– The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is taking steps to address Google’s stronghold on the country’s search market. On 24 June 2025, the CMA proposed giving Google “Strategic Market Status” (SMS) under the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA).

This marks the first significant move from the CMA since gaining extra powers to oversee digital markets. Google handles more than 90% of general search queries in the UK, so this move could change how businesses and consumers use the web’s main search tool.

In its detailed plan, the CMA signals a tougher approach towards the biggest tech companies. Google, which is part of Alphabet, is central to the UK’s digital economy. Over 200,000 local businesses depend on Google’s search ads to reach customers.

According to TechCrunch, the regulator’s plan could require Google to offer users more search engine options and fairer results for businesses. These steps are meant to boost competition and give people more choice, breaking the long-standing monopoly of one company.

There will be a consultation running until February 3, with a final decision on Google’s SMS status set for 13 October 2025.

The DMCCA, which came into effect on 1 January 2025, is the biggest update to UK competition and consumer law in over ten years. It was passed in May 2024, just before the last general election. The law gives the CMA stronger tools to monitor digital markets, review mergers, and uphold consumer rights.

This new framework lets the CMA act before anti-competitive problems cause harm, a faster approach than older rules. While it is similar in some ways to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the UK version is designed to be more flexible and to fit the UK’s needs.

To receive SMS status under the DMCCA, a company must have clear and lasting market power, play a major role in a digital sector, and have a turnover above £25 billion worldwide or £1 billion in the UK. Google’s dominance in search makes it an obvious candidate.

The CMA started its review on 14 January 2025, focusing on whether Google’s control over search and search advertising harms competition and innovation. The regulator is also looking into Google’s and Apple’s mobile systems, widening the scope of its investigations.

For most UK internet users, Google is the main way to find information online, with people running between five and ten searches each day. Businesses of all sizes use Google to connect with customers, with search ads making up a key part of their marketing.

Still, the CMA has raised issues about barriers for rival search engines, Google’s use of personal data without clear consent, and the terms it sets for publishers whose content appears in search results. CMA Chief Executive Sarah Cardell pointed out that while Google has delivered many benefits, there are ways to make these markets more open, competitive and innovative.

If these changes go ahead, how Google operates in the UK could shift. The CMA’s outline includes giving users a choice of search engines, making search rankings fairer, and making it easier for people to move their data between services.

Publishers may gain better insight and control over how their content appears, especially in Google’s AI-powered features like AI Overviews. These plans focus on helping smaller competitors and making sure businesses get a fair deal. TechCrunch has suggested that these changes could reduce Google’s long-running control over the market, opening opportunities for other firms.

Google has reacted with caution, describing the CMA’s proposals as “broad and unfocused” but has said it will work with the regulator. Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior competition director, has warned that these measures could impact both businesses and consumers in the UK by reducing access to Google’s features.

Google has faced similar investigations in other countries and was hit with a €2.4 billion fine from the EU for favouring its Shopping service, a decision upheld in 2024. Companies like EasyJet and LoveHoney have also criticised Google, raising concerns from driving traffic to intermediaries to blocking content through SafeSearch.

The CMA’s actions are part of a global trend of regulating large tech companies. Its new powers allow for more tailored rules than the EU’s approach, but challenges remain.

The CMA must balance its goals with the Labour government’s focus on growing the economy, especially in areas like AI and cloud computing, where tech firms invest heavily. Political issues, such as possible US tariffs under President Trump, could also affect how these rules are put into practice.

Over the next few months, the CMA will consult with advertisers, publishers and user groups. The outcome will shape how digital markets are regulated in the UK. With a deadline of 13 October 2025, the CMA’s decision could change how Google runs its UK business and help create a more open and competitive online environment.

Sources: GOV.UK, TechCrunch

– Tech Giants known for driving progress and providing jobs are seeing huge changes in 2025. Major companies such as Microsoft, Google, IBM, and smaller businesses like Bumble have announced job cuts impacting more than 76,000 employees across over 130 firms, according to NDTV.

Economic challenges and the fast spread of artificial intelligence (AI) are behind these changes, marking a shift in the industry’s direction. As companies look for ways to automate and reduce costs, many traditional jobs are disappearing, leaving thousands of workers facing an uncertain future.

Microsoft has led this round of changes, cutting 6,000 jobs in May 2025, its largest round since 2023. Nearly 2,000 roles were lost in Washington state, mainly targeting middle management and back-office positions, as the company pushes to flatten its structure and focus on engineering. Another wave of layoffs, expected to hit thousands in sales, is planned for July.

People close to Microsoft say its heavy spending on AI, especially in cloud and business services, is reshaping its workforce. An internal memo shared that the company wants to make decisions faster and keep teams in line with its main goals, reflecting a larger move across the industry to work more efficiently.

Google has also reduced its team. In May, the search leader let go of 200 staff from its Global Business Organisation, after earlier cuts affected its Android, Pixel, and Chrome teams. These followed a huge 12,000-person layoff in 2023, as Google works to adapt its business to the changes brought by AI in search and advertising.

A spokesperson told Reuters that the goal was to boost teamwork and improve customer service. Still, the growing focus on hiring AI talent over traditional roles shows Google is shifting towards automation.

IBM has taken a strong approach to AI, laying off about 8,000 people, mostly in Human Resources. CEO Arvind Krishna explained at IBM’s annual Think conference that AI agents now handle many tasks, from answering staff questions to paperwork, cutting the need for human HR support.

Krishna told The Wall Street Journal, “We’re using AI to make our processes faster.” While IBM says its overall staff numbers have risen, with savings put into software and sales hiring, the layoffs are clear proof that AI can replace jobs faster than it creates new ones in some areas.

Smaller companies aren’t immune. Bumble, based in Austin, Texas, announced it would cut 30% of its staff, around 240 jobs, to save $40 million each year. That money will fund new product features and more AI-driven tools, according to a filing.

Bumble’s decision matches a wider trend where even niche firms change their teams to stay ahead in an AI-focused market.

The overall data is tough to ignore. Industry experts say more than 61,000 tech jobs vanished by mid-May, with the number set to reach 76,000 by June. Intel tops the list with plans to cut 25,000 roles, almost a fifth of its staff, as it reorganises under new CEO Lip-Bu Tan.

Amazon has removed 100 jobs from its Devices and Services group, which includes Alexa and Kindle. Cybersecurity company CrowdStrike has cut 5% of its staff to improve profits. These losses, covering hardware, software, and services, show how deeply AI and the economy are affecting the industry.

AI brings both progress and disruption. While it helps companies automate tasks and boost output, it also changes or removes many jobs. IBM’s Krishna pointed out that AI in HR has wiped out hundreds of roles, yet the company is still hiring in fast-growing fields like quantum computing. Google’s changes also put skilled AI experts ahead of traditional business teams, showing the industry’s changing needs.

Oliver Shaw, CEO of Orgvue in the UK, told CCN.com that AI is automating work and changing job roles everywhere, which reduces the need for some skills and forces companies to rethink their teams.

Public reaction has been strong. On X, the hashtag #TechLayoffs2025 has trended as people criticise tech giants for putting profits before workers. Posts highlight Microsoft’s report that 30% of its code now comes from AI, raising concerns that even tech roles are at risk.

Many believe the rush to use AI, while good for efficiency, raises serious questions about job security and fair pay. One user wrote, “At this rate, people will be begging for houses without smart gadgets,” showing how worried some are about technology’s growing influence.

The job losses have political effects, too. Lawmakers are under pressure to help, with calls for better unemployment support and retraining for those who lose work.

The McKinsey Global Institute warns that by 2030, up to 30% of US jobs could be automated, with 12 million people facing job loss. This highlights how important it is to have strong plans for helping workers switch careers.

There are some signs of hope. IBM is using its AI savings to hire for technical roles, and Microsoft is focusing on engineering hires, indicating a shift in job types rather than a full-scale reduction. Severance packages and job help from companies like Bumble and Meta offer some relief, but the bigger trend raises real questions about the future of jobs as AI becomes central to business.

As leading tech firms deal with tough economic times and fast-moving technology, one message is clear: being flexible and efficient is key. The 2025 cuts mark a turning point, pushing the sector to rethink how it does business. Workers now face the task of learning new skills for a world where AI drives change. The changes in the tech sector will continue, and their effects will be felt in the wider workforce for years to come.

Sources: Reuters

Bumble Cuts 30% of Its Staff as Dating Apps Hit Tough Times

Meta achieved a major legal victory as a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that its AI model, Llama, did not breach copyright law by training on books written by a group of well-known authors, including Sarah Silverman.

This decision in the Kadrey v. Meta Platforms case may shape the way courts handle similar copyright lawsuits involving AI. Earlier in the week, a separate court decision in Bartz v. Anthropic addressed fair use in AI training, but left open questions about the use of copyrighted content. Together, these rulings highlight a turning point for AI companies, creative professionals, and copyright law.

The case began in July 2023 when authors Richard Kadrey, Christopher Golden, and Sarah Silverman accused Meta of using their books—sourced from piracy sites like LibGen—to train Llama. They claimed Meta removed copyright details to hide its actions and asked the court to stop Meta’s AI model training and pay damages.

Judge Vince Chhabria sided with Meta, relying on the fair use principle, which allows some use of copyrighted material for things such as research or parody. He pointed out that Meta’s AI did not copy the books word-for-word but used them to build a model that generates new language. The judge also noted that the authors had not shown that Meta’s use of their books would harm sales of the original works, which is key in fair use cases.

Chhabria wrote that Meta’s approach does not compete with or replace the original books, so the market for the authors’ work would not suffer. Meta’s legal team welcomed the decision, saying fair use is central to developing its AI technology. Meta has argued that its use of publicly available material, even if sourced from shadow libraries, falls under fair use.

This wasn’t without pushback. The plaintiffs’ lawyers, led by David Boies, argued that Meta’s use of pirated books disrespects creators’ rights. They said Meta took entire copies of their works instead of licensing them. Judge Chhabria acknowledged the ethical issues but focused on whether Meta broke the law, which he found it did not.

Just before the Meta decision, the Bartz v. Anthropic case reached an important milestone. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson accused Anthropic of using their copyrighted books to train its Claude AI model, with millions of books sourced from piracy sites.

Judge William Alsup decided that Anthropic’s use of legally bought books to train its AI counted as fair use, describing it as very transformative. He compared the process to someone reading books to become a better writer, stressing that the AI model creates something new rather than copying the original works. This is the first time a court has directly ruled on fair use in AI training.

However, Alsup’s ruling came with a warning. While using legally bought books was protected, keeping pirated books in Anthropic’s database was not. The judge ordered another trial for December 2025 to decide how much Anthropic might owe for holding about 7 million pirated books. With damages starting at $750 per book, Anthropic could face a huge bill. Alsup made clear that buying a book later does not erase responsibility for first downloading it illegally.

Anthropic supported the court’s view on fair use but disagreed with the decision to continue the case over the pirated library. The company is considering its next steps.

These two rulings have mixed results for the AI industry. They strengthen the idea that training AI models on copyrighted works can be fair use if the use is transformative and does not threaten original sales. This is good news for companies like Meta, OpenAI, and Google, all facing similar lawsuits. Judge Alsup’s decision could be used as a reference in future cases.

At the same time, the Anthropic decision highlights the risk of using pirated material. Both Meta and Anthropic built their training sets with content from sites like LibGen. Courts are less willing to ignore this practice now. While Meta avoided liability, the Anthropic case suggests future lawsuits may focus more on how companies gather their training data.

This may push AI developers to work out licensing deals with publishers or find other legal ways to get training content, which could slow progress or raise costs.

For authors and other creators, these outcomes are mixed. Some feel the courts’ support of fair use makes it harder to claim payment or licensing fees from AI companies. The next phase of the Anthropic trial could still give authors hope for damages when their works are used without permission.

More broadly, these cases show that the debate over copyright and AI will only get more heated as AI tools become more common in areas such as entertainment and education. Legal experts expect these issues to reach higher courts, including potentially the Supreme Court, to set clearer rules. For now, the Meta and Anthropic cases show that copyright law is being tested in new ways by AI, with the need to find the right balance between innovation and creator rights.

The AI industry is taking stock after these rulings, but more legal challenges are coming. Dozens of lawsuits continue against companies like OpenAI, Midjourney, and Stability AI, covering different aspects of fair use and copyright. Some AI firms are now making licensing deals with publishers to avoid legal trouble, a trend that may grow after the Anthropic case.

Meta’s recent win is a boost, but the company still faces criticism for admitting to using pirated sources. Many in the writing community remain upset, highlighting the ethical questions that go beyond what’s legal. As AI technology advances, control over the data that powers it—and decisions about who benefits—will keep shaping the discussion.

Sources: WIRED, Reuters

How Shopify’s AI Store Builder is Transforming Online Shopping