yesEmily BirnbaumNone
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Politics

Which of the Big Tech antitrust lawsuits has the best chance of winning?

We ranked the government's cases.

Which of the Big Tech antitrust lawsuits has the best chance of winning?

Facebook and Google are facing existential legal threats as government regulators and state attorneys bring five separate antitrust cases against them: two against Facebook and three against Google.

Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

For the first time ever, there's a real chance that Facebook and Google could be broken up.

It's going to be a tough, years-long battle. But the companies are facing existential legal threats as government regulators and state attorneys bring five separate antitrust cases against them: two against Facebook and three against Google.

None of the cases will be easy to prove. This is the most aggressive set of antitrust actions by the government in decades, and courts are more skeptical than ever. But the cases make a new era in antitrust enforcement, and anything is possible.

Protocol ranked the lawsuits in order of least to most likely to succeed.

4. Texas-led case against Google

Legal experts have expressed the most skepticism around the antitrust lawsuit against Google's ad stack dominance from the Texas-led coalition of 10 attorneys general. Some of the complaint's central claims, including alleged collusion between Facebook and Google, are enticing — but it's unclear if the coalition has the goods to back them up.

"The Texas case could be a killer case," said Chris Sagers, an antitrust professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. If the states are able to prove a horizontal conspiracy between Google and Facebook to rig the ad tech market, it would amount to a clear violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that restrict trade. But Sagers said it's all in the details, and the some of the allegations "seem more ambiguous and subject to interpretation."

It's difficult to analyze because so much of the complaint is redacted, particularly the sections about what Google admitted to in internal communications. And Google has already shot down a separate allegation in the suit, which claimed Google gained access to encrypted WhatsApp messages.

On the other hand, a court likely won't struggle with the concept that Google has outsized power over all levels of the ad stack, and there's significant public evidence that it engaged in plenty of manipulative behaviors to maintain that control.

It's also yet to be seen if any Democrats will join the Texas suit, which will struggle with credibility issues as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton continues to face allegations of corruption and an ongoing FBI investigation.

3. Colorado- and Nebraska-led case against Google

The complaint from the coalition of 35 attorneys general led by Colorado and Nebraska is sweeping and ambitious, with sections detailing Google's exclusionary conduct in search, its efforts to limit the visibility of specialized search engines and its growing dominance in emerging technologies like voice assistants.

It's a serious case with broad bipartisan support, and its focus on Google's current efforts to muscle into voice assistants might appeal to a judge looking for ongoing anticompetitive behavior in a dynamic market. "Part of what I suspect these companies are going to argue is, 'What do you mean durable monopoly power? This is a dynamic setting and the moment you slow down, the rest of the world passes you by,'" said William Kovacic, former FTC chairman. "The Colorado complaint is saying, 'It is very competitive and you are using every bit of skill you have to anticipate what those new threats are and to squash them.'"

But it's an open question whether antitrust is the best mechanism to rein in self-preferencing, one of the central allegations of the Colorado case. Hal Singer, a managing director at antitrust firm Econ One, has argued that self-preferencing "does not fit into any well-received antitrust paradigm." And even if the laws could be "stretched" to accommodate this type of exclusion, the pace of antitrust litigation is likely far too slow to remedy the harms to innovation, he wrote.

It's yet to be seen how a court responds to allegations of self-preferencing as an antitrust violation. The states are arguing that Google restricts the way specialized sites like Yelp and Tripadvisor can advertise, harming their business and giving consumers fewer options.

The Nebraska and Colorado-led coalition is planning to consolidate its case with the DOJ's, and a judge will have to consider each allegation on its own.

"This lawsuit seeks to redesign search in ways that would deprive Americans of helpful information and hurt businesses' ability to connect directly with customers," Google said in a statement. "We look forward to making that case in court, while remaining focused on delivering a high-quality search experience for our users."

2. The FTC and state attorneys general bring cases against Facebook

The cases against Facebook from the coalition of 48 state attorneys general and the FTC read like a wish list from progressive antitrust activists. The FTC is calling for Facebook to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram while alleging the company has destroyed privacy protections and elbowed out potential competitors in the battle to maintain its position as the biggest social network in the world.

What's amazing about the twin cases is that the government could plausibly win, although it will be a steep uphill battle.

"You have a monopoly that is acquiring nascent competitive threats," said Maurice Stucke, a former DOJ prosecutor and professor of law at the University of Tennessee. "You have anticompetitive intent, anticompetitive design and internal documents to show how these acquisitions further that anticompetitive design."

The FTC and state cases are extremely similar and will likely be consolidated in federal court in Washington, D.C. They both focus on whether Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were anticompetitive and whether Facebook has leveraged the power of its APIs to kneecap potential rivals.

But the government will likely have to surmount deep skepticism of its market definition: "personal social networking." They'll have to work hard to prove that Facebook exists in its very own marketplace that excludes social media sites like TikTok and YouTube. "If I had shown up at a meeting and announced that Facebook didn't compete with Google, Apple or TikTok, I would have been laughed out of the room," wrote Matt Perault, formerly Facebook's director of public policy, in an op-ed on Thursday.

And the court will demand extensive evidence proving that Instagram and WhatsApp could have grown without Facebook's acquisition, a hypothetical situation that might be difficult to substantiate.

"Could Instagram have developed without the investment of money and know-how from Facebook?" said Kristen Limarzi, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and former DOJ antitrust official. "I think that's unclear, but that's what the FTC will have to prove."

1. DOJ's case against Google

The DOJ's case against Google, which was filed in October alongside a coalition of 11 Republican attorneys general, likely has the best shot at winning simply because it is the least ambitious.

The complaint hews as closely to the 1990s Microsoft case as possible — a case that the government won even though it did not ultimately result in Microsoft's breakup. Paralleling the Microsoft case, the DOJ's complaint narrowly targets Google's "exclusionary contracts" with other companies, most prominently its more than $12 billion deal to keep Google as Apple's default search engine.

So far, under the Trump administration, the case does not get into broader questions about Google's dominance in search or advertising technology. Legal experts said the DOJ's case alleges clear-cut violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, as long as it's able to substantiate its core claims.

"It's a plausible Section 2 argument that is pretty well-substantiated, with plausible reasoning and citations to what looks like real evidence," Sagers said.

Google has called the case "deeply flawed." "People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to," Google's chief legal officer, Kent Walker, said. But the DOJ will try to prove that users hardly have a choice in the matter.

The case could benefit from the well-resourced lawyers working against Google, including attorneys with Oracle, AT&T, Microsoft and other top firms, and the open-minded judge it's been assigned to, Amit Mehta.

It's still one of the most ambitious antitrust lawsuits to come from the U.S. government in decades, and it will face serious hurdles. Mehta could be skeptical of the DOJ's definition of the relevant market: "general search," which excludes specialized search engines like Amazon or Expedia. And it will be highly fact-specific, meaning the government has to provide extensive evidence proving its allegations.

Twitter’s future is newsletters and podcasts, not tweets

With Revue and a slew of other new products, Twitter is trying hard to move past texting.

We started with 140 characters. What now?

Image: Liv Iko/Protocol

Twitter was once a home for 140-character missives about your lunch. Now, it's something like the real-time nerve center of the internet. But as for what Twitter wants to be going forward? It's slightly more complicated.

In just the last few months, Twitter has rolled out Fleets, a Stories-like feature; started testing an audio-only experience called Spaces; and acquired the podcast app Breaker and the video chat app Squad. And on Tuesday, Twitter announced it was acquiring Revue, a newsletter platform. The whole 140-characters thing (which is now 280 characters, by the way) is certainly not Twitter's organizing principle anymore. So what is?

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Microsoft wants to replace artists with AI

Better Zoom calls, simpler email attachments, smart iPhone cases and other patents from Big Tech.

Turning your stories into images.

Image: USPTO/Microsoft

Hello and welcome to 2021! The Big Tech patent roundup is back, after a short vacation and … all the things … that happened between the start of the year and now. It seems the tradition of tech companies filing weird and wonderful patents has carried into the new year; there are some real gems from the last few weeks. Microsoft is trying to outsource all creative endeavors to AI; Apple wants to make seat belts less annoying; and Amazon wants to cut down on some of the recyclable waste that its own success has inevitably created.

And remember: The big tech companies file all kinds of crazy patents for things, and though most never amount to anything, some end up defining the future.

Keep Reading Show less
Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy ( @mcwm) is the director of special projects at Protocol, focusing on the industries being rapidly upended by technology and the companies disrupting incumbents. Previously, Mike was the technology editor at Quartz, where he frequently wrote on robotics, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.

People

Google's union has big goals — and big roadblocks

Absence of dues, retaliation fears and small numbers could pose problems for the union's dream of collective bargaining, but Googlers are undeterred.

Recruiting union members beyond the early adopters has had its challenges.

Photo: David Paul Morris/Getty Images

When the Alphabet Workers Union launched with more than 200 Googlers at the beginning of the year, it saw a quick flood of new sign-ups, nearly quadrupling membership over a few weeks. But even with the more than 710 members it now represents, the union still stands for just a tiny fraction of Google's more than 200,000 North American employees and contractors. The broader Alphabet workforce could prove difficult to win over, which is a hurdle that could stand in the way of the group's long-term ambitions for substantive culture change and even collective bargaining.

The initial boom of interest from Googlers was thrilling for Alex Peterson, a software engineer and union spokesperson. "It's really reinvigorating what it means to actually be a community of Googlers, which is something that's been eroding over the past four or five years, or even longer."

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (@ anna_c_kramer), where she helps write and produce Source Code, Protocol's daily newsletter. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

The Capitol riots scrambled FCC Republicans’ Section 230 plans. What now?

The FCC's top tech agitators have been almost silent about Big Tech's Trump bans.

The commissioners will gingerly walk a line of condemning the tech platforms without seeming like they are condoning the rhetoric that led to Trump's suspensions or the takedown of Parler.

Photo: Jonathan Newton-Pool/Getty Images

Brendan Carr, one of the Federal Communications Commission's two Republicans, spent the better part of 2020 blasting Big Tech platforms for allegedly censoring conservative speech, appearing on Fox News and right-wing podcasts to claim that social media companies exhibited bias against President Trump and the GOP more broadly.

But in the weeks since Twitter, Facebook and YouTube suspended former President Trump and removed large swaths of his supporters in the wake of the violent riot on Capitol Hill, Carr has remained largely silent about the deplatforming, except to condemn the violence. "Political violence is completely unacceptable," Carr told reporters days after the riot. "It's clear to me President Trump bears responsibility."

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Politics

Facebook’s Oversight Board won’t save it from the Trump ban backlash

The Board's decision on whether to reinstate Trump could set a new precedent for Facebook. But does the average user care what the Board has to say?

A person holds a sign during a Free Speech Rally against tech companies, on Jan. 20 in California.

Photo: Valerie Macon/Getty Images

Two weeks after Facebook suspended former President Donald Trump's account indefinitely, Facebook answered a chorus of calls and referred the case to its newly created Oversight Board for review. Now, the board has 90 days to make a call as to whether Trump stays or goes permanently. The board's decision — and more specifically, how and why it arrives at that decision — could have consequences not only for other global leaders on Facebook, but for the future of the Board itself.

Facebook created its Oversight Board for such a time as this — a time when it would face a controversial content moderation decision and might need a gut check. Or a fall guy. There could be no decision more controversial than the one Facebook made on Jan. 7, when it decided to muzzle one of the most powerful people in the world with weeks remaining in his presidency. It stands to reason, then, that Facebook would tap in its newly anointed refs on the Oversight Board both to earnestly review the call and to put a little distance between Facebook and the decision.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Latest Stories