Five False Claims Underscore the Case Against the Senate's Leading Antitrust Bills

Abstract

The Senate’s main antitrust bills—the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act—emulate a stalled House package and the EU’s deeply flawed Digital Markets Act. They err on many fronts, and the main arguments for them are at odds with reality.¹

Report

Conclusion

The two antitrust bills discussed herein are part of a wider set of bills aimed at curbing the ability of a few online platforms to compete, innovate, and deliver products and services efficiently. The proposed legislation supported by Neo-Brandeisians weaponizes antitrust to lash out a few tech companies—namely, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Meta.[45] While Microsoft has avoided excessive popular outcry, the company is nevertheless accused of unreasonable growth through mergers, as the acquisition of Activision illustrates.[46] Apple is targeted for the allegedly anticompetitive effects of its privacy-friendly policies, thereby creating insurmountable intricacies between privacy and competition objectives from a consumer perspective.[47] Amazon’s highly competitive prices and efficient delivery have steered third-party vendors’ ire, as they are disrupted inasmuch as other incumbents are disrupted by Amazon’s acquisition policy which fosters competition and innovation.[48] Google’s large variety of free services is at odds with the lawmakers’ willingness to prohibit self-preferencing and is at odds with the enforcers’ desire to silo Google in a search engine without adjacent services that are popular with consumers.[49] Meta is accused of monopolizing the metaverse it pioneered and that represents a business promise, and certainly not a mature market.[50]

These antitrust bills import the many prohibitions and obligations included in the EU’s Digital Markets Act and, with it, the European precautionary approach to disruptive innovation and their focus on protecting businesses from competition, rather than promoting consumers’ welfare. Congress should not follow the EU’s precautionary path, as these antitrust bills would decrease consumer welfare and U.S. competitiveness and productivity.

Takeaway: They err on many fronts, and the main arguments for them are at odds with reality.

Conclusion quoted verbatim from the report.

Notes

1. Aurelien Portuese, Five False Claims Underscore the Case Against the Senate's Leading Antitrust Bills (Info. Tech. & Innovation Found., Apr. 4, 2022), https://itif.org/publications/2022/04/04/five-false-claims-underscore-case-against-senate-antitrust-bills/. Summary quoted verbatim from the ITIF publication page, https://itif.org/publications/2022/04/04/five-false-claims-underscore-case-against-senate-antitrust-bills/. ↩

Cite as: Aurelien Portuese, Five False Claims Underscore the Case Against the Senate's Leading Antitrust Bills (Info. Tech. & Innovation Found., Apr. 4, 2022), https://itif.org/publications/2022/04/04/five-false-claims-underscore-case-against-senate-antitrust-bills/

Header image: Flickr - USCapitol - Springtime on the Capitol Grounds.jpg by USCapitol, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.