June 30 (UPI) — Britain is challenging Apple and Google for not allowing developers to pull users away from their app stores.
The Competition and Markets Authority said Tuesday that Google and Apple have an “effective duopoly” on mobile phones by not allowing developers to engage with users or make purchases outside of the app stores.
The CMA said at least 90% of mobile devices in the United Kingdom are running on Apple or Google platforms. It said allowing “steering” away from the platforms by developers would increase market competition.
Both companies now charge a commission of up to 30% on in-app purchases. Google said it has already made the changes.
CMA Executive Director Will Hayter said choice is important for competition and consumers.
“We think it is important to give both app developers and users more choice about how they communicate and how they transact,” Hayter said in a statement. “This is not only because choice is inherently valuable but also because we see this as the best way to introduce some competitive pressure in a vital part of the mobile ecosystem that is otherwise sorely lacking such pressure.”
Hayter said the CMA isn’t trying to take away fees altogether.
“While it is only fair for Apple and Google to be compensated for the services they provide, any fees they charge must be justified through a robust, evidence-led framework involving due reference to both cost and value,” he said.
Apple responded that steering will make users less protected from scams.
“When users are directed away from Apple’s trusted payment infrastructure, they lose the protections they rely on Apple to provide. We will continue to make our concerns clear in our ongoing dialogue with the CMA,” an Apple spokesperson told The Guardian.
WASHINGTON — Licensed gun owners have a right to carry a concealed firearm into stores and other private places unless the owner objects, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The 6-3 decision extends gun rights and strikes down laws in Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
Those measures would prohibit carrying guns onto private property that is open to the public unless the owner has expressly authorized them.
“This regime hobbles what the 2nd Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said for the court.
The new laws, if upheld, would “impose severe restrictions on the daily activities of residents who have satisfied the state’s rigorous requirements for the issuance of a carry permit. When these permit holders leave home in the morning, … they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, drug stores, grocery stores, ‘big box’ stores, home improvement stores, barber shops or hair salons, dry cleaners, and laundromats.”
The three liberals dissented, saying the law would protect property owners who don’t want guns in their stores.
“There is no constitutional right to enter private property without the owner’s permission, let alone with a firearm,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Trump administration lawyers had joined a coalition of Hawaii gun owners in urging the court to strike down these blue state laws in the case of Wolford vs. Lopez.
They said the laws, if enforced, would mean “a person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant or a coffee shop.”
This litigation is part of much broader debate over where guns may be permitted or prohibited.
Four years ago, the justices ruled that law-abiding persons had a right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun when they left home. They also agreed there are “sensitive places” where guns may be prohibited, such as schools, courts and other government buildings.
In response, lawmakers in California and Hawaii adopted their own lists of “sensitive places.” They imposed restrictions on concealed weapons at parks, beaches, playgrounds, places of worship and public transit as well as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Gun owners sued but the 9th Circuit Court refused to block most of those restrictions in a single 83-page opinion covering Hawaii and California. Both states would prohibit carrying guns onto private property open to the public without the owner’s consent.
The 9th Circuit upheld that measure in principle but said California went too far by requiring the owner to post a prominent sign expressly authorizing guns.
“While today’s ruling in Wolford is disappointing, owners still have every right to decide whether firearms are allowed in their stores and businesses,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law. “The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner’s authority over their own land.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition said the court had properly protected gun rights and barred states from carving out their “own regional version of the 2nd Amendment.”
“The historical record does not support forcing peaceable people to obtain advance permission before carrying for self-defense in places held open to them,” the group said.
Last week, the court upheld gun rights in a Texas case and said the government may not make it a crime for an “unlawful user” of a drug such as marijuana to own a gun.
A BRITISH seaside town has unveiled plans for a £1.8million makeover.
The picturesque coastal area is set to introduce a car-free promenade along with new shops, outdoor seating and beach-side gardens.
Felixstowe boasts sandy shores and sweet coloured beach huts along with an Edwardian pier that’s 2,640 ft long.
The Suffolk port town attracts thousands of tourists every summer, providing a quintessential British seaside experience.
And now the are has unveiled plans to give the beachy location a £1.8million revamp.
The South Seafront Project aims to “create a beautiful, welcoming environment which supports the visitor economy as well as benefitting both residents and businesses”.
The plans outlined by East Suffolk Council add that the makeover will focus on ensuring the “seafront continues to be a viable tourism destination” as well as making Felixstowe an “attractive place to live, work and visit all year round”.
The council also hope to “address the higher levels of deprivation in the South Seafront area” with the refurbishments.
The budget will be used to improve lighting and signage along the seafront plus boosting the town’s transport options and providing better access to the front.
Cars could be banned from the road along the promenade in order to create opportunities for independent stores, food outlets, outdoor seating and garden spaces.
While the finer details of the proposals are still being developed, it is hoped that councillors will give backing to the plans.
If the work is able to go ahead, it’s predicted that it will be able to begin by next spring.
Earnings Call Insights: Yesway, Inc. (YSWY) Q1 2026
Seeking Alpha’s Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by an AI tool based on content available on the Seeking Alpha website, and has not been curated or reviewed by humans. Due to inherent limitations in using AI-based tools, the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such articles cannot be guaranteed. This article is intended for informational purposes only. Seeking Alpha does not take account of your objectives or your financial situation and does not offer any personalized investment advice. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank.
