Walmart Inc. signage during the company’s listing at the Nasdaq MarketSite in New York, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025.

Michael Nagle | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Estée Lauder sued Walmart in California federal court over allegations the big-box retailer sold counterfeit beauty products on its website and didn’t do enough to ensure only authorized and authentic merchandise was offered to consumers. 

Estée Lauder said it purchased, inspected or tested a number of products sold on Walmart.com that used the Le Labo, La Mer, Clinique, Aveda, Tom Ford and Estée Lauder trademarks but were determined to be fakes, according to the suit, filed Monday.

The products include counterfeit versions of Estée Lauder’s Advanced Night Repair serum, a Le Labo fragrance, a Clinique eye cream, a La Mer lotion, an Aveda hair brush and a Tom Ford fragrance. 

Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards

xemplars of the Estée Lauder Accused Products

U.S. District Court Complaint

It’s unclear when Estée Lauder bought and tested the products but the suit comes several months after CNBC published an investigation into counterfeit beauty products and fraud on Walmart.com.

Two of the counterfeit products cited in CNBC’s investigation — Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair serum and Clinique Smart Clinical Repair Wrinkle Correcting Eye Cream — were also mentioned in Estée Lauder’s lawsuit. It’s unclear if the products cited in the suit are the same counterfeits CNBC provided to Estée Lauder. 

In response, Walmart initially told CNBC in a statement it requires “all sellers to offer only authentic, lawful merchandise” and it doesn’t tolerate “bad actors” on its platform. It then recalled the message and sent an abbreviated statement to CNBC two hours later that removed that language.

“We are aware of the complaint and have zero tolerance for counterfeit products,” the revised statement read. “We will respond appropriately with the court when we are served.” 

Estée Lauder didn’t return a request for comment. 

Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards

Exemplars of the Clinique Accused Products

U.S. District Court Complaint

While the products were sold by third-party sellers on Walmart’s online marketplace, Estée Lauder said the company played an active role in facilitating those sales to shoppers in its suit. The legacy beauty company called Walmart’s conduct “extreme, outrageous, fraudulent … despicable and harmful.” 

The counterfeit products were promoted and advertised to shoppers on the platform, Estee Lauder’s trademarks were used in search engine optimization tools to drive traffic to the listings and Walmart profited from the sales, the complaint stated. 

Further, “a person shopping on Walmart.com would have reasonably believed that Walmart, and not third-party sellers, was the seller” of the item, which could have caused confusion among shoppers, the complaint states. 

At the heart of CNBC’s investigation into Walmart’s online marketplace was the steps the company took, or didn’t take, to vet its third-party sellers and the products they were offering to prevent fraud and the sale of fakes on the platform. 

Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards

Exemplars of the La Mer Accused Products.

U.S. District Court Complaint

In its complaint, Estée Lauder said Walmart promoted the “reputation and professionalism” of the sellers permitted to operate on the platform but said the retailer actually does “very little to ensure that only authorized and authentic products are available” for sale. 

“This is readily apparent given the [counterfeits] were permitted to be sold on Defendants’ website despite their stated careful selection process in who they choose as a Marketplace seller/partner,” the complaint states. “Accordingly, Defendants know or had reason to know that the sellers they partnered with and ‘regularly review[ed]’ were selling products which infringe upon the Estée Lauder Marks.” 

Walmart’s online marketplace has become a key part of its strategy to grow profit faster than sales and better compete against its longtime rival, Amazon. The rapid growth of the online platform helped fuel Walmart’s ascent to a $1 trillion market cap last week, putting it in an exclusive club made up almost entirely of technology companies. 

However, the strategy has come with risks, CNBC’s investigation revealed. Offering counterfeit, potentially dangerous, products to shoppers through third-party sellers on the marketplace opens Walmart up to liability and could erode the customer trust at the core of its brand.

Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards

Exemplars of the Le Labo Accused Products

U.S. District Court Complaint

Ever since a 2010 court ruling that arose after Tiffany sued eBay over counterfeit products on the platform, it can be tough for brands to hold platforms accountable for their role in selling counterfeit goods. Sometimes, they avoid lawsuits unless the conduct is extreme or particularly flagrant, experts previously told CNBC.

The Shop Safe Act, a bipartisan federal bill that aims to curb the sale of fakes on online marketplaces, is designed to address some of the issues posed by the Tiffany v. eBay ruling by incentivizing platforms to better vet sellers and the products they’re offering. When platforms comply with certain anti-counterfeiting measures, they could be shielded from liability if a seller offers a fake product. 

Brands widely supported the legislation, but it has so far failed to pass at least three times. That’s partially because Walmart and other online marketplaces like Amazon, Etsy and eBay have lobbied against aspects of it, two U.S. Senate aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private, previously told CNBC. 

The post Estée Lauder sues Walmart, alleging sale of counterfeits appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Sundar Pichai, chief executive officer of Alphabet Inc., during the Bloomberg Tech conference in San Francisco, California, US, on Wednesday, June 4, 2025.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Alphabet’s debt sale keeps getting bigger.

The company is close to finalizing a global bond issuance in excess of $30 billion, according to two people familiar with the deal, an increase from the $20 billion it raised on Monday.

On Tuesday morning, Alphabet went to the European market to raise roughly $11 billion in sterling and Swiss francs, said the people, who asked not to be named because the details are private. Bloomberg reported earlier that Alphabet raised almost $32 billion.

Investors are showing heightened demand for high-quality paper from tech heavyweights that are leading the charge in artificial intelligence, one source said.

In its earnings report last week, Alphabet said it expects to shell out up to $185 billion in capital expenditures this year, more than double its 2025 capex. The group of hyperscalers, which also includes Amazon, Meta and Microsoft, are projected to collectively spend close to $700 billion in 2026. With tech companies pouring money into high-priced chips, large facilities and networking technology, analysts expect free cash flow to plummet this year.

Oracle was the first large tech company to test the debt market in 2026, with its $25 billion dollar offering last week. Meta is preparing a large debt offering in first part of this year, as it looks to accelerate its data center push across the U.S., the sources said.

Alphabet held a $25 billion bond sale in November. Its long-term debt quadrupled in 2025 to $46.5 billion. CFO Anat Ashkenazi said on last week’s earnings call that as the company considers its total investment, “we want to make sure we do it in a fiscally responsible way, and that we invest appropriately, but we do it in a way that maintains a very healthy financial position for the organization.”

Alphabet didn’t respond to a request for comment.

— CNBC’s Jennifer Elias contributed to this report.

WATCH: Alphabet’s bond sale

The post Alphabet set to raise over $30 billion in global debt sale: sources appeared first on Our Story Insight.

A bus passes near Warner Bros. Studio on Sept. 12, 2025 in Burbank, California.

Mario Tama | Getty Images

Paramount Skydance is calling foul on how Warner Bros. Discovery has conducted its sale process.

In a letter reviewed by CNBC, Paramount attorneys told Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav that Paramount was questioning the “fairness and adequacy” of the process, which officially launched in October. This week, Paramount, Netflix and Comcast submitted second-round bids to acquire some or all of Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets, CNBC previously reported.

“It has become increasingly clear, through media reporting and otherwise, that WBD appears to have abandoned the semblance and reality of a fair transaction process, thereby abdicating its duties to stockholders, and embarked on a myopic process with a predetermined outcome that favors a single bidder,” reads the letter from attorneys at Quinn Emanuel. “We specifically request and expect this letter will be shared and discussed with the full board of directors of WBD.”

In particular, Paramount’s letter calls out reports that WBD’s management appears to favor Netflix’s offer.

Netflix has made an offer of mostly cash, while Paramount’s latest bid was all cash, according to people close to the matter who declined to be named speaking about confidential dealings. All three companies submitted higher bids than their initial offers, the people told CNBC.

and all three companies submitted higher bids than their initial offers, according to people close to the matter who declined to be named speaking about confidential dealings.

As of Thursday morning, Netflix was the leading bidder based on how WBD is valuing the offers, people familiar told CNBC. Comcast executives, for their part, continue to be disciplined in the company’s offer as to not anger shareholders by taking on additional debt and risking its balance sheet, according to people familiar with that company’s thinking. Comcast leadership has previously said that its bar for M&A is generally high.

Warner Bros. Discovery told CNBC it confirmed to Paramount that it had received the letter and would share it with members of the WBD board.

“Please be assured that the WBD Board attends to its fiduciary obligations with the utmost care, and that they have fully and robustly complied with them and will continue to do so,” the company said in its response to Paramount.

WBD expects to announce a winner as early as next week, sources told CNBC.

While first-round bids arrived in mid-November, Paramount has been vying to acquire the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery — which includes its streaming service HBO Max, film studio Warner Bros. and portfolio of cable TV networks like TNT and TBS — since September, CNBC previously reported.

Warner Bros. Discovery rebuffed three offers made by Paramount, the last of the those for $23.50 a share, before launching a formal sale process to beckon other buyers, CNBC previously reported.

Netflix and Comcast are interested only in WBD’s streaming and film studio business, CNBC has reported. Prior to the sale process Warner Bros. Discovery had begun the process of splitting its company into two — Warner Bros., the streaming and studio businesses which would be led by Zaslav, and Discovery Global, the cable TV networks division that would be run by current WBD CFO Gunnar Wiedenfels.

Paramount attorneys sent the letter as the company suspects that Zaslav has been biased against a merger with Paramount since the outset, and instead, would rather complete its path toward a separation, some of the people familiar told CNBC. Paramount and its advisors have viewed WBD’s contact with them as more obstructionist rather than constructive, two of the people said.

Prior to the sale process, Zaslav had been known to tell colleagues that Amazon’s Prime Video or Netflix would likely be interested suitors in Warner Bros. Discovery, or specifically HBO Max and the film studio, the people said. In the letter, Paramount asks the WBD board if reporting that WBD management has “chemistry” with Netflix management is accurate.

Paramount is seeking confirmation, according to the letter, of whether Warner Bros. Discovery appointed an independent special committee of disinterested members of its board to steer the sale process and consider offers.

“If not, we strongly urge you to empower such a special committee comprised of directors with no potential appearance of bias or beholdenness to others whose interests may differ from those of the stockholders,” the letter reads. “This would seem to be an important step at this stage, to ensure the fairness and unimpeachability of the transaction process and to maximize the value of whatever outcome WBD determines to pursue.”

Read the full letter from Paramount to WBD:

Dear Mr. Zaslav: We write on behalf of Paramount Skydance Corporation (“Paramount”, “we” or “us”) to express our serious concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the bidding process for a potential combination with Warner Bros. Discovery (“WBD” or “you”). It has become increasingly clear, through media reporting and otherwise, that WBD appears to have abandoned the semblance and reality of a fair transaction process, thereby abdicating its duties to stockholders, and embarked on a myopic process with a predetermined outcome that favors a single bidder. We specifically request and expect this letter will be shared and discussed with the full board of directors of WBD.

We have recently seen reporting in the U.S. and foreign media that gives serious cause for concern. The German newspaper Handelsblatt recently reported on a meeting that reportedly took place in Brussels between Gerhard Zieler, President of WBD’s International Business and a direct report to WBD’s Chief Executive Officer, who “arrived with a three-person team,” with the E.U. Commission Vice President Hena Virkkunen, to discuss the potential merger prospects for WBD. In that conversation, the article reports that “concerns were raised that the Ellison family’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery could lead to excessive media concentration,” and that the E.U. Commission would consider intervening in a potential merger with Paramount for this reason. The article quotes “sources close” to Zeiler as saying “that the talks with the Commission were important because both Warner and the EU wanted to preserve media diversity.” The implications of such a meeting, if it occurred, are clear and evince a tacit resistance to, if not active sabotage of, a Paramount offer.

While this report is concerning in itself, this is not an isolated report regarding purported WBD resistance to a combination with Paramount. Several U.S. media outlets have reported on the enthusiasm by WBD management for a transaction with Netflix, and on statements by management that a transaction between WBD and Netflix would be a “slam dunk,” while also referring to Paramount’s bid in a negative light. Additional reporting since the submission of revised bids on December 1 has indicated that WBD’s “board has really warmed to” a transaction with Netflix due to the “chemistry between” WBD management and Netflix management. We have come to you first to inquire whether this reporting is accurate, and to engage in a productive discussion with you around any actual or perceived issues that it may reflect.

Moreover, these media reports echo similar indications that we have been hearing throughout this process, despite what we viewed as otherwise productive conversations that we have had with WBD leadership. Paramount has a credible basis to believe that the sales process has been tainted by management conflicts, including certain members of management’s potential personal interests in post-transaction roles and compensation as a result of the economic incentives embedded in recent amendments to employment arrangements. These concerns are amplified by indications of director bias and beholdenness to others whose interests may not align with the stockholders’, and the fact that alternatives involving only certain WBD assets are being prioritized notwithstanding their heightened regulatory risk and potential to deprive stockholders of consideration for the entirety of WBD’s enterprise value.

Further, as you know, Paramount agreed to certain standstill arrangements in exchange for the opportunity to participate in a truly competitive and unbiased bidding process. Paramount did not bargain for WBD to foster, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a tilted and unfair process. We believe that all parties to this process should have a shared desire for, and will mutually benefit from, an unimpeachable transaction process. As we assume you agree, even discounting the accuracy of any media reports, just the appearance of a flawed process imperils any potential transaction that might result and may undermine the potential value maximization to WBD stockholders from any prospective transaction.

In light of our grave concerns regarding the integrity of WBD’s process, we seek confirmation as to whether WBD has appointed an independent special committee of disinterested members of its board to consider the potential transaction opportunities and to make a final determination regarding a sale or break-up of all or part of the company. If not, we strongly urge you to empower such a special committee comprised of directors with no potential appearance of bias or beholdenness to others whose interests may differ from those of the stockholders. This would seem to be an important step at this stage, to ensure the fairness and unimpeachability of the transaction process and to maximize the value of whatever outcome WBD determines to pursue. Engaging with WBD throughout this process, we have been encouraged by the enormous potential from a combination of our entities. We remain confident that the Paramount offer would provide the maximum value to WBD stockholders and look forward to the opportunity to continue to engage with you productively in this process. But at this point we must insist on assurances and steps taken to ensure that a truly fair and independent process is being conducted, both for Paramount’s benefit and in the interest of WBD’s stockholders.

Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal, which owns CNBC. Versant would become the new parent company of CNBC upon Comcast’s planned spinoff of Versant.

The post Paramount letter questions Warner Bros. Discovery sale process appeared first on Our Story Insight.

A customer holds up the new orange-colored iPhone 17 Pro Max smartphone inside an Apple retail store in Chongqing, China, on September 19, 2025.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The iPhone 17 hit store shelves worldwide on Friday, drawing lines from Beijing to London.

But beyond the launch buzz, Apple is under pressure to prove itself, grappling with questions over its artificial intelligence plans, as well as increasing competition. 

Products on display for the first time include the iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air, as well as new Apple Watch and AirPods models.

While they were available for preorders in the U.S. from Sept. 12, the global launch holds particular significance as Apple takes on growing competition in overseas markets. 

China competition

One of those markets is China, where customers waited for hours — and even overnight — to get their hands on the new iPhone 

First in line at the Apple flagship Store in Sanlitun, Beijing, this morning, was Liu — he did not wish to be identified by his full name — who told CNBC that he had been queuing since 11 p.m. local time Thursday for his chance to pick up the iPhone 17 Pro Max.

A customer shows off his new iPhone 17 at Apple’s Regent Street store on Sept. 19.

Arjun Kharpal | CNBC

He said he was excited about the smartphone’s new color and exterior design, which Apple says has improved the phone’s heat dissipation. 

Notably, Liu also said he has changed to Apple from Huawei in recent years, saying he preferred the iPhone for daily use and entertainment. 

Another person, who wished to be identified only by his surname, Yang — an erstwhile Xiaomi user — said he had been waiting to get his hands on the latest iPhone, preferring its operating system. 

Both Liu and Yang expect many Chinese residents to buy their first iPhone this year due to the new features, including larger internal storage. 

If that trend were to pan out, it would be welcome news for Apple, which has lost market share in China to players such as Huawei and Xiaomi. 

After years of leadership in the region, the iPhone-maker now only holds 10% of the Chinese smartphone market, trailing local players like Oppo, Huawei, Xiaomi and others, according to data from Omdia.

Apple’s latest iPhone models are shown on display at its Regent Street, London store on the launch day of the iPhone 17.

Arjun Kharpal | CNBC

So far, the signs are positive for the iPhone 17 series in China. Last Friday, JD.com — one of China’s largest ecommerce platforms — saw the first minute of iPhone 17 series preorders surpass the first-day preorder volume of last year’s iPhone 16 series, the company reported. 

At 10 a.m. local time on Friday, JD.com said that iPhone 17 trade-in sales were four times higher than the same period last year.

Other markets 

In the much smaller but affluent market of Singapore, the redesigned iPhone 17s were also met with fervor, with long lines forming outside Apple outlets across the city. 

Iman Isa and Daniel Muhamed Nuv, two young professionals in Singapore, both queued for hours at Apple’s outlet in the city’s iconic Marina Bay mall to buy iPhone 17 Pros, which they said were their first new phones in years. 

Citing the fresh design, longer battery life and improved camera, they said the new phones offer enough to keep them loyal to the Apple ecosystem.

Based on preorder times and consumer feedback, the initial global demand for the iPhone 17 series appears largely positive, said Le Xuan Chiew, a research manager at Omdia.

The iPhone 17 base model in particular has outperformed expectations, as the pricing at launch remained unchanged from its predecessor despite upgrades in memory storage, Chiew said. 

In Singapore, customers arriving at Apple outlets had also been looking to nab some of the company’s new AirPods Pro 3, citing the product’s live translation feature as a major selling point.

In London, lines were notably longer than they were at last year’s launch of the iPhone 16, and customers appeared more interested in the premium offerings — the Pro and Pro Max models — this time around.

People lined up outside Apple’s Regent Street, London store on Sept. 19 to get their hands on the latest iPhone 17.

Arjun Kharpal | CNBC

“For the last five years, I’ve been in a pattern of constantly upgrading my phone, because every year Apple is bringing something new to the table,” one customer, Jasmine, said. “I just love having that experience of Apple every year.”

Meanwhile, Michael, who described himself as a content creator, said he was drawn by the battery and camera.

“I thought about going for the [iPhone] Air, but I just don’t know whether or not the battery is going to be able to hold up. And that single camera? I don’t know, it’s just a little bit off-putting on the back,” he said of Apple’s thin iPhone 17 offering.

Apple intelligence 

A successful iPhone 17 launch could help reassure Apple investors after a somewhat underwhelming rollout of its artificial intelligence features, which began late last year.

Speaking to CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” last week, Ben Wood, chief analyst at CCS Insight, lauded Apple’s latest product launches but said the company now needed to deliver on artificial intelligence. 

“There is no question that Apple needs to deliver on AI,” he said, noting that the company had “dropped the ball” last year by making big promises that failed to materialize.

“Apple has to catch up [in AI], but right now, I think they’ve got enough runway to be able to cope in the intervening period.”

– CNBC’s Arjun Kharpal and Eunice Yoon contributed to this report

The post Apple iPhone 17 goes on sale as questions remain over China market, AI strategy appeared first on Our Story Insight.