After Trump Tweet, GOP Lawmakers Welcome DOJ's Big Tech Antitrust Talks
Congress should take DOJ’s advice on alleged anticompetitive behavior from big tech before heavily regulating the industry, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told us Thursday. Justice said Wednesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will meet with state attorneys general this month to explore the issue (see 1809050057), days after President Donald Trump warned Google and Silicon Valley about violating antitrust law. “I’d rather get [DOJ] advice before Congress decides to declare [industry] a regulated utility, which I think would be a disaster,” Cornyn said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Asked if Trump's warning influenced DOJ’s scrutiny, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told us he doesn’t “necessarily think so.” It will be interesting to see what DOJ “methodology would be because it’s a very different market,” Tillis said, and informative to see how antitrust law might apply to free services. “I don’t know exactly how they would do it, but that’s one of the reasons why [the] Judiciary [Committee] at least has some role in oversight. We’ll just have to wait and see how they map it out.” Cornyn and Tillis are members of that panel. Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told us antitrust law is designed to protect consumers, so he’s supportive of departmental scrutiny if “they’re doing it from the standpoint of protecting consumers.” DOJ didn't comment.
Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Ed Black was skeptical during a conference call Friday of DOJ motivations. It’s an “unfortunate” attempt to “marshal the power” of the government to target a company for nongovernmental purposes, he said. There is certainly a “hint or tangential linkage” to political interests, he said: If more than tangential, “that would certainly become a serious problem.”
FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra commented on the agency’s upcoming hearings on competition and consumer protection policy (see 1808240027), which start Thursday. Use any rulemaking authority to define “unfair methods of competition,” he recommended Thursday. The agency has relied on adjudication to define unfair competition “case-by-case,” he said: Rulemaking authority through the Administrative Procedure Act is “a far more effective tool that would provide greater notice to the marketplace and that is developed through a more transparent, participatory process.”
Americans for Prosperity Policy Manager David Barnes denounced political interests influencing enforcement of antitrust law. Echoing Grassley, he said antitrust law exists to benefit consumers: DOJ “should not wield its authority to subjectively pick winners and losers in the tech industry or to police free speech. Using threats of antitrust or other enforcement as a political weapon should be cause for concern for every American.”
It’s inappropriate for DOJ or the FTC to take legal action not based on solid evidence, Black argued. On the FTC hearings, he said, “We hope that by and large most policymakers will be able to distinguish between legitimate, complex questions that need attention and [disregard] wild, unsubstantiated and ill-motivated attacks by others.” CCIA Competition Director Marianela Lopez-Galdos said tech markets are more competitive than others. The Internet accounted for 21 percent of GDP growth in “mature economies” in the past five years, she said, citing McKinsey Global Institute data.