Telefónica Breach Hits 1M in Peru

Telefonica, the Spanish telecommunications giant, has launched an investigation into a potential cyberattack after sensitive data allegedly belonging to about one million of its former customers in Peru was released online. The breach came to light on June 3rd, 2025, when the hacker group “Dedale” claimed responsibility, asserting that it held data on roughly 22 million Telefonica customers worldwide. However, the leaked sample specifically appears relevant to the company’s former operations in Peru.

The incident is particularly notable because it occurred just two months after Telefonica finalised its exit from the Peruvian market. In April 2025, the company sold its struggling Peruvian branch to Argentinian firm Integra Tec International for approximately €900,000. Despite this sale, the leaked data seems to originate from Telefonica’s previous operations in the country, raising questions about the security of customer information even after business divestitures.

Telefonica has confirmed that it is actively investigating the alleged security breach. According to a company spokesperson, “The sample released by the actor, which comprises 1 million records, seems to correspond to customers in Peru.” The company is currently working to verify the leaked records' authenticity and assess the breach's full scope.

This incident is not isolated but part of a broader trend of cyberattacks targeting telecommunications providers globally. In October 2024, major US operators, including Verizon, AT&T, and Lumen, were infiltrated by a Chinese hacking group known as Salt Typhoon, which reportedly targeted lawful intercept requests and gained broader network access. Additionally, South Korea’s SK Telecom recently suffered a breach impacting nearly 23 million customers, exposing mobile numbers and authentication keys.

Industry leaders and regulators are now calling for stronger cybersecurity measures. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US has emphasised the need for a modern framework to help companies secure their networks and respond effectively to cyber threats. As telecom operators continue to digitise, the risk of such attacks is only expected to grow, highlighting the urgent need for strong defences and cross-border collaboration to protect critical communications infrastructure.

UK Lawmakers Slam Apple and Google

MPs in the UK have accused technology giants Apple and Google of profiting from the sharp rise in mobile phone thefts, as crime rates soar and organised gangs increasingly target smartphones. The accusations were made during a session of the House of Commons Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee, where police and lawmakers voiced frustration over the companies’ reluctance to implement measures that could significantly reduce the resale value of stolen devices.

According to police figures, phone thefts in London have surged, with around 80,000 devices stolen last year, a 25% increase from the previous year. Apple devices account for about 80% of these thefts, and most stolen phones are shipped overseas, particularly to Algeria, China, and Hong Kong, where they are reactivated and resold. The estimated replacement value of stolen phones in London alone is £50 million annually.

The Metropolitan Police have urged Apple and Google to block stolen devices from accessing their cloud services and to use the unique IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number to render stolen phones permanently unusable, regardless of where they end up. Police argue that this would make theft less attractive to criminals by destroying the devices’ resale value. However, both companies have resisted these calls, citing concerns about potential fraud and misuse of the IMEI system.

MPs have accused the tech giants of dragging their feet and prioritising profits over public safety. “Apple and Google continue to make profit and continue to sell more phones because these phones are not removed from the system,” said Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley. Conservative MP Kit Malthouse added, “It feels to a lot of people like you’re dragging your feet… and actually sitting behind this is a very strong commercial incentive”.

Apple and Google representatives defended their approach, arguing that their existing security features, such as Apple’s Stolen Device Protection and Android’s Theft Detection Lock, are robust and that blocking devices by IMEI could create new fraud risks. They also noted that the global IMEI database is managed by network carriers, not device manufacturers, making industry-wide cooperation essential for effective implementation.

Despite these assurances, MPs and police remain unsatisfied, calling for urgent action to protect consumers and reduce the spiralling cost of phone thefts in the UK.

Google to Pour $500M Into Compliance Overhaul

Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has agreed to spend $500 million over the next decade to overhaul its global compliance structure as part of a settlement in a major shareholder lawsuit concerning antitrust violations. The proposed settlement, which still requires approval from a federal judge in California, marks a significant step as Google faces mounting legal and regulatory challenges across multiple jurisdictions.

The lawsuit was initiated in 2021 by a group of shareholders, led by two Michigan pension funds, who accused Alphabet’s top executives, including CEO Sundar Pichai and co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, of breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to manage antitrust risks that have led to widespread regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. The shareholders alleged that Google’s dominance in search, digital advertising, Android, and app distribution was maintained through anti-competitive practices, exposing the company to substantial legal and financial risks.

Under the terms of the settlement, Alphabet will establish a new, independent board committee dedicated solely to risk and compliance oversight; a responsibility previously managed by its audit committee. Additionally, a senior executive-level committee will be created to address regulatory and compliance matters, reporting directly to Pichai. A third committee, comprising product managers and internal compliance experts, will provide technical oversight and ensure that robust compliance mechanisms are implemented across Google’s global operations.

Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, emphasising in a statement that it has already devoted significant resources to building strong compliance processes. “To avoid protracted litigation, we’re happy to make these commitments,” the company said. The reforms are expected to be maintained for at least four years and are designed to foster a “deeply rooted culture change” within the company, according to shareholders’ attorneys.

The settlement comes amid a series of high-profile legal defeats for Google, including federal court rulings that it unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the search engine and digital advertising markets. Regulators in the United States and abroad are now calling for sweeping remedies, such as the possible divestiture of Google’s Chrome browser and mandatory data-sharing with competitors. While shareholders will not receive direct monetary compensation, their legal team plans to seek up to $80 million in legal fees.

This $500 million investment represents one of the largest commitments by a corporation to regulatory compliance reforms, underscoring the growing pressure on big tech to address antitrust and regulatory concerns.

Walmart, Mars, Nestlé, and L’Oréal Exit Plastic Pact

Major consumer brands, including Walmart, Mars, Nestlé, Mondelēz, and L’Oréal USA, have withdrawn from the US Plastics Pact (USPP), a leading industry coalition focused on advancing sustainable plastic packaging, just as the group prepares to update its 2030 sustainability goals. The departures mark a significant setback for the pact, which launched in 2020 under the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s global plastics initiative and has been regarded as a cornerstone in America’s push toward a circular economy for plastics.

The USPP’s original 2025 targets included making all plastic packaging reusable, recyclable, or compostable, eliminating problematic plastics, and boosting the use of recycled content. However, several companies now acknowledge that meeting these ambitious goals is unlikely by the end of 2025. Mars, for example, cited delays in packaging design and infrastructure changes, while Walmart admitted progress has been made but expects to fall short of its recycling and virgin plastic reduction targets. These companies maintain that they will continue to pursue sustainability through other industry coalitions and internal strategies.

The exits reflect broader concerns about the feasibility and return on investment of current industry-led plastics initiatives. Many brands are reassessing their participation in large, collective frameworks in favour of more focused, company-specific sustainability roadmaps or alternative coalitions such as the EPR Leadership Forum and the Circular Action Alliance. Walmart, for instance, co-founded the EPR Leadership Forum alongside many of the same firms that left the USPP, signalling a shift toward regionally adapted strategies and private-public pilot projects.

The departures have raised questions about the future of collaborative sustainability efforts in the packaging sector. Industry observers note that while the USPP retains the support of smaller brands, NGOs, and startups, the loss of high-profile members weakens the pact’s influence and underscores the challenges of aligning corporate goals with measurable, collective outcomes. The packaging industry now appears to be entering a phase where individual ESG strategies are taking precedence over shared commitments, especially as multinational firms face growing investor scrutiny.

Despite these setbacks, the USPP insists its work will continue, pointing to its Roadmap 2.0 and ongoing collaboration with remaining signatories. The broader impact of these developments highlights the need for stronger policy alignment, financial incentives, and practical tools to achieve a truly circular packaging economy in the United States.

Tesla Investors Want Musk All In

A coalition of major Tesla investors has issued a sharp ultimatum to Elon Musk, demanding that the CEO commit to working at least 40 hours per week at the electric vehicle manufacturer as the company faces what shareholders describe as a mounting crisis. The demand, formalised in a letter to Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm, was signed by 12 institutional investors, including prominent pension funds such as Akademiker Pension, AP Pension, Storebrand Asset Management, and the New York City Comptroller, who collectively oversee nearly $950 billion in assets under management.

The investors cited a host of critical issues plaguing Tesla: plummeting global sales, volatile stock performance, reputational damage, and concerning reports about the company’s human rights practices. Tesla’s sales in April dropped by nearly half compared to the previous year, and profits fell 71% in the most recent quarter. The company’s public image has also suffered, with Tesla’s ranking in a major US corporate reputation survey falling from eighth to 95th.

Central to the investors’ concerns is Musk’s divided attention. Besides running Tesla, Musk leads or is involved in at least five other companies, including SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), The Boring Company, Neuralink, and xAI. He has also recently concluded a high-profile advisory role with the unofficial US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration, a position that investors argue further diverted his focus from Tesla. The letter stressed that the board must ensure Tesla is not treated as “just one among many competing obligations”.

In addition to the 40-hour workweek requirement, the investors called for a clear succession plan and the addition of at least one independent board member without personal ties to Musk or his associates. They also urged limits on directors’ external board commitments to strengthen governance and address the perception that the board is unwilling or unable to act in shareholders’ best interests.

The move comes as Tesla’s board is set to consider new compensation plans for Musk, following a 2023 court ruling that invalidated his previous $56 billion pay package. While Musk has indicated a desire to refocus on Tesla, the investors’ demands highlight growing tensions between his ambitious, multi-company vision and the need for stable, dedicated leadership at the automaker. The board now faces mounting pressure to align Musk’s role with the company’s urgent operational and reputational challenges.