WEBVTT - Warren Plan To Break Up Big Tech Market Dominance

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:23.000
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Senator and Democratic

0:00:23.000 --> 0:00:26.720
<v Speaker 1>presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren says she'll break up giant tech

0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 1>companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon if she's elected in

0:00:30.600 --> 0:00:34.040
<v Speaker 1>order to keep the marketplace competitive. Joining me is Jennifer Red,

0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst. So Jan Warren said that

0:00:38.479 --> 0:00:42.239
<v Speaker 1>when someone gets excessive market dominance, they start to destroy

0:00:42.440 --> 0:00:45.920
<v Speaker 1>the market competition. Does she have a point because I

0:00:45.960 --> 0:00:49.960
<v Speaker 1>mean Google is a verb already and who could compete

0:00:50.000 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>with Google or Facebook? Well, I'll say it's a matter

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>of antitrust law, and no, she doesn't really have a point,

0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:59.480
<v Speaker 1>because you know, after many, many, many years of lawsuits

0:00:59.520 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>and suddy and application of the law to to business,

0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:05.520
<v Speaker 1>you know what the Supreme Court has said more than

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:09.560
<v Speaker 1>once is that market dominance alone is not anti competitive

0:01:09.640 --> 0:01:13.679
<v Speaker 1>and doesn't kill competition. But market dominance coupled with bad

0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:18.039
<v Speaker 1>conduct and conduct that would foreclose other competitors that can

0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:20.680
<v Speaker 1>violate the antitrust laws. And I think in terms of

0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:24.120
<v Speaker 1>just a blank blanket statement that a dominance in in

0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>one um area, in one sector destroys other competition is

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:31.959
<v Speaker 1>just not really you know, most economists would tell you

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:34.240
<v Speaker 1>that you just you just can't say that that It's

0:01:34.319 --> 0:01:36.120
<v Speaker 1>going to going to be a case by case basis,

0:01:36.120 --> 0:01:38.200
<v Speaker 1>and it's going to depend on the companies and how

0:01:38.240 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 1>that marketplace operates. How difficult would it be to do?

0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:48.120
<v Speaker 1>Because she points to President Teddy Roosevelt trust busting, There's

0:01:48.240 --> 0:01:50.520
<v Speaker 1>the breakup of a T and T in the late eighties.

0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:55.280
<v Speaker 1>There's Glass Stiegel, which dealt with banks. It's been done before,

0:01:55.880 --> 0:01:58.000
<v Speaker 1>it has been done before. But when you think about

0:01:58.160 --> 0:02:00.080
<v Speaker 1>taking a company and breaking it up, you have to

0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:02.640
<v Speaker 1>look at the structure of that company and how well

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:06.200
<v Speaker 1>integrated that company is to begin with. In this case,

0:02:06.280 --> 0:02:09.440
<v Speaker 1>you have these internet platforms that are considered multi sided platforms,

0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:11.520
<v Speaker 1>and it means both sides of the businesses to some

0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:14.639
<v Speaker 1>extent depend on the other and the success of the other.

0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:18.040
<v Speaker 1>And and one of the things that provides a good

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:21.920
<v Speaker 1>consumer benefit and free services free to search on Google

0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:24.560
<v Speaker 1>and lower prices on Amazon, and free to participate in

0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 1>Facebook is the fact that they leverage some of these

0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:30.120
<v Speaker 1>other sides of the business and the advertising side. So

0:02:30.360 --> 0:02:31.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, when you think about A T and T,

0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 1>it is widely thought of as a fairly successful breakup,

0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:36.919
<v Speaker 1>but one of the one of the very few um

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:39.320
<v Speaker 1>and in that case it may have been that it

0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:42.120
<v Speaker 1>was just an easier to separate out the businesses that

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:44.360
<v Speaker 1>were at issue. In fact, A T and T is

0:02:44.400 --> 0:02:46.400
<v Speaker 1>the one when it thought that it would be losing

0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 1>in court that suggested that option, separating those the local

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 1>telephone service from the long distance rather than what what

0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>was actually being sought by the plaintiffs in that case.

0:02:55.960 --> 0:02:58.359
<v Speaker 1>So so they thought it feasible. But it isn't always

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:00.920
<v Speaker 1>feasible for a very well integrated day company to be

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:03.680
<v Speaker 1>able to just break apart and then continue to offer

0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:06.680
<v Speaker 1>the consumer benefits that it offers, and and it'll ruin

0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:09.000
<v Speaker 1>many of the efficiencies that are built in. I want

0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 1>to get your reaction to something, she said. What she

0:03:11.800 --> 0:03:16.480
<v Speaker 1>proposes is to prohibit platforms from both offering a marketplace

0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:19.680
<v Speaker 1>for commerce and participating in the marketplace. So she said,

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:22.680
<v Speaker 1>you can be an umpire a platform, or you can

0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:25.239
<v Speaker 1>own teams, but you can't be an umpire and own

0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:28.240
<v Speaker 1>one of the teams that's in the game. So in

0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:31.959
<v Speaker 1>other words, with the Facebook's tie up with WhatsApp, you

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:36.120
<v Speaker 1>would you would just separate them, Or Amazon's purchase of

0:03:36.120 --> 0:03:39.360
<v Speaker 1>Whole Foods, no go right. You know. I thought about

0:03:39.400 --> 0:03:42.160
<v Speaker 1>that analogy for quite a long time because I just

0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:46.240
<v Speaker 1>don't actually see it as particularly applicable because sports and

0:03:46.320 --> 0:03:49.320
<v Speaker 1>sports teams are very different than business. And if you

0:03:49.360 --> 0:03:53.240
<v Speaker 1>think about business, for in many many different industries, many

0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:56.160
<v Speaker 1>types of different plator industries and platforms and sectors, for

0:03:56.240 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>many years, companies have competed as well as business with

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:03.960
<v Speaker 1>their rivals. You know, this is the way business generally works,

0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 1>and it would be very odd to me to to

0:04:06.440 --> 0:04:10.160
<v Speaker 1>separate out internet platforms uh um from everything else. I mean,

0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:11.880
<v Speaker 1>think about it. When you go to the grocery store.

0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:14.360
<v Speaker 1>The grocery store is selling a product, but it also

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:17.400
<v Speaker 1>has its own private label products on the shelves, competing

0:04:17.440 --> 0:04:20.080
<v Speaker 1>with the branded products offered by the grocery store. Costco,

0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>for example, has its own brand. I can think of

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:25.479
<v Speaker 1>so many other examples in agriculture and beef processing and

0:04:25.560 --> 0:04:29.040
<v Speaker 1>chicken in many different industries, you know, this is how

0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:32.040
<v Speaker 1>business thrives, and it would be too arbitrary to me

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:35.159
<v Speaker 1>to have a different kind of a rule for tech

0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:38.440
<v Speaker 1>and internet platforms. Well, we'll see where it goes. It's

0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:41.599
<v Speaker 1>become very popular. It's it's become popular to break to

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:43.440
<v Speaker 1>the idea of breaking them up. But let's turn to

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:48.000
<v Speaker 1>a current merger. Last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission paused

0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:51.000
<v Speaker 1>in its review of T mobiles purchase of Sprint, which

0:04:51.000 --> 0:04:54.640
<v Speaker 1>has been on a review for eight months. What's happening. Well,

0:04:54.680 --> 0:04:56.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think this is probably not a good

0:04:56.400 --> 0:04:58.320
<v Speaker 1>sign for the deal. Now. Now, the fact that they

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 1>paused is really large procedural because they've got a whole

0:05:01.560 --> 0:05:04.440
<v Speaker 1>tranche of new documents and analyzes by T Mobile and

0:05:04.520 --> 0:05:06.880
<v Speaker 1>Sprint that they really needed time to look at, and

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 1>they needed to get out to the marketplace and get

0:05:09.000 --> 0:05:11.880
<v Speaker 1>comments from from third parties. So they needed the time

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:14.120
<v Speaker 1>and they stopped the clock, and that's generally what they do.

0:05:14.200 --> 0:05:16.279
<v Speaker 1>But the fact is, after eight months, as you just

0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:20.720
<v Speaker 1>mentioned to now, supply new analysis and new information suggests

0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:23.280
<v Speaker 1>to me that the old arguments aren't really working very

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:26.599
<v Speaker 1>well and that T Mobile is having a struggle convincing

0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:29.720
<v Speaker 1>the regulators that this deal is not anti competitive, so

0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 1>that is probably a bad sign for the deal. Well,

0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:35.920
<v Speaker 1>we've talked about this before about whether it's anti competitive.

0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:40.400
<v Speaker 1>It would combine the third and fourth largest US wireless

0:05:40.440 --> 0:05:43.320
<v Speaker 1>provider is in itself, that seems to be a really

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:47.040
<v Speaker 1>tough argument to make. And in fact, twice before that

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:49.279
<v Speaker 1>kind of deal it wasn't always three and four, but

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.680
<v Speaker 1>that kind of deal has been attempted um and and

0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:55.479
<v Speaker 1>failed in front of these regulators, the FCC in the

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice. I think this deal is a really

0:05:58.200 --> 0:06:02.160
<v Speaker 1>close called June because from just to pure straightforward textbook

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:06.240
<v Speaker 1>antitrust perspective, it looks like an anti competitive deal. Now,

0:06:06.400 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>where a deal might have the tendency to cause harm

0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:11.680
<v Speaker 1>in a marketplace, which I think this deal superficially suggests,

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 1>the companies have the option of showing the pro competitive

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 1>efficient side of that deal and the benefits that will

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:19.440
<v Speaker 1>come out of that deal, and if the regulators think

0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:22.479
<v Speaker 1>those benefits will outweigh the potential for harm, that deal

0:06:22.560 --> 0:06:24.560
<v Speaker 1>can still get cleared. But you know, I know, I

0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>don't know a deal that has one out on that,

0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:29.200
<v Speaker 1>and I think they have a tough argument here, and

0:06:29.520 --> 0:06:33.719
<v Speaker 1>I think the odds aren't great. Now, that's the f

0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:36.160
<v Speaker 1>c C that's put it on hold. Do we know

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:38.400
<v Speaker 1>what's happening at the Department of Justice with its review,

0:06:38.760 --> 0:06:40.520
<v Speaker 1>So they're still in the middle of their review, and

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:42.760
<v Speaker 1>they must have some sort of a timing agreement with

0:06:42.800 --> 0:06:45.560
<v Speaker 1>the companies because at this point, I would think that

0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:48.440
<v Speaker 1>they have finished the in depth request for information called

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:51.279
<v Speaker 1>a second request, and usually what happens is once the

0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:53.320
<v Speaker 1>companies finish it, it gives the d o J only

0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:56.200
<v Speaker 1>thirty days, and I think we've probably passed that point,

0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:58.920
<v Speaker 1>so the company is likely entered into a timing agreement.

0:06:59.120 --> 0:07:00.960
<v Speaker 1>We don't know the term of that agreement, so we

0:07:01.000 --> 0:07:03.000
<v Speaker 1>don't know where they are in their time clock. But

0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 1>the head of the d j's Anti Ross division has

0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:07.680
<v Speaker 1>said that they are working closely with the f CC

0:07:08.160 --> 0:07:10.240
<v Speaker 1>and somewhat aligning with the f c C. So I

0:07:10.280 --> 0:07:14.040
<v Speaker 1>think we'll probably see decisions around the same time. All right, Well,

0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:17.040
<v Speaker 1>and they're going to testify this week on Capitol Hill,

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:20.640
<v Speaker 1>So more about that. That's Jennifer Reid Bloomberg Intelligence senior

0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>litigation analysts. For more of Jen's analysis going to be

0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:28.360
<v Speaker 1>I go on the Bloomberg terminal. Thanks for listening to

0:07:28.400 --> 0:07:31.720
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:35.480
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot

0:07:35.520 --> 0:07:40.000
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg