Policy

Big Tech defenders dominate the country’s top group of antitrust lawyers

Current and former members say the American Bar Association's antitrust section is overrun with lawyers who have represented Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple.

Big Tech defenders dominate the country’s top group of antitrust lawyers

The American Bar Association antitrust section has a direct line to government officials.

Photo: Adam Fagen/Flickr

One of the most trusted institutions in the decades-long debate over antitrust law in America is dominated by lawyers tied to the largest tech companies, presenting a possible conflict of interest as policy debates over antitrust enforcement in Washington grow.

In interviews with Protocol, eight current and former members of the American Bar Association's antitrust section, the leading professional association for antitrust lawyers and economists, accused the group of being heavily influenced by corporate lawyers for Big Tech, despite its reputation as a neutral voice in the debate. Several of the group's most prominent members, they say, have cycled between top law firms and government agencies and defended clients including Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple as they face intensifying antitrust scrutiny.

"The influence of antitrust defense lawyers, which means the interests of basically big companies and other people violating the antitrust laws, is overrepresented at the ABA," said Chris Sagers, an antitrust professor at Cleveland State University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and longtime member of the section. Sagers said the issue is less about Big Tech specifically and more about the structure of the field itself, which attracts an abundance of lawyers defending big companies because they make more money.

But lately, those big companies happen to include tech giants that are under investigation for their potentially monopolistic tendencies. A Protocol analysis found that almost half of the authors of the ABA antitrust section's recent presidential transition report, which top policymakers and government officials look to for guidance, either represent Big Tech firms or hold partner positions at law firms that do. One of the co-chairs who led the report, Richard Parker of the law firm Gibson Dunn, confirmed that he has represented Apple and Amazon and still represents some of the top tech firms. Several other authors, including Brad Tennis and Jonathan Jacobson of the firm Wilson Sonsini and Edith Ramirez of the firm Hogan Lovells have represented Google. Debbie Feinstein of the firm Arnold & Porter represented Fitbit in its acquisition by Google. Sidley Austin's Timothy Muris has done work for Amazon and Facebook and Davis Polk's Howard Shelanski represents Facebook.

These ties matter, critics say, because the ABA antitrust section has a direct line to government officials, regularly holding meetings with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission and inviting regulators from around the world to their lavish conferences, said two former government officials. For years, the ABA antitrust section played a pivotal role in selecting the nominees for the FTC and the DOJ's antitrust division. Lawyers pushed for particular members to get into key spots in the government, and many of the group's most active members are former Obama- and Bush-era enforcers. Members of the section are rarely asked to disclose their client lists or potential conflicts of interest, mostly adhering to an honor code that they will not advocate on behalf of their clients while they're members in their personal capacity.

"The antitrust section has positioned itself over the last 20 or 30 years as the neutral organization that's designed to preserve the integrity of the profession," said one member who represents smaller tech companies in their lawsuits against Big Tech. "But what it really is is just a bunch of antitrust lawyers, many of whom have client interests or personal interests, who have guided the section to become the voice of a certain brand of antitrust which is very resistant to any change."

"It's become a device to preserve a way of practicing that benefits antitrust lawyers and allows them to sustain their relevance," the member said.

Gary Zanfagna, the chair of the ABA antitrust section, did not respond to Protocol's request for comment.

William MacLeod of Kelley Drye & Warren, who's the report's other co-chair, told Protocol that he and Parker aimed to represent an array of views when they decided who would help write the report. "We have a wide variety of viewpoints that represent enforcement, represent plaintiffs and represent defendants," said MacLeod. "What we do in these task force reports is we impose a rule that makes sure nobody can take control or unduly influence the report. What goes into that report has to be a consensus of the group." MacLeod said policymakers, regulators and members of Congress have read the report.

Parker said anyone who implies the report is slanted in favor of the tech companies is "wrong" and the authors did not bring up "whether our clients would like [the recommendations] or not."

The report itself avoids taking a side on many controversial issues. Instead, its authors encourage the enforcement agencies to further study prominent topics in antitrust such as Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices and the concept of "monopsony," in which a single buyer like Amazon becomes the primary purchaser of goods from a market of sellers.

But the report does weigh in on one of the field's most controversial debates: the consumer welfare standard, the notion that a company's anti-competitive conduct should be assessed only according to how it affects consumers. Courts often use this standard to determine whether a company's business practices violate antitrust laws.

Many prominent antitrust reformers, including Big Tech's loudest rivals, have called for the government to entirely overhaul the consumer welfare standard, pointing out that courts over time have interpreted it narrowly to mean that free services like Google and Facebook cannot function as monopolies because their conduct doesn't raise prices for consumers. The ABA antitrust section's report encourages agencies to conduct serious reviews into the consumer welfare standard, but it concludes: "The Section does not believe, however, that doing so will necessitate material revisions or changes to the consumer welfare standard."

One co-author of the report said the consensus-driven approach made it "somewhat of a useless exercise" and the leaders edited their sections down to become more "anodyne."

"What it says is, 'Gosh there are all these kinds of problems on the defense side and all these rebuttal points. Therefore we have no recommendation and the agencies should study this further,'" the member, who pushes for more aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws, said.

Former and current members said the ABA antitrust section, above all, tends to advocate for the status quo, balking at overly aggressive calls for reform and often dismissing outside critics like the anti-monopoly think tank Open Markets Institute as impractical. It can be difficult, these people said, to distinguish between corporate lawyers representing clients' interests and establishment lawyers who genuinely believe in a conservative interpretation of the law.

Whatever the reason, the largest tech companies, which pose the most pressing antitrust questions of the day, are noticeably shaping recent conversations within the ABA's antitrust section. The group held its virtual spring conference last week, featuring a range of lawyers from firms representing tech companies and representatives from the companies themselves, according to a schedule obtained by Protocol. Antara Dutta, Amazon's principal economist, chaired a session called "Consumer Protection for Diverse Communities," which included Facebook policy head Pedro Pavón. Anant Raut, Facebook's global head of competition policy, co-moderated a panel called "Hot Topics." And Google's vice president of government affairs, Markham Erickson, participated in a panel on tech firm conduct.

Other topics on the agenda included "Tech Firm Conduct: 'Hypercompetitive' or 'Anticompetitive'?" and "App Stores: An Abuse of Monopoly Power?" The speaker list did include some antitrust reformers, including White House adviser Tim Wu and potential DOJ nominee Jon Sallet, who is currently advising the Colorado attorney general's case against Google. But neither was able to attend due to last-minute conflicts, according to several attendees.

Sandeep Vaheesan, a legal director at Open Markets Institute, participated in a panel at the conference about the future of antitrust. He said he was encouraged by the invitation but does not believe the section will ever be a vehicle for serious antitrust reform. "The ABA is the association of the corporate defense bar," as opposed to being a neutral body, Vaheesan said. "The big tech companies generate a lot of business and a lot of fees for large corporate law firms, so the ABA's institutional views and their events reflect that basic bias and orientation."

Despite these ties, or perhaps because of them, some antitrust hawks see signs that the ABA's antitrust section's power is waning. "For years, a small group of people got to make a lot of choices around antitrust law and they all were part of the ABA antitrust section," said Matt Stoller, the director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, which advocates for an entirely new antitrust regime in order to address the country's deep economic inequalities. But the times are changing. "What's happened is, we've blown up the debate so it's much broader. Congress has taken back its power. I think that that club is a lot less influential," Stoller said.

The 449-page antitrust report about Big Tech from the House Judiciary Committee, which will likely serve as a basis for future antitrust legislation, did not cite any of the ABA's publications.

Progressives have made antitrust one of their key issue areas, drawing new attention to an area of the law that was seen as a niche issue for years. Biden has already tapped Tim Wu and Lina Khan, left-wing superstars in the antitrust world, to join his administration. Both of them have made it clear that they intend to use all of their influence to rein in the power of the largest tech companies.

But there's some indication that the antitrust section will continue to have some sway under Biden. Former Obama Justice Department official Renata Hesse, who spoke at last week's spring meeting and has long been involved with the section, was reportedly a leading contender to head Biden's DOJ antitrust division. And Sallet, one of the co-authors of the presidential transition report and a heavily involved member of the section, is being vetted to join the Biden administration. Sallet did not respond to requests for comment.

"[The ABA antitrust section] carries weight within the DOJ and the FTC," said Vaheesan. "The agencies are not likely to do something that is going to draw the wrath and ire of the ABA antitrust law section. They still have a great deal of influence — but they don't necessarily have that same monopoly that they once did."

Policy

We’ll be here again: How tech companies fail to prevent terrorism

Social media platforms are playing defense to stop mass shootings. Without cooperation and legislation, it’s not working.

The Buffalo attack showed that tech’s best defenses against online hate aren’t sophisticated enough to fight the algorithms designed by those same companies to promote content.

Photo: Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Tech platforms' patchwork approach to content moderation has made them a hotbed for hate speech that can turn deadly, as it did this weekend in Buffalo. The alleged shooter that killed 10 in a historically Black neighborhood used Discord to plan his rampage for months and livestreamed it on Twitch.

The move mirrors what happened in Christchurch, New Zealand, when a white supremacist murdered 51 people in a mosque in 2019. He viewed the killings as a meme. To disseminate that meme, he turned to the same place more than 1 billion other users do: Facebook. This pattern is destined to repeat itself as long as tech companies continue to play defense instead of offense against online hate and fail to work together.

Keep Reading Show less
Sarah Roach

Sarah Roach is a news writer at Protocol (@sarahroach_) and contributes to Source Code. She is a recent graduate of George Washington University, where she studied journalism and mass communication and criminal justice. She previously worked for two years as editor in chief of her school's independent newspaper, The GW Hatchet.

Sponsored Content

Foursquare data story: leveraging location data for site selection

We take a closer look at points of interest and foot traffic patterns to demonstrate how location data can be leveraged to inform better site selecti­on strategies.

Imagine: You’re the leader of a real estate team at a restaurant brand looking to open a new location in Manhattan. You have two options you’re evaluating: one site in SoHo, and another site in the Flatiron neighborhood. Which do you choose?

Keep Reading Show less
Enterprise

SAP’s leadership vacuum on display with Hasso Plattner’s last stand

Conflict of interest questions, blowback to the Ukraine response and a sinking stock price hang in the backdrop of Plattner’s last election to the SAP supervisory board.

Plattner will run for a final two-year transition term atop SAP’s supervisory board.

Photo: Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images

Just one man has been with SAP over its entire 50-year history: co-founder Hasso Plattner. Now, the 78-year-old software visionary is making his last stand.

On Wednesday, Plattner will run for a final two-year transition term atop SAP’s supervisory board, an entity mandated by law in Germany that basically oversees the executive team. Leaders at SAP, for example, report to the supervisory board, not the CEO.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Enterprise

Why Google Cloud is providing security for AWS and Azure users too

“To just focus on Google Cloud, we wouldn't be serving our customers,” Google Cloud security chief Phil Venables told Protocol.

Google Cloud announced the newest addition to its menu of security offerings.

Photo: G/Unsplash

In August, Google Cloud pledged to invest $10 billion over five years in cybersecurity — a target that looks like it will be easily achieved, thanks to the $5.4 billion deal to acquire Mandiant and reported $500 million acquisition of Siemplify in the first few months of 2022 alone.

But the moves raise questions about Google Cloud’s main goal for its security operation. Does Google want to offer the most secure cloud platform in order to inspire more businesses to run on it — or build a major enterprise cybersecurity products and services business, in whatever environment it’s chosen?

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@procotol.com.

Workplace

The tools that make you pay for not getting stuff done

Some tools let you put your money on the line for productivity. Should you bite?

Commitment contracts are popular in a niche corner of the internet, and the tools have built up loyal followings of people who find the extra motivation effective.

Photoillustration: Anna Shvets/Pexels; Protocol

Danny Reeves, CEO and co-founder of Beeminder, is used to defending his product.

“When people first hear about it, they’re kind of appalled,” Reeves said. “Making money off of people’s failure is how they view it.”

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins