The European Union on Thursday hit Google with a fine of 890 million euros ($1 billion) after it said the technology behemoth broke digital antitrust regulations by setting up Google Play and its ubiquitous search engine to corral consumers towards its own services and apps to the detriment of competitors.

It was the latest major crackdown on Big Tech by Brussels, which has led the world in reining in some of the world's largest companies from Silicon Valley to Beijing.

It has done so despite the risk of incurring the wrath of President Donald Trump, who has lashed out at the 27-nation bloc's digital regulations amid a broader campaign against Europe: imposing high tariffs, making threats to seize Greenland from Denmark by force, and rattling trust within the NATO military alliance.

In the past, Trump has threatened retaliation if American tech companies are penalized.

Google had recently lost its appeal of a $4.5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the EU for throttling competition and reducing consumer choice through the dominance of its mobile Android operating system.

The European Commission, the bloc's executive branch and highest antitrust enforcer, said it was acting in the interest of consumers after an investigation of Google.

“The best products should succeed because they’re better, not because they’re owned by the company running the search engine. And European consumers have a right to be told by app developers where to sign up to the best offers, even when the app store owner does not get a cut,” said Teresa Ribera, the commission’s Executive Vice President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition.

Google’s President of Global Affairs Kent Walker blasted the fine as “product degradation driven by a small group of self-serving complainants” that will have a negative impact on European businesses and consumers.

He said that the EU’s Digital Markets Act forces Google “to strip away real-time search features Europeans love — like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights, and restaurants — and dismantle safety protections on Google Play.”

The EU describes the world’s seven tech giants — Amazon, Apple, Google parent Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and TikTok owner ByteDance — as “gatekeepers” that control access for consumers.

“In the EU, businesses have the right to compete fairly. Gatekeepers have the obligation to ensure a level playing field and consumers the right to choose for cheaper alternative offers,” European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said. Alphabet reported $403 billion in revenue in 2025.

Two Los Angeles County teenagers are suing Facebook, claiming the social network effectively sold their names and images to advertisers without parental permission.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles challenges a Facebook feature that allows members to note that they like an advertised service or product. Facebook broadcasts those endorsements to the user's friends.

The lawsuit also claims minors unwittingly endorse Facebook when people typing their names in a search engine are steered to a Facebook sign-up page.

The plaintiffs say Palo Alto-based Facebook is violating a California law that requires parental consent for children to make commercial endorsements. The teens seek unspecified damages.

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes says the lawsuit is meritless. He notes Facebook doesn't allow users under 18 to let their profiles appear on public search engines.

A business consultant wants a court to force YouTube and owner Google to unmask a cyber cipher who posted what she says are unauthorized videos of her and online comments that hurt her reputation.

Carla Franklin, a former model and actress turned MBA, said in a legal petition filed Monday that she believes a Google user or users impugned her sexual mores in comments made under pseudonyms on a Columbia Business School website. Franklin says someone also posted unauthorized YouTube clips of her appearing in a small-budget independent movie.

Mountain View, Calif.-based Google Inc. said in a statement that it doesn't discuss individual cases to protect users' privacy, but it follows applicable laws.

The postings caused Franklin "personal humiliation" and hurt her professional prospects as she was job-hunting after graduating from the Ivy League business school in 2009, her legal papers say.

The video clips were innocuous but unauthorized, and she found it creepy that someone had unearthed the film and posted pieces in an apparent effort to make her uncomfortable, her lawyer, David M. Fish, said Tuesday.

Anonymity is a cherished and staunchly defended refuge for many Internet users. But a growing number of people and businesses have tried to force blogs, websites and other online entities to disclose who's trashing them, and some have succeeded.

In one case that grabbed headlines, Vogue cover model Liskula Cohen successfully sued Google in a state court in Manhattan last year to get the name of a blogger who had published comments about Cohen's hygiene and sexual habits.

California-based law firm Kershaw, Cuttiner, and Ratinoff is asking for customers with iPhone 4 signal reception issues to contract them, likely signaling the beginnings of a class-action suit against Apple over the issues. An announcement was posted to their site this week.

The reception problem looks like it won’t be going anytime soon. While some have tried to argue that the problems are related to iOS4 itself, it seems highly unlikely it’s a software issue alone. With Apple confirming that the metal band around the phone does serve as an antenna, it seems as if any interference to that (including putting your hand over it) would degrade signal quality.

JDA Software may have to pay department store operator Dillard's $246 million in a dispute over a software licensing agreement, the company said Wednesday.

JDA, which makes which makes software that helps retailers manage inventory, said a Texas jury in state district court for Dallas County came down on the side of Dillard's in a ruling Tuesday.

Dillard's Inc. charged that JDA subsidiary i2 Technologies failed to meet its obligations under the licensing agreement.

JDA said it is reviewing the decision and will seek to have it overturned.

Shares of JDA Software Group Inc. fell 70 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $27 in premarket trading.

Microsoft on Thursday lost its bid for an en banc appeal in a patent case against i4i.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals refused Microsoft's request to hear the case with a full panel of judges. The case stems from a battle over an XML editor in Word, which i4i said infringed on one of its patents.

"We're disappointed with the decision," Kevin Kutz, director of public affairs for Microsoft said in a statement. "As far as next steps, we continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that still need to be properly addressed, and we are considering our options for going forward."

Loudon Owen, chairman of Toronto-based i4i, said the company "is delighted by this ruling."

Sex.com, one of the most valuable Internet domain names, will go up for auction next week after the previous owner defaulted on its debts.

Escom LLC paid a reported $14 million for the Web site in 2006. But the company failed to repay debt owed to DOM Partners LLC, the New Jersey-based lender that helped finance the deal.

As a result, sex.com will be sold "as is" in the equivalent of a foreclosure sale, according to a letter from DOM Partners' lawyers that was made public Tuesday. The auction is set for March 18 in New York, and bidders are required to appear with a certified check for $1 million to participate.

Richard Maltz, an auctioneer at Maltz Auctions who is overseeing the sale, said there has been a "good amount of interest" in sex.com. But he did not say how much the Web site could sell for.

"It is a very unique property," he said. "It will be an incredible opportunity for someone."

Indeed, sex.com generated $15,000 a day in revenue at one point, according to Charles Carreon, an attorney who wrote about the Web site's legal travails in his book "The Sex.com Chronicles."

By way of comparison, the domain name www.pizza.com reportedly sold for more than $2.5 million at an auction in 2008.