Antitrust lawsuits like those facing Google and Facebook are essential if the Internet is to remain open and innovative. The lawsuit against Facebook was launched by the Federal Trade Commission and 48 attorneys general. As the complaint was announced, New York attorney general Letitia James noted that for most of the last decade the company “has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition” and that by taking advantage of “vast troves of data and money, [it] has squashed or hindered what the company perceived to be potential threats.” The success of this “buy or bury” strategy at throttling competitors is undeniable. Until the Chinese-inspired Tiktok threatened its hegemony, Facebook had not faced a credible rival since the launch of Snapchat in 2011.
Similar practices are detailed in the lawsuit against Google, most notably its use of exclusive contracts to block or limit competitors’ access to Android devices, and to ensure that its search engine was the default option for browsers like Apple’s Safari. Although such arrangements may seem innocuous on paper, they can’t be separated from Google’s terrible track record on user privacy, and its long history of aggressive lobbying to ensure that US legislators didn’t burden it with proper oversight. It isn’t hard to see why the suit claims that such manoeuvres have meant that competitors simply “cannot emerge from Google’s long shadow.”
Both cases indicate a shift in America’s attitude towards Big Tech, a bipartisan scepticism that is evident at both the state and federal levels – despite the companies’ extensive lobbying. In the waning days of his administration, president Trump has made it clear that he wishes to get rid of Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act, the provision that shields the major digital platforms from intermediary liability. This protection allowed the Internet to spread and adapt during its infancy and undoubtedly played a key role in enabling it to become a transformative force for free speech and creativity. Hasty repeal would put Big Tech on notice of further regulations, but it could also spread a global chill throughout the platforms’ users.
Google and Facebook’s anti-competitive behaviour has always been of a piece with their self-serving claims about freedom of expression and democracy. For years both companies have cloaked their incursion into the revenue streams of journalism and publishing with high minded statements about organizing the world’s knowledge and connecting people. When it transpired that they were, in fact, selling their user data, facilitating surveillance and electoral interference, and weaponizing speech which led to ethnic cleansing and genocide, they changed tack rapidly. With the looming prospect of genuine accountability, big tech has pivoted again and tried to pre-empt reforms by calling for collaborative drafting of new tax codes and oversight provisions. The recent lawsuits suggest that this ruse has not worked.
More than a decade ago, America’s tech titans realised that they were moving much faster than the democratic processes that were meant to contain them. They have used this time to amass some of the largest fortunes in history, while wilfully ignoring and denying the downside and occasional disasters caused their global reach. While previous US monopolies, like Standard Oil have interfered with foreign countries, none have undermined democracy at such a fundamental level. Years ago, with unusual candour, Mark Zuckerberg claimed that “In a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company.” The antitrust suits against Facebook and Google have underscored the truth of this insight, and revealed that both companies have an entrenched contempt for any democratic encumbrance that could diminish their profits.
