WEBVTT - Subscribe to Bloomberg Law Podcast Big Tech Firms Under Attack By Lawmakers on Antitrust

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 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Big tech is

0:00:22.480 --> 0:00:26.000
<v Speaker 1>under attack, and it's a bipartisan assault from multiple places

0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:28.880
<v Speaker 1>over a range of grievances that underscores the kind of

0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:32.000
<v Speaker 1>reckoning the companies could face in the future. Four of

0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:35.560
<v Speaker 1>the biggest US tech firms, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple

0:00:35.640 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 1>defended themselves before the House Antitrust Subcommittee yesterday. Chairman David

0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:44.400
<v Speaker 1>Cicilini was obviously prepared for his attack on Amazon, suggesting

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.720
<v Speaker 1>it uses its control over data to thwart competition on

0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:52.600
<v Speaker 1>its platform. Do you use consumer data to favor Amazon products?

0:00:53.120 --> 0:00:56.480
<v Speaker 1>Because before you answer that, analysts estimate that between eighty

0:00:56.520 --> 0:01:00.200
<v Speaker 1>and of sales go to the Amazon by box, So

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 1>you collect all the stata about the most popular products

0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:05.760
<v Speaker 1>where they're selling, and you're saying you don't use that

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.160
<v Speaker 1>in any way to change an algorithm to support the

0:01:09.200 --> 0:01:12.840
<v Speaker 1>sale of Amazon branded products. The answer was no. A

0:01:12.880 --> 0:01:16.920
<v Speaker 1>little explanation joining me as Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst

0:01:17.040 --> 0:01:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Jennifer Reid. So, Jen, this was the four big tech

0:01:20.800 --> 0:01:24.720
<v Speaker 1>companies facing this tough questioning from the panel. Was the

0:01:24.760 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 1>bottom line, the concern about sheer size and the dominance

0:01:29.319 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 1>of these firms. You know, yes and no. So overall, yes,

0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:36.560
<v Speaker 1>this is all beginning and all of these investigations are

0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 1>starting because there are general concerns about the dominance, the

0:01:41.080 --> 0:01:45.000
<v Speaker 1>size of these companies, their power, uh, their ability to

0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 1>to hinder arrivals and small arrivals and new entrants. But

0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:52.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, an antitrust is fact specific and its conduct specific,

0:01:52.360 --> 0:01:55.280
<v Speaker 1>and I think many of the committee members recognize that.

0:01:55.560 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 1>So to some extent, some of them started getting into

0:01:58.440 --> 0:02:01.480
<v Speaker 1>very detailed conduct. For instance, what we just heard with

0:02:01.520 --> 0:02:04.360
<v Speaker 1>Cicilyne talking about Amazon and what Amazon does. And there

0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:07.160
<v Speaker 1>were even some questions about Apple and why a prompt

0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:10.160
<v Speaker 1>for Apple's iCloud for NS comes up when you go

0:02:10.200 --> 0:02:13.720
<v Speaker 1>into an Apple device. So so it was both UH

0:02:13.760 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>and they are going to have to get into the

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:18.000
<v Speaker 1>specifics if something is to be done along the lines

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:22.680
<v Speaker 1>of antitrust here to curb these companies, because monopolistic conduct

0:02:22.720 --> 0:02:25.720
<v Speaker 1>has has to do with conduct and it's very fact specific.

0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:29.440
<v Speaker 1>So which company faced the most criticism and which the

0:02:29.520 --> 0:02:33.120
<v Speaker 1>least well in the hearing yesterday, I think Amazon really

0:02:33.160 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 1>had the most heat, for sure, and I would say

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:38.720
<v Speaker 1>Facebook the least. And while that might sound surprising, that's

0:02:38.720 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 1>probably because Yeah, but the thing is, Facebook's problems are

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>really more rooted in privacy concerns and and this was

0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:49.519
<v Speaker 1>an antitrust hearing, so there was certainly um questioning a

0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:52.280
<v Speaker 1>Facebook as to who how much competition it has in

0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>social media and Facebook really had a little bit of

0:02:54.840 --> 0:02:58.920
<v Speaker 1>trouble answering that question. Um, But like I said, the

0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:02.239
<v Speaker 1>privacy concerns the bigger issue for Facebook, and with Amazon

0:03:02.320 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 1>faced a lot of heat, I would say Apple the

0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 1>least so well, and we know Facebook was facing its

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:15.120
<v Speaker 1>own problems over its attempt to have cryptocurrency or another committee. So, um,

0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>is this criticism by lawmakers likely to go anywhere? I

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:24.200
<v Speaker 1>mean past legislation there there there seems to be biportistans

0:03:24.240 --> 0:03:27.160
<v Speaker 1>support here, That's right, and I think that's the ultimate

0:03:27.160 --> 0:03:29.600
<v Speaker 1>goal here. So this hearing was the second hearing and

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.800
<v Speaker 1>what is meant to be a series of antitrust hearings

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>and an investigation because that could include a subpoena and

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:39.440
<v Speaker 1>getting documents from these companies. Uh. And the goal is

0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 1>to understand if there's a problem, how to solve the

0:03:42.080 --> 0:03:45.040
<v Speaker 1>problem and weather legislation makes sense, and then how to

0:03:45.080 --> 0:03:47.760
<v Speaker 1>craft that legislation. So it's going to be difficult and

0:03:47.800 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be somewhat of a long process, but

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:54.200
<v Speaker 1>that is the idea here. Some people were saying this

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:59.400
<v Speaker 1>hearkens back to Microsoft when when Bill Gates appeared before

0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:04.360
<v Speaker 1>the Senate in and then Microsoft was the target of

0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:08.320
<v Speaker 1>a government lawsuit. Uh. Short time later two months later.

0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 1>Is that likely to happen here when there are four

0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:14.720
<v Speaker 1>different companies. Well, first of all, we have to remember

0:04:14.720 --> 0:04:17.720
<v Speaker 1>with the Microsoft situation that Bill Gates appeared in n

0:04:18.560 --> 0:04:21.680
<v Speaker 1>to testify, but the Department of Justice had been investigating

0:04:21.720 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft since So timing wise, they have been investigating five years,

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:28.440
<v Speaker 1>and I think the lawsuit by the Department of Justice

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:31.120
<v Speaker 1>would have been brought and was getting set up for

0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:33.839
<v Speaker 1>that time period, you know, whether Bill Gates had testified

0:04:33.839 --> 0:04:35.960
<v Speaker 1>at that time or not. We're at a different place

0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:38.800
<v Speaker 1>with these big four tech companies because if there are

0:04:38.880 --> 0:04:42.240
<v Speaker 1>investigations ongoing already by the Federal Trade Commission, and Department

0:04:42.279 --> 0:04:44.760
<v Speaker 1>of Justice. They are likely at very beginning stages and

0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:49.160
<v Speaker 1>those investigations take years, not always five years, but definitely years.

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>Um So we have ongoing in parallel tracks, is this

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 1>house look into the market power and the impact of

0:04:57.000 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 1>that power on competition, and possibly FTC in Department of

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:03.880
<v Speaker 1>Justice investigations. So at the end of the day, we

0:05:03.920 --> 0:05:06.120
<v Speaker 1>don't know where that will lead us to whether the

0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:08.919
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice and FTC will find that each of

0:05:08.960 --> 0:05:11.279
<v Speaker 1>these four companies in the in the areas in which

0:05:11.320 --> 0:05:14.400
<v Speaker 1>they each have some power, have engaged in conduct that

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:16.880
<v Speaker 1>is deemed to be illegal under the anti trust laws,

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:19.120
<v Speaker 1>or whether they may find that just one of them has.

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:21.960
<v Speaker 1>But it's going to be the fruits of these investigations,

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:25.839
<v Speaker 1>the evidence they pull, documents, data, testimony that will lead

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:28.200
<v Speaker 1>them to a place where they either settle, do nothing,

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:31.920
<v Speaker 1>or bring a suit. So, and we've discussed before how

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:34.279
<v Speaker 1>there was news that the Justice Department in the FTC

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of divvied up the companies in order to to

0:05:37.279 --> 0:05:42.320
<v Speaker 1>start investigating them. Now, as you mentioned, and as Republican

0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.720
<v Speaker 1>Jim Senson Brenner said that just because of business is big,

0:05:45.760 --> 0:05:48.919
<v Speaker 1>that doesn't mean it's bad and anti trust law doesn't

0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:53.160
<v Speaker 1>exist to punish businesses because they're big. But isn't that

0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:56.960
<v Speaker 1>what most Americans think of as anti trust that they're

0:05:56.960 --> 0:06:00.160
<v Speaker 1>going to break up the big companies? Absolutely, and they say, hey,

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.480
<v Speaker 1>that company has a monopoly, and isn't it isn't it

0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:04.920
<v Speaker 1>unlawful to have a monopoly. But Jim Sense and Brenner

0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:07.839
<v Speaker 1>actually stated the law as it exists currently, and I

0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:10.600
<v Speaker 1>think that's why they're taking this look because they understand

0:06:10.680 --> 0:06:13.120
<v Speaker 1>how the laws developed and what our law says. Our

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:16.080
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court has said it is not illegal to obtain

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>a monopoly, and it's not even illegal to charge high

0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:21.479
<v Speaker 1>prices monopoly prices that if the market will bear it,

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:24.159
<v Speaker 1>and if a company has a lawful monopoly, And I

0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:27.200
<v Speaker 1>think the question becomes, well, then do we need legislation

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>because the state of the law doesn't necessarily give us

0:06:30.560 --> 0:06:33.440
<v Speaker 1>a lot of flexibility in going after these companies. But

0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:38.240
<v Speaker 1>the biggest issue is that you have these companies providing

0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:41.839
<v Speaker 1>great benefits for consumers, free products, lower prices, and that's

0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:43.920
<v Speaker 1>going to be the biggest battle because anti trust law

0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>is really meant to protect consumers against higher prices. Now

0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:51.520
<v Speaker 1>the EU has opened a form they're always ahead of us.

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>There market the stayers is always ahead of us. As

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.520
<v Speaker 1>far as anti trust, they opened a formal investigation into

0:06:57.560 --> 0:07:01.120
<v Speaker 1>Amazon's due role as retailer and online platform, which was

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.920
<v Speaker 1>sort of what Cicilini was getting into yesterday. Yes, absolutely,

0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:07.400
<v Speaker 1>The question is if if you're playing on the platform,

0:07:07.400 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 1>you're the referee but are also competing, how is that

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>fair and is that a conflict of interest? Now we've

0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:15.000
<v Speaker 1>done that in the United States. You know, we often

0:07:15.040 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 1>are vertically integrated companies. UM, we we participate in you know,

0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:21.840
<v Speaker 1>let's say in a market, in a retail store where

0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:24.880
<v Speaker 1>they're selling a private label product that competes against a

0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:27.800
<v Speaker 1>branded product in that store, they are the distributor as

0:07:27.840 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 1>well as competing. So that occurs, and that is okay,

0:07:31.160 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 1>it's not necessarily conflict of interest. But if Amazon is

0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:37.840
<v Speaker 1>doing something, um, taking competitively sensitive information let's say of

0:07:37.880 --> 0:07:40.560
<v Speaker 1>a rival seller, that could be a problem, or demoting

0:07:40.600 --> 0:07:43.360
<v Speaker 1>that seller's products and using it to advantage itself, that

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:46.520
<v Speaker 1>might be a problem. And yet people like those low prices,

0:07:46.560 --> 0:07:49.720
<v Speaker 1>as you mentioned, so we'll see what happens. That's Bloomberg

0:07:49.720 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 1>Intelligence Senior litigation analyst Jennifer read Thanks for listening to

0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:58.440
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:07:58.480 --> 0:08:01.960
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple podcast US, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:06.760
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg

0:08:12.160 --> 0:08:12.200
<v Speaker 1>m