Source Code: Your daily look at what matters in tech.

source-codesource codeauthorEmily BirnbaumNoneWant your finger on the pulse of everything that's happening in tech? Sign up to get David Pierce's daily newsletter.64fd3cbe9f
×

Get access to Protocol

Your information will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
Politics

What the antitrust proposals would actually mean for tech

Here's a rundown of how the reforms suggested at the House Judiciary Committee's hearing would affect tech companies — and how likely they are to happen.

David Cicilline

"To put it simply, these once-scrappy, underdog startups have grown into the kinds of monopolies we last saw more than a century ago, during the time of oil barons and railroad tycoons," says Rep. David Cicilline, the chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

Academics, lawyers and experts proposed an array of sweeping antitrust reforms during a congressional hearing on Thursday, capping off the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust investigation into the tech industry with a roadmap forward that is certain to scare tech executives.

Their proposals ranged from mild reforms, like giving more resources to the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, to expansive new regulatory regimes, like treating the Big Tech firms as public utilities similar to telecommunications companies or railroads.

"To put it simply, these once-scrappy, underdog startups have grown into the kinds of monopolies we last saw more than a century ago, during the time of oil barons and railroad tycoons," said Rep. David Cicilline, the chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

"We stand at a crossroads," he said. "There is no doubt about that."

Here's a rundown of how the suggested antitrust reforms would affect tech companies and how likely they are to happen.

Structural separation

"Structural separation," which was promoted by multiple progressive academics as the most straightforward antitrust remedy, would require large data companies to pursue a "single line of business" rather than leveraging their power to forge into new markets. For instance, a "structural separation" law would prevent Amazon from both operating its ecommerce platform and selling products on that platform.

It's similar to the Glass-Steagall law for technology platforms that Cicilline has endorsed.

"Structurally separating platforms from commerce would give everyone a fair shot at innovating, at getting their fair rewards," said Sally Hubbard, the director of enforcement strategy at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly think tank.

Fordham University School of Law professor Zephyr Teachout described Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google as "riven with conflicts of interest."

"They own platforms and compete on the platforms, so Congress should pass a law delineating single-minded business rules for the very biggest tech companies," she said.

This rule would bulldoze the business models of all the major tech companies in one fell swoop. It would prevent Facebook from offering messaging services and Google from owning YouTube.

Such an expansive proposal would certainly meet tough roadblocks even if the Democrats take back the Senate and the White House, as moderate Democrats are likely to eschew such an extreme incursion into private businesses. But the framework came up continually throughout the hearing, indicating it could potentially wind up in the committee's final report.

Make acquisitions harder

Some of the moderate experts suggested a legal tweak that would require large companies to work harder to justify their acquisitions of smaller companies. Right now, the burden is on the government to prove that mergers are anti-competitive.

But Brookings Institution fellow William Baer suggested a legislative change that would require dominant firms to justify why proposed mergers aren't problematic.

"By incorporating presumptions that certain behaviors are likely to reduce competition, by making it clearer that showing a risk of a reduction in competition is sufficient, and by emphasizing that anticompetitive effects are not limited to price effects and include quality and innovation competition, Congress can make a meaningful difference," Baer wrote in his testimony.

This kind of incremental change might be easier to get through Congress, but it has the potential to make life significantly harder for Big Tech. It would have made it harder for Facebook to push through its acquisition of Instagram or Google to buy DoubleClick, for instance.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong, a Republican, said he liked Baer's talk about "tweaks rather than large-scale change" but had qualms with this proposal.

"My only concern with that is a lot of these companies build themselves solely for the purpose of getting bought out," Armstrong said.

Public-utility-style regulation

All proposals to treat Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple as "public utilities" have always riled up tech lobbyists and free-market advocates, who say it would amount to government overreach. But Sabeel Rahman, the president of liberal think tank Demos, said public-utility-style regulation could be a key tool for taking on the companies' dominance.

"A century ago, the rise of industrial monopolies in railroads, telecommunications, finance and other sectors sparked a wave of policy innovation leading to vital legislative and regulatory interventions like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the rise of public utility commissions at the state and federal level," Rahman said. "These innovations were designed to address the problem of private control over infrastructure — the same kinds of problems that today's tech giants pose."

Rahman and Teachout laid out their case for treating the companies and public goods earlier this year, arguing it could "restrain the dangers of private power over critical shared infrastructure."

The progressive scholars suggested Congress could impose public obligations — like nondiscrimination and price regulations — on the companies.

Any of these proposals would place tech companies under a vast new regulatory framework similar to that of AT&T or Verizon.

It would be hard to draw up any Republican support for such a proposal. Rep. Ken Buck, who has consistently been the most sympathetic Republican on the panel to antitrust issues around the platforms, expressed concern about going too far with an "oppressive regulatory regime."

More resources for FTC, DOJ

Getting more resources to the FTC and DOJ for antitrust enforcement is likely the easiest reform for Congress to pass. Most of the experts said the agencies need far more money, staff and time to bring serious antitrust cases against the companies. The combined value of Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google stands at about $7 trillion. The FTC and DOJ antitrust division's combined enforcement budget stands at about $510 million, Buck said.

"Conducting effective oversight and launching antitrust reviews is difficult when your budget is only a minor fraction of Big Tech's … unfailingly deep pockets," Buck said.

Rachel Bovard, a conservative anti-monopoly activist, underlined his point, saying, "We do expect law enforcement agencies to parry with billion-dollar companies, the biggest the world has ever seen, and we give them miniscule budgets to do it."

Beyond funneling more funding toward the agencies, several experts and lawmakers suggested it's time for the FTC to act more aggressively.

This option would create new challenges for the legal teams at Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, which are already being examined by the agencies, but it falls short of the structural change that Cicilline is likely seeking.

Interoperability

Michael Kades, the director of markets and competition policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, said interoperability can "allow competition to occur," although it's not a solution to the antitrust concerns in and of itself.

Interoperability, which requires tech companies to build connections between their products, would make it easier for users to jump from one platform to another. "Interoperability causes network effects to occur at the market level — where they are available to nascent and potential competitors — instead of the firm level, where they only advantage the incumbent," Kades wrote in his testimony.

Interoperability could help smaller competitors take advantage of Facebook and Google's built-out infrastructure to attract larger audiences. But it's a very technical endeavor with many open questions about privacy and security. So far, a Senate proposal to require interoperability has stalled.

Protocol | Workplace

In Silicon Valley, it’s February 2020 all over again

"We'll reopen when it's right, but right now the world is changing too much."

Tech companies are handling the delta variant in differing ways.

Photo: alvarez/Getty Images

It's still 2021, right? Because frankly, it's starting to feel like March 2020 all over again.

Google, Apple, Uber and Lyft have now all told employees they won't have to come back to the office before October as COVID-19 case counts continue to tick back up. Facebook, Google and Uber are now requiring workers to get vaccinated before coming to the office, and Twitter — also requiring vaccines — went so far as to shut down its reopened offices on Wednesday, and put future office reopenings on hold.

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

After a year and a half of living and working through a pandemic, it's no surprise that employees are sending out stress signals at record rates. According to a 2021 study by Indeed, 52% of employees today say they feel burnt out. Over half of employees report working longer hours, and a quarter say they're unable to unplug from work.

The continued swell of reported burnout is a concerning trend for employers everywhere. Not only does it harm mental health and well-being, but it can also impact absenteeism, employee retention and — between the drain on morale and high turnover — your company culture.

Crisis management is one thing, but how do you permanently lower the temperature so your teams can recover sustainably? Companies around the world are now taking larger steps to curb burnout, with industry leaders like LinkedIn, Hootsuite and Bumble shutting down their offices for a full week to allow all employees extra time off. The CEO of Okta, worried about burnout, asked all employees to email him their vacation plans in 2021.

Keep Reading Show less
Stella Garber
Stella Garber is Trello's Head of Marketing. Stella has led Marketing at Trello for the last seven years from early stage startup all the way through its acquisition by Atlassian in 2017 and beyond. Stella was an early champion of remote work, having led remote teams for the last decade plus.
Protocol | China

Livestreaming ecommerce next battleground for China’s nationalists

Vendors for Nike and even Chinese brands were harassed for not donating enough to Henan.

Nationalists were trolling in the comment sections of livestream sessions selling products by Li-Ning, Adidas and other brands.

Collage: Weibo, Bilibili

The No. 1 rule of sales: Don't praise your competitor's product. Rule No. 2: When you are put to a loyalty test by nationalist trolls, forget the first rule.

While China continues to respond to the catastrophic flooding that has killed 99 and displaced 1.4 million people in the central province of Henan, a large group of trolls was busy doing something else: harassing ordinary sportswear sellers on China's livestream ecommerce platforms. Why? Because they determined that the brands being sold had donated too little, or too late, to the people impacted by floods.

Keep Reading Show less
Zeyi Yang
Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China. Previously, he worked as a reporting fellow for the digital magazine Rest of World, covering the intersection of technology and culture in China and neighboring countries. He has also contributed to the South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. In his spare time, Zeyi co-founded a Mandarin podcast that tells LGBTQ stories in China. He has been playing Pokemon for 14 years and has a weird favorite pick.
Power

The video game industry is bracing for its Netflix and Spotify moment

Subscription gaming promises to upend gaming. The jury's out on whether that's a good thing.

It's not clear what might fall through the cracks if most of the biggest game studios transition away from selling individual games and instead embrace a mix of free-to-play and subscription bundling.

Image: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Subscription services are coming for the game industry, and the shift could shake up the largest and most lucrative entertainment sector in the world. These services started as small, closed offerings typically available on only a handful of hardware platforms. Now, they're expanding to mobile phones and smart TVs, and promising to radically change the economics of how games are funded, developed and distributed.

Of the biggest companies in gaming today, Amazon, Apple, Electronic Arts, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nvidia, Sony and Ubisoft all operate some form of game subscription. Far and away the most ambitious of them is Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass, featuring more than 100 games for $9.99 a month and including even brand-new titles the day they release. As of January, Game Pass had more than 18 million subscribers, and Microsoft's aggressive investment in a subscription future has become a catalyst for an industrywide reckoning on the likelihood and viability of such a model becoming standard.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.
Protocol | Policy

Lina Khan wants to hear from you

The new FTC chair is trying to get herself, and the sometimes timid tech-regulating agency she oversees, up to speed while she still can.

Lina Khan is trying to push the FTC to corral tech companies

Photo: Graeme Jennings/AFP via Getty Images

"When you're in D.C., it's very easy to lose connection with the very real issues that people are facing," said Lina Khan, the FTC's new chair.

Khan made her debut as chair before the press on Wednesday, showing up to a media event carrying an old maroon book from the agency's library and calling herself a "huge nerd" on FTC history. She launched into explaining how much she enjoys the open commission meetings she's pioneered since taking over in June. That's especially true of the marathon public comment sessions that have wrapped up each of the two meetings so far.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories