Big Tech companies have been aggressively embarking on a lobbying campaign to oppose antitrust laws proposed from Congress. They argue that implementing the antitrust laws would result in fewer choices for consumers and higher prices for products. In addition, Big Tech claims that antitrust reform will harm U.S. national security. According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, trade groups representing some of the biggest names in tech, including Amazon, Facebook and Google, have spent at least $34 million since January 2021 on an advertising campaign to oppose the antitrust laws. Meanwhile, supporters of the legislation say larger technology platforms wield too much power. This means they can easily run smaller competitors out of business. Those supporting the proposed antitrust laws argue that restrictions on these platforms are needed to help ensure that smaller companies can compete.
If the bill becomes law, it could bar Amazon from favoring its own private-label products over its competitors’ products on its e-commerce platform. For Google, a change in the law could bar Google from giving its own services like Google Maps top priority in search results. The law would also prevent Apple from preloading its own apps onto iPhones. It is important to note that Google Search, Gmail, Apple’s Safari, Apple and Google Maps, Amazon’s cataloging, and Meta’s Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram products are free for U.S. consumers, and offer time savings, better product matching, or considerable online entertainment. In addition, a range of other free products and services are often bundled with pay‐for products on the platforms too. While free to consumers, Big Tech antitrust reform supporters believe instances where platforms bundle, tie, or self‐preference their own products within their platform or marketplace inherently damaging to consumers.
This concern has led to two types of ideas for legislative proposals: banning certain forms of self‐preferencing conduct unless firms can prove it is core to their business or necessary for privacy or security reasons and enforcing interoperability between different platforms in the same sector. Here is an opinion piece we found of interest relating to Big Tech’s argument against the proposed antitrust laws.
Big Tech’s National Security Red Herring
In an opinion piece “Big Tech’s National Security Red Herring” for the Heritage Foundation, Michael Ellis, Visiting Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center, and Kara Frederick, Director, Tech Policy Center, argue that Congress and the executive branch must look past the Big Tech companies lobbying campaign to oppose antitrust legislation proposals. One goal of their campaign is to shift the legislative debate away from the substance of the antitrust reforms and into new areas, including the claim that antitrust reform will harm U.S. national security. The authors argue that Congress and the executive branch must not accept this argument because they believe US national security will be advanced by encouraging innovation from new competitors that place American values first. Moreover, they believe many of the legislative reforms under consideration have been designed specifically to mitigate any national security concerns, and other policy tools can be employed to counter threats to cybersecurity and data privacy from adversaries like China and Russia. Policymakers should reject specious Big Tech–funded national security appeals and instead consider antitrust reforms on their merits.
The authors point out that not long ago, Google, Facebook, and Apple were themselves small, innovative start-ups, but insist vigorous competition from new market entrants, not the R&D budgets of a handful of Big Tech monopolies, will be the key to U.S. success against the threat from China. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) and the Open App Markets Act, only prohibits Big Tech companies from taking actions that discriminate against competitors or give a preference to their own products. The authors emphasize that security and privacy enhancements that apply equally to all users of a platform or a service would not run afoul of the proposed legislation. Read the full article on The Heritage Foundation.
Disclosure: Fatty Fish is a research and advisory firm that engages or has engaged in research, analysis, and advisory services with many technology companies, including those mentioned in this article. The author does not hold any equity positions with any company mentioned in this article.
The Fatty Fish Editorial Team includes a diverse group of industry analysts, researchers, and advisors who spend most of their days diving into the most important topics impacting the future of the technology sector. Our team focuses on the potential impact of tech-related IP policy, legislation, regulation, and litigation, along with critical global and geostrategic trends — and delivers content that makes it easier for journalists, lobbyists, and policy makers to understand these issues.
- The Fatty Fish Editorial Teamhttps://fattyfish.org/author/fattyfish_editorial/
- The Fatty Fish Editorial Teamhttps://fattyfish.org/author/fattyfish_editorial/
- The Fatty Fish Editorial Teamhttps://fattyfish.org/author/fattyfish_editorial/
- The Fatty Fish Editorial Teamhttps://fattyfish.org/author/fattyfish_editorial/
