Ownership

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 Lina Khan. In early 2017, when she was an unknown law student, 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.

The week of Sept 10, the Federal Trade Commission launches a months-long series of hearings on antitrust and competition policy that could change how the government treats some tech companies in the digital age. It will be the latest spotlight on the hot-button issue of the disparate regulatory treatment of social media sites and Internet service providers.

Tim Armstrong, a top Verizon executive, may be on the way out after struggling to turn the telecommunication company into a competitor to Google and Facebook, the Internet's preeminent digital advertising titans. Armstrong, the former AOL chief executive who joined Verizon when it purchased his company in 2015, is currently in charge of Oath, the Verizon subsidiary that contains AOL and Yahoo. Underscoring the story is the revelation that Verizon's digital advertising efforts have largely stalled.

When Amazon invited cities to compete for its second global headquarters a year ago today, it got reams of data from the 238 entrants — enough to learn details of the cities' future plans that a lot of their residents don't even know about. The information effectively provided Amazon with a database chock full of granular details about the economic development prospects of every major metropolitan area in the United States (and some in Canada).

Our upcoming hearings provide an important opportunity for the Federal Trade Commission to reflect on ways to increase the effectiveness of our enforcement of the antitrust laws.

The 1980s saw major changes in the tech and telecommunications landscape, primarily the breakup of AT&T, which agreed to end its telecom monopoly by splitting into a number of “baby bells.” At the start of the ‘90s, the Federal Trade Commission was already scrutinizing computerized systems that seemed to facilitate entirely new monopolistic and collusive schemes.

The European Union approved Apple’s planned acquisition of British music discovery app Shazam, saying an EU antitrust investigation showed it would not harm competition in the bloc. The deal, announced in December 2017, would help the iPhone maker better compete with Spotify, the industry leader in music streaming services.

President Donald Trump lashed out at a host of familiar targets early Sept 6 as he grapples with the fallout of a New York Times op-ed in which an anonymous senior administration official wrote that some White House staffers have conspired to push back against the president's instincts. "The Deep State and the Left, and their vehicle, the Fake News Media, are going Crazy - & they don’t know what to do. The Economy is booming like never before, Jobs are at Historic Highs, soon TWO Supreme Court Justices & maybe Declassification to find Additional Corruption.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to meet with state attorneys general in Sept 2018 to discuss whether tech companies may be “intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas.” The meeting will also consider whether tech platforms “may have harmed competition” with their actions, a hint that the Justice Department may be weighing antitrust action against the firms. Legal experts said the agency's announcement “clearly suggests” a willingness to intervene on behalf of conservative critics who say they are victims of discrimination by the companies. The Justice Department’s statement:

Antitrust crusaders have built up serious momentum in Washington, making a strong case that big companies (especially big tech companies) are distorting the market to drive out competitors. We need a new standard for monopolies, they argue, one that focuses less on consumer harm and more on the skewed incentives produced by a company the size of Facebook or Google. Here's the case against four of the movement’s biggest targets, and what they might look like if they came out on the losing end.