Justice

Justice declares illegal part of its advertising business

by

Google’s position as One of the most powerful actors on the Internet begins to crack under the pressure of the courts. The last setback for the Mountain View company has arrived with a defeat in the trial for advertising monopoly promoted by the United States Department of Justice. In a resolution signed this Thursdayfederal judge Leonie Brinkema has concluded that Google incurred anti -competitive practices in two key markets: that of advertisement servers for editorial groups (where she dominates with DFP) and the advertising exchanges of the Open Web (through ADX). Ads servers, such as DFP, owned by Google, are technical infrastructure that use many digital media to manage What ads are shown, when and who already. They are not the only market option, but one of the most widespread, especially among large editors. In practice, they act as the digital advertising command center. The second front is that of the advertising exchanges of the Open Web, the open environment where different actors, such as advertisers, agencies or media, bid in real time for advertising spaces. This ecosystem coexists with other alternatives, such as platforms controlled by Facebook or Amazon, but remains a key piece of the programmatic market. Adx, Google’s solution, is one of the main actors in this segment. According to the court, the company combined both products illegally For more than a decade, forcing editors to use all their technology if they wanted to access those auctions. That integration reduced the alternatives of the rest of the actors and left Google with the absolute control of the process. The question now is how to dismantle monopoly Brinkema considers that this strategy not only eliminated rivals, but also harmed the media, who saw their advertising income reduced, and advertisers, who ended up paying more. The sentence argues that any benefit derived from this integration is widely exceeded by the damage caused to the competition. From here a new stage opens. The judge has asked the parties to present a calendar to study the so -called “structural remedies”, that is, the possible measures that could be imposed following this ruling. Among the options that consider the Department of Justice is the forced separation of DFP and ADX as independent companieswhich would mean the heart of the Google programmatic advertising business. The sentence does not order that division at the moment, but the possibility is on the table. What happens in this phase can mark a before and after how digital advertising is managed. This part of the business meant about 30.4 billion dollars in revenues in 2024, approximately 9 % of the group’s global billing. Although the judicial decision does not affect other Google advertising services such as search advertisements, YouTube videos or Google Maps advertising, it does question the architecture on which its advertising strategy is supported in the open web environment, where until now it worked as a player who dominated all the pieces of the board. During the trial, the Court listened to media editors such as Use Today or the Daily Mailto advertising agencies, to rival technology companies already executives of Google herself, including the head of YouTube. All contributed information about how the Mountain View giant was closing the passage to other advertising solutions through internal decisions, conditioned contracts and technological changes designed to benefit only their own tools. The Department of Justice also denounced that Google eliminated internal conversations that could serve as proof and abused legal privilege to hide information. Although the judge has not yet resolved if he will impose sanctions for it, it makes clear in her letter that the responsibility for monopoly has already been accredited. This case adds to other open fronts against the company. In 2024, another federal court had already declared that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in the searches market, a process that also remains open waiting for possible corrective measures to be decided. In addition, the company has been sued in other states for the control of its application store, while the United States Government has also brought Apple, Amazon and Meta in parallel causes. Together, this new ruling against Google reinforces an idea that a few years ago seemed unthinkable: the era of technological impunity is coming to an end. For the first time in decades, the big digital platforms face not only investigations, but to firm convictions that could change the way they operate on the Internet. Images: Greg Bulla | Rubaitul Azad Images | The United States has tired of the monopolies of great technological ones. And wants to start “chop them” with goal

Justice forces him to block illegal retransmissions of MotoGP

by

In a movement that reminds us a lot of what is happening in these latitudes, Canal+ has made French justice recognize Cloudflare as responsible technical intermediary in its three capacities (DNS, CDN and inverse proxy), forcing it to implement blocks against websites that illegally retransmit the MotoGP 2025. Why is it important. The Judicial Court of Paris feels a European precedent that could well influence the similar conflict that They keep LaLiga and Cloudflare in Spain on the blocking of websites that broadcast matches without rights. The details: The sentence, issued at the end of March and which Xataka It has had access, states that Cloudflare must apply “all appropriate measures” to prevent access from French territory to fourteen concrete websites. The court has dismissed Cloudflare’s arguments about the alleged technical complexity and the excessive cost of applying these blockages. Technology must fulfill within a maximum period of three days after notification, without being fined at the moment. The ruling rejects the limitation of measures requested by Cloudflare and leaves him freedom to choose the technical modalities that he will use to make the blockages. The foundations. The French court has determined that … The DNS services of Cloudflare “allow access to a website thanks to its domain name” through conversion in IP address. Its CDN network “reduces the data transmission time to the user and improves the safety and reliability of web pages”. And defines its inverse proxy service as “a shield between user applications and the litigious site server.” So the sentence concludes that these three capacities fulfill a “transmission function” that justifies the imposition of measures. Meanwhile in Spain. LaLiga has been with legal actions against cloudflare for months for IPS blocks That, according to the entity, they affect “scarcely a few hundred” of legitimate websites, not “millions” as the technological alleges. Cloudflare responded by presenting an incident of nullity against the Spanish sentence, claiming that LaLiga obtained “hiding the foreseeable damage to third parties.” Justice rejected it. The company chaired by Javier Tebas has accused Cloudflare of collaborating “through its technology with the commission of the most serious crimes such as child pornography, pimping, fraud, etc..” Meanwhile in Europe: The legal framework. The French sentence is based on the Sports Code and Intellectual Property regulations, in line with the European Directives on Copyright. The ruling quotes jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice that establishes that an “intermediary” is any person who transmits a commitment committed in a network. And in this case, the judicial “victim” is cloudflare. In Xataka | This is how Ech works, the Technological Shield of Cloudflare that has put the operators between the sword and the wall Outstanding image | MotoGP, Cloudflare

Justice rejects its demand against LaLiga for the mass blocking of websites

by

The Spanish justice has dismissed the different nullity incidents filed independently by Cloudflare, Rootedcon and other plaintiffs against LaLiga, giving the reason to the organization chaired by Javier Tebas in their strategy to combat the illegal broadcasts of football matches. What has happened. The court has rejected The attempt to cancel the 2022 sentence which allows LaLiga to order the blockade of IP addresses through the operators. All the plaintiffs must assume the costs of the judicial process, without any possibility of any ordinary appeal. Why it is important. The decision reinforces LaLiga in its fight against illegal broadcasts, but maintains the controversy over The mass blocking of thousands of legitimate websites that share infrastructure with websites that illegally transmit football matches. The conflict broke out when Cloudflare implemented an encryption system (Ech) that prevents the operators from seeing the final destination of each connection. In response, LaLiga chose to directly block the cloudflare IPSaffecting thousands of websites without relation to illegal broadcasts. Between the lines. According to the judicial order, to which Xataka It has had access, the plaintiffs presented an incident with “probative orphanage” regarding the accreditation of the damages that allegedly caused the blocking measures. In the judge’s words, this means that “there are no damage caused by the execution of IPS addresses”, but “a measure that prevents access to pirate content.” Vodafone, one of the operators demanded and affected by these blockages, has formulated opposition to the nullity requested, as stated in the judicial order. This means that the operator aligns with LaLiga and considers blockages appropriate during party retransmissions. And now what? Rootedcon has announced in X that will resort to “to all necessary legal means” to reverse this situation, although the car specifies that there is no ordinary appeal. Meanwhile, LaLiga could intensify its blockage strategy, especially during party retransmissions. The plaintiffs included, in addition to Cloudflare and Rootedcon, A Vapasec Technology Consulting, Japonism travel content SC and Frontia SA, among others. Cloudflare says that in Spain there are about 160,000 web pages that use their services. Javier Tebas himself, president of LaLiga, downplay the problem by stating that “It only affects some geeks on the Internet“ The current situation. Affected users can resort to tools such as VPNS or the service Cloudflare Warp To avoid these blockages. This temporary solution, however, does not solve the background problem for business and professional services that can be compromised for their activity during the weekends. This case adds to other similar litigation in several European countries such as France, Italy, Germany and Portugal, where Cloudflare is also facing demands for rights holders For its privacy protection system that, according to its defenders, favors a safer Internet. In Xataka | After almost a decade with the Apple Watch I have spent a Garmin. And I have understood what I was losing me Outstanding image | Gregorio Cavana in Unspash

Justice has sentenced that it is not a secret and have to readmit it

by

In 2026, European regulations It will force all companies to make their salary tables public. That way, it puts itself end to salary secret And all employees can know how much the classmates of the same professional and position charge. However, in 2021, the employee published on his Facebook profile the salary ranges of his company. Then, the company initiated an investigation that ended with the Disciplinary dismissal of the employee by an alleged revelation of secrets. Now the Superior Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands has declared void the dismissal for considering that those data must be public Because they are generic information, condemning the company to compensate the worker who, at that time, was on paternity permission. What happened? As explained in the Resolution 623/2024 From the Superior Court of Justice of Palma de Mallorca, in April 2021 an investigation began that would derive in the disciplinary dismissal against an employee he had published The salary tables For new company cabin crew in a Facebook group with 22,000 users. Although the worker was enjoying his pPaternity ermisowas summoned to a meeting at the company’s headquarters to explain the publication, which he considered an interference in his “legitimate right to permission for paternity without having to address any work activity, including disciplinary.” In June 2021, while he still enjoyed said parental permissionthe company executed the disciplinary dismissal. To do this Workers Statute Regarding professional discretion, pointing out “a transgression of good contractual faith.” Partial acceptance in the first instance. In the first instance, the Social Court No. 4 of Palma validated the disciplinary dismissal in 2021. Although in his judgment he recognized that The salary tables They did not constitute a “strategic secret” for the company. However, he considered that there could be a damage to the company since “the salary is factor hiring determinant“ The first sentence, stressed that the employee’s response to other users on social networks “urged to rethink working in the company”, harming the company’s prestige and, as stated in the sentence, justified the disciplinary measures adopted by the company. This decision forced the worker to resort to the Balearic TSJ to challenge the resolution. Appeal before the Superior Court of Justice. The Balearic TSJ analyzed three key aspects of the case: the nature of the published salary informationthe context of the paternity permit, and possible union reprisals. Regarding the salary tables, the Court said that “no individualized payrolls with personal data were published, but generic information”, discarding violation of the Business Secrets Law on which a good part of the argumentation of the disciplinary dismissal was based. Regarding Paternity periodthe ruling emphasizes that “dismissal was issued during the enjoyment of a fundamental right, which only generates nullity.” He also considered that the fact that the disciplinary process was done in English due because it was an international company, caused “helplessness” for the employee and detected evidence of reprisals for his candidacy to participate in the Company Committee. Salary tables are of public interest. The sentence of the Balearic Islands declared the zero dismissal for two main reasons: first, because “the salary tables are of public interest” and second, for not violating the Right to freedom of expression collected in article 20 of the Constitution. “It is a constitutional right to freedom of expression and information. And even though the brief answer made by the plaintiff indicates a specific figure to contrast, even if it was issued by approximation, no less true is that it accompanied the salary tables in which the members of the social network could contrast the perceptions and the remuneration complements,” the sentence said. Readmitted and compensated. As a consequence, the Superior Court of Justice of Balearic Islands has condemned the company to readmit to the worker again for having fired “having been issued in the period of enjoyment of paternity.” In addition, he condemns the company to compensate the employee with 15,000 euros for moral damages and economic damages derived from dismissal. In Xataka | “Unpresentable” and meaningless: justice declares inadmissible a dismissal for a letter generated with an AI Image | Unspash (Omid Armin), Wikimedia Commons (Blue)

Justice has something to say

by

One of the clear advantages that Teleworking has contributed has been the possibility of reconciling the Family life with work. The last example of teleworking conciliation, however, has had to impose it on the Social Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, which has issued a sentence that allows a woman to telework five days a week for take care of your son with disabilities. Teleworking since 2022. Justice has recognized a mother’s right to telework five days a week to take care of her child, who suffers from a disability of more than 80% and needs constant attention. This judicial decision feels a relevant precedent in the Conciliation of working and family life. The resolution highlights the importance of protecting the well -being of the child, especially when it comes to a child with special needs. The sentence emphasizes that the company He did not present arguments Solids to deny teleworking, since the employee had already worked remotely during the pandemic without problems. Team disconnection. To deny the teleworking option to her employee, Unelco Endesa argued that giving that option “would disconnect the employee of the team’s work” and that the Endesa Teleworking Agreement He did not contemplate this possibility, indicating that he should request help to take care of his son during the required days of face -to -face. However, the court did not accept these arguments, considering that “there is no business obstacle” since the functions of the employee were merely administrative and could perform them perfectly at a distance, as he had already done In the past. Occasional teleworking. Since 2022, the employee had already been teleworking for a few days a week in a context of Hybrid Day Model with three days of remote work and two of face -to -face work. Given the special care requirements of her child, the plaintiff requested to be able to do it every day to serve the child while waiting for the availability of a place in a day center. Before the company’s refusal, the employee decided to take the case to the courts. From the union CCOO, have not hesitated to qualify it as “such an insensitive and dehumanized response,” especially because they refused to deal with the case in the Equality Commission. The union applauds the sentence and points out that “feels a new legal precedent and opens the way for Other working people in the same situation. “ Greater coverage to conciliation. Labor conciliation made an important leap forward with the arrival of the Royal Decree-Law 5/2023, of June 28in which new rights are consolidated for people with minors or dependent persons in charge. Therefore, the employee enforced the right collected in the Article 34.8 of the Workers’ Statute which establishes that “working people have the right to request the adaptations of the duration and distribution of the workday, in the management of the work time and in the form of benefit, including the provision of their distance work, to make effective their right to reconcile family and work life.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.