Connect with us

Business

Amazon’s $2.5 billion Prime settlement is a giant win for the company

Published

on



The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday announced a $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon just days into a trial over the tech giant’s alleged use of deceptive practices that the commission said for years tricked millions of consumers into signing up for a Prime membership without their knowledge, and made it unreasonably difficult for them to cancel the service.

But the most exuberant celebrations Thursday may be occurring within the executive suites at Amazon’s D.C. and Seattle headquarters.

And for good reason.

The case, first filed by the FTC in 2023 under then-chair Lina Khan, outlined a variety of ways that Amazon utilized misleading web design tactics, known as “dark patterns,” to get online shoppers to unknowingly enroll in its Prime program when making a purchase, or make it frustratingly difficult for someone to cancel a Prime membership (which cost $139 a year when the case was filed). The FTC cited a “four-page, six-click, fifteen-option cancellation process”—referred to internally by Amazon insiders as “Iliad”—that the agency said distracted or derailed customers on their way to cancel the membership.

It was a bad look for Amazon, and, given that the case was aimed directly at one of Amazon’s most important products, the stakes were high.

The outlook for Amazon appeared to brighten in January when Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th president and Khan was replaced as FTC chair. Whether accurate or not, the perception inside Amazon was that new FTC leadership would be much more amenable to a settlement than Khan was. (Prior to leading the FTC, Khan had made her name as critic of Amazon in law school and later helped lead the House Judiciary’s Big Tech investigation in 2019 and 2020.)

But no settlement occurred. And then things got worse for Amazon.

Last week, before the trial was set to begin, the federal judge presiding over the case gave the FTC a partial win by ruling that some of Amazon’s actions violated consumer protection law by not disclosing the terms of a Prime membership before collecting a consumer’s billing information. The judge also ruled that the executives named in the FTC suit could be personally liable if a jury ruled against Amazon.

That might have been enough to push the company to settle. But this week the trial started. At this point, if you were a betting man, you probably would not find Amazon’s odds very encouraging.

And Amazon’s decision to shell out billions to settle the case just a few days into the trial certainly seems to confirm Amazon’s weak hand.

So why a win for Amazon?

Of course it’s easy to start with the numbers. To call $2.5 billion a slap on the wrist would be absurd. But let’s be clear: the $2.5 billion total settlement amount is equal to about 13 days of profit for Amazon based on its financial results over the last 12 months. Or, when it comes to revenue, less than two days of sales.

As is the norm for these types of settlements, Amazon also didn’t have to admit any wrongdoing, even though it altered many of the practices in question after the FTC’s investigation began. And neither did the executives overseeing Prime who were named in the case, and who could have been found personally liable if the jury had ruled for the FTC.

The company also is now able to avoid further media coverage of the case and the details of the company’s actions that had the potential to embarrass Amazon and tarnish its reputation among consumers. Instead, within a few days, the news cycle will move on, and you could imagine that the majority of consumers might never think twice about the case.

That’s why for some former FTC officials, under whom the case started, the settlement announcement was tough to swallow.

On one hand, the $1.5 billion amount that will be paid out to consumers “is not nothing” and the fact that a Trump-backed FTC chair took a Biden-era case to this point at all “is pretty striking in a good way,” one former senior FTC official told Fortune.

But the official struggled to understand the rationale for settling at this point, after the judge’s favorable rulings last week, and after the agency had already invested heavy resources in bringing the case to trial. Any agency savings from settling now, versus taking the case the full distance over the next month, would likely be comparatively small.

“Why not go through the trial at this point?” the former official asked rhetorically. “What are you saving? A few days on hotel rooms?”

Maybe, you could argue, that the allegations in the lawsuit alone punctured Amazon’s self-portrait of a company focused on “customer obsession” and might erode customer trust, as I pondered for Fortune earlier this week.

Maybe the settlement alone is enough deterrence for Amazon executives to think twice about controversial practices like those at issue in the case.

But a jury ruling of liability, and more media coverage along the way, likely would have made a bigger impact for the FTC (assuming, of course, a big FTC victory—which seemed likely but of course, couldn’t be guaranteed).

Everyone goes home with something

Instead, this feels kind of like a win-win.

The FTC gets to proclaim a big top-line number and victory.

“Today, the Trump-Vance FTC made history and secured a record-breaking, monumental win for the millions of Americans who are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to cancel,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in the press release.

And Amazon gets to move on rather easily too, without any admission of wrongdoing.

“Amazon and our executives have always followed the law and this settlement allows us to move forward and focus on innovating for customers,” the company said in its own statement.

Now, in regulatory circles, the spotlight moves to the FTC’s historic antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, which is supposed to go to trial in 2027. That case is even more critical for Amazon, carrying the prospect of severe remedies which could include a breakup or forced changes that disrupt Amazon’s business model.

And, after Thursday’s surprise settlement, the obvious question is: How much do the chances of another Amazon/FTC settlement now increase?

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jensen Huang says AI bubble fears are dwarfed by ‘largest infrastructure buildout in human history’

Published

on



Pushing back against growing skepticism regarding the sustainability of artificial intelligence spending, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued against the mountain backdrop of Davos, Switzerland, that high capital expenditures are not a sign of a financial bubble, but rather evidence of “the largest infrastructure buildout in human history.”

Speaking in conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, the interim co-chair of the World Economic Forum, Huang detailed an industrial transformation that extends far beyond software code, reshaping global labor markets and driving unprecedented demand for skilled tradespeople. While much of the public debate focuses on the potential for AI to replace white-collar jobs, Huang pointed to an immediate boom in blue-collar employment required to physically construct the new computing economy.

“It’s wonderful that the jobs are related to tradecraft, and we’re going to have plumbers and electricians and construction and steel workers,” Huang said. He noted the urgency to erect “AI factories,” chip plants, and data centers has radically altered the wage landscape for manual labor. “Salaries have gone up, nearly doubled, and so we’re talking about six-figure salaries for people who are building chip factories or computer factories,” Huang said, emphasizing the industry is currently facing a “great shortage” of these workers.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has been warning for months about the labor shortage in what he calls the “essential economy,” exactly the type of jobs mentioned by Huang in Davos. Earlier this month, Farley told Fortune these 95 million jobs are the “backbone of our country,” and he was partnering with local retailer Carhartt to boost workforce development, community building, and “the tools required by the men and women who keep the American Dream alive.” 

It’s time we all reinvest in the people who make our world work with their hands,” Farley said.

In October, at Ford’s Pro Accelerate conference, Farley shared that his own son was wrestling with whether to go to college or pursue a career in the trades. The Ford CEO has estimated the shortage at 600,000 in factories and nearly the same in construction.

Huang dismisses bubble fears

Fink brought up the bubble talk for a good reason: Fear of a popping bubble gripped markets for much of the back half of 2025, with luminaries such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, and, just the previous day in Davos, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, warning about the potential for pain. Much of this originated in the underwhelming release of OpenAI’s GPT-5 in August, but also the MIT study that found 95% of generative AI pilots were failing to generate a return on investment. “Permabears” such as Albert Edwards, global strategist at Société Générale, have talked about how there’s likely a bubble brewing—but then again, they always think that.

Huang, whose company became the face of the AI revolution when it blew past $4 trillion in market capitalization (a bar recently reached by Alphabet on the positive release of its Gemini update), tackled these fears in conversation with Fink, arguing the term misdiagnoses the situation. Critics often point to the massive sums being spent by hyperscalers and corporations as unsustainable, but Huang countered the appearance of a bubble happens because “the investments are large … and the investments are large because we have to build the infrastructure necessary for all of the layers of AI above it.”

Huang went deeper on his food metaphor, describing the AI industry as a “five-layer cake” requiring total industrial reinvention, with Nvidia’s chips a particularly crunchy part of the recipe. The bottom layer is energy, followed by chips, cloud infrastructure, and models, with applications sitting at the top. The current wave of spending is focused on the foundational layers—energy and chips—which creates tangible assets rather than speculative vapor. Far from a bubble, he described a new industry being built from the ground up.

“There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to be built out,” Huang said, noting that the world is currently only “a few 100 billion dollars into it.”

To prove the market is driven by real demand rather than speculation, Huang offered a practical “test” for the bubble theory: the rental price of computing power as seen in the price of Nvidia’s GPU chips.

“If you try to rent an Nvidia GPU these days, it’s so incredibly hard, and the spot price of GPU rentals is going up, not just the latest generation, but two-generation-old GPUs,” he said. This scarcity indicates established companies are shifting their research and development budgets—such as pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly moving funds from wet labs to AI supercomputing—rather than simply burning venture capital.

Beyond construction and infrastructure, Huang addressed the broader anxiety regarding AI’s impact on human employment. He argued AI ultimately changes the “task” of a job rather than eliminating the “purpose” of the job. Citing radiology as an example, he noted that despite AI diffusing into every aspect of the field over the last decade, the number of radiologists has actually increased. Because AI handles the task of studying scans infinitely faster, doctors can focus on their core purpose: patient diagnosis and care, leading to higher hospital throughput and increased hiring.

Fink reframed the issue, based on Huang’s pushback. “So what I’m hearing is, we’re far from an AI bubble. The question is, are we investing enough?” Fink asked, positing that current spending levels might actually be insufficient to broaden the global economy.

Huang appeared to say: not really. “I think the the opportunity is really quite extraordinary, and everybody ought to get involved. Everybody ought to get engaged. We need more energy,” he said, adding the industry needs more land, power, trade, scale and workers. Huang said the U.S. has lost its workforce population in many ways over the last 20-30 years, “but it’s still incredibly strong,” and in Europe, pointing around him in Switzerland, he saw “an extraordinary opportunity to take advantage of.” He noted 2025 was the largest investment year in venture capital history, with $100 billion invested around the world, mostly on AI natives.”

Huang concluded by emphasizing this infrastructure buildout is global, urging developing nations and Europe to engage in “sovereign AI” by building their own domestic infrastructure. For Europe specifically, he highlighted a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to leverage its strong industrial base to lead in “physical AI” and robotics, effectively merging the new digital intelligence with traditional manufacturing. Far from a bubble, he seemed to be saying, this is just the beginning.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’

Published

on



While the wealthiest business leaders from U.S. president Donald Trump to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang touch down in the Swiss town of Davos to discuss the state of the world, a cohort of the ultra-rich are already sounding the alarm. Hundreds of millionaires and billionaires released an open letter in time for the World Economic Forum, calling on leaders attending the conference to fight raging wealth inequality with taxes. 

“Millionaires like us refuse to be silent. It is time to be counted. Tax us and make sure the next fifty years meet the promise of progress for everyone,” the letter stated

“Extreme wealth has led to extreme control for those who gamble with our safe future for their obscene gains. Now is the time to end that control and win back our future.”

So far, nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires across 24 countries have signed the letter condemning extreme wealth, including the likes of Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural.

The open letter is part of a “Time to Win” campaign, led by wealth redistribution organizations including Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Oxfam. It criticized global oligarchs with riches who have “bought up” democracies, exacerbated poverty, stifled tech innovation, dampened press freedom, and overall, “accelerated the breakdown of our planet.” After all, 77% of millionaires from G20 nations think extremely wealthy individuals buy political influence, and 71% believe those with riches can significantly influence elections, according to a poll conducted for Patriotic Millionaires.

The Time to Win wealthy signatories offer a simple solution: “Tax us. Tax the super rich.”

“As millionaires who stand shoulder to shoulder with all people, we demand it,” the open letter continued. “And as our elected representatives—whether it’s those of you at Davos, local councillors, city mayors, or regional leaders—it’s your duty to deliver it.

Stars and billionaires are calling out the super-rich for being ungenerous 

As the world mints hundreds of thousands of millionaires yearly and billionaire wealth soars to record highs, some leaders can’t stand to stay quiet. Celebrities and the ultra-rich haven’t just sent a message to money-hoarders with the Time to Win letter—some have even called out billionaires in person, questioning their existence. 

“If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties,” Eilish said onstage last year at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards with Meta mogul Mark Zuckerberg, worth $214 billion, in attendance. 

Even the most philanthropic members of the ultra-rich club are wary of their peers’ lack of charity. Billionaires have started their own initiatives like Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates’ The Giving Pledge, which attracted more than 250 billionaires who pledged to donate at least half of their wealth during their lifetimes, or in their wills. But efforts have largely fallen short. Last year, French Gates admitted that the signatories haven’t given enough; And in a letter to shareholders, Buffett fessed up to the fact that billionaires aren’t following through. 

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” Buffett wrote. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.”

Billionaire and millionaire wealth is on the rise 

There’s more people rolling in riches than ever before, and it’s fueling an equity crisis at the bottom of the economic ladder. 

In 2024 alone, the U.S. minted 379,000 new millionaires—over 1,000 millionaires every day—as the proportion of Americans in the ultrawealthy club swelled by 1.5%, according to a 2025 report from investment bank UBS. This cohort held about $107 trillion in total wealth at the end of that year: more than four times the amount they owned at the turn of the millennium. 

In 2000, there were only 13.27 million everyday millionaires, but by the end of 2024, the group swelled to 52 million people worldwide. 

While it might appear that eye-watering riches are spreading out to a larger number of individuals, it’s mainly concentrating at the top. America’s top 20% household earners—averaging a net worth of $4.3 million—accounted for about 71% of the U.S.’s total wealth at the end of 2024, according to 2025 data from the Federal Reserve. 

Meanwhile, the bottom half of American households, averaging about $60,000 in wealth, owned just 2.5% of the country’s wealth. For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, joining the millionaire club—and even more so, the billionaire club—is a total pipe dream.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump fast tracks ‘three-week’ nuclear approval for big tech to fuel AI race

Published

on



President Donald Trump offered Silicon Valley an extraordinary deal on Wednesday: Build your own nuclear power plants to fuel AI, and his administration will approve them in just three weeks.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump addressed a room of tech executives struggling with an aging U.S. electrical grid.

“I came up with the idea,” Trump said. “You people are brilliant. You have a lot of money. You can build your own electric generating plants.”

Trump talked for about 10 minutes about energy in his speech, making it clear Trump views a straining electric grid as a central economic risk of 2026. As artificial intelligence pushes electricity demand to record highs, the administration is framing power shortages as an existential threat to growth and national security. Slashing approval timelines, Trump argued, is a necessary response to an energy system he said he believes is fundamentally unprepared for the AI era.

“We needed more than double the energy currently in the country just to take care of the AI plants,” Trump said. 

The proposal marks a radical departure from the traditional Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) process, which historically requires four to five years for environmental and design approvals as well as rigorous site selection. Trump claimed that while tech leaders initially “didn’t believe him,” he assured them the government would deliver approvals for oil and gas plants in just two weeks, with nuclear projects following in three.

Trump said he wasn’t “a big fan” of nuclear power before, but now sees it as a newly viable solution due to safety improvements. 

“The progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable,” he said. “We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe.” 

While the potential upcoming wave of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) could receive regulatory approvals in less than two years, there is little basis for going through an approval process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in closer to three weeks, and such an expedited process would trigger widespread concerns about safety and environmental risks.

Trump also touted a new energy alliance with Venezuela, noting the U.S. secured 50 million barrels of oil last week following the “end of an attack” on the nation that led to the deposition of President Nicolás Maduro. He said the new cooperation between the two nations would make Venezuela “fantastically well” while driving U.S. gasoline prices toward $2.00 a gallon.

Gasoline prices are the main inflationary measure by which costs have fallen during the first year of the new Trump administration. But they’re nowhere close to $2.00 per gallon. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is $2.76 per gallon this week, down 32 cents from a year ago, primarily because of rising OPEC oil production.

But Trump drew a sharp contrast with Europe’s energy landscape. Trump mocked the “Green New Scam,” citing a 64% spike in German electricity prices and the “catastrophic” decline of energy production in the United Kingdom. He targeted the North Sea and the proliferation of wind farms, which he labeled “losers” that “kill the birds.”

“Stupid people buy” wind farms, Trump laughed.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.