legislative activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Every time that one of these bills passes, Virginia being a great example, people are saying ‘This is the model you should be looking at, not California.’ ”
Amazon did not respond to requests for comment, and Microsoft declined to answer specific questions on the record.
Industry groups, however, were not shy about their support for the Virginia law and copycats around the country.
The Virginia law is a “ business and consumer friendly approach” that other states considering privacy legislation should align with, The Internet Association, an industry group that represents Big Tech, wrote in a statement to The Markup.
Big Tech’s fingerprints are all over state privacy fights
In testimony before lawmakers, tech lobbyists have criticized the state-by-state approach of making privacy legislation and said they would prefer a federal law. Tech companies offered similar statements to The Markup.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda declined to answer questions but emailed The Markup a statement: “As we make privacy and security advancements to protect consumers, we’ll continue to advocate for sensible data regulations around the world, including strong, comprehensive federal privacy legislation in the U.S.”
But at the same time, the tech and ad industries have taken a hands-on approach to shape state legislation. Mostly, industry has advocated for two provisions. The first is an opt-out approach to the sale of personal data or using it for targeted advertising, which means that tracking is on by default unless the customer finds a way to opt out of it. Consumer advocates prefer privacy to be the default setting, with users given the freedom to opt in to certain uses of their data. The second industry desire is preventing a private right of action, which would allow consumers to sue for violations of the laws.
The industry claims such privacy protections are too extreme.
“That may be a bonanza for the trial bar, but it will not be good for business,” said Dan Jaffe, group executive vice president for government relations for the Association of National Advertisers, which has lobbied heavily in states and helped write model federal legislation. TechNet, another Big Tech industry group that has been deeply engaged in lobbying state lawmakers, said that “enormous litigation costs for good faith mistakes could be fatal to businesses of all sizes.”
Through lobbying records, recordings of public testimony, and interviews with lawmakers, The Markup found direct links between industry lobbying efforts and the proliferation of these tech-friendly provisions in Connecticut, Florida, Oklahoma, and Washington. And in Texas, industry pressure has shaped an even weaker bill.
Additionally, The Markup found a handful of states—particularly North Dakota and Oklahoma—in which tech lobbyists have stepped in to thwart efforts to enact stricter laws.
Connecticut
The path of Connecticut’s bill is illustrative of how these battles have played out. There, state Senate majority leader Bob Duff introduced a privacy bill in 2020 that contained a private right of action. During the bill’s public hearing last February, Duff said he looked out on a room “literally filled with every single lobbyist I’ve ever known in Hartford, hired by companies to defeat the bill.”
The legislation failed. Duff introduced a new version of it in 2021, and it too died in committee following testimony from interest groups funded by Big Tech, including the Internet Association and The Software Alliance.
According to Duff and Sen. James Maroney, who co-chairs the Joint Committee on General Law, those groups are now pushing a separate privacy bill, written using the Virginia law as a template. Duff said lawmakers “had a Zoom one day with a lot of big tech companies” to go over the bill’s language.
“Our legislative commissioner took the Virginia language and applied Connecticut terminology,” Maroney said.
That industry-backed bill passed through committee unanimously on March 23.
“It’s an uphill battle because you’re fighting a lot of forces on many fronts,” Duff said. “They’re well funded, they’re well heeled, and they just hire a lot of lobbyists to defeat legislation for the simple reason that there’s a lot of money in online data.”
Google has spent $100,000 lobbying in Connecticut since 2019, when Duff first introduced a consumer data privacy bill. Apple and Microsoft have each spent $124,000, Amazon has spent $116,000, and Facebook has spent $155,000, according to the state’s lobbyist reporting database.
Microsoft declined to answer questions and instead emailed The Markup links to the testimony its company officials gave in Virginia and Washington.
The Virginia model “is a thoughtful approach to modernize United States privacy law, something which has become a very urgent need,” Ryan Harkins, the company’s senior director of public policy, said during one hearing.
Google declined to respond to The Markup’s questions about their lobbying. Apple and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.
Oklahoma
In Oklahoma, Rep. Collin Walke, a Democrat, and Rep. Josh West, the Republican majority leader, co-sponsored a bill that would have banned businesses from selling consumers’ personal data unless the consumers specifically opted in and gave consumers the right to sue for violations. Walke told The Markup that the bipartisan team found themselves up against an army of lobbyists from companies including Facebook, Amazon, and leading the effort, AT&T.
AT&T lobbyists persuaded House leadership to delay the bill’s scheduled March 2 hearing, Walke said. “For the whole next 24-hour period, lobbyists were pulling members off the house floor and whipping them.”
Walke said to try to get the bill through the Senate, he agreed to meetings with Amazon, internet service providers, and local tech companies, eventually adopting a “Virginia-esque” bill. But certain companies remained resistant—Walke declined to specify which ones—and the bill died without receiving a hearing.
AT&T did not respond to questions about its actions in Oklahoma or other states where it has fought privacy legislation. Walke said he plans to reintroduce the modified version of the bill again next session.
Texas
In Texas, Rep. Giovanni Capriglione first introduced a privacy bill in 2019. He told The Markup he was swiftly confronted by lobbyists from Amazon, Facebook, Google, and industry groups representing tech companies. The state then created a committee to study data privacy, which was populated in large part by industry representatives.
Facebook declined to answer questions on the record for this story.
Capriglione introduced another privacy bill in 2021, but given “Texas’s conservative nature,” he said, and the previous pushback, it doesn’t include any opt-in or opt-out requirement or a private right of action. But he has still received pushback from industry over issues like how clear and understandable website privacy policies have to be.
“The ones that were most interested were primarily the big tech companies,” he said. “I received significant opposition to making any changes” to the status quo.
Washington
The privacy bill furthest along of all pending bills is in Washington, the home state of Microsoft and Amazon. The Washington Privacy Act was first introduced in 2019 and was the inspiration for Virginia’s law. Microsoft, Amazon, and more recently Google, have all testified in favor of the bill. It passed the state Senate 48–1 in March.
A House committee considering the bill has proposed an amendment that would create a private right of action, but it is unclear whether that will survive the rest of the legislative process.
Other States
Other states—Illinois, Kentucky, Alabama, Alaska, and Colorado—have Virgina-like bills under consideration. State representative Michelle Mussman, the sponsor of a privacy bill in Illinois, and state representative Lisa Willner, the sponsor of a bill in Kentucky, told The Markup that they had not consulted with industry or made privacy legislation their priority during 2021, but when working with legislative staff to author the bills they eventually put forward, they looked to other states for inspiration. The framework they settled on was significantly similar to Virginia’s on key points, according to The Markup’s analysis.
The sponsors of bills in Alabama, Alaska, and Colorado did not respond to interview requests, and public hearing testimony or lobbying records in those states were not yet available.
The campaign against tougher bills
In North Dakota, lawmakers in January introduced a consumer data privacy bill that a coalition of advertising organizations called “the most restrictive privacy law in the United States.” It would have included an opt-in framework, a private right of action, and broad definitions of the kind of data and practices subject to the law.
It failed 75–19 in the House shortly after a public hearing in which only AT&T, data broker RELX, and industry groups like The Internet Association, TechNet, and the State Privacy and Security Coalition showed up to testify—all in opposition. And while the big tech companies didn’t directly testify on the bill, lobbying records suggest they exerted influence in other ways.
The 2020–2021 lobbyist filing period in North Dakota, which coincided with the legislature’s study and hearing on the bill, marked the first time Amazon has registered a lobbyist in the state since 2018 and the first time Apple and Google have registered lobbyists since the state began publishing lobbying disclosures in 2016, according to state lobbying records.
A Mississippi bill containing a private right of action met a similar fate. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Angela Turner-Ford, did not respond to an interview request.
While in Florida, a bill that was originally modeled after California’s laws has been the subject of intense industry lobbying both in public and behind the scenes. On April 6, a Florida Senate committee voted to remove the private right of action, leaving a bill substantially similar to Virginia’s. State senator Jennifer Bradley, the sponsor of Florida’s bill, did not respond to The Markup’s request for comment.
Several bills that include opt-in frameworks, private rights of action, and other provisions that experts say make for strong consumer protection legislation are beginning to make their way through statehouses in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. It remains to be seen whether those bills’ current protections can survive the influence of an industry keen to set the precedent for expected debate over a federal privacy law.
If the model that passed in Virginia and is moving forward in other states continues to win out, it will “really hamstring federal lawmakers’ ability to do anything stronger, which is really concerning considering how weak [that model] is,” said Jennifer Lee, the technology and liberty project manager for the ACLU of Washington. “I think it really will entrench the status quo in allowing companies to operate under the guise of privacy protections that aren’t actually that protective.”
Late last year, Comcast revealed that it would be expanding its 1.2TB Internet data cap to the remaining states that hadn’t yet received them — a change that was originally scheduled to start next month. Not too long ago, the company said it would delay the data caps until July, but now it is back with yet another update.
The data cap expansion will cover the Northeast region of the US, including a dozen states, Washington DC, and parts of North Carolina and Ohio. The states that already have Comcast’s 1.2TB data cap won’t see any changes, but for those in the Northeastern US, there’s now a reprieve until some time next year.
Earlier this month, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s office announced that it and Comcast had reached a deal that would, among other things, delay the data cap until July. In a new update, Comcast announced that it has decided to delay the rollout until 2022, stating the reason for its decision:
We recognize that our data plan was new for our customers in the Northeast, and while only a very small percentage of customers need additional data, we are providing them with more time to become familiar with the new plan.
Critics have pointed out that a pandemic in which many people are now working and studying from home is a bad time to introduce data caps with overage fees. Comcast doesn’t mention whether the pandemic influenced its decision to delay the data caps, but regardless, Northeast customers will be able to avoid the overage fees — for now.
In the last couple of years, governmentsall overthe world have been keeping an eye on their citizens’ social media accounts to monitor critical posts about the ruling governments. Now, the Indian state of Uttarakhand wants to scan social media posts of people before issuing a passport.
Hindustan Times reports that the director general of police for the Northern state that is home to over 10 million people,Ashok Kumar, said that cops will look for anti-national posts before approving documents such as passports and gun licenses:
We will scrutinize social media accounts to determine if such posts are coming up frequently. The police would mention this in that person’s police verification and may not clear the application for passport or arms license.
He added that previously, cops used to monitor social media and register a case against some for serious offenses. While cops arrest people for inciting violence or distribution of child porn over social media, in India, it has made arrests based on critical posts about governments as well.
[Read: How much does it cost to buy, own, and run an EV? It’s not as much as you think]
Appointing police as arbiters of free speech is a dangerous proposition. Last month, comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested for allegedly intending to make religiously offensive jokes. That’s not a typo.
Monitoring social media before clearing official documents is not a novel concept. In 2019, former US President Donald Trump’s administration asked for social media details for visa applicants. In 2019, a US student was arrested while visiting China for his critical tweets against the country’s president Xi Jinping. Last year, China passed a bizarre law that allowed it to arrest anyone in Hong Kong — even if they’re not permanent residents — for making derogatory remarks about the country’s government.
