The United States considers boarding the tech regulation train

On August 24th, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the opening session of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. Starting in September, these hearings will ‘examine whether broad-based changes in the economy […] require adjustments to competition and consumer protection enforcement priorities of the Commission’. A focus on new technologies is readily apparent, as topics include anti-competitive practices by online platforms, acquisitions of nascent competitors in digital markets, privacy, big data, and algorithms.

The FTC’s soul-searching exercise is not an isolated event. Several relevant actors in the US are currently considering whether and how to regulate (competition in) the technology sector. In this blog post, I shortly discuss a number of these initiatives, and the reasons underlying them.

Underlying reasons

Contrary to the EU, the US has shied away from seriously regulating tech companies. As most of the big tech companies originate from the US, the EU’s regulatory zeal has led to allegations of protectionism. (A sceptic could counter that the US’s lack of oversight is a sign of protectionism.) Recently, however, the US has been warming up to the idea of regulation. While there a number of reasons for this shift, two stand out.

Firstly, there is a growing concern over concentration of the US economy. A number of recent studies from academia (here, here and here) and journalism have shown an increase in economic concentration in the US (for a critical note, see here). As industries are dominated by a small number of companies, competition decreases and corporate profits rise. This tendency is particularly strong in the tech sector.

A second concern, even more closely related to tech companies, is democracy. In the wake of revelations regarding Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Americans have grown worried about the effects of big tech on the democratic process. A recent poll found that 55% of Americans are now concerned that the government won’t do enough to regulate how US tech companies operate, citing election interference as an important factor.


Politicians and agencies in the US are now starting to act on the above concerns. The FTC’s hearings, mentioned above, may not change anything in and of themselves, but they may prelude a more fundamental shift in antitrust enforcement. In that regard, the Republican chairman of the FTC has promised ‘vigorous enforcement’ of Silicon Valley, and has stated that he’s even prepared to ask Congress for legislation. Aside from the hearings, two other initiatives are worth discussing.

Last year, the Democrats unveiled their Better Deal agenda for the American people. With regard to competition, it entails the plan to ‘revisit our antitrust laws to ensure that the economic freedom of all Americans—consumers, workers, and small businesses—come before big corporations that are getting even bigger.’ More specifically, Democrats propose to (i) establish new standards to limit large mergers that unfairly consolidate corporate power; (ii) strengthen post-merger review; and (iii) install a new consumer competition advocate. The upcoming midterm elections will help determine how feasible it is to put this plan into practice.

While the Better Deal agenda on competition references big data and online platforms, one Democratic senator—Mark Warner from Virginia—has gotten more specific. In a paper prepared by his office and scooped by Axios on July 30th, Warner puts forward 20 proposals to resolve the problems of big tech. These proposals are structured around two areas of focus, namely (i) combatting disinformation campaigns on social media, with a special focus on Russian election interference; (ii) guaranteeing consumer protection in the digital age, especially when it comes to the use of personal data; and (iii) safeguarding competition and innovation in a high-tech landscape dominated by a few platforms.

The proposals themselves are wide-ranging, and a number of them are inspired by European precedents. One suggestion, for example, is to adopt comprehensive ‘GDPR-like’ data protection legislation. Others go even further, including an obligation for platforms to be transparent with regard to the value of data users surrender to it. On the competition front, the most striking proposal seeks to designate some platforms as ‘essential facilities’ (an idea also floated by EU Commissioner Vestager). This would imply an obligation to provide access to third parties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, and a prohibition to prioritize their own services over those of third-parties using the platform.

The paper has its flaws (as recognized by the drafters), and whether any proposal will make it into law depends—once more—in no small part on the results of the midterm elections. If nothing else, however, this paper—along with the initiatives discussed above—show how not only the American people, but also its politicians and agencies are increasingly concerned about the effects of big tech on society. The initiatives themselves merit critical discussion, but that will require another couple of blog posts.



Friso Bostoen

Blog Editor

Postdoctoral Researcher, KU Leuven

>> Friso’s CoRe Blog posts >>

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

15. Nov 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
abuse of dominance, competition law, art. 102 TFEU, railways, regulation, DMA, excessive pricing, unfair pricing, private enforcement, stand alone claims

Case C-721/20 – DB Station & Service – Can secondary legislation limit the private enforcement of art. 102 TFEU?

Last month the CJEU delivered an interesting ruling on the scope of application of art. 102 TFEU when dealing with excessive or unfair prices in the railway sector. A first reading of the final conclusion of the CJEU would give the impression that the scope of application of art. 102 TFEU is being unduly restricted with this case by making […]
26. Sep 2022
by Carlo Monegato

The modernisation of EU merger control

THE MODERNISATION OF EU MERGER CONTROL The long-awaited judgment in the Illumina/Grail art. 22 EUMR dispute was announced on 13 July 2022. The General Court confirmed that the European Commission has the power to decide on a merger, referred to it by a Member State, that does not meet the EU thresholds nor was it notified nationally. What follows is […]
26. Apr 2022
by Enrico Di Tomaso

Eventim/Ticketone v. AGCM – May acquisitions be prosecuted pursuant to Article 102 TFEU?

With judgment no. 3334 of 24 March 2022, the Rome Administrative Court of 1st instance (TAR Lazio-Roma) has annulled the decision issued by the Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) on 22 December 2020, no. 28495. The above TAR Lazio judgment (“the “Judgment”) is noteworthy because it deals with the possibility of AGCM (and of national competition authorities at large) to apply […]
08. Mar 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu

The DMA and EU competition law: complementing or cannibalizing enforcement?

The proposal of the DMA signals a significant change with respect to the application and enforcement of EU competition policy to online platforms. Despite the clear synergy between the two frameworks, the European Commission insists that the DMA is introduced with the idea of complementing, rather than replacing, the enforcement of EU competition law in the case of online platforms. […]
11. Feb 2022
Features by Friso Bostoen

The antitrust books you should’ve read in 2021 [part 2]

In a CoRe Blog post last month, I introduced the first three ‘antitrust books you should’ve read in 2021’. In this second instalment, I take a look at the next and final three books. Antitrust takes a political–historical look at the evolution of U.S. antitrust law, while How Antitrust Failed Workers zooms in on issues of labour market power. One […]
28. Jan 2022
Features by Friso Bostoen

The antitrust books you should’ve read in 2021 [part 1]

Following yearly tradition, I’m happy to present the antitrust books you should have read last year. In each of the 2019 and 2020 editions, I expressed surprise at the exceptional amount of competition law publishing, and this year is no different. Looking for explanations for this extended anomaly, two candidates emerge: either I wasn’t paying close enough attention before and […]
18. Jan 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
smartphone menu

The Apple App Store case in the Netherlands – a potential game changer

Just before 2021 ended, Apple suffered a loss in the Netherlands where a national court in preliminary relief proceedings struck down its attempt to block the remedies imposed by the Dutch competition authority following a finding of abuse of dominance. As a result, as of last weekend, Apple is forced to accept third-party payment solutions implemented in (paid) dating apps […]
21. Sep 2021
Features by Alice Rinaldi

Spielberg’s antitrust: Netflix, Amazon and the Draft Digital Markets Act

The recent legislative reform proposals presented by the European Commission (“EC”) have revived the debate on how Competition Law should deal with potentially abusive conduct in digital markets. Drawing upon the case law concerning violations of Art. 102 TFEU, the draft Digital Markets Act (“Draft DMA”) tries to re-design the structure of digital markets by codifying a series of dos […]
07. Sep 2021
Features by Friso Bostoen

A Different View of Platform Regulation: Reviewing Josh Hawley’s ‘The Tyranny of Big Tech’

The United States is quickly catching up with the European Union when it comes to tech regulation. The latest example is the proposed Open App Markets Act. While the bill’s provisions deserve discussion, one feature stands out: that it is was introduced by senators from both major parties. While Democrats and Republicans are not known for agreeing on much, the […]
19. Apr 2021
Features by Friso Bostoen
Article 22, Merger Regulation, European Commission, Guidance, killer acquisitions, GAFAM

The Commission’s Article 22 EUMR Guidance: catching killer acquisitions through the merger referral procedure?

Over the past five years, the EU’s merger control regime has been hotly debated. The main concern driving the debate has been the intensive acquisition activity in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. However, many of those acquisitions escape the jurisdictional thresholds of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) and therefore cannot be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). On 26 March […]

If you are interested, please use our Newletter to stay informed about our upcoming conferences, workshops, trainings and current published journals in our core areas of EU competition, data protection, substances and environmental law, as well as exciting new projects in emerging technologies and digitalisation.

Don’t miss any news and sign up for our free news alert.  Sign up now