How Brad Smith helps Microsoft avoid government scrutiny by being amicable with regulators while directing negative attention at the company's Big Tech rivals
President Brad Smith has taken an amicable role with regulators. Rivals say he also directs negative attention toward them. Tweets: @om , @carnage4life , @carnage4life , @wavesblog , @ryanlawler , @arekfurt , @proferictalley , @wsj , @jasonalb , and @rwang0 Tweets: @om : A lot of people forget that Microsoft had to sign some paperwork regarding its anti-trust problems. And then there was that @Skype acquisition where there was some quid pro quo. In other words, US Govt. has always had Microsoft by the you know what. Everything else is spin! https://twitter.com/... @carnage4life : Microsoft has a trifecta of amazing leadership - Satya on product strategy, Amy Hood on finance, and Brad Smith on lobbying & policy. It's rare to get profiles on the others, so bookmark this. Brad Smith's giving a master class on dealing with regulators. https://www.wsj.com/... @carnage4life : To get the top Republican in the House Antitrust committee to tweet support for the $69B Activision acquisition on the day it was announced is a massive coup. If there was a hall of fame for corporate lobbying, this would be the star attraction. https://twitter.com/... @wavesblog : “Mr. Smith created a new group, called the Office of Strategic Relations, made up of lawyers and lobbyists, to push antitrust cases against Google in the U.S. and Europe. It backed anti-Google groups and gave financial assistance and expertise to companies challenging Google” https://twitter.com/... Ryan Lawler / @ryanlawler : This headline could have been ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ and they just blew it https://www.wsj.com/... @arekfurt : Microsoft's long experience playing the Washington game serves it very well. Of course, it also helps tremendously that regulators and legislators don't currently care much about the enterprise software market, where MS makes the vast bulk of its money. https://www.techmeme.com/... Eric Talley / @proferictalley : Interesting piece, but neglected what is obviously the most critical factor distinguishing MSFT's @BradSmi and counterparts at GOOG/MSFT/APPL/AMZN: Legal training — esp. a @ColumbiaLaw degree (CLS Class of '85!) https://www.wsj.com/... via @WSJ @wsj : Microsoft was once an antitrust pariah but is now widely seen by regulators as the friendly party among today's top tech companies. Its rivals say that comes at their expense. https://www.wsj.com/... Jason Albert / @jasonalb : As a former @Microsoft employee who worked with & for @BradSmi, this great article omits 1 key element: the quality of Brad's ideas. MSFT succeeds in govt affairs bc it outthinks its rivals & proposes innovative, novel regulatory approaches https://www.wsj.com/... @rwang0 : MyPOV: kabuki theatre at the highest levels. @Microsoft—now trying to get its $75 billion deal for Activision approved—has taken a friendly role with regulators. Tech rivals say it also directs negative attention toward them. https://www.wsj.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The Wall Street Journal's portrait formalizes what earlier coverage only sketched: since taking over as Microsoft's top lawyer in 2002, Brad Smith has built a Washington operation whose product is regulatory goodwill. An earlier profile traced his reputation for seizing thorny legal issues ([[a:926911]]), and by 2019 Microsoft had visibly dodged the Big Tech backlash while its reputation improved through a methodical approach to controversy. The mechanism, per the relationships here, is concrete: an Office of Strategic Relations that funds and advises companies and groups challenging Google, plus a public amicability with regulators that keeps heat off Redmond.
What changed by this story is that rivals are saying it out loud — competitors allege Smith directs negative attention toward them — and the strategy has scaled from defense to dealmaking. The same playbook later closed Activision with public support from a top House antitrust Republican via a legal, policy, and influence machine costing over $1B a year, and is now being tested on AI regulation, where Smith has endorsed creating a new agency ([[a:840437]]) — rules he is well positioned to shape.
First-order effects
- Google bears the immediate cost: Microsoft's Office of Strategic Relations provides financial assistance and expertise to companies and groups pursuing antitrust cases against it, so enforcement pressure on Google is partly underwritten by its rival.
- Microsoft's own transactions get a smoother path — the Activision acquisition secured public backing from a senior House antitrust Republican, converting regulator goodwill into deal approval.
Second-order effects
- Rival Big Tech firms are forced into defensive spending on their own legal-and-policy machines to counter a competitor that treats Washington as a sales channel, raising the fixed cost of competing in regulated markets.
- Regulators' agendas tilt toward the targets Microsoft highlights: scrutiny concentrates on Google and other rivals while Microsoft's reversion to '90s-style behaviors (rebranded as nice and boring) draws comparatively little enforcement attention.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, regulatory posture becomes a durable competitive moat: the company most aligned with Washington helps write the rules that bind everyone else, and market structure in tech is shaped as much in hearings as in product cycles.
- The endpoint visible in the coverage is Smith testifying before a House committee that Microsoft 'accepts responsibility' for CSRB findings ([[a:867572]]) — cooperative accountability as theater, where admitting fault on one stage buys latitude everywhere else.
The trend: Washington influence is becoming a core competitive function for Big Tech, with the most regulator-friendly incumbent shaping antitrust and AI rules that fall hardest on its rivals.