ReportWire

Tag: Antitrust regulation

  • Trump or Harris? Here are the 2024 stakes for airlines, banks, EVs, health care and more

    Trump or Harris? Here are the 2024 stakes for airlines, banks, EVs, health care and more

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris face off in the ABC presidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024.

    Getty Images

    With the U.S. election less than a month away, the country and its corporations are staring down two drastically different options.

    For airlines, banks, electric vehicle makers, health-care companies, media firms, restaurants and tech giants, the outcome of the presidential contest could result in stark differences in the rules they’ll face, the mergers they’ll be allowed to pursue, and the taxes they’ll pay.

    During his last time in power, former President Donald Trump slashed the corporate tax rate, imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and sought to cut regulation and red tape and discourage immigration, ideas he’s expected to push again if he wins a second term.

    In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed hiking the tax rate on corporations to 28% from the 21% rate enacted under Trump, a move that would require congressional approval. Most business executives expect Harris to broadly continue President Joe Biden‘s policies, including his war on so-called junk fees across industries.

    Personnel is policy, as the saying goes, so the ramifications of the presidential race won’t become clear until the winner begins appointments for as many as a dozen key bodies, including the Treasury, Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    CNBC examined the stakes of the 2024 presidential election for some of corporate America’s biggest sectors. Here’s what a Harris or Trump administration could mean for business:

    Airlines

    The result of the presidential election could affect everything from what airlines owe consumers for flight disruptions to how much it costs to build an aircraft in the United States.

    The Biden Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Pete Buttigieg, has taken a hard line on filling what it considers to be holes in air traveler protections. It has established or proposed new rules on issues including refunds for cancellations, family seating and service fee disclosures, a measure airlines have challenged in court.

    “Who’s in that DOT seat matters,” said Jonathan Kletzel, who heads the travel, transportation and logistics practice at PwC.

    The current Democratic administration has also fought industry consolidation, winning two antitrust lawsuits that blocked a partnership between American Airlines and JetBlue Airways in the Northeast and JetBlue’s now-scuttled plan to buy budget carrier Spirit Airlines.

    The previous Trump administration didn’t pursue those types of consumer protections. Industry members say that under Trump, they would expect a more favorable environment for mergers, though four airlines already control more than three-quarters of the U.S. market.

    On the aerospace side, Boeing and the hundreds of suppliers that support it are seeking stability more than anything else.

    Trump has said on the campaign trail that he supports additional tariffs of 10% or 20% and higher duties on goods from China. That could drive up the cost of producing aircraft and other components for aerospace companies, just as a labor and skills shortage after the pandemic drives up expenses.

    Tariffs could also challenge the industry, if they spark retaliatory taxes or trade barriers to China and other countries, which are major buyers of aircraft from Boeing, a top U.S. exporter.

    Leslie Josephs

    Banks

    Big banks such as JPMorgan Chase faced an onslaught of new rules this year as Biden appointees pursued the most significant slate of regulations since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

    Those efforts threaten tens of billions of dollars in industry revenue by slashing fees that banks impose on credit cards and overdrafts and radically revising the capital and risk framework they operate in. The fate of all of those measures is at risk if Trump is elected.

    Trump is expected to nominate appointees for key financial regulators, including the CFPB, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that could result in a weakening or killing off completely of the myriad rules in play.

    “The Biden administration’s regulatory agenda across sectors has been very ambitious, especially in finance, and large swaths of it stand to be rolled back by Trump appointees if he wins,” said Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy at Wolfe Research.

    Bank CEOs and consultants say it would be a relief if aspects of the Biden era — an aggressive CFPB, regulators who discouraged most mergers and elongated times for deal approvals — were dialed back.

    “It certainly helps if the president is Republican, and the odds tilt more favorably for the industry if it’s a Republican sweep” in Congress, said the CEO of a bank with nearly $100 billion in assets who declined to be identified speaking about regulators.

    Still, some observers point out that Trump 2.0 might not be as friendly to the industry as his first time in office.

    Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, has often criticized Wall Street banks, and Trump last month began pushing an idea to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, a move that if enacted would have seismic implications for the industry.

    Bankers also say that Harris won’t necessarily cater to traditional Democratic Party ideas that have made life tougher for banks. Unless Democrats seize both chambers of Congress as well as the presidency, it may be difficult to get agency heads approved if they’re considered partisan picks, experts note.

    “I would not write off the vice president as someone who’s automatically going to go more progressive,” said Lindsey Johnson, head of the Consumer Bankers Association, a trade group for big U.S. retail banks.

    Hugh Son

    EVs

    Electric vehicles have become a polarizing issue between Democrats and Republicans, especially in swing states such as Michigan that rely on the auto industry. There could be major changes in regulations and incentives for EVs if Trump regains power, a fact that’s placed the industry in a temporary limbo.

    “Depending on the election in the U.S., we may have mandates; we may not,” Volkswagen Group of America CEO Pablo Di Si said Sept. 24 during an Automotive News conference. “Am I going to make any decisions on future investments right now? Obviously not. We’re waiting to see.”

    Republicans, led by Trump, have largely condemned EVs, claiming they are being forced upon consumers and that they will ruin the U.S. automotive industry. Trump has vowed to roll back or eliminate many vehicle emissions standards under the Environmental Protection Agency and incentives to promote production and adoption of the vehicles.

    If elected, he’s also expected to renew a battle with California and other states who set their own vehicle emissions standards.

    “In a Republican win … We see higher variance and more potential for change,” UBS analyst Joseph Spak said in a Sept. 18 investor note.

    In contrast, Democrats, including Harris, have historically supported EVs and incentives such as those under the Biden administration’s signature Inflation Reduction Act.

    Harris hasn’t been as vocal a supporter of EVs lately amid slower-than-expected consumer adoption of the vehicles and consumer pushback. She has said she does not support an EV mandate such as the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which she cosponsored during her time as a senator, that would have required automakers to sell only electrified vehicles by 2040. Still, auto industry executives and officials expect a Harris presidency would be largely a continuation, though not a copy, of the past four years of Biden’s EV policy.

    They expect some potential leniency on federal fuel economy regulations but minimal changes to the billions of dollars in incentives under the IRA.

    Mike Wayland

    Health care

    Both Harris and Trump have called for sweeping changes to the costly, complicated and entrenched U.S. health-care system of doctors, insurers, drug manufacturers and middlemen, which costs the nation more than $4 trillion a year.

    Despite spending more on health care than any other wealthy country, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases and the highest maternal and infant death rates, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group.

    Meanwhile, roughly half of American adults say it is difficult to afford health-care costs, which can drive some into debt or lead them to put off necessary care, according to a May poll conducted by health policy research organization KFF. 

    Both Harris and Trump have taken aim at the pharmaceutical industry and proposed efforts to lower prescription drug prices in the U.S., which are nearly three times higher than those seen in other countries. 

    But many of Trump’s efforts to lower costs have been temporary or not immediately effective, health policy experts said. Meanwhile, Harris, if elected, can build on existing efforts of the Biden administration to deliver savings to more patients, they said.

    Harris specifically plans to expand certain provisions of the IRA, part of which aims to lower health-care costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote to pass the law in 2022. 

    Her campaign says she plans to extend two provisions to all Americans, not just seniors: a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug spending and a $35 limit on monthly insulin costs. 

    Harris also intends to accelerate and expand a provision allowing Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers for the first time. Drugmakers fiercely oppose those price talks, with some challenging the effort’s constitutionality in court. 

    Trump hasn’t publicly indicated what he intends to do about IRA provisions.

    Some of Trump’s prior efforts to lower drug prices “didn’t really come into fruition” during his presidency, according to Dr. Mariana Socal, a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    For example, he planned to use executive action to have Medicare pay no more than the lowest price that select other developed countries pay for drugs, a proposal that was blocked by court action and later rescinded

    Trump also led multiple efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including its expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults. In a campaign video in April, Trump said he was not running on terminating the ACA and would rather make it “much, much better and far less money,” though he has provided no specific plans. 

    He reiterated his belief that the ACA was “lousy health care” during his Sept. 10 debate with Harris. But when asked he did not offer a replacement proposal, saying only that he has “concepts of a plan.”

    Annika Kim Constantino

    Media

    Top of mind for media executives is mergers and the path, or lack thereof, to push them through.

    The media industry’s state of turmoil — shrinking audiences for traditional pay TV, the slowdown in advertising, and the rise of streaming and challenges in making it profitable — means its companies are often mentioned in discussions of acquisitions and consolidation.

    While a merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media is set to move forward, with plans to close in the first half of 2025, many in media have said the Biden administration has broadly chilled deal-making.

    “We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate and do what we need to do even better,” Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said in July at Allen & Co.’s annual Sun Valley conference.

    Media mogul John Malone recently told MoffettNathanson analysts that some deals are a nonstarter with this current Justice Department, including mergers between companies in the telecommunications and cable broadband space.

    Still, it’s unclear how the regulatory environment could or would change depending on which party is in office. Disney was allowed to acquire Fox Corp.’s assets when Trump was in office, but his administration sued to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. Meanwhile, under Biden’s presidency, a federal judge blocked the sale of Simon & Schuster to Penguin Random House, but Amazon’s acquisition of MGM was approved. 

    “My sense is, regardless of the election outcome, we are likely to remain in a similar tighter regulatory environment when looking at media industry dealmaking,” said Marc DeBevoise, CEO and board director of Brightcove, a streaming technology company.

    When major media, and even tech, assets change hands, it could also mean increased scrutiny on those in control and whether it creates bias on the platforms.

    “Overall, the government and FCC have always been most concerned with having a diversity of voices,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media, which specializes in digital media investment.
    “But then [Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter] happened, and it’s clearly showing you can skew a platform to not just what the business needs, but to maybe your personal approach and whims,” he said.

    Since Musk acquired the social media platform in 2022, changing its name to X, he has implemented sweeping changes including cutting staff and giving “amnesty” to previously suspended accounts, including Trump’s, which had been suspended following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. Musk has also faced widespread criticism from civil rights groups for the amplification of bigotry on the platform.

    Musk has publicly endorsed Trump, and was recently on the campaign trail with the former president. “As you can see, I’m not just MAGA, I’m Dark MAGA,” Musk said at a recent event. The billionaire has raised funds for Republican causes, and Trump has suggested Musk could eventually play a role in his administration if the Republican candidate were to be reelected.

    During his first term, Trump took a particularly hard stance against journalists, and pursued investigations into leaks from his administration to news organizations. Under Biden, the White House has been notably more amenable to journalists. 

    Also top of mind for media executives — and government officials — is TikTok.

    Lawmakers have argued that TikTok’s Chinese ownership could be a national security risk.

    Earlier this year, Biden signed legislation that gives Chinese parent ByteDance until January to find a new owner for the platform or face a U.S. ban. TikTok has said the bill, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which passed with bipartisan support, violates the First Amendment. The platform has sued the government to stop a potential ban.

    While Trump was in office, he attempted to ban TikTok through an executive order, but the effort failed. However, he has more recently switched to supporting the platform, arguing that without it there’s less competition against Meta’s Facebook and other social media.

    Lillian Rizzo and Alex Sherman

    Restaurants

    Both Trump and Harris have endorsed plans to end taxes on restaurant workers’ tips, although how they would do so is likely to differ.

    The food service and restaurant industry is the nation’s second-largest private-sector employer, with 15.5 million jobs, according to the National Restaurant Association. Roughly 2.2 million of those employees are tipped servers and bartenders, who could end up with more money in their pockets if their tips are no longer taxed.

    Trump’s campaign hasn’t given much detail on how his administration would eliminate taxes on tips, but tax experts have warned that it could turn into a loophole for high earners. Claims from the Trump campaign that the Republican candidate is pro-labor have clashed with his record of appointing leaders to the National Labor Relations Board who have rolled back worker protections.

    Meanwhile, Harris has said she’d only exempt workers who make $75,000 or less from paying income tax on their tips, but the money would still be subject to taxes toward Social Security and Medicare, the Washington Post previously reported.

    In keeping with the campaign’s more labor-friendly approach, Harris is also pledging to eliminate the tip credit: In 37 states, employers only have to pay tipped workers the minimum wage as long as that hourly wage and tips add up to the area’s pay floor. Since 1991, the federal pay floor for tipped wages has been stuck at $2.13.

    “In the short term, if [restaurants] have to pay higher wages to their waiters, they’re going to have to raise menu prices, which is going to lower demand,” said Michael Lynn, a tipping expert and Cornell University professor.

    Amelia Lucas

    Tech

    Whichever candidate comes out ahead in November will have to grapple with the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence sector.

    Generative AI is the biggest story in tech since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in late 2022. It presents a conundrum for regulators, because it allows consumers to easily create text and images from simple queries, creating privacy and safety concerns.

    Harris has said she and Biden “reject the false choice that suggests we can either protect the public or advance innovation.” Last year, the White House issued an executive order that led to the formation of the Commerce Department’s U.S. AI Safety Institute, which is evaluating AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

    Trump has committed to repealing the executive order.

    A second Trump administration might also attempt to challenge a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that requires companies to disclose cybersecurity incidents. The White House said in January that more transparency “will incentivize corporate executives to invest in cybersecurity and cyber risk management.”

    Trump’s running mate, Vance, co-sponsored a bill designed to end the rule. Andrew Garbarino, the House Republican who introduced an identical bill, has said the SEC rule increases cybersecurity risk and overlaps with existing law on incident reporting.

    Also at stake in the election is the fate of dealmaking for tech investors and executives.

    With Lina Khan helming the FTC, the top tech companies have been largely thwarted from making big acquisitions, though the Justice Department and European regulators have also created hurdles.

    Tech transaction volume peaked at $1.5 trillion in 2021, then plummeted to $544 billion last year and $465 billion in 2024 as of September, according to Dealogic.

    Many in the tech industry are critical of Khan and want her to be replaced should Harris win in November. Meanwhile, Vance, who worked in venture capital before entering politics, said as recently as February — before he was chosen as Trump’s running mate — that Khan was “doing a pretty good job.”

    Khan, whom Biden nominated in 2021, has challenged Amazon and Meta on antitrust grounds and has said the FTC will investigate AI investments at Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft.

    Jordan Novet

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why hundreds of U.S. banks may be at risk of failure

    Why hundreds of U.S. banks may be at risk of failure

    [ad_1]

    Hundreds of small and regional banks across the U.S. are feeling stressed.

    “You could see some banks either fail or at least, you know, dip below their minimum capital requirements,” Christopher Wolfe, managing director and head of North American banks at Fitch Ratings, told CNBC.

    Consulting firm Klaros Group analyzed about 4,000 U.S. banks and found 282 banks face the dual threat of commercial real estate loans and potential losses tied to higher interest rates.

    The majority of those banks are smaller lenders with less than $10 billion in assets.

    “Most of these banks aren’t insolvent or even close to insolvent. They’re just stressed,” Brian Graham, co-founder and partner at Klaros Group, told CNBC. “That means there’ll be fewer bank failures. But it doesn’t mean that communities and customers don’t get hurt by that stress.”

    Graham noted that communities would likely be affected in ways that are more subtle than closures or failures, but by the banks choosing not to invest in such things as new branches, technological innovations or new staff.

    For individuals, the consequences of small bank failures are more indirect.

    “Directly, it’s no consequence if they’re below the insured deposit limits, which are quite high now [at] $250,000,” Sheila Bair, former chair of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., told CNBC.

    If a failing bank is insured by the FDIC, all depositors will be paid “up to at least $250,000 per depositor, per FDIC-insured bank, per ownership category.”

    Watch the video to learn more about the risk of commercial real estate, the role of interest rates on unrealized losses and what it may take to relieve stress on banks — from regulation to mergers and acquisitions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why the Fed expects more bank failures

    Why the Fed expects more bank failures

    [ad_1]

    Share

    Of about 4,000 U.S. banks analyzed by the Klaros Group, 282 banks face stress from commercial real estate exposure and higher interest rates. The majority of those banks are categorized as small banks with less than $10 billion in assets. “Most of these banks aren’t insolvent or even close to insolvent. They’re just stressed,” Brian Graham, Klaros co-founder and partner at Klaros. “That means there’ll be fewer bank failures. But it doesn’t mean that communities and customers don’t get hurt.”

    14:18

    Wed, May 1 202410:05 AM EDT

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How RealPage influences rent prices across the U.S.

    How RealPage influences rent prices across the U.S.

    [ad_1]

    Share

    RealPage software is used to set rental prices on 4.5 million housing units in the U.S. A series of lawsuits allege that a group of landlords are sharing sensitive data with RealPage, which then artificially inflates rents. The complaints surface as housing supply in the U.S. lags demand. Some of the defendant landlords report high occupancy within their buildings, alongside strong jobs growth in their operating regions and slow home construction.

    09:56

    Sat, Feb 3 20248:27 AM EST

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why U.S. renters are taking corporate landlords to court

    Why U.S. renters are taking corporate landlords to court

    [ad_1]

    A group of renters in the U.S. say their landlords are using software to deliver inflated rent hikes.

    “We’ve been told as tenants by employees of Equity that the software takes empathy out of the equation. So they can charge whatever the software tells them to charge,” said Kevin Weller, a tenant at Portside Towers since 2021.

    Tenants say the management started to increase prices substantially after giving renters concessions during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The 527-unit building is located roughly 20 minutes away from the World Trade Center, on the shoreline of Jersey City, New Jersey. A group of tenants at the tower is involved in a sprawling class-action lawsuit against RealPage and 34 co-defendant landlords. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case in December 2023, arguing that the complaints adequately allege violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    In November 2023, the attorney general of Washington, D.C., filed a similar but more narrow complaint against RealPage and 14 landlords that collectively manage more than 50,000 apartment units in the District.

    “Effectively, RealPage is facilitating a housing cartel,” said Attorney General of the District of Columbia Brian Schwalb in an interview with CNBC. His office filed the complaint on antitrust grounds. They allege that landlords share competitively sensitive data through RealPage, which then sets artificially high rents on a key slice of the local rental market.

    Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, November 2023

    “Rather than making independent decisions on what the market here in D.C. calls for in terms of filling vacant units, landlords are compelled, under the terms of their agreement with RealPage, to charge what RealPage tells them,” said Schwalb.

    RealPage says its revenue management products use anonymized, aggregated data to deliver pricing recommendations on roughly 4.5 million housing units in the U.S. The company says its tools can increase landlord revenues between 2% and 7%.

    “Just turning the system on will outperform your manual analyst. There’s almost no way it can’t,” said Jeffrey Roper, a former RealPage employee and inventor of YieldStar.

    YieldStar is one of three key revenue management tools offered by RealPage. The software balances prices, occupancy and lease lengths to help property managers optimize their portfolio’s yield. The company feeds data from its models into a newer tool dubbed “AIRM” that considers the effect of credit, marketing and leasing effectiveness.

    RealPage told CNBC that its landlord customers are under no obligation to take their price suggestions. The company also said it charges a fixed fee on each apartment unit managed with its software.

    RealPage was acquired by Miami-based private equity firm Thoma Bravo for $10.2 billion in 2021. In court filings, Thoma Bravo has claimed that it is not liable for the alleged acts of its subsidiary outlined by plaintiffs in the class-action complaints.

    Renters told CNBC they discovered how revenue management software is used in real estate after reading a 2022 ProPublica investigation. Equity Residential investor materials show that the company started to experiment with Lease Rent Options between 2005 and 2008. RealPage acquired the product in 2017.

    “How could we possibly know?” said Harry Gural, a tenant in an Equity Residential property located in the Van Ness neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Gural says he has been involved in legal matters against his landlord’s pricing practices for more than seven years.

    Affiliates of Equity Residential are contesting a separate decision made by a local housing authority in Jersey City regarding prices set on the Portside Towers property. The company has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the decision, stating that the decision could result in millions of dollars in refunds for tenants.

    Equity Residential and other defendant landlords declined to comment on ongoing RealPage litigation.

    Redfin reports that asking rents in the U.S. ticked down to $1,964 a month in December 2023, a decline from recent highs. Prices are coming down in markets such as Atlanta and Austin, Texas, where home construction is high. But analysts believe low rates of homebuilding on the U.S. East Coast could give well-located landlords more pricing power.

    “Guys like us that own 80,000 well-located apartments, we’re still in a pretty good spot,” said Equity Residential CEO Mark Parrell in a June 2023 interview with CNBC.

    Watch the
    video above to learn about the rising tide of lawsuits against U.S. corporate landlords.

    CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated when Equity Residential purchased Portside Towers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon sellers sound off on the FTC’s ‘long-overdue’ antitrust case

    Amazon sellers sound off on the FTC’s ‘long-overdue’ antitrust case

    [ad_1]

    A worker sorts out parcels in the outbound dock at the Amazon fulfillment center in Eastvale, California, on Aug. 31, 2021.

    Watchara Phomicinda | MediaNews Group | The Riverside Press-Enterprise via Getty Images

    It was late in the day on Oct. 27, 2021, when Fred Ruckel received the dreaded automated email from Amazon.

    Amazon’s software had detected that Ruckel’s popular cat toy, called the Ripple Rug, was being sold somewhere else for a cheaper price. His product would no longer be shown in Amazon’s all-important buy box, an area of the listing where shoppers click “Add to Cart.” Ruckel is the sole seller of the Ripple Rug on Amazon, so the move all but ensured his product would disappear from the website, costing him thousands of dollars per day.

    “Below is a list of product(s) in your catalog that are not currently eligible to be the Featured Offer because they are not priced competitively compared to prices for those products from retailers outside Amazon,” according to the email, which was viewed by CNBC. 

    Unbeknownst to him, Chewy was running a discount promotion, and dropped the price of his product by a few dollars to $39.99 – less than the $43 offer on Amazon. The algorithm had flagged it as a lower offer, even though the item on Chewy cost $48.54 after shipping and taxes. Ruckel had to make a choice: Lower the price on Amazon or ask Chewy to raise the price of his product. He opted for the latter.

    Fred Ruckel’s company Snuggly Cat makes Ripple Rug, an interactive play mat for cats.

    Fred Ruckel

    Nearly three years later, Ruckel’s experience hits at the core of a sweeping antitrust lawsuit filed last week by the Federal Trade Commission against Amazon. The agency accused Amazon of wielding its monopoly power to squeeze merchants and thwart rivals. For consumers, that’s led to artificially inflated prices and a degraded shopping experience, the agency alleges. 

    In the 172-page suit, the FTC said Amazon relies on an “anti-discounting strategy” and a “massive web-crawling apparatus that constantly tracks online prices” to stifle competition. The agency said Amazon punishes third-party sellers who offer cheaper products elsewhere by threatening to disqualify them from appearing in the buy box if it detects a lower price. Losing the buy box is an “existential threat” to sellers’ businesses, the complaint alleges. 

    The end result of these tactics, the FTC argues, is elevated prices across the web. The company steadily hikes the fees it charges sellers and prevents them from discounting on other sites, so sellers often inflate their prices off of Amazon, creating an “artificial price floor everywhere,” according to the complaint.

    The FTC is seeking to hold Amazon liable for allegedly violating anti-monopoly law, though it has not yet outlined the specific remedies it believes would best resolve its concerns. In antitrust cases, remedies are often determined only after a court finds the defendant liable.

    In a blog post, Amazon general counsel David Zapolsky said third-party sellers set their own prices on the marketplace. The company also invests in tools to help sellers offer “competitive prices,” he said.

    “Even with those tools, some of the businesses selling on Amazon might still choose to set prices that aren’t competitive,” Zapolsky said. “Just like any store owner who wouldn’t want to promote a bad deal to their customers, we don’t highlight or promote offers that are not competitively priced.” 

    Zapolsky argued the FTC’s lawsuit could force it to stop highlighting low prices, “a perverse result that would be directly opposed to the goals of antitrust law.” 

    “Long overdue” lawsuit

    On Amazon’s own forum for merchants, called Seller Central, several users cheered on the FTC and said they hoped it would result in changes to the company’s business practices. Amazon’s tense relationship with merchants has been well-chronicled over the years, with sellers expressing a range of grievances over issues like rising fees, an arcane suspensions process, and heightened competition on the marketplace from all sides, including the e-commerce giant.

    “I think it’s great, Amazon deserves it,” one person commented, adding, “More should be coming on the way.” Amazon in recent years made the forum anonymous, but users must have a seller account in order to post.

    Another post included a screenshot of a message Amazon sent to sellers the day after the FTC filed its complaint, which said, “As your partners, we know that this news may generate questions for you and our business together. This lawsuit does not change anything about our relationship with you or how we operate today.”

    One user called it “BS verbiage,” adding, “Businesses that sell in their store are indeed customers. And which of us has gotten good customer service?”

    Another user described their experience in the last 12 months of selling on Amazon as “being up all night at an effing casino but I’m stuck, the drugs are starting to wear off, but I’m trying to break even on the mortgage payment I’m using to play. That’s how it is selling on Amazon right now to me.”

    The seller went on to describe the experience as a “race to the bottom.”

    “It’s long overdue,” another commenter wrote. “When they close me down, I’m applying for a job with the FTC.”

    Still, others commented that the FTC’s complaint is misguided. “Selling on Amazon is a life-changing opportunity and the amount of sellers that throw stones at the platform is astounding,” one user wrote. 

    Seller skepticism 

    Even sellers who may be sympathetic to the idea of regulating Amazon have concerns, specifically that the FTC’s highlighted issues aren’t necessarily ones that would make the seller and consumer experience better.

    Scott Needham, who sells on Amazon and runs a product-finder tool for other Amazon sellers, said he was “surprised by some of the points that the FTC selected.”

    “I have over the years been very critical of Amazon,” Needham told CNBC. “I’ve lost a lot of sleep because of some of the things that they have done. And the issues that they brought up, while they are interesting, they haven’t created me a lot of pain.”

    Needham said he was particularly puzzled by the inclusion of the claims that Amazon is coercive in the way it encourages sellers to use its fulfillment service, known as Fulfillment by Amazon, or FBA.

    Needham said many sellers “love FBA” because of its compelling value in terms of the price and promise to deliver two-day shipping. For many, using FBA doesn’t feel like a requirement, but they believe using it will make their businesses “easier and more effective.”

    “I think that the power that Amazon wields over sellers is considerable and absolutely worth looking into,” Needham said. “But I’m not sure if this would actually change that.”

    Scott Moller, an Amazon seller and co-founder of an agency that helps merchants run their storefronts, said the e-commerce giant has removed some of the challenges that used to be part of running an online business. With FBA, he said, he can ship an item into one of Amazon’s warehouses for $7.49 per package, while shipping it himself through a traditional carrier would cost him about $12.

    “I don’t have to have my own warehouse,” said Moller, who sells grilling accessories on Amazon under the brand Grill Sergeant. “I can use their staff, their storage, and I can instantly also take the data of advertising, so I can target ads.”

    He also disputed the FTC’s claim that Amazon has become littered with ads in search results, causing shoppers to wade through potentially less-relevant products of lesser quality.

    “We can tailor our ads to hit exactly the consumers we want,” Moller said. “It’s a perfect marriage of a transaction, and that’s one of the beauties of what their marketplace offers.” 

    Needham said he feels he would have been more supportive of the case if it were filed a few years ago, pre-pandemic.

    At that time, he said, “I would have felt, yes Amazon is a monopoly… But actually after Covid, into 2023, ecommerce has had a lot of big changes.” He added, “The competition is just not what it was in 2019.”

    Competitors like Shopify and Walmart are increasingly viable alternatives for many categories of sellers, Needham said, not to mention rapidly growing Chinese e=commerce companies like Temu.

    As a result, Needham said he’s seen some significant changes from Amazon. Among those is a greater ability for Amazon sellers to communicate with buyers, offering select customers certain promotions. Shopify, for example, gives sellers much more control over how they communicate with customers, Needham said, adding that although Amazon still controls the communication process, at least there is one.

    “I wish it was a clear-cut case,” Needham said. “I have a vested interest in the marketplace doing really well, as a seller and as a service provider. And… this case, it doesn’t make the marketplace better for sellers.”

    Concerns over Amazon pricing policies, fees

    Many sellers have zeroed in on Amazon’s pricing policies and rising fees as rightful areas of concern in the FTC’s lawsuit.

    Molson Hart, whose company Viahart sells toys on Amazon, has been a longtime critic of Amazon’s pricing policies. Hart complained of how Amazon’s seller fees impact pricing in a 2019 Medium post and later that year testified about his experience before a House committee.

    Hart said Amazon sales comprise about 90% of his business, meaning any hit those sales take on Amazon has a considerable impact.

    He recalled “24 anxious hours” in September 2022 when a third-party seller of his popular construction toy Brain Flakes listed the toy for a lower price on Target than it was offered on Amazon. 

    Molson Hart, CEO of Viahart, an educational toy company that sells on Amazon.

    Courtesy: Molson Hart

    “When our product was suppressed on Amazon, we lost $4,000 worth of sales. And you face some negative effects after that,” Hart said. “It’s harder to find your product in search. When your product disappears from Amazon, it sort of damages it in search, as far as I can tell.”

    Even Needham, who was not fully convinced about the direction of the FTC’s case, said he sees some issues with the buy box. He said that sellers often find it frustrating if another platform listing their product, such as Walmart, offers a promotion that decreases the price more than that of the Amazon listing, and if that happens, Amazon will often “suppress the listing” rather than “chasing down the price.”

    Opponents of the lawsuit, such as Moller, argue that Amazon aggressively polices prices because it only wants to show the best deals on its site. 

    “If Amazon discovers Walmart is selling my tool for $10 less, they’re going to say you need to match it,” Moller told CNBC. “The consumer is going to start on Amazon, then look elsewhere. Amazon wants to be a trusted marketplace, so to me, it’s a pro that they do this.” 

    Still, Needham said he’s noticed instances where Amazon will highlight its own listing in the buy box rather than those of competing sellers, even when Amazon’s price is slightly higher and other sellers have the Prime badge.

    “That is a very clear case of this is not what’s best for the consumer,” Needham said. “The consumer doesn’t know that they could be saving more money by buying from somewhere else on the Amazon platform.”

    Needham said the pricing issue has forced him to scale back one of his businesses on Amazon that resells branded goods. In some cases, he said, he’d have to price the same products Amazon sells at about 10% lower than the e-commerce giant in order to effectively compete, which also creates an “opportunity cost.”

    Hart isn’t very interested in seeing Amazon broken up, but he said that if the lawsuit “ultimately results in Amazon ending their pricing policy, I think that that would be a good thing.”

    Ruckel, the pet toy maker, said he stopped selling on Amazon in January, fed up by not only what he called “anticompetitive price fixing,” but also the “tremendous fees” the company charges. He said he was driven over the edge by a recently-announced policy requiring sellers to pay a “remeasure fee” if a customer returns a package in a bigger box than what it was shipped in, or the box isn’t the same size as the item dimensions listed on the product page. 

    Pulling the plug on Amazon wasn’t an easy decision, Ruckel said, estimating he’s lost $300,000 in sales in the time since he walked away from the platform. But he continues to sell on other platforms including Chewy, Etsy and his own website.

    Despite the financial hit he expects to take this year, Ruckel said he feels he made the right decision. 

    “It’s not good for your mental health to sell on Amazon,” he said. “You’re walking on eggshells every minute of the day.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Taylor Swift tickets breakdown probed by attorneys general

    Taylor Swift tickets breakdown probed by attorneys general

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The breakdown in Ticketmaster’s sales of Taylor Swift tickets is a mess some attorneys general aren’t shaking off.

    With fans sharing outrage and heartache over the fruitless hours they spent trying for seats for Swift’s upcoming concert tour, top legal chiefs in Nevada, Tennessee and Pennsylvania have launched investigations into the fiasco.

    “Trouble, trouble, trouble,” tweeted Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro in a reference to Swift’s 2012 hit song ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ as he asked the public to file complaints about using Ticketmaster with his office.

    Shapiro, a Democrat who recently won Pennsylvania’s governor race, has since thanked people for their “swift response” while noting his office had received “a lot of complaints” to look into.

    Over in Tennessee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said he wants to ensure consumers have a fair shot at buying tickets.

    “There are no allegations at this time of any misconduct, but as the attorney general it’s my job to ensure that the consumer protection laws and antitrust laws in Tennessee are being honored,” Skrmetti told reporters.

    In 2008, Tennessee enacted a so-called “anti-bot” law that prohibits using certain computer programs to buy large amounts of tickets to concerts and sporting events. However, like most states that have passed similar bans, the law has rarely been enforced.

    Meanwhile, in Nevada, the attorney general’s office said it was investigating Ticketmaster for “alleged deceptive or unfair trade practices.”

    The trouble began when registered fans given codes for a pre-sale on Tuesday tried to secure tickets for Swift’s 52-date The Eras tour next year. They were quickly met with long delays and error messages that Ticketmaster blamed on bots and historically unprecedented demand. The company then canceled Friday’s sales to the general public.

    Swift vented anger and frustration in a lengthy statement, saying she had been assured by Ticketmaster that they could handle the demand.

    “It’s really difficult for me to trust an outside entity with these relationships and loyalties, and excruciating for me to just watch mistakes happen with no recourse,” Swift said.

    Ticketmaster said more than 2 million tickets were sold despite the troubles, setting a new single-day record for artists on the platform, and that only 15% of would-be buyers had issues with the process.

    “We want to apologize to Taylor and all of her fans – especially those who had a terrible experience trying to purchase tickets,” the company said.

    Multiple lawmakers have accused Ticketmaster of abusing its power as the dominant ticket-seller for consumers.

    U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, wrote an open letter to Ticketmaster’s President and CEO Michael Rapino, saying that she’s been skeptical of his company ever since they merged with LiveNation in 2011. Her letter included several questions about Ticketmaster’s business practices that she asked Rapino answer by next week.

    Asked about reports that the Justice Department would investigate Live Nation, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to comment on specifics, but said President Joe Biden has worked to increase competition and limit the power of large corporations, believing that a “lack of competition leads to higher prices, and worse service.”

    ———

    Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report from Washington D.C.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU’s Call of Duty: Probe Microsoft-Activision Blizzard deal

    EU’s Call of Duty: Probe Microsoft-Activision Blizzard deal

    [ad_1]

    BRUSSELS — The European Union has launched an investigation into Microsoft’s planned takeover of video game giant Activision Blizzard, fearing the $69 billion deal would distort fair competition to popular titles like Call of Duty.

    Microsoft, maker of the Xbox gaming system, first announced the agreement to buy the California-based game publisher in January, but it still awaits scrutiny by antitrust regulators in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. If it goes through, the all-cash deal would be the largest in the history of the tech industry.

    Members of the European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive arm, said in a statement Tuesday that “the point is to ensure that the gaming ecosystem remains vibrant to the benefit of users in a sector that is evolving at a fast pace.”

    “We must ensure that opportunities remain for future and existing distributors of PC and console video games, as well as for rival suppliers of PC operating systems,” the commissioners said. They have until March 23, 2023, to decide whether to approve the deal.

    At the heart of the dispute is who gets to control future releases of Activision Blizzard’s most popular games, especially the first-person military shooter franchise Call of Duty. Activision this week said its latest installment, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, has already made more than $1 billion in sales since its Oct. 28 launch.

    Microsoft’s console rival Sony, maker of the PlayStation, has brought its concerns about losing access to what it describes as a “must-have” game title to regulators around the world. In response, Microsoft has promised to keep Call of Duty on the PlayStation “for at least several more years” beyond its current contract with Sony. It also has said it might bring it to Nintendo’s Switch console, where the game isn’t currently available.

    In a preliminary probe, the EU found potential antitrust issues with the distribution of video games and halting access to Microsoft’s rivals. The bloc said it has concerns that the proposed acquisition could hurt competitors to Microsoft’s Windows operating system, because computers without Windows might not be able to get Xbox’s game-streaming subscription service and growing collection of titles.

    Microsoft said it will keep working with the European Commission on next steps “and to address any valid marketplace concerns.”

    “Sony, as the industry leader, says it is worried about Call of Duty, but we’ve said we are committed to making the same game available on the same day on both Xbox and PlayStation,” Microsoft said in a statement Tuesday. “We want people to have more access to games, not less.”

    Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said in an email to employees Tuesday that global competition in the video game industry makes it “understandable that regulators are trying to better understand the games business.” But he said the “process is moving along as we expected” and foresees the deal closing by June.

    “We will continue to cooperate with the European Commission where, in the countries they represent, we have many employees,” Kotick wrote.

    He highlighted Brazil’s recent approval, saying the country’s competition authority understood “we operate in a highly dynamic and competitive industry, and that the merger will not harm competition in any way.”

    Saudi Arabia also has signed off on the deal, but it still awaits important decisions from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and authorities in the U.K. and EU.

    Tuesday’s decision was another example of how the EU has led the way on regulating Big Tech companies, opening antitrust investigations, enacting strict regulations on data privacy and pushing through landmark rules that threaten online platforms with billions in fines unless they respect fair market conditions and crack down on harmful content like hate speech and disinformation.

    It’s possible regulators could impose conditions on the gaming deal that force Microsoft to keep access open to Call of Duty for longer and ensure that its rivals aren’t getting a lesser version.

    Among those listening to Sony’s concerns are antitrust regulators in the United Kingdom. Last month, they escalated their investigation into whether Microsoft could make Call of Duty and other titles exclusive to its Xbox platform or “otherwise degrade its rivals’ access” by delaying releases or imposing licensing price increases.

    “These titles require thousands of game developers and several years to complete, and there are very few other games of similar caliber or popularity,” according to a September report from the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority.

    ———

    O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU court sides with Fiat Chrysler in tax advantage case

    EU court sides with Fiat Chrysler in tax advantage case

    [ad_1]

    LUXEMBOURG — The European Union’s top court on Tuesday overturned a decision requiring automaker Fiat Chrysler to pay up to 30 million euros ($30 million) in back taxes to Luxembourg.

    The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm and anti-trust regulator, had determined in 2015 that a 2012 Luxembourg tax ruling favored Fiat companies in Europe and was incompatible with state aid rules in the 27-nation bloc.

    A European court ruled in the commission’s favor in 2019, ordering the automaker to return the tax break. Fiat Chrysler, which last year merged with France’s PSA Peugeot to form Stellantis, asked the higher court to set aside the order.

    The Court of Justice of the EU said Tuesday that the commission failed to take into account the typical tax laws in Luxembourg when it was determining whether the automaker got a tax advantage and that the EU’s General Court “committed an error of law” in upholding that approach three years ago.

    EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager tweeted that Tuesday’s ruling was a “big loss for tax fairness.”

    “The Commission is committed to continue using all the tools at its disposal to ensure that fair competition is not distorted in the Single Market through the grant by Member States of illegal tax breaks to multinational companies,” she said in a statement.

    It comes as countries in Europe and around the world are working to enshrine into law a global minimum tax deal that more than 130 nations signed on to last year, designed to create a more equal footing in attracting and keeping multinational companies.

    It aims to deter multinationals from stashing profits in countries where they pay little or no taxes — commonly known as tax havens.

    Stellantis is “pleased that the Court of Justice has confirmed our view that the Commission was wrong to consider our tax ruling to be unlawful state aid,” spokeswoman Valerie Gillot said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Albertsons $4B payout to shareholders amid merger paused

    Albertsons $4B payout to shareholders amid merger paused

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — A judge in Washington state has temporarily blocked Albertsons from paying a $4 billion dividend to investors as part of the grocery retailer’s proposed merger with rival Kroger.

    On Thursday, King County Superior Court Commissioner Henry Judson approved a motion by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson to temporarily block the dividend until the court can more fully consider whether the payment violates antitrust laws, The Seattle Times reported.

    The dividend was scheduled to be paid Monday.

    The proposed merger would combine two of the nation’s largest grocery chains. Some critics worry that could mean reduced competition, higher food prices and the closure of under-performing locations, including some in Washington state. Albertsons, which owns Safeway, and Kroger, which owns QFC and Fred Meyer, are among the biggest players in Washington.

    “Putting the brakes on this $4 billion payment is a huge win for consumers nationwide,” Ferguson said Thursday afternoon on Twitter.

    Next Thursday, King County Superior Court Judge Ken Schubert is scheduled to more closely review arguments in the case.

    “There is obviously further information and evidence that needs to be presented,” Judson noted.

    In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, Ferguson argues the dividend is illegal because it potentially undercuts the ability of Albertsons to keep all its locations open in the several years needed to complete the merger.

    Those arguments were echoed by attorneys general in Illinois, California and the District of Columbia, which on Wednesday jointly sued to block the dividend in federal court in Washington, D.C.

    Boise, Idaho-based Albertsons said this week that both lawsuits are without merit.

    One major concern of the dividend is the potential impact of such a large payment on Albertsons. To win regulatory approval for the merger, Albertsons and Kroger must sell hundreds of locations in areas where they have too much market overlap. So-called divestiture could have a major impact in Seattle and throughout Washington, where Kroger and Albertsons collectively have about 350 locations.

    Kroger and Albertsons have agreed to put the divested locations in a standalone company, managed by Albertsons, and then sell them to a competing retailer or retailers as part of the approval process.

    However, some antitrust and business experts question whether locations chosen for divesture might already be struggling financially. They worry that a cash-strapped Albertsons might fail to keep all those locations open while it finds a willing buyer and that some divested stores could close, as happened after the 2015 merger between Albertsons and Safeway.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta hits back in fight with FTC over VR company acquisition

    Meta hits back in fight with FTC over VR company acquisition

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Federal regulators and Facebook parent Meta are battling over Meta’s proposed acquisition of virtual-reality company Within Unlimited and its fitness app Supernatural.

    In a landmark legal challenge to a Big Tech merger, the Federal Trade Commission is suing to block the deal, asserting it would hurt competition and violate antitrust laws.

    Meta struck back Thursday, asking a federal court in San Jose, California, to dismiss the FTC’s July request for an injunction against the acquisition.

    The tech giant said in its court filing that the government failed to establish that the virtual-reality market is concentrated with high barriers to entry. The claims in the agency’s lawsuit “are nothing more than the FTC’s speculation about what Meta might have done,” the company says. It asserts that the FTC failed to meet two key legal standards set in previous cases.

    In a statement Thursday, the FTC noted that it revised its complaint last week in a way that narrowed the focus of its allegations. In its new form, the statement said, “We are confident that the District Court complaint will not be dismissed and this case will be heard.”

    Meta, in its own statement, said “The FTC’s attempt to fix its ill-conceived complaint still ignores the facts and the law, and relies on pure speculation of a hypothetical future state.”

    It added that it believes the complaint should be dismissed because there is “vibrant competition in the fitness space and across (virtual reality), and our acquisition of Within will be good for people, developers and the VR space.”

    The FTC’s vote last summer to seek to block the Within acquisition was 3-2, with Chair Lina Khan and the other two Democratic commissioners approving it and the two Republicans opposed.

    The FTC’s original suit named CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant as well as Meta, but he was dropped in August.

    Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta began a campaign to conquer virtual reality in 2014 with its acquisition of headset maker Oculus VR. Since then, Meta’s VR headsets have become the cornerstone of its growth in the virtual reality space, the FTC noted in its suit. Fueled by the popularity of its top-selling Quest headsets, Meta’s Quest Store has become a leading U.S. app platform with more than 400 apps available to download, according to the agency.

    Meta bought seven of the most successful virtual-reality development studios, and now has one of the largest virtual-reality content catalogs in the world, the FTC says. Its acquisition of the Beat Games studio gave Meta control of the popular app Beat Saber.

    In its suit against the Within acquisition, the FTC cited a 2015 email from Zuckerberg to key Facebook executives saying that his vision for “the next wave of computing” was control of apps as well as the platform on which those apps are distributed. The email says a key part of this strategy is for the company to be “completely ubiquitous in killer apps,” which are apps that prove the value of the technology.

    Zuckerberg announced ambitious plans a year ago to build the “metaverse” — a virtual-reality construct intended to supplant the internet, merge virtual life with real life and create endless new playgrounds for everyone.

    On Tuesday, the company based in Menlo Park, California, unveiled a $1,500 virtual reality headset in the hope that people will soon be using it to work and play in the metaverse.

    The action marked a new FTC salvo against Meta — the owner of Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp in addition to Facebook — in the agency’s drive against what it views as anticompetitive conduct in the tech industry.

    The FTC filed an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook in late 2020. With that action, the agency is seeking remedies that could include a forced spinoff of Instagram and WhatsApp, or a restructuring of the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • American Airlines CEO defends JetBlue deal to federal judge

    American Airlines CEO defends JetBlue deal to federal judge

    [ad_1]

    The CEO of American Airlines said Monday that his airline needed a partnership with JetBlue because Delta Air Lines had bulked up through a merger sooner than American, had more takeoff and landing rights at New York airports, and fewer unionized workers.

    Robert Isom also conceded that Delta has “run a nice, reliable airline” and enjoys some cost advantages over American.

    The Justice Department and six states are suing American and JetBlue in federal court over their regional partnership in the Northeast, which government lawyers call a de facto merger. Isom defended the arrangement, which has been in effect for well over a year, as JetBlue CEO Robin Hayes did last week during a trial in federal court in Boston.

    Hayes, however, once had misgivings about the deal — called the Northeast alliance, or NEA — because of American’s size advantage over JetBlue.

    “I think NEA is dead as Robin isn’t supportive,” former JetBlue executive Scott Laurence texted a consultant in January 2021.

    Laurence — who later jumped to American after a one-month gig at Delta — testified that Hayes worried American “had nearly unlimited resources” to tilt the alliance to its favor. Despite Hayes’ concerns, American and JetBlue announced their deal six months after Laurence’s text message.

    The Justice Department is trying to convince U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin to kill the partnership, under which American and JetBlue work together to set schedules and share revenue, although they are not allowed to collaborate on prices. Government lawyers argue that the deal limits competition and will push fares higher.

    American and JetBlue say the government has no evidence that the deal is hurting consumers. To the contrary, they say it will help travelers by creating a stronger competitor to Delta and United in New York and Boston.

    American and JetBlue say they were unable to grow in New York on their own because they couldn’t get enough new takeoff and landing times — called slots — at congested airports. JetBlue resorted to unusual tactics including red-eye flights, and it tried to get slots from other airlines.

    “How did that go?” JetBlue lawyer Richard Schwed asked Laurence.

    “It went poorly,” the executive replied. “I don’t think our competitors were interested in seeing us gain more access.”

    The trial is expected to last about another week, but it could be weeks or months later until Sorokin issues his ruling — there is no jury.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House approves scaled-down bill targeting Big Tech dominance

    House approves scaled-down bill targeting Big Tech dominance

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday approved sharply scaled-down legislation targeting the dominance of Big Tech companies by giving states greater power in antitrust cases and increasing money for federal regulators.

    The bipartisan measure, passed by a 242-184 vote, pales in comparison with a more ambitious package aimed at reining in Meta, Google, Amazon and Apple and cleared by key House and Senate committees. That proposal has languished for months, giving the companies time for vigorous lobbying campaigns against it.

    The more limited bill would give states an upper hand over companies in choosing the location of courts that decide federal antitrust cases. Proponents say this change would avert the “home-court advantage” that Big Tech companies enjoy in federal court in Northern California, where many of the cases are tried and many of the companies are based.

    Many state attorneys general have pursued antitrust cases against the industry, and many states joined with the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in their landmark lawsuits against Google and Meta (then called Facebook), respectively, in late 2020.

    The bill also would increase filing fees paid by companies to federal agencies for all proposed mergers worth $500 million or more, while reducing the fees for small and medium-sized transactions. The aim is to increase revenue for federal enforcement efforts.

    Under the bill, companies seeking approval for mergers would have to disclose subsidies they received from countries deemed to pose strategic or economic risks to the United States — especially China.

    “We find ourselves in a monopoly moment as a country,” Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., said before the vote. “Multibillion-dollar corporations have grown into behemoths, eliminating any real competition in their industries and using their dominance to hurt small businesses and consumers. Meta’s monopoly power has enabled it to harm women, children and people of all ages without recourse. Amazon has used its dominance to copy competitors’ products and run small businesses into the ground.”

    The Biden administration, which has pushed for antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech, endorsed the bill this week.

    Even in reduced form, the legislation drew fierce opposition from conservative Republicans who split from their GOP colleagues supporting the bill. The conservatives objected to the proposed revenue increase for the antitrust regulators, arguing there has been brazen overreach by the FTC under President Joe Biden.

    Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., described the FTC’s leader, Lina Khan, as a “a radical leftist seeking to replace consumers’ decisions with her own.”

    Another California Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa, told his colleagues: “If you want to stifle innovation, vote for this.”

    If Republicans win control of the House or Senate in the November elections, they are certain to try to crimp the activism of the FTC and to challenge its broader interpretation of its legal authority.

    The broader antitrust package would restrict powerful tech companies from favoring their own products and services over rivals on their platforms and could even lead to mandated breakups separating companies’ dominant platforms from their other businesses. It could, for example, prevent Amazon from steering consumers to its own brands and away from competitors’ products on its giant e-commerce platform.

    The drafting of that legislation marked a new turn in Congress’ effort to curb the dominance of the tech giants and anti-competitive practices that critics say have hurt consumers, small businesses and innovation. But the proposal is complex and drew objections to some provisions from lawmakers of both parties, even though all condemn the tech giants’ conduct.

    Lawmakers have faced a delicate task as they try to tighten reins around a powerful industry whose services, mostly free or nearly so, are popular with consumers and embedded into daily life.

    So with time to act running out as the November elections approach in about six weeks, lawmakers extracted the less controversial provisions on antitrust court venues and merger filing fees, putting them into the new bill that passed.

    Lawmakers added the provision targeting foreign subsidies to U.S. companies. Republicans especially have vocally criticized the Chinese ownership of popular video platform TikTok.

    In the Senate, Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar is sponsoring similar legislation with Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah.

    “Effective antitrust enforcement is critical to ensuring consumers and small businesses have the opportunity to compete,” Klobuchar said in a statement Thursday. “Enforcers cannot take on the biggest companies the world has ever known with duct tape and Band-Aids.”

    I

    [ad_2]

    Source link