While Microsoft and its allies received immense praise from industry insiders for creating GitHub Copilot, a tool that greatly improved programming accessibility, it faced scrutiny from regulators and ethicists shortly after its launch. A class action suit was filed against them for using the publicly available codes to develop Copilot without informed consent. Ethicists raised concerns about their commitment to ethical and responsible innovation. While Microsoft and allies were being questioned they and several other big technology firms terminated a large numbers of AI ethics personnel. This raised several concerns about ethical and legal oversights in design, development, and deployment of AI-powered innovations like GitHub Copilot.
In February 2021, the Indian government announced new regulations to increase the accountability of social media companies for misusing their platforms in spreading fabricated news, misinformation, and obscene material. The new rules were not welcomed by some prominent social media companies, including Twitter. The giant microblogging network claimed that the new rules were designed to suppress freedom of speech among the citizens of India, one of the largest democracies of the world. However, Indian regulators argued that the new rules were required to prevent abuse on open social media networks. Twitter contended that it was self-regulated and argued that its users’ voices should not be regulated because it would clearly amount to suppression of the right to free expression. In a changing political and legal environment, how could Twitter meet increasing demands from regulators to moderate content, while remaining aligned with its mission, vision, and ethical standards? Were the self-regulatory mechanisms of social media companies adequately effective without interference from external forces?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Jeff Bezos, the chief executive officer of Amazon.com Inc. (Amazon), became the world’s richest person by adding US$6 billion to his net worth by the end of March 2020. While the worth of other billionaires was decreasing because of the unprecedented market volatility created by the pandemic, retail sales surged to a record level for Amazon. To meet the additional workforce requirements created by the sudden rise in demand, Bezos announced a new hiring drive for Amazon’s warehouses and delivery network. The announcement came when Amazon’s labour practices were under the scrutiny of New York State and New York City authorities for the disputed “wrongful termination” of a warehouse worker. Amazon’s conduct was vehemently condemned by labour unions, labour supporters, the media, and New York City authorities. At the same time, Amazon employees expressed their concerns about the hiring of additional workers, as more workers could further aggravate the workplace safety issues at the company’s warehouses. Bezos vehemently claimed to be committed to workers’ health and safety and announced new paid sick leave and hazard benefits policies for workers who were not working from home. Was the authorities’ scrutiny of Smalls’ termination and the workplace safety measures at Amazon’s facilities a signal of legal battles looming for Amazon? Was Bezos protecting the wellness of his employees? Did the new policies and safety measures point toward a change in Bezos’s crisis management strategy? How could Amazon move from a greed/profit perspective to a profit with purpose perspective? How should Amazon manage in an almost permanent crisis-like situation?
Google was once considered a dream place to work at for people in the technology industry. However, the company has faced fierce criticism in recent years for its attempts to suppress the voice of its employees. The past few years have been tumultuous for the company, which has had to grapple with employee protests over the mishandling of sexual harassment claims, retaliation for expression of their disagreement with company policies, and ethic crises related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For a long time, workers at Google have enjoyed what has become known as the legendary standards of a democratic workplace and corporate perks. Recently, however, they have taken to the streets to protest the destructive work culture of the company. Some discontented employees left the company; others were allegedly fired in retaliation for their actions.<br><br>Google had historically been characterized as “least bad” among technology giants in terms of the freedom of expression allowed to employees. Is this changing? Why were Google’s employees discouraged from voicing their challenges? What approach should company adopt to maintain the trust of employees in channels provided for freedom of expression of its employees? Could the termination of vocal employees be treated as unlawful retaliation? Has Google been struggling to handle workplace harassment complaints? Would alleged improper handling of workplace sexual harassment attract a legal action against the company? How Google should handle workplace harassment complaints in future to avoid legal battles?
Ola Auto India (Ola) was the pioneer in cab aggregation services in India. In 2019, Ola needed to ensure that it remained the customer’s first choice for autorickshaw (auto) booking. Ola had so far faced moderate competition from small players, but competition was increasing from Uber Technologies Inc. With a service that was traditionally chosen for its low cost and easy availability, customer loyalty remained a challenge for all players in the market. How could Ola ensure customer loyalty and maintain its leadership position when Uber was garnering a higher net promoter score than Ola?
In addition to Google, LLC (Google) facing multiple litigations around the globe, India’s antitrust watchdog, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), had recently launched its own investigation into the company. This was not the first occasion of an antitrust probe being initiated against Google in international markets. The company had already paid an astonishing US$ 9 billion in fines for abusing Android’s dominant position in the smartphone market to boost its dominance in other areas, such as web searching, browsing, and mobile apps. In 2019, Google was in trouble in India, again, for similar reasons. The CCI alleged that Google forced smartphone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser on their devices, thus misusing its dominant position by stopping smartphone manufacturers from opting for alternative versions of its mobile operating system (OS). However, Google strongly denied these allegations, arguing that it had not indulged in anti-competitive practices; rather, it claimed it had promoted relevant market competition.<br><br> Which marketing practices of Google invited the antitrust probe and allegations of abuse of their dominant position in India? Why were competition watchdogs concerned about the growing dominance of Google in the Indian mobile operating software (OS) market? In an oligopolistic market comprising multiple players, why did the CCI consider Google to be a dominant player in the Indian mobile OS market? Could Google do something to avoid antitrust lawsuits and allegations of abuse of dominance in the future?
On April 12, 2018, the manager of a Philadelphia Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) store called the police and two customers were arrested. The two men, who were black, were sitting at a table in the store without having placed an order. The incident sparked an online wave of protest over racial bias at Starbucks, a company that had long touted its social agenda of racial equity and diversity. The chief executive officer of Starbucks, quickly acknowledged the incident with a general public apology and a more specific follow-up statement later the same day. Amid outrage over the Philadelphia arrests and backlash online, the company also announced a half-day mass anti-racism training program for its employees. Experts were skeptical about the success of the training, claiming that a half-day training session could not eliminate racial bias. Was the company doing enough to train its front-line employees in providing not only the best service but also equal service to its customers? Did Starbucks truly represent the values it promoted? Would a half-day anti-racism training session effectively address the issue of racial bias, especially for front-line workers?
In May 2013, iGATE Corporation ended its employment contract with Phaneesh Murthy, then chief executive officer, amid allegations of sexual harassment. iGATE maintained that Murthy had violated company policy; thus, it dismissed Murthy “with cause,” effectively ending all of the company’s severance obligations under the agreement. Murthy responded by suing iGATE, claiming breach of contract and defamation. In March 2014, iGATE countersued Murthy for damages the company suffered due to Murthy’s behaviour. Could iGATE justify its termination of Murthy’s contract? What were the implications of ending a senior executive’s agreement for cause?
This case deals with an exporting challenge faced by Ferro Industries, a small enterprise within the steel industry in India. The company’s manufacturing facility was located in the National Capital Region of Delhi. Ferro’s main products were roll-forming machines, cut-to-length lines, and slitting lines; the company was one of only three firms in the Indian sub-continent catering to the market for such products. This case raises two basic questions in relation to Ferro’s role as an exporter. Firstly, at what stage should an importer have to pay an exporter? Secondly, should the exporter release consignment to the importer before receiving payment? The case illustrates the challenges of exporting and international entrepreneurship for a small firm, taking into account payment risk, product pricing, deal-making strategies, promotional strategy, and client-management strategies. It also addresses the complexities involved in the decision-making process while exporting, as well as outlining various conflict-resolution techniques for closing a deal effectively while considering the appropriateness of taking risks.