♪ emily: i am emily chang, and this is the "best of bloomberg technology," where we bring you all of our top interviews from this week in tech. in the next hour, gdpr goes into effect, changing forever how tech companies handle personal data. how it will affect you, and what is the likelihood it will be implemented in the united states? plus, zuckerberg faces the wrath of european parliament and leaves a lot of questions unanswered and lawmakers frustrated. we will bring you the highlights. tech leaders descend on paris to attend french president macron's

tech summit. we will hear from some of the top names in european tech ahead. now to our top story -- friday, europe's new data privacy laws officially went into effect. gdpr, the general data protection regulation, brings unprecedented fine for companies that fail to adequately protect the data of e.u. citizens. we are talking 4% of of an offending entity's globabl total revenue or $24 million, whichever is higher. so just how will these new laws affect consumers around the world? bloomberg has the answer. >> you may have seen a few of these pop up on your phone or in your email. google, facebook, twitter, amazon, square, go daddy, tesco, h&m, and many more are updating their policies to give consumers more control over their personal data. those updates and changes are thanks to a new law governing data privacy, called the the general data protection regulation, or gdpr. the catch is, gdpr only applies to people who live in the european union, but its adoption

is largely expected to have americans asking -- why don't we have that? here is how data collection currently works. when you sign up for facebook, you have to click a box that agrees to the company's terms. those terms give facebook the right to track your online activity, even if you are not actively browsing facebook. facebook can let third parties access it in order to sell ads and services. nate: consumers will have the right to ask for copies of anything, either messages sent to them or by them. >> that is bloomberg tech editor nate lanxon. nate: up to entire archives of all the content that they have generated on the service. >> on may 25, companies with more than 250 employees and that hold data on european citizens will have to get unambiguous consent from users to collect their data, instead of just ok inside fine print. it will also make it much easier

to revoke consent that users had previously given. for consumers who do opt in, they have a right to know what is being done with their data, and instead of being charged to obtain it, can request a free copy. nate: companies like google and facebook have been making data available for download and deletion upon request for quite some time. >> consumers also have the right to be forgotten, which lets citizens request that organizations delete their data. data portability -- that gives consumers the right to retrieve their data and sell it to other companies. for example, you may be able to trade something like a gift certificate from zara in exchange for your shopping history from j.crew. if a firm has a data breach, companies must notify authorities within 72 hours, and any failure to comply with this new law will be costly. penalty fines can be as high as 4% of the company's global annual revenue. nate: europe expects companies to act within the spirit of the law, and not just to try to follow it to the letter. this means there will be disputes and legal precedents to be set over the coming years. >> while the u.s. is still reeling over facebook and of the cambridge analytica scandal, the e.u. is moving ahead with tough new rules. many will ask if the u.s. should be next. emily: to discuss this and much more involving the european union, we spoke with eu

ambassador to the united states, david o'sullivan, on wednesday from washington. amb. o'sullivan: i think it was very good that he went. it was very good that he agreed to speak with parliament. it was good that he heard first-hand some of the strong feelings there are amongst european politicians about these issues around privacy and around user data. the question of the format was something decided by the parliament. i think it probably would have been impossible to answer all of those questions in the time allotted. i think this is part of an ongoing dialogue, having contact with facebook. i think they know there are issues, and these are complicated issues. i think this was a good first step in opening a dialogue, and i'm sure there will be more. emily: one of the questions was, convince me you're not a monopoly and why we shouldn't break up facebook. he talks about how facebook faces stiff competition, yet this is a company with 2 billion users that owns three of the other major social networks -- facebook messenger, instagram, and whatsapp. what could the eu conceivably do to address the monopoly

question, and how likely is that? amb. o'sullivan: it's very important to understand that e.u. anti-monopoly laws are not run on a political basis, it is not run by the european parliament or even by the member states. it is run by the european commission on the basis of whether established rules about dominant position and so forth. the issue of abuse of dominant position or monopoly inquiries under the antitrust laws are a matter for the european commission to conduct in the usual way, so i don't think this is something which enters into the political domain. emily: they have been quite aggressive when talking about companies like google, in particular. do you think they could take a greater interest in facebook? amb. o'sullivan: i have no idea. it depends on what the facts would say. anti-monopoly and antitrust

legislation and action is based on objective facts. it is based on analysis. i think this is not something that is just going to be driven by political concerns. the cases you have referred to have been the result of long investigations and in a very transparent and open way. i have great faith in the objectivity of our antitrust activity. emily: we are just days away from gdpr going into effect. how will we really know if facebook and other companies are complying? amb. o'sullivan: well, the answer is that the rules are there. it would be eventually for people who feel that their data is not being properly protected to make a complaint, or for somebody to introduce a complaint to one of the data-protection authorities, then there would be an examination. the company would be given the opportunity to respond. if i may say so, emily, you talked about these fines. a fine will be the instrument of last resort at the end of a

process in which companies have been asked to explain whether they're compliant, whether they are not compliant, why they are not compliant. i don't think there is any risk that companies will find themselves suddenly out of the blue subject to heavy fines without there being due process and time given to respond to any concerns there may be. emily: on this note, you have made the argument that companies could actually be more innovative as a result of gdpr, but there are also small businesses who say they have been put out of business as a result of this. does that concern you? amb. o'sullivan: i'm not aware of anyone who has been put out of business. let's be clear, the gdpr is not substantially different from the privacy directive we have had in 1995. it does introduce some new procedures, and it does introduce the element of enforcement through fines. but we had a two-year period for

people to get used to this and to prepare. frankly, i think there is perhaps a little too much hype about the possible impact of this. it is evolution rather than revolution. i believe most companies have been able to adapt and prepare for this in an orderly way. emily: do you think the u.s. will or should enact similar legislation? amb. o'sullivan: that's for the u.s. to decide. i note that nearly 120 countries around the world have overarching data privacy rules based on the same principles as the gdpr, which were based on, in fact, the oedc principles established 20 years ago. it is for the u.s. to decide if they want to go down that road. they are a little bit the exception to this. emily: that was e.u. ambassador to the united states david o'sullivan. consumer reports has passed on recommending tesla's model 3. the magazine says the car's 60-miles-per-hour stopping distance took seven feet longer than the ford full-size f-150 pickup. the magazine also cited the car's hard-to-use controls but praised the tesla's battery range and handling. still ahead, facebook's fake news fight. how the social media platform continues to tackle it, but can they actually win? and what does it mean for upcoming elections around the globe? later, the company behind the hottest video game out making a big push into e-sports. details on epic games' $100 million esports investment next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: this week, goldman sachs held their annual technet conference underway in hong kong. bloomberg's stephen engle spoke exclusively to some of the region's leading and emerging tech players, including tujia's cfo warren wang. tujia is known as china's airbnb and is rapidly chasing the growing number of chinese travelers in southeast asia, japan, and south korea -- outside its home market of china. we asked him about the difference between the two home-sharing companies. warren: airbnb is a well-respected competitor in china, but we think we are the number one player in this industry in china. that's one thing. the other thing is we are not just a pure online company. we have off-line operations as well. we have a local team in most cities in china to help local house owners to run their business. that's, i think, the big difference between us and airbnb in china. emily: on tuesday, facebook ceo

mark zuckerberg testified before the european parliament, and he left lawmakers fuming over unanswered questions at the end of the hearing that began with a mea culpa over the company's recent privacy mistakes. zuckerberg repeated what he has been telling every audience recently, that his company did not take a broad enough view of responsibility of its user data, fake news, and foreign interference in elections. he said he is sorry for it. he also spoke about regulations. mark: i think the internet is becoming increasingly important in people's lives. some sort of regulation is important and inevitable. the important thing is to get it right and to make sure that we have regulatory frameworks that help protect people, that help with flexibility, that allow for innovation, that do not inadvertently prevent new technologies, like a.i., from being able to develop. emily: meantime, facebook launched an aggressive new campaign to tell the world how

it is fighting fake news and how its 2 billion users can spot it. we were joined by the tessa lyons, facebook news feed product manager from stanford, california, to talk about what else facebook is doing to fight fake news. tessa: we have been working hard to stop the spread of false news. given the scale, as you mentioned, we have been using both technology and human review. i would love to talk to you more about those actions. what we are sharing today are our updates on our efforts to communicate openly about our actions and to be held accountable for the progress that we are making. we are sharing a short film that gives an inside look at the teams fighting false news on facebook. the work we do to disrupt financial incentives, to fight fake accounts, and to reduce the overall spread of this type of content. we are also sharing that we will be working with academics in order to provide them with data to help all of us better understand and measure the volume and effects of misinformation and the impact of our efforts to fight it. emily: you're launching a new short film called "facing facts," which profiles you and other people at facebook who are working on this.

this is in addition to a tv ad campaign, a print ad campaign. what do you say about the people out there who say this is just pr spin? tessa: what i would say is that we are all deeply committed to fighting false news on facebook. we recognize there is a fake news problem. we recognize it is not what people want when they come to facebook. we are committed, based on the feedback from our community, to actually improve this problem. in order to be held accountable, we need to do more to help academics access the data, so that we can all measure the current volume and effects of misinformation and the trends in those over time, so that we can prove that our efforts are having an effect and helping us fight the problem and to contain the spread of false news on facebook. emily: we talk a lot about fake news, but the sort of fully bogus fake stuff is not necessarily the biggest problem.

actually, a bigger concern might be sort of hyper-partisan news that presents facts in a misleading way and with a political agenda. what are you doing about that? tessa: you're absolutely right that when we say misinformation or fake news, we are all referring to a lot of different problems. it is important for us to break them down in order to fight the most effectively. we have actually seen the majority of false news on facebook is financially-motivated. one of the main things we are doing is working to disrupt those financial incentives. that might look like truly fake facts, but that can also look like partisan or misleading content. by going after those financial incentives, we can reduce the spread of a broad swath of that content. more broadly, we know there is also information that people are sharing that might not be financially-motivated, but might be fake or misleading in other ways. one of the things we are doing is working with fact checkers, in order to provide people with more context about the stories they are seeing and, in some cases, to reduce the spread of those stories by showing them lower in people's news feed.

emily: fact checkers are one thing. others have suggested, why doesn't facebook just hire its own journalists? it's an idea that facebook has been sort of allergic to, but why not hire your own journalists, who could make some of these decisions? tessa: emily, we have 2 billion people around the world using facebook in order to connect with friends, family, and the things they care about. what we are committed to doing is ensuring that when people come to facebook, they have the experience they expect, that it is authentic, high-quality, and credible information. in order to best do that, we need a variety of tools. we need to remove fake accounts. in the first quarter of the year alone, we removed 583 million fake accounts who were often involved in spreading misinformation and other types of low-quality content. we also need to go after the financial incentive. third, we need to reduce the spread of false or misleading content by showing those stories lower in news feed. fourth, we need to give people more information. across the board, we need to use both technology and human review, but the problem is not so much about the individuals

who are weighing in on some of this content. it is really how we scale this effort in order to go after the full breadth of this challenge and fight it most effectively around the world. emily: and once a piece of news is -- or fake news is flagged, fact-checked, put out, what do you do to make sure it doesn't get recycled in other ways and appear elsewhere? tessa: it's a great question. to use one example, if we have an article that has been rated as false by one of the fact checkers that we partner with, we reduce the spread of that individual article in news feed. but we also use machine learning in order to identify duplicates of those articles or ways in which that same content might be reappearing from other domains or from other pages. because we know that, in many cases, the bad actors behind this content are not just sharing one example. they are trying to create duplicates in order to further achieve their financial incentives or whatever their objectives might be. i think what's really important is that we have to recognize that the fight against fake news is an adversarial fight.

that there are people who are highly-motivated, whether those motivations are financial or otherwise, to continue to spread this type of information and to profit from it in whatever way that might be. we need to ensure that our systems are staying ahead of their adaptations and anticipating the next wave of this fight. emily: on that note, obviously, russia, efforts to undermine american democracy using facebook are continuing. is it actually possible to stop this problem, to stop disinformation on facebook, or is it a losing battle? tessa: it's possible, absolutely, for us to do a much better job of ensuring that the information that people see on facebook is authentic and high-quality. now, the broader conversation around misleading information is something that has been around long before social media and will continue to be a challenge. we need to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to give people information, so that

they can also make informed decisions, which is why one of the things that we are sharing today is a broader effort that we have to help people identify potentially false or misleading information by giving them tips for trends they can spot. this is part of a broader effort we have to be more transparent with people about the information they are seeing on facebook, the people behind that information, and the steps they can take to control the information that they see in their own personal news feed. emily: that was tessa lyons, facebook news feed product manager. coming up, in the world of e-sports, fortnite is anticipated to gain even more popularity this year. we are talking to the allied esports ceo about how they plan to tap into the massive market. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: sony is set to solidify its position as the largest music publisher in the world when it buys emi music publishing for about $2 billion.

this will come in the form of a 60% equity stake, something new ceo kenichiro yoshida says will set sony up for years to come. kenichiro: [speaking japanese] translator: this move is a way to intensify our content and ip business. sony and emi combined own the copyrights of 4.4 million songs. with this deal, sony becomes one of the largest music publishers in the world. we expect steady income from music publishing, and it will be a key growth area in the long-term. emily: meantime, e-sports continue to gain traction around the world, and one company wants in on the action. epic games, the company behind the hit game fortnite, has announced $100 million in prize pool money for fortnite competitions in the first year of competitive play. not much detail has come out about what these tournaments may look like, but if last month's tournament in vegas with fortnite mega-streamer ninja is a preview of what is to come, this could be a serious game changer. the event in april was held at the newly-opened esports arena

in the luxor resort and casino in las vegas. allied sports is the company behind this space and other arenas around the world that allow gamers to meet up and compete in the hottest new video game tournaments in what could become a $1.5 billion industry by 2020. we spoke with allied esports ceo jud hannigan. jud: fortnite has really taken the world by storm. it has grabbed gamers everywhere. and it really speaks to the volume and excitement around the battle royale genre of gaming, which has been around a while, but it has really picked up steam. as of march of this year, the research firm super data reported that about 40 million players worldwide, and $223 million in revenue in the month of march alone for epic games and what is this phenomenal growth in fortnite. emily: how are these competitions actually working? is that every person for

themselves, is it teams, will they be happening in your arena? jud: absolutely. the beauty of this genre is there is a 1v1 format, there is a 2v2 format, and there is a 4v4 format as well. with a lot of creativity, i am sure there will be more coming on the back of this. even 50v50 can happen in these games. the interesting thing about a battle royale format is there are usually about 100 players that drop into a map, and you are scrambling for weapons, and it is a last man standing type of game, so there's really no limit to the creativity that can happen inside these games. what is coming from epic and other creative tournament organizers like ourselves will be truly exciting for the industry as a whole. emily: talk about how you see these fitting into your arenas and your realm. jud: sure.

for allied, we have six arenas around the world to date in north america, europe, and china. our flagship opened up in march in las vegas. one of the things that we really looked at was the rise of fortnite and how truly powerful and popular this game was, and how do we bring that excitement into a building? we partnered up with the most popular influencer and streamer in that game, a guy named tyler "ninja" blevins, and brought him in. where he is typically streaming from his home to millions of viewers every day, we brought him into las vegas, headlining on the las vegas strip, and basically created an environment where players in the arena could play with him. really an enhanced experience overall. emily: there is talk about how fortnite is a more -- potentially -- inclusive game, but do you think it could help or hurt esports, given the traditional sort of first-person shooter audience? jud: esports really covers a wide variety of games. there's multiplayer online

battle arenas, which are team-based, there's first-person shooters, which can be team-based. there's team-based shooters. there's a lot of different genres out there today. battle royale is just another example of that. it just happens to be the one that is growing the most right now, largely on the back of games like fortnite and others that have really seen a rise and the inclusiveness to it, the ability to play in different formats within the same framework of the game is exciting. you can see that by the interest in people watching, tuning in, but also the amount of players is just phenomenal. emily: when talking about hit games, there's always the question -- is it a flash in the pan, or is it going to be a franchise that will generate hundreds of millions of dollars year after year after year? is it too early to say that fortnite is going to be a lasting hit? i think about pokemon go, for example, which really was a moment and not a movement. jud: i think you are right, it is early. one of the things that is amazing about this industry is the games keep changing. new games keep coming, and while not many people had heard about fortnite six or seven months

ago, it is the hottest game today. this industry has that power for a newcomer to come along and for more growth and more users and more players. that is one of the things that is exciting about it. this thrill of a $100 million in prize pool into this industry -- last year alone in 2017, it was $112 million in the e-sports industry in prize pool. we have just doubled that in one game. it is exciting and it certainly -- this kind of makes you feel like fortnite is here to stay, but the industry will keep coming out with more and more creative games. emily: that was jud hannigan, ceo of allied esports. coming up, emmanuel macron is attempting to usher in a new era of innovation and growth for the tech industry in france. this week's meeting with big tech meeting next. plus, maurice levy, a legend in the ad industry, speaks to bloomberg from paris. what advice does he have for mark zuckerberg? this is bloomberg. ♪ our phones are more than just phones.

they're pocket-sized personal trainers. last-minute gift finders. and discoverers of new places. it's the internet in your hand. that's why xfinity mobile can be included with xfinity internet. which can save you $400 or more a year. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit a store today.

♪ emily: welcome back to the best of "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. in the wake of brexit and president trump's complicated relationship, firms are expanding their presence in paris. google and facebook are making a large investments in france. on monday, caroline hyde previewed what would be a big week for paris and tech. ♪ caroline: french president emmanuel macron is looking to become the go-to head of state for global tech. this week, he spoke to heads of notable firms at the presidential palace. the meetings will be followed by

the visa technology summit that could signal a big shift for the country. for years, the french tech scene has operated in the shadow of the world, but he is capitalizing on a void left by president trump's complicated relationship with global tech. france has had only three startups achieve unicorn status, compared to 22 in the u.k., and 105 in the united rates. ♪ -- in the united states. but recently, the paris tech industry is reinventing itself. there were a record 743 tech deals in 2017, growing by 45% from 2016, and the total value of the deals jumped 50% from last year. meanwhile, the country is hoping to jumpstart innovation and investment. it is the world's largest startup push. square foot

property opened last summer, with eight office spaces, for kitchens, and a pop-up space. however, it will cost you. some firms paid $600,000 a year in membership fees. has it been a success? it remains to be seen. but they are continuing to expand offers with over 100 shared apartments. emily: and caroline was on the ground in paris all week reporting live from our event. she spoke with several influencers, including maurice levy. advertisingof the board at a large advertising publicis group.

maurice: the tech world is now beginning in paris, and we start tomorrow we say with a very important meeting with president macron and how security has people to have a better life. and from thursday to saturday, we will have the tech world meeting in paris. and we are expecting to get mark zuckerberg many others, 6000 startups, more than 2000 investors, etc., etc. it is something which will be extremely important, and it shows that france is committed to be ready for technology, for startups, for entrepreneurship. this is something that is rather new, very fresh. only three years. we expect all the planet to have their eyes looking at paris. caroline: what policies have president macron brought in to make it a better place for startup companies? maurice: i think the first thing that he did was peace of mind.

to change the opinion that even the french could have about entrepreneurship and being successful. in france, it was not so good to be successful. success was not celebrated, to say the least. and sometimes, people were blamed because they were successful and making it west. today, president macron and the government, as a whole, are encouraging the young people to start up their own business, and encouraging the venture capitalists to invest in france and to support startups.

caroline: mr. macron, president macron, will meet with some 40 technology leaders, including mark zuckerberg. he wants to remind them of their responsibility. is technology taking its responsibility seriously enough for the moment? what changes need to be made? maurice: the reason why he is organizing the meeting tomorrow with roughly 70 ceos, some very important names you have already mentioned, and important names in france, the main reason is to see what the future will be, and how technology, which is creating some fears. you have a lot of people who are fearing what artificial intelligence or technology can do to their jobs. the fact they might not be able to succeed in the future, or even to continue just to work. there is three sessions, which will be organized, three breakout sessions. rometti aboutni

education. what should be the future of education? the second one with dara, and how should we be organizing work and the continued use of training of the people? they are never left aside. last, but not least, about equality, gender, and diversity. it is extremely important. emily: that was maurice levy, chairman of the supervisory board at the groupie, publicist group speaking with caroline hyde. iphone users sued google claiming they unlawfully collected personal data by bypassing the default privacy setting. google denies the claim. and sticking with google, still ahead, the company was hit hard on "60 minutes" last weekend. charges of there a legal tactics getting the primetime tv treatment. how the u.s. government is not responding to the so-called monopoly next. this is bloomberg.

♪ \

emily: a story we are watching, intel has disclosed another way to attack computers related to their chip security flaws. the company said there is no evidence of it having been used to hack computers and a fix is in place. google is getting a lot of heat after a "60 minutes" segment claiming the search engine wields a destructive a monopoly. the segment highlighted how critics and rivals have had enough of the company's dominance. here is part of the discussion. >> ultimately, that manifested itself in you expecting that those top links are the best from around the world.

the best that the world has to offer. i can tell you that is not the case. that is not the case anymore. emily: since the program aired, treasury secretary steven mnuchin urged the justice department to review the power large tech companies like google have, taking a page out of the e.u. playbook. on monday, we spoke with an antitrust lawyer, featured in the episode of "60 minutes," and pursued cases against microsoft. we were joined by another guest on this conversation. >> the basic argument is that they have no real rivals in general search. and they are using their power in general search to manipulate search results and ways that disadvantage competitors and limit consumer's choices. emily: brian, fair? brian: well, i think they have a very high market share, so 90% of the u.s. search market.

i think as big companies get bigger and bigger, it is tougher to come by growth. sometimes, the companies engage in tactics that maybe they shouldn't. i watched the program and thought it was a great program and thought good points were made. i don't think there was a smoking gun, but i think it provides ample information for people to look into it a little more. emily: yelp ceo said on "60 minutes" that he could not have started yelp if google operated the way it operates today. any talked about the threats to his business. he also said this about how links are displayed, and how that affects you as a smaller business. take a listen. >> it's not even just the first page. it is the first few links on the are where the vast

majority of where user attention goes and where the traffic flows. >> so, if you aren't at the top of the page or the bottom of the first page, that will affect your business? >> yeah, if you are on the second page, forget it. you are not a real business. emily: now, here is what google told "60 minutes." the company denied they were a monopoly citing competitors like amazon and facebook. it said it does not make changes to its algorithm to disadvantage competitors, and that "our responsibility is to deliver the best results possible to our users. we understand that those sites, whose rankings fall, will be unhappy and may complain publicly." gary, what about the argument that some of these sites may just not like how they are displayed, which may be directly correlated to the strength of their business and what they have to offer? gary: that argument is totally bogus. and you don't have to take my word for it. if you look at the federal trade commission report, that begin go "60 minutes" cited, that has

been up on the "wall street journal" website for two years now, you will see in the footnotes that the ftc got google's internal emails, and they showed that google specifically made a list of competitors to target, with the goal of bringing those competitors down 20% in their search traffic hits. and they changed their algorithm repeatedly to get that result. and then reported that to their superiors that they had achieved those results. so, i don't understand how they can, with a straight face, go on saying what they are saying. thes directly belied by ftc report. emily: you say the government is

not enforcing the laws that we have. do you also believe we need laws or lawmakers who better understand the power of technology? gary: well, we could certainly use more lawmakers who might get interested in this sector, and understand how it affects their constituents, but i don't think we need to go off on the long rigmarole of trying to pass new legislation. we have legislation that works fine against microsoft, it just has to be enforced. the problem right now is, it is not being enforced, or it wasn't in the obama administration. he needs to be enforced now. if that does not work, we can try something else. but i think that will work. worked against microsoft. emily: now, treasury secretary steven mnuchin was asked about this report. he did not call out google specifically, that said that the doj needs to take a closer look. does that concern you for alphabet shareholders? >> it doesn't. when you look at google and look at all of the businesses they are in, if something came down antitrust-wise, and they had to break up the company, it would

be worth a lot more. right? are number one in the smartphone operating system market. they have a great waymo driverless car, and are number one in searches. a lot in youtube. they have a lot of great businesses under this umbra and so, sure, you should always look at any big company that is abusing their power, and so, i think that is a given. emily: interesting, gary, that if google was broken up, there is an argument to be made that it could be worth a lot more. and that these companies could be more powerful. how do you respond to that? and if google is broken up, how should it be close a markedly -- how should it be?

>> first of all, i think there is a good chance that these individual constituent parts would be worth more. historically, we know that when standard oil was broken up, that is when john d. rockefeller got most of his net worth. but the fact that they are worth more individually does not mean they are more powerful. they cannot conspire with each other a separate, individual companies. in many cases, they would compete. at the very least, they would have to enter into contract negotiations, and other people would be able to compete against them more readily. i agree with the other commentator. there is a good possibility they could be worth more to shareholders individually. but the first step is to have a public trial, so we understand what the remedy should be. we cannot just jump to breaking them up. we don't know how to break them up exactly. we need a public trial so we understand the issues. emily: now, interestingly, facebook is the company that has been in the regulatory spotlight over the last few weeks, though google spends far more on lobbying in washington, d.c.

numberslly pulled the on that. i'm curious, gary, how do you think google comparison to facebook when it comes to the idea of being a monopoly given that they own whatsapp, instagram, and facebook messenger. is google a bigger offender? gary: well, i think that google has been an offender longer. i try to be careful about my comments on companies. i have spent a long time studying google. nine years. but i have not gotten those complaints yet about facebook, so i want to be more circumspect in terms of what i say. i don't think the right approach is to try to compare one to the other. rather, we evaluate each one against the legal standard. right now, there is a complete record in europe. there is a record developed by the ftc in the united states, all with respect to google's antitrust behavior. we ought to move on that record. that is the next thing that needs to happen.

emily: that was antitrust lawyer gary reback. and also brian white. coming up, we head back to paris as french president macron hosted dozens of tech leaders this week. we will hear from the ceo of the european unicorn group. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: ibm has just announced it is hiring 1400 employees in france over the next two years. the new positions will focus on ai, blockchain, and cybersecurity. europe has become a draw for tech companies big and small. deliveroo is one of the biggest startups. spoke to bloomberg growth.

will: the e.u. was a great place to start a business. we are in 12 countries, western europe, southern europe, uae, hong kong, singapore, and australia. and the u.k. was a great place to start up a business, convince people to work in a dark room without heating, in the beginning. and people were willing to take a risk on that. we found it pretty straightforward to launch in other european countries as well. france is our second-biggest market, and we've had a lot of success here recruiting a great team. >> you are about to go meet the president, emmanuel macron. what will you be talking to him about? >> i think are dealt interactions with the french government have an very positive. he has been pro-business, pro-growth, pro-investment. and just looking forward to hearing from him. >> a lot of it is about tech for goods. how do you ensure that deliveroo is scaling the way you want? will: today, we announced an insurance rider. insurance product for our riders. we are doing a lot of things along that front. >> regulation is obviously a big focus.

on the driver and on the flexibility meeting protection. to a certain extent? is that a square you can circle do they need more in terms of pay and ensuring they get the minimum wage? will: the number one reason why delivery riders work with us is flexibility. so the ability to log in and out. the ability to work whenever you want. at the same time, i personally believe we need to offer benefits as well. there has been this sort of impasse between flexibility and benefits. and so, we want to work with governments, including the french government to end this. >> what about scaling? you are going into new ventures, new ideas, and helping fund new concepts. what are some of the new innovations you're coming up with to stay ahead of the competition? such as uber eats. dara is at today's meeting. will: for us, we are all about food. it is about going deeper and deeper into the food chain. we created hundreds of delivery-only kitchens to help our restaurant partners expand.

we are helping our restaurants build virtual brands that only exist on deliveroo. we are helping to fund new concepts as well. this is just the beginning. we are really excited about that. another ceo at the sooner than you think event in paris, about what he expects to come out of president macron's meeting with tech leaders. >> i think it is great that president macron is engaging with technology. we need it, but also to address the positive impact technology can have, and the negative impact that we need to deal with as well. >> talk to us about the ramifications and the responsibilities of technology. mark zuckerberg is here, and he is a man who was had to do with the repercussions of getting too big too quickly. >> if you take a historical perspective, technology has

created a lot of economic growth and prosperity. it has also had a lot of negative impacts -- environments and so forth. my belief is that the new generation of technology, digital, and high-tech, has a lot of impact in terms of climate change, water, and so forth. the technology is also starting to have some consequences as well that we need to deal with. whether that his privacy, whether that is algorithms that has biases, and these are things that everyone else in the technology world has to take responsibility. >> when you are funding these startups, are you having these conversations with founders to ensure the ethics grow in the right way? >> it is really interesting to see younger founders who are watching what is happening, and they are sponges, and saying, what can we learn from the previous generation of entrepreneurs? they want to build these things

into companies from day one. when we invest with them, we talk about governance, but also as questions about diversity and ethics. this is something they are all responding very well to. so, i think there is an opportunity to work with the next generation to build in a code of conduct from day one. >> what about the next generation for european as opposed to american founders? is this a coming of age? you have got money coming back into the ecosystem. is that a selling point? >> i would say it is a turning point. an a turning point, inflection point. we have a steady growth, and when we had the skype exit in 2005, it was a big thing. but now, i feel, along the way, billion dollar

companyies in the past two years. we had 14 $5 billion companies. so the scale is getting bigger and bigger. there is no doubt in my mind that europe is now an inflection point of continuous growth. >> we have had difficult kind of exits. meanwhile, spotify did indeed list. did you wish you listed skype as a possibility? >> when we started skype in 2002, we said we will be with the company for a long time . when we started skype in 2002, we said we are going to build the company for a really long time. if this company is going to be around and be a meaningful player in 15 years, we will be happy. it is doing fine. we are happy. we never had the intention to sell. you also have to look at what are the alternatives. back then, there was really no prospects.

that was the right thing to do. however, now when we are speaking to our founders of companies, we are looking at investing in, we want them to have a listing as a long-term goal post. we want them to build independent companies as that instead of building something you are selling. i would like to say that great companies may be acquired, and bad companies get sold. focus on building a long-term company. that is the right way to do it. caroline: you said skype is doing fine. could it be doing better? >> i don't know. i'm not following it so much. of course, it can always do better. it's probably has fewer uses then whatsapp, so yeah can do better. but it is very rewarding for me as i travel around the world. i still have a lot of people thanking me because they are using skype to connect with their families. that is rewarding enough for me. emily: that was bloomberg's caroline hyde at bloomberg's sooner than you think event in paris. that does it for this edition of the best of "bloomberg technology. we will bring you all the latest

and bloomberg technology throughout the week. tune in every day by the :00 day.nein every that is all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪

carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar. jason: i am jason kelly at bloomberg headquarters in new york. carol: coming up in this week's issue, we have the imposters that are hijacking twitter. jason: we have a catch 22 with kim jong-un. carol: and on the cover story, we have an unlikely turnaround in the auto industry. jason: this was unexpected from volvo. carol: i love this story. we got more from our reporter. >> ford has bought a lot of luxury brands. tried to make them work, and it