Apple’s legal victory over Brussels last week appeared at first glance to give every international company seeking out Europe’s lowest corporate tax rates a considerable boost.

Officials at the European commission, the EU’s executive arm, claimed that the tech giant had saved more than €13bn (£11.8bn) over 10 years after signing a sweetheart tax deal with Dublin in what was claimed to be a clear breach of state aid rules. The second-highest court in the EU disagreed, saying that Ireland had played a straight bat in its dealings with Apple and ticked every technical box to get the deal through.

Paschal Donohoe, the Irish finance minister, struck an indignant tone when he said the ruling “will lead many to reassess their view of our corporate tax regime and some of the statements that have been made about it”.

He was talking about campaigners who have spent years trying to create a level playing field across the EU to prevent corporations playing one country off against another to drive down effective tax rates.

Ireland and the Netherlands are among a group of persistent alleged offenders, determined to attract international businesses that would consider the countries too small for an international headquarters without juicy tax cuts on offer.

One of those campaigners is the EU’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, who originally found against Apple and must now consider appealing. The word in Brussels is that she will, but more out of pride than a calculation that she can win.

Since 2016, when Dublin appealed against her ruling, the technical arguments have been fully rehearsed and a final judgment by the European court of justice – the EU’s highest court – is unlikely to find something new on which to base what would be an extraordinary reversal.

There are those who might consider that Apple’s tax department, and the officials who agreed the deal that granted the Californian company an effective corporate tax rate of 1%, to be Vestager’s nemesis. If she cannot win when the reduction in tax is so large and the preferential treatment so obvious, she must be a busted flush?

Vestager is made of sterner stuff. Dublin has been forced to charge higher rates of tax for some time now. The pandemic is also highlighting gaps in the tax take of many countries and giving those who pursue a remedy greater leverage. Efforts by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development thinktank to end the erosion of tax rates and the shifting of profits to low-tax regimes has helped in this, after making some headway in establishing ground rules for countries to work from.

Vestager is also switching her attention to antitrust issues to tackle the likes of Apple. Only last month she launched a full investigation of the way the Californian giant charges digital content providers such as Spotify a 30% fee for using its payment system for any subscriptions sold via iTunes.

The accusation is that Apple channels its iPhone and laptop users through its own services and does everything it can to exclude rivals, including levying fees.

No one should be in any doubt how difficult it is to prevent major multinationals from exploiting their market power. The US has given up trying under the presidency of Donald Trump, who is so weak in the face of lobbying by major corporations that he has pushed many free-market supporters into the arms of the Democratic party.

There is much evidence that consumers in the US are paying higher shop prices for basic technology than other regions because Congress has allowed monopolists to dictate what they charge.

Vestager is right to push back. Tackling Apple and the other US tech giants will not be easy, but monopolistic charges are a tax on consumers. The only pity is that the UK has taken itself out of the EU, leaving itself open to the exploitation the EU seeks to limit.

Branson back in superhero mode to help rescue Virgin

Anyone who is forced to spend £200m on a birthday gift for themselves might be forgiven for being a little downhearted – not least when it’s something they already own and they can’t be sure it will still be working in two years. However, as Sir Richard Branson, investing another fortune in Virgin Atlantic as he turns 70 this week, has shown time and again, he is one of life’s optimists – and still a magnet for other people’s money, too.

The rescue deal for the airline he founded in 1984 could possibly be read as a downturn in ambition: Branson funded his cash injection by selling off a large stake in Virgin Galactic, his space travel venture. Some might think there was a brighter future now in exploring life beyond our virus-ridden planet. Equally, the sister businesses have grown more alike during the Covid-19 era: both clinging on to fares from would-be passengers who are forlornly hoping that one day a Virgin craft will fly.

And yet, for all the criticism Branson’s empire attracted for initially seeking taxpayer support while being sheltered in the Virgin Islands, the announcement is a triumph over adversity that the tycoon will relish. There was no Treasury-backed loan of the kind other airlines received. And while Virgin has taken drastic steps to cut costs, and culled thousands of jobs, it has escaped the reputational mud that has coated the wings of great rival BA.

At 70, Branson has reasserted his primacy as the majority shareholder in Virgin Atlantic – a status that Willie Walsh, boss of BA’s owner IAG, predicted the tycoon would have lost well before now, in their notorious “knee in groin” bet. Given Walsh’s current travails as he delays his retirement to oversee the controversial firing and rehiring of BA staff, Branson’s £200m may at least have afforded him some local satisfaction. Why ask for the moon?

Netflix heir apparent needs to be ready for new episode

The elevation of Netflix content chief Ted Sarandos to co-chief executive is the first step in planning for a smooth handover of power when founder Reed Hastings eventually retires.

Sarandos, 55, who has also been elected to Netflix’s board, is a natural and uncontroversial choice as heir, having worked alongside Hastings for 20 years. He joined Netflix in 2000 as a DVD buyer, three years after it was founded as a DVD rental-by-post firm.

Sarandos controls Netflix’s $17bn content budget, the lifeblood fuelling its soaring growth over the past decade, which has seen it attract almost 200 million global subscribers. He led Netflix’s move into original content, which has become crucial to the company’s long-term success now that major content owners are increasingly keeping hold of hit shows for their own rival streaming services.

Hastings described the appointment as a formality, acknowledging that the industry has already long considered Netflix to be run by a two-man band in all but official job title, adding that it is “part of a long process of succession planning”.

The 59-year-old said he had no intention of stepping away from Netflix for a decade. But as a string of deep-pocketed mediarivalsfinally fight back in the streaming wars, it is a smart move to provide clarity to investors to avoid the question of succession becoming a major distraction in the coming years. Hastings says the early move to appoint a successor means there are “many years to get good at this” before he leaves the company.

The pandemic has led to Netflix adding 26 million subscribers in the first half of the year, just 2 million short of 2019’s total, as consumers seek diversion under lockdown.

However, it now faces a new wave of competitors, including NBC Universal’s Peacock, AT&T’s HBO Max, Disney+ and Apple TV.

With the company’s stock falling by 10% after it said it expected much lower numbers of new subscribers in the third quarter than analysts had hoped, Netflix and its leadership must now prepare for the biggest challenge to its dominance in its history.