National

Google is launching a pilot program to keep emails from political campaigns from going to users' spam folders this week, the company told Axios.

Why it matters: Gmail users may start seeing a lot more political emails in their inboxes, partly a result of Google bowing to pressure from conservatives who claimed the company marked Republican emails as spam more often than others.

What's happening: Google asked the Federal Election Commission in June if a program that would let campaigns emails bypass spam filters, instead giving users the option to move them to spam first, would be legal under campaign finance laws.

Despite hundreds of negative comments submitted to the FEC arguing against it, the FEC approved the program in August. Eligible committees, abiding by security requirements and best practices as outlined by Google, can now register to participate.

Between the lines: Google has come under fire that its algorithms unfairly target conservative content across its services, and that its Gmail service filters more Republican fundraising and campaign emails to spam. 

This is partly based on a study from North Carolina State University, though its authors say it has been misconstrued.

What they're saying: "We expect to begin the pilot with a small number of campaigns from both parties and will test whether these changes improve the user experience, and provide more certainty for senders during this election period," José Castañeda, a Google spokesperson, told Axios. "We will continue to listen and respond to feedback as the pilot progresses."

"During the pilot, users will be in control through a more prominent unsubscribe button," he said.

How it works: Once political campaigns are enrolled in Google’s pilot program, they will no longer be affected by Gmail’s standard forms of spam detection, though Gmail will keep scanning messages for phishing and malware.

Users will see a banner on the first email from participants in the program, asking if they want to keep seeing the messages, unsubscribe or report as spam. 

Context: Online political fundraising has been a roller coaster for both parties in the past few months ahead of the midterms. Reaching potential donors via email is seen as highly important for fundraising.

Online donations to Democrats have surged in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in June overturning Roe v. Wade, with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee breaking fundraising records the day after the ruling.

Republicans have fallen behind in small-dollar donating, per the Washington Post. And per a New York Times report from earlier this month, the Republican National Senatorial Committee collected a record $181.5 million by the end of July, but only had $23.2 million on hand at the beginning of August. 

Exclusive: Gmail launches pilot to keep campaign emails out of spam

Despite hundreds of negative comments, the FEC approved the program in August.

Illustration of Google "G" symbol with spotlight on it but only partially

Email

Big Tech

Google is launching a pilot program to keep emails from political campaigns from going to users&#x27; spam folders this week, the company told Axios.Why it matters: Gmail users may start seeing a lot more political emails in their inboxes, partly a result of Google bowing to pressure from conservatives who claimed the company marked Republican emails as spam more often than others.

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Technology

Axios Markets

Some users of Figma's design software reacted with dismay on Thursday when they found out the company was going to be acquired by Adobe, the unloved giant in the space. Other observers immediately concluded that the acquisition looks downright illegal under antitrust laws.

Why it matters: The Biden administration is on the record as wanting to beef up antitrust enforcement. The Figma deal, at $20 billion, is certainly large enough to grab the attention of regulators. The big question is whether they'll conclude that suing to block it is a case they can win.

Either the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission could review the merger; both have taken a renewed interest in software and digital mergers. 

Between the lines: The Clayton Antitrust Act says any acquisition that would reduce competition in an industry is illegal.

Figma was founded as an Adobe competitor and has grown impressively by doing exactly that — implying there's a case to be made that this acquisition is anti-competitive. 

Insofar as Adobe is already the dominant player in the space, any acquisition, let alone a $20 billion one, will be looked at carefully. 

What they're saying: "The fact that Adobe is not typically identified as a Big Tech platform should provide [Adobe and Figma] with little if any comfort," Charles Rule, a partner at the Rule Garza Howley law firm and former DOJ antitrust official, tells Axios.

"This deal appears to raise straightforward, traditional antitrust issues," he says.  

"There's enough here to get a close look, and maybe a complaint," adds a former FTC antitrust official. 

Another former FTC attorney tells Axios to expect a thorough initial investigation into possible overlaps. 

For the record: "The combination of Adobe and Figma will greatly benefit consumers," Adobe said in a statement. "We expect the transaction to close in 2023, subject to the receipt of required regulatory clearances and approvals."

How it works: Once Figma becomes part of Adobe, it might be more free to raise its prices, since it'll no longer be driven by the need to win business away from Adobe.

Conversely, Adobe would also have more freedom to raise prices of its own legacy software, since if users flee to Figma they'd still remain Adobe customers. 

The big picture: Both FTC chair Lina Khan and DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter have been very open about wanting to go after Big Tech. 

What's not clear is whether Adobe, with its $138 billion market cap, is big enough to really count as Big Tech in their eyes — or if the regulators would be able to devote their strained resources to going after this deal.

Moreover, blocking a software deal is exceedingly difficult: even defining the market at issue is tough thanks to the malleability of software itself. 

The bottom line: Today's antitrust enforcers, with the benefit of hindsight, regret having let previous tech deals sail through — specifically Facebook's acquisition of onetime creative upstart Instagram. They don't want to make the same mistake twice.

Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny

The dominant player in design software is taking over a popular upstart competitor

Illustration of a hand holding a gavel that is about to slam down on a computer mouse. 

Antitrust law

Some <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="users" data-vars-click-url="https://www.figma.com/file/4mnaXLNqGVUPGnxIB8msRF/%F0%9F%96%A4-RIP-Figma-%F0%9F%96%A4?node-id=0%3A1" data-vars-content-id="6fd71dc2-2d64-4ff8-bf6e-f93630641695" data-vars-headline="Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.figma.com/file/4mnaXLNqGVUPGnxIB8msRF/%F0%9F%96%A4-RIP-Figma-%F0%9F%96%A4?node-id=0%3A1" target="_blank">users</a> of Figma&#x27;s design software <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="reacted" data-vars-click-url="https://twitter.com/_TommyMason/status/1570396411883294723" data-vars-content-id="6fd71dc2-2d64-4ff8-bf6e-f93630641695" data-vars-headline="Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://twitter.com/_TommyMason/status/1570396411883294723" target="_blank">reacted</a> <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="with" data-vars-click-url="https://twitter.com/juanbuis/status/1570424115554668551" data-vars-content-id="6fd71dc2-2d64-4ff8-bf6e-f93630641695" data-vars-headline="Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://twitter.com/juanbuis/status/1570424115554668551" target="_blank">with</a> <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="dismay" data-vars-click-url="https://twitter.com/anuragkrishh/status/1570406381991395329" data-vars-content-id="6fd71dc2-2d64-4ff8-bf6e-f93630641695" data-vars-headline="Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://twitter.com/anuragkrishh/status/1570406381991395329" target="_blank">dismay</a> on Thursday when they found out the company was going to be acquired by Adobe, the unloved giant in the space. Other observers immediately <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="concluded" data-vars-click-url="https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1570803431857848320" data-vars-content-id="6fd71dc2-2d64-4ff8-bf6e-f93630641695" data-vars-headline="Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1570803431857848320" target="_blank">concluded</a> that the acquisition looks downright illegal under antitrust laws.Why it matters: The Biden administration is <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="on the record" data-vars-click-url="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-jonathan-kanter-delivers-keynote-speech-georgetown-antitrust" data-vars-content-id="6fd71dc2-2d64-4ff8-bf6e-f93630641695" data-vars-headline="Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-jonathan-kanter-delivers-keynote-speech-georgetown-antitrust" target="_blank">on the record</a> as wanting to beef up antitrust enforcement. The Figma deal, at $20 billion, is certainly large enough to grab the attention of regulators. The big question is whether they&#x27;ll conclude that suing to block it is a case they can win.

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

The question of whether states can regulate what social media companies allow on their platforms is on its way to the Supreme Court.

Driving the news: Florida filed a brief Wednesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision against its controversial social media law after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit struck it down in May, deeming it unconstitutional.

Florida’s law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2021, could prevent platforms from removing content from news outlets, allow individuals to sue platforms if they believe content rules aren’t consistently applied and could fine social media services that ban political candidates in the state.

The 11th Circuit ruled 3-0 that it violated the First Amendment.

The big picture: States have increasingly been trying their luck at passing social media content laws that control how platforms can moderate content, and the Supreme Court weighing in could put an end to that—or unleash more efforts.

Laws in Texas and Florida, two states that have been the flashpoint of this debate, vary in language, but broadly compel platforms to carry speech deemed as "political" or having a "viewpoint." Both states allege unfair censorship of right-leaning content.

What they're saying: "Although we oppose legislation like Florida’s social media law, which threatens the First Amendment and democratic principles, [we agree] that the Supreme Court should resolve issues in this case," Matt Schruers, president of the Communications and Computer Industry Association, one of the groups that's been fighting the law in court, said in a statement. 

"With state legislatures considering a greater role for governments in online speech, the question of whether a government can compel social media services to disseminate content violating their policies is destined for the Supreme Court.”

Between the lines: Tech groups want the Supreme Court to stop other states from passing similar laws before more state legislatures follow the lead of Florida and Texas. Conflicting circuit court rulings meant the case was bound to end up at the Supreme Court.

Texas, which is trying to enact a similar law, had a win last week when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Texas law, HB20, does not violate the First Amendment rights of social media platforms.

Florida appeals to Supreme Court over controversial social media law

The question of whether states can regulate how social media companies decide what's on their platforms is headed to the Supreme Court.

Illustration of a silhouetted scales of justice, with the plates moving up and down.

Supreme Court

The question of whether states can regulate what social media companies allow on their platforms is on its way to the Supreme Court.Driving the news: Florida filed a brief Wednesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision against its controversial social media law after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit struck it down in May, deeming it unconstitutional.

As Meta shapes its antitrust defense, it has begun pointing out its plummeting stock price as a sign that competition is alive and well in its market.

Driving the news: Meta’s market value is down by more than 60% since the spring. It has lost ground to its surging rival TikTok, and its revenue has been curtailed by Apple's iOS privacy changes. 

During a hearing Monday on the future of a lawsuit brought against Meta by a group of states, Aaron Panner, the attorney representing Facebook, noted the exploding popularity of TikTok and other social media platforms and said, per Reuters: "Sometimes facts that are good for an antitrust defense are bad for business."

Meta's arguments imply that the company is simply no longer a colossus deserving so much government scrutiny and lawsuits over what regulators describe as its monopoly.

Why it matters: Most companies do everything they can to tell stories of growth and market dominance, but as Meta faces antitrust action by the Federal Trade Commission, the EU and U.S. states, the company is finding it useful to underscore its weakness.

By the numbers: Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Google are each worth more than $1 trillion. Meta is now worth less than half that.

Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Google are all currently in the top five companies globally by market cap. Meta sits around number 10.

TikTok was once again the most downloaded app globally last quarter, a position it's held for 8 quarters in a row, per Sensor Tower, an apps analytics firm. Meta keeps introducing changes to Facebook and Instagram to make them more like TikTok.

What they're saying: "The fact we compete with companies that are many times our size and have vast resources beyond ours is not lost on us," a Meta spokesperson told Axios. "We’re acutely aware that, despite the economic evidence of a hyper-competitive landscape, some regulators and politicians seem convinced that Meta has a monopoly."

In addition to highlighting its struggles to compete with TikTok on Capitol Hill and in earnings reports, Meta has blamed Apple's App Tracking Transparency feature, which lets iPhone users opt out of tracking for targeted advertising, for billions of dollars of lost digital advertising revenue.

Yes, but: Despite taking some major hits, Meta has 2.9 billion monthly active users  and had net income of $6.7 billion on $29 billion revenue last quarter. It's still buying other companies. Its global influence over information and advertising remains vast. 

The big picture: The FTC has sued Meta over its past acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram and recently filed suit to stop the company from buying VR fitness company Within. 

Abroad, Meta is fighting antitrust authorities in Germany, the EU and the U.K., in cases that look at Facebook Marketplace, digital advertising and the role of data. 

Meta has argued that its purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp a decade ago  benefitted users and that it helped grow the two companies in ways that would have been impossible without its resources. It says its acquisition of Within will significantly boost adoption and innovation in the fitness VR market.

The other side: "[The FTC and the Europeans] will say, 'We're not going after Meta because of market cap, we care about other exercising of monopoly power in social networking," Alden Abbott, former FTC general counsel, told Axios. 

"The scrutiny that Meta faces is of its own doing, resulting from the company's aggressive business practices and track record of misrepresenting how its products operate," Jared Holt, senior research manager at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, told Axios. 

"Though Facebook is starting to recede in popularity among some demographics, it and other products in Meta's portfolio remain dominant and important platforms around the globe," Holt said.

Meta: We’re not-so-big tech now

The company's big stock drop and competition from TikTok gives it new defenses against the charge of monopoly.

Illustration of a small Meta logo under a magnifying glass surrounded by a larger, out of focus version

Meta (company)

Federal appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law

The law bars big platforms from removing content if doing so discriminates against a "viewpoint."

Illustration of Facebook and Google app about to be deleted.

Freedom of speech

A federal appeals court dealt social media giants a blow Friday when it upheld a Texas law that seeks to stop platforms from removing posts if the removal can be viewed as discriminating against a &quot;viewpoint.&quot; Driving the news: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Texas law, HB20, does not violate the First Amendment rights of social media platforms.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

Ashley Gold

Stories

Florida appeals to Supreme Court over controversial social media law

Meta: We’re not-so-big tech now

Exclusive: Gmail launches pilot to keep campaign emails out of spam

Adobe-Figma deal likely to attract antitrust scrutiny

Federal appeals court upholds controversial Texas social media law