Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Tesla stock surged as much as 8% after a report said President-elect Donald Trump plans to ease self-driving car regulations.</li><li>The incoming Trump administration is aiming to prioritize a federal framework for autonomous vehicles.</li></ul><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/tsla-stock">Tesla</a> stock surged as much as 8% on Monday after a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-17/trump-team-said-to-want-to-ease-us-rules-for-self-driving-cars?srnd=homepage-americas">Bloomberg</a> report said the incoming Trump administration is seeking to relax autonomous driving regulations.That would be a boon for Tesla, which has staked its future on launching fully autonomous electric vehicles in the coming years.According to the report, President-elect Donald Trump's transition team told advisors that they plan to make implementing a federal framework for fully self-driving vehicles a top priority for the Department of Transportation.The current federal rules are strict about car manufacturers selling large quantities of vehicles without steering wheels or foot pedals.For reference, Tesla CEO and Trump ally Elon Musk recently <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-cybercab-robotaxi-details-production-earnings-call-2024-10">unveiled an autonomous vehicle</a> named the Cybercab with no steering wheel or foot pedals.Tesla said it plans to begin selling the Cybercab in 2026.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration allows manufacturers to deploy only 2,500 self-driving vehicles annually. Legislative efforts to increase the self-driving restriction to 100,000 vehicles per manufacturer a year have repeatedly failed.A request for comment from the Trump transition team was not immediately returned.According to Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, if restrictions on fully self-driving vehicles are eased, Tesla will be the main beneficiary, calling it a "significant tailwind for Tesla's autonomous and AI vision heading into 2025.""Musk's significant influence in the Trump White House is already having a major influence and ultimately the golden path for Tesla around Cybercabs and autonomous is now within reach with an emboldened Trump/Musk strategic alliance playing out in real time and very in line with our thesis," Ives said in a note on Sunday.Ives estimates autonomous vehicles are a $1 trillion opportunity for Tesla, and if realized, could catapult Tesla to a $2 trillion valuation over the next 12 to 18 months, representing potential upside of 76% from current levels.Tesla stock has surged 37% since Donald Trump's election win earlier this month.

Tesla stock jumps 8% on Trump administration plan to relax self-driving car rules

<ul class="summary-list"><li>An uptick in personal care spending could be a sign US consumers are feeling more confident.</li><li>Better-than-expected retail sales last month point to a coming "treat yourself economy."</li></ul>Long, flowing locks and perfectly pampered skin are signs the economy is on the up and up — or at least, US consumers are acting like it.An uptick in retail sales and personal care spending in recent months suggests people are increasingly treating themselves to some of the luxuries they may have been forgoing amid <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/weird-indicators-a-recession-could-be-coming-finance-experts-2024-9">recent recession concerns</a> and inflation troubles.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-retail-sales-tsmc-earnings-labor-market-fed-2024-10?_gl=1*1qicc5r*_ga*NzMwNzE5NTcwLjE2ODQ4ODM1NDg.*_ga_E21CV80ZCZ*MTcyOTgxNDc3NS4xNDM1LjEuMTcyOTgxNTA0MC4yMC4wLjA.">Retail sales rose</a> in August, according to federal data — clocking in a 1.4% gain from the same period last year. That was a better read than economists had expected.Those rising numbers point to a trend that Washington Post reporter Heather Long dubbed the "treat yourself economy" in a conversation with <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace/visa-seekers-in-china-weigh-in-on-the-u-s-election/">Marketplace</a> last week."This feels like the year of the mini splurge," Long told the outlet. "That's a really healthy sign for the economy."Buyers often reward themselves for enduring tough economic times by upgrading their personal goods and services selections, Peter C. Earle, senior economist at the American Institute for Economic Research, told Business Insider.Long pointed to one example of such a "reward" — the "Utah hair trend," which has exploded on TikTok and other social media platforms in recent weeks after being popularized by the stars of Hulu's hit reality series "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-frankie-paul-mayci-neeley-mormon-wives-interview-business-influencing-2024-9">The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives</a>."Some women are spending up to $2,000 for human hair extensions and styling services to achieve the perfect waist-length waves, a hairstylist recently told The Wall Street Journal.It's an expensive trend that may have been less achievable a year or two ago when personal care spending was down nationwide.During <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-recession-risk-soft-landing-labor-unemployment-rate-consumer-confidence-2024-10">recessions</a> or economic downturns, consumer behavior in personal care shifts toward an essentials-only posture, with people prioritizing necessities such as soap and shampoo over more specialized items, Earle said.The "lipstick effect" is an economic theory that posits sales of affordable luxuries, such as lipstick, rise during recessions as people seek an "emotional lift without breaking the bank," Earle said.As the economy begins to recover, consumers generally regain confidence and increase their <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/retailers-showing-squeezed-us-shoppers-have-two-very-different-realities-2024-8">discretionary spending patterns,</a> happily adding more than just lipstick to their shopping carts, Earle said.In the second quarter of 2024, US consumers spent more than $200 billion on <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-beauty-products-upflation-strategies-procter-gamble-inflation-rising-prices-2024-7">personal care products</a>, up from $199 billion in the first quarter and $193 billion in the second quarter of 2023, according to September data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis adjusted at annual rates."There is a notable shift from basic or low-priced necessities toward the more indulgent products and services," Earle said. "Consumers are more willing to spend on the luxury or higher-quality personal care items they avoided during the downturn, such as high-end hair care or designer skincare goods."

Welcome to the 'treat yourself' economy — where skincare and long hair rule  

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Half of <keyword id="23335388" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="US-renters" source="keywords">US renters</keyword> spend over 30% of their income on housing, <keyword id="21621325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Census-data" source="keywords">Census data</keyword> shows.</li><li>Skyrocketing home prices and rents, driven by supply shortages and high interest rates, are to blame.</li></ul>For decades, financial advisors and the federal government have recommended that Americans spend no more than 30% of their gross income on housing. But as home prices and rents have skyrocketed in recent years, that so-called <keyword id="23335390" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="30-rule" source="keywords">30% rule</keyword> is increasingly challenging to follow. And for a whopping half of US renters, it's become impossible. Almost half — 49.7% — of American renter households spent more than 30% of their income on <keyword id="21020775" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="housing-costs" source="keywords">housing costs</keyword>, according to data released by the <keyword id="19899587" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="US-Census-Bureau" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="US Census Bureau" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="US Census Bureau">US Census Bureau</keyword> from its <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/renter-households-cost-burdened-race.html">2023 American Community Survey</a>. That's unchanged from 2022, when the median ratio of income-to-housing costs for renters was also 31%. Among racial and ethnic groups, Black renters were the most frequently <keyword id="23335389" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cost-burdened" source="keywords">cost-burdened</keyword>, with 56% spending more than 30% of their income on rent, according to the census data. Hispanic renters were the second-most affected, with 53% cost-burdened, while 47% of white renters were cost-burdened. Renters are currently struggling more than homeowners. Rents rose <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/09/acs-rent-burden.html">faster than home prices</a> for the first time in a decade, the Census found. Rents rose by 3.8% between 2022 and 2023, while home prices rose by 1.8%. And a greater share of tenants are <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://nlihc.org/gap/about">low-income or very low-income</a> and have significantly less wealth than homeowners. But <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/housing-crisis-homeowners-struggling-mortgage-interest-rates-insurance-home-equity-2024-6" target="_blank">homeowners are also struggling</a>. Mortgage interest rates recently hit a two-decade high, and rising insurance premiums, growing home-repair costs, and property taxes add to the burden. Last year, first-time <a href="https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/real-estate/housing-market/the-american-homeowners-dream-vs-recent-reality#:~:text=become%20a%20reality.-,In%20the%20third%20quarter%20of%202023%2C%20the%20first%2Dtime%20homebuyer,the%20problem%20has%20become%20exacerbated." target="_blank">homeownership affordability</a> hit its lowest level since the 1980s. The number of cost-burdened homeowners — those who spent more than 30% of their income on housing and utilities — rose by about three million people between 2019 and 2022, according to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2024.pdf">a recent report</a> from the <keyword id="19898366" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="harvard" source="keywords">Harvard</keyword> Joint Center for Housing Studies on the state of US housing. Most of this increase was among those who make less than $30,000 a year. A full 30% of Black and 28% of Hispanic homeowners are cost-burdened, compared to 21% of white homeowners, the Harvard report found. While the Federal Reserve finally announced its first <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-reserve-interest-rate-cuts-mortgage-investment-credit-savings-2024-9" target="_blank">interest-rate cut</a> in four years, the move probably <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/buying-home-not-easier-interest-rate-cuts-prices-rent-crisis-2024-8" target="_blank">won't bring housing costs down</a> by much. The US is suffering from a severe shortage of homes — the only way to solve it is to build many more units of housing. And that takes time. Are you spending more than 30% of your income on housing costs? Reach out to this reporter to share your story at erelman@businessinsider.com. Correction: September 25, 2024 — An earlier version of this story misstated a recent move by the Federal Reserve. It announced an interest-rate cut, not a hike.

Half of renters live somewhere they can't afford

<keyword id="20190045" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Industry-body" source="keywords">Industry body</keyword> <keyword id="21568150" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SME-Chamber-of-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="SME Chamber of India" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="SME Chamber of India">SME Chamber of India</keyword> has urged <keyword id="19956758" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Minister" source="keywords">Finance Minister</keyword> <keyword id="19916618" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Nirmala-Sitharaman" source="keywords">Nirmala Sitharaman</keyword> to continue the 45-day <keyword id="21233021" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="MSME-payment-rule" source="keywords">MSME payment rule</keyword> for <keyword id="20008810" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="corporates" source="keywords">corporates</keyword> and other buyers. According to Section 43B(h) of the <keyword id="19936187" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Income-Tax-Act" source="keywords">Income Tax Act</keyword>, introduced through the <keyword id="19955404" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="finance" source="keywords">Finance</keyword> Act 2023, if a larger company does not pay an MSME on time -- within 45 days in case of written agreements -- it cannot deduct that expense from its taxable income, leading to potentially higher taxes. The government in last year's Budget added a new clause under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act to address the challenge of delayed payments faced by MSMEs in the country. "We are pursuing not to change the 45-day MSME payment rules imposed by the Department under the pressure of corporates or multinational companies to save the life span of the MSME sector. Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act reinforces the importance of timely payments by mandating that companies settle payments to MSME vendors within 45 days to qualify for deductions," SME Chamber said in a statement addressed to Sitharaman. The industry body argued that this provision serves as a powerful incentive for companies to adhere to payment timelines, thereby supporting the financial health of MSMEs. "Many MSMEs are NPA victims of corporates, who are buying from them and not dealing through the TReDs platform. Most of the corporates and multinational companies are forcefully insisting to deregister from the Udyam Portal and insisting not to deal through the TReDs platform," SME Chamber stated. The industry body also urged the finance minister to consider providing Rs 5 crore loans under the "Differential Rate of Interest" scheme for micro and <keyword id="20569966" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="small-enterprises" source="keywords">small enterprises</keyword>. It suggested changing the NPA definition from 90 days to 180 days for the MSME sector. The chamber also sought the setting up of a task force to review various issues, hurdles, grievances and difficulties faced by MSMEs for availing credit facilities and the lack of approach by the financial institutions towards enhancement of credit flow to the MSME sector.

Continue 45-day MSME payment rule: Industry body to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman

For many professionals out there, <keyword id="19902762" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Google" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Google" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Google">Google</keyword> continues being the dream company that they want to land a job at. Even though the company carried multiple rounds of layoffs since 2023, it remains one of the highest paying <keyword id="20000550" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="tech-companies" source="keywords">tech companies</keyword> in the world. This is why landing a <keyword id="23527633" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="job-at-Google" source="keywords">job at Google</keyword> at the beginning of their careers is huge for people. Hence, any news related to Google quickly goes viral and people are always curious to know about what's happening at the tech giant. Now, according to a Reuters report, Google has filed a request with a California federal judge to delay a court order that mandates the company to open up its Play Store to increased competition. In a court filing submitted on Friday, the tech giant argued that the injunction, set to take effect on November 1, poses “serious safety, security, and privacy risks” to the Android ecosystem. Google urged U.S. District Judge James Donato to pause the ruling while it appeals the decision. <h2>About the case </h2> The injunction stems from a case filed by Epic Games, the maker of “Fortnite.” In October 2023, a jury ruled that Google had been illegally monopolising the way consumers download apps and make in-app purchases on Android devices. Judge Donato’s ruling, issued on October 7, forces Google to allow third-party app stores and payment methods on its platform. Additionally, the order bars Google from paying device manufacturers to preinstall its Play Store and from sharing revenue generated through it with other app distributors. Google claims the ruling could introduce significant risks to Android users, and is fighting to delay its implementation while pursuing a legal appeal. <h2><keyword id="19954681" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sundar-Pichai" source="keywords">Sundar Pichai</keyword> on what it takes to join Google </h2> On another note, Google boss Sundar Pichai recently shed light on what it takes to join Google’s coveted ranks, especially for those aiming at engineering roles. In an episode of The David Rubenstein Show: Peer to Peer Conversations, Pichai opened up about the attributes Google looks for in its employees, giving hopeful candidates a clearer picture of what it takes to be part of the tech behemoth. According to Pichai, <keyword id="22767045" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="technical-excellence" source="keywords">technical excellence</keyword> is just the starting point. It’s the foundation, yes, but not the full package. What truly sets candidates apart is their adaptability and eagerness to learn in an ever-changing, dynamic environment. “We’re looking for superstar <keyword id="19959624" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="software-engineers" source="keywords">software engineers</keyword>,” Pichai noted, saying that in a world of rapidly evolving technology, the ability to remain curious and agile is essential. He also highlighted Google’s tradition of offering free meals to employees—not just as a perk but as a deliberate initiative to foster community and spark spontaneous moments of creativity. He also recalled his early days at Google, where informal chats in the café sometimes led to breakthrough ideas. “It’s about creating the conditions for people to connect and think outside the box,” he shared. (With Reuters inputs)

Google Seeks to delay judge’s ruling on App Store competition over security concerns

Buying a new home has always been stressful, but somewhere before the messy stuff — the loan applications, inspections, contracts, and wire transfers — there was joy in the house hunt.Maybe you'd start by poking around Zillow before a Realtor friend hears you're in the market for a change of scenery. She might offer to spend her Sunday driving you around to a few homes. No pressure, she'd say — her services are free. You float through living rooms and bedrooms, orchestrating home makeovers in your head. Maybe you find a house you like; maybe you don't. That evening, you and your agent chat about next steps over a glass of wine. The headaches come later; at this point, it's all about possibilities.As of Saturday, those carefree days are gone. Now, before a real-estate agent so much as opens a door for you, they'll probably ask you to sign what's known as a buyer-representation agreement. The contract will lay out the terms of their services and how much they expect to be paid. This kind of agreement used to be optional, at least so early in the game, and most agents decided it wasn't worth the hassle. They reasoned that because of the way agents' commissions were structured, buyers didn't really have to worry about those details, and they feared — maybe correctly — that the formality would scare off potential clients. Now they no longer have a choice.The new rule, which is part of a sweeping legal settlement, promises to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/homebuyers-real-estate-revolution-nar-lawsuits-new-rules-realtors-agents-2024-4">fundamentally rewire the housing market</a>. It'll force buyers to think seriously about how their agents get paid, something they rarely had to consider in the past. Some buyers could find themselves <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/bad-real-estate-agents-realtors-homebuyers-sellers-housing-market-2023-7">legally bound to a clumsy agent</a> or on the hook for thousands of dollars. Real-estate agents, on the other hand, may struggle to get would-be clients to sign on the dotted line. Those who can't "communicate value" — a catchphrase among brokers that basically means "convince buyers that your services are worth a few months' pay" — <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/real-estate-agents-realtors-reckoning-housing-market-home-sales-slow-2023-4">risk flunking out of the business</a>. This may sound like a huge headache for both parties, but there are real upsides. Buyers may be more likely to vet their options before settling down with an agent, and many could actually spend less on commissions. Those who panic at the prospect of paying their agent out of pocket will almost certainly be able to find workarounds.One thing is clear: Casual home shopping is a thing of the past."It's a huge behavior change for Realtors," Laura Ellis, an executive at Baird &amp; Warner, a Chicago-area real-estate brokerage, told me recently. "It's the biggest change in over 100 years."Home sellers have always had to think, at least in passing, about agent commissions. The typical seller hires an agent who agrees to market the home in exchange for a cut of the sale price (usually between 5% and 6%). The seller's agent then lists the home on a multiple listing service, a local database where other agents can find details on homes for sale, and promises to split their commission with the buyer's agent. Let's say the seller brings in $500,000 from the deal. They'll hand 5%, or $25,000, to their agent, who then gives half, or $12,500, to the buyer's agent. A buyer might stress over a down payment and grumble over shelling out a few thousand dollars for title insurance, but they never had to sweat the money changing hands between agents.The power of the multiple listing service ensured the payments flowed this way. A seller's agent was required to offer some compensation to the buyer's agent when posting a home on the database, and while it could technically be as little as $1, most stuck with the status quo of 2.5% to 3% of the sale price. I've written a lot about <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/real-estate-agents-lawsuits-buy-sell-homes-forever-housing-market-2023-6">why the system worked this way</a>, but the important thing to know is that it exposed the industry to all kinds of accusations. Critics complained that it made no sense for a seller, who hopes to collect the highest possible price, to funnel a percentage to the buyer's agent. They also feared that buyers' agents might <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/real-estate-agent-commissions-steering-hiding-homes-housing-market-lawsuits-2024-3">"steer" clients away from homes</a> that dared to offer less than the going rate. They argued that MLS rules discouraged negotiations and forced buyers and sellers to pay too much in commissions.At the center of this system was the National Association of Realtors, the powerful industry group that effectively controls about 97% of local multiple listing services, oversees roughly 1.5 million agents who pay to be members, and pretty much sets the ground rules for buying and selling homes in America. A few years ago, a group of disgruntled sellers sued the NAR, claiming that they'd been strong-armed into paying the customary 5% to 6% of the sale price in commissions. Last October, the plaintiffs <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lawsuits-verdict-realtors-brokerages-real-estate-agents-home-buying-selling-2023-11">scored a surprise victory</a> in the first case to reach trial. As <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/real-estate-antitrust-lawsuits-verdict-agent-commissions-nar-future-homebuying-2023-12">more suits piled up</a>, it became clear that the NAR would need to cut a deal. In March, the organization agreed to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/national-association-realtors-lawsuit-settlement-housing-market-homebuying-agents-commissions-2024-3">pay $418 million to settle</a>. It also agreed to update the rules governing local multiple listing services and agents who use them.That brings us to Saturday, Aug. 17. As of that date, agents can no longer advertise commissions on the MLS, which means the databases can no longer be used as a cudgel to make sure agents get paid the typical commission. The catch is that listing agents can still technically offer commissions to buyers' agents pretty much anywhere else — on their websites, over the phone, on billboards if they want to. This could allow for business as usual: A listing agent might still offer to split a commission with the buyer's agent through any of these alternate avenues. But in order to keep using the MLS, buyers' agents will have to abide by another rule that will further upend the old way of doing things. Before they can even tour a home with a client, any agent who uses a Realtor-controlled MLS — which, again, is most of them — will have to get the client to sign an agreement that spells out a few things. First, the agent will have to say how much they expect to be paid. This could be a percentage of the purchase price, like 2.5%, but it could also be a flat fee or even an hourly rate. It just has to be a clear amount, not contingent on what the seller is offering. And unless both sides agree to amend the contract, the buyer's agent can't receive more than that amount down the line; if a seller offers 3% but the buyer's agent agrees to only 2.5%, the buyer's rep has to either turn down that extra money or pass it along to their client. The NAR has maintained that buyers were free to negotiate commissions even before the lawsuits. But now that's much more likely to happen.Again, a seller may still offer to pay the commission of the buyer's agent as long as that offer is not made through the MLS. But they may choose not to offer anything at all, an option that could work out well for both parties. That's because buyers, in their offers to sellers, can ask to get some money back so they can pay their agent directly. This is what's known as a seller credit, and the nonprofit Consumer Advocates in American Real Estate recommends that buyers ask for it if they don't want to pay their agent out of pocket. Sellers may agree to it in the interest of getting a deal done, especially since it could result in savings for both sides. In the old days, a seller might have unthinkingly offered a commission of 2% or even 3% to the buyer's agent. But if you, as a buyer, negotiate a fee for your agent of only 1%, you're basically saving the seller — and yourself — money.But these workarounds are by no means guaranteed, especially in <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/hottest-states-to-buy-property-in-right-now-housing-biggerpockets-2024-8">hot real-estate markets</a>, and some in the industry fear that the quick fix of advertising commissions outside the MLS could open them up to more legal trouble down the line. In the meantime, more buyers may <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-rule-of-home-buying-fire-your-real-estate-agent-2024-4">choose to forgo an agent</a>, work out an alternative payment structure, or accept that they may have to fork over money to cover the gap between what they agreed to pay their agent and whatever the seller is willing to contribute.Other terms of the agreement will also be up to the buyer and their agent. They can decide which services the agent will provide and for how long; whether they want to maintain an exclusive relationship or allow the buyer to work with other agents; what to do if the arrangement sours and one party wants to walk away.The basic terms of a buyer-representation agreement should, in theory, be fairly simple to spell out: How much is the buyer going to pay, and for which services? But as with all modern contracts, there are complications. The Consumer Federation of America has raised concerns about the standard forms promoted by some state Realtor associations, saying even lawyers might struggle to parse the tiny typeface and thick legalese. It has argued that buyers risk agreeing to unnecessary fees or finding themselves legally bound to an agent who turns out to be a dud. After the California Association of Realtors, which has more than 180,000 members, unveiled a draft of its standard form, the CFA released a report written by Tanya Monestier, a professor of contract law at the University at Buffalo, that lambasted the draft as "virtually unreadable."Take, for instance, this section, which is meant to explain what happens if the same agent represents both the buyer and the seller:"ACCOUNTING FOR PAYMENTS TO BROKER IF BROKER ALSO REPRESENTS SELLER: Notwithstanding paragraph 2D(2), if Broker has a listing agreement with the seller of the property to be purchased, no credit toward Buyer's compensation obligation shall be given for the amount due Broker by seller for the compensation Broker is owed as the seller's agent. Buyer will pay the amount in paragraph 2D(1), less any amount offered by Broker to buyer's agents."Imagine 4,000 words of that. A tiny section that basically says "The buyer and the seller will each have to pay the agent separately" turns into word vomit."No buyer will understand this provision's meaning," Monestier wrote.The California association did end up making substantive revisions, and said in a statement that "the complexity of the agreement reflects the complexity of California real estate transactions." But the form is "still very lengthy," Monestier told me recently. "It's still very hard to slog through."Consumers may, understandably, be wary of signing a complex contract so early in the process, but the new setup has benefits. Sellers often interview several agents before picking the one who seems like they'll reel in the most lucrative offers. Buyers should similarly vet agents with an eye toward the bottom line. After all, internet-savvy buyers don't need agents' help to find houses anymore, Ellis, the brokerage executive in Chicago, told me. But they probably still want someone to hold their hand through the rest of the process. And if you're a buyer who just wants someone to open doors for you to get a sense of what's out there, Monestier said, you can hold off on signing with an agent and deal directly with sellers' agents.Ultimately, this is about ensuring that both a buyer and their agent enter the relationship with a clear understanding of what they'll get out of it. A buyer, Ellis said, might want to ask a prospective agent: "If I work with you, how are you going to get me the house that I want, the terms I want? How are you going to get me through this transaction as smoothly as possible?"The idea that sellers pay both agents' commissions has always been a clever sleight of hand. Buyer-representation agreements may be thorny, but at least they'll make it impossible for buyers to ignore the costs of using an agent. Real-estate agents, like people in any other job, provide a service. And nobody works for free.<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/james-rodriguez">James Rodriguez</a> is a senior reporter on Business Insider's Discourse team.

The new homebuying rule that could save you thousands 

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A California judge on Monday ruled Google must open up Android to rival third-party app stores.</li><li>The outcome notably differs from a similar suit filed against Apple that was decided in 2021.</li></ul>A California judge on Monday ruled that Google must <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-app-store-android-third-party-epic-games-judge-2024-10">open up Android to rival third-party app stores</a> as part of a landmark antitrust case against the tech giant.Management and law experts told Business Insider the ruling highlights how antitrust law is being used against Big Tech companies — and could cost <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google">Google</a> billions of dollars in lost revenue.The ruling came after years of legal back-and-forth between Google and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-loses-app-store-antitrust-suit-against-fortnite-creators-2023-12">Fortnite developer Epic Games,</a> which initially filed the suit in August 2020. Epic Games argued, and a jury ultimately agreed, that Google had violated antitrust policies in its Play Store for Android devices.In December, that same jury found that the tech giant held a monopoly in its Play Store and artificially limited the reach of competitors' apps, driving up prices for processing in-app purchases. Northern District of California Judge James Donato's ruling on Monday established remedies to that monopoly: For three years, Google will not be permitted to pay companies to launch apps exclusively on the Play Store or pay them to preinstall the company's app store on devices.According to Peter Cohan, an associate professor of management practice at Babson College, the ruling could "cost Google tens of billions of revenue over the next three years" due to lost in-app payments and revenue that will go to competing third-party app platforms."In recent years, the government has been trying to countervail the high pricing power of dominant tech companies," Cohan told Business Insider. "This fits into that shift."The Monday ruling in the case resulted in a disparate outcome compared to a lawsuit Epic Games filed against <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/apple">Apple</a> in August 2020, which accused Apple of holding a similar monopoly with its App Store. The Apple case was decided in 2021 — and largely favored Apple, finding that the company had engaged in anticompetitive behavior in only one of 10 counts.In the Apple case, Northern District of California Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' only remedy was that Apple could not stop app developers from informing users that alternative payment systems other than the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-app-store">App Store</a> existed to pay for in-app purchases.Eric Chaffee, a professor of business law and technology at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told Business Insider that the Epic Games ruling — and a DOJ case against the company in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-doj-antitrust-trial-advertising-tech-market-2024-9">separate antitrust trial</a> in which prosecutors are considering asking the judge to <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-search-antitrust-case-doj-remedy-alphabet-2024-10">break up Google</a> — underscores how the application of antitrust law has shifted in recent years against Big Tech companies."It seems like thinking about antitrust is evolving in the United States," Chaffee said. Historically, he said, liberal judges tended to favor <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-lawsuit">antitrust law</a> more than conservative ones. But, these days, even "more conservative justices have come around to the notion that certain sorts of breakups of monopolies are positive things, especially in regard to technology — so in regard to that, this case is one to watch."Chaffee added: "It's one of those things where we're going to see potentially odd or unexpected lineups in regard to how the court ends up approaching these types of issues."When reached by Business Insider, a representative for Google pointed to a public statement about the ruling indicating that the company plans to appeal but declined to answer further questions."The Epic verdict missed the obvious: Apple and Android clearly compete," Google's <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-games-verdict-appeal/">statement</a> reads, in part. "We will appeal and ask the courts to pause implementing the remedies to maintain a consistent and safe experience for users and developers as the legal process moves forward."Alden Abbott, former General Counsel for the FTC and senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center told Business Insider he is skeptical that the injunction issued against Google will benefit consumers, as antitrust law is supposed to."Preventing Google from bidding for exclusive initial rights to host top games will artificially undermine Google's competition with Apple," Abbott said. "It may also reduce third-party incentives to invest in creating the best games in the hope of winning exclusivity. On both those counts — reduced competition with Apple and reduced incentives to enhance quality — consumers are likely to suffer."When Epic Games' case against Apple was similarly appealed, the Supreme Court denied requests to hear it, leaving Apple with its partial victory.Representatives for Epic Games directed Business Insider to a public thread about the Google ruling, posted on X by the company's CEO, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1843394692551192972">Tim Sweeney</a>."The Google Play Store injunction lasts for 3 years," Sweeney wrote. "This means all app developers, store makers, carriers, and manufacturers have 3 years to build a vibrant and competitive Android ecosystem with such critical mass that Google can't stop it."

Judge's ruling against Google in Epic Games case highlights a shift in antitrust law

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A judge has ordered Google to open up Android to rival third-party app stores.</li><li>The ruling is part of Epic Games' blockbuster antitrust case against Google.</li></ul>A US judge has ruled that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/fortnite-maker-epic-games-battles-google-over-app-store-fees-2023-11">Google must open up Andriod</a> for third-party app stores.The ruling, made on Monday, was one of several remedies in the landmark antitrust case brought against Google by Epic Games, the company behind the video game Fortnite. The remedies aim to give Android users more options for downloading apps and paying for transactions within them.The judge ruled that for three years, Google will not be able to pay companies to launch apps exclusively on the Play Store or pay them to preinstall the company's app store on devices.The judge also ruled that Google must allow competition app stores to access Google Play apps and that it cannot require app makers to use Google Play Billing.The remedies are set to take force from November. Shares of Google's parent company, Alphabet, fell 2.4% following the ruling.In a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epic-games-verdict-appeal/">statement posted online,</a> Google said it was appealing the decision."The Epic verdict missed the obvious: Apple and Android clearly compete. We will appeal and ask the courts to pause implementing the remedies to maintain a consistent and safe experience for users and developers as the legal process moves forward," the company said."We will keep advocating for what is best for developers, device manufacturers, and the billions of Android users around the world."Representatives for Epic Games did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside normal working hours.The ruling is Google's latest setback. Last year, a jury found Google had violated antitrust policies in its Play Store for Android systems. The jury found that the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-lawsuit-antitrust-case-doj-search-agreements-apple-2023-9">tech giant held a monopoly</a> in its Play Store for Android operating systems that limited the reach of competitors' apps and drove up prices for processing in-app purchases.

You Searched For "it rules" and got 8 results

Tesla stock jumps 8% on Trump administration plan to relax self-driving car rules

Matthew Fox

Welcome to the 'treat yourself' economy — where skincare and long hair rule

Erin Snodgrass

Half of renters live somewhere they can't afford

Eliza Relman,Noah Sheidlower

Continue 45-day MSME payment rule: Industry body to Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman

PTI

Google Seeks to delay judge’s ruling on App Store competition over security concerns

BI India Bureau

The new homebuying rule that could save you thousands

James Rodriguez

Judge's ruling against Google in Epic Games case highlights a shift in antitrust law

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Google must allow third-party app stores on Android, Epic Games judge rules

Beatrice Nolan

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides