Facebook’s antitrust win could backfire on all of tech

Companies said the Big Tech lawsuits showed the U.S. doesn't need new competition laws, but Facebook's wins may put momentum behind reform.

A digital billboard reading "Welcome to Facebook" displayed above a wide sidewalk with several pedestrians walking down it.

Facebook recently hit a $1 trillion valuation.

Photo: Christoph Dernbach/Picture Alliance via Getty Images

Facebook won two big victories in district court on Monday — for now, at least — when a federal judge dismissed both state and federal antitrust claims against it. Would-be antitrust reformers say the dismissals show why the law needs to change to rein in Big Tech.

"This decision underscores the dire need to modernize our antitrust laws to address anticompetitive mergers and abusive conduct in the digital economy," Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler and David Cicilline, who have led congressional efforts to change antitrust laws as a way to tackle Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google, said in a joint statement.

The decisions in the lawsuits brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of 48 state and territorial attorneys general were a shocking rebuke to the antitrust momentum against Big Tech, but raised the possibility that Facebook's victory could prove temporary by spurring the forces that seek to bring more competitive scrutiny onto the four giant companies.

The market rewarded Facebook by pushing its valuation past $1 trillion, but its victory wasn't total. The district court judge, James Boasberg, ruled that the FTC might be able to lay down a viable lawsuit and challenge Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp if it gets more specific about why the company is a monopoly. Showing what market a company allegedly monopolizes is key to any case. The FTC now has until July 29 to bolster its argument.

The judge also decided, though, that the FTC's complaints about Facebook shutting rivals out of data sharing is all but dead, as is the states' case, in part because the federal government has "unique authority" to try to remedy allegations of long-past anticompetitive conduct.

A new FTC

Prominent tech critic Lina Khan just became the FTC chair, and she is unlikely to let the agency's case about Facebook fade into obscurity. She has already called an open meeting for Thursday at which the FTC will take the rare step of publicly debating whether to rescind its 2015 policy of limiting the use of its power to police "unfair methods of competition."

Because of the potential breadth of that language, and the FTC's authority to tackle competition concerns under other statutes, the agency had sought to focus on those cases with economic harm such as raised prices and to invoke the powers against unfairness only where those other laws didn't seem to apply.

Many of the provisions mirrored legal guardrails the FTC must observe under other statutes or court decisions, although tech skeptics have said the agency was pulling its punches in the fight against consolidation.

Since the theories of the conservative jurist Robert Bork began to take hold in the 1980s, courts have limited the interpretation of antitrust laws. Judges almost always interpreted the statutes in ways that were friendly to corporate defendants, requiring a high degree of economic rigor from the government and entertaining a variety of theories of companies' potential justifications for their conduct. Enforcers at the FTC and elsewhere generally embraced the approach and narrowed their own procedures, as they did in 2015.

Without the self-imposed restraints, the FTC might have more legal theories at its disposal for pursuing a case such as the one against Facebook. The agency could also expand the allegations in the complaint and seek to bring its charges before an "in-house" court that is perceived to be more deferential to the agency.

"The only thing that would really surprise me is if this is the end of the road," said Alex Petros, policy counsel at Public Knowledge, which supports increased antitrust enforcement. "We're going to see further actions."

Congressional efforts

Defenders of the antitrust status quo have said for months that the investigations of all four tech giants, and lawsuits against all but Amazon, showed that government enforcers didn't need new laws — a pushback aimed at the bipartisan group trying in Congress to expand antitrust law.

Now those who want change are pointing to the court's two rulings to suggest that reform was needed all along. A package of six major antitrust overhaul bills pushed to the House floor last week by Nadler, Cicilline and others seeks to do just that.

"Congress needs to provide additional tools and resources to our antitrust enforcers to go after Big Tech companies engaging in anticompetitive conduct," Rep. Ken Buck, the top Republican on the subcommittee that advanced the bills, said in a tweet.

Other tech critics in Congress, advocates who want to see antitrust law expanded and even an official at another social media company all said the decision could put wind into the sails of congressional efforts, although opposition has risen alongside the unexpected success of the push for a revamp.

"The House's antitrust bills already had a bipartisan sheen and I bet this FTC dismissal only helps its proponents," tweeted Billy Easley, the U.S. policy manager for Reddit. "They'll argue it illustrates how the antitrust status quo isn't good enough to recognize a 'clear' monopoly."

While the congressional antitrust proposals might not resuscitate the Facebook cases exactly, they could spell plenty of trouble for the company and the other tech giants, allowing enforcers to get at much of the same conduct that the FTC and states sought to challenge.

One particularly controversial bill, for instance, could allow the government to go to court to try to force Facebook to spin off Instagram or WhatsApp if it finds there are "conflicts of interest" inherent in its ownership of the apps.

"It would probably be a much, much easier case to win than the case that the FTC is bringing now," Petros said.

Another bill would force Facebook to share data with smaller companies that could challenge its dominance, after the FTC alleged that cutting off the would-be rivals was part of Facebook's efforts to maintain a monopoly. (The court ruled Facebook has broad latitude to choose which companies to do business with.) A third measure, sponsored by Cicilline, would force Facebook not to discriminate against rivals.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has spoken positively about the six antitrust bills, but she hasn't promised to take them up and some of her fellow California Democrats have been trying to slow the bills that are aimed at major employers in their state.

Other proposals could also change the companies' fortunes in a future case. Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who chairs the antitrust subcommittee and is pushing ahead with her own efforts to change competition law, has previously introduced a bill eliminating many requirements to define markets as painstakingly as Boasberg demanded.

"After decades of binding Supreme Court decisions that have weakened our antitrust policies, we cannot rely on our courts to keep our markets competitive, open, and fair," Klobuchar said in a statement.

Facebook said in a statement that it competes "fairly every day to earn people's time and attention and will continue to deliver great products for the people and businesses that use our services."

A tech trade group, NetChoice, which counts Facebook as a member, argued that the decision illustrated that the FTC had overstepped and hardly needed to be more empowered.

"Activists might say we need new antitrust laws, but the Federal Trade Commission's departure from tradition into subjective antitrust enforcement has illustrated the very need for our laws to continue to be applied objectively and fairly," said Carl Szabo, the group's general counsel.


This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

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.

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).


White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories