Policemen escort Lawrence Bishnoi at a court, in New Delhi.
| Photo Credit: ANI

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has forcefully defended its decision to abandon the criminal case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and seven others, telling a federal judge the prosecution was legally flawed, diplomatically counterproductive and inconsistent with the Trump administration’s enforcement priorities.

In a sharply worded 10-page filing, the DOJ said the case “should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place,” arguing that the court had only a limited role in reviewing its decision to dismiss charges with prejudice.

Also read: Gautam Adani agrees to $18 million penalty in U.S. bribery case

The filing came after U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis asked the department to explain why it was seeking to permanently dismiss the indictment, calling its earlier motion “terse, bland, and conclusory”.

The DOJ had in 2024 under the Biden administration indicted Adani and others for allegedly being involved in a scheme to bribe Indian government officials to the tune of $250 million and to lie to investors to receive billions more in investments from other entities — during which alleged scheme Adani Green Energy Limited raised at least $175 million from U.S. investors.

The DOJ said requiring prosecutors to publicly justify decisions to drop cases would discourage future dismissals, expose privileged internal deliberations and infringe on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over charging decisions.

“Judicial inquisitions into the bases for dismissal will expose privileged internal debates,” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter wrote, adding that such a demand hurt defendants by potentially chilling the Department from seeking dismissal of criminal charges it determines are not in the interests of justice.

Also read: U.S. Judge won’t immediately dismiss criminal charges against Gautam Adani

Waiving privilege only for this case, McCotter said he decided to dismiss the charges after months of meetings with defence lawyers, reviewing hundreds of pages of submissions and conducting his own legal analysis. “The decision to seek dismissal was not a close call,” he wrote.

The department cited six overarching reasons for dropping all charges, including that the alleged conduct was overwhelmingly centred in India, Indian authorities had investigated the allegations and found no actionable misconduct, investors suffered no financial losses, key evidence and witnesses were located abroad, the defendants were unlikely to ever appear before a U.S. court, and the prosecution faced significant evidentiary hurdles.

“This is a foreign case,” McCotter wrote.

The indictment is about “several Indians (with maybe a European or two) allegedly trying to bridge other Indians by paying the Indian government via complex Indian rebate programs to get Indian contracts to provide Indian electricity to Indians in India.”

“The United States pretending to be the world police can cause diplomatic strife and also wastes resources better spent on domestic concerns. India can better manage its internal systems than can prosecutors in Brooklyn and Washington,” McCotter wrote.

The filing also argued the criminal securities fraud charges against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Cyril Cabanes lacked a sound legal basis because the alleged misconduct occurred almost entirely outside the United States and the securities transactions did not satisfy U.S. jurisdictional requirements.

The DOJ said investors had not lost money because the notes at issue had either been fully repaid or continued to be serviced. It also questioned whether statements cited in the indictment amounted to criminal fraud, describing them as largely corporate “platitudes” and “puffery” that sophisticated institutional investors were unlikely to have relied upon.

“The securities charges should never have been brought,” McCotter wrote, adding that at most the allegations warranted civil, rather than criminal, resolution.

The department also said the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges no longer aligned with DOJ policy under Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2025 memorandum directing prosecutors to focus on cases involving U.S. national security, transnational criminal organisations, serious misconduct or harm to U.S. companies.

“The alleged conduct did not involve criminal organisations, did not have any effect on US companies, did not in any way implicate national security, was not egregious, and has been the subject of investigations in India,” the filing said. “Under the Blanche Memorandum, the FCPA charges should have been dismissed a year ago.”

McCotter also rejected media reports suggesting the DOJ sought dismissal in exchange for promises of US investment by the Adani Group, calling such claims “false”.

“I would have sought dismissal of the securities charges regardless of any mentions of investments,” he wrote. “The mention of potential investments could not have played any role.”

The department urged the judge to promptly dismiss the case, arguing continued judicial scrutiny only prolonged uncertainty for defendants facing charges the government itself no longer believed should proceed.

“In short, there was absolutely nothing improper with the Department’s as-filed dismissal motion,” McCotter wrote. “The defendants have been held in limbo on charges that should have been dropped a year ago — or never brought in the first place.”

Published – July 04, 2026 10:08 pm IST

Washington:

A CIA employee who was accused of leaking classified documents about Israel’s plans to strike Iran pleaded guilty on Friday to criminal charges that he willfully retained and transmitted national defense information, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

In pleading guilty, Asif William Rahman, who worked at the U.S. intelligence agency since 2016, acknowledged that he illegally downloaded, printed and distributed classified information on multiple occasions, including several in 2024.

In the spring of 2024, he printed five documents that were labeled as secret and top secret from his work computer and took them home, court records in the case said. He then reproduced and altered them and shared them with people who were not legally entitled to receive them. To hide his conduct, Rahman deleted his activity from his electronic devices, brought the records back to work and had them shredded.

A second time, in the autumn of 2024, the court filings said he printed another 10 documents with a top secret classification, took them home and shared them with others.

Then on Oct. 17, 2024, he printed two more documents related to plans by a U.S. ally to strike a foreign adversary, the court records said.

Those documents, which entailed plans by Israel to strike Iran, later appeared online after a pro-Iranian Telegram account called “Middle East Spectator” published them.

This case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Rahman, 34, is from Vienna, Virginia, and was arrested in Cambodia, according to court records. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 15.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington DC:

Two of the world’s largest tech behemoths – Apple and Google – are participating together in what is increasingly seeming like an indefensible case. Billions and billions are at stake and Google, the world’s ‘default’ search engine, stares into the abyss.

There is much to lose for both tech giants – for Apple it could lead to losses worth tens of billions of dollars per year and an incomprehensible fallout on the accuracy of its results on features like Siri and Spotlight, whose framework is largely dependent on Google search. For Google, besides money and market share, it may result in the massive loss of its entire web browser – Chrome. It also faces another potential gigantic loss – its Android operating system.

And so, finding Google in a major spot of bother, Apple has sought to participate in the anti-trust trial against Google over its internet search engine. Apple on Tuesday said it needs to step in as it cannot rely on Google alone to defend the revenue-sharing agreements that the two firms have.

The epicenter of the case, which has sent tremors across Silicon Valley, lies in an agreement between Google and Apple, wherein the iPhone, iPad, and Macbook maker gets tens of billions of dollars each year for making Google the default search engine on its browser – Safari. In 2022 alone, Apple reportedly received in excess of $20 billion as a result of this very agreement.

The question at the heart of the case is simple – Has Google monopolised online search? According to Google – No, it has not.

A monopoly in simple business terms is a situation where a single company controls the entire market. In such a scenario it becomes difficult or sometimes impossible for the competition to compete due to the lack of a level-playing field.

Focusing on this very point, Apple’s lawyers submitted their papers to the court on Tuesday, in which they conveyed that Apple and Google are not competitors, and neither does Apple want to compete in the search engine space. It also said that that is how it will be whether or not Apple receives the billions of dollars from Google in future.

Apple, in its petition, also said it wants to call witnesses who will testify under oath at the trial scheduled for April 2025. On that day, the prosecutors will aim to highlight that Google absolutely must take multiple measures – two of them being selling its Chrome browser and possibly its Android operating system too. The prosecutors believe that only then will competition be restored in online search. But should this happen, it will be a fatal blow to Google.

While Google’s parent firm Alphabet is figuring a way to battle this grave threat to its existence, Apple, which understand the gravity of the situation has said “Google can no longer adequately represent Apple’s interests. Google must now defend against a broad effort to break up its business units.”

Meanwhile, justifying its stand, Google has asserted that the entire premise of the case is based on exclusive deals – and that is what the focus of the case should be on, instead of an aim to breaking Google. It has even offered to put an end to such deals in future.

Besides ending the deal with Apple, Google has even suggested that it is willing to no longer enter any agreement with Android phone manufacturers which require the phone-maker to set Google as the default search engine in return for its operating system and supporting apps. Google also said that browser companies like Mozilla would be given more flexibility in setting rival search engines as its default search. This, according to Google’s lawyers, is a fair solution to make the market more competitive.

Between now and the crucial hearing in April, Google is doing all it can to defend itself and limit its losses should it lose the groundbreaking case.

The US Department of Justice vs Google is poised to be a defining moment for the global tech industry – a landmark case that may just reshape how the world uses the internet.
 

New Delhi:

The recent indictment by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) of Adani Group officials is nothing but a frivolous expense and once President-elect Donald Trump assumes office, such wasteful exercises involving the government offices with overseas businesses will probably fade away, ace global investor Mark Mobius told news agency IANS on Tuesday.

His comment came as serious questions are now being raised regarding the independence of the US DoJ and its indictment against the Adani Group, and whether it is being used for “politically motivated actions”.

“My guess is that Donald Trump will come in and whoever he appoints to run the Justice Department will say, what are you guys doing? Sticking your nose into Indian businesses? Spending all this money on a trial which probably won’t go anywhere?” Mr Mobius told news agency IANS.

Mr Mobius, who runs the Mobius EM Opportunities Fund for emerging markets, further stated that there is a “good chance” that the Justice Department will move away from the Adani probe and the trial.

“I believe that there would be another implication where the Justice Department will be reorganised in America, and will be asked to get less and less involved in overseas situations and more and more with domestic issues,” said the top investor.

The DoJ and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently filed an indictment and a civil complaint in the New York District Court against the top Adani Group officials. However, the Adani Group vehemently refuted the allegations, terming it ‘baseless’, and said it would seek legal recourse to defend itself.

According to Mobius, a lot of people are now beginning to realise that with Trump assuming office, “this DoJ situation in the US will probably go away”.

On Adani Portfolio stocks performing well despite the US-related developments, he said that the situation with the hedge funds going after the Adani Group seemed to have fizzled out.

“A lot of investors began to look at this and said, well, Adani is under pressure but at the end of the day, their business will continue to operate well and probably will continue to do well in the future,” Mr Mobius noted.

Adani stocks have roared back from initial hiccups, and are now surging almost daily on the Indian benchmark indices. They added more than Rs 2 lakh crore to their market cap in just a three-day rally.

A Bernstein report on Adani Group companies on Tuesday stated that the Group is currently in a much stronger position than it was during the Hindenburg attack in January 2023.

Despite facing some US-related developments, the Adani Group is on solid footing across four key areas: no share pledge, leverage, debt repayment and valuations, the report mentioned.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington DC:

US President Joe Biden’s latest move has revived allegations raised by Donald Trump of the US Department of Justice being manipulated by political powerhouses. In a stunning volte face, Mr Biden today extended the Presidential pardon to his convicted son Hunter Biden, who was days away from being sentenced to decades in prison.

Joe Biden’s move has raised questions about the US Department of Justice and its charges in the Adani case, as many geopolitical experts have pointed out on several occasions.

HUNTER BIDEN’S CASE

Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, was not just an accused, but found guilty and convicted for gun crimes in the US and for tax evasion of over $1.4 million. He was facing separate prison sentences of 17 years in the gun crime case and up to 25 years for tax evasion.

He has also been accused of using his father’s political clout and influence to get exclusive rights to drill for oil in Ukraine as well as have a handful of murky deals with China – for which there can now no longer be a case pursued against him as his father’s Presidential pardon gives him immunity for whatever he has done between January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2024.

Hunter Biden’s sentencing in court to serve time in prison was scheduled for separate hearings starting December 12, 2024. But his father, President of the United States, went back on his word of “not interfering” in the case by extending the Presidential pardon.

On six occasions over the last year, Joe Biden had assured the US citizens of an “impartial” functioning of the US Department of Justice, but his move today is seen as a clear U-turn from his earlier resolve.

President-elect Donald Trump tore into Joe Biden’s move of using the Presidential office to benefit family by calling it a “miscarriage of justice”.

Hunter Biden is now a free man with a “full and unconditional” pardon for any action between 2014 and 2024. He cannot face action in future as well on his actions over the last 10 years – the time in which his father was the Vice President and then President of the US.

US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEAPONISED FOR FOREIGN POLICY?

The US Department of Justice faces criticism about being weaponised against political opponents in the US and also misused for foreign policy that benefitted those in power. Geopolitical experts and former diplomats have highlighted how Hunter Biden used his father’s political clout to gain in Ukraine and China and how the US foreign policy was reportedly moulded by the Biden Administration to suit such personal gains.

President Joe Biden grants ‘unconditional’ pardon to son Hunter Biden in federal convictions; Experts Question Outgoing administration’s credibility point to DoJ’s Vindictive Action against Adanis.

On the panel: @Chellaney and former diplomat Yogesh Gupta with NDTV’s… pic.twitter.com/v7k9jGlmOQ

— NDTV (@ndtv) December 2, 2024

Joe Biden’s move has also raised serious questions over the US Department of Justice’s action against the Adani Group. There is a wider feeling among diplomats that the Adani indictment by the US Department of Justice is also politically driven by the outgoing Biden administration.

While US President’s son Hunter Biden was found guilty and convicted of his charges, there has not been a shred of evidence against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani and senior executive Vneet Jaain who have been accused by the DoJ and SEC, suspected of acting on the orders of the Biden administration.

The DOJ and the SEC had filed an indictment and a civil complaint in the New York District Court against Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and Vneet Jaain, key executives of Adani Green Energy Ltd (AGEL). The Adani Group had rejected the allegations, terming it totally “baseless”, and said it would seek legal recourse to defend itself.

Finding itself on the back-foot due to the lack of any evidence, the US Department of Justice in a recent public statement in the Adani case said “The defendants are always innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

Joe Biden’s move today has sparked off a fierce debate in the United States’s power corridors on whether the Department of Justice is indeed “controlled” by political powerhouses.

WHAT NEW FBI DIRECTOR ‘KASH’ PATEL SAID

Kashyap Patel, lawyer, investigator and a stern critic of the US deep state, has spoken out openly about “partisan” and “motivated” practices and also called for a drastic overhaul of the US law enforcement and Intelligence agencies.

“All people in the Department of Justice are just looking for their next promotion,” said Mr Patel, who has been named as the next FBI Director by Donald Trump.

Many believe that these “baseless” allegations and “motivated and partisan” foreign policy of the Biden administration will be rectified by the incoming Trump administration. Donald Trump has already announced a complete overhaul of the US foreign policy, including how NATO functions. His administration’s DOGE, a department headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy is looking to clean up the bureaucracy, while ‘Kash’ Patel looks to “clean up” the investigating agencies to rid them of working for “political powerhouses”.
 

Washington DC:

Alphabet Inc.’s Google might have to sell Chrome, the world’s most widely used browser. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) reportedly wants the court to order Alphabet Inc. to sell off the browser to dismantle the monopoly Google has over the internet search market and related advertising. Google, meanwhile, said that if it is forced to sell Chrome, the move would harm its consumers and businesses. 

Last month, the Department of Justice filed papers in the court saying it was considering enforcing “structural remedies” to prevent Google from using some of its products. On Wednesday, the antitrust enforcers will propose the measure to a judge, according to a report by Bloomberg. 

Chrome holds almost 90 per cent share of the global search engine market as of October, according to StatCounter. Moreover, it controls about 61 per cent of the US market.

Case Against Google’s Monopoly

The DoJ brought the case against Google during US president-elect Donald Trump’s first four-year term. In a landmark ruling in August, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google operates an online search monopoly and has been considering what remedies or penalties to impose.

Since then, prosecutors have suggested several potential ways forward in the case, including ending billions of dollars with exclusive agreements that Google has with Apple and other companies to remain the default search engine on their tablets and smartphones, and divesting parts of its business, such as its Android operating system.

On Wednesday, the DoJ is likely to go ahead with several of those proposals, including one that requires Google to divest its Chrome browser. The antitrust officials, along with states that have joined the case, are also planning to recommend that federal judge Amit Mehta impose data licensing requirements on Google, the Bloomberg reported quoting sources. 

Should a sale proceed, Chrome would be worth “at least USD 15 – USD 20 billion, given it has over 3 billion monthly active users,” according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh. 

Google’s Response

Google has called the proposal ‘radical’ and said it would harm its consumers and businesses in the US and also shake American competitiveness in artificial intelligence.

Previously, the company has denied operating a monopoly in the online search market. Responding to the DoJ’s filing in October, Google has said that “splitting off” parts of its business like Chrome or Android would “break them”.

“Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store,” BBC quoted the company as saying. 

Now, Google is reportedly planning an appeal after US District Judge Amit Mehta makes his final ruling by August 2025. The company will have a chance to make its proposal in December.
 

Washington:

US officials have arrested two Indian nationals with drugs worth USD 10 million, the Department of Justice said. Simranjit Singh, 28, and Gusimrat Singh, 19, of Fresno, California were each charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, it said.

Both made initial appearances before a federal court in Boston on July 29 and remain in federal custody. They were detained after local police found in the cab of the tractor trailer, over 400-kg bricks of suspected cocaine worth more than USD 10.5 million.

“The sheer amount of drugs seized in this one case is disturbing and dangerous. These defendants allegedly took a cross-country trip to distribute illicit narcotics into Massachusetts communities,” said Acting United States Attorney Joshua S Levy.

According to charging documents, on July 29, at 10.15 pm, a white tractor trailer arrived at a planned Andover address to deliver methamphetamine to the undercover agents. The driver and passenger of that tractor trailer, later identified as Gusimrat Singh and Simranjit Singh, allegedly handed off 65 pounds of suspected methamphetamine to the undercover agents. The men were immediately taken into custody.

The charge of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, at least three years and up to life of supervised release, and a fine of up to USD 1,000,000.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New York:

The US Department of Justice is considering a deal with Boeing that would avoid criminal prosecution of the aerospace giant but may appoint a federal supervisor to oversee company progress on safety improvements, The New York Times reported Friday.

People familiar with the discussions told the daily that the terms of the possible alternative settlement, known as a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, are still subject to change.

A DOJ official involved in the case, Glenn Leon, chief of the fraud section criminal division, said in an email to a civil party lawyer seen by AFP that the department “has not made a decision” on the path it will take with respect to Boeing.

The DOJ is determining its next steps after concluding in May that Boeing could be prosecuted for violating a criminal settlement following two fatal 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 which claimed 346 lives.

But the Times, citing sources familiar with the discussions, reported that after substantial internal debate, Justice officials “appear to have concluded that prosecuting Boeing would be too legally risky.”

Officials also reportedly believe that the appointment of a watchdog would be “a quicker, more efficient way” to ensure safety and quality control improvements are made, the newspaper said.

Last month, the DOJ told the judge in the case it would give its decision no later than July 7.

The DOJ’s Leon emailed Paul Cassell, a lawyer for families in the criminal case against Boeing, saying the Times reporting “was simply not correct.”

Boeing did not respond to AFP requests for reaction.

– No decision –

The troubled planemaker had contested the department’s conclusions in mid-June, but has recognized the gravity of the safety crisis and CEO Dave Calhoun told Congress that Boeing is “taking action and making progress.”

In January 2021, Justice announced an initial DPA in which Boeing agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle fraud charges over certification of the 737 MAX.

But since early 2023, the manufacturer has experienced multiple production and quality control problems on its commercial aircraft, as well as mid-flight incidents including in January when a door plug panel flew off an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9.

The DOJ says Boeing’s violation of several provisions of the initial agreement, including measures requiring it to bolster its internal controls to detect and deter fraud, opened the company to prosecution.

Victims’ families have called for the criminal prosecution of Boeing and its executives, and are seeking a nearly $25 billion fine.

A new DPA would allow the US government to resolve Boeing’s violations without a trial.

That could serve as a victory of sorts for Boeing, a company seen as critical to the US aviation industry as well as national security.

Cassell, the families’ lawyer, warned against sealing an agreement avoiding trial.

“We hope that the Department is not using its claim to have not yet made a ‘final decision’ as a ploy to gain additional time to hammer out a DPA deal with Boeing,” Cassell said in a statement.

“The first DPA deal failed. There is no reason to think a second one would be any better,” he said, adding it’s time for “moving forward with a trial and obtaining a guilty verdict against Boeing.”

Such lawsuits in the past have forced companies into filing for bankruptcy, the Times reported, and a conviction could potentially prevent Boeing from receiving government contracts.

Boeing’s defense, space and security segment generated $25 billion in 2023, nearly a third of the company’s sales.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Washington:

The US Department of Justice sued Apple on Thursday for illegally maintaining a monopoly for its iPhone by stifling competition and imposing exorbitant costs on consumers.

The lawsuit, also brought by multiple US states, attacked the iPhone for raking in hundreds of billions of dollars by making it difficult for consumers to switch away to cheaper smartphones and devices.

The long anticipated case against Apple sees the company founded by Steve Jobs in 1976 clash with Washington after largely escaping US government scrutiny for nearly a half century.

It joins Amazon, Google and Facebook-owner Meta which are also facing antitrust lawsuits in the United States.

News of the lawsuit sent shares in Apple down by as much as 3.75 percent on Wall Street on Thursday.

At the heart of the case is Apple’s alleged exclusionary practices that set strict and at times opaque conditions on firms and developers seeking to reach the iPhone’s 136 million US users.

According to the lawsuit, these rules and decisions have been designed to force Apple users into staying in the Apple ecosystem and buying the company’s more expensive hardware, the iPhone.

“Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland. 

“If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly,” he added.

Apple fights back

The far-reaching case singled out practices that it said was making Apple richer to the detriment of advancing innovation and technology for consumers.

In a statement, Apple denied the merit of the lawsuit, saying it was “wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

If successful, the suit would “set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology,” the company added.

The lawsuit for example accused Apple of squashing the creation of Super Apps, one-stop web portals that could exist on an iPhone and give consumers other ways to get services, such as music, photo or movies.

Other big tech giants such as Meta have long dreamed of opening such super-apps on the iPhone, which accounts for roughly half of the smartphone market in the United States.

The accusations also target Apple’s wallet, which is the only application allowed on the iPhone to access the technology to make tap payments in stores, forcing others to pay a fee.

Messaging apps are under the microscope too, with prosecutors accusing Apple of making it hard for Apple users to interact easily with Android phone users, coercing them to buying the more expensive iPhone.

The broad case also mentions smartwatches, with the Apple Watch only being available through the iPhone, and competing smartwatches having very limited functionality on the iPhone.

The complaint alleges that these nefarious practices go into other services such as web browsers, entertainment and even automotive services.

In recent years Apple has invested heavily in promoting services as well as hardware as it seeks ways to make money beyond the iPhone, which was introduced in 2007 and changed the world of consumer technology.

But iPhone sales growth has been slowing in recent years, raising pressure on the company to find other sources of revenue.

The DOJ pointed out that Apple’s profits exceed any other company in the Fortune 500 and that it exceeds the gross domestic product of more than 100 countries.

In 2023, Apple saw global sales of $383 billion and net profit of $97 billion.

The DOJ’s investigation of Apple began in 2019 under the Trump administration.

Apple largely won a US lawsuit from Fortnite-maker Epic Games that has been pursuing Apple in jurisdictions worldwide over the rules and fees it imposes on the iPhone.

In a case brought by Spotify, the EU this month hit Apple with a 1.8-billion-euro ($1.9 billion) fine for preventing European users from accessing information about alternative, cheaper music streaming services.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)