{"id":4065,"date":"2021-01-09T13:56:17","date_gmt":"2021-01-09T13:56:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=4065"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:12:07","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:12:07","slug":"digital-antitrust","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/digital-antitrust\/","title":{"rendered":"Competition law &#038; digital technology companies"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"attachment_6191\" style=\"width: 310px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/video\/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-6191\" class=\"wp-image-6191 size-medium\" src=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Screenshot-2024-04-15-at-5.25.54-PM-300x166.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"166\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Screenshot-2024-04-15-at-5.25.54-PM-300x166.png 300w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Screenshot-2024-04-15-at-5.25.54-PM-768x425.png 768w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Screenshot-2024-04-15-at-5.25.54-PM-800x443.png 800w, https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Screenshot-2024-04-15-at-5.25.54-PM.png 863w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><p id=\"caption-attachment-6191\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Justice Department attorneys announce antitrust suit against Apple, March 2024.<\/p><\/div>\n<h4>Antitrust\u00a0 (competition) lawsuits are under way in the US against two kinds of digital technology companies: companies that sell products (Amazon,\u00a0 Apple and Microsoft) and social media companies that provide a free service (such as Facebook &amp;\u00a0 Google) while selling advertising.<\/h4>\n<p><em><strong>The size of these companies seems incredible.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Apple, Amazon,\u00a0 Facebook (Meta), Google (Alphabet) and Microsoft have <a href=\"https:\/\/companiesmarketcap.com\/tech\/largest-tech-companies-by-market-cap\/\">mushroomed into gigantic corporations<\/a> over the past decades. Here are their market capitalizations as of Aug. 1, 2025:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>NVIDIA (AI \/ graphics) &#8211; $5.0 trillion<\/li>\n<li>Apple &#8211; $ 4.0\u00a0 trillion<\/li>\n<li>Microsoft\u00a0 &#8212;\u00a0 $4.0\u00a0 trillion<\/li>\n<li>Amazon &#8211; $2.45 trillion<\/li>\n<li>Alphabet \/ Google &#8212; $3.3 trillion<\/li>\n<li>Meta \/ Facebook\u00a0 &#8211; $ 1.88 trillion<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>These corporations are far ahead of most of the world&#8217;s economies. Only the US, China, Germany, Japan, India and the UK have larger gross domestic products. Or, to put it another way, Apple has more money than France.\u00a0 \u00a0 (See <a href=\"https:\/\/worldpopulationreview.com\/countries\/by-gdp\">GDP country rankings<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>How did they get so big, so quickly?\u00a0<\/strong> One view is that they have engaged in monopolistic practices that are illegal and unethical, according to the (Biden era)\u00a0 US Dept. of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Another view is that the market is rewarding innovation and increased efficiency.\u00a0 Yet view another is that this represents one of the largest stock &#8216;bubbles&#8217; of all time and that we are headed for a global financial crash.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h3>Market concentration of digital companies<\/h3>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1981\/02\/15\/business\/us-vsibm.html\"><strong><em>US v IBM:<\/em> \u00a0 <\/strong><\/a>\u00a0IBM <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ibm.com\/\">(International Business Machines Corporation)<\/a> was in a running legal fight with the US government over anti-trust issues from the 1930s onward. In January of 1969, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit intended to break IBM up into smaller competitive companies. The trial began in 1975, and over six years, 974 witnesses were called and 104,400 transcript pages were read.<\/p>\n<p>By 1982, IBM agreed to limit anti-competitive practices and the Justice Dept. dropped the case.\u00a0 \u00a0(See <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/1981\/02\/15\/business\/us-vsibm.html\">NYT, Feb. 15, 1981<\/a>; and\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnet.com\/news\/ibm-and-microsoft-antitrust-then-and-now\/\">CNet, Jan 2, 2002<\/a>).\u00a0 And yet, by this time,\u00a0 competition emerged from other computer firms, especially Apple and &#8220;clone&#8221; computers made possible by Microsoft&#8217;s operating system leased to IBM and other manufacturers.<\/p>\n<p>So, one issue in the IBM case is whether anti-trust law can keep up with changes in the competitive environment. The computer industry was changing quickly, and antitrust enforcement based on market share seems inappropriate. This, at least,\u00a0 is an example supporting the &#8220;rule of reason.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>But in many other cases, barriers that did prevent competition had to be taken down by government order, sometimes breaking up the monopolies, in order to level out the playing field and maintain a competitive marketplace.<\/p>\n<h4><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">US v Apple, 2024<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">In one of the largest antitrust suits against the computer and IT industries to date, the Justice Department announced on March 21, 2024\u00a0 a lawsuit against Apple Inc. for\u00a0 &#8220;monopolizing smartphones.&#8221;\u00a0 \u00a0The allegation is that Apple\u2019s exclusionary conduct makes it harder for Americans to switch smartphones, undermines innovation, and imposes extraordinary costs on developers, businesses, and consumers.\u00a0 Apple\u2019s efforts \u201csmothered an entire industry\u201d said assistant attorney general Lisa Monaco.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/24107581\/doj-v-apple-antitrust-monoply-news-updates\">Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz said<\/a>: \u201cThis lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.\u201d<\/p>\n<h4><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">US v Amazon, 2023\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/news-events\/news\/press-releases\/2023\/09\/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power\">The Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon<\/a> in September, 2023, \u00a0alleging that the online retail and technology company &#8220;is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power.&#8221;\u00a0 The FTC says Amazon\u2019s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers, stifle innovation, and prevent rivals from fairly competing against Amazon.<\/p>\n<h4><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">US v Google, 2020s\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li><a title=\"United States v. Google LLC (2020)\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020)\"><i>United States v. Google LLC<\/i>\u00a0(2020)<\/a>, an antitrust suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020 over Google&#8217;s search engine market practices.\u00a0 In 2023, with the case at the trial stage, <a href=\"http:\/\/One issue that has come out in\">documents showed that Google was paying over $26 billion per year<\/a> for Apple and other companies to make Google their default browser.\u00a0 The reason? Your private information is very valuable.On August 5, 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search. \u00a0Regulators have until December 2024 to propose any penalties unto Google, and likely to rule on those by August 2025.<\/li>\n<li><a title=\"United States v. Google LLC (2023)\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2023)\"><i>United States v. Google LLC<\/i>\u00a0(2023)<\/a>, an antitrust suit brought by the U.S Department of Justice in 2023 over Google&#8217;s advertising technology market practices. the suit aims to force Google to sell off significant portions of its advertising business and require the company to cease certain business practices. <sup id=\"cite_ref-:0_3-0\" class=\"reference\"><\/sup>\u00a0The trial began on September 9, 2024 and concluded on September 27.\u00a0 In April, 2025, the court found Google guilty of anti-competitive business practices but it did not force Google to split off its advertising business. According to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/articles\/google-decision-demonstrates-need-to-overhaul-competition-policy-for-ai-era\/\">Brookings Institute analysis<\/a>: &#8220;the court found online search had become competitive seemingly overnight&#8221; due to the use of Artificial Intelligence.\u00a0<sup id=\"cite_ref-GoogleDefense_5-0\" class=\"reference\"><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">US v\u00a0 Meta, 2020\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Federal_Trade_Commission_v._Meta_Platforms,_Inc.\">The Federal Trade Commission\u00a0<\/a> and 46 states sued Meta (Facebook) in 2020 for acquiring\u00a0two former competitors\u2014<a title=\"Instagram\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Instagram\">Instagram<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a title=\"WhatsApp\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/WhatsApp\">WhatsApp<\/a>. The FTC alleges that Meta holds monopolistic power in the US\u00a0<a title=\"Social networking service\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Social_networking_service\">social networking<\/a> market and seeks to force the company to divest from Instagram and WhatsApp to break up the conglomerate.\u00a0 The FTC suit said that the company lacked expertise to move towards mobile apps, which motivated illegal &#8220;buy-or-bury&#8221; schemes with competitors.\u00a0In Nov. 2024 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/technology\/2024\/11\/13\/meta-ftc-antitrust\/\">a federal judge said the case could move to trial.\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The October, 2021 revelations by whistleblower Frances Haugen have added weight to the suit.\u00a0 The Federal Trade Commission said that Meta&#8217;s actions prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of competition.\u00a0\u00a0The Wall Street Journal has a series of articles called the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/the-facebook-files-11631713039\">Facebook Files<\/a> dealing with Facebook (Meta&#8217;s) various privacy and legal issues.<\/p>\n<h3>Market concentration<\/h3>\n<div style=\"width: 379px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/facebook-google-amazon-dominate-digital-economy-chart-2019-6#:~:text=Google%2C%20Facebook%2C%20and%20Amazon%20are,company%2C%20also%20owns%20eMarketer.)\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i.insider.com\/5d0431576fc92014ef04c46d?width=1200&amp;format=jpeg&amp;auto=webp\" alt=\"\" width=\"369\" height=\"336\" \/><\/a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Business insider, 2019<\/p><\/div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #444444;\">A <\/span><\/strong><span class=\"s1\"><strong>small number of corporations <\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Amazon, Alphabet (Google),\u00a0 Apple,\u00a0 Meta (Facebook,) and Microsoft in the US and Europe, alongside Alibaba, Baidu, Huawei, Tencent, WeChat and ZTE \u2013\u00a0 account for 90% of all digital revenue and profits.\u00a0 Tech giants and their control over the market needs to be understood within the context of competition laws.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><strong>New approaches to antitrust law needed\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Facebook and Google occupy an unprecedented political role, argues <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/author\/zephyr-teachout\/\" data-label=\"https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/author\/zephyr-teachout\/\" data-action=\"click author - name\">Zephyr Teachout<\/a>\u00a0 in a 2021 article in the Atlantic.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The closest we\u2019ve come in America is the telegraph monopoly in the late 19th century, when the Associated Press and Western Union joined forces to control both news and the network through which it traveled.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Facebook and Google are each like that monopoly, but combined with the surveillance regimes of authoritarian states, and the addiction business model of cigarettes. Not only do they control discourse, surveil citizens, and make money from incentivizing paranoia, hatred, and lies; they also make money by keeping the public addicted to their services.,,<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">They want to be perceived as neutral platforms, while also being perceived as civically responsible, while also maximizing surveillance and the targeting of ads. That\u2019s impossible\u2014so the government has to force them to choose a new business model; or, rather, it has to choose for them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">In July, 2022, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/CPRT-117HPRT47832\/pdf\/CPRT-117HPRT47832.pdf\">House Judiciary Committee published a final report <\/a>saying that\u00a0 Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook &#8220;have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons.&#8221;\u00a0 By\u00a0 controlling access to markets, the report said:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">&#8230; these giants can pick winners and losers throughout our economy. They not only wield tremendous power, but they also abuse it by charging exorbitant fees, imposing oppressive contract terms, and extracting valuable data from the people and businesses that rely on them.\u00a0 (Also) each platform uses its gatekeeper position to maintain its market power. By controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they have surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals, and have ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their competitive threats. And, finally, these firms have abused their role as intermediaries to further entrench and expand their dominance. Whether through\u00a0 self- preferencing, predatory pricing, or exclusionary conduct, the dominant platforms have exploited their power in order to become even more dominant.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">For antitrust laws to work in the US, a simpler and easier enforcement mechanism is needed, or perhaps a return to the &#8220;per se&#8221; rules of market dominance and anti<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Decades ago,\u00a0 antitrust laws required weighing\u00a0 the competitive pros and cons of every business decision. To win an antitrust case, the government needed proof not only of market dominance and anticompetitive behavior, but also that the this caused economic harm, including higher costs for consumers.\u00a0 But how can harm be proven when the product is free ?\u00a0 The answer is that the larger social harm is, or should be, the major concern.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/CPRT-117HPRT47832\/pdf\/CPRT-117HPRT47832.pdf\">2021-22 House Judiciary subcommittee hearings<\/a> &#8220;produced significant\u00a0 evidence that these firms wield their dominance in ways that erode entrepreneurship, degrade Americans\u2019 privacy online, and undermine the vibrancy of the free and diverse press. The result is less innovation, fewer choices for consumers, and a weakened democracy.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The subcommittee also said: &#8220;Over the past decade, the digital economy has become highly concentrated and prone to monopolization. Several markets investigated by the Subcommittee\u2014such as social networking, general online search, and online advertising\u2014are dominated by just one or two firms. The companies investigated by the Subcommittee\u2014 Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google\u2014have captured control over key channels of distribution and have come to function as gatekeepers.&#8221;<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h3><strong>Antitrust suits: Europe\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>The U.S. innovates and the EU regulates. <\/strong>Or, at least, it is true that the European Union has been rather far ahead of the US in competition law and regulation.<\/p>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Apple\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">September 2018, Apple fined<a href=\"https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2018\/09\/18\/apple-has-finished-paying-15-billion-european-fine\/\" data-mrf-link=\"https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2018\/09\/18\/apple-has-finished-paying-15-billion-european-fine\/\">\u00a0<strong>\u20ac13.1 billion<\/strong><\/a> (then worth $15.3 billion)\u00a0 over illegal tax breaks granted by Ireland to Apple between 1991 and 2014.<\/p>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Google\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">EU courts found in 2024 that\u00a0 that Google favored its own shopping service over that of its competitors in search results. The 2.4 billion euro fine comes out to about $2.7 billion, which might not seem so much in Google dollars, but it\u2019s only one part of the tech behemoth\u2019s costs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The European Commission (EC) has brought Google (aka Alphabet) to court on competition law violations numerous other times since 2010 over issues such as anticompetitive practices such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #444444;\">Favoring its own software on Android phones (This led to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/07\/18\/technology\/google-eu-android-fine.html\">\u00a0fine of\u00a0 \u00a04.3 billion Euros<\/a>)\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #444444;\">favoring its own shopping apps over others, <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #444444;\">favoring its own advertising agency .\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The United States Justice Department\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/next.politico.eu\/news\/187362\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">raised the prospect<\/a> of splitting up Google in an antitrust lawsuit targeting its search service earlier this month, nearly 10 years after the European Parliament ruined Thanksgiving for Google\u00a0 by <a href=\"https:\/\/next.politico.eu\/news\/47826\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/next.politico.eu\/news\/47826\">calling<\/a> for the search giant to be broken up. (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.eu\/article\/google-breakup-eu-political-cover-big-tech\/\">Politico, 2024<\/a>)<\/p>\n<h4><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u00a0Facebook\u00a0 <\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">European Union regulators issued their<a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/meta-facebook-european-union-competition-fine-6886192353a344126a15886d6ca7c627\"> first antitrust fine to Facebook parent Meta on\u00a0 Nov 14, 2024<\/a>, with a penalty of nearly 800 million euros for what they call \u201cabusive practices\u201d involving its Marketplace online classified ads business.<\/p>\n<p class=\"Gur8Ad\"><strong>Amazon<\/strong><\/p>\n<div class=\"vM0jzc\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The EU opened investigations into Amazon&#8217;s business practices in 2019 and 2020. Amazon proposed commitments to address competition concerns, and the EU decided no fine was necessary.<\/div>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"vM0jzc\">In 2022, Amazon reached <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/technology\/amazon-reaches-settlement-with-eu-over-use-data-avoids-fine-2022-12-20\/\">settlements in three antitrust cases,<\/a> saying it would no longer use\u00a0 independent sellers\u2019 data to its advantage.<\/li>\n<li class=\"vM0jzc\">The European Commission said that Amazon committed to stop using non-public data on independent sellers for its retail business, among other changes. The company could have faced a fine of up to 10% of its global annual revenues, which for Amazon could have been as high as $47 billion.<\/li>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\"><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4><strong><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Microsoft\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">The EU\u2019s antitrust authority alleged\u00a0in June, 2024\u00a0 that <a class=\"link \" href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/commission\/presscorner\/detail\/en\/ip_24_3446\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" data-i13n=\"cpos:5;pos:1\" data-ylk=\"slk:informed Microsoft;cpos:5;pos:1;elm:context_link;itc:0;sec:content-canvas\" data-rapid_p=\"16\" data-v9y=\"1\">\u00a0Microsoft<\/a>\u00a0 had been illegally bundling \u2014 or &#8220;tying&#8221; \u2014 its Teams software to Office 365 and Microsoft 365.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><strong>Is the solution to break up big tech?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Antitrust laws passed in 1890 and 1914 address issues with anticompetitive behavior, but the emphasis has been on harm to consumers. But how is that a problem for Facebook and other social media, or Google and other search browsers, when they are free to consumers and earn money through advertising?<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Antitrust reform bills now in Congress would stop big tech from acquiring competitors or giving their own products preference over competitors. And there is momentum for breaking up Google, Facebook, and Amazon, which dominate social media and online sales.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/04\/22\/opinion\/sunday\/is-it-time-to-break-up-google.html?smid=fb-share\">\u00a0Jonathan Taplin, \u00a0director emeritus of USC&#8217;s \u00a0Annenberg Innovation Lab<\/a> says in his book \u201cMove Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0that Google has an 88 percent market share in search advertising, Facebook owns 77 percent of mobile social traffic and Amazon has a 74 percent share in the e-book market. &#8220;In classic economic terms, all three are monopolies,&#8221; Taplin says. European anti-trust laws are also becoming tougher for companies that violate\u00a0 privacy, he notes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">In <a style=\"font-size: 14px;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/12\/20\/technology\/antitrust-case-google-facebook.html\">The AntiTrust Case against Big Tech,<\/a>\u00a0 the NY Times, (Dec. 20, 2020),\u00a0 describes Dina Srinivasan&#8217;s crusade against Google\u2019s monopoly in advertising technology, which has &#8220;allowed for the type of self-dealing and insider trading that would be illegal on Wall Street.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Srinivasan says in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/06\/21\/opinion\/google-monopoly-regulation-antitrust.html\">a June 21, 2021 op-ed t<\/a>hat Google has cornered the advertising market and kept prices inflated.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>These problems took root more than a decade ago when Google made a bid for DoubleClick, the popular service that helps websites sell ad space. Federal regulators\u00a0<a title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/system\/files\/documents\/public_statements\/418081\/071220googledc-commstmt.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">approved<\/a> the purchase. But they did so without requiring that Google separate the DoubleClick division helping publishers sell on exchanges from the division helping advertisers buy ad space, or from the division operating an exchange, which Google later dubbed AdX.\u00a0 Could Google operate an exchange while acting in the best interests of both the websites\u00a0<em>and<\/em>\u00a0advertisers \u2014 in other words, both the seller and the buyer \u2014 all at once?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Both the sales and buying side of the advertising market should never have been owned by one company, and that is the primary target of divestment for Google. A<span style=\"color: #444444;\">fter buying DoubleClick, Google started selling ad space on\u00a0 its own exchange, AdX and did not let other exchanges (at Yahoo or Microsoft)bid on the ad space at the same time.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<blockquote><p>Unsurprisingly, such self-dealing allowed Google \u2014 a late entry to the exchange market \u2014 to quickly grow AdX into the\u00a0<a title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/digiday.com\/media\/google-bundling-ad-tech-inventory-raising-anti-competitive-concerns\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">largest trading venue for ads<\/a>. Websites paid the price: The lack of exchange competition resulted in their ad space selling for up to\u00a0<a title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/digiday.com\/media\/header-bidding-publishers-boosting-cpms-much-50-percent\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">50 percent less<\/a> than what it otherwise would. Other abusive trading practices similar to the ones that we prohibit [with stock trading] on Wall Street &#8230;\u00a0are\u00a0<a title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/law.stanford.edu\/publications\/why-google-dominates-advertising-markets\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">happening in full view<\/a> in advertising.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Divestment isn&#8217;t enough, according to a March 2, 2021 briefing on anti-trust and communications companies<a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2021\/02\/what-att-breakup-teaches-us-about-big-tech-breakup\"> by the Electronic Frontier Foundation,<\/a> which argues that ongoing regulation is needed, and &#8220;breaking up&#8221; monopolies is just the first step in achieving a pluralistic, diverse Internet.\u00a0 A major point of ongoing reform would be more narrowly tailored privacy laws. For example, Facebook has sued competitors who aggregate FB and other social media, saying that it violates privacy rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">It all comes down to regulatory reform.\u00a0 &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2019\/07\/05\/opinion\/tech-regulation-facebook.html?searchResultPosition=1\">Letting the internet regulate itself was a good idea &#8212; in the 1990s<\/a>,&#8221; Margaret O&#8217;Mara said in the New York Times, July 5, 2019.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Advocates of big-tech breakup often point to precedent set by the antitrust cases of the twentieth century. The three\u00a0biggest\u00a0were Microsoft in the 1990s, IBM in the 1950s through the 1980s, and the moves that turned AT&amp;T into a regulated monopoly in 1913 and ended with its breakup seven decades later. Microsoft and IBM didn\u2019t break up, and even AT&amp;T\u2019s dissolution happened partly because the company wanted the freedom to enter new markets.<\/p>\n<p>What made these cases a boon to tech innovation was not the breaking up \u2014 which is hard to do \u2014 but the consent decrees resulting from antitrust action. Even without forcing companies to split into pieces, antitrust enforcement opened up space for market competition and new growth. Consent decrees in the mid-1950s required both IBM and AT&amp;T to license key technologies for free or nearly free. These included the transistor technology foundational to the growth of the microchip industry: We would have no silicon in Silicon Valley without it. Microsoft dominated the 1990s software world so thoroughly that its rivals dubbed it \u201cthe Death Star.\u201d After the lawsuit, it entered the new century constrained and cautious, giving more room for new platforms to gain a foothold.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">In spring of, 2021, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/06\/11\/technology\/big-tech-antitrust-bills.html\">a large group of bills were introduced to regulate big tech,<\/a>\u00a0 including one that would have established <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bennet.senate.gov\/public\/index.cfm\/2022\/5\/bennet-introduces-landmark-legislation-to-establish-federal-commission-to-oversee-digital-platforms\">a Federal Digital Platform Commission<\/a>, in essence, an FCC for the internet.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">And in October, 2022, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2022\/10\/06\/tech-critics-see-hope-for-new-antitrust-laws-after-win-in-the-house.html\">a group of antitrust bills<\/a> passed the House.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MORE\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Breakups or regulations by a new agency may be the two main options, according to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/blog\/techtank\/2020\/10\/20\/the-house-antitrust-report-is-a-major-step-toward-reining-in-big-tech\/\">\u00a0Brookings Institution report<\/a> from Oct. 2020.<\/li>\n<li>The <a href=\"https:\/\/techoversight.org\/\">Tech Oversight Project<\/a> web site keeps track of, and advocates for, antitrust reform.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2021\/08\/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby\">The Paradox of Antitrust law<\/a>, (Party like it&#8217;s 1979), Electronic Frontier Foundation, August 2021<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/agenda\/2020\/09\/dark-side-digitalization\/\">The dark side of digitalization \u2013 and how to fix it,<\/a> World Economic Forum, Sept. 23, 2020.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/facebook-google-amazon-dominate-digital-economy-chart-2019-6\">This chart shows just how much Facebook, Google and Amazon dominate the digital economy<\/a>, Business Insider, June 16, 2019.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr \/>\n<h3><strong>Ancient history FYI\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.\">US\u00a0 v\u00a0 Microsoft, 2001<\/a> \u00a0<\/strong>\u2014 The Federal Trade Commission began investigating\u00a0 Microsoft\u2019s bundling of its operating system with other software,\u00a0 especially its Internet Explorer browser, in the 1990s.\u00a0 The issue was whether Microsoft technology was, in effect, a \u201crefusal to deal,\u201d similar to Loraine Journal v US, 1951, in which a newspaper refused ads from any company that also advertised on the radio.\u00a0 In 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Microsoft had an illegal monopoly on operating systems and among other things had destroyed Netscape and had refused to deal with other companies when they worked with other systems.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\">Despite the ruling, the US Dept. of Justice (under the Bush administration) opted for a settlement which consumer advocates said was a setback to competition. Meanwhile, the European Economic Community, in March, 2004 ordered Microsoft to share technical information with rivals, offer a version of the Windows operating system without its Media Player and pay a fine of $612 million.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>Further<\/h3>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><b><a href=\"https:\/\/yalelawjournal.org\/note\/amazons-antitrust-paradox\">Amazon&#8217;s antitrust paradox<\/a>, <\/b>Lina Khan, Yale law journal, 2017<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Epic_Games_v._Apple\">Epic Games v Apple<\/a><\/strong><span style=\"color: #444444;\"> &#8212; In a 2023 decision, Apple won a lawsuit brought by Epic Games over restrictions on its online storefront, Apple Play.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc.#Apple_iPod,_iTunes_antitrust_litigation\"><strong>In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation<\/strong><\/a> was\u00a0 a 2005 class action lawsuit in the US and the EC\/UK\u00a0 that alleged anticompetitive activity against other companies that should have been able to market music for Apple&#8217;s iPod.\u00a0 The UK&#8217;s <a class=\"mw-redirect\" title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Competition_Commission_(United_Kingdom)\">Competition Commission <\/a>\u00a0ordered Apple to lower its prices on <a title=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/ITunes\">iTunes<\/a> tracks sold in the United Kingdom, but Apple never had to open its market.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Antitrust\u00a0 (competition) lawsuits are under way in the US against two kinds of digital technology companies: companies that sell products (Amazon,\u00a0 Apple and Microsoft) and social media companies that provide a free service (such as Facebook &amp;\u00a0 Google) while selling &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/digital-antitrust\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4065","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4065","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4065"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4065\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7074,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4065\/revisions\/7074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}