Data privacy has become one of the greatest challenges for companies operating in digital environments. In its new guide, Usercentrics breaks down the privacy policies of major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Stripe, and ChatGPT. The aim is to help companies understand what information is collected, how it is used, and what legal obligations they must fulfill in each case.

This guide, led by Celestine Bahr, Legal Director at Usercentrics, focuses on the importance of aligning business practices with global regulatory frameworks such as the GDPR in Europe, the CCPA in California, or the LGPD in Brazil, in addition to new regulations like the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Facebook and Meta: Transparency Under Scrutiny

In the case of Facebook, the guide details that using this platform entails sharing audience personal data with Meta. This occurs especially when companies use tools such as the Facebook Pixel or the Conversions API, which transmit information about browsing, purchases, or interactions from websites and apps to Meta’s servers.

According to Usercentrics, the Facebook privacy policy has a direct impact on the obligations that any business has under data protection laws. The guide highlights that Facebook collects several types of information: from data provided by users themselves (such as email addresses or shipping details), to activity within the platform (clicks, likes, or interactions), as well as device technical data including location, IP address, or battery level.

The use of cookies and tracking technologies by Meta also deserves special attention. These tools can collect data even from individuals who do not have a Facebook account, which creates the need to properly manage user consent in regions governed by strict regulations.

The guide recalls that in addition to advertising personalization, Meta uses the information to improve products, ensure security, and provide advanced analytics to businesses. However, it also shares data with third parties such as advertisers, service providers, or academic researchers, making total transparency indispensable in every company’s privacy policy.

• You may also be interested in: Meta accused of manipulating ad metrics in their Shops Ads

Global implications for companies

One of the key points of the Usercentrics analysis is that regulatory complexity varies by region. In the European Union, for instance, the DMA requires Meta to obtain explicit consent before combining data from different platforms. In the United States, on the other hand, many states apply an opt-out model, where users have the right to exclude themselves, and companies are required to provide mechanisms such as the “Do Not Sell Or Share My Personal Information” button.

The guide also highlights the importance of applying principles such as data minimization (collect only the information that is necessary) and purpose limitation (use data solely for the purpose that was communicated to the user).

In addition, it recalls that companies are responsible for the security of data throughout its entire lifecycle, even after it has been shared with Meta or other platforms. Therefore, implementing appropriate technical and organizational measures is a mandatory legal requirement.

A particularly sensitive aspect is the processing of data from minors. Meta restricts advertising targeting for users under 18 and requires compliance with specific regulations such as COPPA in the United States or parental consent requirements in the EU.

Beyond Facebook: Instagram, TikTok, Stripe, and ChatGPT

The Usercentrics guide is not limited to Meta. It also analyzes the policies of Instagram and TikTok, platforms where the collection of behavioral and device data poses similar challenges.

In the case of Stripe, the need to comply with financial and payment regulations is emphasized, as the platform processes highly sensitive information such as bank and card data.

Finally, it dedicates a section to ChatGPT and OpenAI services, highlighting that companies integrating such solutions must clearly explain how the data shared in these interactions is processed and stored.

• You may also be interested in: Musk sues Apple and OpenAI for anticompetitive practices in the AI market

The Importance of Being Proactive

The underlying message of the guide is clear: privacy is not merely a legal obligation, but also a pillar of trust and reputation. According to data cited in the guide, 71% of consumers are increasingly protective of their personal information, so any lack of transparency can result in distrust and damage to brand image.

For this reason, Usercentrics recommends that companies regularly review and update their privacy policies, adjust their consent banners, and be completely transparent with users about the use of third-party tools.

If you wish to explore this subject in greater detail and learn about the implications of each platform, we recommend you read the complete Usercentrics guide. This is a practical and up-to-date resource to ensure your business is prepared to face the challenges of privacy in the digital economy.

• You may also be interested in: How to protect your users’ data in 2025: Key privacy and compliance considerations in marketing

The post Usercentrics analyzes the privacy policies of major digital platforms appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

Samujjal Purkayastha, a former employee of Meta, has filed a complaint against the technology company before a court in the United Kingdom, accusing it of manipulating the advertising metrics related to Shops Ads in order to present a falsely improved performance.

Purkayastha began working at Meta in 2020 (when the company was still called Facebook) as a product manager on the Applied Artificial Intelligence Research team at Facebook. Subsequently, in 2022, he joined the Shops Ads team until his dismissal on February 19, 2025.

What the complaint alleges

On August 20, Purkayastha filed the suit against Meta in the Central London Employment Tribunal. According to the document, Meta inflated the advertising return on investment metrics (ROAS) for Shops Ads, its advertising tool that enables advertisers to promote their products on Facebook and Instagram.

Specifically, the former Meta employee asserts that, during internal reviews conducted in early 2024, the company’s data scientists discovered that the ROAS for Shops Ads had been inflated by between 17% and 19%.

This discrepancy was due to the fact that Meta included shipping costs and taxes as part of sales, manipulating the figures to give the false impression that its performance exceeded that of other competitors such as Apple or Google. Purkayastha states that he had already noticed this practice by mid-2022.

Likewise, the former Meta employee states that he raised his concerns regarding these issues in multiple meetings with the company’s senior management. His claim includes a request for injunctive relief to regain his former position within the company.

According to the complaint, this manipulation did not occur with other Meta advertising products. As a result, advertisers were given a false impression that campaigns on Shops Ads were performing better than traditional advertisements.

In the document, Purkayastha states: “In addition to the fact that the ROAS performance metric was overestimated by almost a fifth, it meant that, rather than having exceeded our main objective, the Shops Ads team, in fact, did not achieve it once the figure was adjusted to account for artificial inflation.”

An alleged action against Apple’s privacy barriers

Furthermore, this alleged manipulation would also be part of a broader strategy by Meta to improve the performance of its ads, in response to the privacy updates that Apple implemented in 2021 through its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) feature.

Meta executives sought new sources of revenue that would be “resistant” to these privacy measures. Shops Ads were presented as the ideal solution, as they kept tracking and transactions within Meta’s own applications (Instagram and Facebook).

In order to make this new product appear more successful, Meta allegedly subsidized Shops Ads bids, sometimes by up to 100%, to ensure that they would be shown more frequently to users. This not only increased visibility, but also reinforced the illusion of solid performance and a high conversion rate.

In addition to the manipulation of bids, the complaint also claims that Meta engaged in poor practices regarding data tracking. Purkayastha asserts that the company implemented a mechanism called AEM2 which, unlike its predecessor, linked activity within Meta’s apps to browsing and purchasing on third-party sites by using personal identifiers such as email addresses or phone numbers.

Purkayastha believes that AEM2 may have circumvented Apple’s privacy restrictions, thereby recovering a significant portion of the data lost following Apple’s changes.

How the case is progressing

For the time being, a judge at the Central London Employment Tribunal has denied Purkayastha’s request for injunctive relief to recover his position. As for the case itself, a full hearing is expected to take place next year.

Regarding Meta, a spokesperson for the company stated that “the allegations related to the integrity of our advertising practices are baseless and we have complete confidence in our performance review processes.”

Photo: Depositphotos

The post Meta, accused of manipulating the advertising metrics of its shops ads appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

Elon Musk has filed a lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI through his companies X and xAI in a federal court in Texas (United States), thus opening a new chapter in his crusade against the company behind ChatGPT.

The magnate accuses both companies of monopolistic and anti-competitive practices that are causing harm to competition and affecting the balance of the artificial intelligence market. In early June, Apple and OpenAI announced an agreement by which ChatGPT would be integrated into Apple’s operating system.

What Musk’s lawsuit states

“This is the story of two monopolists joining forces to secure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence (“AI”). Working together, defendants Apple and OpenAI have locked down markets to maintain their monopolies and prevent innovators such as X and xAI from competing.

Plaintiffs file this lawsuit to prevent defendants from perpetrating their anti-competitive scheme and to recover billions in damages.” Thus begins the lawsuit filed by X and xAI.

The document outlines several accusations against Apple and OpenAI, with the main points being:

• Anti-competitive conduct and AI monopoly: It is asserted that Apple and OpenAI have established a strategic alliance in order to close off the market and make it difficult for other players (such as X and xAI) to compete. The suit compares this practice to previous antitrust precedents involving Apple and the App Store.
• Improper use of user data: By integrating OpenAI’s models into its systems, Apple would be allowing user data from iPhones and Macs to be used to train AI models without the users’ informed consent.
• Exclusion of competitors and innovation: The alliance would limit the ability of other companies to develop competitive AI technologies, consolidating an Apple-OpenAI duopoly within the tech ecosystem.
• Economic and reputational damages to X: X claims that the competitive restraints are causing it loss of market value, reduced opportunities, and damage to its public image.

Musk and his complicated relationship with OpenAI

Earlier this month, Musk had already threatened to take legal action against Apple, accusing the company of preventing any AI company other than OpenAI from attaining the top position in the App Store.

This drew a direct response from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who did not hesitate to allude to rumors concerning Musk’s allegedly unorthodox tactics to achieve his goals: “This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he does not like.”

This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like. https://t.co/HlgzO4c2iC

— Sam Altman (@sama) August 12, 2025

The conflict between Musk and Altman is well known throughout the industry, and their direct confrontations on social media are a spectacle we witness with (one could say, too much) regularity. As with any drama worth noting, the relationship between these two magnates was not always so tense; in fact, Musk was one of the co-founders of OpenAI.

When did everything go wrong? It occurred in 2019, when the company shifted from a non-profit approach to a “capped-profit” model to ensure its technological development—an idea with which Musk disagreed. It should also be noted that in 2018, Musk left OpenAI’s board of directors after his plans to assume control of the company were frustrated.

Since then, we have witnessed a series of reciprocal accusations. For example, in March 2024, Musk filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for “breach of contract”. Subsequently, in January 2025, Musk initiated another conflict on social media accusing Altman of being a swindler in connection with the creation of the Stargate project.

A new dramatic twist followed when, in February 2025, Musk submitted an unsolicited offer of $97.4 billion to purchase OpenAI. Naturally, this was rejected and regarded more as a provocation than a genuine proposal, considering that the actual estimated value of OpenAI at that time exceeded $300 billion.

Swindler

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 10, 2025

Photo: Canva and Depositphotos

The post Musk sues Apple and OpenAI for anticompetitive practices in the AI market appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

Epic Games, the video game developer behind titles such as Fortnite, has announced the end of its legal dispute with Samsung. Both companies have reached an agreement, thereby closing the antitrust case initiated in September 2024, in which Samsung was accused of working with Google to block competing app stores on its smartphones.

“We are dismissing our lawsuit against Samsung following discussions between the parties. We are grateful that Samsung will address Epic’s concerns,” explained Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games, in a statement published on Twitter.

We’re dismissing our court case against Samsung following the parties’ discussions. We are grateful that Samsung will address Epic’s concerns. https://t.co/fgJYU6NMH0

— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) July 7, 2025

What Epic Games’ lawsuit alleged

On September 30, 2024, Epic Games filed a lawsuit against Google and Samsung in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the document, Samsung was accused of using its default “Auto Blocker” feature to hinder the download of apps from rival application stores.

Samsung presents “Auto Blocker” as a security measure intended to block apps from “unknown sources.” Nevertheless, Epic Games stated in its lawsuit that Samsung and Google used it to block apps originating from any store other than the Play Store or the Galaxy Store, with no formal process allowing other stores to be “authorized.”

“Auto Blocker is the latest in a long series of arrangements in which Google and Samsung have agreed not to compete in order to protect Google’s monopolistic power. Auto Blocker consolidates Google Play Store as the only viable way to obtain applications on Samsung devices, preventing all other stores from competing on equal terms,” Epic Games explained in a statement.

Epic Games identified “Auto Blocker” as a Google ploy resulting from a previous lawsuit

Now that we know the central issue of the Epic Games lawsuit, we must look further back to grasp the full context. In 2020, the video game developer sued Google, accusing it of maintaining an illegal monopoly over the distribution of Android apps through the Play Store.

In 2023, Epic Games prevailed in the case and the court committed to implementing corrective measures to open the market to competition. Following this, the video game company launched its Epic Games Store in August 2024 in an attempt to gain a foothold in the app store market.

However, that same year, Samsung altered the “Auto Blocker” setting so that it became pre-installed by default on its mobile devices, rather than being an optional feature. Epic interpreted this as an attempt by Samsung and Google to coordinate efforts to thwart effective competition in app distribution, which could nullify the corrective measures expected from the 2023 ruling against Google.

“The intended effect of Auto Blocker is clear: it would nullify the measures the Court imposes on Google and frustrate any attempt to open the Android application distribution market to competition,” the 2024 lawsuit explained.

An agreement that has not been disclosed

Tim Sweeney’s post on X, founder and CEO of Epic Games, is the only information that has been released regarding the agreement reached between the developer and Samsung. At this time, no further details have been provided about what actions Samsung has taken resulting in Epic Games withdrawing its lawsuit.

Among the possibilities could be a return to making “Auto Blocker” an optional feature, or modifying it to allow the installation of apps from stores other than the Play Store or the Galaxy Store. This, in turn, would help restore a market balance that enables open competition.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that Sweeney’s statement was made two days prior to the Samsung Galaxy Unpacked event scheduled to begin on July 9. Therefore, we cannot help but wonder if more information will be disclosed during the event.

Photo: GPT-4o

The post Epic Games withdraws its antitrust lawsuit against Samsung after reaching an agreement appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

Google is facing a new antitrust case in the European Union, this time due to the impact of its AI Overviews. The group Independent Publishers Alliance has filed a complaint against the technology giant with the European Commission, alleging that its AI-generated overviews harm website traffic and revenue results.

What the complaint against Google’s AI Overviews states

The AI Overviews arrived in nine European countries in March of 2025, nearly a year after their launch in the United States. This feature uses generative AI to create overviews composed of text and relevant links derived from web information, allowing quick and concise responses to queries in the Google search engine.

The launch of these AI-generated overviews has rapidly gained traction with users, thus impacting web traffic. According to a report by the SEO platform BrightEdge, since the activation of AI Overviews in the United States, the CTR decreased by 30%.

In Europe, their effects are also becoming apparent, and SEO professionals are seeking ways to prepare for their consequences. For its part, the Independent Publishers Alliance has sought to challenge Google directly through a complaint to which the news outlet Reuters has had access.

The document submitted by this group of independent publishers is dated June 30, and accuses the technology company of “misusing web content for Google’s AI Overviews in Google Search, which has caused and continues to cause significant harm to publishers, including news publishers, in the form of loss of traffic, readers, and revenue.”

They also note that: “publishers who use Google Search do not have the option to prevent their material from being ingested for the training of Google’s large language model AI, nor from being crawled for summaries, without losing their ability to appear on Google’s general search results page.”

The complaint has also requested the European Commission to implement interim measures to prevent harm, which, according to the Independent Publishers Alliance, could be irreparable.

Google defends its AI Overviews

For its part, Google has defended the usefulness of its AI Overviews, indicating that these are also intended to drive traffic to the sources on which they are based. “The new AI experiences in search enable people to ask even more questions, which creates new opportunities to discover content and businesses.”

Additionally, its spokesperson stated that fluctuations in web traffic may result from numerous factors, thereby distancing responsibility for its AI-generated overviews. “The reality is that sites may gain and lose traffic for a variety of reasons, including seasonal demand, user interests, and regular algorithmic updates to Search.”

This is not the first lawsuit that Google has received over its AI Overviews. Earlier this year, the American educational technology company Chegg filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing its AI Overviews of harming its web traffic and, consequently, its revenue.

Photo: Canva

The post The Independent Publishers Alliance sues Google before the European Commission regarding its AI Overviews appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

France has become the stage for an intense battle between local retail heavyweights and Asian eCommerce giants. A coalition of more than 230 brands and 16 industry federations, led by the French Trade Council (CDCF) and the French Trade Confederation (CCF), has openly declared war on Shein, Temu, and AliExpress.

The petition, sent on June 3rd in the form of a public letter to the Executive, brings serious accusations to the table such as non-compliance with European regulations, promoting uncontrolled consumption, environmental pollution, and a competition deemed “unfair.” According to the signatories, these platforms would be operating outside the rules, and it is time for them to face the same requirements as local merchants.

The signatories demand that the available measures be immediately applied: notification, warning, déréférencement and blocking if necessary. This concept, known as déréférencement, involves the removal of a website from search engines or marketplaces (similar to what is known in Spain as the “right to be forgotten”) and it would not be the first time it is applied: in 2021, the DGCCRF (The French Directorate General for Competition and Consumer Protection) decided to apply it to the popular eCommerce site Wish.

As merchants explain in their public letter, “the legal framework exists, the way is clear. It is time to resume it.”

The data of the controversy

Product safety

According to European surveys cited by the CDCF and the CCF, the vast majority of products sold by these platforms do not comply with current EU regulations: “These Chinese online sales platforms are no longer marginal: they flood the French market with millions of low-priced products, often uncontrolled, to the detriment of safety, transparency, and fairness. Investigations conducted by European authorities reveal that between 85% and 95% of products offered on Temu, Shein, and AliExpress do not comply with EU standards“.

And it is not just a matter of misplaced labels: according to their explanations, up to 66% of the products analyzed have been classified as potentially dangerous.

A competition issue

But the indignation of small French merchants is not only due to the safety or labeling of the products marketed by these platforms. Furthermore, in their public letter, they accuse them of avoiding VAT, dodging customs duties, not adhering to sales schedules, and failing to comply with commercial transparency obligations. All of this, the retailers complain, places French actors who abide by the rules at a clear disadvantage.

“These platforms evade VAT, avoid customs tariffs, bypass sales periods, and violate labeling and commercial transparency rules. They gain an unfair competitive advantage to the detriment of French retailers, responsible markets, and SMEs that invest in regulatory compliance. The principle of fair commercial transactions, although enshrined in the French Consumer Code, is being trampled. This distortion of competition is unsustainable and economically destructive“, they explain.

Shein responds, the government listens

In response to the accusations, Shein has assured the AFP agency that it will invest €13 million in 2025 to enhance the safety and compliance of its products. Of that figure, €2.5 million will be specifically allocated to quality testing, a 25% increase over the previous year. Additionally, the company has pointed out its collaboration with 15 internationally recognized testing agencies.

Meanwhile, the cabinet of Commerce Minister Véronique Louwagie has stated that the retailers’ request is being studied “with the utmost attention” and in close coordination with the relevant services.

When fast fashion becomes fast trouble

This offensive is not new: the French Senate is examining a bill focused on curbing the excesses of “fast fashion” in the French market. The initiative contemplates, among other measures, the prohibition of advertising for companies like Shein, Temu, or AliExpress, financial penalties, and awareness campaigns about the environmental impact of their clothing.

Yann Rivoallan, president of the French Federation of Women’s Ready-to-Wear, has not hesitated to raise the tone: “I believe we must ban these companies outright”. He also questions how it is possible that consumers are still allowed to purchase dangerous products without any control, and suggests adopting a similar tax to that applied in the United States, where tariffs for these Asian actors recently exceeded 120%, although they were then reduced to 54%.

Brussels also takes action

In fact, this is not the only problem these platforms face in Europe. As we informed you a few days ago, the European Commission has stepped up its vigilance over Shein, the rising star of ultra-fast fashion eCommerce, notifying it of a series of practices that violate EU consumer protection laws. This “warning” comes after an investigation led by authorities from Belgium, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands, along with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC). The tactics questioned by Brussels would distort users’ purchasing decisions and violate key directives, including unfair commercial practices and consumer rights.

The European Commission’s dossier details six major fronts of non-compliance by Shein: fake discounts not based on actual previous prices, commercial pressure tactics such as countdown clocks, misleading information about return and refund policies, confusing labeling suggesting “extra” benefits when they are legal requirements, greenwashing with environmental claims lacking verifiable data, and opaque contact with no clear channels for consumers to lodge complaints. The CPC network is also evaluating whether Shein manipulates product reviews or fails to properly inform about its role as an intermediary in its marketplace.

Shein now has one month to present its arguments and corrective commitments. If the answers are not satisfactory, national authorities could initiate actions that include fines proportional to the company’s turnover in each affected country. For its part, Shein has shown its willingness to cooperate, stating that its priority is to “ensure that European consumers enjoy a safe, reliable, and satisfying online shopping experience.”

Moreover, just a few weeks ago, the European Commission proposed a two-euro fee for each package sent from outside the EU and valued at less than €150, something that would impact directly on the business model of these platforms focused on low-cost mass products.

A turning point?

As you can see, the legal, political, and commercial battle that is unfolding could mark a before and after for eCommerce in Europe. At stake is not only consumer safety or regulatory compliance but also the sustainability of local economic models against giants that have managed to exploit every crack in the system.

The coming months will be crucial to determine whether this French offensive remains a declaration of intent or ends up redefining the rules of the digital game at a European level.

Image: ChatGPT

The post “Déréférencement”: French retailers declare total war on Shein, Temu, and Aliexpress appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

The European Commission has delivered a clear message to the European digital ecosystem: competition also applies in the world of platforms. In a historic case, Glovo and its parent company Delivery Hero, two prominent names in home delivery services, have been fined a total of €359 million for participating in an illegal cartel that operated for four years within the European Economic Area.

Three key practices and a questionable relationship

As explained by the Commission, their investigations revealed that between July 2018 and July 2022, both companies engaged in three types of anticompetitive conduct:

• Not recruiting each other’s employees: through non-hiring clauses that were progressively expanded into a generalized agreement. This is what the Commission has termed a “labor cartel.”
• Exchanging sensitive information: about prices, business strategies, and geographic expansion.
• Dividing geographic markets: by avoiding competition in the same countries and coordinating entries into new markets.

The most delicate aspect of the case is that these practices were made possible by the fact that Delivery Hero acquired a minority stake in Glovo before assuming full control of the company in 2022. Although this investment is legal in itself, it facilitated a level of access and influence that the Commission considers excessive and harmful to competition.

Let us remember that the German Delivery Hero is a global giant in food delivery services, listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and present in more than 70 countries, 16 of them in the European Economic Area. It collaborates with hundreds of thousands of restaurants. Meanwhile, Glovo, based in Spain, is present in more than 20 countries, 8 of them in the EEA.

These are the fines to Glovo and Delivery Hero

The fines have been calculated according to the 2006 guidelines and include a 10% reduction for acknowledging responsibility:

• Delivery Hero: €223,2 million
• Glovo: €105,7 million

Both companies acknowledged their participation in the cartel and opted for the simplified settlement procedure, which expedited the resolution and reduced the total amount. However, in addition to the fine, the Commission’s decision allows any affected party (users, competitors, former employees) to claim damages in national courts, which could pave the way for litigation by companies whose growth or talent was limited by this agreement.

As explained by the European Vice President, the Spaniard Teresa Ribera: “The parties agreed not to hire each other’s employees, exchanged information, and allocated geographic markets within the EEA. This case is important because these practices were facilitated through the anticompetitive use of Delivery Hero’s minority shareholding in Glovo. Additionally, it is the first time the Commission has sanctioned a no-poaching agreement, in which companies cease to compete for the best talent and reduce opportunities for workers.”

• Sure, you are interested: History of Glovo

A legal milestone: the first labor cartel sanctioned by the EU

Although the past couple of years have seen fines, sanctions, and investigations against digital giants (Meta, Google, Amazon…) come one after another, this case establishes two unprecedented legal precedents:

It is the first time the Commission has sanctioned a labor cartel, that is, an agreement between companies to not compete for talent. By restricting employee mobility, professional development is limited in a sector already under pressure for lack of qualified profiles.

And it is also the first time the anticompetitive use of a minority stake in a rival company has been penalized. That is, the Commission estimates that consumers might have paid more or had fewer choices on their favorite delivery platforms due to this covert coordination. Moreover, by dividing markets and not competing for talent, platforms reduce the pressure to innovate or improve conditions for partners and users.

As you might imagine, this combination poses new alerts for any company with cross-investments in competing companies, especially in high-growth markets such as delivery, mobility, or marketplaces. Even without majority control, an investment can have anticompetitive implications if it allows influencing strategic decisions or accessing confidential information.

For startups operating in similar verticals — logistics, mobility, travel, fintech — this necessitates a careful review of partner agreements, non-compete clauses, and commercial agreements.

Image: ChatGPT

The post Glovo and its parent company Delivery Hero fined with 329 million euros for creating a cartel to divide the market appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

In an unexpected judicial turn, the United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily reinstated former President Donald Trump’s ability to impose global tariffs after suspending a previous ruling, just a few hours earlier, which deemed them illegal. This decision reopens the debate about one of the former president’s most aggressive economic policies, with impacts that, inevitably, will affect international trade, prices, and certainly the eCommerce sector.

From blockage to reactivation in 24 hours

Yesterday, Thursday, we woke up to a ruling from the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) that declared the tariffs imposed by Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) unconstitutional. According to this court, there was no legal basis for imposing tariffs of 25% on products from Canada and Mexico, 20% on those from China, or for the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” applied at discretion to various countries worldwide during the so-called “Liberation Day” (yes, the one where Trump appeared in the White House with a gigantic board in his hands).

However, in less than 24 hours, the Court of Appeals has paused that ruling, temporarily restoring Trump’s ability to apply these taxes, requesting written arguments from both parties by early next month.

The Liberty Justice Center, representing the plaintiff companies, described the suspension as a “procedural step” and is confident in overturning the decision by arguing the “irreparable harm” these tariffs cause to their clients.

What is at stake?

For the eCommerce sector, the return of the tariffs implies a latent threat to the cost of imported products into the United States, particularly those from Asia, Mexico, and Canada, two key regions in the supply chain for many North American online stores.

• Platforms relying on Chinese suppliers or dropshipping from Asia could face significant cost increases. This includes Chinese online giants like the omnipresent Shein or Temu, but also numerous products from China that compete on cost in the U.S. Even Amazon was directly affected and had to rethink its Haul model.
• DTC brands that import products from Canada or Mexico may see their profit margins affected.
• The end consumer would also suffer, as these costs are passed on to retail prices.

But it does not only impact U.S. eCommerce. As we have seen since that unfortunate day in April when Trump announced his measures, all global eCommerce is at stake.

Additionally, Spanish companies marketing Chinese products in the U.S. will suffer particularly from the high tariffs imposed on China, forcing them to choose between raising prices or reducing margins, compromising the business’s profitability and operability. An increase in customs complexity and logistics costs is also expected.

Tariffs, butterfly effect, and global distrust: the impact of Trump’s trade policy

From his Truth Social network, Trump claimed that the original ruling “undermined presidential power.” The return of this protectionist narrative is not only an electoral symbol but also a source of volatility for markets and companies operating in a globalized environment, where regulatory stability is crucial for planning inventories, prices, and logistics operations.

In any case, the truth is that the recent tariff decisions driven by Donald Trump ignore the current interdependence of global supply chains. Imposing high taxes on components manufactured in China not only affects Asian exporters but also increases the cost of final products for American companies like Apple or Microsoft, for instance, whose production largely depends on key parts made in China.

This domino effect can raise global prices in sectors such as technology, both in the U.S. and international markets, due to the increased cost of basic components like chips, screens, or batteries. Assembling countries like India, Mexico, or Vietnam will also be affected by rising raw material costs.

This scenario highlights the fragility of the international economic balance and emphasizes the importance of regulatory stability and legal certainty to foster sustainable investment decisions. The ups and downs of Trump’s trade policy create uncertainty in the markets and push companies to rethink their logistics chains, with potential impacts on eCommerce, which might be forced to regionalize suppliers and diversify risks.

Surprisingly, Trump is choosing to ignore that legal stability is essential for the smooth functioning of the global economy, especially in sectors like international trade and eCommerce. It allows companies to plan long-term, invest with confidence, and operate with a controlled level of risk. When the rules of the game change abruptly, as happens with Trump’s tariff policies, uncertainty is generated, operating costs rise, and trade relations deteriorate. Furthermore, legal certainty protects the rights of corporations and consumers, fosters innovation, and facilitates digital expansion.

In a world as interconnected as today’s, regulatory consistency is as important as product competitiveness.

And now what?

The Court of Appeals has set a rapid review schedule, so new rulings are likely to be known in the coming weeks. In the meantime, importing companies and the digital retail sector must prepare for an uncertain environment. From a digital marketing and commerce perspective, this situation reinforces the need to:

• Diversify suppliers, seeking local or non-tariff-risk alternatives.
• Implement flexible pricing strategies to cushion the impact of potential increases.
• Commit to transparency in communication with the end customer, explaining possible changes in prices or delivery times.

Image: GPT Plus

The post Trump’s tariffs are back and bring (once again) uncertainty to global eCommerce appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

Hi, em…this is…weird. I’m the author of this article, and I’m coming from the future to tell you that… ahem… it’s been slightly outdated in just a few hours. If you want to know the latest news (for now) on Trump’s tariff war, we told you about it in “Trump’s tariffs are back and bring (once again) uncertainty to global eCommerce”

It has been some time since the normal passage of time has gone to h***. Gone with the wind, as they say where I live.

News that was destined to cause a severe (very severe) impact on the global economy, affecting the lives of millions of people and businesses from Reykjavik to Manila, lasts barely the time it takes a hummingbird to beat its wings (12.5 milliseconds, according to Gemini).

This happens with AIs, for example. The speed at which innovations in this field emerge is accelerating so much that a humble servant (who believes he is relatively informed about what is happening in the world of artificial intelligence) no longer knows if upon opening ChatGPT, he will find model 4O mini or the o4-mini-high, if the new version of Grok is better than the latest Claude, or if Suno serves to create music or is the brand of vacuum cleaner you purchased a few days ago on Amazon.

But it happens with many more things. Like with the trade war.

Trump’s tariffs are back to square one. Or almost. So you can forget about everything we have talked about in recent months regarding them and their impact on eCommerce. Or not, because they might return.

Another plot twist.

And so, time and time again.

The halt on Trump’s tariffs, good news for global eCommerce

What has happened with Trump’s tariffs?

A federal court in New York has blocked the global tariffs imposed in April by Donald Trump, which represents a significant setback for his economic policy. The United States Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs (do you remember his “freedom day” image holding a board with tariffs?) without Congress’s consent under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Thus, most of Trump’s tariffs would be halted if the ruling is confirmed: Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some products imported from Mexico and Canada, and the universal 10% tariffs on most products entering the United States, as well as additional country-specific tariffs. Others, like the 25% tariffs on cars, auto parts, steel, or aluminum, will remain in effect.

This is a significant obstacle for the president’s protectionist approach, which had justified the tariffs as a response to economic and security threats, including drug trafficking and illegal immigration. Of course, the White House has responded quickly, announcing its intention to appeal the decision. In fact, the court has granted a period of 10 days for the administration to halt the tariffs, although the situation will remain uncertain as the appeal process continues.

Its impact on eCommerce

Of course, the cancellation of these tariffs is good news for both European, and global eCommerce. As we explained in “Trump’s tariffs impact global eCommerce”, the tariff war in which the American president had engaged us was destined to harm all kinds of businesses, from the most local to the most transnational.

For instance, the Spanish digital economy was preparing for an extremely complex scenario. It was anticipated that the tariffs imposed by the United States on the European Union would redefine the rules of the game for Spanish eCommerce. Thus, it had been foreseen that the Spanish export sector would be one of the most affected. Key industries such as fashion, food and beverages, especially wines and oils, would see an increase in their operating costs. This was believed to diminish their competitiveness against U.S. products or products from countries with more advantageous tariff agreements.

The situation also seemed complicated for Spanish sellers marketing Chinese products in the United States. They would face tariffs of up to 54%, forcing them to raise prices or absorb a drastic cut in their margins. This was feared to threaten the sustainability of their businesses and complicate customs logistics.

In the United States, the measure aimed to protect local production, but it could also generate collateral effects. The dependence of U.S. eCommerce on imports to maintain diversity and competitive prices was thought to lead platforms like Amazon or Walmart to face lower margins and, consequently, increased prices for the end consumer. Something that particularly harmed low-priced product sellers and actually led Amazon Haul to radically change its philosophy or forced Chinese-origin companies to circumvent their logistics strategy to avoid those tariffs.

Fortunately, these consequences, at least in the expected magnitude, are on hold.

For now.

In terms of economic impact, the news caused a positive reaction in global markets, with a rise in stock prices in Asia and a strengthening of the United States dollar against other currencies.

However, all this uncertainty, all this string of comings and goings on fundamental aspects for the global economy is terrible, and I fear it will not improve during the remaining years of Trump’s term. Until recently, stability, legal security, and certainty about the legal framework were considered basic for doing business. For making mid-term projects. For planning expansions into new markets, hiring new employees, purchasing new equipment. It was an argument with which the great magnates and gigantic corporations pressured governments that wanted to minimally alter the status quo.

That it is precisely a businessman like Trump who has turned the global economy into a succession of unexpected plot twists is, at the very least, paradoxical.

Image: ChatGPT

The post Trump’s tariffs are blocked: yet another twist in the script for global eCommerce appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.

Google must pay $1,375 million to the state of Texas as a resolution of two lawsuits for data privacy violations filed in 2022 by Attorney General Ken Paxton.

What Google was accused of

This historic ruling comes after several years of litigation between Texas and the tech giant, and marks a turning point in the application of state privacy laws in the United States to a company like Google.

The lawsuits filed by Paxton in 2022 accused Google of illegally tracking and collecting private user data. They highlighted the following misconducts:

• Tracking the location of users even when the location history function had been turned off.
• Collecting biometric data, such as voice data and facial geometry, without having obtained explicit consent.
• Deceiving users regarding the operation of the “incognito” browsing mode.

Finally, the Texas Attorney General has reached an agreement with Google, and the company must pay $1,375 million. “I fought and won. This $1,375 million settlement is a great victory for the privacy of Texans, and it tells companies that they will pay for abusing our trust. I will always protect Texans by stopping the attempts of big tech companies to profit from selling our rights and freedoms,” stated Attorney General Paxton.

An important victory for the enforcement of U.S. state laws

The resolution of this case imposes a penalty far greater than those established in other proceedings against Google conducted by any U.S. state. “To date, no state has achieved a settlement against Google for similar privacy violations that surpasses $91 million. Even a multistate coalition that included forty states obtained only $391 million, nearly a billion dollars less than Texas’s recovery,” Paxton stated.

Additionally, this case joins the list of victories for the Texas Attorney General against large companies. Among these stands out the settlement with Meta of $1,400 million for collecting and using biometric data of Texan users without authorization. This is “the largest settlement ever obtained in a lawsuit filed by a single state“.

Photo: GPT-4o

The post Texas prevails over Google: the company must pay $ 1,375 billion for violation of data privacy appeared first on Marketing4eCommerce English.