Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free
The stories that matter on money and politics in the race for the White House
The writer is author of ‘The Technology Trap’ and associate professor at Oxford university
Google’s defeat in a landmark US antitrust case over search dominance marks the peak of US regulator efforts to curtail the economic and political influence of Big Tech.
One unintended consequence is Silicon Valley’s growing alignment with Donald Trump. Several tech leaders, including Elon Musk, have thrown their support behind the Trump-Vance ticket. This is driven in part by frustration with Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan and the Biden administration’s antitrust policies.
The alignment is not just misguided, it is dangerous. If Trump succeeds and dismantles the law-governed state, antitrust will no longer be a tool for ensuring fair competition; it will become a political weapon to punish dissent.
China offers a stark warning. Its anti-monopoly law, enacted in 2008, is used in exactly this way. Chinese antitrust cases are typically resolved within government bureaucracy, where political agendas can override legal standards.
Consider the 2011 investigation into state-owned China Telecom and China Unicom for alleged price discrimination. Initially, the probe garnered public support but internal resistance from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology quickly surfaced. The investigation’s outcome was thus pre-determined.
Private companies that challenge the antitrust authority face severe consequences. Under Xi Jinping’s rule, regulatory crackdowns have intensified and many cases have never reached a courtroom. In 2015, for example, Alibaba publicly criticised a report by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce that highlighted counterfeit products on its platform, Taobao. In retaliation, the SAIC condemned Alibaba for corruption and poor supervision, which caused Alibaba’s stock price to plummet.
The conflict, dubbed the “most expensive quarrel” in history, escalated further in 2021 when China’s antitrust regulator fined Alibaba $2.8bn for abusing its market dominance, shortly after forcing the cancellation of its affiliate Ant Group’s initial public offering. Alibaba publicly accepted the penalty and committed to compliance, demonstrating that defiance against Chinese regulatory authorities can lead to devastating repercussions.
While the US will not become China, there is a real risk that what legal scholar Angela Zhang calls “Chinese antitrust exceptionalism” — where fear of antitrust retribution and state media shaming solidify the power of the dictator — could become less exceptional.
Joe Biden’s administration operates within the constraints of a law-governed state — winning just over half of its antitrust cases — but there is potential for greater abuse under Trump.
Those who do not believe antitrust enforcement could be arbitrarily weaponised against Silicon Valley need only look to the experience of Alibaba’s Jack Ma. In an autocratic regime, businesses are not the principal actors; they are mere agents of the state.
US vice-president Kamala Harris has yet to outline a clear agenda on corporate power. What we do know is that antitrust was not a major focus during her time as California’s attorney-general, senator or vice-president. We also know that two big Democratic donors, IAC chair Barry Diller and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, have urged her to replace Khan as FTC chair. Maryland governor Wes Moore has suggested Harris’s antitrust regulation will be “different” from Biden’s.
We may have already witnessed the high-water mark of antitrust enforcement under Democratic leadership. But note that while the number of antitrust cases has surged during the Biden administration relative to the Obama years, the proportion of injunctions won has fallen. The critical distinction is therefore this: under the current administration, antitrust is ultimately checked by the rule of law.
Read the full article here