Alphabet Inc.’s Google is confronting a £5 billion ($6.6 billion) class action lawsuit in the United Kingdom, accused of exploiting its “near-total dominance” in the online search market to inflate advertising prices.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), alleges that Google’s anti-competitive practices have restricted rival search engines, reinforcing its market stronghold and overcharging advertisers since January 1, 2011. The case, brought by competition law academic Or Brook on behalf of hundreds of thousands of U.K.-based organizations, marks another chapter in the global scrutiny of Big Tech’s market power.

The class action, represented by law firm Geradin Partners, claims Google abused its dominant position to make itself the only viable destination for online search advertising, enabling it to charge higher prices than a competitive market would allow.

Or Brook, the lead claimant, stated, “UK businesses and organisations, big or small, have almost no choice but to use Google ads to advertise their products and services. Regulators around the world have described Google as a monopoly, and securing a spot on Google’s top pages is essential for visibility.”

She added, “Google has been leveraging its dominance in the general search and search advertising market to overcharge advertisers. This class action is about holding Google accountable for its unlawful practices and seeking compensation on behalf of UK advertisers who have been overcharged.”

The lawsuit highlights several specific practices allegedly used by Google to stifle competition:

Exclusive Deals with Smartphone Makers: Google is accused of contracting phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser on Android devices, limiting access to rival search engines.

Payments to Apple: The suit claims Google paid Apple billions to ensure it remained the default search engine on Safari, further entrenching its market position on iOS devices.

Favoritism in Search Ads 360: Google allegedly designed its search management tool, Search Ads 360, to offer superior functionality and features for its own advertising products compared to those of competitors, creating an uneven playing field.

A 2020 market study by the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) bolsters these claims, revealing that Google accounted for 90% of all revenue in the search advertising market and 90% of search queries, with over 200,000 U.K. businesses relying on its services for advertising.

Google’s Response

Google has dismissed the lawsuit as “yet another speculative and opportunistic case” and vowed to “argue against it vigorously.” A spokesperson told CNBC, “Consumers and advertisers use Google because it is helpful, not because there are no alternatives.”

The company argues that its market position stems from the quality and utility of its services rather than anti-competitive behavior.

This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal and regulatory challenges facing Google and other U.S. tech giants. In 2018, the European Union fined Google €4.3 billion ($4.9 billion) for abusing the dominance of its Android operating system by mandating the pre-installation of Chrome and Search alongside its Play Store. Google continues to appeal this penalty. More recently, in January 2025, the U.K.’s CMA launched an investigation into Google’s search services under the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act, focusing on its impact on consumers, advertisers, and competitors.

The case also aligns with broader global actions against Big Tech. This week, Meta Platforms faced a U.S. Federal Trade Commission antitrust trial that could force the divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp. Meanwhile, Microsoft and Amazon are under CMA scrutiny for alleged anti-competitive practices in the U.K.’s cloud computing market, following a £1 billion lawsuit against Microsoft in December 2024.

The £5 billion lawsuit follows a separate £7 billion class action certified by the CAT in November 2024, led by consumer rights advocate Nikki Stopford. That case, which focuses on Google’s practices passing higher advertising costs to consumers, was allowed to proceed to trial after the CAT rejected Google’s attempt to dismiss it. The Stopford lawsuit cites similar allegations, including Google’s deals with Apple and Android manufacturers, and draws on a 2024 U.S. Department of Justice ruling that found Google’s search practices anti-competitive.

The U.S. ruling proposed remedies such as prohibiting Google from securing default search engine agreements, selling Chrome, and restricting Android’s favoritism toward Google Search. These developments lend weight to the U.K. lawsuits, suggesting a growing international consensus on Google’s market abuses.

The £5 billion lawsuit could have severe implications for Google’s business model and the digital advertising industry. A successful claim might result in significant compensation for affected U.K. advertisers and force Google to alter its practices, potentially opening the market to greater competition. The case also underscores the U.K.’s increasing assertiveness in regulating digital markets, bolstered by new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act.

However, with the lawsuit filed just days ago, legal proceedings are in their early stages. Google’s vigorous defense and the complexity of proving anti-competitive harm suggest a protracted battle ahead.

Posts on X reflect a mix of skepticism and concern about the lawsuit, with some users describing it as a “UK shakedown” while others highlight Google’s long-standing dominance in search. The case has drawn attention from financial and legal analysts, with outlets like Reuters and The Financial Express framing it as a significant challenge to Google’s market power.

Brazilian fintech Méliuz has taken steps toward adopting Bitcoin as a primary treasury asset. In March 2025, the company allocated 10% of its cash reserves, about $4.1 million, to purchase 45.72 bitcoins at an average price of $90,926 per coin, becoming the first publicly traded Brazilian firm to adopt a Bitcoin treasury strategy. The move, approved by its board, aims for long-term returns, with Méliuz viewing Bitcoin as a store of value to counter Brazil’s high inflation and interest rates (13.75% benchmark). A Bitcoin Strategic Committee was formed to explore further expansion, potentially making Bitcoin the main treasury asset.

Méliuz announced plans to deepen this strategy, calling a shareholder meeting for May 6, 2025, to vote on amending its corporate purpose to include Bitcoin investments. If approved, Bitcoin could become the primary strategic asset in its treasury, with shareholders able to seek reimbursement at R$3.93 per share if they oppose the change. The market has responded positively, with shares rising 16-25% after initial announcements. Méliuz’s leadership, inspired by firms like MicroStrategy, cites Bitcoin’s historical 77% annual appreciation in USD over the past decade and Brazil’s crypto-friendly environment, where 12% of the population owns digital assets.

However, the strategy carries risks due to Bitcoin’s volatility and regulatory uncertainties, especially after Brazil’s central bank considered banning stablecoin transfers to self-custodial wallets in February 2025. Analysts, like those at XP, caution that this move may not align with Méliuz’s core cashback and financial services business, potentially diverting focus from operational goals.

Brazil has developed a progressive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, balancing innovation with oversight to foster adoption while addressing risks like fraud and money laundering. Below is an overview of the current state of crypto regulations in Brazil as of April 2025. Enacted in December 2022 and effective since June 20, 2023, this law provides the legal foundation for regulating virtual assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) in Brazil. It defines virtual assets as digital representations of value that can be traded or transferred electronically for payments or investments, excluding fiat currencies, securities, and financial assets under existing regulations.

Decree No. 11,563/2023: Designates the Central Bank of Brazil (Banco Central do Brasil, BCB) as the primary regulator for VASPs and non-security virtual assets, while the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) oversees assets classified as securities. VASPs, including exchanges, custodians, and trading intermediaries, must obtain BCB authorization to operate. The law mandates adherence to guidelines such as: Anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) measures aligned with international standards (e.g., Financial Action Task Force recommendations).

The BCB is adopting a phased approach to finalize detailed regulations, with proposals expected by the end of 2024 and full implementation targeted for early 2025. Public consultations (December 2023–January 2024 and planned for mid-2025) are shaping rules on asset segregation, stablecoin regulation, and operational norms. VASPs have a six-month grace period post-regulation to comply. In October 2024, BCB Governor Roberto Campos Neto announced plans to regulate stablecoins and asset tokenization in 2025, citing their growing use for payments and concerns over tax evasion and illicit activities.

Brazil, as a FATF member, has not yet implemented the Travel Rule for crypto transactions, though it was discussed in public consultations (e.g., Question 30 in the January 2024 consultation). Crypto transactions (selling for fiat, trading, or using for goods/services) are subject to capital gains tax, with progressive rates of 15% to 22.5% based on annual gains. Costs like fees can reduce the taxable amount. Crypto received from mining or as payment for services is taxed as regular income at 7.5% to 27.5%.

Import taxes on SHA256-based mining equipment (e.g., Bitcoin miners) are temporarily reduced to zero until December 31, 2025, following IMF recommendations classifying crypto mining as a productive process. The Brazilian Real (BRL) is the sole legal tender. Cryptocurrencies are classified as movable property or assets, not currency, under the Brazilian Civil Code. They can be used for payments if accepted privately but lack legal tender status.

The Virtual Assets Law amended the Penal Code to introduce specific penalties for crypto-related fraud, with imprisonment of 4–8 years and fines. Money laundering and financial system crimes involving crypto are also penalized. In April 2025, Brazil’s National High Court ruled that cryptocurrencies can be seized to settle debts, reinforcing their legal status as assets. A bill to create a national Bitcoin strategic reserve was dismissed by the BCB in April 2025, and pension funds are prohibited from investing in cryptocurrencies, indicating regulatory caution.

Méliuz’s move to allocate 10% of its treasury to Bitcoin and propose it as a primary asset reflects growing corporate confidence in crypto, supported by Brazil’s regulatory clarity. However, the BCB’s February 2025 consideration of banning stablecoin transfers to self-custodial wallets raised concerns about restrictive policies. Detailed VASP regulations are still pending, creating uncertainty. The BCB’s delay in finalizing rules (from June 2024 to 2025) reflects the complexity of regulating a decentralized market.

The BCB’s focus on stablecoins for tax evasion and illicit use could lead to restrictive measures, potentially impacting Méliuz’s Bitcoin strategy if broader crypto policies tighten. Analysts warn that Méliuz’s Bitcoin treasury strategy may expose it to market volatility and divert attention from its core fintech operations, a concern echoed in broader regulatory debates about crypto’s role in financial systems.

Brazil’s crypto regulations, centered on Law No. 14,478/2022, create a structured yet evolving framework that supports adoption while prioritizing AML/CTF and consumer protection. The BCB’s phased approach and upcoming stablecoin rules signal a cautious but proactive stance. For Méliuz, the regulatory environment offers legal clarity for its Bitcoin treasury strategy, but pending stablecoin restrictions and market volatility pose risks. The shareholder vote on May 6, 2025, will be a key indicator of corporate confidence in Brazil’s crypto landscape.

California launched a bold legal challenge against President Donald Trump today, filing a federal lawsuit to halt his sweeping tariff regime, which the state argues is an unlawful power grab that threatens its economy.

The first state to confront Trump’s protectionist trade agenda head-on, California claims the tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—are illegal, unprecedented, and already wreaking havoc on its farmers, businesses, and families.

As global markets reel and trade tensions fray U.S. alliances, the lawsuit marks a pivotal clash over presidential authority and the future of American trade.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to void Trump’s tariffs, including a 10% levy on all imports and higher duties on China, Mexico, and Canada. Governor Gavin Newsom, a vocal critic of Trump, announced the action on X.

“Donald Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax hike of our lifetime with his destructive tariffs. We’re taking him to court,” he said.

The suit argues that Trump’s use of the IEEPA, a 1977 law meant for economic emergencies like sanctions, not tariffs—exceeds his powers, violating the Constitution’s assignment of tariff authority to Congress.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, joining Newsom at a 1:30 p.m. ET press conference in the Central Valley, called the tariffs “chaotic and haphazard,” adding, “As the fifth largest economy in the world, California understands global trade policy is not just a game.”

The state contends that the tariffs inflict “immediate and irreparable harm,” threatening its $491 billion import and $183 billion export markets, with over 40% of trade tied to Mexico, Canada, and China. From almond growers to Silicon Valley tech firms, California’s industries face soaring costs and retaliatory barriers, with Newsom’s office estimating billions in damages already.

California’s economy, larger than all but four countries, is uniquely exposed to Trump’s tariffs. The state’s ports handle a third of U.S. imports, and its farmers rely on foreign markets for nuts, fruits, and vegetables. The tariffs, which have driven a $6 trillion S&P 500 plunge since early April, are projected to raise household costs by $3,800 annually, per the Yale Budget Lab, hitting low- and middle-income families hardest. Tech giants like Apple, dependent on Chinese components, and automakers face supply chain chaos, while post-wildfire rebuilding efforts stall due to pricier imported materials like steel and timber.

“Californians are bracing for fallout,” Bonta told NBC News, citing threats to Central Valley farmers, Sacramento small businesses, and “worried families at the kitchen table.”

Newsom has scrambled to shield the state, urging trading partners to exempt California exports from retaliation, but with no deals secured, the lawsuit represents a last stand to protect jobs and growth.

White House Fires Back

The Trump administration hit back hard, framing California’s lawsuit as a distraction from the state’s domestic woes. White House spokesman Kush Desai told CNBC, “Instead of focusing on California’s rampant crime, homelessness, and unaffordability, Gavin Newsom is spending his time trying to block President Trump’s historic efforts to finally address the national emergency of our country’s persistent goods trade deficits.”

Desai defended the tariffs as critical to reviving U.S. industries, vowing the administration would use “every tool at our disposal, from tariffs to negotiations.”

Trump, who declared April 2 “Liberation Day” for American trade, has justified the tariffs under IEEPA by citing trade deficits, $1.2 trillion in goods in 2024, as a national emergency. His executive order imposes a 10% tariff on all imports starting April 5, with higher rates for countries like China (54% total) and non-USMCA goods from Mexico and Canada (25%), effective April 9. The White House argues these measures protect workers and curb reliance on foreign supply chains, pointing to exemptions for steel, semiconductors, and energy to soften domestic blowback.

California’s lawsuit joins a growing wave of legal challenges to Trump’s tariffs, though none carry the state’s economic clout. The Liberty Justice Center, representing small businesses, sued on April 14 in the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a Florida case on April 3, both arguing IEEPA doesn’t authorize tariffs. California’s case, however, leverages the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine,” asserting that actions with vast economic impact—like tariffs—require clear Congressional approval, which IEEPA lacks.

Global and Domestic Ripples

Trump’s tariffs have sparked a global trade war, with China imposing 84% duties on U.S. goods and allies like Canada and Mexico mulling retaliation. Over 75 countries are said to be negotiating exemptions, with Japan, South Korea, and the EU securing 90-day reprieves. California, meanwhile, faces isolation as its pleas for exemptions falter, amplifying the urgency of its legal push.

Domestically, the lawsuit reignites Newsom’s feud with Trump, who faced over 120 California suits in his first term.

Newsom said this is about protecting American families from chaos, casting the fight as a defense of national interests. But critics, including Desai, argue it’s political grandstanding, diverting focus from California’s budget deficit and social challenges.

California’s lawsuit could reshape U.S. trade policy and test the limits of executive power. A victory for Newsom and Bonta might unravel Trump’s tariffs, easing economic strain but emboldening other states to challenge federal authority. A loss could cement Trump’s ability to wield IEEPA unchecked, with tariffs becoming a permanent fixture.