Close Menu
TechCentralTechCentral

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube LinkedIn
    WhatsApp Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    • News

      South Africa loosens media ownership rules – but keeps one hand on the remote

      16 July 2025

      The real cost of a cashless economy

      16 July 2025

      Larry Ellison, 80, is now world’s second richest person

      16 July 2025

      Solly Malatsi seeks out-of-court deal in TV migration fight

      15 July 2025

      South Africa’s telcos battle to monetise 5G as 4G suffices for most

      15 July 2025
    • World

      Grok 4 arrives with bold claims and fresh controversy

      10 July 2025

      Samsung’s bet on folding phones faces major test

      10 July 2025

      Bitcoin pushes higher into record territory

      10 July 2025

      OpenAI to launch web browser in direct challenge to Google Chrome

      10 July 2025

      Cupertino vs Brussels: Apple challenges Big Tech crackdown

      7 July 2025
    • In-depth

      The 1940s visionary who imagined the Information Age

      14 July 2025

      MultiChoice is working on a wholesale overhaul of DStv

      10 July 2025

      Siemens is battling Big Tech for AI supremacy in factories

      24 June 2025

      The algorithm will sing now: why musicians should be worried about AI

      20 June 2025

      Meta bets $72-billion on AI – and investors love it

      17 June 2025
    • TCS

      TCS+ | MVNX on the opportunities in South Africa’s booming MVNO market

      11 July 2025

      TCS | Connecting Saffas – Renier Lombard on The Lekker Network

      7 July 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E4: Takealot’s big Post Office jobs plan

      4 July 2025

      TCS | Tech, townships and tenacity: Spar’s plan to win with Spar2U

      3 July 2025

      TCS+ | First Distribution on the latest and greatest cloud technologies

      27 June 2025
    • Opinion

      A smarter approach to digital transformation in ICT distribution

      15 July 2025

      In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

      30 June 2025

      E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

      30 June 2025

      South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

      17 June 2025

      AI and the future of ICT distribution

      16 June 2025
    • Company Hubs
      • Africa Data Centres
      • AfriGIS
      • Altron Digital Business
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Altron Group
      • Arctic Wolf
      • AvertITD
      • Braintree
      • CallMiner
      • CambriLearn
      • CYBER1 Solutions
      • Digicloud Africa
      • Digimune
      • Domains.co.za
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • Incredible Business
      • iONLINE
      • Iris Network Systems
      • LSD Open
      • NEC XON
      • Network Platforms
      • Next DLP
      • Ovations
      • Paracon
      • Paratus
      • Q-KON
      • SevenC
      • SkyWire
      • Solid8 Technologies
      • Telit Cinterion
      • Tenable
      • Vertiv
      • Videri Digital
      • Wipro
      • Workday
    • Sections
      • AI and machine learning
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud services
      • Contact centres and CX
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Electronics and hardware
      • Energy and sustainability
      • Enterprise software
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Lifestyle
      • Motoring
      • Public sector
      • Retail and e-commerce
      • Science
      • SMEs and start-ups
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Events
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home » In-depth » Google case shows antitrust gone wild

    Google case shows antitrust gone wild

    By Agency Staff21 October 2020
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Email Telegram Copy Link
    News Alerts
    WhatsApp

    On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump’s justice department filed a landmark lawsuit against Google. It could roil Silicon Valley, lead to years of bitter court battles, and upend the business model of one of America’s most successful companies. Yet the rationale for embarking on this project is far from clear.

    From the start, the government’s public explanations have varied widely. Attorney-general William Barr said in June that he was concerned about the suppression of conservative viewpoints online. Other officials have mused about biased search engine results or dominant advertising technology. Trump himself justified the probe because tech companies “discriminate against me”.

    In the end, the government focused its case on the agreements that Google has signed with phone makers and wireless carriers to promote its search business. On the face of it, the case is questionable: All the relevant agreements were the result of competitive bidding; users face only the slightest of hurdles if they wish to switch to other services, and even the world’s most ardent Bing enthusiasts must admit that Google has made a great product with immense consumer benefits.

    Barr hasn’t helped his case by repeatedly wielding competition policy to advance Trump’s political interests

    Barr hasn’t helped his case by repeatedly wielding competition policy to advance Trump’s political interests. According to whistleblower testimony, he has previously encouraged antitrust prosecutors to harass companies that have displeased the president or impeded his goals. Most of the attorneys involved in the Google case reportedly objected to the expedited timeline that Barr imposed on it, which seemed mostly concerned to help Trump in next month’s election.

    In short, even if the department is eventually able to prove that Google has harmed consumers, its erratic and partisan approach will have done lasting harm.

    Hostility

    Yet recent hostility to big technology firms is not confined to the current administration. Earlier this month, the majority staff of a US house subcommittee released a 449-page report that took a similarly expansive view of Big Tech’s depredations and proposed antitrust enforcement as the appropriate remedy. In addition to alleging anticompetitive conduct, it accused the big four companies of committing or accommodating many other misdeeds — disinformation, privacy violations, hate speech, technology addiction, political influence, impertinent e-mails — and concluded that these too reveal a systemic weakness in current antitrust policy.

    The problem is that these are not mainly competition issues, and competition law is the wrong instrument for addressing them. Re-engineering it for that purpose is a recipe for the kind of incoherent and politicised antitrust doctrine that prevailed in the US for decades before courts adopted the relatively clear and narrow standard of avoiding harm to consumers.

    Untroubled by such doubts, the report contemplated radical change. It wondered whether the firms should, in effect, be broken up. It entertained the idea of “overriding” no fewer than six supreme court rulings. It proposed that all acquisitions by dominant firms be “presumed anticompetitive”, thereby undermining due process and empowering regulators over the courts. It suggested congress consider amending or shredding decades worth of law and precedent, and aimed to enable an explosion of litigation.

    Before the war on big tech goes any further, it’s worth remembering that these companies have given the US and the world innumerable products and tools and services that would’ve been unimaginable even two decades ago. They’ve been a boon to small businesses, a huge benefit to consumers and an engine for the American economy. Not least, they’ve made the past seven months of Covid-19 restrictions bearable. There isn’t a government in the world that wouldn’t have given anything to see one of these firms, let alone all four, start up and succeed within its jurisdiction.

    Concerns about the market power or political influence that these companies wield certainly shouldn’t be dismissed. But reformers need to be mindful of what’s at stake, and in less of a hurry to extend antitrust enforcement beyond its proper scope. For the past 50 years, US antitrust doctrine has successfully protected both consumers and competition, thereby advancing innovation and economic growth. America’s success in technology is itself a proof of this approach. It shouldn’t be discarded lightly.  — (c) 2020 Bloomberg LP



    Donald Trump Google top William Barr
    Subscribe to TechCentral Subscribe to TechCentral
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleNAPAfrica’s Andrew Owens on explosive Internet growth under lockdown
    Next Article Pick n Pay hints at imminent launch of MVNO

    Related Posts

    Trump tariffs could wreck South Africa’s vehicle manufacturing industry

    14 July 2025

    OpenAI to launch web browser in direct challenge to Google Chrome

    10 July 2025

    What Steve Jobs feared is now the tech industry’s reality

    9 July 2025
    Company News

    Mental wellness at scale: how Mac fuels October Health’s mission

    15 July 2025

    Banking on LEO: Q-KON transforms financial services connectivity

    14 July 2025

    The future of business calling: Voys brings your landline to the cloud

    14 July 2025
    Opinion

    A smarter approach to digital transformation in ICT distribution

    15 July 2025

    In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

    30 June 2025

    E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

    30 June 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2025 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.