Connect with us


Is House Judiciary Report a Fix for Big Tech, or a One-Sided Political Document?



Screenshot from the Public Knowledge session praising the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee report

October 17, 2020 – Responding to the landmark report of the House Judiciary Antitrust Committee on October 6 about how to deal with big tech companies, two panels addressing the report on October 9 reprised significantly different perspectives.

At an event hosted by Public Knowledge that featured the chairman of the subcommittee, the report dumping on Big Tech was warmly greeted by most panelists, with one notable dissent. Little surprise that the event was titled “Big Tech’s Big Competition Problem.”

At Competition Policy Internet’s “Future of Antitrust Event,” by contrast, seasoned antitrust experts expressed concern that the Democratic majority report was contradictory and not informed by history. Some even felt that it was attacking the companies – Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook – because of their very success.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., the subcommittee chairman who participated in the Public Knowledge event, said that his report sets forward how competition can, in his view, be reintroduced to America’s technology marketplace. He said tech platforms are using their power to act as gatekeepers and crush competitors.

While he said the subcommittee doesn’t know all the appropriate remedies, they now believe that adding structure, updating and modernizing our antitrust statutes, properly staffing antitrust agencies, and pushing courts to correct antitrust policy are all viable strategies.

 A House report that is big, bold, bipartisan, and unafraid to tackle ‘bullying’

“This document is big, bold, and despite what the press would say, is bipartisan,” said Gigi Sohn, distinguished fellow at Georgetown Law Institute. She argued that rather than a bunch of talking points, the report was “real evidence,” and was shocked at the comprehensiveness of the recommendations, especially the “10 overturned Supreme Court precedents.”

Stacey Mitchell, co-director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, was “struck by the clarity of language,” describing the report as “long but very accessible and not afraid to use terms like ‘bullying’.”

“Congress is back!” shouted Alex Petros, policy council member at Public Knowledge, praising the report for “going in depth on the problems and offering in depth solutions.”

Sohn, Mitchell, and Petros agreed that the document was a sign that Congress was reasserting itself on the antitrust landscape.

Geoffrey Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law and Economics, was the lone dissenter on the Public Knowledge praise-fest.

Manne disagreed that the report was comprehensive: “The plural of anecdote isn’t data.” Manne said that the report made no effort to look at how tech companies benefit, and instead assumed that all they did was cause harm. Problems emanating from the tech industry, he said, are at the margin.

Moreover, it is “extremely worrying” that the subcommittee report would go “right to enforcement,” especially when there was “no effort made to assess how those implementations might impose unintended consequences.”

“This is a political document,” Manne said, despite Republican support for a modicum of its aggressive antitrust proposals. Referring to issues around the tech industry’s power, he said, “We should be having these discussions; I just don’t think this report is going to engender them.”

Petros said that Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. and Doug Collins, R-Georgia, signed on the report “and they’re not the most bipartisan members of Congress.”

Among antitrust experts and former enforcers, a more measured and cautious tone

At the CPI event, by contrast, Andrew Gavil, senior of counsel at Crowell and Moring and antitrust law professor at Howard University, was among those who felt the report was not fully even-handed.

While the country should not be wed to current antitrust laws, “one of the strengths of U.S. antitrust law as been its ability to adapt.”

He also said that we shouldn’t “pay lip service to consumer choice” and then throw the baby out with the bathwater because the benefits of these companies haven’t been fully fleshed out yet.

In other words, there is more to the economy than Big Tech.

Tim Muris, senior counsel at Sidley and Austin and former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said that the report attacked companies based upon their success. Trying to structure antitrust regulations around social and political issues was misplaced.

Muris said he doesn’t object to strong antitrust action: However, if technology companies are going to be regulated, they need to all be looked at individually. In other words, not all big tech companies are successful and not all of them have a large marketshare.

Daniel Sokol, law professor at the University of Florida, said that was appropriate to revisited standards for anticompetitive mergers, and that such reviews are likely to become a lot stricter now.

Tad B. Lipsky, assistant professor and director of the Competition Advocacy Program at the Global Antitrust Institute, said as Manne had done on the Public Knowledge panel: The House report was vague and one-sided.


FTC Commissioner Concerned About Antitrust Impact on Already Rising Consumer Prices

Noah Phillips said Tuesday he wants the commission to think about the impact of antitrust rules on rising prices.



Screenshot of Federal Trade Commissioner Noah Phillips

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2022 – Rising inflation should be a primary concern for the Federal Trade Commission when considering antitrust regulations on Big Tech, said Commissioner Noah Phillips Tuesday.

When considering laws, “the important thing is what impact it has on the consumer,” said Phillips. “We need to continue to guard like a hawk against conduct and against laws that have the effect of raising prices for consumers.”

Current record highs in the inflation rate, which means money is becoming less valuable as products become more expensive, has meant Washington must become sensitive to further price increases that could come out of such antitrust legislation, the commissioner said.

Phillips did not comment on how such movies would mean higher prices, but that signals, such as theHouse Judiciary Committee’s antitrust report two years ago, that reign in Big Tech companies and bring back enforcement of laws could mean higher prices. He raised concerns that recent policies are prohibiting competition rather than facilitating it.

This follows recent concerns that the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, currently awaiting Senate floor consideration, will inhibit America’s global competitiveness by weakening major American companies, thus impairing the American economy. That legislation would prohibit platform owners from giving preference to their products against third-party products.

This act is one of many currently under consideration at Congress, including Ending Platform Monopolies Act and Platform Competition and Opportunity Act.

Small businesses have worried that by enacting some legislation targeting Big Tech, they would be impacted because they rely on such platforms for success.

Continue Reading


Critics and Supporters Trade Views on American Innovation and Choice Online Act

American Innovation and Choice Online Act is intended to protect fair competition among businesses, but panelists differed on its impact.



Photo of Amy Klobuchar from August 2019 by Gage Skidmore used with permission

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2022 – Experts differed on the effect that antitrust legislation targeting big tech companies allegedly engaging in discriminatory behavior would have on small businesses.

Small businesses “want Congress not to do anything that will screw up or weaken the services that they rely on for their business,” said Michael Petricone, senior vice present of the Consumer Technology Association, at a Protocol Live event on Thursday.

Petricone said that antitrust bill would encourage tech companies to relocate to other countries, harming the American economy. He said small businesses would be affected the most.

Instead, Petricone called for  a “smarter immigration policy” to allow foreign innovators access to American tech market, as well as the defeat of the antitrust legislation.

But other said that small businesses suffer from predatory behavior by big tech companies. “Companies can’t get their foot in the door when there is already self-preferencing,” said Awesta Sarkash, representative for Small Business Majority, an advocacy organization, adding that 80% of small businesses say they want antitrust laws to protect them.

Self-preferencing on online platforms is detrimental to the success of small businesses who rely on social media advertising for business, she said. The new antitrust proposals would ensure an level playing field and promote fair competition, she said.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act would prohibit certain online platforms from unfairly preferencing products, limiting another business’ ability to operate on a platform, or discriminating against competing products and services.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, was introduced to the Senate on May 2 and is awaiting Senate floor consideration.

The debate follows concerns raised by both democrats and republicans about America’s global competitiveness as the bill would weaken major American companies.

If passed, the bill will follow the European Union’s Digital Services Act which similarly sets accountability standards for online platforms, preventing potentially harmful content and behavior.

Continue Reading


Watchdogs Cannot Allow Another T-Mobile/Sprint Merger Under New Consolidation Guidelines, Event Hears

A Yale economics professor called on the FTC and DoJ to make it easier for them to pursue harmful mergers.



Screenshot of Yale economics professor Fiona Scott Morton

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2022 – A professor of economics said at an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation event late last month that the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, during its recently announced review of mergers, should ‘plug those holes’ that previously allowed T-Mobile to acquire Sprint.

“I would say that one thing that we have accumulated a great deal of evidence on is that we are missing problematic mergers – that we are not [stopping] mergers that turn out to be harmful,” said Fiona Scott Morton, the Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at Yale University School of Management, at the April 28 event, referring to the FTC’s failure to stop the Sprint/T Mobile merger and accused it of not appropriately protecting consumers.

“We are under enforcing as a general matter and we should therefore use this review of the merger guidelines to plug those holes,” she said, adding, “Are we catching nascent competitors that are going to prove to be important competitors in the future? It turns out we are not doing that,” she said.

She also responded to critics asserting that the FTC simply needs more money to effectively enforce their guidelines.

“Here is where I am going to play fiscal conservative,” she said. “How about we change the rules to make it easier for the government to bring these cases and then we do not need to spend $2 billion more, we could spend half a billion dollars more because there would be a significant deterrent effect and the government would have less work to do.”

Merger guidelines will give industry more certainty

In January, the FTC under Chair Lina Khan and the Justice Department’s antitrust division launched a public inquiry into modernizing merger guidelines established under previous leadership, on which Khan said was an attempt to “accurately reflect modern market realities and equip us to forcefully enforce the law against unlawful deals.” Public comments were due on April 21.

Howard Shelanski, a partner at law firm Davis Polk, said at the ITIF event that FTC guidelines serve several purposes.

“One thing is certainly, just to let parties considering mergers to have an idea of what kind of scrutiny they are in for at the agencies,” he said.

He explained that the guidelines serve to inform stakeholders at which levels of industry concentration presumptions of harm will be triggered and what theories of harm the FTC will pursue.

“I think [guidelines] also let parties know how agencies will consider different kinds of defenses that [will] likely be raised,” Shelanski added. “So, the guidelines certainly serve a public purpose, but they also signal to courts about what lies behind the [FTC’s] thinking when it chooses to investigate and ultimately challenge a merger.”

Continue Reading


Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field