Author

admin

Browsing

Alphabet’s Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, a judge ruled Thursday, dealing another blow to the tech giant and paving the way for U.S. antitrust prosecutors to seek a breakup of its advertising products.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, found Google liable for “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in markets for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. Websites use publisher ad servers to store and manage their ad inventories.

Antitrust enforcers failed to prove a separate claim that Google had a monopoly in advertiser ad networks, she wrote.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said Google will appeal the ruling.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” she said in a statement, adding that the company disagrees with the decision about its publisher tools. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.’

Google’s shares were down around 2.1% at midday.

The decision clears the way for another hearing to determine what Google must do to restore competition in those markets, such as sell off parts of its business at another trial that has yet to be scheduled.

The Justice Department has said Google should have to sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and ad exchange.

However, a Google representative said Thursday that Google was optimistic it would not have to divest part of the business as part of any remedy, given the court’s view that its acquisition of advertising tech companies like DoubleClick were not anticompetitive.

Google still faces the possibility that two U.S. courts will order it to sell assets or change its business practices. A judge in Washington will hold a trial next week on the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell its Chrome browser and take other measures to end its dominance in online search.

Google has previously explored selling off its ad exchange to appease European antitrust regulators, Reuters reported in September.

Brinkema oversaw a three-week trial last year on claims brought by the Justice Department and a coalition of states.

Google used classic monopoly-building tactics of eliminating competitors through acquisitions, locking customers in to using its products and controlling how transactions occurred in the online ad market, prosecutors said at trial.

Google argued the case focused on the past, when it was still working on making its tools able to connect to competitors’ products. Prosecutors also ignored competition from Amazon.com, Comcast and other technology companies as digital ad spending shifted to apps and streaming video, Google’s lawyer said.

The ruling was issued as a district court in Washington, D.C., held its fourth day of an antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission, in which the government similarly accused the company then known as Facebook of monopolizing the social networking market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

A Google representative said the partially favorable ruling in its case Thursday could point to success for Meta, as well, in defending its acquisitions from the government’s antitrust allegations.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Pro-life activist Mark Houck, who sued the Justice Department over his arrest and prosecution under the Biden administration, said his family has been blocked from settling their lawsuit by an ‘activist’ federal judge. 

Houck filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department last year, seeking restitution for what he called ‘a faulty investigation’ and ‘excessive force’ after a SWAT team of around 25 people arrested him in front of his children.

Now, Houck is appealing the judge’s decision to the Third District Court and calling on the Trump administration to follow through on ending the weaponization of the DOJ against pro-lifers such as him once and for all. He discusses the case with his wife and 40 Days for Life founder Shawn Carney in a new video shared with Fox News Digital. 

‘You live in fear of it happening again, not only to yourselves but to others, and you want to know that this administration, which rode this message to the White House, is willing to step in,’ Houck said in the video, adding, ‘and they’re doing it for other organizations, they’re doing it in the DOGE, they’re doing it with all the things, they’re cleaning house.’ 

In an interview with Fox News Digital, 40 Days for Life President Shawn Carney said: ‘I just think, Democratic or Republican, we’re tired of activist judges on both sides of the political aisle.’ 

‘Nobody likes it – and just, this guy’s a victim,’ Carney said, adding that the Justice Department ‘needs to fix this.’

News of the appeal, which is slated to be filed by 40 Days for Life on behalf of Houck, was shared exclusively with Fox News Digital. The group has already filed a Notice to Appeal to the courts. 

At issue are the settlement negotiations that 40 Days for Life entered into with the Justice Department in early 2025, following Trump’s inauguration.

U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond, a Bush appointee, abruptly issued a motion to dismiss the case last month, effectively ending the negotiations that had been playing out between Houck and the Trump-led Justice Department.

It appears that the motion to dismiss the case had originally been filed by the Biden-led Justice Department, which charged Houck in 2021 for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act. 

In the video, Carney and Houck discussed the judge’s decision as well as changes in the law enforcement community more broadly, and what they hope to be new priorities of the second Trump administration.

Houck said his family is disappointed by the judge’s actions and added that ‘it reflects poorly against the Trump administration.’

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Carney lamented the dismissal of their lawsuit by Diamond, whom he called an ‘activist’ judge and accused of political bias. Nevertheless, he expressed confidence that the Trump administration would make it right. 

‘We are appealing the decision of the judge to continue the lawsuit against the DOJ,’ Carney said. ‘And of course, if we could get back on track with that, the idea is that then we would be able to settle with DOJ, since they want to settle.’

‘We have a very strong appeal,’ he said of their yet-to-be-filed brief. ‘We’re very confident about the appeal.’

The FBI and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment. 

Houck, a longtime volunteer with 40 Days for Life, was arrested in 2021 for his actions outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, which prosecutors said violated the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act.

He was acquitted by a Philadelphia jury, but could have faced up to eleven years in prison if convicted.

Both his high-profile arrest at home, and the lengthy prison sentence he could have faced if convicted, prompted outrage from pro-life groups, including 40 Days for Life, where Houck has volunteered since 2007. 

In 2023, after Houck’s acquittal, 40 Days for Life joined Houck in suing the Justice Department over the ordeal, accusing law enforcement personnel of conducting a ‘faulty investigation’ against him, and accusing law enforcement of using ‘excessive force’ in the FBI raid of his family home.

Carney has weighed in on the topic before, saying in a post on X this year that 40 Days for Life was ‘targeted constantly by the Biden DOJ.’ 

‘With 1,000,000 peaceful volunteers we will always fight for free speech for pro-life and pro-abortion Americans alike. God bless Trump and Vance for backing us up,’ said Carney. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Shareholders of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton voted on Thursday to allow Bernard Arnault to remain at the helm of the company until the age of 85, extending the reign of the man who built the world’s most valuable luxury goods empire.

The move, approved with more than 99% support, raises the maximum age limit for the group’s chairman and chief executive from 80 to 85.

This marks the second such amendment in recent years.

In 2022, LVMH lifted the retirement threshold from 75 to 80.

With Thursday’s vote, the board has further solidified Arnault’s position at the top, even as investors grow increasingly uneasy over the absence of a clearly communicated succession plan.

A meticulously constructed empire

Bernard Arnault, 76, has led LVMH since 1989, steering it through decades of aggressive expansion, blockbuster acquisitions, and surging demand for luxury goods.

From the takeover of Christian Dior and Louis Vuitton to the $16 billion acquisition of Tiffany & Co in 2021, Arnault has crafted a 75-brand empire that spans fashion, jewellery, wine, spirits, hospitality, and more.

His hands-on leadership style—inspecting store layouts, micromanaging deals, and ensuring consistent brand storytelling—has helped deliver exceptional shareholder returns.

According to LSEG data, LVMH has generated an average total return of 13% per year under its leadership, far outpacing the 3% return of the STOXX 600 over the same period.

Yet the very qualities that have made LVMH a success are now sources of concern.

Investors worry that Arnault’s immense influence means that his sudden departure could trigger a sharp decline in LVMH’s share price.

At the same time, the company’s heavy reliance on a single individual introduces significant long-term risk.

The family behind the façade

All five of Arnault’s children are now deeply embedded in the group’s leadership structure.

Delphine Arnault, 50, serves as CEO of Christian Dior and is widely seen as a leading candidate.

Antoine Arnault, 47, oversees communications, image, and sustainability, and chairs Loro Piana.

The younger siblings—Alexandre, 33, Frédéric, 30, and Jean, 26—hold key roles at Tiffany & Co, TAG Heuer, and the watches division, respectively.

Each child holds a senior position, and four of them sit on LVMH’s board. But despite their prominence, Arnault has offered no public indication of who will eventually take over.

The family’s involvement gives the appearance of a tightly managed succession-in-training, yet no formal plan has been communicated.

“The market has long priced in the ‘Arnault premium,’” said a Paris-based luxury analyst.

“But that also means there’s enormous key-man risk. Investors want to know what LVMH looks like in a post-Arnault world.”

Opaque planning fuels uncertainty

Some shareholders have begun to question the group’s lack of transparency.

Two investors told Reuters Breakingviews that they are unaware of any formal emergency or long-term succession plan.

LVMH’s most recent governance report only briefly references a “review of succession planning,” offering no further detail.

In 2022, changes were made to LVMH’s controlling structure to ensure long-term family control.

Arnault restructured the family holding company, Agache SCA, stipulating that the five children would share equal ownership through Agache Commandité.

The shares cannot be sold or transferred for 30 years, nor can they pass outside the family or their direct descendants.

This arrangement effectively guarantees that LVMH will remain under family control for the foreseeable future, but it does not answer the central question of who will lead.

Key decisions in Agache now require unanimous agreement from all five siblings—a setup that could prove cumbersome or fractious in time.

Lessons from luxury rivals

LVMH’s opaque approach to succession contrasts with other family-led luxury firms.

François Pinault, founder of rival group Kering, passed his holding company to his three children in 2001.

In 2005, his son François-Henri Pinault formally took charge as CEO at age 42, providing clear continuity for investors and the business alike.

By comparison, LVMH has opted for incremental changes that extend Bernard Arnault’s grip on the company without offering the market a clear view of what comes next.

“Succession isn’t just about naming a CEO,” said Irina Curbelo, co-founder of Percheron Advisory. “It’s about preserving the essence of the brand empire, and ensuring that family governance doesn’t turn into a bottleneck.”

No imminent change, but longer-term risks remain

Despite growing concerns, few doubt Arnault’s ability to continue leading LVMH in the short term.

He remains mentally sharp, fully engaged, and evidently trusted by the board and shareholders.

But with the latest age-limit amendment pushing any handover potentially another decade away, governance questions are unlikely to fade.

As the luxury industry becomes more competitive and globally complex, the stakes of an unclear succession only grow.

The question facing LVMH now is not just who will succeed Bernard Arnault, but when, how, and whether the group will be prepared when the moment inevitably arrives.

The post As LVMH extends Arnault’s reign, succession concerns still linger: here’s why investors worry appeared first on Invezz

Harvard’s brewing conflict with the Trump administration could come at a steep cost — even for the nation’s richest university.

On April 14, Harvard University President Alan Garber announced the institution would not comply with the administration’s demands, including to “audit” Harvard’s students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” The federal government, in response, froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts with the university.

According to CNN and multiple other news outlets, the Trump administration has now asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If the IRS follows through, it would have severe consequences for the university. The many benefits of nonprofit status include tax-free income on investments and tax deductions for donors, education historian Bruce Kimball told CNBC.

Bloomberg estimated the value of Harvard’s tax benefits in excess of $465 million in 2023.

Nonprofits can lose their tax exemptions if the IRS determines they are engaging in political campaign activity or earning too much income from unrelated activities. Few universities have lost their non-profit status. One of the few examples was Christian institution Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption in 1983 for racially discriminatory policies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Washington Post that the IRS started investigating Harvard before President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social that the university should be taxed as a “political entity.” The Treasury Department did not reply to a request for comment from CNBC.

A Harvard spokesperson told CNBC that the government has “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax exempt status.”

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” 

The federal government has challenged Harvard on yet another front, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to stop international students from enrolling. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the DHS.

International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body. However, Harvard is less financially dependent on international students than many other U.S. universities as it already offers need-based financial aid to international students in its undergraduate program. Many other universities require international students to pay full tuition.

The Harvard spokesperson declined to comment to CNBC on whether the university would sue the administration over the federal funds or any other grounds. Lawyers Robert Hur of King & Spalding and William Burck of Quinn Emanuel are representing Harvard, stating in a letter to the federal government that its demands violate the First Amendment.

Harvard, the nation’s richest university, has more resources than other academic institutions to fund a long legal battle and weather the storm. However, its massive endowment — which has raised questions during the recent developments — is not a piggy bank.

Harvard has an endowment of nearly $52 billion, averaging $2.1 million in endowed funds per student, according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.

That size makes it larger than than the GDP of many countries.

The endowment generated a 9.6% return last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to the university’s latest annual report.

Founded in 1636, Harvard has had more time to accumulate assets as the nation’s oldest university. It also has robust donor base, receiving $368 million in gifts to the endowment in 2024. While the university noted that more than three-quarters of the gifts averaged $150 per donor, Harvard has a history of headline-making donations from ultra-rich alumni.

Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University, attributes the outsized wealth of elite universities like Harvard to a willingness to invest in riskier assets.

University endowments were traditionally invested very conservatively, but in the early 1950s Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds, taking on more risk and creating the opportunity for more upside.

“Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” Kimball told CNBC in March.

Other universities soon followed suit, with Yale University in the 1990s pioneering what would become the “Yale Model” of investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. Though it proved lucrative, only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that was needed to succeed in alternative investments, according to Kimball.

According to Harvard’s annual report, the largest chunks of the endowment are allocated to private equity (39%) and hedge funds (32%). Public equities constitute another 14% while real estate and bonds/TIPs make up 5% each. The remainder is divided between cash and other real assets, including natural resources.

The university has made substantial portfolio allocation changes over the past seven years, the report notes. The Harvard Management Company has cut the endowment’s exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% in 2018 to 6%. These cuts allowed the university to increase its private equity allocation. To limit equity exposure, the endowment has upped its hedge fund investments.

University endowments, though occasionally staggering in size, are not slush funds. The pools are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of smaller funds, the majority of which are restricted by donors to be dedicated to areas including professorships, scholarships or research.

Harvard has some 14,600 separate funds, 80% of which are restricted to specific purposes including financial aid and professorships. Last fiscal year, the endowment distributed $2.4 billion, 70% of which was subject to donors’ directives.

“Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC in March. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”

Some of these restrictions are overplayed, according to former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro.

“It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” Bok said previously.

Harvard has $9.6 billion in endowed funds that are not subject to donor restrictions. The annual report notes that “while the University has no intention of doing so,” these assets “could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption” under certain conditions.

Liquidating $9.6 billion in assets, nearly 20% of total endowed funds, would come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university would have less to invest.

Harvard did not respond to CNBC’s queries about increasing endowment spending. Like most universities, it aims to spend around 5% of its endowment every year. Assuming the fund generates high-single-digit investment returns, spending just 5% allows the principal to grow and keep pace with inflation.

For now, Harvard is taking a hard look at its operating budget. In mid-March, the university started taking austerity measures, including a temporary hiring pause and denying admission to graduate students waitlisted for this upcoming fall.

Harvard is also issuing $750 million in taxable bonds due September 2035. This past February, the university issued $244 million in tax-exempt bonds. A slew of universities including Princeton and Colgate are also raising debt this spring.

So far, Moody’s has not updated its top-tier AAA rating for Harvard’s bonds. However, when it comes to higher education as a whole, the ratings agency isn’t so optimistic, lowering its outlook to negative in March.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

President Trump on Friday said that career government employees working on policy matters for the administration will be reclassified ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ – or at will employees – and will be fired if they don’t adhere to his agenda.

‘Following my Day One Executive Order, the Office of Personnel Management will be issuing new Civil Service Regulations for career government employees,’ the president wrote on Truth Social Friday afternoon. 

He added, ‘Moving forward, career government employees, working on policy matters, will be classified as ‘Schedule Policy/Career,’ and will be held to the highest standards of conduct and performance.’

This comes as the Trump administration continues to fire federal employees in an effort to shrink the government. 

The administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimated the rule change in Trump’s executive order ‘Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce’ would affect around 50,000 employees or 2% of the federal workforce, the White House said in a Friday memo. 

The regulations for civil service employees ‘with important policy-determining, policy-making, policy-advocating, or confidential duties’ will now be considered ‘at-will’ employees, ‘without access to cumbersome adverse action procedures or appeals, overturning Biden Administration regulations that protected poor performing employees.’ 

Trump added in his post: ‘If these government workers refuse to advance the policy interests of the President, or are engaging in corrupt behavior, they should no longer have a job. This is common sense, and will allow the federal government to finally be ‘run like a business.’ We must root out corruption and implement accountability in our Federal Workforce!’ 

The White House said the ‘rule empowers federal agencies to swiftly remove employees in policy-influencing roles for poor performance, misconduct, corruption, or subversion of Presidential directives, without lengthy procedural hurdles.’

The employees aren’t required to personally support the president, but ‘must faithfully implement the law and the administration’s policies.’

The proposed rule won’t change the status of affected employees’ jobs until another executive order is issued, the White House said. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The ServiceNow stock price has declined significantly over the past few months, dropping from a high of $1,196 in January to its current level of $772. It has dropped by over 35% from its highest level this year, meaning that it is now in a bear market. This article explains what to expect ahead of its financial results next week.

ServiceNow’s business is thriving

ServiceNow is one of the top technology companies in the United States. It provides a cloud-based platform that provides IT Service Management (ITSM) services. Its main business is to manage and automate workflows for IT services, customer services, and low-code development.

The company provides its services to thousands of companies in the US and other countries. Some of the other clients are firms like Accenture, Adidas, Amazon, Walmart, Apple, and Vodafone Group.

ServiceNow’s business has done well over time as the needs for its solutions rose. Its annual revenue has jumped from $4.5 billion in 2020 to over $10.98 billion in 2024. Also, the company’s profits have been rising in the past few years.

NOW earnings ahead

The next key catalyst for the ServiceNow stock price will be its financial results, which will come out next week. 

According to Yahoo Finance, analysts expect its results to show that its revenue rose by 18.5% to $3.09 billion. The average earnings-per-share estimate is expected to be $3.83, higher than the previous estimate of $3.41.

ServiceNow has a long history of beating analysts’ estimates. For example, its EPS was higher than estimates by $0.01 in the last earnings and by $0.27 a quarter earlier. 

While the initial earnings often move stocks, the forward estimate is usually a bigger catalyst. The average estimate by analysts is that its current quarter’s revenue will be $3.11 billion, while its annual revenue will be $13.02 billion. If these numbers are accurate, it means that its full-year figure will be 18.5%.

Valuation concerns remain

One of the top concerns about ServiceNow has always been its valuation. Data shows that its price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio stood at 112.8, down from last year’s high of 179. 

Its forward P/E ratio stood at 95.7, much higher than the sector median of 23.2. The non-GAAP P/E ratio is 48.7, also higher than the median of 18.

These numbers are huge, especially when compared with other SaaS companies like Adobe, Microsoft, and Salesforce. Adobe has a forward P/E multiple of 21, while Microsoft and Salesforce have multiples of 28 and 22, respectively. 

For a SaaS company like ServiceNow, the best approach to value it is the rule-of-40 metric, which compares its growth and margins.

ServiceNow’s revenue growth is about 21%, while its net profit margin is 16%, giving it a rule-of-40 metric of 38%. That is a sign that the stock is a bit overvalued. However, adding its revenue growth and its FCF margin of 37% shows that it is not all that overvalued.

Read more: ServiceNow stock price analysis as a dangerous pattern forms

ServiceNow stock price analysis 

The daily chart shows that the NOW share price has crashed from a high of $1,196 in January to the current $722. It formed a double-top point at that point, which marked its turnaround. The stock has dropped below the ascending trendline that connects the lowest swings since May 5.

ServiceNow stock price has also formed a death cross after the 200-day and 50-day moving averages crossed each other. This is one of the most popular bearish crossover patterns.

Therefore, it will likely continue falling after earnings, with the initial target being at $680. A move above the ascending trendline will point to more gains.

The post Is ServiceNow stock a buy or a sell ahead of earnings? appeared first on Invezz

On April 17 (Thursday), Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) in the antitrust case concerning its advertising technology business, casting a shroud of uncertainty over the future of the tech giant’s online advertising business.

Brinkema will now need to determine what remedies to impose on Google to restore fair market competition. The plaintiffs sought to force Google to divest its Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and its ad exchange, to restore competition in the market. This outcome is far more likely following Judge Brinkema’s ruling.

This is a developing story happening alongside a similar case against Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), which is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegedly monopolizing social media through its acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

This trial against Google began in September 2024, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit comprise the Department of Justice (DOJ) and attorneys general from eight states.

The plaintiffs argued that Google’s dominance in ad tech allowed it to charge higher prices and take a larger share of ad sales. They accused Google of stifling competition by controlling the technology used to place ads on websites across the internet.

The ruling against Google marks a significant step in one of numerous anti-competitive cases brought against Google in the past few years, both in the US and internationally.

It follows an earlier ruling in August 2024 in which Google was found to have an illegal monopoly in the online search market in the US. That case will move into the remedies phase next week, with a court date of April 21, 2025.

“This is a game-changer,” wrote Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of the plaintiffs in both cases. “As Judge Brinkema writes in her decision, Google was in direct violation of the Sherman Act by dictating how digital ads are sold and the terms under which its rivals can compete.

‘With this victory in hand, we can hopefully work now towards restoring a fair, free, and competitive digital advertising marketplace. This decision is the first step in opening up competition so that Connecticut businesses and consumers will pay less for advertising – and therefore less for goods and services. We will no longer be under the thumb of a gigantic multinational conglomerate.”

US District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled against Google in the August 2024 case, has considered imposing structural remedies that could involve forcing Google to divest its Chrome business, although Google has argued divestiture would hurt consumers. Instead, the company has suggested allowing browser companies to have multiple default agreements with various search engines.

Regulators have been digging into various aspects of Google’s business, including its advertising technology, search practices and mobile operating system.

In addition to the current case, Google is also facing scrutiny from antitrust regulators in Europe, the UK and other jurisdictions. The outcomes of these cases could have far-reaching implications for Google’s business model and the tech industry as a whole.

Today’s ruling signifies a major development in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market dominance, which echoes efforts to dismantle AT&T’s (NYSE:T) phone monopoly in the 1980s. The eventual outcome of that case led to AT&T’s breakup into seven independent enterprises, which laid the groundwork for some of today’s major telecommunications and internet services providers, including Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Lumen Technologies (NYSE:LUMN). It also gave cable companies like Comcast room to expand into internet services.

Whatever outcome Judge Brinkema decides, the ruling could reshape the online advertising landscape and have far-reaching implications for both the company and the broader tech industry.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Chinese online retailer Temu, whose “Shop like a billionaire” marketing campaign made its way to last year’s Super Bowl, has dramatically slashed its online ad spending in the U.S. and seen its ranking in Apple’s App Store plunge following President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on trade partners.

Temu, which is owned by Chinese e-commerce giant PDD Holdings, had been on an online advertising blitz in recent years in a bid to attract deal-hungry American shoppers to its site. With hefty spending on TV ads as well across Facebook, the company promoted clothing, jewelry, home goods and electronics at bargain basement prices.

The strategy was so effective that Temu topped Apple’s list of the most downloaded free apps in the U.S. for the past two years. Downloads of Temu on Apple’s App Store have fallen 62% in recent days, according to data from SimilarWeb, a digital data and analytics company. Ads for 50-cent eyebrow trimmers and $5 t-shirts that used to blanket Google search results and Facebook feeds have all but disappeared.

President Trump’s tariffs have upended Temu’s business model, along with its advertising strategy. Packages shipped from China are now subject to a tariff rate of 145%, while the de minimis provision, which allows shipments worth less than $800 to enter the country duty-free, is set to go away on May 2.

Temu and Shein, a fast-fashion marketplace with ties to China, plan to raise their prices in response to the tariffs. Both companies posted notices to their websites in recent days that warned they’ll be raising prices late next week.

“Due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs, our operating expenses have gone up,” Temu said on its site. “To keep offering the products you love without compromising on quality, we will be making price adjustments starting April 25, 2025.”

Sellers on Amazon’s third-party marketplace, many of whom source their products from China, have said they’re considering raising prices as they reckon with higher costs from the tariffs. Many businesses on TikTok Shop, the social media app’s marketplace, also count on Chinese manufacturers for their items.

Amazon launched a competitor to Temu last November, called Amazon Haul, which features items under $20 that are largely from China.

The Temu app is now No. 69 in a list of the top free apps in the U.S., after consistently ranking in the top 10, according to data from Sensor Tower. Shein is currently at 42, down from 15 last month. PDD’s shares that trade in the U.S. have plummeted 22% this month, compared to the Nasdaq’s 6% drop. Shein is privately held.

Rival Chinese retailers have subsequently risen to the top of the app store ranks, including Beijing-based wholesaler DHgate, which surged to the No. 2 top free iPhone app in the U.S., and Alibaba’s Taobao, which ranked No. 7. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that viral videos promoting their cheap products have spurred the download frenzy.

A separate analysis by SimilarWeb showed Temu’s paid traffic, or search, display and social media advertising that drove visits to its website, has dropped 77% since April 11. Temu’s paid traffic previously outpaced nonpaid traffic to its website by 2 1/2 times, Ben Parkes, a consumer goods and retail analyst at Similarweb, said in an interview.

Marketing firm Tinuiti found that 20% of U.S. Google Shopping ad impressions were bought by Temu on April 5. A week later, that number had fallen to zero. By comparison, Shein’s impressions remained at 17% on April 12, while 60% of impressions were bought by Amazon.

Representatives from Temu and Shein didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Temu was previously one of Meta’s largest advertisers, but it appears to have dramatically scaled back its spending on the platform. As of Wednesday, Temu is running six ads across Meta platforms in the U.S., a review of Meta’s ad library shows. Temu is running approximately 27,000 ads across Meta sites and apps globally, particularly in Europe and the U.K.

That could be troublesome for Meta’s advertising business, which has gotten a significant boost from the discount retailer. Advertising analyst Brian Wieser at Madison and Wall estimated that more than $7 billion of Meta’s $132 billion in ad revenue in 2023 came from China. Meta is scheduled to report first-quarter results on April 30.

E-commerce analyst Juozas Kaziukenas said he expects Temu to turn its ads back on in the U.S. at some point, but that the company appears to be shifting its dollars to other markets in the interim.

“It doesn’t mean Temu usage has dropped as significantly as the app did,” Kaziukenas said in an email. “But it means that new user acquisition is gone.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

The Trump administration announced sanctions against the International Bank of Yemen Y.S.C. (IBY) on Thursday for its financial support of Houthi terrorists.

Along with the bank, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is sanctioning key leaders of IBY, like its Chairman of the Board of Directors Kamal Hussain Al Jebry; Executive General Manager Ahmed Thabit Noman Al-Absi and Deputy General Manager Abdulkader Ali Bazara. By sanctioning IBY, the U.S. hopes to stop Houthi attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea.

‘Financial institutions like IBY are critical to the Houthis’ efforts to access the international financial system and threaten both the region and international commerce,’ Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Michael Faulkender said. ‘Treasury remains committed to working with the internationally recognized government of Yemen to disrupt the Houthis’ ability to secure funds and procure key components for their destabilizing attacks.’

Based in Sana’a, Yemen, the IBY is controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis and provides the group with access to the bank’s Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) network to make international financial transactions, the Treasury said.

The IBY, for instance, has allegedly aided Houthi businesses and officials to pursue oil on the SWIFT network, while also facilitating attempts by the terrorist group to evade sanctions oversight.

Under Thursday’s sanctions, all property and interests in property of the leaders named, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.

OFAC’s regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within, or transiting, the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons. 

U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce spoke about the sanctions during a press briefing Thursday, sending a message to anyone who supports foreign terrorist organizations like the Houthis.

‘The United States is committed to disrupting the Houthi financial networks and banking access as part of our whole-of-government approach to eliminating Iran’s threat network,’ she said. ‘Moreover, we can confirm the reporting that Chang Guang Satellite Technology Company Limited (CGSTL) is directly supporting Iran-backed Houthi terrorist attacks on U.S. Interests. Their actions and Beijing’s support of the company, even after our private engagements with them, is yet another example of China’s empty claims to support peace.

She continued, urging partners of the U.S. to judge the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese companies on their actions, and not just their words.

‘Restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea is a priority to President Trump,’ Bruce said. ‘Beijing should take this priority seriously when considering any future support of CGSTL. The United States will not tolerate anyone providing support to foreign terrorist organizations such as the Houthis.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Shares of Wipro Ltd dropped as much as 6.3% on Thursday after the IT services firm issued a disappointing revenue forecast for the June quarter, raising concerns of a third consecutive year of decline amid persistent global tech spending cuts.

India’s fourth-largest IT exporter said on Wednesday it expects revenue in the April-June period to fall between 1.5% and 3.5% sequentially, with new Chief Executive Srini Pallia warning that “uncertainties have dramatically increased” going into the new fiscal year.

The guidance, analysts said, marks a worrisome start for fiscal 2026 and signals continued headwinds despite a leadership change.

Pallia, who took over in April 2024 following the abrupt exit of Thierry Delaporte, inherits a company grappling with a string of weak quarters, stalled large deals, talent attrition, and market share erosion.

Wipro shares were down 5% as of 11:51 am IST on Thursday, extending their year-to-date decline to 22.4%.

While that is marginally better than the broader Nifty IT index’s 24.8% fall, it underscores growing investor scepticism about the firm’s prospects.

Analysts warn of a third year of revenue contraction

Brokerages were quick to flag that Wipro’s first-quarter guidance could derail any early hopes of a recovery.

“The first quarter guidance sets the stage for another challenging year following two years of revenue decline,” analysts at Phillip Capital said in a note.

Several firms—including Nomura, Nuvama, Emkay, and ICICI Securities—trimmed their FY26 and FY27 earnings estimates, citing elevated macroeconomic uncertainty, slowing transformation project spends, and the lingering impact of geopolitical tensions and tariffs, particularly in key markets like the United States.

Nomura cut its FY26 earnings per share (EPS) estimates by 2–4% and revised the target price to ₹280 from ₹300.

It maintained a Buy rating, citing improved shareholder return policies, but warned that its earnings projections remain 8–9% below Bloomberg consensus.

Nuvama downgraded the stock to Hold and reduced its price target to ₹260, stating that Wipro’s weak first-quarter guidance jeopardizes the turnaround thesis.

The brokerage lowered its FY26/27 EPS estimates by up to 3.7%.

Muted forecast triggers widespread downgrades

At least nine out of the 39 analysts covering the stock have downgraded their ratings, while 20 have cut their price targets, according to LSEG data.

The average analyst rating remains at “Hold”, but the median target price has declined by nearly 14% to ₹250 over the past month.

Emkay Global said the company’s Q1 outlook factors in both potential demand recovery and further weakness.

It maintained a “Reduce” rating with a ₹260 target, highlighting low near-term visibility despite a strong deal pipeline.

ICICI Securities termed the March quarter’s performance “abysmal,” citing weak revenues and macro concerns—especially in discretionary-heavy sectors like auto and manufacturing.

The firm said the lone bright spot was the total contract value (TCV) from two large deal wins, but added that Wipro’s key challenge lies in translating orders into revenues and stabilising its European operations.

Brokerages remain cautious as growth triggers remain elusive

Motilal Oswal Financial Services (MOFSL) cut its FY26/FY27 EPS estimates by around 4%, anticipating a 1.9% YoY revenue decline in constant currency terms.

The brokerage retained its Sell rating with a target price of ₹215, implying a valuation of 17 times FY27 earnings.

Though some brokerages note positives such as improved capital allocation policies and a projected FY27 dividend yield of 4%, consensus suggests that the near-term outlook remains grim with little to spark a re-rating in the stock.

The post Analysts warn of a third year of revenue decline, stock downgraded as Wipro slides on weak Q1 forecast appeared first on Invezz