• Pluralistic : Trump antitrust is dead (13 Feb 2026) – Pluralistic : Daily links from Cory Doctorow
    https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/13/khanservatives/#kid-rock-eats-shit

    The best framing for the MAGA war on Big Tech comes from Trashfuture’s Riley Quinn, who predicted that the whole thing could be settled by tech companies’ boards agreeing to open every meeting with a solemn “stolen likes acknowledgment” that made repentance for all the shadowbanned culture warriors whose clout had been poached by soy content moderators.

    And that’s basically what happened. Trump’s antitrust agencies practiced “boss politics antitrust” in which favored courtiers were given free passes to violate the law, while Trump’s enemies were threatened with punitive antitrust investigations until they fell into line:

    https://pluralistic.net/2025/07/29/bondi-and-domination/#superjove

    Trump’s antitrust boss Gail Slater talked a big game about “Trump Antitrust” but was thwarted at every turn by giant corporations who figured out that if they gave a million bucks to a MAGA podcaster, they could go over Slater’s head and kill her enforcement actions. When Slater’s deputy, Roger Alford, went public to denounce the sleazy backroom dealings that led to the approval of the HPE/Juniper merger, he was forced out of the agency altogether and replaced with a Pam Bondi loyalist who served as a kind of politburo political officer in Slater’s agency:

    https://abovethelaw.com/2025/08/former-maga-attorney-goes-scorched-earth-with-corruption-allegations-in

    Bondi made no secret of her contempt for Slater, and frequently humiliated her in public. Now it seems that Bondi has gotten tired of this game and has forced Slater out altogether.

    #Antitrust

  • Pluralistic: Zohran Mamdani’s world-class photocopier-kicker (15 Nov 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
    https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/15/unconscionability/#standalone-authority

    The most exciting thing about Biden’s antitrust enforcers was how good they were at their jobs. They were dead-on chapter-and-verse on every authority and statute available to the administrative branch, and they set about in earnest figuring out how to use those powers to help the American people:

    https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

    It was a remarkable contrast from the default Democratic Party line, which is to insist that being elected gives you no power at all, because of filibusters or Republicans or pollsters or decorum or billionaire donors or Mercury in retrograde. It’s also a remarkable contrast from Republicans, whose approach to politics is “fuck you, we said so, and our billionaires have showered the Supreme Court in enough money to make that stick.”

    But under Biden, the trustbusters that had been chosen and fought for by the Warren-Sanders wing of the party proved themselves to be both a) incredibly principled; and b) incredibly skilled. They memorized the rulebook(s) and then figured out what they needed to do to mobilize those rules to makes Americans’ lives better by shielding them from swindlers, predators and billionaires (often the same person, obvs).

    One of Biden’s best photocopier kickers was and is Lina Khan. She embodies the incredible potential of a fully operational battle-station, which is to say that she embodies the awesome power of a skilled technocrat who is also deeply ethical and genuinely interested in helping the public. Technocrats get a bad name, because they tend to be empty suits like Pete Buttigieg, who either didn’t know what powers he had, or lacked the courage (or desire) to wield them:

    https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

    But another way of saying “technocrat” is “someone who is very good at their job.” And that’s Khan.

    You’ll never guess what Khan is doing now: she’s co-chairing Zohran Mamdani’s transition team!

    #Lina_Khan #Cory_Doctorow #Antitrust

  • DOJ Reinforces Demand to Break Up Google’s Search Monopoly - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/technology/trump-google-search-antitrust.html

    David McCabe

    By David McCabe

    David McCabe has covered the Justice Department’s Google search antitrust case since it was filed in 2020.
    March 7, 2025

    In a sign that President Trump is following the Biden administration’s lead in reining in Google, the Justice Department on Friday reiterated its demand that a court break up the search giant.

    The request followed a landmark ruling last year by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that found Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search by paying web browsers and smartphone manufacturers to feature its search engine. The judge is scheduled to hear arguments on proposed solutions from both the government and Google in April.

    Under the Biden administration last year, the Justice Department and a group of states asked Judge Mehta in a preliminary filing to force Google to sell its popular web browser, Chrome, among other remedies. The department’s lawyers on Friday reiterated that demand, which could reshape internet competition.

    “Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins,” the government said in its Friday filing. “The American people thus are forced to accept the unbridled demands and shifting, ideological preferences of an economic leviathan in return for a search engine the public may enjoy.”

    Google, which says it intends to ultimately appeal the judge’s ruling in the case, also filed its own final proposal on Friday, maintaining its position that the company shouldn’t need to change much to address the judge’s concerns.

    #Antitrust #Google

  • What Google Off-loading Chrome Would Mean for Users | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/what-google-off-loading-chrome-would-mean-for-users

    Using “the Internet” sometimes seems disconcertingly synonymous with using Google. Google Search, the most popular search engine on the planet, indexes the open Internet, driving traffic to Web sites, and Google Ads provides the revenue that publishers survive on. Gmail is how some two billion people receive their e-mail; many Gmail in-boxes have been accumulating messages for a decade or more. Last, but certainly not least, the company’s browser, Google Chrome, is what a staggering three billion people use to navigate the Internet. According to some estimates, Google holds nearly ninety per cent market share in search engines in the U.S. Chrome, in turn, provides the audience data that Google’s ads leverage to target users, and links the company’s other services together. When you’re using Chrome, it is smoothest and easiest to also use Google’s search, mail, and even new generative-A.I. programs such as Gemini. Google Chrome is the top of a slippery funnel that users slide down, deeper into the Google ecosystem—which is precisely why, following a landmark antitrust ruling, the United States Department of Justice is trying to wrest Chrome away from the company.

    In the meantime, power in the industry may shift regardless. Even without the antitrust ruling, Google’s monopolistic grip looks shakier today than it has in decades. Google Search’s market share is actually down a few percentage points compared with a few years ago; Bing has been slowly gaining some traction, though its market share remains below ten per cent. And generative artificial intelligence, which has been on the rise since ChatGPT was released in November of 2022, is threatening the primacy of the classic search interface that Google more or less invented. The search functions and the browsers of the future may look less like an ordered encyclopedia of what has been published online than like a magic mirror that reflects a machine-generated composite of content. Entire new search interfaces are being built around artificial intelligence, including Perplexity and Arc (made by the Browser Company), which uses A.I. to filter and reconstitute Web sites, serving up only the parts most relevant to a given query. Google, Microsoft, and Meta are all engaged in a race to develop the best product for A.I. search, but the technology is so disruptive to the industry that the legacy brands may very well lose out in the end. One unexpected competitor could swoop in with a new technology that catches on—just as Google did in the late nineties with search.

    One of Google’s arguments against the antitrust ruling is that A.I. is making its business more liable to competition than its government critics think it is. In some ways, the company is right. Generative A.I. may present more of an existential threat going forward than any government regulation. Almost certainly, it will overhaul the user experience on the Internet far more dramatically than a few new search-bar options ever could.

    #Google #Antitrust

  • Opinion | The F.T.C.’s Lina Khan Took On Big Tech. Now Her Job Is on the Line. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/26/opinion/lina-khan-ftc-venture-capital-silicon-valley.html

    High-profile venture capitalists are demanding that Kamala Harris, if elected president, fire a top regulator for her aggressive policing of Big Tech. Not only do I disagree with them, I see their attacks as evidence of a bigger problem with the venture capital industry and, ultimately, our technology sector, which is a critical driver of our economy and society.

    Venture capital may be a small segment of the finance industry, but it has been a linchpin of the modern computing era. Over the past 75 years, venture capitalists repeatedly nurtured early-stage companies to the point where they could replace big, established firms and drive markets in new directions. From Fairchild Semiconductor to Intel, Apple to Google — all benefited from early venture capital support.

    Times have changed. The power of major technology incumbents is now so great, and the dependence of venture capital firms on those incumbents so complete, that today’s V.C.s are now siding with the monopolies — and fighting government agencies that are trying to advance competition.

    #Lina_Khan #Compétition #Antitrust #Capital-risque

  • Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/03/business/dealbook/saying-the-quiet-part-out-loud.html

    Lina Khan est une de mes héroine politique : comment apliquer un programme radical dans un univers poilitique qui refuse le radicalisme. Elle y parvient, et c’est bien ce que les milliardaires lui reprochent le plus.

    Two billionaire Democratic donors have publicly pressured Vice President Kamala Harris to replace the F.T.C. chair, Lina Khan. Wall Street insiders are worried that could backfire.
    Listen to this article · 12:03 min Learn more

    Wall Street donors are working to gain influence with Vice President Kamala Harris.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
    Lauren HirschSarah Kessler

    By Lauren Hirsch and Sarah Kessler
    Aug. 3, 2024

    Wall Street Democrats have spent the last eight years complaining about their relationship with Washington. They found former President Donald Trump’s presidency unpredictable, and then became estranged from the Democratic Party as President Biden hired the most aggressive antitrust regulators in recent memory. But now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, they see a chance to regain influence.

    Some have returned to a long tradition of writing checks, scheduling fund-raising dinners and orchestrating subtle campaigns. But others, embracing the public lobbying welcomed by Trump and employed by outspoken C.E.O.s like Elon Musk and Bill Ackman, are openly calling for Harris to oust Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission: “I think she’s a dope,” Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC, told CNBC. (He later apologized for calling her a dope, but not for critiquing her policies.)

    Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder, spoke to CNN twice about his Khan concerns. “Antitrust is fine,” Hoffman said. “Waging war is not.” (He later clarified that he would support Harris regardless of whether she replaced Khan.)

    Few on Wall Street would disagree with that stance — Khan has moved to block deals with seemingly little concern over losing in court. But behind the scenes, many are irked by this kind of public lobbying, arguing that it exposes a misunderstanding of the way the Washington game is played, and that it could backfire.

    Their concerns are echoed by strategists: “I’m not really sure if it’s very effective,” Stuart Stevens, a political consultant who previously worked for Mitt Romney, told DealBook. “I’ve always felt once you make these things public, it makes it harder for politicians to do.”

    Critics immediately called the public lobbying self-interested. The F.T.C. has reportedly opened multiple investigations that involve subsidiaries of Diller’s IAC, according to CNN, and Hoffman has a seat on the board of Microsoft, whose investment in OpenAI is also under scrutiny from the F.T.C.

    “We didn’t see this in recent elections, because the Democratic Party was Wall Street-friendly on issues like antitrust and trade,” said Michael Sandel, a professor at Harvard and the author of “Democracy’s Discontent,” speaking about the public lobbying around Khan. “The Biden administration broke with these policies, which is why the donors are complaining.”

    Khan’s detractors on Wall Street argue that their frustration is warranted. Deal activity has dropped precipitously under the Biden administration as regulators have demonstrated an eagerness to test the law by taking proposed mergers to trial.

    But expressing the desire to oust Khan so publicly, some Wall Street insiders say, makes it nearly impossible for Harris to do so without it seeming as if she’s kowtowing to donor interests. It also reinforces Khan’s stature as a celebrity in her own right.
    Editors’ Picks
    How a ‘Dirty Gospel’ Minister Spends His Sundays
    5 Ways to Make Friends (Without Joining a Book Club)
    Why Some Young People in China Pretend to Be Birds

    Donor concern extends beyond Khan’s vocation. Not since Teddy Roosevelt has antitrust enforcement been a cornerstone election issue, and it is not clear it will be in 2024, either. But a clumsy approach could complicate Wall Street’s nascent relationship with a potential Harris administration, particularly if she views it as one that threatens her election chances.

    Harris needs to win votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where the administration’s antitrust policies and Trump-era tariffs remain popular.

    “It seems to me that the last thing Kamala Harris needs is to take direction from plutocrat donors and cryptocurrency fans,” Chris Whipple, author of “The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House,” told DealBook. “She should be listening instead to working-class voters in battleground states.”

    The pressure campaign comes as Trump redeploys a winning tactic from 2016 by courting the populist vote. He invited Sean O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters union, to speak at the Republican National Convention. His pick for vice president, JD Vance, has applauded Khan’s take on big business.

    Executives are increasingly becoming their own lobbyists. Companies typically try to influence antitrust policy behind closed doors. Google executives frequented the Obama White House during its antitrust investigation of the internet giant. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google fortified their Washington presence during Trump’s presidency, spending millions on congressional calls, advertising and think-tank funding.

    But Trump’s more blatantly transactional tenure was followed by a rise in public pleading, as Ackman, Musk and Silicon Valley billionaires have used social media to proclaim their political views on everything from the war in Ukraine to tax policy.

    It’s “a continuation of social media where you have a forum that no thought can go unexpressed,” said Stevens. “This is what we used to pay lobbyists to do.”

    Washington insiders prefer the art of subtle pressure. DealBook asked donors, lobbyists and insiders how they would pressure the vice president to replace Khan. Their hypothetical strategies involved highlighting economic studies that question Khan’s policies; enlisting support from organizations of smaller companies; and containing the ire that replacing Khan would provoke from progressive politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren.

    The latter is easier said than done, adding to the significant political and logistical challenges in replacing Khan.
    2024 Election: Live Updates
    Updated
    Aug. 4, 2024, 8:01 a.m. ET4 hours ago

    Here’s the latest on the presidential race.
    Harris to interview V.P. contenders in final test of chemistry.
    At Atlanta rally, Trump says Georgia’s governor is hampering his efforts to win there.

    Those surveyed said a more easily achieved goal might be pushing for appointments in roles that could curb the administration’s antitrust priorities, like the director of the national economic council.

    As for the potential political problem created by donors, a longtime Washington policy strategist, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized by his employer to speak publicly, had a recommendation.

    “It’s a huge problem for Harris,” he told DealBook of public calls for Khan’s removal. He offered his thoughts on how the vice president should handle them: Reject executives publicly, and then tell donors privately, “Sorry, I had to do that.” — Lauren Hirsch

    #Lina_Khan #Antitrust #Lobbying

  • Google Paid Apple $20 Billion in 2022 to Be Default Safari Search Engine - MacRumors
    https://www.macrumors.com/2024/05/01/google-default-search-engine-safari-20-billion

    Les béhémots s’arrangent entre eux...

    Google paid Apple $20 billion in 2022 to be the default search engine for Safari on iPhone, iPad, and Mac, reports Bloomberg. The information was revealed in court documents Google provided in its antitrust dispute with the United States Department of Justice.

    safari google search
    The DoJ has accused Google of having a monopoly on search, and in the lawsuit against Google, the search engine deal with Apple has been a major focus. In November, lawsuit documents indicated that Google was paying 36 percent of the total revenue that it earns from searches conducted on Safari, and now it turns out that equates to $20 billion.

    Google has been the default search engine on Apple devices since 2002, though the deal has been renegotiated several times. Apple and Google have worked to keep the terms of the search engine agreement under wraps during the trial and before, but it has been well known that Google is paying Apple billions per year.

    Last October, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that the agreement between Apple and Google has made it impossible for search engines like Bing to compete. Microsoft at one point wanted Apple to buy Bing, but Apple was not interested. Microsoft blamed Google, but Apple’s Eddy Cue said that Apple was concerned that Bing could not compete in “quality and capabilities.” Cue claimed that Apple uses Google as the ‌iPhone‌’s default search engine because Apple has “always thought it was the best.”

    Google is the default search engine on Apple devices in most countries, but users can opt to swap to Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Ecosia as alternatives. Changing browser engines requires opening up the Safari settings.

    In Europe, the Digital Markets Act has required Apple to make changes to how browsers work. Users are able to choose a default browser when setting up their ‌iPhone‌, and there are more options than the handful of providers that Apple allows in the United States.

    If Google loses the antitrust lawsuit against it, the deal between Apple and Google could be dissolved. Closing arguments are expected on Thursday and Friday, with the judge’s ruling set to come later in 2024.

    #Apple #Google #Antitrust

  • Letter to Lina Khan by Steven Levy
    https://link.wired.com/view/5cec29ba24c17c4c6465ed0bfqmpt.wsu/3833f86a

    The Plain View

    Two key figures in Biden’s murderers row of tech regulators—FTC chair Lina Khan and the DOJ’s assistant attorney general for antitrust, Jonathan Kanter—emerged from their hideouts this week to announce that they are preparing new guidelines on how mergers should be evaluated, kicking off the process with a 60-day call for comments.

    In an apparent accident of timing (of course, skeptics would say there are no coincidences), Microsoft announced that same day that it was making the biggest merger in its history, capturing one of the bosses of the game world, Activision, for $69 billion. Clearly, Big Tech has already decided what guidelines bind them on acquisitions: whatever they can get away with.

    Obviously, the two sides have differences in opinion. To clear up matters, I thought I’d take up Kahn and Kantor’s offer and make my own public comment, sent right to the inbox of you lucky Plaintext subscribers!

    Dear Antitrust Czars,

    I’m not a lawyer or an investor, but as a longtime observer of bad behavior and predatory mergers in the tech field, I have Thoughts. I’m not sure how much impact my view will have, though, because it seems to me you’ve already made up your minds on how you want to change merger guidelines, as well as what’s considered anticompetitive behavior. But that’s OK! It doesn’t mean, Chair Khan, that you should recuse yourself from your antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and Meta, just because you have Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg on your dartboard. They are there for policy reasons, not because you can’t stand Bezos’ laugh or Zuckerberg’s sunscreen. The president appointed you because he wants to get tougher with the likes of those corporate barons, and the judge in the Meta case has already rejected the argument that you’re conflicted.

    So I’m betting that all the comments the two of you get, including mine, won’t divert you from the course you basically set out this week. When you talk about modernizing the guidelines, the headline of your press release makes clear your agenda: to “strengthen enforcement against illegal mergers.” You already have your road map—expanding the definition of anticompetitive to include cases where products are free to consumers, considering the future impact on mergers in nascent markets, and assessing the eventual effects of a dominating company’s entry into a new business. In practice, you don’t necessarily need new guidelines—you’ve already been more aggressively challenging mergers in industries from publishing to computer chips. And those guidelines can be ephemeral. After all, Chair Khan, you’d hardly taken your seat at the agency when you tossed out a merger guideline established just last year by your predecessor. Maybe a future administration will trash your new guidelines just as blithely. But I get it—revising the guidelines to give you more power provides ammunition when companies challenge you in court, which they undoubtedly will.

    You’re right in saying you need new weapons, especially since the forces stacked against you are so formidable. That’s your biggest problem: the unholy bigness of Big Tech. I know that an oft-used canard in antitrust law is that humongous size doesn’t necessarily equal anticompetitiveness. But Big Tech’s bulk has thrown everything out of whack. The combined market cap of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta is around $7 trillion. That would fund the Defense Department for a decade.

    That size means that every one of those giants’ substantial mergers is arguably anticompetitive on its face, because their acquisitions immediately become more powerful by virtue of being tied to those dominating platforms. When, for instance, a tech giant like Amazon or Apple decides to become a movie studio, it isn’t like a bunch of film students setting up a back lot somewhere. The new content, financed by the mother ship’s Brobdingnagian profits, has an immediate pipeline to existing consumers already locked into those ecosystems—ecosystems that might favor in-house productions over traditional fare.

    Now let’s talk about how that bigness plays into the Activision bid. In terms of dollars, it’s the most expensive acquisition in Microsoft’s history. Even so, Microsoft doesn’t have to stretch to make the purchase. For perspective, let’s look back to the unsuccessful $45 billion bid for Yahoo that Microsoft made in 2008. If it had gone through, it would have remained the biggest acquisition in the company’s history to date. Capturing Yahoo would have required Microsoft to squander a fifth of its value. (Buying the troubled Yahoo would also have been a huge mistake, but that’s another story.) But the Activision price tag eats up less than 3 percent of Microsoft’s current $2.25 trillion market cap. That’s pocket change for Satya Nadella.

    That sum brings an anticompetitive bounty to Microsoft. It is one of two producers of high-end game consoles, and potentially it could limit Activision titles to Xbox. No wonder Sony took a $20 billion hit after the announcement. Activision also has tens of millions of users who now will find it easier to use Microsoft’s other offerings. Most importantly, camo gear might prove the fashion choice in the next generation of computing, as armies of Call of Duty warriors could use the popular Activision game as a gateway to Microsoft’s metaverse.

    The only way you are going to temper Big Tech—forget about taming it—is to challenge those companies early and often. Guts, not guidelines, might prove more decisive. I suspect you know this. You are right to push hard for Congress to increase your resources, in both financial power and new hires, because you need more regulators, more investigators, more lawyers, more analysts, and more pizzas delivered for late-night brainstorming. These titans will not slow down unless they know there’s a price to be paid. If a tech giant knows that an investigation, and then a lawsuit, could stand in the way of an acquisition, that bid might not be offered in the first place.

    Chair Khan, you acknowledged in a television interview this week that because of your limited tenure, you have a “fierce sense of urgency.” But with the Activision merger announcement, Microsoft laughed in your face. Don’t let them have the last laugh.

    #Lina_Khan #Antitrust #Microsoft #Activision #Jeu_vidéo #Monopoles

  • Amazon : condamnation de 1,28 milliard € pour “domination absolue”
    https://actualitte.com/article/103782/economie/amazon-condamnation-de-1-28-milliard-pour-domination-absolue

    À bien des égards, Amazon rime avec condamnation. Aujourd’hui, la multinationale doit payer une amende de 1,28 milliard € auprès de l’AGCM, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato [Autorité de la Concurrence et du Marché]. Cette décision a été prise en Italie pour sanctionner la position de « domination absolue » de l’entreprise, par son service de traitement des commandes.

    #Amazon #Antitrust #Concurrence #Commerce_électronique

  • Lina Khan’s Battle to Rein in Big Tech | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-battle-to-rein-in-big-tech

    Open Markets studied industries ranging from banking to agriculture. In case after case, Lynn found, the number of companies in each market had been reduced to a few big entities that had bought up their competitors, giving them a disproportionate amount of power. Consumers had the impression of vast choices among brands, but this was often misleading: many of the biggest furniture stores were owned by one company; a large percentage of the dozens of laundry detergents in most supermarkets were made by two corporations. After consolidation, it became easier for furniture sellers and detergent manufacturers to raise prices, compromise the quality of their products, or treat employees poorly, because consumers and workers had few other places to go. It also became much more difficult for entrepreneurs to break into the marketplace, because competing with these giants was almost impossible. As huge companies became even bigger, much of the American middle class struggled with stagnant wages. In Lynn’s view, the issues were connected.

    Khan began researching book publishing. “There was a sense that this industry was in crisis,” she recalled. Publishers had come under pressure, first from chain stores like Barnes & Noble, and then from Amazon, which sold electronic books by pricing them at a loss, in order to encourage consumers to buy its Kindle e-book readers. Amazon eventually controlled more than seventy per cent of the e-book market, a dominance that gave it the ability to force publishers to accept its terms, undermining the business model they had long used to subsidize the creation of a wide variety of books. When publishers tried to band together to fight Amazon, the Justice Department sued them, fearing that their action would increase the retail price of e-books. The publishers saw Amazon’s power as potentially leading to a decline in the free exchange of ideas and as a crisis for democracy. Increasingly, so did Khan. Her work helped provide the basis for a piece that Lynn published in Harper’s, in February, 2012, called “Killing the Competition.” Today, he wrote, “a single private company has captured the ability to dictate terms to the people who publish our books, and hence to the people who write and read our books.”

    Khan told me that she started to see the world differently. “It’s incredible, once you start studying industry structure and see how much consolidation there has been across industries—in airlines, contact-lens solution, funeral caskets,” she said. “Every nook and cranny of our economy has consolidated. I was discovering this new world.” At one point, she investigated the candy market, identifying nearly forty brands in her local store that were made by Hershey, Mars, or Nestlé. In another project, about the raising of poultry, she found that most farmers had to purchase chicks and feed from the giant poultry processor that bought their full-grown chickens, which, because it had no local competitors, could dictate the price it paid for them.

    On June 15, 2021, Khan was sworn in as the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency responsible for consumer protection and for enforcing the branch of law that regulates monopolies. At the age of thirty-two, she is the youngest person ever to head the F.T.C.

    Amazon taught a generation of consumers that they could order anything online, from packs of mints to swimming pools, and expect it to be delivered almost overnight. According to some estimates, the company controls close to fifty per cent of all e-commerce retail sales in the U.S. and occupies roughly two hundred and twenty-eight million square feet of warehouse space. It makes movies and publishes books; delivers groceries; provides home-security systems and the cloud-computing services that many other companies rely on. Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, wants to colonize the moon. During the Presidency of Barack Obama, Amazon’s relentless expansion was largely encouraged by the government. The country was emerging from a devastating recession, and Obama saw entrepreneurs like Bezos as sources of innovation and jobs. In 2013, in a speech given at an Amazon warehouse in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Obama described the company’s role in bolstering the financial security of the middle class and creating stable, well-paying work. He spoke with near-awe of how, during the previous Christmas rush, Amazon had sold more than three hundred items per second. Obama was also close with Eric Schmidt, the former executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. An analysis by the Intercept found that employees and lobbyists from Alphabet visited the White House more than those from any other company, and White House staff turned to Google technologists to troubleshoot the Affordable Care Act Web site and other projects. Between 2010 and 2016, Amazon, Google, and other tech giants bought up hundreds of competitors, and the government, for the most part, did not object. The analysis also found that nearly two hundred and fifty people moved between government positions and companies controlled by Schmidt, law and lobbying firms that did work for Alphabet, or Alphabet itself. When Obama left office, many of his top aides took jobs at tech companies: Jay Carney, Obama’s former press secretary, joined Amazon; David Plouffe, his campaign manager, and Tony West, a high-ranking official at the Department of Justice, joined Uber; and Lisa Jackson, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, went to Apple.

    As a result, antitrust policy, especially as it pertains to big technology firms, has emerged as one of the starkest differences between the Biden Presidency and the Obama one.

    Biden Administration has indicated that it wants to reshape the role that major technology companies play in the economy and in our lives. On March 5th, Biden named Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor and an anti-monopoly advocate who has argued that Facebook should be broken up, to the newly created position of head of competition policy at the National Economic Council, which advises the President on economic-policy matters. On March 22nd, Biden nominated Khan to her current role. And, in July, he selected Jonathan Kanter to head the antitrust division of the Department of Justice. Kanter left the law firm Paul, Weiss in 2020 because his work representing companies making antitrust claims against Big Tech firms posed a conflict for the firm’s work for Apple, among others. Wu, Khan, Kanter, and a handful of other anti-monopoly advocates have been referred to as members of a “New Brandeis movement,” after the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whose decisions limited the power of big business.

    Benjamin Woodring, who worked with Khan on the Yale Journal on Regulation, said that she seemed more sophisticated than the typical law student. “She understood the political dimension of regulation and the lawmaking process,” Woodring told me. “It’s so easy for law students, especially relatively green ones coming straight from college, to just treat the study of law as this disembodied language in a vacuum. But, in reality, especially with things like antitrust and civil rights, it is very much a political struggle, a complicated journey that involves all three branches. She was comfortable with the nuts and bolts of how that process worked.”

    Khan started writing a paper arguing that the consumer-welfare standard was outdated, using Amazon as a case study. Amazon had avoided antitrust scrutiny so far, Khan wrote, because of the fixation on consumer prices. There was no question that consumers loved the convenience of being able to order almost anything on Amazon, and of the free and expedited shipping included in an Amazon Prime membership. Khan believed that the low costs to consumers were a short-term benefit that failed to account for the harm the company’s size and practices posed to the economy. She highlighted the company’s willingness to operate with billions of dollars in losses for years at a time, often by pricing products below what it cost to make and deliver them. This strategy has helped Amazon crush its competitors in so many markets that the company now provides critical infrastructure to other businesses, which rely on it to get their own products to market. It also has access to sensitive data about most of its competitors, who must use Amazon’s platform in order to survive. Khan proposed two ways to address the problem: One would be to return to the old idea of antitrust law, which focussed on preserving healthy competition rather than on the prices consumers paid. The second would be to treat Amazon and similar companies like public utilities, and to regulate them aggressively, including by requiring that their competitors be given access to their platforms on more favorable terms.

    Independent businesses tended to be reliant on Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, in order to communicate with their customers and sell their products. Cicilline’s team described the big four as “gatekeepers” that dictated how other firms could operate. They discovered that leaders of companies were afraid of speaking out against any of the dominant tech firms, especially Amazon, and worried that their coöperation with the investigation would become public. The companies understood that Amazon could block them from doing business on its site, a tactic that Amazon had used in 2014, during the e-book-pricing dispute, when it removed books published by Hachette from its Web site.

    Cicilline opened the proceedings from the congressional hearing room. Before the pandemic, he noted, the companies in question were already “titans in our economy.” Since then, they had grown even more powerful, while locally owned businesses faced an economic crisis. “Open markets are predicated on the idea that, if a company harms people, consumers, workers, and business partners will choose another option. That choice is no longer possible,” he said. “Concentrated economic power leads to concentrated political power. This investigation goes to the heart of whether we as a people govern ourselves, or let ourselves be governed by private monopolies.” Khan sat beside him, in a pastel blazer and a mask.

    Most of the names mentioned in the press, however, were longtime corporate lawyers who had cycled in and out of government. Karen Dunn, a partner at Paul, Weiss who had served as White House counsel under Obama, and as a senior adviser and communications director to Senator Hillary Clinton, was rumored to be under consideration for a position in the Justice Department. Dunn had represented Uber and Apple, and advised Bezos during his antitrust subcommittee hearing. Renata Hesse, a Sullivan & Cromwell partner and former Obama Justice Department official who had worked for Google and advised Amazon on its 2017 purchase of Whole Foods Market, was said to be a leading candidate for the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust position. Susan M. Davies, a corporate lawyer who had worked for Facebook, was rumored to be Attorney General Merrick Garland’s first choice for the antitrust job. Left-leaning news outlets published harshly critical articles about the pro-corporate direction Biden’s Administration seemed to be taking. On January 28th, a piece ran in the American Prospect with the headline “Merrick Garland Wants Former Facebook Lawyer to Top Antitrust Division.”

    Then, in March, Biden announced that he was nominating Khan to a seat on the F.T.C. Khan said that she was surprised when, a few months later, she was named chair. On July 9th, Biden issued an executive order instructing more than a dozen regulatory agencies to take aggressive steps to promote competition in the economy.

    Khan told me that her vision for the F.T.C. takes these challenges into account. “Antitrust needs to be on the table, but we need to have a whole host of other tools on the table as well,” she said. On September 22nd, she issued a memo outlining her priorities. One of them, she told me, was to address the merger boom that’s under way; during the first eight months of 2021, $1.8 trillion in mergers and takeovers was announced. Some of the largest corporations were set to become even bigger: Amazon announced a proposed acquisition of M-G-M studios; UnitedHealth Group proposed to buy Change HealthCare; A.T. & T. wants to merge WarnerMedia, which it owns, with Discovery. “There’s a very real risk that the economy emerging post-COVID could be even more concentrated and consolidated than the one leading up to it,” Khan said.

    The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which has published at least six critical pieces about Khan since she started, described her as “Icarus,” and said that her “power grab at the F.T.C. will end with her wings melting in the courts.”

    #Lina_Khan #Antitrust #FTC

  • Opinion | Google Is Dominating This Hidden Market With No Rules - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/opinion/google-monopoly-regulation-antitrust.html

    Last month, Gary Gensler, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, asked Congress to consider the idea of regulating cryptocurrency exchanges the way the federal government has long regulated stock exchanges. While his comments drew fresh attention to the unregulated markets for cryptocurrency, they reminded me of another long unregulated exchange marketplace: the market for digital advertising.

    Each time you click on a website or an app, in the milliseconds it takes for it to load, the empty ad space on the page is auctioned off through specialized trading venues called ad exchanges. Alphabet Inc., which owns Google, operates the largest of these venues. It works “just like a stock exchange,” as Google explains, complete with brokers mediating transactions between sellers and buyers. Today, the billions of daily transactions on advertising exchanges owned by tech companies rival the number of trades happening on Wall Street.

    To protect the public and promote fair competition in stock market transactions, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission and vested the agency with the power to issue rules and manage conflicts of interest between the exchanges, brokers and other industry players.

    These problems took root more than a decade ago when Google made a bid for DoubleClick, the popular service that helps websites sell ad space. Federal regulators approved the purchase. But they did so without requiring that Google separate the DoubleClick division helping publishers sell on exchanges from the division helping advertisers buy ad space, or from the division operating an exchange, which Google later dubbed AdX.

    Could Google operate an exchange while acting in the best interests of both the websites and advertisers — in other words, both the seller and the buyer — all at once?

    An increasing share of advertising dollars is also winding up in the hands of Google properties. In 2007, about 35 percent of the ad revenue that Google made came from selling space on sites across the internet, sites which trust the company to be an honest broker. But the share going to Google sites has increased almost every year since. In 2020, Google booked about $146 billion in ad revenue; more than 84 percent of that amount went toward space on Google properties like search and YouTube. One possible result: Consumers see more ads on YouTube and more paywalls online.

    The consequence of all this: Websites, apps and advertisers providing consumers with everything from news, games and consumer goods make less money selling ads and have to fork over more money to exchanges and other intermediaries.

    #Google #Publicité #Antitrust #Monopole #Vectorialisme

  • F.T.C. Is Said to Consider an Injunction Against Facebook - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/technology/ftc-facebook-injunction.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_191213?campaign

    Facebook and other big technology companies — Google, Apple and Amazon — have been under growing scrutiny for how they are wielding their power. Facebook has attracted particular attention for its dominant position in social networking and how it bought smaller rivals such as Instagram and WhatsApp over the years, which buttressed its lead.

    In July, Facebook disclosed that the F.T.C. was investigating it over antitrust concerns. The Justice Department, Congress and state attorneys general are also examining whether Facebook has acted anticompetitively.

    The perfect gift for everyone on your list.

    Gift subscriptions to The New York Times. Starting at €20.

    Leading antitrust academics and others have laid out a case to regulators for breaking up Facebook by unraveling its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. They have argued that the company made “serial defensive acquisitions” to protect its edge in the market for social networks.

    But seeking an injunction of this kind would be an uncommon step for a federal antitrust agency because officials rarely consider unwinding mergers that have already closed. A majority of F.T.C. commissioners would need to approve the move in a formal vote, said an agency official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

    In March, Mr. Zuckerberg said he was trying to unify the apps so that people could engage more easily in private and encrypted communications.

    “We’re building a foundation for social communication aligned with the direction people increasingly care about: messaging each other privately,” he said in an interview at the time. “I believe a privacy-focused communications platform will become even more important than today’s open platforms.”

    But regulators and lawmakers have been concerned that the moves may make it more difficult to disentangle the apps in the future.

    In practice, the back-end infrastructure of many Facebook properties has been shared for some time. Facebook and Instagram both use the same architecture to run their advertising businesses, for example.

    #Facebook #Antitrust #Instagram

  • Pourquoi Google est dans le collimateur de 50 procureurs américains
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/09/10/google-dans-le-collimateur-de-50-procureurs-americains_5508414_3234.html

    Les griefs contre Google ont été exprimés en termes imagés afin que chacun puisse comprendre. « Beaucoup de consommateurs croient qu’Internet est gratuit. Nous savons, au regard des profits de Google [le groupe a dégagé 30,7 milliards de dollars de bénéfices en 2018, soit 27,8 milliards d’euros, pour un chiffre d’affaires de 136,8 milliards], que ce n’est pas le cas », a commencé M. Paxton. Et d’accuser Google de dominer de nombreux marchés : l’entreprise s’accapare 92 % des recherches en ligne dans le monde, son système d’exploitation Android équipe 76 % des appareils mobiles et le groupe capte, à lui seul, 31 % du marché mondial de la publicité en ligne.

    Google est accusé d’utiliser son moteur de recherche à son propre profit, alors qu’il était à l’origine censé permettre une libre navigation sur la Toile. « Nous voulons vous conduire aussi vite que possible hors de Google et au bon endroit », avait déclaré l’un de ses fondateurs, Larry Page, en 2004. Aujourd’hui, l’internaute tombe souvent sur des produits Google ou des entreprises qui ont payé pour figurer en tête de page.

    Le géant du commerce en ligne Amazon, pour sa part, est accusé de profiter des données laissées par les internautes, lorsqu’ils achètent des produits à d’autres distributeurs, pour mieux promouvoir ses propres produits.

    Facebook, lui, chercherait à acquérir un monopole des médias sociaux. Il l’a fait en achetant Instagram, en 2012, pour 1 milliard de dollars, puis WhatsApp, deux ans plus tard, pour 19 milliards – une application aujourd’hui utilisée par plus de 1 milliard de personnes –, et empêcherait l’émergence de concurrents.

    Enfin, Apple est accusé de défavoriser ses concurrents dans son magasin d’applications AppStore. Une enquête du New York Times a montré que les services maison de la marque à la pomme accaparaient les meilleures places pour de nombreux termes de recherche, avant que l’algorithme soit modifié.

    #Gafa #Antitrust

  • Antitrust regulators are using the wrong tools to break up Big Tech, by Tim O’Reilly
    https://qz.com/1666863/why-big-tech-keeps-outsmarting-antitrust-regulators
    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Yellowstone-e1563372553318.png?w=1240&h=688&crop=1&strip=all&quality=75

    As shown in the figure below, for a popular search that has commercial potential, like visit Yellowstone, not only is the search results page dominated by paid search results (ads) and content directly supplied by Google, but Google’s “answer boxes” are themselves filled with links to other Google pages rather than to third-party websites. (Note that Google personalizes results and also runs hundreds of thousands of A/B tests a day on the effect of minor changes in position, so your own results for this identical search may have different results than are shown here.)

    #gafam #antitrust #publicité

  • Amazon’s Antitrust Antagonist Has a Breakthrough Idea - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antitrust-lina-khan-amazon.html

    If competitors tremble at Amazon’s ambitions, consumers are mostly delighted by its speedy delivery and low prices. They stream its Oscar-winning movies and clamor for the company to build a second headquarters in their hometowns. Few of Amazon’s customers, it is safe to say, spend much time thinking they need to be protected from it.

    But then, until recently, no one worried about Facebook, Google or Twitter either. Now politicians, the media, academics and regulators are kicking around ideas that would, metaphorically or literally, cut them down to size. Members of Congress grilled social media executives on Wednesday in yet another round of hearings on Capitol Hill. Not since the Department of Justice took on Microsoft in the mid-1990s has Big Tech been scrutinized like this.

    Amazon has more revenue than Facebook, Google and Twitter put together, but it has largely escaped sustained examination. That is beginning to change, and one significant reason is Ms. Khan.

    In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, Ms. Khan published “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” in the Yale Law Journal. Her argument went against a consensus in antitrust circles that dates back to the 1970s — the moment when regulation was redefined to focus on consumer welfare, which is to say price. Since Amazon is renowned for its cut-rate deals, it would seem safe from federal intervention.

    Ms. Khan disagreed. Over 93 heavily footnoted pages, she presented the case that the company should not get a pass on anticompetitive behavior just because it makes customers happy. Once-robust monopoly laws have been marginalized, Ms. Khan wrote, and consequently Amazon is amassing structural power that lets it exert increasing control over many parts of the economy.

    “As consumers, as users, we love these tech companies,” she said. “But as citizens, as workers, and as entrepreneurs, we recognize that their power is troubling. We need a new framework, a new vocabulary for how to assess and address their dominance.”

    The analogies with Amazon are explicit. Don’t let the government pursue Amazon the way it pursued A.&P., Mr. Muris and Mr. Nuechterlein warned.

    “Amazon has added hundreds of billions of dollars of value to the U.S. economy,” they wrote. “It is a brilliant innovator” whose “breakthroughs have in turn helped launch new waves of innovation across retail and technology sectors, to the great benefit of consumers.”

    Amazon itself could not have made the argument any better. Which isn’t surprising, because in a footnote on the first page, the authors noted: “We approached Amazon Inc. for funding to tell the story” of A.&P., “and we gratefully acknowledge its support.” They added at the end of footnote 85: “The authors have advised Amazon on a variety of antitrust issues.”

    Amazon declined to say how much its support came to in dollars. It also declined to comment on Ms. Khan or her paper directly, but issued a statement.

    “We operate in a diverse range of businesses, from retail and entertainment to consumer electronics and technology services, and we have intense and well-established competition in each of these areas,” the company said. “Retail is our largest business today and we represent less than 1 percent of global retail.”

    The April issue of the journal Antitrust Chronicle, edited by Mr. Medvedovsky, features a drawing of a bearded man on the cover right above the words “Hipster Antitrust.” In the middle of an article by Philip Marsden, a professor of competition law and economics at the College of Europe in Bruges, there’s a photograph of a bearded man taking a selfie next to the chapter heading “Battle of the Beards.” It is perhaps relevant that only one of the 12 authors or experts in the issue is female.

    The Hipster issue was sponsored by Facebook, another sign that Big Tech is striving to shape the monopoly-law debate. The company declined to comment.

    Ms. Khan was not the first to criticize Amazon, and she said the company was not really her target anyway. “Amazon is not the problem — the state of the law is the problem, and Amazon depicts that in an elegant way,” she said.

    From Amazon’s point of view, however, it is a problem indeed that Ms. Khan concludes in the Yale paper that regulating parts of the company like a utility “could make sense.” She also said it “could make sense” to treat Amazon’s e-commerce operation like a bridge, highway, port, power grid or telephone network — all of which are required to allow access to their infrastructure on a nondiscriminatory basis.

    #Amazon #Antitrust #Conflit_interêt

  • Après la #France, l’#Italie et la #Suisse font les frais de l’entente #Roche/#Novartis

    Les deux firmes se sont entendues pour favoriser un médicament très lucratif au prix de 900 euros et ainsi entraver la vente d’un produit ayant les mêmes effets, coûtant à peine 81 euros. En Italie, l’#Antitrust et la justice pénale se sont saisies de l’affaire et sanctionné les deux entreprises. En Suisse, les autorités affirment être pieds et poings liés.

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/130518/apres-la-france-l-italie-et-la-suisse-font-les-frais-de-l-entente-rochenov
    #santé #industrie_pharmaceutique #big-pharma

    Une enquête de Federico Franchini (@wereport), publiée initialement dans La Cité

  • News from Facebook – iA
    https://ia.net/topics/news-from-facebook

    Everything that Facebook does in the near future has to be interpreted in the stark neon light of fighting antitrust laws. Zuckerberg is ready for big sacrifices to avoid the governmental beatdown. Cutting news organizations out of the main feed already cost him 3.3 Billion. He knew that beforehand. He also knew that news organizations would not love him for his big change of mind. But compared to having the government step in and break up the Facebook Kingdom, 3.3 Billion and a couple of angry journalists is a very small price.

    #facebook #presse #antitrust

  • #Pékin met les #multinationales au pas

    Les enquêtes virulentes de l’#antitrust #chinois reflètent un regain de #patriotisme #économique.

    Tout est dit dans le titre introductif : le marché intérieur se développera en privilégiant le « Made in China », qu’on se le dise !

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2014/08/20/20002-20140820ARTFIG00026-pekin-met-les-multinationales-au-pas.php

    Revue de Presse Hebdomadaire sur la Chine du 18/08/2014

  • #Google gagne la confiance de la #FTC

    http://www.argotheme.com/organecyberpresse/spip.php?article1580

    L’incassable #argument #américain de garder les meilleurs #créateurs ...

    Google s’est engagé, devant les enquêteurs de la FTC (la #commission #antitrusts des #EtatsUnis ) à bien se conduire, pour l’ #indexation des contenus et leur classement sur son #moteur de #recherche . Ainsi qu’en matière de #technologie, il promet l’ouverture des moyens dont il possède les #brevets . Les autres groupes rivaux, à l’origine de moult accusations de situations monopolistiques illégales et non déontologiques, n’y croient toujours pas à cette promesse. Les autorités pensent arroger au géant du #Web pleines libertés, afin qu’il continue de monter haute la barre des #progrès technologiques.