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.

Enterprise

US issues sweeping new rules on chip-tech exports to China

The Biden administration rolled out new, wide-ranging export controls on the chips and equipment U.S. companies are able to sell to China.

The Biden administration’s new controls on chip exports represent a significant shift in U.S. policy related to China.

Photo: Chen Zhonghao/Xinhua via Getty Images

The U.S. unveiled a set of new regulations Friday that aim to choke off China’s access to advanced chips, the tools necessary to manufacture years-old designs, and the service and support mechanisms needed to keep chip fabrication systems running smoothly.

On a briefing call with reporters Thursday, administration officials said the goal is to block the People’s Liberation Army and China’s domestic surveillance apparatus from gaining access to advanced computing capabilities that require the use of advanced semiconductors. The chips, tools, and software are helping China’s military, including aiding the development of weapons of mass destruction, according to the officials, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss the administration’s policies freely.

Keep Reading Show less
Max A. Cherney

Max A. Cherney is a senior reporter at Protocol covering the semiconductor industry. He has worked for Barron's magazine as a Technology Reporter, and its sister site MarketWatch. He is based in San Francisco.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Enterprise

Why CrowdStrike wants to be a broader enterprise IT player

The company, which grew from $1 billion in annual recurring revenue to $2 billion in just 18 months, is expanding deeper within the cybersecurity market and into the wider IT space as well.

CrowdStrike is well positioned at a time when CISOs are fed up with going to dozens of different vendors to meet their security needs.

Image: Protocol

CrowdStrike is finding massive traction in areas outside its core endpoint security products, setting up the company to become a major player in other key security segments such as identity protection as well as in IT categories beyond cybersecurity.

Already one of the biggest names in cybersecurity for the past decade, CrowdStrike now aspires to become a more important player in areas within the wider IT landscape such as data observability and IT operations, CrowdStrike co-founder and CEO George Kurtz told Protocol in a recent interview.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

Fintech

Election markets are far from a sure bet

Kalshi has big-name backing for its plan to offer futures contracts tied to election results. Will that win over a long-skeptical regulator?

Whether Kalshi’s election contracts could be considered gaming or whether they serve a true risk-hedging purpose is one of the top questions the CFTC is weighing in its review.

Photo illustration: Getty Images; Protocol

Crypto isn’t the only emerging issue on the CFTC’s plate. The futures regulator is also weighing a fintech sector that has similarly tricky political implications: election bets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has set Oct. 28 as a date by which it hopes to decide whether the New York-based startup Kalshi can offer a form of wagering up to $25,000 on which party will control the House of Representatives and Senate after the midterms. PredictIt, another online market for election trading, has also sued the regulator over its decision to cancel a no-action letter.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
Enterprise

The Uber verdict shows why mandatory disclosure isn't such a bad idea

The conviction of Uber's former chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, seems likely to change some minds in the debate over proposed cyber incident reporting regulations.

Executives and boards will now be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up," said one information security veteran.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If nothing else, the guilty verdict delivered Wednesday in a case involving Uber's former security head will have this effect on how breaches are handled in the future: Executives and boards, according to information security veteran Michael Hamilton, will be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up."

Following the conviction of former Uber chief security officer Joe Sullivan, "we likely will get better voluntary reporting" of cyber incidents, said Hamilton, formerly the chief information security officer of the City of Seattle, and currently the founder and CISO at cybersecurity vendor Critical Insight.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins