After debate, House committee approves five major antitrust bills, including regulations on user data portability and acquisitions of competitors

Tech companies to take the battle over the proposed new regulations and oversight to the House floor and Senate

Wall Street Journal 2021-06-24 John D. McKinnon

Context & Ripple Effects

The committee vote advances a legislative push that began with the House’s sweeping Big Tech antitrust investigation and crystallized when lawmakers introduced five bipartisan proposals targeting anticompetitive platform practices. Related coverage also described the package as uneven in scope and, at points, internally conflicting, making committee approval a meaningful step toward a floor fight.

The measures pair conduct oversight with rules on moving user data and buying competitors. The next day’s approval of the Ending Platform Monopolies Act adds a further structural proposal to the House agenda.

First-order effects

House members have moved five bills toward floor consideration, while technology companies must shift their opposition from committee debate to House and Senate lobbying.
The proposed portability and acquisition rules directly put platform control over user data and competitor purchases under prospective congressional oversight.

Second-order effects

Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook face a more connected set of legislative challenges than a single antitrust measure, forcing their policy responses to address both platform conduct and dealmaking.
The House’s advancing package increases pressure on the Senate to define its own path on technology competition policy rather than treating antitrust oversight as an investigation-only issue.

Third-order effects

If the bills retain momentum, federal platform regulation would increasingly target the interfaces and acquisition strategies that reinforce incumbent power, not only individual cases of alleged misconduct.
The package signals a shift from the House’s investigatory posture toward prescriptive competition rules, though the bills’ differing approaches make the eventual framework uncertain.

The trend: US technology antitrust policy is moving from congressional investigation toward rules that constrain how dominant platforms retain users, data, and potential rivals.

Discussion

@quinnypig Corey Quinn on x
Expect Facebook to challenge on the grounds that it's really their data. https://twitter.com/...
@johnbattelle John Battelle on x
Anyway this plays, it's history. https://www.wsj.com/...
@jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
3 hours in, we have a vote on bill to raise merger fees for big corporations to increase funding for enforcement agencies! it passes 29-12. seems like ~12 Rs will likely vote no on all of these #BigTechBills.
@drvolts David Roberts on x
The GOP is torn between its instinctive obeisance to big corporate money & the paranoid fantasy among its base that Big Tech is censoring it & is thus an Enemy. (You will scan the article in vain for any discussion of policy merits.) https://www.politico.com/...
@marshallk Marshall Kirkpatrick on x
Wow, Congress looks to mandate data portability and communication interoperability between big social networks, more than a decade after many early social web builders pushed for it https://www.techmeme.com/... History from @EliasBiz et al in 2010 https://techcrunch.com/...
@repkenbuck Rep. Ken Buck on x
My colleague @mattgaetz is right. Big Tech would not be spending millions of dollars lobbying against these bills if they help them.
@jesselehrich Jesse Lehrich on x
.@RepJayapal has entered the chat: “[Facebook is no longer] simply trying to help people connect with friends & family. It has morphed into a monopoly power that harvests & monetizes our data for its own profit, for the purposes of spying on & destroying its rivals.” 🔥 https://tw…
@jim_jordan Rep. Jim Jordan on x
Big Tech's bad. Big Media's bad. Big Government's bad. Don't give them more power. Break them up.
@wsj @wsj on x
Big tech firms lost the first round in Washington after a House committee approved far-reaching legislation to curb their market dominance https://www.wsj.com/...
@mattgaetz Matt Gaetz on x
Some Republicans we know & love will try to tell you our bipartisan anti-Tech bills help Big Tech. Big Tech opposes our bills. That's all you need to know. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@ddayen David Dayen on x
“Lofgren, a powerful member of the committee, is concerned that the [Big Tech] bills “go way, way farther than is necessary to get to the actual issues.'” She was almost chair, in which case there would be no markup. https://www.politico.com/...
@kellymakena Makena Kelly on x
Cicilline responding to GOP criticism of HR 3843: “The ranking member [Jordan] has called for Facebook to be broken up. That will be one of the most expensive cases in FTC history, and they will need resources to do it.”
@adamkovac Adam Kovacevich on x
“When given specific examples of how the businesses might have to alter their offerings under the bills, more respondents said they would oppose them.” https://www.cnbc.com/...
@lauren_feiner Lauren Feiner on x
Ahead of today's markup of antitrust bills, a tech industry group commissioned a poll to get a pulse on whether voters really care about tech regulation. While many favor such measures, they tend to rank them as a low priority for Congress https://www.cnbc.com/...
@progresschamber @progresschamber on x
NEW: @MorningConsult survey results: Voters favor tech regulation, but oppose Cicilline proposals to ban tech conveniences (considered by @HouseJudiciary today): https://progresschamber.org/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@jmartnyt Jonathan Martin on x
You're telling me that House R leaders may defer to their lobbyist allies who work for big tech and not actually want to crack down ? “Some GOP lawmakers have blamed leadership-aligned lobbyists for working behind the scenes to tank the measures... https://www.politico.com/...
@mzanona Melanie Zanona on x
Critics of the antitrust measures say GOP Rep. Ken Buck failed to keep Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, in the loop on the negotiations w/ Dems. They also say the legislation does little to address their chief concern: conservative bias.
@jmartnyt Jonathan Martin on x
This is even better: “We've got a beef with all Big Tech in the sense of the censorship they have of conservatives now,” Jordan told Fox Business on Tuesday. Jordan added, however, that the antitrust bills coming to a vote are sponsored by “four impeachment managers”
@davidjcano David J. Cano on x
@marcoarment It really amazes me that Apple has not done this. They're attracting so much regulatory pressure that will have consequences much worse than losing IAP money. Apple should take whatever loss they need to, and be done with this situation.
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Developers, beware of foxes! They wear masks with dollar signs and take 30% of your revenue. https://twitter.com/...
@_inside Guilherme Rambo on x
Side loading wouldn't mean that the sandbox just suddenly goes away. The stuff described here could very well be done by an app in the App Store today with an exploit, we know how good they are at finding scams... https://twitter.com/...
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
Apple could keep all of the rules of the store exactly the same as they are today, except reduce its commission from 15-30% to 10% flat. Apple would still make a ton of money and almost all of the companies complaining would be satisfied and shut up.
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
For one, this quote is already the case today! Apple doesn't allow Delta in the App Store, which ironically forced me to build @altstoreio just to distribute it. If Apple doesn't want users sideloading apps, it is entirely up to them to allow Delta in the App Store 🤷‍♂️ (2/10) ht…
@marcoarment Marco Arment on x
The best thing Apple could do to protect the safety and security of iOS touted so heavily in that sideloading PDF: Lift the most anticompetitive IAP rules. Without them, no government would have enough reason to force larger changes like sideloading or alternative app stores.
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
Wow, can you imagine if there was an app store where approximately 2% of the highest grossing apps scammed people out of millions of dollars? Thank God the App Store protects us from that! Oh wait https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... (5/10) https://twitter.com/...
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
🧵 I read through Apple's anti-sideloading document, and (unsurprisingly) I have some thoughts. It's clear Apple's very concerned w/ antitrust legislation, as this document is effectively just a scare-tactic predicated on some misleading information https://www.apple.com/... (1/10…
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
is this fox meant to represent the bad guys or Apple taking 30% https://www.apple.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
You'd think if Apple actually wanted to avoid regulatory pressure they would reduce their rates across the board, and stop abusing their monopoly position by unjustly interfering in other peoples' business models, but no, they want to have their cake and eat it too 🤷‍♂️ https://t…
@marcoarment Marco Arment on x
Apple's continuing their gross PR strategy of conflating: - IAP restrictions - App Store distribution - app review - iOS's technical security ...to confuse people into thinking they're all equally required parts of the whole iOS app-security package. But they're not.
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
All of the malware scenarios Apple lists in its 16 page report could be done on the App Store *today*. The solution would be to ban the developer's accounts and revoke the app's signatures — which would also work in a world where those apps were sideloaded. No change at all.
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
If notarization is mandatory on iOS, devs still have to upload apps to Apple, to be checked for malware, before they can be distributed. Not like it's open season. Only security benefit going through App Store adds is DRM & a couple mins of App Review, which is *far* from perfect
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
Thanks to sideloading, I can make a living developing my open source apps. If Apple had their way, Delta and @altstoreio wouldn't exist, and I'd have to find another job to pay the bills. I'm not okay with that. Delta is my baby, and I won't stop fighting to distribute it (9/10)
@appfairness @appfairness on x
Our Executive Director wrote an op-ed with @publicknowledge in @Wired to explain how the App Store monopoly hurts real people: https://www.wired.com/...
@appfairness @appfairness on x
.@Apple is lobbying to stop legislation that would rein in its App Store monopoly by claiming it would hurt user security. So what's the truth? Let's take a look with a ... 🧵🧵🧵THREAD: 🧵🧵🧵 :
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Respect to the rebel graphics artist who photoshopped the logo in https://www.apple.com/.... A buoy of truth in a sea of lies! https://twitter.com/...
@samifathi_ Sami Fathi on x
I agree. If you're paying for an iPhone, you're paying for more than just the physical phone you hold. You're paying for the experience, ranging from the services and integration, to the App Store. If you do want to sideload apps, iOS isn't for you. Simple as that. https://twitte…
@thurrott Paul Thurrott on x
“Apple's head of user privacy says sideloading is actually ‘eliminating choice’ and would negate technical and policy defenses” Apple's head of user privacy doesn't understand how words or technology work.
@reckless Nilay Patel on x
“Do we sound like AT&T taking credit for the iPhone” is a really good threshold question for big tech companies doing the exact same kind of lobbying telecom companies have done for years https://t.co/MF4K0i8S0A
@benedictevans Benedict Evans on x
People waste an enormous amount of energy talking about sideloading on iOS when it's not a mainstream consumer behaviour and not a viable route to market and therefore any sensible regulator will focus on Apple's rules in Apple's App Store
@krave Kushal Dave on x
If a government told us total surveillance and censorship was required for our safety, we'd intuitively recognize it as unreasonable, if not outright pretext. Why is it harder to see through when it's a predatorily rent-seeking corporation? https://www.theverge.com/...
@arberesford Alastair Beresford on x
Apple just released a white paper arguing iOS security requires all apps be installed via official App Store. Scant consideration of alternatives, such as Android's Verify Apps, and little visible academic impact: 28 references but no academic citations. https://www.apple.com/...
@slightlylate Alex Russell on x
Apple can't have it both ways. No sideloading *might* be reasonable if the web were as competent as they want to claim it is in court...but they keep that from being true on their OS too. Long past time time for real, meaningful browser choice *as the baseline*.
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
Lastly, there is one other option that can be used to address *all* of these issues: revoking the developer's signing certificate. Should a malicious app be discovered, with the press of a button Apple can instantly block it from running on all iOS devices in the world (7/10)
@appfairness @appfairness on x
As Apple clings to their App Store monopoly against the complaints of developers, consumers, courts, the EU, the UK, Australia, and Congress, don't fall for their false claims. It's time to #OpentheAppStore to fair competition and consumer choice for all. https://appfairness.org/
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
Opening up iOS to allow sideloading does come with risks, and claiming otherwise is a disservice to users trying to make informed decisions. However, I believe Apple is exaggerating these risks, and that they could be largely mitigated with appropriate “guard rails” (8/10)
@rileytestut @rileytestut on x
Call me crazy, but people shouldn't have to build their own App Store just to earn a living. Diverse ideas push platforms forward, but the App Store stifles all creativity that doesn't align with Apple And until sideloading is supported, that's just the way things are 😔 (10/10)
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
(From somebody who literally had to build a [successful] alternate iOS app store — they already exist! — to distribute the apps they make) https://twitter.com/...
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Scammers are already plaguing your @AppStore, Apple. https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@empirestartups Empire Startups on x
The American Innovation and Choice Online Act, could effectively give Apple's customers broader control over which apps to download on their devices. https://www.wsj.com/...
@appfairness @appfairness on x
.@WSJ covers the package of antitrust bills ahead of today's @HouseJudiciary markup. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is an important step as momentum builds to hold platforms accountable for their anticompetitive behavior. Read: https://www.wsj.com/...
@backlon Dieter Bohn on x
I know this Apple illustration is meant to show an interloper stealing subscription revenue on a pirated app, but damn if it's not also an illustration for some thing else. https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
It's the mandatory 15-30% which is what people mean when they say Apple is abusing its monopolistic position. The rest of the stuff is just policy decisions about its own platform that ostensibly do make it safer for its customers.
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
All of the security points about the App Store are basically true but it sidesteps the essential point, why does Apple need to skim revenue out of the thing? They could run the App Store as-is without taking a hefty commission. Ultimately, the money is why people are angry.
@benbajarin Ben Bajarin on x
Agree with this point and it's one of my conclusions from our App Store developer research. Simply moving to 10% would be a small decrease in their commission (few billions which is peanuts to Apple) and may even get Amazon and Netflix, etc, back int the store which is $ upside h…
@marcoarment Marco Arment on x
If alternative IAP was allowed, App Store revenue wouldn't go to $0. The vast majority of apps using IAP today would continue to use it. And big apps that refuse to use it (Netflix, Spotify, etc.) are already not using it! Net change: not much, except regulators disappear.
@marcoarment Marco Arment on x
Bingo. They're playing chicken with the creation of regulations that would be disastrous to their business in order to protect a very small percentage of it. https://twitter.com/...
@erprose Eric Rosenbaum on x
I don't know whether this is 0%, 10% or any % more or less true, but i hope to god when trillion-dollar plus companies say antitrust scrutiny will hurt small businesses, we at least start by having our BS meter set to Highly Skeptical. https://twitter.com/...
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
Apple's trying to pretend that opening up a little means opening everything up completely. It doesn't. They can keep control over dev accounts, signing keys & entitlements. They retain ability to revoke apps & remove them from the platform. The sandbox & security model preserved
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
It certainly shows that no matter the outcome of the Epic case, Apple thinks it's fighting a losing game
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
I'm not saying Apple deserves the money. It's just what is practical on Apple's plate IMO. Maybe relax anti-steering first, allow links to the website etc, and then cut the commission. I think they'd rather do that then allow alternative app stores / side loading / etc.
@lanceulanoff Lance Ulanoff on x
Apple has argued this for years and I don't think they're wrong. Smaller-scale, third-party software stores will not offer the same level of vetting and protection https://www.wsj.com/...
@shiraovide Shira Ovide on x
Look, I know the data stealing cartoon fox is supposed to be bad. But is it wrong that I find the fox adorable? https://www.apple.com/... https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles