Today China announced an investigation into NVIDIA for possible violations of antitrust laws. This is apparently in retaliation for the recent U.S. embargo on semiconductor exports, Reuters reported. China's State Administration for Market Regulatory Affairs (SAMR) did not provide specific details about the antitrust violations however it said they may allegedly be linked to NVIDIA's acquisition of Mellanox Technologies in 2020. NVIDIA once dominated China's AI market with over 90% of the market share, however, it now generates just 17% of its revenue from the region, down from 26% two years ago. The decline in income is a direct result of U.S. export controls as NVIDIA was forced to develop Chinese-specific chip versions.

The investigation on NVIDIA mirrors China's 2013 antitrust probe against Qualcomm's local subsidiary for overcharging and abusing market position in wireless communication standards. The investigation resulted in a $975 million fine which Qualcomm agreed to pay. Recently, the United States announced additional export restrictions adding 140 Chinese companies from the semiconductor industry including chip equipment manufacturers. Shortly after, China announced a ban on exports of key minerals (gallium, germanium, and antimony) while Chinese industry associations urged domestic companies to avoid U.S.-made chips.

Xockets, inventor of Data Processing Unit (DPU) technology has launched a legal battle against NVIDIA and Microsoft. The lawsuit, filed in Texas, accuses the companies of forming an illegal cartel to avoid fair compensation for its patented DPU technology. Xockets claims that the Data Processing Unit technology its co-founder Parin Dalal invented in 2012 is fundamental to NVIDIA's GPU-enabled AI systems and Microsoft's AI platforms. The lawsuit alleges that NVIDIA has infringed on Xockets' patents since its 2020 acquisition of Mellanox, a deal NVIDIA's CEO Jensen Huang once called a "homerun." Xockets is seeking injunctions to halt the release of NVIDIA's new Blackwell GPU-enabled AI systems and Microsoft's use of these systems in their generative AI platforms.

The case touches on the bigger issues of intellectual property rights and the monopoly in the tech sector. Robert Cote, a Xockets board member, describes the suit as a fight against "Big Tech's predatory infringement playbook," accusing NVIDIA and Microsoft of making moves to devalue smaller companies' innovations. The AI revolution continues to transform the tech world, and this legal dispute may have a profound effect on the way intellectual property is valued and protected in the industry, possibly introducing new precedents for the relationship between tech giants and smaller innovators.

The U.S. Department of Justice has stepped up its probe into NVIDIA and several other companies in the hopes of gaining evidence that NVIDIA could have violated antitrust laws. The DOJ moved from sending questionnaires to issuing subpoenas requiring recipients to provide more information. This puts the government one step closer to potentially filing a formal complaint. Antitrust officials are concerned that NVIDIA might be making it difficult for customers to switch to other suppliers and could be penalizing those who don't exclusively use its AI chips, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The probe, which first came to light in June via Bloomberg, has seen investigators reaching out to other tech companies for information. The DOJ's San Francisco office is leading the inquiry, though the department has declined to comment publicly on the matter. In response to the investigation, NVIDIA said in an emailed statement that its market dominance is due to the superior quality and performance of its products. "NVIDIA wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, who can choose whatever solution is best for them".

NVIDIA has reportedly been hit with a US Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust probe over the tactics the company allegedly employs to sell or lease its AI GPUs and data-center networking equipment, "The Information" reported. Shares of the NVIDIA stock fell 3.6% in the pre-market trading on Friday (08/02). The main complainants behind the probe appear to be a special interest group among the customers of AI GPUs, and not NVIDIA's competitors in the AI GPU industry per se. US Senator Elizabeth Warren and US progressives have been most vocal about calling upon the DOJ to investigate antitrust allegations against NVIDIA.

Meanwhile, US officials are reportedly reaching out to NVIDIA's competitors, including AMD and Intel, to gather information about the complaints. NVIDIA holds 80% of the AI GPU market, while AMD, and to a much lesser extent, Intel, have received spillover demand for AI GPUs. "The Information" report says that the complaint alleges NVIDIA pressured cloud customers to buy "multiple products". We don't know what this means, one theory holds that NVIDIA is getting them to commit to buying multiple generations of products (eg: Ampere, Hopper, and over to Blackwell); while another holds that it's getting them to buy multiple kinds of products, which include not just the AI GPUs, but also NVIDIA's first-party server systems and networking equipment. Yet another theory holds that it is bundle first-party software and services to go with the hardware, far beyond the basic software needed to get the hardware to work.

On July 1st, Reuters reported that the French antitrust authority plans to file charges against NVIDIA for alleged anti-competitive practices, marking France as the first country to take such action against the tech giant. This follows a raid on NVIDIA's local offices in September 2023, as we reported here, which was part of a broader investigation into the graphics card and cloud computing sectors. A recent report released by French authorities regarding competition in generative AI highlighted concerns about potential abuses of power by chip suppliers, specifically noting the industry reliance on NVIDIA. If NVIDIA is to be found guilty of charges made by French authorities it can be facing fines of up to 10% of its global annual revenue. However, NVIDIA may have the option to make concessions to avoid such penalties.

As the world's largest manufacturer of AI chips and computer graphics cards, NVIDIA is under intense scrutiny from antitrust authorities in Europe and the United States. The European Commission is gathering informal feedback to assess whether NVIDIA had breached its antitrust rules, though it has not yet launched a formal investigation. The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are reportedly conducting joint investigations into NVIDIA, Microsoft, and OpenAI, reflecting growing regulatory concern in the United States over these tech giants' market influence.

Microsoft and Activision Blizzard have announced the postponement of their agreed merger deadline—from July 18 (yesterday) to mid-October. This will grant them more time to deal with a sticky issue presented by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority blocking of the proposed $75 billion acquisition—on the grounds of potential deleterious effects within the cloud gaming market. Xbox boss, Phil Spencer made a short statement on the matter earlier today: "Microsoft and Activision Blizzard have extended the merger agreement deadline to 10/18. We're optimistic about getting this done, and excited about bringing more games to more players everywhere."

Lulu Cheng Meservey, CCO and EVP Corporate Affairs at Activision Blizzard, stated: "The recent decision in the U.S. and approvals in 40 countries all validate that the deal is good for competition, players, and the future of gaming. Given global regulatory approvals and the companies' confidence that CMA now recognizes there are remedies available to meet their concerns in the UK, the Activision Blizzard and Microsoft boards of directors have authorized the companies not to terminate the deal until after October 18. We're confident in our next steps and that our deal will quickly close."

Apple and Epic Games have been locked in a bitter legal feud for two years, relating to an antitrust case started by the latter company. The iPhone and Mac computer giant has made an appeal to the US Supreme Court—as demonstrated in a court filing that was released to the public on Monday (June 3). They request that justices take up its appeal of a ruling for tomorrow (June 7) by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court (of Appeals). A 2021 verdict determined that Apple had to cease anti-steering practices. Apparently game developers were restricted to certain payment practices (imposing of fees) within the iOS App store. Epic Games sued Apple for anti-competitive practices back in 2020, with the US district court of California rejecting nine of out Epic's ten claims the following year—only the aforementioned anti-steering case was allowed to proceed.

The Ninth Circuit rejected petitions from Apple and Epic late last week—both companies urged that the court reconsider an April 2023 decision about the Californian law violation. Epic thinks that certain legal decisions have been made in Apple's favor, and the latter continues to rile against the App Store order. It argues that Epic was the sole "non-representative" plaintiff, yet the injunction applies to all iOS developers and US states outside of California. Apple believes that the ruling "raises far-reaching and important questions" about the federal court's limited authority to issue injunctions that apply to organizations not directly involved in the case.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an injunction earlier this week, in a renewed effort to temporarily block Microsoft's $69 billion bid for full ownership of the Activision Blizzard group. A judge has today granted the regulatory body's request. The court has issued a temporary restraining order—in which it states the legal measure "is necessary to maintain the status quo while the complaint is pending." The FTC proposes that the acquisition has the potential to "substantially lessen competition" within North America's gaming sector. Microsoft and Activision are required to attend a two-day hearing—scheduled for 22 June in San Francisco, California.

The FTC had previously penciled in an August 2 session with an internal administrative judge, following the expiration of Microsoft's proposed deadline (July 18) for the merger. A company spokesperson (commenting to Eurogamer) expressed that leadership was happy about the FTC's decision to bring proceedings forward in time: "Accelerating the legal process in the US will ultimately bring more choice and competition to the gaming market. A temporary restraining order makes sense until we can receive a decision from the Court, which is moving swiftly." The legal document outlines terms including the prevention of "any of their officers, directors, domestic or foreign agents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, partnerships, or joint ventures from closing or consummating, directly or indirectly, the proposed transaction or a substantially similar transaction."

There were rumblings late last week about China's competition regulatory bodies giving Microsoft the go ahead for its proposed takeover of the Activision, Blizzard & King games publishing group. The crowd-sourced content site Seeking Alpha was the first online outlet to break the news last Friday - the author had learned from capital market firm - Dealreporter - that China's State Administration for Market Regulation had granted unconditional approval for the $68.7 billion bid, following the conclusion of a "Phase 3" investigation. The latest judgement arrived only a few days after the EU Commission's approval of the deal.

Microsoft has chosen to make an official announcement about this verdict - and has today released statements to several gaming news outlets, including GamesIndustry.biz and Eurogamer: "China's unconditional clearance of our acquisition of Activision Blizzard follows clearance decisions from jurisdictions such as the European Union and Japan, bringing the total to 37 countries representing more than two billion people. The acquisition combined with our recent commitments to the European Commission will empower consumers worldwide to play more games on more devices." Microsoft's next challenge sits with the US government's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - a final deliberation is due this August.

Microsoft's $68.7 billion deal to acquire Activision Blizzard has been approved by EU regulators today - rumors emerged late last week that the bloc's executive arm, the European Commission, would give the takeover bid a thumbs up this week, with early indications that May 15 would be the day of declaration. EU antitrust regulators have let the acquisition pass due to commitments/reassurances from Microsoft relating to the cloud gaming sector. This is in sharp contrast to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) organization's judgment, who chose to block the deal in late April and have since added restrictions (as of late last week) via a new interim order.

EU antitrust regulators have found that Microsoft "would have no incentive to refuse to distribute Activision's games to Sony" and that "even if Microsoft did decide to withdraw Activision's games from the PlayStation, this would not significantly harm competition in the home gaming console market." But the European Union's competition regulators have found points of concern (much like the UK CMA's further investigations) and reckon that the segment could be disrupted in the area of cloud gaming services - on PC and console platforms. The body has received the promise of several remedies from Microsoft - these matters will be resolved through flexible terms - including a free license to consumers in EU countries that will grant stream access to "any cloud game streaming services of their choice" - with the ownership of Activision Blizzard PC and console titles (current and future). Cloud providers operating within EU markets will also be offered a free license to stream the Acti-Blizz library.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has set further restrictions on Microsoft and Activision Blizzard, thus preventing the mega corporations "acquiring an interest" in each other. An interim order has been published and uploaded to the United Kingdom government's website, as of last week - stating that these companies would require "prior written consent" from the CMA before the making of any business deals. The order is applicable to their main entities as well as smaller subsidiaries.

It was reported a week ago that Microsoft was lawyering up in preparation for its appeal against the UK ban of the $69 billion acquisition (encompassing Activision, Blizzard Entertainment, and King Digital Entertainment). Rumors emerged just before last weekend that EU regulators had largely approved the merger - with Reuters claiming that the deal had received clearance from the European Commission.

Brad Smith, vice chair and president at Microsoft has been doing the rounds with the UK press, and the incensed executive continues to express anger about the nation's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) preventing his company's proposed buyout of Activision Blizzard. The UK antitrust watchdog yesterday blocked the deal on the grounds that a merging of (already massive) games publishers could result in a potentially catastrophic skew in Microsoft's favor within the fast growing cloud gaming market sector. The CMA's latest findings suggest that the takeover would "lead to reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come." This verdict comes as a major blow to Microsoft's gaming division following a number of victories - including Japan's competition regulator approving the takeover bid late last month. The company's gaming division (Xbox Game Studios) is awaiting verdicts from the EU commission and US Federal Trade Commission.

In a business-themed podcast interview (conducted by the BBC), Microsoft boss Brad Smith declared that the UK government's blocking of the merger represented a bad move "for Britain" in terms of attracting international business. Microsoft has been operating in country for four decades, and Smith casts doubt on that relationship - in his opinion - the mega corporation has experienced its "darkest day" in the region: "It does more than shake our confidence in the future of the opportunity to grow a technology business in Britain than we've ever confronted before. People are shocked, people are disappointed, and people's confidence in technology in the UK has been severely shaken." Smith insists that fledgling companies should look elsewhere to start a base of operations: "There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom."

The Sky UK news network has gathered intel from industry and government sources about an industry event that is due to take place next week at a very famous location - 10 Downing Street - the residence of the UK's Prime Minister. Sky News has been informed that Microsoft has been invited to attend the showcase by the UK Interactive Entertainment (UKIE) industry organization - best described as the main trade body for the nation's games and interactive entertainment sector. The American technology behemoth is expected to display and demonstrate their Xbox gaming product range in front of top politicians and key entertainment industry figures. There is no mention of representatives from Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) being invited to attend in a similar capacity. The timing of this UKIE organized event (to take place on April 26) is highly controversial as it will coincide with the UK's Competition and Markets Authority's statutory deadline to deliver a Phase-2 verdict on Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) regulatory body has already delivered a provisional approval of the aforementioned deal, but stated that it required more time to investigate the potential for irregularities in competition within the cloud gaming sector. The Phase-2 verdict, due to be delivered next week, is anticipated to include the antitrust watchdog's finalized judgement on cloud gaming market affairs. Sky's insider sources in the city of London have speculated that Microsoft could face a humiliating situation at the 10 Downing-hosted party, if by coincidence the CMA changes its opinion on the Activision Blizzard takeover bid. If the competition regulator stays consistent with its (earlier) provisional decision, Microsoft could be criticized for its extensive courting of government organizations - not only in the UK, but around the world.

Sony is not happy about the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recent provisional approval of Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, and has highlighted the apparent removal of a Microsoft-owned game from being developed on the PlayStation 5. According to legal documents submitted to the UK government, Sony has taken issue with the watchdog's sudden change in opinion - the CMA's position was highly critical at the start of the year - and suspects that Microsoft's expensive PR campaign and submitting of "new evidence" to international competition regulators have influenced a change in direction of rulings. Sony's statement bears down on the unfair nature of the bid's approval: "The CMA's reversal of its position on its consoles theory of harm is surprising, unprecedented, and irrational."

Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) was the latest anti-trust governing body to give the takeover a thumbs-up, almost two weeks ago - a dramatic turn of events given that it happened on Sony's home turf. The embattled electronics corporation has taken notice of fresh developments in the press, and proceeded to mention controversy surrounding the Redfall platform war. Harvey Smith, the game's creative director, let slip too many details during a promotion tour and seemingly admitted that the higher-ups at Microsoft's Xbox division had decided to can the PlayStation 5 version of Redfall in favor of keeping it exclusive to Xbox, Game Pass and PC. Arkane Studios, as part of the ZeniMax Media Group, was acquired by Microsoft in 2021 - and certain games, already in development, were later released on the PlayStation 5 as timed exclusives, Deathloop being a prime example of this.

Japan's competition regulator, Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC), yesterday issued a press release in which it announces an approval of Microsoft's proposed $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard. The JFTC's review has concluded and their members have: "reached the conclusion that the transaction is unlikely to result in substantially restraining competition in any particular fields of trade." This represents another regional victory for Microsoft, and follows last week's approval of the deal by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The JFTC has informed both Microsoft and Activision Blizzard that a cease and desist order will be not be issued, thus completing its investigation.

The timing of this new development is raising eyebrows - in last week's Senate Finance Committee, several US Members of Congress raised concerns about Sony's "monopoly" over the Japanese gaming market. The Japanese government was also accused of being complicit in its inaction and has: "allowed Sony to engage in blatant anti-competitive conduct through exclusive deals and payments to game publishers." Games industry watchdogs have questioned why another rival console and games company, Nintendo, was not brought up as subject matter in the debate. Microsoft has dedicated considerable resources into getting its proposed deal approved by international antitrust watchdogs, and has even offered to expand the Activision Blizzard games library onto Nintendo hardware platforms.

Microsoft has been quick to respond to a backlash from gamers who have been angered by reports of the company's prevention of a PlayStation 5 version of Redfall being developed by an internal studio - Arkane. The game's creative director, Harvey Smith, has been busy with press duties this week and might have slipped up by revealing too much about the Xbox Division's directives. In an interview with IGN France, Harvey stated that Microsoft held a policy of "no PlayStation 5" in the times following an acquisition of ZeniMax (parent group of Bethesda Softworks) in 2021. He elaborated on the regime change: "They came in and they said 'we're focusing on Xbox, PC and the Game Pass." Smith indicated that he embraced the decision since it was: "one less platform to worry about, one less complexity."

A Microsoft spokesperson provided a statement to Eurogamer: "We haven't pulled any games from PlayStation. In fact, we've expanded our footprint of games that we've shipped on Sony's PlayStation since our acquisition of ZeniMax, and the first two games we shipped after closing were PlayStation 5 exclusives. We did the same thing since our closing of Minecraft as we extended the reach of that franchise. All of the games that were available on PlayStation when we acquired ZeniMax in March 2021 are still available on PlayStation, and we have continued to do content updates on PlayStation and PC. We have always said that future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis."

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) regulatory body has today delivered its provisional approval of Microsoft's proposed purchase of the Activision Blizzard group, but has added that it will conduct further reviews into the topic of whether the buyout will have any detrimental effect on competition in the area of cloud gaming services: "where the CMA is continuing to carefully consider the responses provided in relation to the original provisional findings. The CMA's merger investigation continues, and it remains due to issue its final report by 26 April 2023."

The antitrust watchdog's stance looks to have changed in a significant way since February, when it declared that Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard had the potential to "harm U.K. gamers". New evidence has been presented to the CMA in recent weeks, and its members have moved to provisionally conclude that: "overall, the transaction will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in relation to console gaming in the UK."

Back in January, Intel overturned an antitrust ruling by the EU and didn't have to pay the $1.2 billion fine, but it seems like the company isn't satisfied with getting out of having to pay a huge fine, but is now asking the EU to compensate the company for interest lost. As such, Intel has filed for "payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the European Commissions refusal to pay Intel default interest" with the EU General Court. The sum of money Intel is asking for is based on the European Central Bank's refinancing rate and as the original fine was levied back in 2009, Intel claims they're owed more than half of the value of the fine.

Intel is also expecting further interest on the money, if the payment is late from the EU. It should be noted that the European Commission has already paid Intel €38 million in interest on the fine that was paid back in 2009, but Intel is clearly not happy and is asking for a much greater sum. However, the battle between the European Commission and Intel isn't over, as the Commission is working on appealing the ruling, so depending on the outcome of that appeal, Intel might have to pay back the fine to the EU. For those that don't remember the original reason for the antitrust fine, Intel was accused of giving rebates to certain partners and system integrators to make sure they didn't use AMD products in their systems, among other things.

A federal judge in Seattle has recently ruled that the antitrust class-action lawsuit brought against Valve by Wolfire Games over their Steam Key Price Parity Provision can proceed. The Key Price Parity Provision is a policy that prohibits game developers from pricing their games cheaper on competing storefronts such as the Epic Games Store even if they offer lower fees. The judge noted that Valve "relies on provisions within Steamworks Documentation to impose conditions on how non-Steam-enabled games are sold and priced." and that "Valve also threatens game publishers with punitive action, including removal of their Steam-enabled games, if they sell non-Steam-enabled versions of those games at lower prices,". The ruling states that allegations of the company exploiting it's market dominance to threaten and retaliate against developers were "sufficient to plausibly allege unlawful conduct". This decision will allow for a class-action lawsuit to be brought against Valve.

Epic Games today announced it has filed an antitrust complaint against Apple in the European Union (EU), expanding the company's fight to advance fairer digital platform practices for developers and consumers. The complaint, filed with the European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition, alleges that through a series of carefully designed anti-competitive restrictions, Apple has not just harmed but completely eliminated competition in app distribution and payment processes. Apple uses its control of the iOS ecosystem to benefit itself while blocking competitors and its conduct is an abuse of a dominant position and in breach of EU competition law.

The complaint complements legal processes already underway in both the US and Australia, as well as Epic's recent filing before the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal. "What's at stake here is the very future of mobile platforms." Epic Games founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said today. "Consumers have the right to install apps from sources of their choosing and developers have the right to compete in a fair marketplace. We will not stand idly by and allow Apple to use its platform dominance to control what should be a level digital playing field. It's bad for consumers, who are paying inflated prices due to the complete lack of competition among stores and in-app payment processing. And it's bad for developers, whose very livelihoods often hinge on Apple's complete discretion as to who to allow on the iOS platform, and on which terms."

The European Commission today fined, in four separate decisions, consumer electronics manufacturers Asus, Denon & Marantz, Philips and Pioneer for imposing fixed or minimum resale prices on their online retailers in breach of EU competition rules.

The fines totalling over €111 million were in all four cases reduced due to the companies' cooperation with the Commission.

It's a record-setting fine: the European Commission has officially ruled that Google must pay a fine of €4.34 billion for breaking antitrust laws, specifically related to the implementation of its services within the Android ecosystem. The three key areas within which the EC has found wrongdoings pertain to bundling of its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system; blocking phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android (claiming, without proof, that these versions would offer more security risks), and "made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators" to exclusively bundle the Google Search app on handsets.

Google now has 90 days to comply with the EC's decision (notwithstanding payment of the fine), which Google, obviously, has already announced will appeal the decision. In a statement to The Verge, a Google representative said that "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation, and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition," and that Google "(...) will appeal the Commission's decision." The idea here seems to be to stop Google from forcing manufacturers to bundle their app and search software stacks - many times in a seemingly unremovable way. You can check the press release in the source link, but some of the more interesting snippets have been collated after the break.

Another year, another European Commission fine for an antitrust violation. This time, the target of the fine is none other than Google. In what could be the most important antitrust ruling in recent years (which overshadows even Microsoft's 2004 browser fine), the EC has found that Google has systematically worked towards increasing prominence in search results to those displayed by the company's own comparison shopping service, dubbed "Google Shopping". "Google Shopping" started in 2004, when Google entered the comparison shopping market in Europe, with a product that was initially called "Froogle", renamed "Google Product Search" in 2008 and since 2013 has been called "Google Shopping".

However, it would seem that Froogle wasn't all that successful. When Google entered the comparison shopping markets with Froogle, there were already a number of established players, which dampened the company's market foray. The EC states that Google was aware that Froogle's market performance was relatively poor, pointing to one internal document from 2006 that stated, quite plainly, that "Froogle simply doesn't work".

You probably have heard about security giant Kaspersky having previously fired some shots (figurative ones, which translated into a very real antitrust complaint recently) towards Microsoft. The gist of the issue stands on Windows' handling of third party security software suites, with Windows sometimes removing those suits' installations on basis of "incompatibility" with more recent Windows versions. Other points of conflict mention the coloring in Windows Defender, where a user's security status appears as "not green", which leads customers towards believing that even though their systems have a third party security software installed, only Windows Defender can really and fully protect them (which is visually conveyed by the Window adopting a green coloring when customers select to activate Windows Defender.)

Russian-based Kaspersky Labs is backing away from its earlier threat of an antitrust case filing with the European Commission, instead opting for a "wait and see" approach with regards to its complaints with Microsoft over Windows 10 and its included security software "Windows Defender."

Kaspersky Labs has been threatening to press an antitrust action since November 2016, when in a November blog post titled "That's it. I've had enough!" Chief Executive Eugene Kaspersky complained that Microsoft did not give developers ample time to prepare for a new Windows release, and was using their "compatibility checker" tool to effectively remove competing software in favor of Windows Defender.