Can We At Least Make Sure Antitrust Isn't Deliberately Designed To Make Everyone Worse Off?
from the a-small-request dept
For decades here on Techdirt I've argued that competition is the biggest driver of innovation, and so I'm very interested in policies designed to drive more competition. Historically this has been antitrust policy, but over the past decade or so it feels like antitrust policy has become less and less about competition, and more and more about punishing companies that politicians dislike. We can debate whether or not consumer welfare is the right standard for antitrust -- I think there are people on both sides of that debate who make valid points -- but I have significant concerns about any antitrust policy that seems deliberately designed to make consumers worse off.
That's why I'm really perplexed by the push recently to push through the “American Innovation and Choice Online Act” from Amy Klobuchar which, for the most part, doesn't seem to be about increasing competition, innovation, or choice. It seems almost entirely punitive in not just punishing the very small number of companies it targets, but rather everyone who uses those platforms.
There's not much I agree with Michael Bloomberg about, but I think his recent opinion piece on the AICOA bill is exactly correct.
At the heart of the bill is an effort to prevent big tech companies from using a widespread business practice called self-preferencing, which is generally good for both consumers and competition. Think of it this way: An ice-cream parlor makes its own flavors and sells other companies’ flavors, too. Its storefront window carries a large sign advertising its homemade wares. In smaller letters, the sign mentions that Haagen-Dazs and Breyers are available, too. Should Congress force the ice-cream store owners to advertise Haagen-Dazs and Breyers as prominently as their own products?
That’s essentially what this bill would force a handful of the largest tech companies to do. For instance, Google users searching the name of a local business now get, in their search results, the option of clicking a Google-built map. But under the bill’s requirements, the search results would likely have to exclude the Google map. Similarly, Amazon would likely be prevented from promoting its less-expensive generic goods against the biggest brand names.
Lots of businesses offer configurations of products and services in ways that are attractive to customers, often for both price and convenience. Doing this can allow companies to enter — and potentially disrupt — new markets, to the great advantage of customers.
Yet the bill views such standard business conduct as harmful. It would require covered companies — essentially Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and TikTok — to prove that any new instance of preferencing would “maintain or enhance the core functionality” of their business. Failure to comply could lead to fines of up to 15% of a company’s total U.S. revenue over the offending period.
Now, I think there's a very legitimate argument that if a dominant company is using its dominant position to preference something in a manner that harms competition and the end user experience, then that can be problematic, and existing antitrust law can take care of that. But this bill seems to assume that any effort to offer your own services is somehow de facto against the law.
And whether or not that harms these companies is besides the point: it will absolutely harm the users and customers of these companies, and why should that be enabled by US competition policy? The goal seems to be "if we force these companies to be worse, maybe it will drive people to competitors," which is a really bizarre way of pushing competition. We should drive competition by encouraging great innovation, not limiting how companies can innovate.
Even if you don't think that the "consumer welfare" standard makes sense for antitrust, I hope most people can at least agree that any such policy should never deliberately be making consumers worse off.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: amy klobuchar, antitrust, competition, consumer welfare, innovation, michael bloomberg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Government regulation picks winners and losers and does so in an unfair way to benefit the buddies and donors of congress critters? That's unpossible!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"...more and more about punishing companies that politicians dislike." And the punishment is often a slap on the wrist that make little to no difference. It does make some lawyers rich, so it has that going for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This just confirms that Congress has no idea what the hell a free market is or competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Even if it went through it will be sued
Look first of all shareholders of Amazon and Google and Apple investments will be hurt by these bills. Congress cannot tell a private corporation how to run its business especially if it hurts ordinary shareholders. Once it hits the pro business Supreme Court the bill will be considered illegal and thrown out especially with the USMCA investor dispute clause and yes some of these anti trust laws are investor dispute so I do not believe this bill will last long even if passed
The EARN IT may get through yes, but that had to do with child porn which is illegal this antitrust bill has to do with Congress telling private corporations how to run there business. Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow think they can tell a private corporation how to run there business and hurt shareholders. Not going to happen. If this bill gets through I am not worried as shareholders, hedge funds and big tech will sue it right out of existence. Got that Grassley and Klobucher
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
+1
But most Americans have also been vigorously brainwashed to believe Federal Antitrust interventions are the only thing keeping big private companies from pillaging the American people.
AntiTrust economic theory has always been total nonsense, and starkly unconstitutional.
I'm deeply surprised at the very sudden truthful realization here that government AntiTrust policy:
"has become less and less about competition, and more and more about punishing companies that politicians dislike"
The overall Community here has always stromgly endorsed AntiTrust and opposed anybody pointing out the huge problems with such government interventions into voluntary free markets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, great idea! This law should be applied to politics. I can see it now: Republicans promoting Democratic ideals (or even democratic ideals).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
Other countries manage to regulate industry without the problems of the U.S, maybe because they have avoided political patronage as a means of appointing regulators.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's all in the side effects and unintended (or unconsidered) consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
What voluntary free market?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If they would enforce the rules we HAD,
Before they started dumping all of them.
If they would monitor the stock market and MAKE it work the way its Supposed to.
This is like hte greedy dog.
He can never get his fill, until he is Bloated, and still wondering if he can get more.
You have to Control him or Starve him. Take your pick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
...same as a free market.
but leftists don't know what a free market is -- so the voluntary adjective is just a hint to help them understand basic economics
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
"The overall Community here has always stromgly endorsed AntiTrust and opposed anybody pointing out the huge problems with such government interventions into voluntary free markets."
Because in the rest of the OECD antitrust action isn't a problem. When regulations are imposed equally across the board the market adapts wonderfully. The US alone is so unused to restricting market monopolization and cartellization that whenever they try to actually enforce basic market rules it all turns into a race to see who can produce the biggest pork barrel.
This is literally an Only In America problem.
"...most Americans have also been vigorously brainwashed to believe Federal Antitrust interventions are the only thing keeping big private companies from pillaging the American people."
It really is. Average americans today are worse off than their parents and grandparents. Not because of foreign interference. Not because the economy is busted - it's steadily been rising.
It's just that because the government since the days of Reagan hasn't bothered enforcing the rules conditions have been worsening to the current point, where 1 in 10 citizens of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind are on emergency food stamps and 40% of households can't cope with an unexpected measly $400 expense.
If your intent was to pull some extreme-wing libertarian bullshit here then I'm afraid to say most attendees aren't the audience you're looking for, because they're neither blind nor stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"This just confirms that Congress has no idea what the hell a free market is or competition."
I posit a different viewpoint. Congress knows damn well what a free market isand are writing legislation opposing such a market because they're trying to appease the vested interests who both fund their campaign and stand to make a killing from biased legislation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
"but leftists don't know what a free market is"
You realize that "Das Kapital", written by a certain Karl Marx, is still considered recommended and required reading in fiscal science education worldwide - including in the US?
Leftists tend to know more about what a free market is and how it works than right-wingers. That's why so many actual economists become leftists after studying economy. They don't like the end game they're seeing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Even if it went through it will be sued
I assume you haven't heard of the following things:
Laws
I mean, what are laws but dictates about how individuals and businesses comport themselves, with the threat of civil or criminal legal action if they fail to comply?
Like I was going to go over how you must have missed Minimum Wage, OHSA, Laws requiring food be stored and served safely and the regulations which serve to define safe, FLSA, FMLA, income taxes, employment taxes, business licensing, banking regulations, all dictates about how a business can be run that impacts shareholders. All of these laws impact profits, and therefore shareholders, in one way or another. The entire point of the law is to force individuals and businesses to act in a way they may not have chosen if the law was not in place.
But rather than post the doctoral thesis on why that one sentence is soooo bad, ill just point out that CSAM being illegal at all is telling a private corporation how to run its business. There are vintage magazines that were legally sold at the time containing what today is defined as CSAM. That these magazines could not be bought or sold is telling a business how to run itself. CSAM is abhorrent. But your standard is very loose, leaving every reader confused about when the government can intervene and tell a business how to operate. Seemingly, the standard is "ill know it when I see it", a standard that always falls apart once the guys with ideas you don't like start using it against you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Misguided analogy
An ice cream parlor can never monopolize consumer access to all other ice creams, and use that monopoly to push substandard products. Online, this is what happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Misguided analogy
How is Amazon for instance, a monopoly while Ebay, Banggood, Ali Express, to name a few, exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Misguided analogy
And he dont notice that allot of stuff is fronted By amazon, not Sold by amazon.
Walmart does the same thing. They dont sell the product, they Front for the companies that sell the product.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: AntiTrust Epiphany
How do you figure?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Misguided analogy
Because of market share, which gives it the ability to control prices and exclude competitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]