Next year, a court might tell Google to do anything from syndicating its search results to selling the Chrome browser. These remedies and more were included in a request last week from the Justice Department, which is aiming to break up Google’s search monopoly.

The DOJ’s proposals clued in the public to what the government really wants out of Google. Though the complaint was filed in 2020, the first phase of the trial focused only on whether Google was liable for the antitrust harms the government alleged. After Judge Amit Mehta ruled this summer that Google is an illegal monopolist in general search services and search text advertising, the government has finally laid out its plan for how to restore competition, with proposals ranging from relatively simple tweaks in business practices to large structural changes.

The remedies the DOJ is seeking “would imperil Google’s ability to compete in its core business of search and search advertising,” says David Halliday, teaching associate professor of strategic management and public policy at George Washington School of Business. Judge Mehta accepting these remedies wouldn’t be “quite as big a deal as breaking up Standard Oil, but this would be a bigger deal, I think, than breaking up AT&T.” 

If Mehta accepts only some of these proposals after a two-week trial in April, Google might be in better shape. But it could still see billions of dollars shaved off its empire. And according to experts watching the case, attention-grabbing options like a Chrome sale may not be the biggest threat to Google’s power.

Read the full text here

The Biden administration’s most activist regulator may soon need a job — unless the next president taps Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan to stay on for another term.  

With the controversial FTC chair’s tenure having ended on Sept. 26, it will be up to the next president to decide whether Khan will have another four years leading the agency tasked with antitrust enforcement and consumer protection. Vice President Kamala Harris vowed in front of the Economic Club of Pittsburgh last week to be “pragmatic” if elected and not be “constrained by ideology” in how she governs. Given this noble pledge, she must show Khan the door. 

President Biden’s choice of Khan to lead the FTC was an exciting one. Khan, now 35, was and still is young, energetic, and ideologically motivated. She is representative of a critical new generation of Democrats who want to take up the mantle of trustbusting, taking aim at large tech firms. 

Since then, Khan has taken the FTC to war against Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon, as well as against corporate mergers between handbag companies, hotels, and grocery stores.  

The most bizarre and revealing defeat for Khan came in court against Microsoft for its effort to merge with Activision-Blizzard, the video game company behind Call of Duty. The case came about because of the FTC’s shift in focus away from obvious harm to the consumer, modeled by her revamped mission statement for the agency. Khan’s FTC removed language stating its commitment to not hindering legitimate business activity while playing its role as watchdog.  

Put more simply, even if a corporate action is known to be legal, Khan will make you fight for it in court.  

When you watch Khan’s recent “60 Minutes” feature, this theme is front and center. Khan says “We’re doing our job, enforcing the law.” She is then interrupted by Lesley Stahl, who adds, “You are. [Businesses are] afraid you’re going to tie them up in court, cost them a lot of money, and they’re saying it’s just not worth it.” Khan nods along. Stahl also asks, “If someone just says, ‘I’m not going to go forward,’ that’s a win?” to which Lina Khan replies, “That’s right.”  

The FTC under Khan has made it the position of the federal government to oppose reflexively and antagonize all mergers, treating any market consolidation with hostility. That posture amounts to a corporate tax on mergers and acquisitions.  

Candidate Harris shares Khan’s proclivity for blaming inflation and higher prices of gadgets and groceries on corporate misbehavior. But if Harris wins the presidency, she will have done so on the promise of understanding middle-class concerns. You don’t see Harris campaigning in the suburbs against one-day Amazon Prime deliveries and Prime Day deals on televisions, which is exactly what Khan is up to in her case against Amazon.

Donald Trump, if he wins in November, will certainly fire Khan, but Harris would have to contend with a tough reconfirmation battle for Khan to keep the job. Khan would struggle to maintain the same level of Republican good faith she received at the start of the Biden administration. High-profile defeats in federal court and agency resignations, including a commissioner’s public rebuke in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, would be the main event of a confirmation hearing, and seriously degrade any wavering support for Khan to continue leading the FTC.  

Before grabbing the top spot for antitrust enforcement, Khan was a fresh face with a paper trail of hot takes on how to break up Amazon. Today she’s a federal official with spurned former colleagues willing to speak out against her “disregard for the rule of law and due process” and Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results showing a dramatic drop, from 87 percent to 49 percent, on the question of whether “senior agency officials maintain high standards of honesty and integrity” within the FTC.  

Khan has broken trust and morale within the agency while simultaneously performing on “60 Minutes” and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” as a media darling and anti-capitalist icon.  

There is nothing “pragmatic” about Khan. It’s why she was hired — to throw the kitchen sink at corporations and test the constraints of congressional oversight of the FTC. She did just that. Were she to retain Khan, Harris would betray her message of common-sense government responsive to policy results.  

Biden brought Khan into the fold for what you could call “bold, persistent experimentation” around antitrust, and it has been a failure. Harris can be a fresh leader by correcting that mistake.  

Originally published here

Democratic candidates are crisscrossing the country to garner support before November’s elections. Joining campaign events alongside the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi will be an unlikely star and supposedly independent federal employee, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan. 

Khan is due to travel to Austin, Chicago, and Arizona to stump for Democratic candidates, trumpet her antitrust record at FTC such as the effort to break up Amazon, and spin why voters should be clamoring for more. 

The head of an independent government agency publicly tying her fate to Democratic electoral prospects is not normal, and key lawmakers have taken notice of Khan’s plans. In a short tenure which expired last week, Lina Khan has gone from DC darling to political pariah. Remarkably, both political parties have found common ground in their condemnation of Khan’s regulatory actions as the head of the FTC. Her partisan tour is a mark of desperation, and Congress must check the politicization of the FTC by reconfirming Lina Khan in the event she’s asked to stay in the job. 

Khan’s overreach has stunted the economy, harmed consumers, and negatively impacted middle America. From her crackdown on so-called “junk fees” to her anti-growth merger policies hamstringing consumer companies, Khan’s agenda has rightfully faced growing bipartisan backlash.

Her unilateral actions have sent shockwaves through industry, creating a climate of uncertainty that stifles innovation and investment. Rather than focusing on safeguarding consumers and promoting fair competition, the organization has opted for overzealous regulation that a former commissioner called “disregard for the rule of law and due process.” A company that turns profits is guilty until proven innocent with Lina Khan at the FTC’s helm.

As a result, rather than investing in new technology or innovations, companies have been forced to beef up their legal departments out of fear over FTC lawfare. The metric of consumer welfare, which informed antitrust law for nearly a generation, was chucked aside for a hyper-active legal movement that sees every corporate boardroom as an opponent. 

Instead of thoroughly researching the law to drive legal change, the commission hastily pursued court action and lost three of its highest-profile merger cases that dealt with popular consumer and patient products. This series of losses includes Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Meta’s acquisition of Within, and Illumina’s acquisition of Grail. 

What Khan and many of her ideological allies fail to realize is that mergers are a natural cycle of competitive free enterprise. Many mergers play a vital role in sustaining companies, preserving jobs, and supporting local economies, such as the proposed Nippon Steel takeover of US Steel, which would help sustain thousands of jobs in America’s heartland. Or the failed Frontier-Spirit merger, which now puts an entire airline’s future in jeopardy. Spirit Airlines, one of the best travel options for consumers on a budget, is now exploring Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

To counter these losses, the agency is now seeking to revise its merger-review policy, which is even facing opposition from former Obama administration officials and ex-FTC chief economists. This all stems from an ideological position that aims to cut down big players rather than sound economic or policy reasoning.

Additionally, the FTC is catching heat on its proposed final rule to ban non-compete agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was successfully able to freeze the order after a court injunction, arguing the FTC overstepped its authority in issuing the rule.

Another overzealous initiative by Lina Khan is her crackdown on so-called “junk fees”, or back-end charges commonly found in consumer services and transactions. They can include a wide range of charges – from hotel resort fees and airline baggage fees to banking overdraft charges and cable TV installation costs. Seeking to increase transparency and safeguard consumers is noble, but Khan’s assertive approach has resulted in a series of new regulations that will only end up costing consumers more.

This regulatory crackdown has left many firms scrambling to comply, resulting in a constriction of consumer options, higher overall costs, and a general sense of disorder and uncertainty. This has undoubtedly caused confusion and frustration for both companies and the consumers they serve.

Both sides of the aisle are rightly apprehensive about Lina Khan’s leadership at the FTC and the agency’s overall effectiveness. Consumers even more so. Her misguided priorities threaten the very competitiveness that fuels our nation’s economy and rewards consumers every day.

In today’s economic climate, prioritizing innovation, job creation, and growth is crucial, and the FTC’s initiatives must reflect these objectives. The FTC needs to realign its focus and avoid overstepping its boundaries. American consumers and businesses alike benefit from having an effective and focused competition watchdog, but as Lina Khan finishes her term at the FTC, it is nowhere to be found. 

Originally published here

WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation, a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies.

The highly anticipated decision issued by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the U.S. Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter century.

After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from top executives at Google, Microsoft and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Mehta issued his potentially market-shifting decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his 277-page ruling. He said Google’s dominance in the search market is evidence of its monopoly.

Read the full text here

Internet saat ini merupakan salah satu kebutuhan jutaan warga Indonesia untuk menjalankan keseharian mereka. Internet kita gunakan untuk berbagai aktivitas, mulai dari berkomunikasi, mencari data dan informasi, hingga melakukan berbagai kegiatan transaksi barang dan jasa.

Maka dari itu, tidak mengherankan, seiring berjalannya waktu, dari tahun ke tahun persebaran jaringan internet di Indonesia semakin meluas. Di tahun 2024 ini misalnya, jumlah pengguna internet di Indonesia menyentuh angka 79,5% dari penduduk Indonesia, atau sekitar 221 juta jiwa. Angka ini meningkat dari tahun 2018 yang hanya sekitar 64,8%, 73,7% di tahun 2020, 77,01% di tahun 2022, dan 78,19% di tahun 2023 (apjii.or.id, 7/2/2024).

Semakin bertambahnya jumlah pengguna internet di Indonesia ini juga membuat provider penyedia jasa internet di Indonesia semakin meningkat. Pada tahun 2022 lalu misalnya, ada sekitar 828 perusahaan provider penyedia jasa internet di Indonesia. Angka ini meningkat dar tahun 2021 sebelumnya yang berjumlah sebanyak 611 perusahaan (katadata.co.id, 8/9/2023).

Adanya perusahaan penyedia jasa internet yang beragam ini tentu terlihat sebagai sesuatu yang positif untuk konsumen. Dengan adanya perusahaan yang beragam, maka akan terjadi kompetisi antar sesame pelaku usaha untuk memberikan layanan internet yang terbaik dan dengan harga yang terjangkau.

Tetapi kenyataannya ternyata cukup berbeda. Tidak jarang misalnya, para provider internet tersebut melakukan tindakan untuk memonopoli pasar jaringan internet di wilayah-wilayah tertentu, seperti perumahan atau apartemen. Hal ini tentunya merupakan sesuatu yang berpotensi dapat merugikan para konsumen.

Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR), dalam rapat kerjanya dengan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) juga menyampaikan hal tersebut, yang didapatkan dari laporan masyarakat. DPR dalam hal ini berharap KPPU juga bisa menangani adanya berbagai praktik anti kompetisi yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan provider penyedia jasa jaringan internet dengan menguasai daerah-daerah tertentu. Ketika sudah menguasai daerah tertentu misalnya, maka provider penyedia jasa internet lainnya tidak diperbolehkan masuk (rm.id, 18/9/2023).

Selain itu, tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa, berbagai praktik monopoli yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan di Indonesia juga tidak bisa dilepaskan dari peran pemerintah, terutama melalui Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN). Salah satu pakar hukum bisnis dari Univesitas Islam Indonesia (UII) misalnya, menilai dominasi BUMN saat ini sudah termasuk berlebihan (uii.ac.id, 5/4/2021).

Adanya persaingan yang sehat tentu merupakan hal yang sangat penting bagi para konsumen. Di bidang telekomunikasi dan informasi misalnya, anggapan praktik monopoli tersebut umumnya dikenakan kepada perusahaan BUMN Telkom dan berbagai anak perusahaannya, karena memang Telkom memiliki dominasi yang sangat besar (harianjogja.com, 5/5/2024).

Terkait dengan hal tersebut, beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, perusahaan ternama asal Amerika Serikat, SpaceX, meluncurkan salah satu produk mereka, yakni provider jairngan internet berbasis satelit, Starlink, di Indonesia. Elon Musk selaku sebagai pemilik dan CEO Starlink sendiri yang meresmikan hal tersebut pada saat ini berkunjung ke pulau Bali di Indonesia (cnbcindonesia.com, 20/5/2024).

Starlink sendiri merupakan salah satu produk provider penyedia jasa internet yang diproduksi oleh SpaceX asal Amerika Serikat. Melalui Starlink, karena layanannya berbasis internet, maka produk tersbeut memiliki kelebihan yakni pemasangan yang relatif mudah dan cepat terutama di wilayah-wilayah yang sangat sulit untuk dijangkau oleh jaringan internet konvensional.

Masuknya Starlink ke Indonesia ini tentu merupakan hal yang positif kepada konsumen, karena memberikan pilihan yang semakin banyak. Terlebih lagi, Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan yang memiliki banyak desa-desa dan pemukiman di wilayah terpencil dengan akses internet yang sangat terbatas.  Adanya layanan provoder penyedia jaringan internet berbasis satelit seperti starlink tentunya memberikan kesempatan agar daerah-daerah tersebut untuk mendapatkan akses jaringan internet yang lebih baik.

Tetapi, seperti yang diprediksikan, tidak sedikit pihak-pihak tertentu yang melancarkan kritik dan ketidaksetujuan mereka terhadap fenomena masuknya Starlink ke Indonesia. Asosiasi Penyelenggara Telekomunikasi Seluruh Indonesia (ATSI) misalnya, menyampaikan bahwa masuknya inovasi provider penyedia jasa jaringan internet berbasis satelit ini berpotensi dapat mengancam kelangsungan usaha telekomunikasi dalam negeri (inilah.com, 7/6/2024).

Tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa, adanya pemain baru provider penyedia jasa internet di Indonesia tentu berpotensi akan membuat sebagian konsumen berpindah, dan meninggalkan provider lama. Tetapi hal lain yang tidak jarang kerap tidak dilihat adalah besarnya potensi yang ada bagi para konsumen melalui inovasi teknologi jaringan internet berbasis internet seperti Starlink.

Selain semakin menguatkan kompetisi misalnya, para penduduk dan warga Indonesia yang tinggal di daerah terpencil berpotensi memiliki akses internet yang cepat, yang tentunya akan memberikan banyak kesempatan bagi mereka untuk melakukan berbagai aktivitas. Melalui jaringan internet yang cepat dan reliable, mereka bisa mendapatan akses informasi yang sangat luas, bisa menjangkau pasar yang lebih luas menjual produk yang diproduksi misalnya, dan juga kesempatan untuk belajar berbagai hal baru yang seakan sering dianggap taken for granted oleh para penduduk yang tinggal di ibukota.

Sebagai penutup, kompetisi dan persaingan yang sehat merupakan hal yang sangat penting untuk menjaga hak konsumen, agar mereka bisa mendapatkan produk dan layanan terbaik dengan harga yang terjangkau. Melalui kompetisi dan persaingan juga, para pelaku usaha akan “dipaksa” oleh pasar untuk berinovasi dan memperbaiki produk dan layanan mereka, yang tentunya akan berdampak pada kemajuan. Jangan sampai, karena dorongan dari pelaku usaha tertentu untuk menjaga pasar mereka melalui pembatasan kompetisi, hak dan kebebasan memilih konsumen menjadi tercederai, sehingga kemajuan bisa menjadi terhambat.

Originally published here

It’s not often that the head of a U.S. federal agency is given the red carpet treatment on Comedy Central, but for Jon Stewart, it’s to be expected.

Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), appeared on the revamped Daily Show featuring Stewart as host on Monday nights, to hype up the FTC’s work battling the “monopolies” of the current era. Khan was certainly in need of a pep rally, as even reporters at New York Magazine have taken note of her tumultuous tenure marked by mass resignations, continuous defeats in court and confused mission statement.

She championed efforts by the agency to scrutinize patents on medical inhalers, blocking ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli from ever working again in pharmaceuticals and a tidal wave of lawsuits against Big Tech firms, namely Amazon, Meta and Apple.

Eager to add cases to the FTC’s docket, Stewart provided an anecdote about Apple allegedly blocking him from interviewing Khan on his now-defunct Apple podcast, The Problem With Jon Stewart.

Khan remained poised and professional in her response, but also revealed her ideology when it comes to modern business and competition.

“I think it just shows one of the dangers of what happens when you concentrate so much power and so much decision-making in a small number of companies,” she said.

The drawn-out interview reveals a contradiction in what the FTC is even supposed to do as a government agency. Is it about the consumer having choices and not being “bullied”? Or is the FTC just a bulwark against any and all corporate “bigness”?

To dissect her quote, there was no central decision to “concentrate” power or decision-making in Apple or any other tech company. Consumers voted to support these companies by buying their products and using their services to improve their lives. Because those companies now rake in billions and serve millions of customers, does that mean the FTC has to intervene?

The role of the FTC has never been to remedy concerns about higher prices, low wages or broader social ills. As stated in the eponymously named act signed by President Woodrow Wilson that created the agency in 1914, the FTC exists to prevent unfair competition and deception as it relates to commerce and to seek monetary redress when consumers are demonstrably harmed.

Stewart asks Khan to define monopolistic and oligopolist practices, and she downplays the traditional metric of “market share,” instead labeling “behavior” the most straightforward way to render judgment. That would explain her dismal win-loss ratio in both antitrust and mergers.

The FTC has struggled to demonstrate harm to the consumer under Lina Khan, because consumers are actually pretty pleased with the services she and Stewart loathe, like Amazon Prime. Khan is attempting to lead a revival of the Progressive Era antitrust movement, once spearheaded by former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who long crusaded against the “curse of bigness” in America and sought more active policing of private enterprise by the federal government.

This “New Brandeis movement” includes academics and government advisors such as Tim Wu and Lina Khan herself, who was a leading anti-monopoly voice as a staffer at both the FTC and the House Judiciary Committee, as well as a fellow at Columbia Law School. Stewart and his old colleague John Oliver might be vying for membership cards as well. Their primary target is tech companies and their innovations, ranging from artificial intelligence to algorithms, and digital app stores.

Antitrust authorities are carving out new theories about why innovations by tech firms are harmful to consumers — even if it can’t be proven. As she did on The Daily Show, Lina Khan labels companies as monopolistic even after her accusatory lawsuits are defeated in court.

It’s telling that when Stewart asks Khan if she’s “had success: with her antitrust cases, she only cites the layup Martin Shkreli case instead of what she’s staked her tenure on, which is breaking up Amazon, Meta and Google.

No questions from Stewart about Khan’s failed cases such as blocking Meta from buying a VR workout app, or her bizarre effort to jam Microsoft’s purchase of the video game company Activision-Blizzard. Her lawyers were in court armed with flimsy arguments about consumer welfare related to access to the popular Call of Duty series, and what kind of in-game skins Microsoft could make exclusive to Xbox. Embarrassing defeats.

Every week, there are vast new breaches of personal data that put millions of consumers at risk and should be promptly investigated by the FTC and other federal agencies. There is plenty of deception used by online ad firms, crypto scams and other companies that harm consumers and lead them to pay more, lose privacy or even their identities. This is met with little action from Khan’s distracted, ideological FTC.

Instead, she’s laser-focused on consolidation. Why do we have fewer companies in certain sectors of the economy, whether it be in telecom, airlines or meat-packing, as mentioned by Khan?

Once you increase the compliance costs to do business in any given industry with heavy regulation, the result is less competition. Large firms are best positioned to comply because compliance is very, very expensive. The more you regulate, the fewer firms can compete.

Originally published here

The war between the US federal government and Big Tech continues. The next chapter pits the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) under Merrick Garland against Apple, wherein the DOJ has accusedAmerica’s most innovative consumer brand of sweeping antitrust violations. This allegation of anticompetitive conduct deserves intense scrutiny. Apple is a wildly successful consumer tech brand that inspires consumer loyalty like no other tech. So what’s the problem?

At the heart of the DOJ’s lawsuit is the claim that Apple has stifled competition by building barriers that prevent competitors from both entering the smartphone market and functioning on Apple’s platform. 

The Apple Watch is part of the DOJ’s case. They’ve argued that Apple doesn’t accommodate smartwatches from other providers to sync to iPhones and Macbooks. This is a strange line of attack. 

As I wrote in The Hill weeks before the case was unveiled:

“Imagine the classroom slacker making the case to the teacher that the straight-A student in the front of the class is being anti-competitive by not sharing their lecture notes with them. It’s one thing to maliciously penalize or seek to inconvenience consumers for having a mixed assortment of technology from Apple, LG, Samsung, Nokia and Google. It’s another thing entirely for the government to say that Apple has to design its products for Samsung to piggyback on and then offer to their loyal customers as a perk of not doing business with Apple. Investigators are spending taxpayer dollars to find out why the Apple Watch works more smoothly with the iPhone than with rival brands.”

It it not anticompetitive to not build products with your competitors in mind. It may limit the appeal of your product, your walled garden where each Apple device syncs nicely with another. That’s why I’ve said “Apple is a lifestyle brand.” This approach has made Apple very popular with consumers. 

One of the other key grievances outlined in the lawsuit is Apple’s control over its App Store, which critics argue gives the company an unfair advantage over rivals. However, what these critics fail to acknowledge is that Apple’s stringent App Store guidelines are designed to uphold the highest standards of quality and security for users.

An Apple user can feel comfortable and confident knowing that there is not malware and illicit apps on the App Store. It is more tightly controlled. That is to consumers benefits, though it may frustrate app developers, game makers and tech competitors. 

Apple’s ecosystem is not a nefarious scheme to lock users into its products but rather a testament to the company’s unwavering commitment to user privacy and data security. And make no mistake, the data security and privacy component of Apple’s brand has put them in an adversarial position with the Department of Justice and Homeland Security before. Are we supposed to believe this factor is not part of the DOJ’s motivation? 

Unlike other tech giants that have come under fire for their lax approach to privacy, Apple has consistently prioritized the protection of user data, even if it means sacrificing some degree of interoperability with third-party devices and services. This principled stance should be commended, not condemned, particularly in an era marked by rampant data breaches and privacy violations. Apple does good by consumers. 

In responding to the lawsuit, Apple pointed out that the DOJ’s actions threaten to undermine the company principles that have made its products synonymous with quality and innovation. At the Consumer Choice Center, we are inclined to agree. Consumers have ample market power to use other devices and mix and match as they please. There is more to this DOJ attack on Apple than meets the eye, and you can bet it has little to do with consumer welfare.

Originally published here

La concurrence est le moteur de l’innovation pour les consommateurs. Est-ce légitime de vouloir la réglementer ?

Aux Etats-Unis, les régulateurs de l’Etat essaient de détruire le prétendu monopole d’Amazon – une inspiration aussi pour les Européens à Bruxelles. Mais à quel point Amazon représente-t-il un danger ?

Pour les consommateurs, les entités Amazon, Amazon Prime et Amazon Web Services (AWS) sont omniprésentes et synonymes. L’activité globale du groupe comprend la vente au détail en ligne, les magasins physiques, les services d’abonnement, les services de publicité, l’informatique en nuage, la logistique et les services de vendeurs tiers. Chaque composante soutient et sert les autres, ce qui se traduit par une efficacité incroyable, des coûts d’exploitation réduits et, par conséquent, des baisses de prix importantes pour les consommateurs.

Il n’est donc pas étonnant qu’Amazon jouisse d’une approbation et d’une confiance du public presque aussi élevées que celles de l’armée américaine, avec 72% d’opinions favorables, selon un sondage Harvard-Harris réalisé en 2021. Il s’agit d’une statistique étonnante compte tenu de la tendance générale à la méfiance des institutions, à notre époque.

La Commission fédérale du commerce (FTC) de Joe Biden estime que les consommateurs doivent prendre leur part du gâteau lorsqu’il s’agit de sacrifier les économies de temps et d’argent réalisées par Amazon. La vision de Mme Khan de ce qui constitue un monopole n’est pas celle que la plupart des gens, ou la loi, reconnaissent. Son cadre antitrust – dénoncé par l’ancien sénateur Orrin Hatch comme un « antitrust hipster » – considère les prix prédateurs, les escroqueries des consommateurs et le manque de concurrence comme une façon démodée de penser l’antitrust.

Tout cela est bien résumé dans un article de 2018 dans The Atlantic, où Lina Khan observe avec dédain les prix plus bas des avocats dans un Whole Foods appartenant à Amazon. Les consommateurs et leurs préférences révélées sont le problème que la FTC cherche réellement à résoudre dans son attaque à venir contre Amazon.

Pour la plupart des Américains, Amazon n’est plus seulement une entreprise ; elle fait partie du paysage dans lequel ils vivent. Des camionnettes Amazon sont présentes dans chaque quartier, et une boîte portant le logo Prime pourrait arriver sur le pas de votre porte d’une minute à l’autre. C’est ce qui arrive lorsque 200 millions de consommateurs dans le monde sont abonnés à un service qui leur facilite la vie.

Peut-être êtes-vous quelqu’un qui n’aime pas le monde que j’ai décrit ; peut-être voyez-vous l’omniprésence d’Amazon comme une dystopie. Vous avez le droit d’avoir cette opinion, mais ce n’est pas la raison d’être des régulateurs, que de se battre dans ces conditions.

Même si vous n’êtes pas un client fidèle d’Amazon, nous connaissons tous quelqu’un qui a trouvé un emploi dans l’entreprise, qui a acheté un meilleur téléviseur à un meilleur prix lors du Prime Day ou qui a utilisé les services d’AWS, lesquels alimentent des millions de sites web pour des entreprises dans le monde entier.

Certaines des pratiques d’Amazon peuvent sembler lourdes ou privilégiées aux yeux des régulateurs, mais elles ne constituent en rien un préjudice pour le consommateur – critère sur lequel se fonde la doctrine antitrust depuis un siècle. Il n’y a pas de cartels, pas de barons voleurs et pas d’accords secrets qui augmentent les prix pour les consommateurs. Au contraire, le système d’incitation d’Amazon pour les vendeurs de sa plateforme semble délibérément conçu pour répondre à l’ »obsession » du fondateur Jeff Bezos pour les consommateurs, comme il se décrit lui-même.

Toute cette notion de monopole Amazon est aussi à analyser. Le commerce électronique d’Amazon représente moins de 40% de la part de marché du commerce électronique, et étant donné que le commerce électronique ne représente que 15% de l’ensemble du commerce de détail aux Etats-Unis, cela fait d’Amazon un curieux monopoleur avec une part de marché remarquable de… 6%. Ou prenez Prime Video, qui a représenté la concurrence du câble, soit seulement 7% de l’ensemble de la consommation de télévision.

Il est vrai que le monde se déplace en ligne – le commerce électronique et la diffusion en continu vont tous deux connaître une croissance considérable au cours des prochaines années.

Cependant, à mesure que les services se déplacent en ligne, le terrain va devenir plus encombré. Dans les services de diffusion streaming, les chaînes de télévision optent de plus en plus pour le contenu en ligne sur un modèle d’abonnement et sont susceptibles de créer des alliances pour gagner des parts de marché. Prenons l’exemple de Disney, dont l’abonnement Disney+ regroupe le sport avec ESPN et les documentaires avec National Geographic – deux services qui s’adaptent à une présence en ligne.

Dans le monde des affaires, il s’agit souvent d’être le premier, mais être le premier ne garantit pas un modèle d’entreprise performant pour l’éternité. Le premier smartphone a été commercialisé par IBM, le premier ordinateur portable par Toshiba. La première plateforme de médias sociaux à succès MySpace a longtemps été considérée comme une sorte de monopole naturel.

Les consommateurs peuvent choisir de ne pas utiliser les services d’Amazon ; en fait, pour beaucoup, c’est une question de principe que de faire leurs achats chez des concurrents de petite taille, comme c’est leur droit. Ce qui semble étrange, c’est que les Etats cherchent à s’approprier la réussite d’Amazon au seul motif que ses concurrents n’ont pas été assez rapides pour s’adapter.

Il suffit de comparer le mode de fonctionnement d’Amazon à celui d’autres marchés pour s’apercevoir qu’il est réalisable. Dans des pays comme les Pays-Bas ou la Turquie, où le commerce électronique d’Amazon est un nouveau venu, les plateformes locales ont la mainmise.

L’offre groupée de services d’Amazon n’est pas unique, il s’agit en fait d’une version plutôt légère de ce que l’on peut observer à l’échelle internationale. Il reste à voir si Amazon Prime peut atteindre ce niveau de fournisseur de services complets, mais même si c’était le cas, il est très probable que Walmart ou Target auront également développé leurs propres offres groupées concurrentes, ou que les concurrents étrangers deviendront plus forts sur le marché américain.

En fait, la concurrence est le moteur de l’innovation pour les consommateurs, alors au lieu d’essayer de la réglementer, laissons les concurrents se battre en eux.

Originally published here