Inkhabar webdesk

By Andre Romani SAO PAULO (Reuters) -E-commerce firm MercadoLibre will start to sell Brazilian retailer Casas Bahia's products on its platform in November under a new long-term commercial partnership, the companies said on Thursday. The move is expected to increase MercadoLibre's share in its main market, Brazil, in segments such as electronics and household appliances, Casas Bahia's core business, by also boosting sales of the retailer, executives from both firms told Reuters. The companies did not disclose financial terms or sales projections. Uruguay-headquartered MercadoLibre has as its main business the operation of an e-commerce platform for third parties to sell their products, while Casas Bahia gets most of its revenue by selling its products direct to customers. "I see a huge synergy in the move," MercadoLibre's e-commerce head for Brazil Fernando Yunes said. "Casas Bahia has an enormous leadership and scale in home appliances, electronics and furniture." Casas Bahia will manage most shipping logistics, given its greater expertise than MercadoLibre in handling large products such as TVs and refrigerators, the executives said. MercadoLibre's e-commerce platform helped turn it into Latin America's most valuable firm by market cap, but the company has struggled to repeat its formula with electronics and home appliances. MercadoLibre's market share in large home appliances, such as ovens and refrigerators, in Brazil is at about a quarter of its average, Yunes said. For Casas Bahia, an over 70-year-old retailer with more than 1,000 stores in Brazil, the partnership could mean a sales boost as it seeks to complete a debt and operational restructuring process started in 2023. "It's a partnership that marks our entry into a channel that has been growing significantly and is projected to grow well into the coming years," Casas Bahia CEO Renato Franklin said, referring to e-commerce platforms that sell third-party products. Sao Paulo-traded shares in Casas Bahia jumped as much as 17% on Thursday, before paring gains to trade up some 4% in the early afternoon. Brazil's benchmark equities index Bovespa, of which Casas Bahia is not part, rose 0.5%, while MercadoLibre shares in New York increased 0.6%. "We see this as a win-win situation, given the complementary value proposition of each company," Santander analysts wrote in a note to clients. Players in Brazil's e-commerce segment, including MercadoLibre, Sea's Shopee and Amazon, tightened the competitive environment in recent months by expanding free-shipping policies and by offering consistent promotions. Last year, Brazilian retailer and e-commerce firm Magazine Luiza and Chinese e-commerce platform AliExpress launched a sales partnership allowing the two companies to sell products on each other's platforms. Shares in Magazine Luiza fell more than 8%, leading losses among stocks on Bovespa. Citi analysts added a "downside 30-day catalyst watch on the stock", writing that the MercadoLibre and Casas Bahia deal, in addition to the competitive environment, poses further pressure on the firm. (Reporting by Andre Romani in Sao Paulo; additional reporting by Paula Arend LaierEditing by Marguerita Choy)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sam Tobin LONDON (Reuters) -Apple abused its dominant position by charging app developers unfair commissions, a London tribunal ruled on Thursday, in a blow which could leave the U.S. tech company on the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds in damages. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled against Apple after a trial of the lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of millions of iPhone and iPad users in the United Kingdom. The CAT ruled that Apple had abused its dominant position from October 2015 until the end of 2020 by shutting out competition in the app distribution market and by "charging excessive and unfair prices" as commission to developers. Apple – which has faced mounting pressure from regulators in the U.S. and Europe over the fees it charges developers – said it would appeal against the ruling, which it said "takes a flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy". The case had been valued at around 1.5 billion pounds ($2 billion) by those who brought it. A hearing next month will decide how damages are calculated and Apple's application for permission to appeal. Thursday's ruling comes after Apple was hit with a complaint to European antitrust regulators over the terms and conditions of its App Store under rules aimed at reining in Big Tech. LANDMARK MASS LAWSUIT Rachael Kent, the British academic who brought the case, argued Apple had made "exorbitant profits" by excluding all competition for the distribution of apps and in-app purchases. Her lawyers argued at the start of the trial in January that Apple's "100% monopoly position" allowed it to impose restrictive terms and excessive commissions on app developers, which Apple denied. The CAT said in its ruling that developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent's lawyers said was usually 30%. The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers. "This ruling overlooks how the App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments," an Apple spokesperson said. BOOST FOR UK'S 'CLASS ACTION' REGIME The case was the first mass lawsuit against a tech giant to come to trial under Britain's fledgling class action-style regime, which this year reached its 10th anniversary and has seen several multi-billion-pound cases certified for trial but with limited success for consumers so far. There are, however, many other cases waiting in the wings, including one against Google over the commission it charges app developers for access to its Play Store. That case is due to begin in October 2026 and will be heard alongside a similar claim by Epic Games, which is engaged in parallel litigation with Apple in the U.S. Fellow tech giants including Amazon and Microsoft are also facing sizeable claims at the CAT. Kent said in a statement that the ruling shows Britain's collective action regime is working and "sends a clear message: no company, however wealthy or powerful, is above the law". ($1 = 0.7451 pounds) (Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by William James and Keith Weir)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sara Merken (Reuters) -Two federal judges admitted in response to an inquiry by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to help prepare recent court orders that Grassley called "error-ridden." In letters released by Grassley's office on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi and U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey said the decisions in the unrelated cases did not go through their chambers' typical review processes before they were issued. Both judges said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed. Neals, based in Newark, in his letter said a draft decision in a securities lawsuit "was released in error – human error – and withdrawn as soon as it was brought to the attention of my chambers." He said a law school intern used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research without authorization or disclosure. Neals said his chambers has since created a written AI policy and enhanced its review process. Reuters previously reported that research produced using AI was included in the decision, citing a person familiar with the circumstances. Wingate said in his letter that a law clerk in his court in Jackson used Perplexity "as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket." He said posting the draft decision "was a lapse in human oversight." Wingate had removed and replaced the original order in the civil rights lawsuit and previously declined to give an explanation, saying it contained "clerical errors." The judges did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent to their court staff. Grassley had asked the judges to explain whether AI was used in the decisions after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual inaccuracies and other serious errors. Grassley in a statement on Thursday said he commended the judges for acknowledging the mistakes and urged the judiciary to adopt stronger AI guidelines. "Each federal judge, and the judiciary as an institution, has an obligation to ensure the use of generative AI does not violate litigants' rights or prevent fair treatment under the law," Grassley said. Lawyers have also increasingly faced scrutiny from judges across the country for apparent misuse of AI. Judges have levied fines or other sanctions in dozens of cases over the past few years after lawyers failed to vet the output the technology generated. (Reporting by Sara Merken; Editing by David Bario and Marguerita Choy)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Munsif Vengattil and Arpan Chaturvedi BENGALURU (Reuters) -The Indian government has reduced the number of officials who can order content to be taken down from the internet, a move that follows a bitter legal battle with Elon Musk's X that centered around a contentious policy. X, Musk's social media platform, had been in opposition to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 2023 decision to police the internet by allowing thousands of officials to file takedown orders. In August, Reuters reported that police inspectors were issuing takedown orders on cartoons and satirical posts, sparking one of X's most high-profile legal challenges against a government's content-removal policy. X lost the lawsuit in Karnataka High Court in September, with a judge ruling that its challenge was without merit and X had to abide by local laws. But late on Wednesday, India's IT ministry changed its policy by limiting the number of people who can issue such orders to top bureaucrats and police officials. Now only bureaucrats with the rank of joint secretary or higher and police officials who are serving as deputy inspector general or above can issue takedown orders, the government said in its modification to the rules. "The government is backing down and reducing its earlier powers that extended to many more officials, but the number of officials who can issue orders will still be in the hundreds," said Akash Karmakar, a partner at Indian law firm Panag & Babu who specializes in technology law. The changes are meant to ensure "additional safeguards to ensure senior-level accountability, precise specification of unlawful content and periodic review of government directions at (a) higher level," a government statement said. X did not respond to a request for comment. It previously said it would challenge the Karnataka High Court's ruling. GOVERNMENT BACKING DOWN, 'REASONED INTIMATION' NEEDED In its court challenge, X argued that India's actions were illegal and unconstitutional, adding that they trampled upon free speech by allowing scores of government agencies and thousands of police to suppress legitimate criticism of public officials. India contended that it was attempting to curb a proliferation of illegal content and ensure accountability online. When it changed its rules on Wednesday, the government did not make reference to its legal fight with the social media platform. In July, X's counsel said in court that every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" in India was illegally issuing takedown orders. The change in rules will become effective on November 15. "The process of challenging these takedown orders remains onerous and inverts the burden of proof on the user whose content is taken down, curbing free speech," said Karmakar, the tech-focused lawyer. The new rules also require content takedown orders to be supported by a "reasoned intimation", "clearly specifying the legal basis and statutory provision invoked, the nature of the unlawful act" as well as the website's address. The earlier rules did not contain such requirements. In another layer of scrutiny, the rules also add a requirement that takedown orders shall be "subject to periodic review" by an officer of secretary rank once a month. (Reporting Munsif Vengattil and Arpan Chaturvedi; Editing by Aditya Kalra and Thomas Derpinghaus.)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sam Tobin LONDON (Reuters) -Apple abused its dominant position by charging app developers unfair commissions, a London tribunal ruled on Thursday, in a blow which could leave the U.S. tech company on the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds in damages. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled against Apple after a trial of the lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of millions of iPhone and iPad users in the United Kingdom. The CAT ruled that Apple had abused its dominant position from October 2015 until the end of 2020 by shutting out competition in the app distribution market and by "charging excessive and unfair prices" as commission to developers. Apple – which has faced mounting pressure from regulators in the U.S. and Europe over the fees it charges developers – said it would appeal against the ruling, which it said "takes a flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy". The case had been valued at around 1.5 billion pounds ($2 billion) by those who brought it. A hearing next month will decide how damages are calculated and Apple's application for permission to appeal. Thursday's ruling comes after Apple was hit with a complaint to European antitrust regulators over the terms and conditions of its App Store under rules aimed at reining in Big Tech. LANDMARK MASS LAWSUIT Rachael Kent, the British academic who brought the case, argued Apple had made "exorbitant profits" by excluding all competition for the distribution of apps and in-app purchases. Her lawyers argued at the start of the trial in January that Apple's "100% monopoly position" allowed it to impose restrictive terms and excessive commissions on app developers, which Apple denied. The CAT said in its ruling that developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent's lawyers said was usually 30%. The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers. "This ruling overlooks how the App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments," an Apple spokesperson said. BOOST FOR UK'S 'CLASS ACTION' REGIME The case was the first mass lawsuit against a tech giant to come to trial under Britain's fledgling class action-style regime, which this year reached its 10th anniversary and has seen several multi-billion-pound cases certified for trial but with limited success for consumers so far. There are, however, many other cases waiting in the wings, including one against Google over the commission it charges app developers for access to its Play Store. That case is due to begin in October 2026 and will be heard alongside a similar claim by Epic Games, which is engaged in parallel litigation with Apple in the U.S. Fellow tech giants including Amazon and Microsoft are also facing sizeable claims at the CAT. Kent said in a statement that the ruling shows Britain's collective action regime is working and "sends a clear message: no company, however wealthy or powerful, is above the law". ($1 = 0.7451 pounds) (Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by William James and Keith Weir)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

LONDON (Reuters) -Apple on Thursday lost a London lawsuit accusing the U.S. tech company of abusing its dominant position by charging app developers an unfair 30% commission through its App Store. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled against Apple after a trial of the lawsuit, brought on behalf of around 20 million iPhone and iPad users in the United Kingdom and valued at up to 1.5 billion pounds ($2.01 billion), earlier this year. The case was the first mass lawsuit against a tech giant to come to trial under Britain's fledgling class action-style regime, with many other cases waiting in the wings. ($1 = 0.7451 pounds) (Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by William James)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)