Europe takes another chunk out of Qualcomm profits

The European Commission has announced it will once again fine Qualcomm for market abuse, with the investigation this time focusing on 3G baseband chipsets.

It seems time does not heal all wounds as this investigation focused on market abuse between 2009 and 2011, and a concept known as ‘predatory pricing’. In short, Qualcomm used its dominant market position to sell products to strategically important customers, below cost price, to effectively kill off any competition before it had a chance to gain momentum.

“Baseband chipsets are key components so mobile devices can connect to the Internet,” said Margrethe Vestager, the Commissioner in charge of competition policy. “Qualcomm sold these products at a price below cost to key customers with the intention of eliminating a competitor.

“Qualcomm’s strategic behaviour prevented competition and innovation in this market and limited the choice available to consumers in a sector with a huge demand and potential for innovative technologies. Since this is illegal under EU antitrust rules, we have today fined Qualcomm €242 million.”

Although the European Commission affords the opportunity for companies to use market advantages to seek profits, but when it becomes anti-competitive the bureaucrats draw a line. This is what has happened in this instance.

At the time, Qualcomm controlled roughly 60% market share of the UMTS baseband chipset segment, three times as great as the nearest competitor, though this position was used to kill competition before it had a chance to emerge. Using its relationships with Huawei and ZTE, Qualcomm sold products at low enough prices no-one could compete.

This is the challenge with segments which have such high-barriers to entry, key customer accounts are critically important, such are the investments which need to be made in R&D. Qualcomm effectively created a loss leader of these products to stem the critical flow of funds into any competition which could develop from the smallest glimmer of hope. In this case, the firm in question was Icera, which was eventually acquired by Nvidia.

The fine in this case represents 1.27% of Qualcomm’s turnover in 2018 and will hopefully deter companies from engaging in anticompetitive activity in the future.

For Vestager, this is another parting shot as she wraps up her tenure in the competition policy office, a position she has held since 2014.

The Commissioner has built a reputation of taking on big tech who make a habit of practising in anti-competitive activities. Qualcomm has been a frequent combatant of Vestager, though she has got plenty of experience dealing with the likes of Google and Amazon also, the latter of which is the subject of the latest probe.

Assuming the tech giants will be happy to see the back of her would be very reasonable, though it remains to be seen who will replace the feisty and combative Vestager.

Amazon becomes the latest giant to face Europe’s antitrust wrath

The European Commission has formally opened an antitrust investigation into Amazon’s dual role as a retailer and marketplace and how it uses data derived from independent retailers.

Europe has a track-record of taking on the industry’s biggest players on the grounds of antitrust and Amazon is next in-line. The case which the European Commission will attempt to prove is that Amazon abused its position of power as a leading eCommerce platform, using this position to aid it in selling its own products.

“European consumers are increasingly shopping online,” said Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for competition policy. “eCommerce has boosted retail competition and brought more choice and better prices.

“We need to ensure that large online platforms don’t eliminate these benefits through anti-competitive behaviour. I have therefore decided to take a very close look at Amazon’s business practices and its dual role as marketplace and retailer, to assess its compliance with EU competition rules.”

This investigation is based around two points which the European Commission hopes to prove are anticompetitive. Firstly, Amazon collects marketplace data from its third-party partners to inform its own sales strategies. Secondly, with a ‘buy box’ only available to certain partners, and the Commission wants to understand what impact this differentiation has on competition.

On the first point, as the overarching platform owner, Amazon is privy to sensitive marketplace information from independent retailers who sell products through the platform. Using this insight to create more effective sales strategies is very likely to fall foul of Europe’s competition rules, should Vestager be able to prove a competitive advantage.

On the subject of Vestager, perhaps this is not the last we will hear from the bureaucrat. Vestager has worked up a reputation over the last few years for taking on some of the US’ most influential, and sometimes slippery, technology companies. With Vestager’s tenure at the European Commission ending in October, perhaps she will be aiming to make a bigger splash.

This is also not the first time Amazon has found itself on the bad-side of Vestager either. In 2017, Amazon was forced to pay €250 million in back taxes to Luxembourg, after the relief which was offered to the internet giant between 2003 and 2016 was deemed illegal.

The second point focuses on the ‘buy box’. This feature allows customers to add items from some retailers directly to their shopping carts. As not all retailers are able to access the feature, the European Commission would like to understand how this impacts competition. It is also not entirely clear why some retailers are able to access this feature and others are not.

Unfortunately for Amazon, this difficult situation is not one which will be resolved quickly. In such cases, due to the complexity of digital businesses and the vast amount of information involved, the European Commission has not set itself a deadline to conduct the investigation.

Another element to consider is the criticism faced by Amazon in the US. Not only has the eCommerce platform found itself as an enemy of the White House, the other aisle is poking. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat candidate for the 2020 Presidential campaign, wants to ban companies from operating and selling on a platform simultaneously.

With an antitrust case in Europe, potential enemies on both sides of the Presidential campaign, various Congressional committees investigating big tech, Germany’s anti-trust authority sniffing at the front door and its fulfilment centres never too far away from controversy, Amazon is not in the most comfortable of positions.

European connected car arm wrestle swings in favour of 5G

The Byzantine European bureaucracy is trying to pick a winner between competing connected car technologies and inevitably it’s taking ages.

Back in March we reported on the GSMA’s hissy-fit after the European announced a preference for the wifi-based Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) approach to wireless networking between cars and the rest of the world. The mobile industry understandably prefers 5G-based cellular vehicle to whatever (C-V2X) technology and thinks the EC is barking up the wrong tree.

One of the few advantages of having such a bloated, multi-layered approach to running things is that every decision made by Europe has to be approved by countless parliaments, councils, committees and cabals. After a few months it was the turn of yet another of these to mull the matter over and it announced its decision this morning.

The Committee of the Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to the European Union is so morbidly obese they had to split it in two and it was the duty of Coreper II to make a call on the ‘delegated act’, which is what the word of the EC gets packed up us for consumption by lesser bodies.

While there had been considerable lobbying in favour of C-V2X in the build up to the decision, it still came as a pleasant surprise to see Coreper II dare to stand up for the Commission and reject the wifi C-ITS plan. A consortium of mobile industry lobbying bodies – GSMA, GSA, ETNO and 5GAA had written at length last month about what a bad idea excluding cellular from the continent’s connected cars would be and they seem to have been rewarded.

“GSA, along with other leading mobile and automotive industry associations, believe the Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems  (C-ITS) ecosystem should neither be limited by technology nor place Europe and mobile and automotive companies at a clear disadvantage to other regions of the world,” said Joe Barrett, President of GSA.

“The decision by EU Member States to reject the Delegated Act on C-ITS and request the European Commission to reconsider its scope is great news for technology neutrality and signals a positive future for connected intelligent transport systems in Europe.”

The European Commission does allow light dissent every now and then, to maintain the illusion of accountability and due process. Normal procedure when something like this happens is for the EC to make cosmetic tweaks and keep putting the matter back to the vote until it gets what it wants. On such a binary matter of whether or not to back wifi-based C-ITS, however, it’s hard to see how such a fudge will be possible, so maybe this will end up being a rare defeat for the unelected Commission.

Europe gives Ofcom the greenlight for Dark Fibre plans

Having published new rules on Dark Fibre and ‘ducts and poles’ access in May, Ofcom has made no material changes following a review from the European Commission.

The rules are another attempt by Ofcom to encourage more competition in the fixed market and therefore increase investments made by the telcos in offering services in regions which could be deemed as less commercially attractive. Openreach might not be the happiest for the situation, but it is a step towards shortening the digital divide which has emerged in the UK.

Starting with the ducts and poles element, Ofcom has confirmed telcos laying fibre cables for broadband and mobile networks will benefit from greater access to Openreach’s existing infrastructure. The watchdog has used the phrase ‘unrestricted’ though we struggle to believe there are no loop-holes for Openreach to play around with.

This is not necessarily new from Ofcom, but it is an extension of rules which were passed last year. To this point, Openreach had been compelled into opening up access to the infrastructure for competitors serving residential customers and small businesses, though this update extends the rules to large businesses as well.

With enterprise services plugged as the biggest gain for telcos during the 5G era, the greater access to infrastructure competitor telcos have, the more attractive the business case will be for investment and therefore creating innovative services for the verticals. That said, Openreach will not be as happy as others.

This is a former-monopoly which has reaped the benefits of being the dominant player in the market. Employees will be tasked on protecting and profiting as greatly as possible from assets, though if the regulator keeps opening up infrastructure, this becomes more difficult.

The second area worth noting from this ratification from the European Commission addresses Dark Fibre across the country. This is an area Openreach has fought bitterly against though it seems it could only hold back the tide for so long.

The new rules will force Openreach to offer Dark Fibre as a product to other telcos in areas there are no rival networks present at Openreach’s exchanges. These are the areas where Openreach has a continued monopoly thanks to prior public investment and there is a risk of damaging the business case for competitors.

Under the new rules, in these areas where competition is unlikely to emerge organically, ‘dark fibre’ can now be ‘lit’ by competitors with their own equipment. Openreach will be required to give competitors physical access to its fibre-optic cables, at a price that reflects the cost of laying the infrastructure. In areas where there is competition, pricing regulations will be lighter.

Although these new rules are unlikely to be the most profitable for Openreach, there will be plenty of happy faces around the UK. Telcos have been complaining about the regulatory barriers to achieving the perfect 5G/fibre dream the Government has dreamt up, and this is one step in the right direction.

Europe publishes stance on AI ethics, but don’t expect much

The European Commission has revealed its latest white paper detailing guidelines on an ethical and trustworthy approach to AI, but whether it actually means anything remains to be seen.

The guidelines themselves are now open for public comment with the Gaggle of Red Tapers seeking feedback on how to make improvements and increase applicability to the world of today. However, the industry continues to operate under the semblance of oversight but in the reality of the digital wild-west.

Such is the top-line nature of the guidelines, you have to wonder whether there have been any real efforts to integrate the thinking into business. At the moment, the guidelines do not seem to have any substance to them, simply stating the obvious, or at least what you would hope is obvious to the developers creating the algorithms and applications. These guidelines would have been useful 2-3 years ago, but now it seems a bit of a redundant statement. AI regulation needs action not philosophical thinking.

After reading the guidelines, there is a sense of ‘so what’. What was the point in making this statement aside from cosmetically attracting headlines for the European Commission? There doesn’t seem to be anything new in there, just the European Commission making a statement for the sake of making a statement.

The seven guidelines are as follows:

  1. Humans should have oversight of AI at all times
  2. AI systems need to be resilient and secure
  3. Governance measures should be introduced to protect privacy
  4. Transparency should be ensured
  5. Bias should be removed
  6. AI should benefit all
  7. Accountability for AI should be introduced

Having the guidelines is all well-and-good, there needs to be a yard-stick, but we would expect at the least for some sort of accountability model. It seems a bit half-arsed at the moment as there are still numerous questions.

Firstly, how is the European Commission going to judge whether these guidelines are being followed by industry? What will the metrics be? What will be the punishments for not taking the principles into account or negligible behaviour? Where are the reporting mechanisms for ‘unethical’ behaviour and complaints?

The next steps for the Commission is to consult with industry and run various pilot programmes across the bloc. After these initiatives have been completed, another consultation period will be entered into before the Commission will review the assessment lists for the key requirements in early 2020. At some point in the ill-defined future, Europe might have some rules on AI.

Considering the posturing which has taken place over the last couple of months, Europe has promised it will lead the world on AI, this announced seems nothing but superficial. These generic comments and guidelines should have been put out years ago, now is a time for action and a time for rules.

AI is already in the world and having a fundamental impact on our day-to-day lives. We might not realise it all the time, but it is increasingly interwoven into the services and products which we use each day. Now is the time for action from regulators, not posturing and pondering.

Europe missing its ultrafast targets

With only 20% of European customers adopting broadband services over 100 Mbps, the European Commission is falling behind its own targets with six months to go.

While the targets are certainly ambitious, the European Commission has decided it would like to have 50% of all broadband customers across the bloc subscribing to 100 Mbps by 2020. With only 20% subscribing to an ultrafast service, it looks like it is becoming a big ask as we head towards the mid-point of the year.

There will of course be numerous reasons for a lack of adoption. Some will suggest the telcos are not deploying suitable infrastructure to enough people, while others will say they are charging too much. That said, a more sensible explanation is that irrelevant as to how cheap a 100 Mbps service is, it is still too much; why would a normal person need such speeds today? Without the applications, customers would be paying for redundant speed.

What is worth noting is that connectivity is improving on the whole. The availability of ultrafast broadband has increased to 60% across Europe, up from 57% in 2017, while there have been gains on the mobile side as well. The DESI Report claims that 4G coverage is now almost universal in European homes, while rural coverage is also increasing.

Europe told it can force Facebook to do more on illegal content

An opinion revealed by Advocate General Macief Szpunar, a prominent advisor to the European Commission, has suggested Facebook can be forced to do more to crack down on illegal and offensive content.

Limiting and blocking content on social media sites is an incredibly difficult topic to address. Not only do you have the risk of alienating individuals by drawing a strict line on what is deemed offensive, there is also the danger of invading freedom of speech rights. Facebook has always tried to stay at arm’s length from the tricky conundrum, but the opinion from Szpunar might offer ammunition for red-tapers throughout Europe to hold the social media giant more accountable.

The document states:

“In today’s opinion, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar considers that the Directive on electronic commerce does not preclude a host provider which operates a social network platform, such as Facebook, from being ordered, in the context of an injunction, to seek and identify, among all the information disseminated by users of that platform, the information identical to the information that has been characterised as illegal by a court that issued that injunction.”

As with most legal matters, this is a highly complicated and nuanced case, not only because it deals with the intersection of speech moderation and freedoms, but also due to the fact that social media platforms are incredibly complex machines. It is not straight-forward applying new rules, especially when you consider the platforms are extended over multiple geographies, languages and legal jurisdictions.

In short, Szpunar suggests social media platforms can be forced to remove all content which is related to illegal content, and that the conditions can be applied to Facebook globally.

This case dates back to 2017 and a speech made by Austrian Green Party Eva Glawischnig. Glawischnig claimed that comments about her made on Facebook were defamatory, to which an Austrian court agreed, and Facebook was ordered to take down the posts. Facebook complied, but only in Austria, to which Glawischnig argued the action should be extended across the entire social media platform while also including any verbatim re-postings.

Further filings were made to the Court of Justice for the European Union, leading towards Szpunar’s opinion today. What is worth noting is that the court does not have to follow the opinion of Szpunar, but in most cases it does follow the opinions of the eleven appointed Advocate General’s.

In the opinion of Szpunar, Facebook can be told to spread the net further, suggesting there are no limitations in forcing social media platforms to comply globally, while it will also have to do more to remove identical content which has already been deemed illegal by the courts.

What some might find more objection to is some slight mission creep from the European Commission. The opinion suggests there is no reason Facebook cannot be forced to apply these rules globally, though over sovereign nations might object to be told how to govern their own states. This is another very sensitive area, especially at a time where international relations are fragile.

Europe is taking a much more stringent stance against the internet giants than many other nations around the world, though we suspect there will be critics suggesting it is overstepping the mark here. And to be fair, they would have a point. What right does Europe have in imposing its own opinions on free speech principles on other territories? Why should their approach be considered more appropriate than anyone elses?

This is not the first time it has been suggested Europe is overstepping the mark. The same Advocate General came to the conclusion Europe had the right to force Google to remove archive listings of some news stories on a global level last year.

In this case, two businessmen had served criminal convictions, but were arguing the cases should be deindexed as the punishment had been served, and there was a risk of future employment being impacted should the stories have been discovered.

This is a slightly different case, as the ‘right to be forgotten’ saga with Google leans on the principles of privacy and the fact the two individuals in question had been ‘rehabilitated’. The complication with Glawischnig is that it is based on the legal definition of defamation, which might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Alongside the implications to freedom of speech, this does also force Facebook to become a more active moderator of the content which is published on its platform.

This is where Facebook has been able to dodge many bullets over the past decade; it is not a publisher, therefore should not be held accountable for the opinions, and management of those opinions, which are published on its platform. It has painted itself as the role of curator and platform provider, avoiding the term ‘publisher’, as this would imply it has more influence and control than it wants to have.

The selling point of many social media platforms is that it is ‘unmoderated’ content. Users can put anything they want online. In the early days, this freedom democratized opinion though there are now elements of society who use the platforms in ways deemed nefarious or contrary to societal benefit.

Not only does Facebook want to avoid the difficulty and legal complexities of becoming a more active moderator of content, it wants to remain true to initial function of the platform; freedom to do and say whatever the user wishes. This was attractive to users in the first years, and should Facebook want to re-engage the masses, it will have to offer an experience which is appealing.

And while the technology giants might not like the direction this case is heading, some governments certainly will.

Governments around the world are increasingly looking for ways to strengthen the grip they have on the internet industry. Part of this will be down to abuse of tax loopholes, some will be protecting the innocence of those reading material online and a slice is on increasing the capabilities of intelligence agencies and police forces.

There are of course numerous different approaches from governments when addressing illegal content and hate speech. Australia, for example, has passed the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material bill imposing harsh penalties on those who do not take down what the law decides is ‘abhorrent violent conduct’, though it still has it critics. In this case, there is some sympathy for the internet giants as everything they currently do is reactive, reliant on complaints from those who are already exposed to the materials.

Germany was one of the first, and strictest, countries to tackle the conundrum, while the UK has developed its own AI to identify the content which it has deemed as terrorist. The US is taking a much more hands-off approach, though there are clearly PR points to win for politicians here; the Senators and Congress representatives might find themselves being drawn into the debate before too long.

This is an immensely complicated area of social media. The courts will only want to make firm judgments when absolutely necessary, as many are cautious when it comes to precedent. Anything written in stone can be cleverly massaged by well-paid lawyers, expertly practiced in the field of nuance, to mean a variety of things.

This is also not the final judgment. The Court of Justice for the European Union usually follows the Advocate General’s opinion three to six months later, leaving plenty of opportunity for different arguments to be heard.

We’ve been keen to avoid the word censorship in this article, as it can be a very inflammatory way to describe an incredibly complicated and sensitive issue, but this is of course one of the risks which the world trends when you impose restriction on freedom of speech.

Europe wants another look at Telia’s move into broadcasting

Swedish telecoms group Telia wants to buy Bonnier Broadcasting but the European Commission reckons that might be bad for telly in Sweden and Finland.

Last summer Telia announced it was getting its cheque book out once more to buy Swedish company Bonnier Broadcasting, which runs TV channels in Sweden and Finland. At the time this seemed like a classic multiplay move, in which operators get into content in order to offer more complete communications bundles to their customers.

This sort of thing has taken place all over Europe for years, but the European Commission’s current mood seems to be hostile to such moves. “The in-depth investigation we are opening today aims to ensure that Telia’s proposed acquisition of Bonnier Broadcasting will not lead to higher prices for or less choice of TV channels for consumers in Finland and Sweden,” said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

The niggle is that Telia already licenses TV channels from broadcasters to put into bundles. “The proposed acquisition of Bonnier Broadcasting by Telia Company would create a vertically integrated player in the audio-visual industry in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden,” said the EC press release.

This could mean that Telia won’t let its telco competitors license Bonnier stuff, won’t let them advertise against Bonnier stuff and could even deny access to streaming applications to customers of its competitors. Those are all reasonable concerns but surely they apply to most M&A. Furthermore you’d think anti-competitive behaviour by a telco would be a matter for national regulators.

Telia has responded by saying it figured this would happen. In a press release headlined ‘Investigation into acquisition of Bonnier Broadcasting moves into phase 2 in line with expectations’, Telia indicated it had been in the loo-p with the EC’s concerns from the start and will use this phase to put its concerns to rest. It will presumably promise to be really, really nice to its competitors if the EC let it have this one tiny little acquisition.

“A phase 2 investigation into the acquisition of Bonnier Broadcasting is fully in line with our expectations and we now look forward to continuing the constructive dialogue with the European Commission,” said Jonas Bengtsson, General Counsel at Telia. We’re confident that any concerns following the in-depth investigation will be resolved.”

Facebook placates Europe for now

In a bid to keep the European Commission off its back social media giant Facebook is admitting to its users that they’re the product.

Despite this being the media business model since the first newspapers were printed, the EC seems to think making Facebook spell out its business model represents some kind of progress. Those few users that even care will now be able to find some kind ‘digital media for dummies’ guide buried somewhere in their Facebook details. This is probably a product of all the faux outrage expressed when it was revealed that politicians can use Facebook for targeted advertising before elections.

This thrilling new section of Facebook will also clarify the nature of the implicit contract users enter into with Facebook when they post stuff, as well as clarify the rules for removing posts and suspending accounts. Facebook has vowed to be a bit more reasonable when it comes to unilaterally changing its Ts and Cs, and to admit its liabilities when it comes to things like Cambridge Analytica.

“Today Facebook finally shows commitment to more transparency and straight forward language in its terms of use,” said Commissioner Vera Jourová. “A company that wants to restore consumers trust after the Facebook/ Cambridge Analytica scandal should not hide behind complicated, legalistic jargon on how it is making billions on people’s data. Now, users will clearly understand that their data is used by the social network to sell targeted ads. By joining forces, the consumer authorities and the European Commission, stand up for the rights of EU consumers.”

If this is all Facebook has to do to get the EC off its back then Mark Zuckerberg must be laughing himself sick right now, pausing only to sign off a massive pay rise for Nick Clegg. Companies like Google and Microsoft have probably already written to the EC, asking why they weren’t given the ‘publish some clarifications’ option before getting fined into next week. While this seems to have temporarily placated the EC, Facebook’s minimal gesture seems useless to its users.

Europe unveils its own attempt to address ethical AI

Addressing the ethical implications of artificial intelligence has become very fashionable in recent months, and right on cue, the European Commission has produced seven guidelines for ethical AI.

The guidelines themselves are not much more than a theoretical playbook for companies to build products and services around for the moment. However, any future legislation which is developed to guide the development of AI in the European Union will likely use these guidelines as the foundation blocks. It might not seem critical for the moment, but it could offer some insight into future regulation and legislation.

“The ethical dimension of AI is not a luxury feature or an add-on,” said Vice-President for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip. “It is only with trust that our society can fully benefit from technologies. Ethical AI is a win-win proposition that can become a competitive advantage for Europe: being a leader of human-centric AI that people can trust.”

“We now have a solid foundation based on EU values and following an extensive and constructive engagement from many stakeholders including businesses, academia and civil society,” said Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society Mariya Gabriel. “We will now put these requirements to practice and at the same time foster an international discussion on human-centric AI.”

The seven guidelines are as follows:

  1. Human agency and oversight: AI systems should enable equitable societies by supporting human agency and fundamental rights, and not decrease, limit or misguide human autonomy.
  2. Robustness and safety: Trustworthy AI requires algorithms to be secure, reliable and robust enough to deal with errors or inconsistencies during all life cycle phases of AI systems.
  3. Privacy and data governance: Citizens should have full control over their own data, while data concerning them will not be used to harm or discriminate against them.
  4. Transparency: The traceability of AI systems should be ensured.
  5. Diversity, non-discrimination and fairness: AI systems should consider the whole range of human abilities, skills and requirements, and ensure accessibility.
  6. Societal and environmental well-being: AI systems should be used to enhance positive social change and enhance sustainability and ecological responsibility.
  7. Accountability: Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes.

The Commission will now launch a pilot phase with industry and academia to make sure the guidelines are realistic to implement in real-world cases. The results of this pilot will inform any measures taken by the Commission or national governments moving forward.

This is one of the first official documents produced to support the development of AI, though many parties around the world are attempting to weigh in on the debate. It is critically important for governments and regulators to take a stance, such is the profound impact AI will have on society, though private industry is attempting to make itself heard as well.

From private industry’s perspective, the mission statement is relatively simple; ensure any bureaucratic processes don’t interfere too much with the ability to make money. Google was the latest to attempt to create its own advisory board to hype the lobby game, but this was nothing short of a disaster.

Having set up the board with eight ‘independent’ experts, the plan was scrapped almost immediately after employees criticised one of the board members for not falling on the right side of the political divide. This might have been an embarrassing incident, though the advisory board was hardly going to achieve much.

Google suggested the board would meet four times a year to review the firms approach to AI. Considering AI is effectively embedded, or will be, in everything which Google does, a quarterly assessment was hardly going to provide any actionable insight. It would be simply too much to do in a short period of time. This was nothing more than a PR plug by the internet giant, obsessed with appearing to be on the side of the consumer.

AI will have a significant impact on the world and almost everyone’s livelihood. For some, jobs will be enhanced, but there will always be pain. Some will find their jobs redundant, some will find their careers extinguished. Creating ethical guidelines for AI development and deployment will be critical and Europe is leading the charge.