United News of Bangladesh

Epic Games, the creator of the popular online game Fortnite, secured a partial win Tuesday in its legal battle against Google and Apple in Australia over alleged anti-competitive practices in their app stores. The case, led by Epic’s U.S. billionaire CEO Tim Sweeney, accused the tech giants of abusing their market dominance to stifle competition and impose restrictive trade practices. Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach upheld key parts of Epic’s claims, finding that Google and Apple’s control of the app market substantially reduced competition and breached Australian competition laws. However, he rejected some of Epic’s allegations, including claims of unconscionable conduct under Australian law. The ruling follows litigation launched in August 2020 after both companies removed Fortnite from their app stores when Epic introduced a direct payment system, bypassing their platforms’ billing systems. Beach found that both Google and Apple pressured app developers, including Epic, through contracts and technology to sell exclusively via their app stores. YouTube to test AI-based age verification system in U.S. Epic hailed the decision, saying it would allow its Epic Games Store and Fortnite to launch on Apple’s iOS in Australia. “An Australian court just found that Apple and Google abuse their control over app distribution and in-app payments to limit competition,” the company said, calling it a “win for developers and consumers.” Apple welcomed the court’s dismissal of some claims but said it “strongly disagrees” with other findings. Google also disagreed with aspects of the ruling, saying it would review the decision. Both companies could appeal to the Federal Court’s full bench. Justice Beach has yet to release his full judgments — 952 pages on Apple and 914 pages on Google — but delivered a 90-minute oral summary of his findings. A separate hearing will be scheduled to determine potential damages owed to Epic.

Australia’s highest court on Wednesday made a landmark ruling that media outlets are “publishers” of allegedly defamatory comments posted by third parties on their official Facebook pages. The High Court dismissed an argument by some of Australia’s largest media organizations — Fairfax Media Publications, Nationwide News and Australian News Channel — that for people to be publishers, they must be aware of the defamatory content and intend to convey it. The court found in a 5-2 majority decision that by facilitating and encouraging the comments, the companies had participated in their communication. The decision opens the media organizations to be sued for defamation by former juvenile detainee Dylan Voller. Read:Bangladesh to launch ‘Jogajog’ as alternative to Facebook, says Palak Voller wants to sue the television broadcaster and newspaper publishers over comments on the Facebook pages of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, Centralian Advocate, Sky News Australia and The Bolt Report. His defamation case launched in the New South Wales state Supreme Court in 2017 was put on hold while the separate question of whether the media companies were liable for Facebook users’ comments was decided. The companies posted content on their pages about news stories that referred to Voller’s time in a Northern Territory juvenile detention center. Facebook users responded by posting comments that Voller alleges were defamatory. News Corp Australia, which owns the two broadcast programs and two of the three newspapers targeted in the defamation case, called for the law to be changed. Read: Over 11 mn Bangladeshis sign up as blood donors on Facebook The ruling was “significant for anyone who maintains a public social media page by finding they can be liable for comments posted by others on that page even when they are unaware of those comments,” News Corp Australia executive chairman Michael Miller said in a statement. “This highlights the need for urgent legislative reform and I call on Australia’s attorneys general to address this anomaly and bring Australian law into line with comparable western democracies,” Miller added. Nine, the new owner of The Sydney Morning Herald, said it hoped a current review of defamation laws by Australian state and territory governments would take into account the ruling and its consequences for publishers. “We are obviously disappointed with the outcome of that decision, as it will have ramifications for what we can post on social media in the future,” a Nine statement said. “We also note the positive steps which the likes of Facebook have taken since the Voller case first started which now allow publishers to switch off comments on stories,” Nine added. Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Voller’s lawyers welcomed the ruling for its wider implications for publishers. “This is a historic step forward in achieved justice for Dylan and also in protecting individuals, especially those who are in a vulnerable position, from being the subject of unmitigated social media mob attacks,” a lawyers’ statement said. “This decision put responsibility where it should be; on media companies with huge resources, to monitor public comments in circumstances where they know there is a strong likelihood of an individual being defamed,” the statement added. The High Court decision upholds the rulings of two lower courts on the question of liability. Courts have previously ruled that people can be held liable for the continued publication of defamatory statements on platforms they control, such as notice boards, only after they became aware of the comments.

Australia's highest court ruled Tuesday the government can't deport Aboriginal people as part of its policy of ridding the country of foreign criminals.

The most senior Catholic to be found guilty of sexually abusing children will learn this week whether Australia's highest court will hear his appeal against convictions for molesting two choirboys in a Melbourne cathedral two decades ago.