È in vigore da oggi il decreto carburanti approvato mercoledì sera dal consiglio dei ministri e subito pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale dopo la firma di Sergio Mattarella. Scatta quindi da subito – mentre in Medio Oriente gli attacchi incrociati alle infrastrutture energetiche hanno fatto schizzare ancora una volta le quotazioni del barile – il taglio di 20 centesimi al litro per 20 giorni delle accise su benzina e diesel. Considerando l’Iva, lo sconto per gli automobilisti sarà di circa 24,4 centesimi al litro. Caute le associazioni consumatori. “In deroga all’allineamento voluto dall’Unione europea, sarebbe stato molto meglio tagliare di 25 cent il gasolio e di 15 cent la benzina”, sostiene Massimiliano Dona, presidente dell’Unione Nazionale Consumatori. Il gasolio “in modalità self service in autostrada scenderà da 2,190 di oggi a 1,946 euro, un importo ancora troppo elevato, con un risparmio per un pieno di 50 litri pari a 12,20 euro. La benzina in autostrada diminuirà da 1,967 a 1,723, mentre con 15 cent sarebbe stata pari a 1,784, un valore comunque accettabile”. Federconsumatori parla di interventi positivi ma insufficienti. L’intervento arriva senza che sia stato attivato il meccanismo dell’accisa mobile, che prevede l’utilizzo del maggior gettito Iva per finanziare la riduzione delle accise. Le coperture vengono invece dalla riduzione degli stanziamenti di competenza e cassa dei ministeri: 127,5 a carico del Mef, 96,5 del ministero delle Infrastrutture di Matteo Salvini, 86 verranno tagliati alla Salute, 30 al Viminale, giù giù fino ai 25 milioni in meno per l’Università e ai 16,6 in meno per il Lavoro. Oltre al taglio temporaneo delle accise e alle misure settoriali per autotrasporto e imprese ittiche, all’articolo 1 – “Prevenzione e contrasto alle manovre speculative sui carburanti” – è prevista una stretta sui controlli. Giorgia Meloni nell’intervista al Tg1 subito dopo il consiglio dei ministri ha parlato di “un meccanismo antispeculazione che di fatto lega il prezzo del carburante all’andamento reale del prezzo del petrolio, introducendo sanzioni per chi dovesse discostarsi”. Descrizione ampiamente esagerata: il provvedimento si limita a disporre che le compagnie petrolifere comunichino quotidianamente ai gestori i prezzi consigliati, li pubblichino sui propri siti e li trasmettano sia al Garante per la sorveglianza dei prezzi sia all’Antitrust. In aggiunta, i gestori non potranno aumentare i prezzi nell’arco della stessa giornata. Il risultato sarà solo quello di rendere più tracciabile la formazione dei listini lungo la filiera. Peraltro non sono previste multe per chi si “discosta” dall’andamento reale del prezzo della materia prima, come sostenuto dalla premier: la sanzione, pari allo 0,1% del fatturato giornaliero, scatterà in caso di violazione dell’obbligo di comunicazione. Poco incisivo anche lo “speciale regime di controllo dei fenomeni distorsivi lungo la filiera” che stando al decreto verrà messo in campo dal Garante – Mister Prezzi – “al fine dell’immediato rilievo, previa individuazione di indici di anomalia, dell’andamento dei prezzi al consumo in rapporto alla variazione dei prezzi delle materie prime e raffinate sui mercati”. La figura istituita nel 2007 presso il ministero delle Imprese continuerà ad avere solo poteri di segnalazione e moral suasion. Se emergono aumenti ritenuti anomali e repentini, trasmetterà alla Guardia di Finanza “il dettaglio degli operatori della distribuzione e delle relative compagnie petrolifere, presso i quali accertare e verificare le eventuali anomalie (…) e il costo giornaliero di acquisto del greggio e dei prodotti raffinati da parte del titolare dell’autorizzazione petrolifera”. Gli esiti verranno poi inviati all’Antitrust per eventuali sanzioni e, nei casi più gravi, all’autorità giudiziaria che è ovviamente l’unica a poter determinare se ci sono reati. Le opposizioni criticano sia la portata sia l’impostazione del decreto. Per il Pd è “troppo poco e troppo tardi”, mentre Avs sottolinea come il taglio delle accise sia finanziato con risorse pubbliche e non a carico dei profitti del settore energetico. Secondo Angelo Bonelli, deputato di Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra e co-portavoce di Europa Verde, le sanzioni sono una beffa: “All’articolo 3 del decreto è prevista una sanzione pari allo 0,1% del fatturato giornaliero, ma non per chi aumenta i prezzi, bensì per chi non rispetta le procedure di comunicazione dei prezzi, che non potranno variare nell’arco della giornata. Per dare un ordine di grandezza, il fatturato giornaliero dei carburanti è pari a circa 200 milioni di euro: la sanzione, anche ipotizzando il massimo, sarebbe di appena 200mila euro. Una cifra irrisoria. Una vergogna”. L'articolo In vigore il decreto carburanti con il taglio temporaneo delle accise. Il “meccanismo antispeculazione” ha le armi spuntate proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

LOS ANGELES — After a year watching Donald Trump muscle his way into Hollywood — getting late-night hosts suspended, bullying news programs into settlements, threatening TV networks — entertainment executives and Democratic politicians say his intervention in the Warner Bros. Discovery sale may have gone too far. It also may be a reason Paramount Skydance reached a deal to acquire the company for more than $110 billion after Netflix backed out of the bidding war Thursday afternoon. The sale to Paramount, whose CEO David Ellison has cultivated ties with Trump, will reset the Hollywood ecosystem and throws into question the fate of Warner Bros.-owned CNN, which Trump has said should be sold. Within hours of the agreement, some industry executives and Democratic lawmakers here said they worry that Trump’s pressure campaign — he demanded last weekend that Netflix fire former Democratic national security adviser Susan Rice from its board or “pay the consequences” — could reshape how political power is wielded over the entertainment industry. “Unequivocally, yes, it will set a bad precedent for Hollywood,” Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Burbank Democrat, told POLITICO. “I don’t have a bone to pick with Paramount per se — my concern remains the influence of the Trump administration.” Hollywood had recoiled after Trump’s ultimatum that Rice be fired ratcheted up pressure on Netflix. There was a sense, though, that the industry could do little about it. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, who had previously dismissed Trump’s demand, saying the Warner Bros. transaction was not “political,” met with officials at the White House and U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday to seek assurances that his company’s prospective acquisition would get a fair review from regulators, POLITICO reported. Hours later, though, Sarandos couched Netflix’s decision to end its pursuit of Warner Bros. in purely economic terms, saying in a statement that the prospective transaction “was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price.” “We’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive,” he said. In fact, some in the entertainment industry saw money as a bigger motivator than Trump. Netflix had reached an agreement with Warner Bros. to acquire its studio and streaming assets for $82.7 billion in December. But Paramount made a hostile bid that month and upped its offer multiple times, culminating in an offer this week that Warner Bros.’ board determined Thursday was a superior proposal. The deal, which requires regulatory approval, includes backing from billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, the father of the Paramount CEO and a friend of Trump. But the president’s threat over Rice was viewed by many here as helping Paramount, with Trump’s involvement taking on a new dimension by targeting not just programming choices, but questions of corporate structure once largely insulated from political influence. “It’s horrifying that any president would put his finger on the scale for one company over another,” said producer Bill Gerber, a former worldwide president of theatrical production at Warner Bros. whose company has a first-look deal at the studio. Paramount and Warner Bros. did not respond to interview requests. The sale of Warner Bros., a Hollywood crown jewel known for films such as “Casablanca” and TV series including “Friends,” has for months been a source of tension in Washington and the entertainment industry. Republican attorneys general from 11 states urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi this week to examine Netflix’s proposed acquisition, arguing it could lead to “undue market concentration that stifles competition,” while California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, had already begun reviewing the deal. Bonta on Thursday night said that the proposed Warner Bros. sale is “not a done deal,” and that his office would continue its probe of the transaction. “These two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny — the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review,” he wrote on X. Meanwhile, lawmakers and industry figures alike worry that Paramount’s acquisition could trigger deep layoffs. Schultz, whose district includes the Warner Bros. lot, said that there is “a lot of angst in our community” over the sale. “It creates a lot of uncertainty among our residents,” he said. “I want to ensure that … we’re going to have jobs staying in our community, that we’re going to see vibrant and consistent production on our studio lot.” Warner Bros. shareholders are scheduled to vote on the sale on March 20. Paramount began seeking regulatory approval late last year — despite the absence of an agreement with Warner Bros. — an aggressive move that telegraphed confidence in ultimately clearing the process. Rep. Laura Friedman, whose Burbank district also is home to Warner Bros., said in a statement to POLITICO that the “government’s antitrust decisions must be based solely on what is best for hardworking Americans, consumers, and competition.” “We must investigate every instance where there is evidence that Trump meddled or wielded improper influence over what should be neutral regulatory processes,” she said. When David Ellison’s Skydance Media struck a deal to buy Paramount last year for about $8 billion, regulatory approval of the transaction became mired in controversy. The Federal Communications Commission signed off after Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against its CBS News division over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. Afterward, Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) opened an investigation, warning Ellison that the settlement raised “significant concerns” that Trump had demanded — and Paramount had paid — “an illegal bribe” in exchange for FCC approval. Paramount has denied the allegation, and the FCC has defended its decision. As for Paramount’s control of Warner Bros., the president has made at least one significant preference clear, saying in December that it was “imperative” that CNN be sold as part of a deal. That followed a Wall Street Journal report that said Ellison promised Trump he’d make “sweeping changes” to the network, which has long been targeted by the president. The Paramount CEO has been a frequent visitor to Washington in recent weeks, meeting with Trump at the White House in early February and attending the State of the Union address as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday. Netflix had, conversely, already come in for heavy scrutiny — from Trump’s Republican allies on the Hill. When Sarandos testified before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee overseeing antitrust earlier this month, lawmakers from both parties raised concerns about consolidation and competition. But Republicans also pressed Sarandos on culture-war issues, grilling him about “woke” content on the company’s streaming service. The White House and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. A representative of Rice, a former Biden administration official who also served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, also did not respond to a request for comment. The sale of Warner Bros. to Paramount would have profound implications for the entertainment industry. Paramount, whose namesake streaming service is smaller than several of its competitors, would be infused with a trove of content, said Laura Martin, a longtime entertainment and media industry analyst with Needham & Co., making it “a really viable competitor” to Netflix and Disney+. But a sale of Warner Bros. to Paramount could result in “many near-term layoffs,” Martin said, as the enlarged studio would need to pare down debt associated with the transaction. “Paramount … is going to stretch financially to buy Warner Bros., so if they succeed, they’re going to have to cut a lot of costs from the combined company.” Gerber called the sale “unfortunate,” saying it comes as Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav and the studio’s leadership team had begun restoring a culture at the company in which “artists felt looked after, cared about, and supported — where there were decades-long relationships, and movies were about quality, not just exploiting the IP that you own.” It’s working: reporting earnings on Thursday, the company touted a run of nine straight films debuting at No. 1. Gerber, producer of “A Star Is Born” and “Gran Torino,” among other movies, said he’s hopeful that Paramount would preserve that sensibility. Even before the agreement was announced, Wall Street investors on Thursday boosted shares of the company more than 10 percent. Brock Hrehor contributed to this report.

Il governo laburista britannico ha annunciato la nomina di Doug Gurr, ex dirigente del colosso americano Amazon, a presidente in via permanente della Competition and Markets Authority (Cma), l’autorità antitrust del Regno Unito. Gurr era stato designato ad interim un anno fa e ora l’esecutivo guidato dal premier Keir Starmer ha deciso di affidargli un mandato pieno. La scelta conferma la linea dell’attuale governo di apertura verso i giganti tecnologici statunitensi, almeno sul piano strettamente commerciale. Un orientamento che si distingue dalla posizione dura assunta nei confronti di Elon Musk e del suo social network X per la diffusione di deepfake sessuali generati dall’intelligenza artificiale, ritenuti in violazione dell’Online Safety Act, la legge britannica a tutela dei minorenni su internet. Gurr, che è stato presidente di Amazon Cina tra il 2014 e il 2016 e poi direttore del gruppo nel Regno Unito fino al 2020, “è stato ora scelto per ricoprire un mandato completo di cinque anni”, si legge in una nota del ministero del Commercio. Prima della formalizzazione definitiva della nomina, l’ex top manager dovrà comunque sottoporsi a un’audizione parlamentare di prassi. La decisione dell’esecutivo arriva dopo l’annuncio di un periodo di consultazione volto ad accelerare l’approccio normativo del Paese nell’approvazione delle fusioni tra grandi società, nel solco dello slogan di un Labour “aperto al mondo del business” promosso dal moderato Starmer. Il premier, tuttavia, è già finito sotto accusa per alcune nomine nell’ambito dello scandalo Mandelson-Epstein ed è stato criticato anche per aver respinto di recente quattro candidati alla guida dell’autorità garante della Comunicazione, Ofcom. Intanto crescono le voci su un possibile ritorno sulla scena di una figura politica del passato come la baronessa laburista Margaret Hodge, finita al centro di numerose polemiche. L'articolo Regno Unito, un ex dirigente Amazon come presidente dell’Antitrust: Starmer dà mandato di cinque anni a Doug Gurr proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission will ask Meta to halt new terms that prevent rival artificial intelligence chatbots from using WhatsApp, acting on concerns that the U.S. company is breaching the bloc’s antitrust rules.  The EU executive said it sent Meta a chargesheet setting out its concerns on the U.S. tech company’s behavior. Brussels’ preliminary view is that Meta breached EU antitrust rules by excluding third party AI assistants from accessing and interacting with users on WhatsApp. Speaking to Bloomberg TV after the announcement, competition chief Teresa Ribera stressed that the EU’s decision is not a political one nor is it motivated by a focus on U.S. companies.  “My sense is that this is not connected to politics, but connected to well-functioning markets and the protection of consumers,” she said, adding that companies abusing their market power is bad news in every geography.” It is not good news in Europe. It is not good news in the United States.” The commissioner said in a statement issued earlier that it was crucial to protect innovation in artificial intelligence, which is a rapidly evolving space. “That is why we are considering quickly imposing interim measures on Meta, to preserve access for competitors to WhatsApp while the investigation is ongoing, and avoid Meta’s new policy irreparably harming competition in Europe,” she said. The Donald Trump administration has repeatedly criticized the EU for targeting U.S companies with its antitrust rules, particularly on digital platforms, and has pushed the EU to soften its stance amid a tense trade relationship. The Commission late last year launched an investigation into the “WhatsApp Business Solution” — a tool for businesses to communicate with customers — following a similar probe by the Italian antitrust authority. Italy ordered Meta to stop its practices in December, but the measure only applied within national borders. Expectations had been building up for the Commission to follow suit. The investigation focuses on a recently introduced policy by Meta that prohibits AI providers from using the WhatsApp Business Solution when AI is the primary service offered. “The Commission intends to impose interim measures to prevent this policy change from causing serious and irreparable harm on the market, subject to Meta’s reply and rights of Defence,” the statement said. Meta criticized the Commission’s reasoning, which was instead welcomed by rival chatbot providers. “The facts are that there is no reason for the EU to intervene in the WhatsApp Business API,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement, adding that there are multiple AI options available to consumers. “The Commission’s logic incorrectly assumes the WhatsApp Business API is a key distribution channel for these chatbots.” Marvin von Hagen, chief executive of Interaction, which provides one of the rival chatbots, praised the Commission’s decision.  “The Commission’s intervention can help provide necessary protection for companies pushing the boundaries of AI technology, ensuring that merit, not market dominance, determines success and that consumers can benefit from real choice and innovative services,” he said in a statement. This story has been updated.

Top officials in the European Parliament have voted to condemn U.S. sanctions on former European Commissioner Thierry Breton. Washington last month slapped a visa ban on Breton, who was the EU’s tech czar during the previous term of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The prohibition owed to Breton’s role in pushing through the bloc’s flagship digital rulebook, which the Trump administration sees as regulatory overreach against American social media and tech giants. “The European Parliament firmly rejects the visa ban imposed by the US authorities on former Commissioner Breton, which is solely motivated due to his role in the development and implementation of the Digital Services Act,” the leaders of the parliament’s various political groups, who make up its Conference of Presidents, said in a joint statement. Calling the sanctions “an unacceptable personalisation of EU policy, a dangerous precedent for the independence of the European Institutions and an attack on the EU’s regulatory sovereignty,” the parliament’s top officials added: “The European Parliament and all other EU institutions should jointly ensure that similar attacks against current or former members of the EU institutions are met with a systematic and coordinated response.” The right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, the political home of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations group did not support the statement. Breton and four other European nationals were targeted by the U.S. sanctions in late December. The penalties were the first Washington has levied at an EU policymaker and marked a new low in transatlantic relations. The statement added that the “Parliament welcomes the Commission’s decision to grant legal and financial assistance” to Breton. Breton welcomed the statement of support. “When bullied, the EU must stand firm — on principles & on action,” he wrote on social media. “I welcome the European Parliament’s rejection of the US visa ban targeting me. This is not about one individual. It is about our capacity to vote our own laws without any interference.” The French former commissioner told POLITICO in an interview that the sanctions had arisen from a “major misunderstanding” about the EU’s Digital Services Act, and insisted he respects U.S. freedom of speech traditions.  “People imagine that the DSA was conceived to have extra-territorial reach. That’s completely false,” he said. The Commission slapped tech entrepreneur Elon Musk’s X with a €120 million fine last month under the DSA, while Apple and Meta were fined hundreds of millions of euros last year for breaking separate digital antitrust rules.

BRUSSELS — It reads like Washington’s worst nightmare: a European tech regulator independent of the Brussels institutions and armed to crack down on the violations of U.S. companies. But that’s exactly what some in Brussels say is now needed as the EU struggles to get a grip on how to implement and enforce its digital laws amid repeated political attacks from the White House. The attacks are reviving a long-held goal among EU legislators: to establish an independent, well-resourced regulator that sits outside EU institutions to enforce its many tech rulebooks. While the dream faces hurdles to becoming a reality, the timing of its resurrection reflects growing concerns that the EU has failed to underpin its ambition to be the world’s digital policeman with adequate enforcement structures that can resist U.S. attacks. After years of lawmaking, Brussels governs through a patchwork of rules and institutions that clash with the reality of U.S. politics. The EU’s maze of rules and regulators has also been thrown into sharp focus by the ongoing Grok scandal, which saw the artificial intelligence tool allow users of Elon Musk’s X to generate sexualized deepfakes. The EU’s maze of rules and regulators has also been thrown into sharp focus by the ongoing Grok scandal. | Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via Getty Images “The enforcement is not happening because there’s too much pressure from the Trump administration,” said Alexandra Geese, a German Greens European Parliament lawmaker who negotiated the EU’s platform law, the Digital Services Act. For Geese, it’s an “I told you so” moment after EU legislators floated the possibility of creating a standalone agency to enforce the digital rulebooks when they were being negotiated. A group of EU countries, led by Portugal, also tinkered with the idea late last year. BLACKMAIL The Digital Services Act sits at the center of the U.S.-EU feud over how Brussels is enforcing its tech rules. The European Commission is responsible for enforcing these rules on platforms with over 45 million users in the EU, among them some of the most powerful U.S. companies including Elon Musk’s X, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and Alphabet’s Google. As the bloc’s executive arm, the Commission also needs buy-in from the White House for negotiations on tariffs, security guarantees for Ukraine, and a host of other major political topics. The Commission last month slapped a €120 million fine on Musk’s X, its first under the DSA, which prompted a fierce rebuke from Washington. Just weeks later the U.S. imposed a travel ban on Thierry Breton, a former EU commissioner and one of the officials behind the law. It topped off a year in which the U.S. repeatedly attacked the DSA, branding it “censorship” and treating it as a bargaining chip in trade talks. This fueled concerns that the Commission was exposed and that digital fines were, as a result, being delayed or disrupted. Among the evidence was a last-minute intervention by the EU’s trade chief to delay a Google antitrust penalty at what would have been a sensitive time for talks. The fine eventually landed some months later. “Delegating digital enforcement to an independent body would strengthen the EU’s bargaining position against the U.S.,” Mario Mariniello, a non-resident fellow at think tank Bruegel, argued in a September piece on how the Commission could protect itself against blackmail. The need to separate enforcement powers is highest for the bloc’s online content law, he argued. “There, the level of politicization is so high that you would have a significant benefit.” “It’s so political, there’s no real enforcement, there’s no independent enforcement, independent from politics,” Geese said. Alexandra Geese, the German Greens European Parliament lawmaker who negotiated the EU’s platform law, the Digital Services Act. | Martin Bertrand/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images Meanwhile, the recent controversy around X’s AI tool Grok, which allowed users to generate sexualized fakes based on real-life images, has illustrated the complexity of the EU’s existing structures and laws. As a platform, X has to address systemic risks arising from the spread of illegal content under the DSA, while it also faces obligations regarding its AI tool — such as watermarking deepfakes — under the EU’s AI Act. National authorities or prosecutors took an interest in the matter alongside Brussels, because in some countries it’s illegal to share nudes without consent, and because the spread of child sexual abuse material is governed by separate laws involving national regulators. Having a single powerful digital authority could address the fragmented enforcement carried out by several authorities under different EU rulebooks, according to Geese. “It’s absolutely true that the rulebooks are scattered, that enforcement is scattered [and] that it would be easier to have one agency,” Geese said. “It would have made sense … to do that right away [when the laws were being drafted], as an independent agency, a little bit out of the realm of day-to-day politics,” she added. “Europe urgently needs a single digital enforcement agency to provide legal certainty and ensure EU laws work consistently across the Union,” said German Greens European Parliament lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky, who added that the current enforcement landscape is “siloed, with weak coordination.” HURDLES A proposal to establish such a regulator would likely face opposition from EU governments.  Last year Portugal launched a debate on whether EU countries should be able to appoint a single digital regulator themselves, as they grappled with the enforcement of several rulebooks.  “The central question is whether a single digital regulator should be established, at national level, coordinating responsibilities currently spread across multiple authorities whilst ensuring a more integrated consistent approach to enforcement,” Portuguese Minister for State Reform Gonçalo Matias wrote in an invitation for an October summit with 13 countries, seen by POLITICO.  Although the pitch proved controversial, it received some support in the summit’s final declaration. “The potential establishment of a single digital regulator at national or EU level can consolidate responsibilities, ensure coherent enforcement of EU digital legislation and foster an innovation-friendly regulatory culture,” the 13 countries said.  That group didn’t include countries that are traditionally skeptical of handing power to a Brussels-backed agency, such as Hungary, Slovakia and Poland.  Isolating tech enforcement in an independent agency could also limit the interplay with the Commission’s other enforcement powers, such as on antitrust matters, Mariniello argued.  Even for advocates such as Geese, there is a potential downside to reopening the debate at such a critical moment for digital enforcement. “The world is watching Europe to see how it responds to one of the most egregious episodes of a large language model perpetuating gender based violence,” she wrote in a recent opinion. As for a new agency, “You’re gonna debate this for two or three years, with the Council, and Hungary and Slovakia are going to say: No way. And in the meantime, nothing happens, because that becomes the excuse: The agency is going to do it,” Geese said.

Dal 2021 al 2025 i prezzi al consumo in Italia sono aumentati complessivamente del 17,1%, ma per i beni essenziali la corsa è stata molto più intensa. I dati Istat aggiornati a dicembre dello scorso anno consentono di tirare le somme e evidenziano per il “carrello della spesa” un rincaro cumulato del 24%, mentre i beni energetici sono saliti del 34,1%. Dati che fotografano la perdita di potere d’acquisto subìta dalle famiglie negli ultimi cinque anni e che nei giorni scorsi hanno spinto l’Autorità garante della concorrenza ad avviare un’indagine sui prezzi dei prodotti alimentari nella grande distribuzione. Il 2025 ha segnato sì una fase di rallentamento dell’inflazione, ma senza alcuna inversione di tendenza sul fronte dei beni primari. Nell’anno appena concluso l’inflazione media si è attestata all’1,5%, in aumento rispetto all’1% del 2024, con una dinamica più contenuta nella seconda parte dell’anno. Il livello dei prezzi resta strutturalmente più elevato rispetto all’inizio del decennio. Nel dettaglio, lo scorso anno i prezzi dei beni alimentari sono cresciuti del 2,8%, accelerando rispetto al 2,2% del 2024. A trainare l’aumento sono stati soprattutto gli alimentari non lavorati, con rincari medi del 3,4%, mentre quelli lavorati hanno segnato un +2,4%. Anche le spese per abitazione, acqua, elettricità e combustibili tornano in territorio positivo (+1,1%), dopo il calo registrato nel 2024. Al contrario, rallentano o calano i prezzi dei trasporti (-0,2%) e, in misura più contenuta, quelli dei servizi ricettivi e della ristorazione (+3,4%), che restano comunque tra le voci più onerose per i bilanci familiari. Proprio i prodotti alimentari e i servizi di alloggio e ristorazione sono le divisioni che contribuiscono maggiormente alla crescita media dell’indice generale nel 2025. La lettura di lungo periodo è però quella che pesa di più. Dal 2019, ricordano le opposizioni, l’inflazione cumulata supera il 17%, mentre i salari non hanno tenuto il passo, restando diversi punti sotto il carovita. L’Unione Nazionale Consumatori parla di vera e propria stangata: secondo le stime dell’associazione, l’inflazione media del 2025 si traduce in un aggravio annuo di 561 euro per una coppia con due figli. L’Unc sottolinea inoltre come, sul periodo 2021-2025, il carrello della spesa abbia accumulato un aumento di sette punti superiore all’inflazione generale, con effetti particolarmente pesanti sui redditi medio-bassi. L’Adoc rileva un “allarme tra gli scaffali” e chiede al governo di “abbandonare la logica dei ‘pannicelli caldi’: misure temporanee come i bonus o la carta Dedicata a te non bastano più a contenere un’emorragia di risparmi così profonda. Servono riforme strutturali urgenti: uno stop deciso alla speculazione, il contrasto al fenomeno della shrinkflation, la rimodulazione dell’Iva sui beni di prima necessità e lo scorporo immediato delle accise sui carburanti”. La dem Anna Ascani, vicepresidente della Camera, denuncia una perdita continua del potere d’acquisto: “Non si arresta la perdita del potere d’acquisto, le cittadine e i cittadini sono sempre più in difficoltà e faticano a far fronte a spese minime. Il lavoro è povero e precario. Esiste una gigantesca questione salariale che questo governo, preso dai vani e vuoti trionfalismi, fa finta di non vedere. Inutile celebrare la stabilità dei conti, se si condanna il Paese all’immobilismo. L’esecutivo metta da parte la propaganda e intervenga seriamente a sostegno degli italiani”. Critiche analoghe arrivano dal Movimento 5 Stelle, che parla di una “bomba sociale” legata all’impennata dei prezzi dei beni essenziali. I parlamentari pentastellati delle commissioni Attività produttive di Camera e Senato accusano l’esecutivo di immobilismo, ricordando come salari e pensioni restino diversi punti sotto l’inflazione e come le misure annunciate contro il caro-energia non abbiano ancora trovato attuazione concreta. “Mentre la grancassa meloniana rivendica le pacche sulle spalle delle agenzie di rating e brinda allo spread in picchiata”, attaccano, “gli italiani masticano amaro alle casse dei supermercati”. Sulla stessa linea Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra. Il senatore Tino Magni “condanna senza appello” per le politiche economiche del governo: “Pane, latte e bollette stanno diventando beni di lusso, mentre salari e pensioni restano fermi e non si interviene sugli extra-profitti. Il costo dell’inflazione viene scaricato ancora una volta su chi vive di reddito fisso”. L'articolo Per il carrello della spesa aumenti del 24% dal 2021. Le opposizioni: “Rincari drammatici e il governo è immobile” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Anno nuovo multa nuova per Poltronesofà. L’Antitrust ha sanzionato l’azienda di divani per pratiche scorrette nella politica di sconti, dandole una multa da 1 milione di euro. Il procedimento, spiega il garante della concorrenza nel suo bollettino settimanale, riguarda “la pratica commerciale posta in essere dalla società Poltronesofà S.p.A. consistente nella indicazione, ingannevole e omissiva, di una asserita convenienza del prezzo praticato per i divani appartenenti alla Collezione Promo, pubblicizzato durante le campagne promozionali diffuse attraverso Tv, radio, social media e internet”. Più nel dettaglio, l’Antitrust spiega che Poltronesofà, a partire almeno dall’inizio di gennaio 2023, ha enfatizzato – attraverso campagne pubblicitarie per promuovere la vendita promozionale di divani appartenenti alla Collezione Promo – l’esistenza di un rilevante “sconto” rispetto a un prezzo assai superiore, indicato come “barrato”. “In realtà, avuto riguardo anche alla frequenza della diffusione delle citate campagne, l’istruttoria ha dimostrato l’insussistenza della convenienza (enfatizzata ingannevolmente) del prezzo pubblicizzato con i messaggi promozionali, considerato che i prodotti di tale collezione si caratterizzano di per sé per essere strategicamente destinati alla commercializzazione ‘per un periodo più breve’ e alla vendita, principalmente, ‘a prezzi promozionali'”. Secondo l’Antitrust, la pratica commerciale posta in essere da Poltronesofà, “risulta scorretta ai sensi degli articoli 20, 21 e 22, del Codice del consumo, in quanto contraria alla diligenza professionale e idonea a indurre i consumatori ad assumere una decisione di natura commerciale che altrimenti non avrebbero preso, sulla base di informazioni ingannevoli, ambigue e omissive”. Non è la prima volta che capita. Polotronesofà era già stata multata dall’Antitrust nel 2021 con una multa di pari importo, 1 milione di euro, per pubblicità ingannevole e omissiva per le promozioni “Doppi saldi doppi risparmi-Sconto 50%+fino a 40% su tutta la collezione+48 mesi senza interessi”, “Supervalutiamo il tuo divano fino a 1.500 Euro” e “25% di sconto+un altro 25% su tutta la collezione”. La multa, confermata dal Tar nel 2022, è stata in seguito dimezzata a 500mila euro per disposizione del Consiglio di Stato al quale la società aveva fatto ricorso. L'articolo L’Antitrust multa ancora Poltronesofà: 1 milione di euro per campagne pubblicitarie su sconti inesistenti proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Vent’anni di cartello tra le fonderie italiane grazie all’associazione di categoria. Lo ha accertato l’Antitrust che ha chiuso l’istruttoria nei confronti di 16 tra le principali fonderie di ghisa italiane e l’associazione di categoria Assofond, accertando un’intesa restrittiva della concorrenza in violazione dell’articolo 101 Tfue nel mercato italiano della vendita dei getti di ghisa, attuata almeno dal 5 febbraio 2004 fino al 30 giugno 2024. Per questo motivo – si legge in una nota – l’Antitrust, a fronte di sanzioni massime applicabili di circa 600 milioni di euro, stante la gravità della condotta, ha irrogato sanzioni per complessivi 70 milioni tenuto conto della significativa crisi del settore interessato. Le società interessate sono: C2MAC Group, Fonderia Corrà, Fonderie Orazio e Fortunato De Riccardis, Fonderie Guido Glisenti e la sua controllata Lead Time, Pilenga Baldassarre Foundry e la sua controllante Ef Group, Fonderie Mora Gavardo e la sua controllante Camozzi Group , Zanardi Fonderie spa, VDP Fonderia, Fonderie Ariotti, Ironcastings, Fonderia Zardo, ZML Industries e la sua controllante Cividale. L’Autorità – si legge ancora nella nota – ha accertato che il coordinamento tra le parti ha riguardato le politiche commerciali con l’obiettivo di sostenere le richieste di aumento dei prezzi, rafforzando il potere contrattuale nei confronti della domanda e di preservare una certa marginalità, soprattutto nei momenti in cui la congiuntura economica è stata negativa. Tale fine, spiega l’Antitrust, è stato perseguito tramite scambi di informazioni sensibili ed elaborando congiuntamente meccanismi di indicizzazione dei prezzi (gli “Indicatori Assofond”) che hanno consentito alle fonderie di aggiornare in maniera coordinata una parte sempre più ampia del prezzo dei getti di ghisa, compreso il margine di vendita. L'articolo L’Antitrust fa una multa da 70 milioni a 16 fonderie per un cartello sui prezzi durato vent’anni proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

The Trump administration says it is barring former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four other European nationals involved in curbing hate speech from U.S. soil as part of a sanctions package targeting what it describes as digital censorship. The sanctions, announced Tuesday, also revoke the U.S. visas of British citizens Imran Ahmed and Clare Melford, who respectively head the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and the Global Disinformation Index. Ahmed, who currently lives in Washington, faces immediate deportation, the Telegraph reported. Germany’s Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon, leaders of Hate Aid, a non-profit that tracks digital disinformation spread by far-right groups, are also subject to the visa bans. The move is the latest in a series of warning shots volleyed by the U.S. at allies over what it views as unfair efforts to regulate American social media and tech giants, including Elon Musk-owned X, which was slapped with a €120 million fine earlier this month for violating the bloc’s content moderation law. In a statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the targets of the newly announced sanctions as “radical activists” who had worked to “coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers named the targets of the package in a thread posted on X in which she underscored the Trump Administration’s rejection of European efforts to crack down on hate speech. Rogers justified Breton’s visa ban by naming the French official, who served within European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s first administration, as the “mastermind” behind the bloc’s landmark Digital Services Act (DSA). That legislation has allowed the EU to level multimillion-euro fines on American tech giants like Apple and Meta for breaking digital antitrust rules, and to go after X for failing to curb disinformation. She also identified Britain’s Ahmed as a “key collaborator with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens,” and said Melford‘s Global Disinformation Index had used taxpayer money to “exhort censorship and blacklisting of American speech and press.” Rogers, who recently met with representatives of the German right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Washington, further named von Hodenberg and Ballon, both of Berlin-based non-profit Hate Aid, for allegedly censoring conservative speech. Breton responded to the sanctions with a post in which he asked if former U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist “witch hunt” was being revived, and pointed out that the DSA had been approved by the majority of lawmakers in the European Parliament and unanimously backed by the bloc’s 27 member countries. “Censorship isn’t where you think it is,” he wrote, questioning U.S. efforts to undermine the EU’s quest to reduce the spread of disinformation. European Commission Vice President for Industrial Strategy Stéphane Séjourné on Wednesday backed Breton in a post in which he said “no sanction will silence the sovereignty of the European peoples.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot condemned the visa restrictions and defended the DSA, which he said ensures “what is illegal offline is also illegal online.” The Trump administration is openly opposed to European attempts to regulate online platforms. Vice President JD Vance routinely rails against alleged attempts to use digital rules to censor free speech, and earlier this month said the EU should not be “attacking American companies over garbage.” Tech policy professionals say actions like Tuesday’s sanctions package, and the previous issuance of veiled threats at European companies accused of unfairly penalizing U.S. tech giants, may amount to a negotiating tactic on the part of a White House that wants to underscore its discontent with Europe’s regulations — without risking new trade wars that could threaten the U.S. economy.