Facebook has fined a record £ 50 million from the UK competition watchdog

Facebook has been fined £ 50.5 million ($ 70 million) by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which accuses it of deliberately breaking the rules.

The case involved Facebook’s acquisition of Gif Giphy’s sharing service, which is under investigation.

The CMA said Facebook did not provide information, ignored many warnings and committed a “serious breach”. The company deliberately denies breaking the rules.

There are also reports that its parent company may change its name.

The Verge tech news site revealed the news about the company, which owns the Facebook service itself, as well as WhatsApp, Instagram, Oculus VR and other brands.

The £ 50 million fine that the CMA imposed on Facebook is more than 150 times higher than the previous record set for similar offenses of £ 325,000.

Speaking of his decision to fine the social media giant, the CMA stated in a statement: “This is the first time a company has been found by the CMA for breaching a [order] by knowingly refusing to provide all requested information. “

Giphy is widely used by Facebook competitors to power animated Gif images used in social media apps, on mobile keyboards and elsewhere online. This has led to potential competition problems.

The CMA has issued something called an “initial execution order,” which restricts the way companies that are merging, but under investigation, operate. It is designed to keep entities semi-separate and competing with each other until the investigation is concluded.

Facebook is obliged to provide updates and information to clarify how it is complying with the order.

“Given the multiple warnings it has given to Facebook, the CMA believes that Facebook’s failure to comply was deliberate,” the CMA said.

This “fundamentally undermined its ability to prevent, monitor and resolve any problems”.

The fine for that offense is £ 50 million. Separately, the CMA announced a £ 500,000 fine for Facebook that changed its chief compliance officer – twice – “without first asking for consent.”

Facebook refutes the allegation that it deliberately broke the rules, claiming it complied with core obligations, and the discussion is instead about the details of how it did it.

“We strongly disagree with the CMA’s unfair decision to punish Facebook for a best-effort compliance approach, which CMA ultimately endorsed. We will review the CMA’s decision and consider our options,” a spokesperson said. .

The Verge report stating that Facebook plans to renew the brand next week suggested that the new name will reflect Facebook’s ambition to build the metaverse – the next version of the internet – rather than its traditional social media roots.

Earlier this week, the company announced plans to hire 10,000 employees across the European Union to do just that.

The company’s annual Connect conference, scheduled for October 28, could provide the backdrop for such an announcement.

It also comes after weeks of news of Facebook’s alleged shortcomings, fueled by internal leaks from whistleblower Frances Haugen, who provided evidence to the US Congress.

Asked about the potential name change, a Facebook spokesperson said, “We don’t comment on rumors or speculation.”

A name change on Facebook would make a lot of sense.

When Facebook started, there was no real distinction between Facebook the platform and Facebook the company.

But as Facebook has acquired companies like Instagram and WhatsApp, the name has become confusing.

And with the number of people actually using Facebook dropping in many countries in the West, the name is likely to become increasingly separate from the company’s growth areas.

That said, it’s hard to see why Facebook would think now is a good time to change its name.

Facebook is currently in a whirlwind of negative press attention for leaks from whistleblower Frances Haugen.

Instead of simply apologizing, as Facebook often does, it has adopted a different media strategy.

The social network fired guns, dismissing Ms. Haugen’s testimony and claiming that both she and the media misrepresented the documents she leaked.

Changing the company name, at this point, would seem to do so because the brand is toxic.

Maybe Facebook has decided to change tactics, or was it something planned for a while, or they feel they have been left with little choice?

Maybe the story isn’t true?

Whatever the truth, by not denying this story, Facebook has fueled speculation that the company is in crisis mode.