First House antitrust hearing of the new Congress saw bipartisan agreement on antitrust reforms, including on reforming burden of proof in merger cases
This hearing is the opening move of the new Congress picking up where the last one left off. The July 2020 session with tech CEOs — messy, but the start of evidence-based scrutiny of Big Tech, as recapped at the time here — produced the House antitrust report, and by October both parties had already mapped their overlap, including more FTC funding in that breakdown.
What changed now is that bipartisanship moved from diagnosis to remedy: agreeing on shifting the burden of proof in merger cases is the most structural item on the table, because it reverses who has to show harm. That sets up the package Judiciary would go on to advance months later when the committee approved five antitrust bills.
First-order effects
Big Tech's acquisition playbook comes under direct pressure: if merging parties must prove a deal is lawful rather than regulators proving harm, the 'copy-acquire-kill' strategy lawmakers flagged as a line of inquiry back in 2020 gets much harder to execute.
Second-order effects
Startups whose dominant exit path is selling to an incumbent platform face a narrower market for acquisitions, while the FTC and DOJ gain leverage — and a stronger case for the increased funding both parties already endorsed.
Third-order effects
If burden-of-proof reform survives into law alongside the bills the committee advanced what one commentator called a revolution in American thinking on monopoly, merger review becomes structurally more aggressive regardless of which party holds the gavel — the rare antitrust change built to outlast any single administration.
The trend: Antitrust is consolidating as durable bipartisan policy in Congress, moving from hearings and reports toward statutory changes that restructure how mergers — especially platform acquisitions — are judged.
Bottom line from today's antitrust hearing: Big tech has changed their strategy. They are now asking for regulation like interoperability because they are scared of breakups. Interoperability without breakups is useless in addressing the power problem. Don't fall for it.
House members have assailed Big Tech again on antitrust issues. “This problem is a cancer that is metastasizing across our economy and our country,” Rep. David Cicilline said. “Mark my words: Change is coming. Laws are coming.” https://www.marketwatch.com/ ...
Big Tech was in a familiar yet uncomfortable role Thursday: Another tongue-lashing from Congressional members alarmed by its outsize market power. “Mark my words: Change is coming. Laws are coming.” https://www.marketwatch.com/ ...
Also, Public Knowledge takes funding from Google, Amazon, Apple, AT&T and News Corp, among others. The fact they push interoperability and NOT breakups is a serious problem. They should stop all big tech funding sources if they are going to have big tech policy.
@azeem @AsherSchechter @davidcicilline Google pays to exclude competitors because being able to get more share means search engines get the data to improve. Also, there are vertical competitors like Yelp that Google undermines. https://mattstoller.substack.com/ ...
.@davidcicilline during House hearing on what's at stake when it comes to antitrust enforcement and big tech: “It's about whether our economic future will be defined by businesses with the best ideas, or by the biggest companies with the biggest lobbying budgets”
And here's @mh4oh blasting tech platforms: “Currently, there is no greater power that threatens our livelihoods and civil liberties than the Big Tech platforms, namely Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple.”
Public Knowledge's @CharlottesWWWeb is calling for Congress to give regulators power to write interoperability rules for tech platforms; their current gatekeeper power is the “root of the problem,” she says.