Last month the battle between the Australian government and Facebook came to a head when the tech giant blocked all news on Facebook Australia after the government put pressure on Facebook to pay news outlets for sharing content on its platform. Now, in an unprecendented move for the social media platform, Facebook has agreed to pay media giant News Corp for use of its news content as part of a three-year deal. But it's not the first time governments and big business have faced off in a big way. Click or scroll through the governments who took on some of the world's biggest companies.

Brazil, along with seven other Latin American countries, was locked in a heated dispute with Amazon for nearly seven years. The online retail giant filed to own the '.amazon' internet domain suffix in 2012, drawing complaints from the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which argued that the suffix was synonymous with the Amazon rainforest.

After a long battle, Amazon won the case. In May 2019 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) granted Amazon provisional permission to use the '.amazon' domain.

In 2013 the US Justice Department issued a search warrant to Microsoft to obtain emails as part of a drug trafficking investigation. Microsoft provided information held in US servers, but not content stored at its data centre in Ireland, sparking a debate over the Stored Communications Act in the US Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was finally dropped in March 2018, thanks to the creation of the CLOUD Act. The new act set out specific procedures for obtaining data needed in cross-border investigations. Both the Department of Justice and Microsoft agreed that these new regulations made the lawsuit moot.

In September 2015 large protests took place across Bulgaria against Uber, including a mass strike from taxi drivers in the city of Sofia. The ride-sharing app was accused of unfair trade practices, and there were complaints that its drivers were able to work without a professional driver's licence.

Bulgaria's transport and tax authorities carried out an investigation and the company was fined €50,000 ($56.2k/£36.4k). The supreme court banned the app in the country, despite 77% public disapproval. Uber has also been banned in Hungary, Denmark and the Northern Territory of Australia due to concerns over its potential impact on established taxi companies.

Chinese food giant Shanghai Pengxin has spent hundreds of millions of dollars investing in dairy farms across New Zealand since 2011. In 2015 it had its eyes set on buying the iconic Lochinver farm.

However, despite New Zealand's foreign investment body already approving the sale, there was a surprising twist when the government put a stop to the NZ$88 million ($66.6m/£43.1m) deal, reportedly as a result of increasing concerns over rising foreign investments in both businesses and property. In retaliation, Shanghai Pengxin bailed on a separate deal to buy 3,300 hectares of farmland in the country.

The FBI went up against Apple in 2016 following the shooting in San Bernardino, California that claimed 14 lives. The FBI took the tech giant to court in order to force it to unlock the phone of gunman Syed Rizwan Farook. Farook and his wife had been shot dead by police following their rampage. Despite a court order, Apple refused to create software to break entry into the iPhone; a move that was applauded by other tech companies for protecting users' privacy.

But the FBI found a way to access the phone thanks to an "outside party", putting an end to the court case. Apple CEO Tim Cook has subsequently said that he wishes the case had gone to court. Tensions between the two organisations flared up again in January 2020, as then-US Attorney General William Barr requested that Apple unlock two iPhones related to the shooting of three Americans at a naval base in Florida in December 2019. Apple again refused to weaken its encryption to provide information for the case.

Amazon has gone through its fair share of controversies, and recently reports alleged that the retail giant had been depriving its US delivery drivers of tips over a period of two and a half years. The company had reportedly advertised a salary of $18-$25 per hour for drivers delivering through its Amazon Flex programme, plus 100% of all tips earned on the job. In 2016 the hourly pay dropped but the company did not inform drivers – or customers giving out the extra money – that tips would now be used to make up the rest of the salary, rather than in addition to it.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) weighed in on the workers’ behalf and ruled in Februarythis year that Amazon had intentionally failed to notify drivers about the changes. The FTC has forced the company to pay $61.7 million (£44.3m) in tip reimbursements to its drivers and Amazon is now prohibited from making changes to how gratuities are used without obtaining the drivers’ explicit consent.

Uber threatened to suspend its operations in Austin, Texas and Quebec, Canada in 2016 and 2017 respectively after both cities demanded that the company follow stricter regulations. In Quebec, new restrictions were put in place that require drivers to complete 35 hours’ worth of training – a big increase on the previously mandatory 20 hours – as well as background checks. Uber initially threatened to pull its operations in the Canadian city but backed down, and now continues to operate under more regulated conditions. The ride wasn’t quite so smooth in Austin however…

Uber had been operating in Austin for two years when the city’s residents took to the polls to vote on whether the fingerprints of drivers working for ride-hailing apps should be included in their background checks, and if the data should be available to local authorities. Uber spent around $10 million (£6.7m) lobbying against the legislation but to no avail – the voters spoke and both Uber and Lyft chose to leave the city instead of conforming. But it didn’t last long. Uber came back to dominate Austin’s taxi scene just a month later after Texas state authorities overruled Austin’s local fingerprint-checking legislation. Uber continues to operate there according to the state-wide rules on ride-sharing services.

Now read about the most unusual trademark battles

In March 2018, whistleblower Christopher Wylie went to the media with a story concerning the data privacy of Facebook users. It was revealed that the company had allowed the personal information of tens of millions of its users to be extracted via a personality quiz, and then turned over to a British company called Cambridge Analytica. The latter had then used it for political purposes, including creating targeted ads for the 2016 US presidential campaign.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg was called to testify to Congress a month later, during which he publicly apologised for the data breach. Facebook's share price fell, boycotts occurred, and Cambridge Analytica shut down operations. In July 2019, Facebook settled a $5 billion (£3.6bn) fine with the US Federal Trade Commission. Three months later the social media giant paid a £500,000 ($696k) penalty handed out by the UK Information Commissioner's Office on similar grounds, but without admitting liability. Whether Facebook has completed the internal audits it promised to deliver is unknown.

UK supermarket giants Sainsbury's and Asda (which was owned by global retail behemoth Walmart until October 2020) announced plans to merge in April 2018. The companies were hoping that their new £13 billion ($17.9bn) alliance would make them the biggest food retailer in the UK, beating current market leader Tesco.

The merger went south after a report from the UK's Competition and Markets Authority concluded that it would mean increased prices for customers. Sainsbury's later admitted that the failed bid had cost it a total of £46 million ($64m).

Following the introduction of the new General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) on 25 May 2018, two French privacy rights groups raised complaints against Google. The groups, noyb and LQDN, stated that the company had failed to comply with the new rules by not providing transparency as to how users' data was collected.

The case was taken on by French data regulator CNIL, which concluded that Google had indeed breached the new EU data protection regulations. As a result, the company was fined €50 million ($60.3m/£43.3m). Google contested the fine, but the appeal was dismissed in June last year.

New York City went up against the major players in the oil industry in 2018. The city filed a lawsuit against five of the biggest companies, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell, seeking compensation for its costs in mitigating the effects of global warming. Those costs were estimated to be over $20 billion (£14.5bn).

But it was the oil companies who claimed victory when the lawsuit was dismissed by a judge, who said climate change was an issue that should be tackled by the federal government.

In July 2018 New York City passed a new law in a bid to crack down on short-term lettings, which it said was exacerbating the housing crisis in the city by turning many homes into de facto hotels. The law would force Airbnb and similar home rental services to hand over data about every listing, including information about hosts. It was due to go into effect in early 2019, but was blocked by a federal judge after the action was challenged by Airbnb and Homeaway. They argued that the law would constitute illegal searches and therefore be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment.

Airbnb eventually settled the lawsuit in June last year, agreeing to hand over data to help authorities identify the estimated 35,000 listings that are believed to breach local law. It states that entire apartments can’t be rented for fewer than 30 days without a tenant present. Airbnb agreed to share information such as listing addresses and host details on a quarterly basis. Airbnb will lose money from the move, but clearing the air with New York authorities was key in the company successfully going public. Airbnb was valued at a huge $100 billion (£71.8bn) at its IPO in December last year.

 

In August 2018 the US banned the use of Huawei's equipment by the US Federal Government due to security concerns. Washington has since warned other countries that Huawei could use its technology for espionage purposes on behalf of the Chinese government, which has led many nations including Australia and the UK to ban Huawei from being involved in the development of 5G phone networks. It has also accused Huawei of acting dishonestly about its business dealings with Iran, which is under US sanctions. 

In 2020 the US took things one step further, banning American companies from selling technology to Huawei. Restrictions had been tightened further by the end of President Trump’s term in office, and global chipmakers using US technology are currently required to obtain a special government licence to work on any designs that could be used by Huawei. Swathes of licences were then revoked days before President Biden’s inauguration. The US-Huawei relationship is set to remain troubled, with the new president having described the company as an “untrusted vendor” and a national security threat. The Biden administration has not confirmed whether Huawei will remain on a trade blacklist. The US is also seeking the extradition of Huawei Chief Executive Officer Meng Wangzou, who is currently under house arrest in Canada. With sanctions continuing to cripple the company’s smartphone sales, Huawei is looking into alternative uses for its AI technology in industries as varied as pig farming and coal mining. 

Read more about Huawei's surprise move into farming, and other big business sidelines 

Seven local councils in the UK initiated proceedings to sue banking giant Barclays over loans taken out between 2004 and 2010 totalling £500 million ($696m) in February 2019. The lawsuit alleges that the loans were fraudulent, with the bank having altered the interest rates unlawfully.

The ongoing case is being led by Leeds City Council, which borrowed £215 million ($299m). The local authorities are hoping the High Court will permit them to leave the loan agreements without facing any penalties.

Now read about some of the strangest court battles that cost millions

The city of Memphis was one of many to launch a lawsuit against 21 opioid companies in March 2019 in response to the widespread addiction crisis across the United States. The manufacturers and distributors named in the case were accused of misleading the public and healthcare providers about the safety of opioids. Purdue Pharma was the largest company named, having taken a $3.1 billion (£2.2bn) slice of the $8 billion (£5.7bn) generated by big pharma companies' opioid sales via its drug OxyContin.

Cities across America sued for costs of medical care for those with opioid addiction, as well as law enforcement costs and treatment for infants born with medical issues linked to the drugs. In October last year, Purdue Pharma agreed to an $8.3 billion (£6bn) settlement to compensate for its role in fuelling the addiction crisis. However, this was reduced to $225 million (£162m) on the basis company funds were used to tackle the opioid crisis, for which it has now produced a plan valued at $10 billion (£7.2bn) over time. In February consulting firm McKinsey became the latest company to be hit with a fine due to it working with Purdue Pharma to boost the company's sales. It agreed to a $573 million (£411.5m) payout to fund treatment and other measures.

In May 2019 Brazil’s solicitor general's office, the AGU, took the country's two largest cigarette manufacturers to court. The AGU decided to sue Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco for the cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses over the previous five years, as well as those occurring in the future. If the AGU's case is successful, it will add a substantial figure to the $126 billion (£90.5 billion) already paid by leading tobacco companies to the US.

However, Philip Morris International has stated that Brazilian courts have so far "consistently found that tobacco manufacturers are not liable for smoking-related damages given that the sale of cigarettes is a legal, heavily regulated activity and that the health risks of smoking have been well known for decades." After a year of refusing to accept requests to attend court, a federal judge ruled in February 2020 that the companies had 30 days to present their defences. No defences have since been announced, and so it is uncertain what success the AGU will have in getting the cigarette manufacturers to pay up.

Deloitte clashed with India's Ministry of Corporate Affairs over the company's audit of engineering firm Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS). As the sole auditor for IL&FS, Deloitte was accused of malpractice after the engineering giant defaulted on a number of large loan repayments during 2018.

As of May 2019, the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs was looking to put a five-year ban on Deloitte India. Deloitte challenged the ban, and in April 2020 an Indian court quashed the Ministry’s attempts to pursue it further.

In 2018, an Australian enquiry found that Google and Facebook were dominant forces in the media and advertising market in the country. As a result, the government proposed that the companies should pay for the content they display, such as news reports, given how much the Silicon Valley giants profit from it compared to the media outlets themselves. The proposed law would allow media organisations to negotiate with tech firms in terms of what appears in users’ news feeds and search results.

After threatening to remove the search engine from Australia altogether, Google agreed to pay Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corp for content on 18 February. Controversially, Facebook chose instead to block all news from its platform in Australia, preventing users from seeing or sharing the content. The country’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison (pictured) described Facebook’s decision to “unfriend Australia” as “arrogant” and said that tech companies “may be changing the world, but that doesn’t mean they run it”. Just five days later, Facebook reversed the decision, agreeing to reinstate news content following alterations to the law proposed by the Australian government. It has just been confirmed that Facebook will pay News Corp for its news content as part of a three-year deal. News Corp controls around 70% of Australia's news circulation, and owns papers including The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun. The financial details of the deals between News Corp and Google and Facebook have not been revealed.

Now read about the court battles that cost big companies billions