France creates new 3 percent tax for internet giants

Unable to convince the EU to impose a special tax on US tech giants, France has decided to go it alone.

Today the French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire announced the introduction of a bill that will grab 3% of all revenues deemed to have been generated in France by digital companies with sales in excess of €25 million in France and €750 million globally. This seems to cover around 30 companies, but especially Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, which is why it’s being called the GAFA tax.

“This is about justice,” Le Maire reportedly said. “These digital giants use our personal data, make huge profits out of these data, then transfer the money somewhere else without paying their fair amount of taxes.” Funny how new taxes are always in the name of fairness isn’t it?

Said tech giants are unlikely to take this new tax lying down and will presumably threaten some kind of strop in retaliation, but if they want to make money in France they will have to abide by its tax rules. A bigger danger for them will be if France manages to pull this move off as that will presumably give the rest of Europe, and even the world, some funny ideas.

France has been planning something like this for a while but it’s not obvious exactly how it will claim the tax, especially as it expects to tax revenues derived from advertising, which is the main business model of Google and Facebook. France reckons it will trouser at least €500 million a year from this, which will come in handy since its own population doesn’t seem too keen on paying tax these days.

France continues charge against Silicon Valley

The City of Paris has joined the overarching French battle against Silicon Valley, suing Airbnb for publishing 1,000 illegal rentals adverts.

Over the last couple of weeks, France has become increasingly irked with Silicon Valley. This quest is not from the French government alone, but the anti-internet sentiment seems to be spreading throughout the country.

Here, the City of Paris has lodged its complaints against online marketplace and hospitality firm Airbnb, suggesting the website is illegally advertising properties. According to Reuters, home owners are allowed to rent out their properties for 120 days a year, but the home owner must be registered to ensure compliance.

Several countries around the world have expressed concerns over the impact of Airbnb on local markets, suggesting locals are suffering as profiteers increase housing prices while the traditional hospitality industry is being cripple, but this seems to be one of the first and most aggressive complaints. Paris is suing Airbnb for missing registration details on more than 1,000 adverts. With new national legislation in 2018 provisioning €12,500 per illegal posting, the fine could certainly go north very quickly.

“The goal is to send a shot across the bows to get it over with unauthorized rentals that spoil some Parisian neighbourhoods,” said Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.

While this might be a headache for Airbnb, this is just one example of France taking a more aggressive stance against Silicon Valley. Aside from this case, the French tax administration recently managed to get Apple to pay €500 million in back-taxes, data protection regulator CNIL has fined Google for GDPR violations, the country is also attempting to rollout ‘right to be forgotten rules’ worldwide and the French government is pressing ahead with plans to hold internet companies accountable to fair and reasonable tax rates.

The final one is perhaps one of the most interesting cases as it demonstrates a break from Europe. The tax strategies of the internet giants have now become infamous, though Europe wanted to tackle these regulatory oversights as a bloc. With the 28 members states not being able to come to any form of agreement, it had seemed the Silicon Valley lobbyists had won, but France was not done, deciding to go alone with its own 3% sales tax on revenues derived within its borders; the internet giants might be able to hide profits, but they haven’t found a good way to hide IP addresses yet.

While the world is certainly turning against the internet players, thanks mainly to data breaches and privacy scandals over the last 18 months, few countries are taking such an aggressive stance as the French. Considering how friendly some nations are to the internet players (see Ireland and Luxembourg) we can’t see this trend spreading everywhere across the European Union, but it will be interesting to see how many member states are buoyed on by the French foray.

France takes on Apple in tax dispute… and wins

The French government has bagged a win in its quest to hold Silicon Valley accountable to fair and reasonable taxation rules with €500 million secured from Apple.

Apple has confirmed to Reuters it has settled a dispute over taxes due to the French purses over a 10-year period, though local newspapers are suggesting the figure is roughly €500 million. France is leaking the European battle against the slippery accountants of the internet giants, though whether this has any knock-on effect across the rest of the bloc remains to be seen. We suspect there will be a mixed reaction.

“As a multinational company, Apple is regularly audited by fiscal authorities around the world,” Apple France said in a statement to Reuters. “The French tax administration recently concluded a multi-year audit on the company’s French accounts, and those details will be published in our public accounts.”

The taxation strategies of the internet giants have become infamous over the years, as many feel the frat-boys of the technology industry are taking advantage. With such incredible revenues, governments will be keen to hold these companies accountable and France is showing that it can actually be done.

Over the last few months, the European Commission has been tabling various different ideas to ensure the internet giants pay a fair and reasonable tax rate. A 3% sales tax on all revenues generated in the specific territories looked to be the best option moving forward, but the power of the bloc proved to be its downfall; getting 28 nations to agree to the same idea was never going to be easy.

With countries like Ireland and Luxembourg building successful economies around enabling tax havens, and other countries such as Sweden giving birth to companies which benefit from the rules, some were always going to offer opposition. Why would these countries want to be the architect of their own downfall?

What this victory for France shows the rest of the bloc is that results can be achieved by going alone. Some of the other critics of the creative taxation strategies of the internet giants, such as the UK and Germany, may well move forward aggressively.

The residents of Silicon Valley, and some in Washington DC, might suggest US companies are victims of sticky-fingered bureaucrats, though it is difficult to have sympathy for companies which have become experts at finding and widening gaps in regulations.

The big question is who is next on France’s hit list.

Google challenges France’s first swing of the GDPR stick

Google has stated it will appeal the French regulator’s decision to dish out a €50 million fine for not being forthright enough with how it collects, stores and processes user’s personal data.

For Google, this is not about the money. €50 million for Google is nothing. This is a company which generated $33.7 billion over the final quarter of 2018. It would take a matter of minutes for the team to pay off this fine. However, should this ruling be allowed to stand Google would have to alter its business model, as would the rest of the data-sharing economy, causing a very unwelcomed, and potentially costly, disruption.

“The 50 million euro fine issued by the CNIL on 21 January 2019 significantly impacts Google as it directly challenges its business model based on the processing of personal data,” said Sonia Cissé, Head of TMT Practice of law firm Linklaters in Paris.

“Considering the seriousness of the CNIL’s findings and the broad publicity of this case, a potential appeal by Google is no surprise and makes perfect sense from a legal-strategy perspective.”

On Monday, France’s National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) dished out the fine for two violations of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Firstly, the search giant was not specific enough when requesting consent from users. Secondly, for users who wanted to dig deeper into the Google data practices, the company made it unnecessarily difficult to see the entire picture. Google was being too vague and not accessible enough.

“Users are not able to fully understand the extent of the processing operations carried out by Google,” the CNIL said in a statement.

This is the first time a regulator has used GDPR to hold one of the internet giants accountable, but there are plenty of other cases in the pipeline. Google is of course not the only target, as various different privacy advocates across the bloc lodge their complaints against the likes of Spotify, Amazon and Apple, just to name a few others.

In appealing this case, Google is making itself the tip of the spear for the entire internet ecosystem. There will be multiple appeals against the various rulings over the coming months because of how important precedent in this saga. If Google was to just let this ruling stand, it is effectively validating its opinion potentially undermining its own business model. If similar ruling start to appear across the continent the disruption to the data-sharing economy would be massive.

“In all likelihood, Google will challenge the CNIL’s decision on two main grounds: (i) procedural aspects (i.e., the competence of the CNIL); and (ii) the content of the case (i.e., challenging the facts),” said Cissé.

“Should Google be able to demonstrate that Google Ireland Limited was its main establishment in the European Union (EU) at the time of the CNIL’s investigations, then the competence of the CNIL could be validly challenged.

“Second, the content of the decision is another ground for action, and it will be up to the French administrative judges to determine, in light of the circumstances at stake, whether the transparency requirements under GDPR were met or not.”

GDPR is an incredibly complicated set of rules mainly because there are so many different definitions and clauses, but also certain exemptions. In most cases, companies would have to obtain consent from users to use data for explicit purposes, retaining the data only until these purposes have been satisfied. However, companies do not have to obtain consent when it is necessary to comply with another law, or there are ‘legitimate interests’. It paints a complicated picture.

Of course, for those who are more privacy sensitive, such rules and grey areas are a bounty of riches. The rules have created amble opportunity to challenge the internet giants’ business models, as well as the influence they have over the world. One of those is privacy campaigner Max Schrems.

“We are very pleased that for the first time a European data protection authority is using the possibilities of GDPR to punish clear violations of the law,” Schrems said following the CNIL ruling.

“Following the introduction of GDPR, we have found that large corporations such as Google simply ‘interpret the law differently’ and have often only superficially adapted their products. It is important that the authorities make it clear that simply claiming to be compliant is not enough.”

Schrems’ firm, None of Your Business (NYOB), has filed several complaints against other internet businesses on the grounds of accessibility. Those who will come under the scrutiny of Austrian courts include Apple, DAZN, Filmmit, Netflix and Amazon. More specifically, these complaints suggest the companies violated GDPR’s ‘right to access’, enshrined in Article 15 GDPR and Article 8(2) of the Chart of Fundamental Rights.

All of these cases will dictate how the internet economy will function over the coming years, but this battle between the CNIL and Google could prove to be a critical one, such is the power of precedent in the legal world.

“In a nutshell, it is highly difficult to identify certainties regarding the outcome of Google’s appeal,” said Cissé.

“Since data protection is a field of law particularly subject to interpretation and grey areas, one cannot exclude the possibility that Google could be successful in appealing the CNIL’s decision before the French Administrative Supreme Court. In any event, the ruling of the French administrative judges will be closely monitored by all the tech companies.”

France fines Google for being vague

The French regulator has swung the GDPR stick for the first time and landed it firmly on Google’s rump, costing the firm €50 million for transparency and consent violations.

The National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) has been investigating the search engine giant since May when None Of Your Business (NOYB) and La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) filed complaints suggesting GDPR violations. The claims specifically suggested Google was not providing adequate information to the user on how data would be used or retained for, while also suggesting Google made the process to find more information unnecessarily complex.

“Users are not able to fully understand the extent of the processing operations carried out by Google,” the CNIL said in a statement.

“But the processing operations are particularly massive and intrusive because of the number of services offered (about twenty), the amount and the nature of the data processed and combined. The restricted committee observes in particular that the purposes of processing are described in a too generic and vague manner, and so are the categories of data processed for these various purposes.”

This seems to be the most prominent issue raised by the CNIL. Google was being too vague when obtaining consent in the first instance, but when digging deeper the rabbit hole become too complicated.

Information on data processing purposes, the data storage periods or the categories of personal data used for the ad personalization were spread across several pages or documents. It has been deemed too complicated for any reasonable member of the general public to make sense of and therefore a violation of GDPR.

When first obtaining consent, Google did not offer enough clarity on how data would be used, therefore was without legal grounding to offer personalised ads. Secondly, the firm then wove too vexing a maze of red-tape for those who wanted to understand the implications further.

It’ll now be interesting to see how many other firms are brought to the chopping block. Terms of Service have been over-complicated documents for a long-time now, with the excessive jargon almost becoming best practise in the industry. Perhaps this ruling will ensure internet companies make the legal necessities more accessible, otherwise they might be facing the same swinging GDPR stick as Google has done here.

For those who are finding the NOYB acronym slightly familiar it might be because the non-profit recently filed complaints against eight of the internet giants, including Google subsidiary YouTube. These complaints focus on ‘right to access’ clauses in GDPR, with none of the parties responding to requests with enough information on how data is sourced, how long it would be retained for or how it has been used.

As GDPR is still a relatively new set of regulations for the courts to ponder, the complaints from NOYB and LQDN were filed almost simultaneously as the new rules came into force, this case gives some insight into how sharp the CNIL’s teeth are. €50 million might not be a monstrous amount for Google, but this is only a single ruling. There are more complaints in the pipeline meaning the next couple of months could prove to be very expensive for the Silicon Valley slicker.

Orange steps further into the convergence game

Orange has announced a new partnership with Groupama, adding another branch to the convergence strategy with a home telesurveillance service.

Everyone in the industry is talking about convergence as a means to improve revenues, but few have created quite a splash in the deep-end as the cannon-balling French telco. This latest partnership with Groupama will see the creation of Protectline, a joint platform for the operation and management of home telesurveillance services.

“The upcoming launch of our home telesurveillance service is an important part of Orange’s multi-service operator strategy,” said Stéphane Richard, CEO of Orange. “To deliver the best product possible, we have again chosen to work with Groupama to pool our skills and resources, following on from our Orange Bank partnership.”

With Orange owning 51% of the new venture, it’s a very clever way for the telco to diversify revenue streams. Groupama is already a well-established player in this segment, but Orange has something which every business wants; a humongous subscriber base to potentially sell added-value services into. This is where this partnership is a stroke of genius and an excellent foundation for future convergence growth.

Orange has built a successful business and large customer base through doing what it does very well. Until recently it has focused exclusively on markets which it has a pedigree in; connectivity. Recently it has explored banking, cyber-security, entertainment and smart home services, though each has relevant-industry partners under-pinning the venture, as well as a direct tie back to the core business.

Protectline is another example of how the Orange business is embracing convergence in a low-risk, high-reward manner. Groupama has the expertise while Orange has the sales and marketing capabilities. Each is supplemented the other, leaning on the skills which are brought to the table. Its sounds incredibly simple, because it is, but it is effective. Of course, you have to wonder why there aren’t more in the industry doing this and the answer is relatively simple.

When splitting the risk, you have to split the spoils. If Protectline becomes a roaring success, Orange can only collect 51% of the riches. This might not sound attractive to other telcos, some of which have chosen to go solo on diversification to varying success; just have a look at BT’s attempt to rock Sky’s dominance in the premium TV segment.

Sky is another which has proven to be successful in the convergence and diversification game, branching out from the core TV services to offer broadband and mobile connectivity offerings. However, similar to the Orange example, the risk has been somewhat removed as the broadband offering runs over Openreach infrastructure and the Sky Mobile is a MVNO. The high-risk elements of these diversification ambitions, the CAPEX heavy infrastructure, has been removed from the equation. Sky focuses on what it does best, maintaining a relationship with its customers.

The buzz around convergence has been dying down a bit recently, as while it is an effective strategy few has realised the bonanza which was initially promised. Orange is one of those few who are reaping the considerable benefit, but only because it is not going alone.

The question which remains is whether Orange can nail the customer experience element. This would have been the big hurdle for the banking product, though it seems to have passed with flying colours. Groupama can take the operational risk away from the telco, but customer experience is slightly different in every vertical; Orange will have to prove its worth by being engaging and intuitive if this is to be a success.

Orange has realised where its strengths are and by offering this massive subscriber base as leverage is any future partnerships, it is proving the low-risk convergence game can be a very profitable one.

58% of UK business can’t detect IoT security breach – study

Digital security vendor Gemalto claims the IoT euphoria might be hitting the UK before its ready, as research shows 58% of businesses are not able to detect a breach.

First and foremost, we need to put a disclaimer on this report. Gemalto is a security company and is thus incentivised do its best scaremongering to drive revenues. The more scared companies are about potential data breaches, and the punishments which follow the incidents, the more likely they are to buy security software. Making the world a big, bad, horrible place is an effective marketing strategy for security vendors.

That said, considering the lax approach most of the industry takes towards security and data protection, we suspect many of the statistics being discussed are pretty accurate.

“The push for digital transformation by organisations has a lot to answer for when it comes to security and bad practices,” said Jason Hart, CTO of Data Protection at Gemalto. “At times it feels organisations are trying to run before they can walk, implementing technology without really understanding what impact it could have on their security.”

The most shocking figure from the report is the 42% of UK companies who are capable of detecting an IoT breach, with only France worse off at 36%. Considering the role IoT has been touted to play over the next few years as 5G hits the streets, this is an incredibly worrying statistic.

While spending on IoT security has increased from 11% of the overall IoT budget to 13%, you have to wonder what direction this money is heading. Perhaps even more concerning for those companies involved, is that 90% of them accept this will be a major buying motivator for customers. At least they are aware that security can have a direct impact on the revenues of the business now, a concept which has taken years to hammer home.

“Given the increase in the number of IoT-enabled devices, it’s extremely worrying to see that businesses still can’t detect if they have been breached,” said Hart. “With no consistent regulation guiding the industry, it’s no surprise the threats – and, in turn, vulnerability of businesses – are increasing. This will only continue unless governments step in now to help industry avoid losing control.”

IoT is set to be one of the biggest winner of the 5G bonanza, while the segment is also predicted to be the major catalyst of 6G. If predictions are anywhere near accurate, 5G networks will soon not be able to cope with the strain of IoT, driving the case for 6G due to the sheer number of ‘things’ connected to the network.

Looking at the predictions, IDC believes the IoT market will grow to be worth more than $1.2 trillion by 2022, with consumer devices expected to account for the largest share at 19%. Ericsson has forecasted the number of cellular IoT connections to reach 3.5 billion in 2023, increasing at a CAGR of 30%.

Security remains a major challenge for the industry, though the buzz around blockchain could provide a suitable means to meet the expectations of the consumer. In the absence of regulation, Gemalto notes the adoption of blockchain technologies has doubled from 9% to 19% in the last 12 months, with 23% of the respondents to this survey believe the technology would be an ideal solution to use for securing IoT devices. 91% who are not using blockchain are considering it for the future.

“Businesses are clearly feeling the pressure of protecting the growing amount of data they collect and store,” said Hart.

“But while it’s positive they are attempting to address that by investing in more security, such as blockchain, they need direct guidance to ensure they’re not leaving themselves exposed. In order to get this, businesses need to be putting more pressure on the government to act, as it is them that will be hit if they suffer a breach.”

While research like this does indicate security is becoming a more serious topic in the world of telecoms and technology, it also confirms there is a very wide gap to close. Security has long been the ugly duckling of the industry, many seemingly choosing to ignore the challenges because they are too difficult to solve, though new regulations such as GDPR has perhaps forced the issue up the agenda.

Interestingly enough, should the telcos get serious about security there would certainly be a revenue generating opportunity to capitalise on. With cyber security incidents and data breaches becoming more prominent in the news, consumers are gradually becoming more aware of the risks of the internet and the emerging digital society. While the industry has played down the risk in recent years, the incidents speak for themselves.

An excellent example of turning this scenario into a business opportunity lies with Orange, the master of the convergence strategy. Here, the team have invested heavily in cyber security capabilities and are now offering security services to customers as a bolt on to other connectivity packages. The move has proven to be a success as while it is generally becoming accepted that 100% secure is impossible nowadays, more people are willing to do something about it.

Security is a topic which has always been in and around the news, but few want to do anything proactive about it. Unfortunately, with the perimeter expanding so rapidly as IoT penetration grows, these statistics are incredibly worrying. Perhaps regulators will get the chance to swing the GDPR stick before too long after all.

EU Advisor tells France to forget about global ‘right to be forgotten’

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has given his opinion on the ‘right to be forgotten’ conflict between France and Google, and its good news for the ‘do no evilers’.

Advocate General, Maciej Szpunar, has been pondering the implications of the ‘right to be forgotten’ saga for some months now, and the opinion is relatively simple; France does not have the right to impose its own considerations on a company which operates outside its jurisdiction.

The French regulator can force Google to de-list search results on the grounds of privacy in France, and generally across the EU, though it does not have the authority to impose itself on the companies worldwide footprint. As the Advocate General notes, the repercussions of such a ruling would have too much potential to cause damage in various other scenarios.

The case is somewhat of a tricky one, as it does have implications in the contentious world of privacy/free speech/accountability. And while the European Court of Justice does not have to follow the opinion of the Advocate General, it generally does.

“This is a really important case pitting fundamental rights to privacy against freedom of expression,” said Richard Cumbley, Partner and Global Head of Technology at law firm Linklaters. “The case highlights the continuing conflict between national laws and the Internet which does not respect national boundaries.

“The opinion contains a clear recommendation that the right to remove search results from Google should not have global effect. There are a number of good reasons for this, including the risk other states would also try and supress search results on a global basis. This would seriously affect people’s right to access information.”

The case dates back to the early months of 2018, with the CNIL, France’s data protection watchdog, suggesting the search giant should have to enforce any ‘right to be forgotten’ rulings to all of its domains instead of just that of the home nation of the challenging regulator. Google, and various other free speech advocacy groups, have been suggesting France and the European Union are attempting to impose their own data privacy position on the rest of the world.

Looking at the ramifications, those of us who have more long-term considerations would certainly be thankful of Szpunar’s opinion. As Cumbley points out above, this case could be used as evidence by other nations to supress free speech or opinions which are not in-line with the political climate. Precedent is everything in the legal community, and while it hopefully does not intend to, France may be aiding more authoritarian governments in trying to impose its privacy demands on Google.

What is worth noting is that this opinion is not an official ruling from the European Court of Justice, though it does generally head in the same direction as the Advocate General.

France goes solo in quest to hold Silicon Valley accountable

With some European nations unable to summon up the courage to tackle the infamous creative tax strategies of the internet giants, France has decided to write its own rules.

The topic of a digital tax which would span the length and breadth of the European continent was initially a popular one. Perhaps it was the camaraderie which swept the states into the tides of change, or maybe there as a brief window to score political PR points, though the momentum has not carried through. Initial plans were abandoned, water-down ones vetoed by self-interested nations, and France has had enough.

Announced on French national television, Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire laid out the new tax plans which will come into play on January 1. Over the course of the next twelve months, Le Maire believes the new structure will generate €500 million for the state.

“The digital giants are the ones who have the money,” said Le Maire. “[the internet players] make considerable profits thanks to French consumers, thanks to the French market, and they pay 14 percentage points of tax less than other businesses.”

It might not be the collective-push back against Silicon Valley which was initially proposed, but it is progress. Waiting for all 28 (soon to be 27) states to agree on a co-ordinated approach would have taken years, such is the bureaucratic struggle and the lobby power of the internet players, so it is quite refreshing for the French to say enough is enough and take a prominent stance against those who have been obviously and unashamedly abusing tax loopholes.

While many would point to the beauty of the European Union, offering scale to negotiate more effective trade deals, the beast has emerged from the shadows in this saga. For any meaningful changes to be implemented, all states would have to agree. This was always going to be a stumbling block. Sweden voiced concerns, unsurprising as Spotify was one of those firms in the crosshair, while Ireland vetoed on the grounds it would potentially damage trade relationships with the US.

Thankfully the French are not scared of said repercussions. Or perhaps we should be more accurate. There might be fear, but that does not mean the French are going to allow the internet players to run wild. The White House might suggest this is a tax aimed at the US economy, but that is irrelevant as far as we are concerned. This is a tax reform which is overdue.

Whether this inspires the other nations to move in the right direction remains to be seen, though the UK might not wait around either. Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond has previously stated he, or the UK government, would not wait for the rest of Europe to hold Silicon Valley accountable.

Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is a fractured tax landscape, with some pushing forward more stringent rules and others getting bullied by the expensive lobbyists. This of course undermines the concept of the European Union, but also opens the door a crack for abuse.

The bureaucrats might attempt to colour in all grey areas, but very expensive lawyers in California will be pouring over any new rules attempting to find the weak spot. And in a fractured tax landscape, there is bound to be a few if you look hard enough.

France and Germany give OTTs early Xmas gift in digital tax saga

Europe ambitious plans to hold the internet giants accountable to fair and reasonable taxation have been temporarily scuppered after resistance from several nations, most notably France and Germany.

While Silicon Valley is still not in the clear, the internet giants will be breathing a deep sigh of relief as their hard-working lobbyists are given another couple of months to influence the plans. France and Germany seem to be the main opponents of the aggressive tax assault, drawing up their own suggestions at the G20 Summit which would allow many of the biggest players to continue to dodge the tax man.

The initial plan was relatively simple; hold the internet players accountable to fair and reasonable conditions by implementing a 3% tax on digital revenues realised in EU member states. This would have placed all the current tax dodgers on the block. The Franco-German joint declaration was supposed to be a compromise, answering the initial opposition, but it seems this watered-down version is not going far enough.

While the Franco-German version of the digital tax certainly is much diluted compared to the initial proposals, it has still been resisted by other players who are protecting their own interests. It seems the ‘all for one and one for all’ theoretical attitude of the European Union does not translate directly into Irish or Norwegian.

“Following a thorough analysis of all technical issues, the presidency put forward a compromise text containing the elements that have the most support from member states,” a statement from The European Council reads. “However, at this stage a number of delegations cannot accept the text for political reasons as a matter of principle, while a few others are not satisfied yet with some specific points in the text. That text did not gain the necessary support and was not discussed in detail.”

Unfortunately for the European Union, this is the issue with any material changes made to rules and regulations. A collection of 27 member states certainly creates influence on the global and political stage, though it only takes one detractor to spoil any plans.

Looking at the suggested middle ground, a Franco-German joint declaration made a point which will please some more than others. The objection here is down to the wording of the proposal with France and Germany believing advertising revenues should be targeted, pushing Facebook and Google into the line of fire, as opposed to digital revenues as a generic term.

In France and Germany, some of the world’s largest internet-based businesses would gain a reprieve. Should the new rules target digital advertising revenues specifically, while subscription services, hardware and online marketplaces would escape. The likes of Amazon, Apple and Spotify would be free to continue practising their suspect taxation strategies.

The pattern of affairs here is something which should be pleasing for the internet giants, or at least most of them. What started as an assault on the internet players is starting to look like a very different battle nowadays, leaning much more towards Google and Facebook specifically.

These two might feel a bit victimised, but the ways things are heading it looks like a deal which is accepted by every member state would not be the victory the Brussels bureaucrats originally envisioned. With bureaucrats under pressure to produce a plan, accepted by all member states by March 2019, a lighter touch approach will be needed. We suspect such a plan will be put together, championed as a revolutionary position, though the internet players will be given enough wiggle room to ensure there is no meaningful victory.

What will help internet players sleep at night is the knowledge they only need to get one member state on side to veto the battle plan. Rev up the lobby machine!