antitrust

Biden admin’s Christmas wish for a Google split should get a lump of coal

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses deep concern over the DOJ’s proposed remedies in the case of United States v. Google LLC that aim to completely dismantle the US tech company, deprive consumers of any future innovation, and set a dangerous precedent for American competitiveness.

Following the Department of Justice’s proposed remedies filed with the court on last month, the California-based search and ad tech giant had its chance to respond with their own filing Friday evening, blasting the government’s demands.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“Breaking apart a cornerstone of the American Internet economy is truly without precedent and beyond the pale for a country that is supposed to revere innovation,” said Ossowski.

“The government wants to forever restrict the company’s abilities to compete in evolving industries like artificial intelligence, where the US is facing massive competitive pressure from more authoritarian countries like China.

“Giving the government a regulatory razor blade to carve up a central node of our tech sector does not bode well for consumers who can already choose from a host of different products fit to their taste,” added Ossowski.

“Rather than picking winners and losers, the government should tamper down its trustbusting and let consumers vote with their clicks, rather than having that decision made for them. The DOJ is continuing to advance an ideological campaign that ignores consumer choice and makes a mockery of antitrust law,” concluded Ossowski.

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva.

DOJ’s wish for a Google-less Chrome browser shows how warped antitrust has become

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses deep concern over the DOJ’s proposed remedy in the case of United States v. Google LLC that would force the tech firm sell off its popular Chrome browser, as was filed with the court on Wednesday.

Having never demonstrated a specific monopoly in the browser market, this wish by the Department of Justice is just the first of many that will have unintended consequences on consumers who use internet products.

“There has never been a more vibrant and competitive time for Internet browsers. From privacy options like Mullvad, Apple’s Safari, or the various open-source forks of Firefox, there is literally no world where consumers are forced to use any browser. Added to that, most other browsers use open-source code from Google’s Chromium project, which will no doubt be put in jeopardy. The DOJ is continuing to advance an ideological campaign that ignores consumer choice and makes a mockery of antitrust law,” said YAËL OSSOWSKI, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center.

The DOJ’s proposed remedy to force the sale of Chrome is only the first the department has offered, and we can expect that much more will come.

“The Biden Administration, whether it be at the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice, has completely ignored consumer welfare as a factor in how they select antitrust cases and now how they propose remedies to favorable judges. It’s highly political,” YAËL OSSOWSKI of the Consumer Choice Center continued, “The United States is drifting toward the anti-tech posture of the European Union, wherein the default position becomes one of penalizing successful American companies for their popularity at a time when artificial intelligence and China-led projects are disrupting the market in real-time.”

###

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Comments on Türkiye’s amendments to Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition

On June 11, the Consumer Choice Center submitted comments to Rekabet Kurumu, the competition regulator in Türkiye, on the subject of various amendments to country’s laws on mergers, acquisitions, and general regulation in digital services.

The English version is followed by the Turkish version below.

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, non-partisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life.

As an organization representing consumers in Türkiye and around the world, we wanted to add some additional perspective and comments on the proposed amendments to Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition.

We believe many of these changes will adversely affect consumers and users who enjoy digital services and products in Türkiye, and generate more regulatory pressure and bureaucratic action that will lead to degradation of services that consumers enjoy, or even the risk that many of these services will leave altogether.

On gatekeeper designation

The amendments made to Madde 1, adding that the competition law should now heed the “protection of the fair and contestable market structure in the core platform services,” go beyond the remit of a competition regulator.

Granting such authority to the board of Rekabet Kurumu in determining market structure, deemed fair or unfair, necessarily removes the natural competitive element of markets in goods and services, setting the grounds for a chilling of innovation, a halting of the introduction of competitive services from abroad, or setting a legal framework for punitive actions for any company that gains a natural advantage from selling superior products or services.

In other markets such as the European Union, designation as a gatekeeper is a technical formula determined by the number of users as compared to the total population. For Rekabet Kurumu, as stated in the amendments to Madde 5, it is the agency itself that “decides whether undertakings providing core platform services is a gatekeeper’.

It is important to make sure the threshold is set wisely, impacting all service providers, be it service, app or a company to ensure fair competition, regulatory predictability and ensure consumer protection for all.

In addition, the amendments to Madde 3 would grant the regulator authority to designate a gatekeeper if there is an assumed ability “to reach the power to maintain this impact in an established and permanent manner”.

This particular amendment neglects to understand the dynamic nature of most digital markets, which are constantly in flux and subject to intense competition from both domestic and international companies. There is no “permanent manner” by which any digital firm would have a foothold in Türkiye or any other country unless they are aided by regulations that shield them from competition.

Paradoxically, by remitting the gatekeeper designation to a board vote alone, without technical parameters, this would serve as a regulatory barrier that could have the impact of harming future competition, thereby granting a market advantage to any company that would have the resources to comply with the regulators’ rules. This would be Big Tech ahead of Small Tech, whether it is Turkish or not.

On self-prefencing

The guidelines enforced on firms deemed gatekeepers explicitly disallow self-prefencing of various apps, services, or goods on their platforms. While we understand the justification for this rule, consumers do not believe that we should prohibit applications and services from being offered just because they happen to be offered from the same technological provider.

Often, the integration of various apps and services generate convenience that consumers prefer. As an example, if a user searches for a location on a search engine and then receives a result for an address on a map, being forced to exclude that map application’s results because they happen to be offered by the same company would prove burdensome to a user.

The integration of these services are trusted and convenient for those who use them. Even if they prefer other services, whether that be for search engines or map applications, they already have it within their power to use the products they wish. Placing restraint on the technology companies’ offerings would only lead to a degraded experience, which is not meaningfully doing anything to increase competition.

When applied to e-retailers, we know for a fact that the integration of various services leads to more cost savings, quicker delivery times, and more availability of products that consumers rely on. A blanket ban on self-preferencing would run counter to the goal of offering consumers more choice and more affordable options.

If self-prefencing by firms has the result of becoming prohibitive or more costly for consumers, we believe there would be reasonable grounds for enforcement action. However, these actions should be targeted, address consumer welfare, and provide reasonable remedies.

On the prohibitions on mergers and acquisitions

In Madde 6, there is an outlined penalty that any company or firm that violates the gatekeeper rules at least two times, which are subjective enough, “the Board may prohibit mergers or acquisitions by these undertakings in digital markets for up to three years, in order to eliminate the damages arising from repeated violations or to prevent serious or irreparable damages that may arise.”

On interoperability

Madde 4(e) discusses the obligation to allow end users to switch between different services, software, applications or app stores. This obligation, although important for ensuring consumer choice, cannot be implemented without specific technical standards which are crucial for ensuring interoperability.

It is technical standards, not the regulatory obligations which ensure easy switching between services for the consumer, be it a business or an individual. This is a complicated process, which the European Union, for example, has yet to be able to implement, as the standardization requires complex procedures, transition periods and cannot physically be ensured by local competition authorities.

Generally, interoperability is an important standard for consumers who would like to export data and be able to easily import into additional services. We believe innovation around these efforts will lead to better standards over time, rather than infringing on tech neutrality by strictly requiring one specific process, standard, or data format by regulation.

Conclusion

With an ever-expanding global digital market, clear and reasonable competition standards are vital for consumers, entrepreneurs, and citizens alike.

For the benefit of consumer welfare, citizens should be able to depend on competition regulators to ensure there are no deceptive or illegal practices depriving them of competition and the benefits of technological innovation.

As we’ve learned from other regulatory markets, the key factors that lead to better outcomes and dividends for users are highly competitive, dynamic, and robust markets that must change and adapt to meet consumer needs.

At present, the Rekabet Kurumu’s suggested amendments to Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition would impose severe regulatory burdens and punitive actions on any firm hoping to reach Turkish consumers at scale.

These amendments allow for broad interpretation of rules which can lead to a diminishing business environment in Türkiye, affecting consumers and users who depend on new innovative services.

Rather than placing immediate restrictions on digital service providers, Türkiye should embrace disruptive competition in the technological sector, inviting innovators to try to offer the best goods and services to consumers and users who want them.

Arbitrary classification as gatekeepers, including burdensome compliance and increased surveillance and monitoring, coupled with a chilling effect on halt mergers and acquisitions, would be detrimental to Turkish consumers who should otherwise benefit from the fruits of new innovation.

Sincerely Yours,

Yaël Ossowski Eglė Markevičiūtė Nazlıcan Kanmaz

Deputy Director Head of Digital & Innovation Policy Digital Storytelling & Content Editor

Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında 4054 sayılı Kanun’da yapılan değişikliklere ilişkin tüketici görüşleri

Consumer Choice Center, gündelik yaşamda seçim özgürlüğü, yenilik ve refahın faydalarını savunan bağımsız bir tüketici hakları savunuculuğu grubudur.

Biz, Türkiye’de ve Dünya’da tüketicileri temsil eden bir kuruluş olarak 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’da yapılması önerilen değişikliklere ilişkin bazı ek perspektif ve yorumlarımızı bilgilerinize arz ederiz.

Bu değişikliklerin birçoğunun Türkiye’deki dijital hizmet ve ürünlerden faydalanan tüketicileri ve kullanıcıları olumsuz etkileyeceğine inanıyoruz. Hatta tüketicilerin faydalandığı hizmetlerin zayıflamasına ve bu hizmetlerin birçoğunun tamamen ortadan kalkmasına yol açacak daha fazla düzenleyici baskı ve bürokratik eylem yaratacağına ihtimal veriyoruz.

Geçit Bekçisi Ataması Hakkında

Madde 1’de yapılan ve rekabet hukukunun artık “temel platform hizmetlerinde adil ve rekabete açık piyasa yapısının korunmasını” dikkate alması gerektiğini belirten değişiklikler, bir rekabet düzenleyicisinin görev alanının ötesine geçmektedir.

Rekabet Kurumu Yönetim Kurulu’na piyasa yapısını belirleme yetkisi verilmesi, mal ve hizmet piyasalarının doğal rekabet unsurunu ortadan kaldırarak inovasyonun engellenmesine, yurtdışından rekabetçi hizmetlerin girişinin durdurulmasına ya da kaliteli ürün veya hizmet satarak üstünlük elde eden şirketlerin cezalandırılmasına zemin hazırlayacaktır.

Avrupa Birliği gibi diğer pazarlarda, geçit bekçisi belirlenmesi, toplam nüfusa kıyasla kullanıcı sayısına göre belirlenen teknik bir formüldür. Madde 5’te yapılan değişikliklerde belirtildiği üzere, “temel platform hizmetleri sunan teşebbüslerin geçit bekçisi olup olmadığına karar veren” kurumun kendisidir.

Adil rekabet, mevzuatın öngörülebilirliği ve tüketicinin korunmasını sağlamak için tüm hizmet sağlayıcıları etkileyen bu eşiğin makul bir şekilde belirlenmesini sağlamak önemlidir.

Buna ek olarak, Madde 3’te yapılan değişiklikler, düzenleyiciye “bu etkiyi yerleşik ve kalıcı bir şekilde sürdürme gücüne ulaşacağı” varsayılan bir yetenek varsa bir geçit bekçi belirleme yetkisi verecektir.

Bu özel değişiklik, sürekli değişim halinde olan ve hem yerel hem de uluslararası şirketlerin yoğun rekabetine maruz kalan çoğu dijital pazarın dinamik yapısını anlamayı ihmal etmektedir. Herhangi bir dijital firmanın, kendilerini “rekabetten koruyan” düzenlemelerle desteklenmediği sürece, Türkiye’de ya da başka bir ülkede yer edinmesini sağlayacak kalıcı bir yöntem bulunmamaktadır.

Paradoksal olarak, geçit bekçiliğinin teknik parametreler olmaksızın yalnızca yönetim kurulu oylamasına bırakılması, gelecekteki rekabete zarar verebilecek bir düzenleyici engel işlevi görecek ve böylece düzenleyicilerin kurallarına uyacak kaynaklara sahip olan herhangi bir şirkete pazar avantajı sağlayacaktır. Bu, Türk olsun ya da olmasın, Büyük Teknoloji’nin Küçük Teknoloji’nin önüne geçmesi anlamına gelecektir.

Kendini Önceleme Üzerine

Geçit bekçisi olarak kabul edilen firmalara uygulanan kurallar, platformlarında çeşitli uygulamaların, hizmetlerin veya ürünlerin kendi kendini ön plana çıkarmasına açıkça izin vermemektedir. Bu kuralın gerekçesini anlamakla birlikte, tüketiciler, sırf aynı teknoloji sağlayıcısı tarafından sunuluyor diye uygulama ve hizmetlerin sunulmasını yasaklamamız gerektiğine inanmamaktadır.

Çoğu zaman, çeşitli uygulama ve hizmetlerin entegrasyonu, tüketicilerin arzu ettiği kolaylıkları sağlamaktadır. Örnek olarak, yalnızca aynı şirket tarafından sunuldukları için bu harita uygulamasında bazı sonuçların hariç tutulduğu bir durum kullanıcı için külfetli olacaktır.

Bu hizmetlerin entegrasyonu, bunları kullananlar için güvenilir ve kullanışlıdır. İster arama motorları ister harita uygulamaları için olsun, başka hizmetleri tercih etseler bile, istedikleri ürünleri kullanmak kullanıcıların ellerindedir. Teknoloji şirketlerinin sunduklarına kısıtlama getirmek, yalnızca daha zayıf bir kullanıcı deneyime yol açacaktır ki bu da rekabeti artırmak için anlamlı bir sonuç doğurmamaktadır.

E-perakendecilere uygulandığında, çeşitli hizmetlerin entegrasyonunun maliyet tasarrufu, daha hızlı teslimat süreleri ve tüketicilerin güvendiği ürünlerin daha erişilebilir olmasını sağladığını biliyoruz. Kendi hizmetine referans vermenin genel olarak yasaklanması, tüketicilere daha fazla seçenek ve daha uygun fiyatlı seçenekler sunma hedefine ters düşecektir.

Firmaların kendine referans vermesinin tüketiciler için engelleyici veya daha maliyetli hale gelmesi durumunda, yaptırım uygulanması için makul gerekçeler olduğuna inanıyoruz. Ancak, bu eylemler hedefe yönelik olmalı, tüketici refahını ele almalı ve makul çözümler sağlamalıdır.

Birleşme ve Devralmalara Ilişkin Yasaklar Hakkında

Madde 6’da, geçit bekçisi kurallarını en az iki kez ihlal eden herhangi bir şirket veya firmanın “Kurul, tekrarlanan ihlallerden kaynaklanan zararların giderilmesi veya ortaya çıkabilecek ciddi veya telafisi güç zararların önlenmesi amacıyla, bu teşebbüslerin dijital pazarlarda birleşme veya devralmalarını üç yıla kadar yasaklayabilir” şeklinde özetlenen bir cezası bulunmaktadır.

Birlikte Çalışabilirlik Üzerine

Madde 4(e), kullanıcıların farklı hizmetler, yazılımlar, uygulamalar veya uygulama mağazaları arasında geçiş yapmasına izin verme yükümlülüğünü ele almaktadır. Bu yükümlülük, tüketici tercihinin sağlanması açısından önemli olmakla birlikte, birlikte çalışabilirliğin sağlanması açısından hayati önem taşıyan belirli teknik standartlar olmaksızın uygulanamaz.

Herhangi bir tüketici için hizmetler arasında kolay geçiş sağlayan husus, düzenleyici yükümlülükler değil teknik standartlardır. Bu, örneğin Avrupa Birliği’nin henüz uygulayamadığı karmaşık bir süreçtir, çünkü standardizasyon karmaşık prosedürler, geçiş dönemleri gerektirir ve yerel rekabet otoriteleri tarafından pratik olarak sağlanamaz.

Genel olarak, birlikte çalışabilirlik, verilerini dışa aktarabilmek ve ek hizmetlere kolayca ulaşabilmek isteyen tüketiciler için önemli bir standarttır. Düzenlemelerle belirli bir süreci, standardı veya veri formatını katı bir şekilde zorunlu tutarak teknoloji tarafsızlığını ihlal etmek yerine, bu çabalar etrafındaki inovasyonun zaman içinde daha iyi standartlara yol açacağına inanıyoruz.

Sonuç

Sürekli genişleyen küresel dijital pazarda, açık ve makul rekabet standartları tüketiciler, girişimciler ve vatandaşlar için büyük önem taşımaktadır. Tüketici refahı için vatandaşlar, kendilerini rekabetten ve teknolojik yeniliklerin faydalarından mahrum bırakan aldatıcı veya yasadışı uygulamaların olmamasını sağlamak için rekabet düzenleyicilerine güvenebilmelidir.

Diğer düzenleyici piyasalardan öğrendiğimiz üzere, kullanıcılar için daha iyi sonuçlara ve kâr paylarına yol açan temel faktörler, tüketici ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için değişmesi ve uyum sağlaması gereken son derece rekabetçi, dinamik ve sağlam piyasalardır.

Mevcut durumda Rekabet Kurumu’nun 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’da yapılmasını önerdiği değişiklikler, Türk tüketicilerine geniş ölçekte ulaşmak isteyen tüm firmalara ciddi düzenleyici yükler ve cezai yaptırımlar getirecektir.

Bu değişiklikler, kuralların geniş bir şekilde yorumlanmasına olanak tanıyarak Türkiye’de iş ortamının zayıflamasına yol açabilir ve yenilikçi hizmetlere gereksinim duyan tüketicileri ve kullanıcıları etkileyebilir. Türkiye, dijital hizmet sağlayıcılara acil kısıtlamalar getirmek yerine, teknoloji sektöründeki yenilikçi rekabeti kucaklamalı ve girişimcileri en iyi mal ve hizmetleri sunmaya teşvik etmelidir.

Consumer Choice Center olarak inanıyoruz ki geçit bekçileri sınıflandırılma uygulaması, birleşme ve devralmaların durdurulmasına yönelik caydırıcı bir etki ile birleştiğinde, yenilikçi teknolojilerin meyvelerinden faydalanması gereken Türk tüketiciler için zararlı olacaktır.

Saygılarımızla arz ederiz.

Yaël Ossowski Eglė Markevičiūtė Nazlıcan Kanmaz

Genel Müdür Yardımcısı Dijital Politikalar Bölüm Başkanı Dijital İçerik Sorumlusu

Our full submission to Rekabet Kurumu

DOJ’s Apple “monopoly” lawsuit is an attack on consumer preference

March 21, 2024
By Stephen Kent
In Antitrust, Press Release, Tech Regulation, Technology, Uncategorized
0 comments

Washington, D.C. – Today the DOJ unveiled its long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that Apple maintains an “illegal monopoly” over the smartphone industry.

“This is a very extreme position being taken by Merrick Garland’s DOJ,“ said Stephen Kent, media director of the Consumer Choice Center, “The lawsuit claims that Apple throttles the use of third-party messaging apps despite ample evidence that millions of tech consumers have a wide range of choice for powerful messaging apps that rival the experience of iMessage.”

** Read Stephen Kent in The Hill on DOJ’s weak case against Apple **

The lawsuit also asserts that Apple limits the connectivity of certain competitor devices such as smartwatches, favoring Apple devices in their own ecosystem of technology.

Kent continued, “DOJ is arguing that consumers are wrong to like Apple products and how they sync so nicely with one another. Apple is a fully integrated system of tech and lifestyle brand. For the government to say Apple must build technology to accommodate its competitors at the expense of their user experience, is a huge stretch for antitrust law. This reminds me of the FTC’s witch hunt against Microsoft & Activision/Blizzard, where the US government appeared to be working on behalf of Sony to stop a pro-consumer merger. Apple’s competitors should make products more consumers enjoy the way consumers enjoy Apple.”

The Consumer Choice Center stands for consumers’ right to choose between products in a fair, competitive, and open market. It is unclear how the government’s case against Apple would unleash competition and innovation in the smartphone sector.

** Read Yael Ossowski in The Hill on Apple’s “green bubble” text controversy **

“If anything,” Stephen Kent concluded, “This case will simply lower the bar for smartphone tech and user experience in the US, rather than improving consumer access to technology. Let Apple be Apple.”

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Biden’s FTC is declaring war on consumer preferences in their latest Amazon antitrust lawsuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | September 26, 2023

The FTC’s latest Amazon antitrust case seeks to end your consumer preferences

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This morning, the Federal Trade Commission launched another antitrust lawsuit against the tech firm Amazon, claiming that unique offerings to Amazon Prime subscribers, including faster logistics, bundled services, and low prices, are somehow harmful to consumers and should result in the company being broken up.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center reacted to the lawsuit:

“Consumers know they’re getting a myriad of benefits with their Prime subscription, whether that’s faster delivery, cheaper prices, or bundled services like data storage and content streaming. That’s what consumers want, and why millions buy from Amazon everyday.

“I think many Americans would be appalled if they learned what Biden’s FTC is proposing with these lawsuits: that Amazon Prime, as it stands, should cease to exist.

“That the FTC would waste their resources going after an innovative company that consistently offers value for consumers reveals more about the agency’s political grudge than any perceived harm to consumers. Consumers have overwhelmingly had their welfare increased because of Amazon’s products and services. Government efforts to break that up are harmful to consumers.

“Behind the U.S. military, Amazon is the most favorable institution in the country, mainly because millions of consumers have had experience with Amazon’s platform, have been employed by the company, or have used their services in any way,” said Ossowski.

“It is well known FTC Chair Lina Khan has spent her career trying to build an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, as is revealed in her 2017 article on “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, but those efforts fall flat with consumers who benefit and appreciate their services.”

“As we mentioned in our USA Today oped on this topic, consumers have voted with their wallets when it comes to Amazon’s services, including Amazon Prime. That an agency of the federal government would spend valuable time and resources trying to punish a company for offering too many affordable products and services in a unique way only seems laughable,” added Ossowski.

Contact

Stephen Kent, Media Director

Stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

***Please send media inquiries to yael@consumerchoicecenter.org.***

Why Consumers Should Oppose the Latest Senate Antitrust Actions

January 20, 2022
By Yaël Ossowski
In Antitrust, Blog, Tech Regulation, Technology
1 comment

By Yaël Ossowski

The U.S. Senate is considering two antitrust bills by Sen. Amy Klobuchar that would significantly harm both consumer choice and innovation.

Unfortunately, these bills have been co-sponsored by members of both political parties, creating what looks like a bipartisan consensus in the Senate chamber, but not one favored by the vast majority of American consumers.

Both the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and Platform Competition and Opportunity Act appear to be general antitrust regulations but are in fact targeted attacks on consumers who benefit from the services of a handful of tech companies.

While there are plenty of reasons to criticize certain tech companies and their business or moderation decisions, inviting the government to control, direct, or otherwise halt innovative goods and services from specific tech companies would create more problems for consumers than it would solve.

Don’t You Dare Sell Your Own Products

The first bill would aim to outlaw “discriminatory conduct” by the platforms targeted, mostly concerning their own products and applications. Think of the vast array of Amazon Basics products, Google’s services other than search, or even Facebook offering Messenger.

These goods and services are offered by companies because the firms have built up specialized knowledge and consumer demand exists for them. Even though these firms sell products and offer services from third parties, they also sell their own, similar to Walmart’s “Good Value” brand or even “George” clothing line.

When it comes to tech offerings, as noted by Adam Kovacevich of the Chamber of Progress, this would basically halt Amazon Prime, it would block Apple from pre-loading iMessage and Facetime, and require Apple and other phone makers to allow third-party apps to be “sideloaded” outside the traditional app store. Not only would this be inconvenient for consumers who like and use these products, but it would also make it harder to innovate, thus depriving consumers of better goods and services that could come down the line.

The revised bill still does all of the things it's done all along:
Block Amazon from offering Prime or Basics
Block Apple from preinstalling iMessage or Facetime
Require that Apple and Android devices allow apps to be sideloadedhttps://t.co/bYXuz22q2v
— Adam Kovacevich (@adamkovac) January 19, 2022

Don’t You Dare Acquire Other Companies

The second bill more radically alters existing antitrust law by basically baring large-capitalization tech firms from acquiring or even investing in other firms. Again, this

The rise of Silicon Valley has been an unadulterated success for American consumers, owing to the entrepreneurship of startups, companies and investors who see value in them, and the unique pollination of both talent and capital that has made American technology a dominant global player.

This bill purports to ensure consumers are protected from the “evils” of Big Tech, but in reality, it would put American entrepreneurs at a significant disadvantage globally, inviting companies from illiberal countries to offer products to consumers and reducing the options and choices for anyone who enjoys technology products.

Why Consumers Should Oppose

Rather than protect the consumer, these bills would have serious impacts on the overall consumer experience and consumer choice:

They would restrict the innovative growth of US platforms while giving tech firms abroad an advantage

They would degrade the consumer experience by reducing the options and services firms could offer

They would empower the federal government to pick the winners and losers of technological innovation rather than consumers

They would limit the potential for small businesses to use these platforms to provide goods and services to their customers

They would increase the cost of regulatory compliance with federal mandates, which would raise prices for consumers

The American people benefit from a competitive and free market for all goods, services, and networks we use online. Weaponizing our federal agencies to break up companies, especially when there is no demonstrated case of consumer harm, will chill innovation and stall our competitive edge as a country.

If Congress wants to update antitrust for the 21st century they should:

Establish more clear penalties for breaches of data or consumer privacy and empower the Federal Trade Commission to act where necessary

Punish companies that violate existing antitrust provisions that harm consumers

Better define the scope of the consumer welfare standard in a digital age

The internet is the ultimate playground for consumer choice. Government attempts to intervene and regulate based on political considerations will only restrict consumer choice and deprive us of what we’ve thus far enjoyed.

The overwhelming majority of users are happy with online marketplaces and with their profiles on social platforms. They’re able to connect with friends and family around the world, and share images and posts that spark conversations. Millions of small businesses, artists, and even news websites are dependent on these platforms to make their living.

Using the force of government to break apart businesses because of particular stances or actions they’ve taken, all legal under current law, is highly vindictive and will restrict the ability of ordinary people to enjoy the platforms for which we voluntarily signed up.

We should hold these platforms accountable when they make mistakes, but not invite the federal government to determine which sites or platforms we can click on. The government’s role is not to pick winners and losers. It’s to ensure our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as the Declaration of Independence states.

The Consumer Choice Center stands opposed to antitrust actions on innovative tech firms

Today, the Consumer Choice Center sent a letter to the members of the House Judiciary Committee to explain our opposition to a series of bills soon to be introduced on the House floors related to antitrust actions.

The full letter is below, and available in PDF form to share.

READ THE LETTER IN PDF FORM

Dear Member of the House Judiciary Committee,

As a consumer group, we write to you to raise your attention about a series of bills that will soon be introduced on the floor of the House and make their way to the House Judiciary Committee.

These bills, soon to be introduced by Democrats and co-sponsored by some Republicans, relate to antitrust actions to be taken against tech firms based in the United States.

These include the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, End Platform Monopolies Act, Platform Anti-Monopoly Act, Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, and Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching Act.

In our view, these bills are not about concern for the consumer, the consumer welfare standard as traditionally understood in antitrust law, or even because companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft are “too big.”

Rather, these actions are a zealous takedown of American innovators that will harm consumers and punish innovation. This is a dangerous precedent.

Many of the tech companies in the crosshairs offer free or inexpensive services to consumers in a competitive marketplace that boasts hundreds of social apps for messaging, photo sharing, social networking, and online marketplaces that offer quick delivery, stellar service, and unbeatable prices.

As consumers of these services, we understand that there are often decisions made by these companies that raise concerns. For political conservatives, the issue hinges on whether there is bias in the moderation of accounts, comments, and products. For liberals, it is about whether these companies are too powerful or too big to be reined in by government, and questions about how they pay their taxes or whether various tech companies played a part in getting Donald Trump elected in 2016.

These are all valid concerns, and we have been active in calling them out where necessary.

However, using the power of the federal government to break up innovative American companies subject to domestic law, especially in the face of mounting competition from countries that are not liberal democracies, such as China, is wrong and will lead to even more unintended consequences.

If there are breaches of data or if consumer privacy is compromised, the Federal Trade Commission should absolutely issue fines and other penalties. We agree with this. If there are egregious violations of law, they should be dealt with immediately and appropriately.

Let us be clear: The internet is the ultimate playground for consumer choice. Government attempts to intervene and regulate based on political considerations will only restrict consumer choice and deprive us of what we’ve thus far enjoyed.

Using the force of government to break apart businesses because of particular stances or actions they’ve taken, all legal under current law, is highly vindictive and will restrict the ability for ordinary people like myself or millions of other consumers to enjoy the platforms for which we voluntarily signed up.

As such, when these bills come before you as legislators, we urge you, as a consumer advocacy group speaking for millions of people just like you around the country, to reject them.

Sincerely Yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

yael@consumerchoicecenter.org

Consumer Choice Center Signs Joint Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee on Antitrust Hearings

September 15, 2020
The full letter can be downloaded here

The Honorable Michael S. Lee
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights

Dear Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Klobuchar,

We, the undersigned, write today to provide you with a statement for inclusion in the record of the Subcommittee’s September 15th hearing, “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?”^[1] We are a group of legal experts, economists, and consumer and taxpayer advocates who believe in the importance of promoting competitive markets and defending the rule of law.

We believe that weaponizing antitrust for broader socio-economic purposes would fundamentally alter the primary goal of antitrust and seek to address the increasing calls to move away from the consumer welfare standard^[2] and to use antitrust as a tool for unrelated concerns.^[3] While signatories herein may prefer various approaches for addressing non-competition concerns about issues such as privacy, online content, liability, and myriad other popular topics associated with technology firms, we uniformly agree that any congressional assessment of issues related to digital markets must be characterized by rigorous economic analysis, productive in promoting competition and consumer welfare, and based on predictable and enforceable standards.

As discussions about antitrust law enter mainstream discourse, we thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide a statement for inclusion in the record, and for providing an appropriate forum specifically dedicated to the discussion of antitrust concerns.

PUTTING RECENT PROPOSALS INTO PERSPECTIVE

Before addressing the specific topic of today’s hearing, we find it critical to make note of the economic consequences of many of the recent proposals to revise antitrust law, which seriously risk making the American economy and consumers substantially worse off across a wide array of industries. Many discussions around antitrust have centered on large, successful American technology companies, and the House Judiciary Committee has launched an investigation and we expect to see certain proposals come out of that investigation. However, the implications of today’s antitrust debate extend far beyond just “Big Tech.”

These proposals — which are likely to materialize within the days or weeks following today’s hearing —include aggressive merger prohibitions, inverting the burden of proof, allowing collusion and antitrust exemptions for politically favored firms, and politicizing antitrust enforcement decision-making more generally. Additionally, arbitrary or overly broad antitrust enforcement would hamper economic recovery and risks job losses as the nation recovers from the economic slow-down, evolving market dynamics, and changing consumer needs resulting from the global pandemic.

I. The Current State of the Antitrust Debate

We fear that both sides of the aisle are pushing for the weaponization of antitrust, either as a tool to punish corporate actors with whom they disagree or out of a presupposition that big is bad. Unfortunately, the antitrust debate has begun to devolve into a litany of unrelated and often contradictory concerns, unsubstantiated and dismissive attacks, and seemingly a presumption that any market-related complaint that can be made on the internet can also be cured by the panacea of antitrust. This highly charged atmosphere has led to radical proposals that run contrary to economic evidence and endanger significant advances made in antitrust scholarship.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary — and specifically this Subcommittee — has an important role to play. While there are many issues plaguing our society today, we believe that this Committee is equipped to examine antitrust soberly and without misdirection from legitimate anger over other issues which antitrust is not designed to address.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY

II. The Law: New Technology, Same Principles

a. The consumer welfare standard has greatly benefited antitrust and is underrecognized as a significant narrowing of federal government power in the last half century and a major victory for the movement to preserve the rule of law.

It is important to consider what is at stake. Using antitrust to achieve policy or political goals would upend more than a century of legal and economic learning and progress. The need to bring coherency to antitrust law through a neutral underlying principle that cannot be weaponized is what led to the adoption of the modern consumer welfare standard. It is broad enough to incorporate a wide variety of evidence and shifting economic circumstances but also clear and objective enough to prevent being subjected to the beliefs of courts and enforcers.^[4]

Therefore, we would like to stress the need to distinguish between the proper and improper uses of antitrust in approaching discussions of market power, and are concerned that today’s hearing could lead to the use of antitrust to address concerns surrounding online content moderation, data privacy, equality, or other socio-political issues that are unrelated to the competitive process. Weaponizing antitrust for broader socioeconomic purposes would fundamentally alter the primary goal of antitrust, undermine the rule of law, and negatively impact consumers.

I. The Role of Presumptions

b. Approaches to antitrust enforcement based on presumptions of anticompetitive harm drastically upend core tenants of our legal system by inverting the burden of proof and diminishing the role of the federal judiciary.

Returning to the highly interventionist pre-1970s antitrust jurisprudence through burden shifting provisions that would require a company to prove it is not a monopoly would create greater incentives for the government and private plaintiffs to file suit. More importantly, however, these reforms are not needed because current antitrust law has adequate power to intervene and claims of lax antitrust enforcement are demonstrably false. The FTC and the DOJ have only lost a handful of cases in the last decade, and private litigants continue to bring monopolization claims. Outside of the courtroom, multitudes of mergers and anticompetitive actions are prevented out of fear of government action.

II. The Market: Questions of Concentration and Definitions

c. Digital platform markets are not traditional linear markets. They are two-sided markets and competition typically turns on non-price factors.

One of the most important questions to address in this discussion is that of market definition. Importantly, digital advertising is not a traditional, linear market. It is a two-sided market in which advertisers try to influence the online behavior of consumers through an intermediary.^[5] Traditionally, market definition is framed around a static product with a distinct type of customer. With advances in technology, this build-and-freeze model breaks down as advertising platforms evolve.

However, as Ronald Coase pointed out: [I]f an economist finds something – a business practice of one sort or other – that he does not understand, he looks for a monopoly explanation. And as in this field we are rather ignorant, the number of ununderstandable practices tends to be rather large, and the reliance on monopoly explanations frequent.^[6] Indeed, when it comes to the innovative business model that has engulfed digital advertising, regulators are struggling to apply the correct regulatory framework.

d. The relationship between concentration and competition in the market is tenuous, and structural changes in the economy have resulted from increased competition.

A positive correlation between high market concentration and profitability does not indicate monopolistic practices, and the underlying drive for commercial success can simultaneously enhance pro-consumer efficiencies.^[7] In other words, concentration alone does not indicate lack of competition, as firms capture a larger slice of the market through higher productivity and innovation.^[8] Some critics argue that systematic anticompetitive conduct is inherent in the digital advertising model, or that the rapid growth or dominance of these platforms allow them to exist entirely insulated from competitive market forces.

As then-Judge Clarence Thomas wrote in U.S. v. Baker Hughes, “[e]vidence of market concentration simply provides a convenient starting point for a broader inquiry into future competitiveness.”^[9]It is a step in the right direction to for today’s hearing to analyze the exercise of market power, but it is critical to determine whether the power of the market is being used to benefit or harm not the competitor, but instead the consumer. That is the relevant inquiry.

CONCLUSION

As Robert Bork pointed out, “[a]dvertising and promotion are particular obsessions of antitrust zealots.”^[10]

We encourage the Committee to continue in this effort and to reclaim this debate from the politicized approach that seeks to transform our antitrust laws and refocus the conversation on enforcement, market analysis, and the core purpose of antitrust.

We thank you for your oversight of this important issue and ask that this letter be included on the Committee or Subcommittee’s website and repository. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions or requests for additional input from signatories. We welcome the opportunity to further discuss these views and relevant proposals or congressional assessment with the Committee.

Sincerely,

^[1] See Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. Hearing Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, 116^th Cong, (July 29, 2020), available at: https://judiciary.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=3113

^[2] See Robert H. Bork, “The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy At War With Itself” (1978).

^[3] See, e.g. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Originalism and Economic Analysis: Two Case Studies of Consistency and Coherence in Supreme Court Decision Making, 33 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. (217–18) (2010) (discusses political goals read into the Sherman Act by the Supreme Court).

^[4] Shifting away from the consumer welfare standard would catapult antitrust law back to the era of the 1960s when, in Justice Potter Stewart’s words, “[t]he sole consistency that I can find is that, in litigation under [the antitrust laws], the Government always wins.” United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U.S. 270, 301 (1966) (Stewart, J., dissenting).

^[5] See, e.g. Ashley Baker, Comments Submitted to the DOJ Antitrust Division Regarding Competition in Television and Digital Advertising. (June 2019), available at: http://bit.ly/2PwehnJ.

^[6] Coase, R.H. “Industrial Organization: A Proposal for Research. Policy Issues and Research Opportunities in Industrial Organization.” (p. 67). (Victor R. Fuchs ed.) (1972).

^[7] Harold Demsetz, Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy, 16 Journal of Law & Economics

(April 1973), 1-8.

^[8] See David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen. “Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share.” American Economic Review, 107 (5): 180-85 (2017).

^[9] See U.S. v. Baker Hughes

^[10] See Robert H. Bork, “The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy At War With Itself” (p. 314) (1978).
Organizations listed for identification purposes only.

Sincerely,
Ashley Baker
Director of Public Policy
The Committee for Justice

Robert H. Bork, Jr.
President
The Bork Foundation

Wayne Brough
President
Innovation Defense Foundation

James Czerniawski
Tech and Innovation Policy Analyst
Libertas Institute

Richard A. Epstein
The Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law,
New York University School of Law
The Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior
Fellow, The Hoover Institution
The James Parker Hall Distinguished
Service Professor of Law Emeritus and
Senior Lecturer, The University of Chicago

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director
Digital Liberty

Doug McCullough
Director
Lone Star Policy Institute

Grover G. Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Curt Levey
President
The Committee for Justice

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center

Eric Peterson
Director of Policy
Pelican Institute

Thomas A. Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste

Timothy Sandefur
Vice President for Litigation
Goldwater Institute

Pete Sepp
President
National Taxpayers Union

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Josh Withrow
Senior Policy Analyst
FreedomWorks

In Kamala Harris, do consumers have an ally or a foe?

This week, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden revealed Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his running mate for the November general election against President Donald Trump.

Let's get to work, @KamalaHarris. pic.twitter.com/EjtUpgaieI
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 12, 2020

Because Harris’ influence on the Biden campaign will loom large, and be important to whomever American voters choose in the fall, it’s worth looking at some of her ideas and policies and how they would have an impact on consumers.

Let’s take a dip, shall we?

HEALTHCARE

On her original presidential campaign website and throughout the Democratic primary debates, Harris was adamant about banning private healthcare insurance in favor of a Medicare For All plan. She later backed out once she was questioned by party activists.

With that in mind, considering Biden was nominated to be his party’s candidate on a platform of not seeking Medicare For All, a plan to expand the government health insurance program to seniors to the entire population, it seems there may be healthy disagreement on this point.

As I’ve written in a few outlets, the idea of a Medicare For All health insurance system would rob consumers of competition and choice, and likely lead to less quality of healthcare than we actually receive. It would mean that healthcare decisions would be placed in a complex hierarchy of bureaucratic agencies immune from market forces. That would inevitably lead to higher costs overall – no matter who foots the bill.

Harris being on the ticket doesn’t mean M4All is now on the docket for the Democratic Party, but it does mean that ideas about the government reorganizing health insurance will certainly be a part of a potential Biden Administration in the future. That’ll be something to keep an eye on.

TECH

As we covered during the debates in 2019, Sen. Harris petitioned Twitter to remove President Donald Trump from its service. Those calls weren’t central to her rhetoric on tech regulations, but they at least revealed her mindset regarding content on social media platforms, and who should be allowed to have an account. In some speeches, she’s come out as more hawkish on online censorship, which should good everyone worry.

Unlike some of her past primary opponents, she was rather soft on the question of antitrust and whether the tech giants in Silicon Valley should be broken up, which is a relief for consumers.

Most of the animus against tech companies has very little to do with concern for consumers, and much more to do with the new generation of gatekeepers using technology and innovation to provide better services. Most consumers prefer these new innovations and want them to thrive, not be broken up.

For some observers, her political career in California and proximity to tech firms mean she’ll be an asset rather than a liability on future tech regulation. The outlet Marketwatch dubbed her a “friend, not a foe, of Big Tech” and the Wall Street Journal similarly gave her praise, though with some caution.

VAPING

What isn’t a surprise to listeners of Consumer Choice Radio is that Sen. Harris is no friend of vaping and harm-reducing innovations.

She penned a letter last year accusing the FDA of being soft on vaping and for not banning all vaping products outright. That would have been disastrous for the former smokers who rely on these products.

She took it a step further by linking legal nicotine vaping products to the bootleg THC vaping devices that caused lung injuries throughout 2019, which we’ve debunked in our own work at the Consumer Choice Center.

If Harris’ worldview remains the same, vapers won’t have a friend in the potential future VP.

CANNABIS

And lastly, we come to cannabis, a favorite topic of those who dub Harris “The Cop Who Wants to be (Vice) President,” like Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason.

During Harris’ time as a prosecutor in California, her reputation as an anti-cannabis voice was well-known.

But as our friends at Marijuana Moment mention, she’s changed her mind over the years, from being a staunch opponent to advocate:

Though she coauthored an official voter guide argument opposing a California cannabis legalization measure as a prosecutor in 2010 and laughed in the face of a reporter who asked her about the issue in 2014, she went on to sponsor legislation to federally deschedule marijuana in 2019.
Where Vice Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris Stands On Marijuana

Since dropping her campaign to be president, she’s become more vocal, making the argument for legalizing cannabis at the federal level, though she’s

I applaud Illinois’ leadership on this issue. Expunging non-violent marijuana-related offenses is the right thing to do.

Now let’s legalize marijuana at the federal level.https://t.co/7M4of9Aikg
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 4, 2020

Overall, there’s a lot to digest on a potential Kamala Harris Vice Presidency. On behalf of consumers, let’s hope there’s more good than bad.

Antitrust tech hearings dig for consumer harm but come up short

Armed with face masks and fresh customer complaints, members of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law convened both virtually and in-person on Thursday, for the first of many hearings on competition in the tech sector.

It was a six-hour marathon of gobbledygook legal turns of phrase and static-prone troubleshooting for lawmakers.

The witnesses were CEOs from some of the four largest companies in America: Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Tim Cook of Apple, and Sundar Pichai of Google.

Together, these companies serve billions of global consumers for a variety of needs, and have become very rich by doing so. They employ millions of people, make up big portions of the American economy, and have been the trailblazers for innovation in virtually every free nation.

It is also true that they’ve made many mistakes, errors in judgment, and have made it easy to be bashed by all sides.

Despite that, these companies are true American success stories. And that’s not even considering the industrious biographies of their CEOs on the witness stand: an immigrant from India; the son of a teenage mother and immigrant stepfather; a college dropout; and a gay southern man shunned by the Ivy League. Each of them is a self-made millionaire or billionaire in their own right.

But in the context of this hearing, they were America’s villains.

The potshots in the hearing came from both Democrat and Republican congressmen, each using their bully pulpits to reel out various accusations and grievances on the representatives from Big Tech. But lost in all of this was the consumer.

The scene was analogous to George Orwell’s Two Minute Hate on repeat, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein replaced by a WebEx video call on full screen with smiling CEOs surrounded by the furniture in their home offices.

For Democrats, these companies have grown far too large using unscrupulous business practices, beating competitors with lower prices, better service, speed, and slick branding – allowing them to purchase or bully their competition.

For Republicans, it’s all about the bias against conservatives online, facilitated by the thorny content moderation that selectively edits which social media posts are allowed to stand.

What’s missing from this story so far? American consumers.

The justification of the hearing was to determine whether these companies have abused the trust of the public and whether consumers have been harmed as a result of their actions.

But more often than not, questions from committee members hinged on the and “business acumen” of decisions taken within the company, classifying rudimentary strategy decisions as illegal and hostile moves.

Platforms Opening to Third-Party Sellers

An example is Rep. Pramila Jayapal, of Washington State. She represents the district where Amazon was founded by Jeff Bezos. She condemned Amazon for collecting data on third-party sellers who are able to use Amazon’s website to sell products.

“You have access to data that your competitors do not have. So you might allow third-party sellers onto your platform, but if you’re continuously monitoring the data to make sure that they’re never going to get big enough to compete with you, that is the concern that the committee actually has,” said Jayapal.

Here, we’re talking about Amazon’s online platform, which sells millions of goods. Two decades ago, Amazon opened up its platform to merchants for a small fee. It was a win for sellers, who could now have easier access to customers, and it was a win for customers who now can buy more products on Amazon, regardless of who the seller was.

When Amazon sees that certain product categories are very popular, they will sometimes make their own, knowing they have the infrastructure to deliver products at high satisfaction. This brand is called Amazon Basics, encompassing everything from audio cables to coolers and batteries.

Rep. Jayapal says that by collecting data on those merchants in their store, Amazon is effectively stealing information…that sellers voluntarily give in exchange for using Amazon’s storefront.

However, the end result of the competition between Amazon’s third-party sellers and Amazon’s own products (on Amazon’s platform) is something that is better for the consumer: there is more competition, more choice, and more high-quality options to choose from. This elevates the experience for a consumer and helps save them money. This is far from harm.

The same can be said of Apple and its App Store, which came under fire from the chairman of the committee, Rep. David Cicilline. He said Apple was charging developers who use the App Store “exorbitant rents” that veered toward “highway robbery”.

Apple CEO Tim Cook was quick to retort by pointing out that the App Store is a platform for its own apps, but it also allows third-party developers to use that store for a fee. This is an entirely new market space that never existed before Apple opened it, and thus is a net gain for any developer who uses the store, and benefits consumers who click and download even more.

Business As Usual

Throughout the hearing, public officials pointed to internal documents as proof of the malfeasance of the tech firms. The documents were unearthed by the committee and contained emails and memos on mergers, acquisitions, and business practices from all four tech firms.

The Financial Times classified these documents as evidence that the companies “chased dominance and sought to protect it.”

Rep. Jared Nadler of New York chased down Mark Zuckerberg for his decision to purchase the photo-app Instagram back in 2012, calling the move “outright illegal” because he believed Facebook bought it to “essentially put them out of business.”

Today, Instagram is an incredibly popular app that has grown to half a billion users, thanks to Facebook’s investments, talent, and integration. It’s made consumers very happy, and has become an attractive product for advertisers as well. Again, no harm for the consumer.

Pro-Consumer, not Pro or Anti-business

One of the most astute lines from the hearing came from the sole representative from North Dakota.

“Usually in our quest to regulate big companies, we end up hurting small companies more,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong. Indeed.

And add to that the eventual scenario whereby only the highly connected and vastly wealthy tech companies will be able to comply with stringent regulation from Washington. That’s not what consumers want, and it’s not what Americans want either.

If Congress aims to use antitrust power to break up or heavily regulate the enterprises built by Google, Amazon, Facebook, or Apple, it won’t be done lightly. It would likely leave a lot of damage in its wake for small and medium-sized businesses, many of whom rely on these major firms to conduct their business. In turn, consumers rely on those companies for products and services.

Each of these companies represent a case study in innovation, entrepreneurship, and giving the people what they want to create a huge network of consumers. There’s a lot to learn there.

Instead of using the law to break up companies, what if we learned from their success to empower more consumers?