WASHINGTON, April 7, 2022 – In the wake of a public request for information by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department for information related to the modernization of antitrust laws, some observers are arguing the system does not need to be changed.
Earlier this year, the FTC and the DoJ announced the launch of a review of merger guidelines, holding a press conference on the matter on the same day Microsoft announced its proposed $70-billion acquisition of video games publisher Activision-Blizzard.
During an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation event hosted on Friday, Gibson Dunn law firm partner Kristen Limarzi voiced criticism over the phrase “killer acquisition.”
Companies accused of engaging in killer acquisitions – or acquisitions designed to stifle potential competition in its infancy – were placed squarely in the federal government’s crosshairs when President Joe Biden signed the executive order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy.
“It is also the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to meet the challenges posed by new industries and technologies, including the rise of the dominant Internet platforms, especially as they stem from serial mergers, the acquisition of nascent competitors, the aggregation of data, unfair competition in attention markets, the surveillance of users, and the presence of network effects,” the order reads.
Bills with similar intent – to target killer acquisitions – have been supported by myriad legislators. Despite this effort, Limarzi pushed back against the rhetoric. “The term ‘killer acquisition’ is sufficiently evocative that a lot of people have adopted it to apply to any merger that they think ought to be blocked, which is not a not a very useful definition.”
Current antitrust framework doesn’t need changes
To address the question whether an acquisition should be considered anticompetitive or “killer,” Limarzi argued that regulators should ask, “what does the world look like with and without the merger and are [the outcomes] substantially different from a competition perspective?”
In Limarzi’s view, the FTC’s current framework to determine whether to pursue an acquisition is sufficient and not in need of change.
“Where the facts establish that there is actual nascent potential competition that is being eliminated [the FTC] succeeds and where the facts are not there, they do not – but that is not a deficiency in the legal framework,” she said.
Koren Wong-Ervin, an antitrust partner with Axinn, Veltrop and Harkrider, stated that as it stands now, there is no systemic failure in merger enforcement.
“I do not think we have any evidence [of systemic failure],” Wong-Ervin said. “I think a lot of this debate comes down to different beliefs – faith in market versus faith in governments to intervene.”
Wong-Ervin said it is better to under-regulate rather than over-regulate mergers. “Markets can self-correct over time, if you don’t intervene when you should, whereas if you do intervene when you should not, it has a chilling effect,” she explained. “The debate is really about whether you believe that markets can self-correct.”
“If there was rampant under-enforcement and a concentration and monopoly problem and our markets were suffering – you would expect to see this more systematically – [it] would show up in our merger retrospective studies, and were a just now [seeing that],” she said.
Commentators on an Institute for Policy Innovation panel last year made similar pleadings for Washington to avoid hardline antitrust regulation that they said will put a damper on start-up businesses.
The Biden administration has generally taken a harder line against mergers when compared to the Trump administration, as evidenced by big tech critic Lina Khan’s appointment to the FTC, Google critic Jonathan Kanter’s nomination to the DoJ’s antitrust division, and net neutrality advocate Tim Wu’s appointment to the National Economic Council.
‘Time is Now’ for Separate Big Tech Regulatory Agency, Public Interest Group Says
‘We need to recognize that absolutely the time is now. It is neither too soon nor too late.’
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2022 – Public Knowledge, non-profit public interest group, further advocated Thursday support for the Digital Platform Commission Act introduced in the Senate in May that would create a new federal agency designed to regulate digital platforms on an ongoing basis.
“We need to recognize that absolutely the time is now. It is neither too soon nor too late,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge.
The DPCA, introduced by Senator Michael Bennet, D-CO., and Representative Peter Welch, D-VT., would, if adopted, create a new federal agency designed to “provide comprehensive, sector-specific regulation of digital platforms to protect consumers, promote competition, and defend the public interest.”
The independent body would conduct hearings, research and investigations all while promoting competition and establishing rules with appropriate penalties.
Public Knowledge primarily focuses on competition in the digital marketplace. It champions for open internet and has openly advocated for antitrust legislation that would limit Big Tech action in favor of fair competition in the digital marketspace.
Feld published a book in 2019 titled, “The Case for the Digital Platform Act: Breakups, Starfish Problems and Tech Regulation.” In it, Feld explains the need for a separate government agency to regulate digital platforms.
Digital regulation is new but has rapidly become critical to the economy, continued Feld. As such, it is necessary for the government to create a completely new agency in order to provide the proper oversight.
In the past, Congress empowered independent bodies with effective tools and expert teams when it lacked expertise to oversee complex sectors of the economy but there is no such body for digital platforms, said Feld.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- High Demand for Middle Mile Grants, Local Concerns in FCC Process, Musk Agrees to Buy Twitter Again
- Paul Atkinson: Why Fiber Trumps Satellite When Bridging the Digital Divide
- FCC Targets Spam Call Offenders, Disaster Assistance Requirements, U.S. 23rd in Fiber Development
- Wireless Internet Service Providers Facing Challenges Meeting BEAD Program Requirements: Experts
- Johnny Kampis: Wireless Survey Shows 5G’s Role in Closing Digital Divide
- Lack of Adequate Workforce Expected to Hamper Broadband Industry, Says Panel
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
AT&T Sues T-Mobile Over Ad, Nokia Partners with Ready, LightPath Expanding
#broadbandlive3 days ago
Broadband Breakfast on October 5, 2022 – How to Reform the Universal Service Fund
Broadband Mapping & Data3 weeks ago
Broadband Mapping Masterclass on September 27, 2022
Broadband Mapping & Data4 weeks ago
FCC’s Fabric Challenge Process Important Part of Getting Map Right, Agency Says
WISP3 weeks ago
Wisper Internet CEO Takes Issue With Federal Government Preference for Fiber
Big Tech4 weeks ago
A White House Event, Biden Administration Seeks Regulation of Big Tech
Funding4 weeks ago
NTIA Middle Mile Director Stresses Need for Infrastructure to Withstand Climate Events
Fiber4 weeks ago
In ‘Office Hours’ Sessions, NTIA Addresses Questions of Middle Mile Grant Applicants