{"id":9105,"date":"2022-02-02T20:40:38","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T20:40:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/02\/can-we-at-least-make-sure-antitrust-isnt-deliberately-designed-to-make-everyone-worse-off\/"},"modified":"2022-02-02T20:40:38","modified_gmt":"2022-02-02T20:40:38","slug":"can-we-at-least-make-sure-antitrust-isnt-deliberately-designed-to-make-everyone-worse-off","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/02\/can-we-at-least-make-sure-antitrust-isnt-deliberately-designed-to-make-everyone-worse-off\/","title":{"rendered":"Can We At Least Make Sure Antitrust Isn’t Deliberately Designed To Make Everyone Worse Off?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the a-small-request<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nFor decades here on Techdirt I’ve argued that competition is the biggest driver of innovation, and so I’m very interested in policies designed to drive more competition. Historically this has been antitrust policy, but over the past decade or so it feels like antitrust policy has become less and less about competition, and more and more about punishing companies that politicians dislike. We can debate whether or not consumer welfare<\/a> is the right standard for antitrust — I think there are people on both sides of that debate who make valid points — but I have significant concerns about any antitrust policy that seems deliberately designed to make consumers worse off<\/b>.\n<\/p>\n

\nThat’s why I’m really perplexed by the push recently to push through the \u201cAmerican Innovation and Choice Online Act\u201d<\/a> from Amy Klobuchar which, for the most part, doesn’t seem to be about increasing competition, innovation, or choice. It seems almost entirely punitive in not just punishing the very small number of companies it targets, but rather everyone who uses those platforms.\n<\/p>\n

\nThere’s not much I agree with Michael Bloomberg<\/a> about, but I think his recent opinion piece on the AICOA bill<\/a> is exactly correct.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\nAt the heart of the bill is an effort to prevent big tech companies from using a widespread business practice called self-preferencing, which is generally good for both consumers and competition. Think of it this way: An ice-cream parlor makes its own flavors and sells other companies\u2019 flavors, too. Its storefront window carries a large sign advertising its homemade wares. In smaller letters, the sign mentions that Haagen-Dazs and Breyers are available, too. Should Congress force the ice-cream store owners to advertise Haagen-Dazs and Breyers as prominently as their own products?\n<\/p>\n

\nThat\u2019s essentially what this bill would force a handful of the largest tech companies to do. For instance, Google users searching the name of a local business now get, in their search results, the option of clicking a Google-built map. But under the bill\u2019s requirements, the search results would likely have to exclude the Google map. Similarly, Amazon would likely be prevented from promoting its less-expensive generic goods against the biggest brand names.\n<\/p>\n

\nLots of businesses offer configurations of products and services in ways that are attractive to customers, often for both price and convenience. Doing this can allow companies to enter \u2014 and potentially disrupt \u2014 new markets, to the great advantage of customers.\n<\/p>\n

\nYet the bill views such standard business conduct as harmful. It would require covered companies \u2014 essentially Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and TikTok \u2014 to prove that any new instance of preferencing would \u201cmaintain or enhance the core functionality\u201d of their business. Failure to comply could lead to fines of up to 15% of a company\u2019s total U.S. revenue over the offending period.\n<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nNow, I think there’s a very legitimate argument that if a dominant company is using its dominant position to preference something in a manner that harms competition and the end user experience, then that can be problematic, and existing antitrust law can take care of that. But this bill seems to assume that any effort to offer your own services is somehow de facto against the law.\n<\/p>\n

\nAnd whether or not that harms these companies is besides the point: it will absolutely harm the users and customers of these companies, and why should that be enabled by US competition policy? The goal seems to be “if we force these companies to be worse, maybe it will drive people to competitors,” which is a really bizarre way of pushing competition. We should drive competition by encouraging great innovation<\/b>, not limiting how companies can innovate.\n<\/p>\n

\nEven if you don’t think that the “consumer welfare” standard makes sense for antitrust, I hope most people can at least agree that any such policy should never deliberately be making consumers worse off<\/em>.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"Hide<\/p>\n
\n

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.<\/p>\n

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying\/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Filed Under: amy klobuchar<\/a>, antitrust<\/a>, competition<\/a>, consumer welfare<\/a>, innovation<\/a>, michael bloomberg<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n