|
Eakinomics: Antitrust
in the House
The House of Representatives is marking up a package of five antitrust reform
bills, hence the title. The poor quality of the ideas and the race to jam the
bills through also makes one suspicious, hence the title. Fortunately,
Jennifer Huddleston moves quickly as well; her summary and analysis of three
key pieces is here. Those bills are as follows.
- Platform Competition and
Opportunity Act prohibits mergers unless the large company can
show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the proposed acquisition
would not be a violation. In short, it shifts the burden from the
government to intervene in bad mergers to companies to prove that their
proposed mergers are good.
- The Ending Platform Monopolies Act and American
Innovation and Choice Act combined are a “Glass-Stegall
for Tech” and prevent a large firm from owning or operating
other businesses such as those that present a conflict of
interest.
- The American Innovation and Choice Act prohibits
platforms from using the data they collect to develop and price their
own products, a benign practice that has long occurred in traditional
retail.
In each case, the entities subject to the reforms are those with over 50
million monthly online-platform users in the United States – or merely
100,000 monthly U.S. business users – and a market capitalization
of $600 billion or more. At present, this qualification effectively
targets the large tech firms, but there is nothing that limits these
laws to tech in the years to come.
Huddleston provides a blow-by-blow of the flaws and deficiencies in these
efforts; I will focus on three of the larger issues that they raise. The
first was noted above; this is an attempt to take on the politically
unpopular tech giants, but the policy is written in a way that it may spill
over indiscriminately. How long is it before everything looks like an
“online platform” and getting to 100,000 business users is no real
challenge? Will this eventually encompass every financial services firm?
Every wholesaler and delivery network? The potential for unintended consequences
seems large.
Second, we already know that these are bad ideas – the Europeans tried them
first in the form of the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. Those efforts have
been roundly criticized by the American policy community as
protectionist and unfairly targeting U.S. companies. It makes no sense to
piggyback on these bad foreign ideas in domestic legislation at a
time when continued leadership in the tech sector is critical.
Finally, these proposals represent a move away from the
consumer welfare standard as the anchor for antitrust policy. All policy
should be about maximizing consumer welfare. This is a country of consumers,
the market system is responsive to their desires (especially for Twizzlers),
and public policy should be guided by them as well. Allow mergers,
acquisitions, new product development, data collection, market entry, and
other activities when they raise consumer welfare and step in when they
don’t. It is particularly ironic that this standard is being discarded by
progressives and populists attacking tech giants in the name of “the little
guys.” If you think about it, there is nothing more populist than the
consumer welfare standard.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment