Should Big Tech be broken up?

The dominance of the big four technology giants has attracted the attention of politicians determined to humble them. But what real harm are they doing?

What has happened?

The question of breaking up Big Tech is back on the agenda following last week’s grilling of Silicon Valley’s top bosses (via video link, appropriately enough) by US politicians. David Cicilline, the Democrat chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, kicked off the  hearing on “Online Platforms and Market Power” with the assertion that: “Our founders would not bow before a king. Nor should we bow before the emperors of the online economy”. That set the combative tone for several hours of sharp questioning of Jeff Bezos of Amazon (see also page 21), Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) of Facebook, whose four companies have a combined market capitalisation of around $5trn – roughly equivalent to the GDP of Japan. Republicans focused on the alleged stifling of conservative viewpoints on social media; Democrats focused on anti-competitive practices by the “cyber barons”. 

Is this more than sabre-rattling?

The hearings did feel like a watershed, says Margaret O’Mara in The New York Times. Given the historic embrace of Silicon Valley by Washington from the 1970s onwards, the intense hostility and precision of some of the questioning was remarkable – and brought to mind previous “seminal” grillings of car-industry bosses in the 1960s and Big Tobacco in the 1990s that presaged major regulatory clampdowns. But here’s the thing – “cigarettes killed people. Cars were unsafe”. By contrast, the dangers of Big Tech for consumers are far less clear-cut: “misinformation, an incomplete search result, an unfairly promoted link, privacy erosion, a skewed algorithm”. We might all wish we used our smartphones less, or worry about what social media is doing to public discourse, but “we still routinely check our Facebook pages, buy apps via Apple, and click ‘buy’ on Amazon Prime”.

What exactly is Big Tech accused of?

Abusing its monopoly power unfairly to stifle competition. For example, Facebook was accused of adopting  a “copy, acquire, kill” strategy to “destroy” any start-up that could prove a rival. Amazon was accused of exploiting its access to the proprietary data of third-party sellers using its marketplace to drive competitors out of business. Apple was accused of using its power over developers who rely on its App Store to take an unfair share of their profits and target software that threatens its own. And Google was charged with poaching other sites’ content to improve its own products, then working to drive the other sites into obscurity. In short, says The Washington Post, Congress argues that these companies “exploit their dominance in various marketplaces to maintain their dominance” over would-be competitors. 

Isn’t that a normal business strategy?

Only within the law. In recent decades antitrust law has been mostly interpreted as protecting consumers from abusive pricing power (the “consumer welfare” standard) rather than business competitors from aggressive tactics. But even if existing laws can be used to rein in the anticompetitive antics of the four firms, argues John Naughton in The Observer, they are “obsolete” in relation to their conceptions of “consumer harm” from monopolistic behaviour by companies – such as Google and Facebook – that don’t directly charge consumers for their services. Moreover, existing laws say nothing about “societal” harms such as undermining elections or “polluting the public sphere”. The key question facing legislators, then, says The Washington Post, is whether antitrust law now needs updating for the digital age, when “big data skews what regulators thought they knew about pricing, and when unforeseen and often immeasurable harms may arise from the concentration of too much control in too few hands”. US lawmakers report back next month with their conclusions. Chairman Cicilline’s is already clear: some of the four “need to be broken up, all need to be heavily regulated”.

What’s the case for break-up?

Monopolies, however arrived at, stifle innovation and harm consumers in the long run. The tech giants “wield unaccountable power and curb competition” and “give capitalism a bad name”, says Oliver Kamm in The Times. It’s time, therefore, to confront them and break them up. On the other hand, argues Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph, for all those start-ups that claim to have been “taken down by an abusive Big Tech, there are hundreds of others for which these platforms have been a godsend”. New industries do tend to become dominated by a small number of big players – and that’s “particularly the case with tech, where powerful network effects are at work”. 

Does Big Tech really crush competitors?

Look at the examples cited by Congress, says Warner – namely Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube. All were “in their infancy” when acquired by Facebook and Google. At the time he was acquiring Instagram, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg was “ridiculed for the apparently extravagant” $1bn price tag, and US regulators waved the deal through. Why should he now be penalised for making a success out of a clever acquisition? “Much business would cease if we were to apply that logic widely.” To make a case for break-up, you have to show actual positive benefits to consumers, competition, and innovation. It’s not remotely clear why (say) separating Amazon’s servers business from its retail operation, or Facebook from Instagram, would benefit anyone. Breaking up Big Tech is “emotionally appealing”, but in practice probably not worth the hassle, says James O’Malley in The Spectator. Greater regulation is almost certainly coming, but, “perhaps channelling the spirit of Silicon Valley, that regulation will have to be much more innovative” than existing antitrust laws.

Recommended

Persimmon yields 12.3%, but can you trust the company to deliver?
Share tips

Persimmon yields 12.3%, but can you trust the company to deliver?

With a dividend yield of 12.3%, Persimmon looks like a highly attractive prospect for income investors. But that sort of yield can also indicate compa…
1 Jul 2022
The MoneyWeek Podcast: nuggets of positivity in an extended bear market
Investment strategy

The MoneyWeek Podcast: nuggets of positivity in an extended bear market

Merryn and John talk about he need for higher wages and lower house prices, and why the fact that this is the least dramatic bear market they’ve ever …
1 Jul 2022
Here are the best savings accounts on the market now
Savings

Here are the best savings accounts on the market now

With inflation at more than 9%, your savings are not going to keep pace with the rising cost of living. But you can at least slow the rate at which yo…
1 Jul 2022
Don’t try to time the bottom – start buying good companies now
Investment strategy

Don’t try to time the bottom – start buying good companies now

Markets are having a rough time, so you may be tempted to wait to try to call the bottom and pick up some bargains. But that would be a mistake, says …
1 Jul 2022

Most Popular

UK house prices are definitely cooling off – but are they heading for a fall?
House prices

UK house prices are definitely cooling off – but are they heading for a fall?

UK house prices hit a fresh high in June, but as interest rates start to rise, the market is cooling John Stepek assesses just how much of an effect h…
30 Jun 2022
The ten highest dividend yields in the FTSE 100
Income investing

The ten highest dividend yields in the FTSE 100

Rupert Hargreaves looks at the FTSE 100’s top yielding stocks for income investors to consider.
22 Jun 2022
The ten highest dividend yields on Aim
Income investing

The ten highest dividend yields on Aim

Rupert Hargreaves picks the highest-paying dividend stocks on Aim, London’s junior market for small and medium-sized growth companies.
29 Jun 2022