ASPEN, Colorado, August 20, 2019 – More than a dozen state attorneys general have launched an antitrust investigation of big tech giants, and they are working cooperatively with the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said Makan Delrahim, the division’s head.
“We come at this with no preconceived agenda,” said Delrahim in a Tuesday morning interview session at the Technology Policy Institute forum here.
As to the coordination between the state attorneys general and the Justice Department, “I would anticipate that it would be in a cooperative manner that benefits everyone.”
The state investigation was first reported late Monday by the Wall Street Journal. On July 22 the Justice Department announced a broad antitrust review of “whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.”
Although the Justice Department’s review is not, in itself, an investigation of particular companies, a review can lead to or become an investigation, Delrahim said.
A smaller group of state representatives met last month with Justice Department officials.
In the interview session here with CNBC’s Senior National Correspondent Brian Sullivan, Delrahim declined to discuss the specifics of, or to confirm the existence of, a formal investigation of tech giants by the Justice Department.
And the tenor of his remarks was certainly not anti-technology.
“We are living at a time of incredible innovation and prosperity,” Delrahim said. “There are great efficiencies that have been brought to consumers” by these tech companies.
Still, it is “undeniable that people are asking questions about the market power of certain few companies.”
And while he said that it is not productive to lump all tech companies together, he mused: “Does Google compete with Facebook? You don’t go to Facebook to search, but from an advertising perspective, they might be [competing]. That is part of what an investigation would review.”
“Big, in and of itself, is not bad. It is big behaving badly,” he said. On that matter, he referenced the Justice Department’s antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s.
Delrahim also addressed the question that is increasingly discussed among antitrust experts: How can an antitrust action based on the consumer welfare standard proceed against companies, like Google and Facebook, whose consumer-facing products are free?
The answer is yes, he said. Just because the consumer doesn’t pay for the product doesn’t mean that you can’t look at antitrust effects based not just on price, but also on innovation and quality.
Referring to his speech at the University of Colorado law school at the Silicon Flatiron’s conference in February, Delrahim said that free-to-the-consumer industries like broadcast television have long been scrutinized by antirust regulators.
Delrahim also addressed two other recent telecom, media and technology industry antitrust matters: AT&T’s successful acquisition of Time Warner – over the objection of the Justice Department – and the agency’s recent approval of T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint, with conditions.
The Justice Department had been insisting upon the preservation of four national wireless carriers before approving the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, Delrahim said.
The merger was approved by the division after the two wireless companies agreed to spin off some spectrum assets to Dish Networks. The FCC issued its approval of the merger on Wednesday, although some state attorneys general plan to continue their suit to challenge.
Had the asset spinoff not been included, said Delrahim, “I would probably bring the same case against the merger.”
In the question-and-answer session in the interview, Delrahim addressed how the Justice Department enlisted Dish Network.
Divestiture would have solved “the competitive harm that we identified from the underlying merger,” but it wouldn’t have been able to “harness the very pro-competitive effects” that would have arisen with a fourth and new competitor in the marketplace, he said.
“We looked to see who could come in and step in and build the network,” an there were only real possibilities: Comcast, which he said had 10 megahertz of spectrum, and Dish Networks, with 95 megahertz.
“It has been sitting idle and not benefiting consumers. And Sprint had a good chunk [of that spectrum] that was not being used,” he said.
“The way this solution has come about will be not only very output enhancing,” but will, he said, hopefully lead to more quality and price effects.
“I was pleased that this was the solution that ultimately ensued, and hopefully that transaction will close sooner rather than later,” said Delrahim.
Public Interest Groups Urge Passage of Six Antitrust Bills Targeting Big Tech
Nearly 60 public interest groups signed a letter to House leaders to call a vote on six antitrust bills.
WASHINGTON, September 2, 2021 – Nearly 60 public interest groups signed a letter Thursday urging the House party leaders to push for a vote on six antirust bills that cleared the House judiciary committee in June.
The goal of the six bills is to rein in the power of Big Tech through new antirust liability provisions, including new merger and acquisition review, measures to prevent anticompetitive activity, and providing government enforcers more power to break-up or separate big businesses. They include American Choice and Innovation Online Act, H.R. 3816, Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, H.R. 3826, Ending Platform Monopolies Act, H.R. 3825, Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act, H.R. 3849, Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, H.R. 3843, and State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, H.R. 3460.
The letter, which was directed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, were promoting a package of six bills that were the result of a two-year bipartisan investigation that included 10 hearings, featuring the testimony of the CEOs of the major tech companies, 240 interviews, 1.3 million documents and a 450-page report, the letter notes.
“We believe that these bills will bring urgently needed change and accountability to these companies and an industry that most Americans agree is already doing great harm to our democracy,” the letter said. Public Citizen was the first of the 58 groups on the letter.
America has a monopoly problem. Monopoly power lowers wages, reduces innovation and entrepreneurship, exacerbates income and regional inequality, undermines the free press and access to information, and perpetuates toxic systems of racial, gender, and class dominance,” the letter alleged.
“Big Tech monopolies are at the center of many of these problems,” it continued. “Reining in these companies is an essential first step to reverse the damage of concentrated corporate power throughout our economy. The bills that passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, with bipartisan support, do just that and it is imperative that they move forward in the House.”
List of signatories:
- Public Citizen
- Accountable Tech
- Action Center on Race & the Economy
- ALIGN: The Alliance for a Greater New York
- Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding
- American Booksellers Association
- American Family Voices
- American Independent Business Alliance
- American Specialty Toy Retailing Association
- Artist Rights Alliance
- Cambridge Local First
- Center for American Progress
- Center for Digital Democracy
- Center for Popular Democracy
- Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws
- Decode Democracy
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Friends of the Earth
- Future of Music Coalition
- Gig Workers Rising
- Global Exchange
- Indivisible Georgia Coalition
- Indivisible Hawaii
- Indivisible Ulster/NY19
- Institute for Local Self-Reliance
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters
- Jobs With Justice
- Kairos Action
- Local First Arizona
- Louisville Independent Business Alliance
- Main Street Alliance
- Mainers for Accountable Leadership
- Media Alliance
- Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO
- National Employment Law Project
- New York Communities For Change
- New York Communities for Change
- North American Hardware and Paint Association
- Open Markets Institute
- Our Revolution
- PowerSwitch Action
- Public Knowledge
- Running Industry Association
- Secure Elections Network
- Service Employees International Union
- Shop Local Raleigh/Greater Raleigh Merchants Association
- SIMBA (Spokane Independent Metro Business Alliance)
- Small Business Rising
- Stand Up Nashville
- StayLocal, an initiative of Urban Conservancy
- Strategic Organizing Center
- The Democratic Coalition
- Venice Resistance
- Warehouse workers for justice
FTC Commissioner Phillips Warns About Shifting Direction of Agency
Noah Phillips voiced concern about the scope and practices of the Biden administration’s FTC.
WASHINGTON, September 2, 2021 — Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips said at a Hudson Institute webinar on Monday that he’s concerned about the direction the competition watchdog is moving toward considering recent events.
Phillips said the left-leaning voices in Washington and the appointment of Lina Khan to chair the agency has left him wondering about the legacy of the last 40 years of competition regulation in America – which have been hallmarked by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. That legislation effectively gave the FTC the ability to review mergers and acquisitions before they were finalized, rather than afterward, which governed pre-legislation.
Under Biden-appointee Lina Khan, Phillips described how the FTC has done away with the process of early termination. In the past, this process made it unnecessary for every single company to provide advanced notice and advanced approval for mergers. “Historically, parties have been able to come to the agencies and say, ‘You’re not interested in this, can we just go ahead and finish our deal,’ and the agencies have said ‘yes.’”
He said this is no longer the case, and that every single merger must provide advanced notice and approval. “What we’re introducing is an inefficiency in the market for transactions that we have no interest in pursuing, just for the sake of it. I think that’s a problem,” he continued. “My concern is that it is making merger enforcement less effective, less efficient, and less fair.”
Phillips pointed to left-of-center and leftist voices in Congress, such as Rep. David Cicilline, D-New York, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, who, at the outset of the pandemic, wanted to ban all acquisitions and mergers—regardless of their merit. He described this view as falling outside of mainstream perspectives, but noteworthy nonetheless.
“I don’t think that is what most people believe,” Phillips remarked. “I don’t think that is what Hart-Scott-Rodino envisions.”
This webinar took place only a couple of weeks after Phillips spoke at the Technology Policy Institute’s 2021 Aspen Forum, where he voiced similar concerns, stating that he feared that this new direction would make it more difficult for the FTC to hear cases that it should, and defended the commission’s record against critics who said it was lax under the Trump Administration.
Antitrust Experts Zero In on Big Tech and Consumer Welfare Standard at Aspen Forum
At Aspen forum, a red-hot focus on Big Tech, antitrust and consumer welfare.
ASPEN, Colorado, August 17, 2021— The Biden administration is taking a much harder line against big technology companies than was done by previous presidents, and is doing so by looking beyond the traditional consumer welfare standard of antitrust economics.
But the antitrust and competition economists making these assessments at the Technology Policy Institute conference here on Monday disagreed sharply about whether antitrust law should move beyond that consumer welfare standard.
Some these experts – including sitting Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips – disagreed with stances taken by Biden’s hand-picked FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan.
Others, including Harvard Business School Professor Shane Greenstein, said that it was absolutely necessary for the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division to investigate the gargantuan sums of money exchanged between big tech titans Google and Apple.
Speaking on a spirited panel session in the morning, “How is the U.S. Reshaping Antitrust,” Greenstein said Google pays Apple approximately $8 billion a year to make the Google search engine the default internet browser on all Apple devices.
Though this may not have historically fallen under the purview of antitrust, Greenstein was accusatory in his evaluation of the situation: “I’m sorry, no.” As to whether the antitrust division should investigate the matter, he said, “Go for it, guys.”
‘Deconcentration’ is not the goal of antitrust policy
But Carl Shapiro, professor of business strategy emeritus at University of California at Berkeley, dissented from Greenstein’s broader antitrust perspective.
“The goals of antitrust should be to promote competition—full stop,” said Shapiro. Deconcentration is not the goal of the FTC. The agency will have to determine whether it would depart from this long-held view, he said, and decide whether it would opt instead to consider concentration itself as evil.
“That’s not a version of capitalism that I want,” said Shapiro.
The primary issue is how one chooses to define competition, said Howard Shelanski, professor of law at Georgetown University. The dominant perspective has viewed competition through the lens of price effects. Other schools of thought borrow a wider aperture, considering this like privacy, wealth distribution, political power, product quality, and product variety when determining whether something improves or diminishes competition.
The more metrics that are accounted for, the more issues present themselves.
To this, FTC Commissioner Phillips responded, “If you are trying to solve everything at once, you will solve nothing at all.”
While polite, Phillips disagreed with FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan
At the beginning of the panel discussion, TPI President Emeritus Tom Lenard opened the session by asking Phillips for his impression of Khan.
Phillips responded diplomatically, joking that this question had not been on the list he had been sent. Because Khan has only been on the job for two months, it is too early for him to give a fully fleshed out appraisal of her time as chairwoman. “It’s always exciting to get new blood,” he said.
While he said he was supportive of Khan’s efforts to improve transparency by holding public meetings, he was critical of the direction in which the FTC is heading.
Proposed rule changes would create “needless friction” by delaying mergers that do not present a danger to consumers. This will make the agency less effective and less efficient.
“I worry that we are needlessly impeding our ability” to hear cases, he said.
Successes by big tech firms are ‘not a failure of antitrust’
Shapiro added that, in his view, concentration within an industry should not be viewed as a negative thing and that it is merely indicative of the fact that bigger companies are often simply more efficient and can compete more effectively in their industry. “That is not a failure of antitrust,” he said.
Shelanski said that he harbored serious reservations about expanding the consideration of antitrust. He noted that as it stands now, it is basically left to the FTC to decide how to pursue antitrust cases.
If the agency were to include considerations of value judgments, public health, environmentalism and wealth distribution, the country would need stronger democratic institutions to pursue this approach.
Former FTC Acting Chairwoman Maureen Ohlhausen, now with Baker Botts’s Antitrust and Competition Law Practice Group, shared Shelanski’s concerns about the ability of the FTC to make big, sweeping considerations on its own.
The public should not view the careful and deliberate approach to FTC decisions as lax. Indeed, she said, the commission has “done a pretty good job.”
Phillips agreed, stating that under the Trump Administration, the FTC had blocked more than 20 mergers—the most since 2001.
When asked if he felt whether antitrust guidelines should be revisited, he responded with skepticism, “There is a lot of promise of revisitation without much discussion of where [the FTC] is going.”
- TPRC Conference to Discuss Definition of Section 230, Broadband, Spectrum and China
- Repealing Section 230 Would be Harmful to the Internet As We Know It, Experts Agree
- Amy Klobuchar Reiterates Need for Funding Agencies to Handle Big Tech
- Technology Policy Institute Introduces Data Index to Help Identify Connectivity-Deprived Areas
- AT&T’s Opens Learning Center in Dallas, Parallel Wireless Expands, AT&T 5G Experiment for National Defense
- Topic 2 at Digital Infrastructure Investment 2021: Last Mile Digital Infrastructure
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup1 month ago
Senators Intro App Bill, Groups Drop TracFone Buy Complaint, States Want Shorter Robocall Deadline
Infrastructure3 months ago
AT&T CEO Says $60-$80 Billion in Federal Dollars Should Suffice to Bridge Digital Divide
Infrastructure2 months ago
Lumen Responds to Allegations it Underbuilds While Collecting Public Funds
Antitrust3 months ago
Experts Disagree Over Need, Feasibility of Global Standards for Antitrust Rules
#broadbandlive4 months ago
Broadband Breakfast Live Online Wednesday June 2, 2021 — Rural Roll-Ups: Has the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Accelerated Mergers & Acquisitions?
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
AT&T Phasing Out 3G, Iowa Expands Broadband Funding, NY Mayor Drags Kids Back To School
Artificial Intelligence4 months ago
Deepfakes Could Pose A Threat to National Security, But Experts Are Split On How To Handle It
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
Mapping Comment Deadline Extended, AT&T Gets Federal Contract, 5G and LTE Drive Microwave Demand