NetChoice, PK Reps Agree: Don’t Use Antitrust to Address Policy, Political Issues
Antitrust law shouldn’t be used to address political and policy concerns, NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo and Public Knowledge President Gene Kimmelman agreed on C-SPAN’s The Communicators. Szabo and Kimmelman, however, disagreed through most of the discussion, to have been televised this weekend. The industry representative defended what he sees as “robust” tech industry competition, while Kimmelman welcomed increased antitrust scrutiny from enforcers and Congress (see 1906060032).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Republicans and Democrats have both supported taking a harder look at tech industry competition. But Szabo said lawmakers and observers often incorrectly conflate the antitrust conversation with concerns like privacy and political censorship. Antitrust law is “just not the right tool,” he said, to which Kimmelman agreed “completely.” But Kimmelman said it’s fair for antitrust enforcers to monitor evidence of consumer and competition harm. He applauded the investigation from the House Judiciary Committee. Congress is doing the right thing by checking for problems and “looking for the right tools” to address any harm, he said.
Szabo played down concerns over the size of large platforms like Amazon, saying Wal-Mart is twice as large as Amazon. Though Amazon owns Whole Foods, it’s surrounded by competitors and is No. 9 U.S. grocer, he added: “It’s important to realize there are many competitors in these markets. Maybe they’re not quite as big as we think they are despite their large impact on our daily lives.” Netchoice members include Google, Alibaba Group, EBay, Facebook and Twitter.
The concern isn't grocers, Kimmelman said. It’s that a larger percent of daily lives are spent online, whether that’s consuming news or shopping, he said. The question is whether online distribution changed market dynamics, Kimmelman argued. More cost-saving leads to more consumers on a given network, potentially making it harder for new entrants and ultimately resulting in loss of innovation and higher prices in the long run, he said.
Consumers don’t need multiple companies doing the same thing, which creates inefficiencies that weaken services, Szabo said. All tech platforms are competing for consumer attention, he argued, so theoretically Facebook is competing with Netflix for engagement. Kimmelman disagreed, saying Szabo was essentially arguing everything a person does competes with Facebook, like sleeping.
Szabo argued against a need to break up platforms. To split a company requires a proven legal standard, Kimmelman said. AT&T was last major monopoly broken up, and it was a 20-year effort, he said. That long process also concerned a much simpler corporate structure, he added.