Connect with us

Antitrust

Experts Disagree Over Need, Feasibility of Global Standards for Antitrust Rules

Legal experts and economists disagreed over the feasibility and necessity of a global standard for antitrust enforcement.

Published

on

Aurelien Portuese of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

July 1, 2021—Legal experts and economists disagreed Wednesday over whether a standardized model of antitrust regulation should be established and regulated by the World Trade Organization.

Aurelien Portuese, the director of antitrust and innovation policy at the ITIF, said some countries use antitrust enforcement as a means of economic warfare, punishing foreign industries to boost their domestic competitors. He said all governments ought to play by the same “rules” of competition.

If some governments “try to not play by the rules of fair competition, then it’s the overall global welfare that will be undermined,” Portuese said on a panel hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation on Wednesday, which was discussing a “vision for international antitrust at the WTO.”

“All too often antitrust agencies make decisions in isolation, without considering other nations’ actions. With increased global economic integration, more antitrust decision regarding mergers have extraterritorial implications,” a report released by the ITIF in June said. “It is time for a global framework with enforceable principles to discipline nations that use antitrust for protectionist means.”

In early June, leaders from seven developed nations convened at the G7 summit and committed to find a “coherent way to encourage competition and support innovation in digital markets,” according to a report by the National Law Review.

Defending national sovereignty

Frederic Jenny, economist and chairman of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental economic organization that aims to stimulate economic progress and world trade, said developed nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan already cooperate on competition policy, especially in the technology industry.

Jenny said smaller countries that are less apt employ antitrust measures in the same way because their goals may differ from that of larger, more developed countries. He said that enticing these smaller countries to play by the same rules would be an exceptionally difficult challenge.

“I think that going for hard rules at the world level is going to be particularly complicated, because I actually believe that we must accept the modicum of differences between competition laws,” Jenny said.

“We are talking about countries,” Jenny added, “that have different levels of development, different history, different legal systems, and you can’t have complete convergence in those areas.”

Reporter Tyler Perkins studied rhetoric and English literature, and also economics and mathematics, at the University of Utah. Although he grew up in and never left the West (both Oregon and Utah) until recently, he intends to study law and build a career on the East Coast. In his free time, he enjoys reading excellent literature and playing poor golf.

Antitrust

Consolidation, Bloat, and a Waning American ‘Brand’ Hurt the Economy, Says Tim Wu

He argued that fundamental changes must be made to restore peoples’ faith in an American system that works for everyone.

Published

on

Photo of Tim Wu from January 2017 on Wikipedia Day used with permission

WASHINGTON, January 26, 2022 –White House Special Assistant Tim Wu said Wednesday that the U.S. economy is over-consolidated and bloated in the middle.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Wu, a member of the National Economic Council with a portfolio over Technology and Competition Policy, argued that that the “American dream” has suffered major setbacks in recent decades.

Wu, who is credited with coining the term “net neutrality” and a longstanding critic of telecom monopolies, has more recently become an outspoken critic of big technology companies.

See also:

“We can see very vividly how fragile this concentrated economic system we built has been and how poorly it is working for the whole country,” Wu said.

“Our country has become too centralized. It is too national in its character – in terms of where businesses are location – too centered on consumption, as opposed to production.

“Too many of the [economic] returns go to too few people who often live very far away from the communities they serve.”

Hearkening to the post-World War II decades in which Western nations endorsed significant government intervention in the economy as part of social democracy, Wu said that America is “relearning the virtues and merits of a mixed economy – that is the truer American tradition of small and medium business – market structures where [people] can all survive and prosper; what [President Joe Biden] calls ‘an economy that works for everyone.’”

Can elements of a new form of social democracy be revived in a technology-drenched age?

Wu distilled his criticisms to three primary points: Too many industries have become too consolidated, a bloated “middleman” economy has emerged, and the “American brand” has diminished.

“We have all seen so many industries consolidate into just the ‘big three’ or ‘big four,’” Wu said. “That is a traditional problem that I think extracts a lot from the economy.”

Wu went on to explain the “middleman” economy – a rise of a “highly concentrated middle layer” across many industries. This bloat on the processing end takes place somewhere between the inception of a product or service and the consumer is extracting too much revenue, Wu said.

“When you think about monopoly – which is just high prices – it leads to this problem where the middlemen have power over their suppliers and are able to squeeze their suppliers and also often able to squeeze their employees,” Wu said. This is “a new kind of problem for the economy, and one that we need to face.”

ILSR’s Stacey Mitchell and Tim Wu.

What is the ‘American brand’?

Wu’s final point related to what he referred to as the “American brand.”

“There has been a real sense that the sense of opportunity that has been the ‘American brand’ has diminished,” he said. “The statistics are a little depressing that confirm this.”

75 percent of U.S. industries are controlled by fewer companies than they were 20 years ago, Wu said. He pointed to mergers that skyrocketed in the 1980s and predicted that 2022 will feature a record number of mergers.

“These are real challenges and I just want to assure you that the administration of the White House is very focused on [them] and we see it not just in terms of the economy, but in terms of the Democratic soul of this nation,” Wu said. “Freedom and opportunity are not trivial things when it comes to describing what democracy is all about.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

FTC Mum on Microsoft-Activision Deal, Proposes Review of Merger Guidelines

The deal would elevate Microsoft in an even more favorable position in the games-as-a-service market.

Published

on

FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan on CNBC last week

WASHINGTON, January 24, 2022 – As Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Lina Khan does media rounds this past week, she has refused to comment on last week’s news that Microsoft has agreed to buy video game making giant Activision-Blizzard for nearly $70 billion.

As per policy, the FTC and the Department of Justice, which on Tuesday jointly held a press conference on merger reform on the same day of the announced consolidation, said they could not comment on the deal, which would increase the Xbox maker’s gaming market share and allow it to better compete with Japanese behemoth Sony.

During the press conference, Khan, installed as chairwoman in June as an already outspoken critic of certain big tech practices, announced that the organizations would be launching a review of merger guidelines. Khan stressed that the current guidelines do not adequately protect consumers and promote competition in the era of the digital economy.

“While the current merger boom has delivered massive fees for investment banks, evidence suggests that many Americans historically have washed out with diminished opportunity, higher prices, lower wages, and lagging innovation,” she said. “These facts invite us to assess how our merger policy tools can better equip us to discharge our statutory obligations and halt this trend.”

She reiterated those goals on a CNBC interview on Wednesday. The purchase of the highly influential Call of Duty franchise maker will have to go through her office. It also presents another stress test for the office, as it is already engaged in an existing lawsuit against Facebook practices. Both Facebook and Amazon have asked for Khan to be recused from investigations in their companies because of her past positions on them.

The deal would significantly expand Microsoft’s Game Pass platform, which offers free games to play for a monthly subscription. Microsoft announced on the day of the proposed deal that Game Pass surpassed 25 million subscriptions.

“Upon close, we will offer as many Activision Blizzard games as we can within Xbox Game Pass and PC Game Pass, both new titles and games from Activision Blizzard’s incredible catalog,” said Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer said in a statement.

Despite its numerous successful intellectual properties, Activision Blizzard has been marred with scandal in recent years. In 2021, the company was sued by California Department of Fair Employment and Housing for promoting a “frat boy” culture, whereby female employees were not only allegedly discriminated against, but also subjected to sexual assault and misconduct.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

American Innovation and Choice Online Act Advances to Senate Floor With Bipartisan Alliance

Klobuchar was able to rally Democrats and Republicans to support her bill, but its future depends upon a shaky alliance.

Published

on

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

WASHINGTON, January 21, 2022 – Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee have formed a tenuous, bipartisan alliance to curb allegedly anticompetitive behavior by large tech companies.

During a Thursday markup, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16-6 to send the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, S. 2992, to the Senate floor. The bill would prohibit certain companies with online platforms from engaging in behavior that discriminates against their competitors.

There is a laundry list of violations and unlawful behaviors enumerated in the bill, including unfairly preferencing products, limiting another business’ ability to operate on a platform, or discriminating against competing products and services.

This bill would only apply to companies with online platforms that meet one of the following criteria:

  • Has at least 50,000,000 United States-based monthly active users on the online platform or 100,000 United States-based monthly active business users on the online platform
  • Is owned or controlled by a person with United States net annual sales or a market capitalization greater than $550,000,000,000, adjusted for inflation on the basis of the Consumer Price Index and is a critical trading partner for the sale or provision of any product or service offered on or directly related to the online platform

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the sponsor of the bill, referred to the bipartisan effort as “the Ocean’s 11 of co-sponsors,” featuring a diverse line-up of legislators, from Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Miss., and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., to Sen. Dick Durban, D-Ill., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Senators embrace specific and direct targeting of Big Tech

Klobuchar spoke directly about the need to target large companies, “We have to look at this differently that just startup in a garage – that is not what they are anymore. They may have started small, but they are [now] dominant platforms,” she said. “For the first time, the monopoly power is going to be challenged in what I consider to be a smart way.”

At the outset of the meeting, there were more than 100 amendments proposed by members of the committee, but by its conclusion, more than 80 of them had been withdrawn.

One of the amendments that worked its way into the bill was a markup that exempted subscription-based services from complying with the legislation, allowing services like Amazon Prime and Netflix to promote their own content above others’.

“The bill strikes the right balance between preventing the conduct that hurts competition, while also ensuring that platforms can continue to provide privacy and data security features to their users, compete against rivals in the United States and abroad, and maintain services that benefit consumers,” Klobuchar said.

A fragile alliance between read-meat Republicans and progressive Democrats

Though there were big names on both sides of the aisle supporting the bill, the alliance seemed fraught. Despite being supportive of the bill, Kennedy made it clear that his support was conditional. “I am a co-sponsor of this bill, but this bill is going to change – it is going to change dramatically,” he said. “I hope to be in the room when those changes are made, otherwise I will be off this bill faster than you can say ‘Big Tech.’”

Some of Kennedy’s criticisms harkened back to Section 230 issues raised by former President Donald Trump – calling some of the targeted companies “killing fields for the truth,” and stating that “their censorship is a threat to the first amendment.”

Despite his criticisms, Kennedy echoed other senators, both Republican and Democrat, who emphasized that they did not want the perfect to become the enemy of the good. “All we have done [for five years] is strut around, issue press releases, hold hearings, and do nothing. So, this is a start.”

Klobuchar also received push-back from members of her own party, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., stating that she was critical of the bill because it is designed to specifically target large tech companies, many of which are based out of California (though she ultimately voted to advance the bill to the Senate floor).

Hawley rebuffed Feinstein in his comments, stating that he supports the bill for the same reason Feinstein refuses to. “[Feinstein] pointed out – I think rightly – that this bill is very specific and does target specific behavior – anti-competitive behavior – in a specific set of markets. I think that that’s a virtue and not a vice.”

The measure must be passed by the full Senate, as well as the House, before it goes to the president for his signature.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

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

Trending