⚡NIMITZ TECH NEWS FLASH⚡

“Big Fixes for Big Tech”

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights

April 1, 2025 (recording linked here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses and Written Testimony:

• Kamyl Bazbaz: SVP Public Affairs, DuckDuckGo

• Morgan Harper: Director of Policy and Advocacy, American Economic Liberties Project

• Jason Kint: CEO, Digital Content Next

• Garry Tan: CEO, Y Combinator

• Rory Van Loo: Professor, Boston University School of Law

HEARING HIGHLIGHTS

IN THEIR WORDS

SUMMARY OF OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE

• Chairman Lee underscored the Subcommittee’s legacy of investigating anticompetitive behavior, particularly among Big Tech firms, and expressed concern that dominant technology platforms continue to stifle competition and innovation. He highlighted the bipartisan America Act as a structural solution to restore fair digital advertising markets and warned that failure to act would allow monopolistic behavior, censorship, and inflated consumer prices to persist.

• Sen. Welch (on behalf of Ranking Member Booker) stressed the growing impact of market concentration on consumer affordability, particularly in everyday expenses influenced by technology. He criticized recent actions by the administration to fire two Democratic FTC commissioners, which he argued undermined bipartisan efforts to curb unfair competition. Welch praised the FTC’s work on blocking harmful mergers, investigating pharmacy benefit managers, and advocating for the right to repair, calling these efforts vital for consumer protection.

SUMMARY OF WITNESS STATEMENT

• Professor Van Loo argued that Big Tech inflates consumer costs through opaque advertising practices and called for structural reforms. He backed the AMERICA Act and outlined three key principles: strong antitrust remedies, platform fiduciary duties, and transparent market access. He urged Congress to act decisively, likening the moment to past antitrust milestones.

• Mr. Tan warned that platform dominance is stifling innovation and harming startups. He cited examples of blocked API access, restricted interoperability, and self-preferencing, pointing to Apple’s Siri as a case in point. Tan called for open APIs, interoperability mandates, and limits on self-preferencing to protect innovation and consumer choice.

• Mr. Kint described how Google manipulates digital ad markets by controlling all sides of the transaction. He cited internal documents and court evidence of unfair practices like “last look” advantages. Kint endorsed the AMERICA Act as a bipartisan fix that addresses conflicts without overregulating design.

• Ms. Harper declared Big Tech “too big to govern,” citing harm to national security, public health, and small businesses. She called for breaking up monopolies and holding executives personally accountable, highlighting DOJ’s case against Google as a potential model for action.

• Mr. Bazbaz said DuckDuckGo faces unfair barriers due to Google’s dominance in search. He supported DOJ’s remedy in the Google case but stressed the need for faster legislative action. Bazbaz proposed reforms modeled on the Telecommunications Act to ensure fair index access and algorithmic diversity, urging Congress to restore consumer choice online.

SUMMARY OF KEY Q&A

• Chairman Lee asked how publishers are harmed in the digital ad market, and Mr. Kint explained that Google’s control of both ad buying and selling strips revenue from news outlets.

  Chairman Lee asked how the America Act would help, and Prof. Van Loo said structural separation would eliminate conflicts of interest and promote lasting competition without constant oversight.

• Sen. Welch asked for examples of beneficial breakups, and Prof. Van Loo pointed to Standard Oil and AT&T.

  Sen. Welch then raised right to repair concerns for farmer and asked all panelists to respond. Ms. Harper compared it to Big Tech’s lock-in tactics. Mr. Tan supported promoting open platforms, while Prof. Van Loo called IP and privacy justifications pretexts for monopolistic control.
  

• Sen. Moody emphasized the urgency of legislative action due to court delays. Mr. Kint agreed, warning that slow enforcement allows Big Tech to continue extracting value from creators and suppressing competition.

• Sen. Durbin asked if broad coalitions like in swipe-fee reform could be replicated. Prof. Van Loo and Mr. Kint agreed that organizing business and consumer support is possible and essential for reform, as firms cannot challenge Big Tech alone.

• Sen. Britt asked how to enforce antitrust without undermining AI leadership. Prof. Van Loo and others argued competition strengthens innovation, and monopolies like Google’s have delayed deploying advanced AI. Ms. Harper said real competition would force better AI products and unlock suppressed innovation.

• Sen. Klobuchar asked how Google’s self-preferencing harms competition. Mr. Bazbaz said Android makes it hard to switch search engines, and Mr. Tan added that Google policies block startups from entering child safety and AI markets. Mr. Kint noted Google uses news content without paying publishers, starving journalism.

• Sen. Blumenthal asked how app store monopolies harm startups. Mr. Tan cited Apple’s takedown of Beeper Mini and said open access rules are essential. He warned self-preferencing in mobile and browser markets hurts AI innovation and national competitiveness.

• Sen. Hawley asked about barriers to antitrust enforcement. Ms. Harper said government enforcers are outspent, and private lawsuits are too risky. Mr. Bazbaz said DuckDuckGo hadn’t sued due to resource constraints.

  Sen. Hawley suggested reforming the Clayton Act to revive private antitrust suits, and Prof. Van Loo and Ms. Harper agreed stronger incentives and protections are needed to deter abuse and empower plaintiffs.

“Artificial Intelligence: Examining Trends in Innovation and Competition”

House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust

April 2, 2025 (recording linked here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses and Written Testimony:

• Mr. Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute

• Mr. Coniglio, Director of Antitrust and Innovation, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation

• Ms. Melugin, Director of the Center for Technology & Innovation, Competitive Enterprise Institute

• Mr. Bedoya, Former Commissioner, U.S. Federal Trade Commission

HEARING HIGHLIGHTS

IN THEIR WORDS

SUMMARY OF OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE

• Chairman Fitzgerald argued that the United States has led the world in innovation due to free markets and limited government, and that the AI sector, contrary to popular belief, is marked by vibrant competition among startups, universities, and individual developers—not just big tech firms. Fitzgerald warned against premature regulation, asserting that heavy-handed government intervention could stifle innovation, entrench incumbents, and weaken America’s global competitiveness, especially against China and the European Union.

• Ranking Member Nadler highlighted the importance of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent agency tasked with safeguarding competition and consumers, noting its bipartisan structure and historic role in combating monopolies. Nadler criticized the Trump administration for allegedly undermining the FTC and compromising privacy by sharing vast datasets with Elon Musk's team, warning against the reckless integration of AI into government processes without sufficient oversight.

SUMMARY OF WITNESS STATEMENT

• Mr. Chilson highlighted record-breaking investment in AI startups, with $97 billion raised last year and dozens of companies securing over $100 million each. Chilson emphasized that competition remains vibrant, with open-source models, falling prices, and rapid democratization of powerful tools benefiting consumers and small businesses. He warned that poorly designed regulations—particularly at the state level—could entrench incumbents and hinder innovation.

• Mr. Coniglio argued that U.S. policy should avoid replicating the European Union’s regulatory missteps, which he claimed led to diminished tech leadership and economic decline. He acknowledged concerns about algorithmic collusion and vertical integration but pointed out that current antitrust tools, including AI-assisted detection, are sufficient. Coniglio advocated for a consistent, innovation-oriented approach to antitrust enforcement that focuses on collusion and exclusionary conduct while resisting premature assumptions about AI market failures.

• Ms. Melugin argued that regulators cannot predict how AI markets will evolve and pointed to past tech antitrust cases—such as IBM and Microsoft—as ineffective or outdated due to the fast pace of innovation. Melugin praised the U.S. consumer welfare approach, contrasting it with the European model, which she claimed resulted in regulatory overreach and a weak tech sector.

• Mr. Bedoya warned that current AI practices may harm competition and worker rights by restricting startup access to cloud services, violating privacy laws in the rush to gather data, and using workers’ voices and likenesses to train AI replacements without consent. He urged Congress to consider AI’s impact not only on markets but also on worker dignity.

SUMMARY OF KEY Q&A

• Chairman Fitzgerald asked why the U.S. should avoid replicating the EU’s AI regulatory model. Ms. Melugin responded that EU regulations such as the GDPR and AI Act have chilled innovation, disproportionately burdened smaller firms, and driven companies like Bird to leave the EU. She emphasized that U.S. leadership in AI depends on balancing large-scale innovation with startup agility, which heavy-handed regulations would stifle.

• Ranking Member Nadler asked how Trump’s attempt to remove FTC commissioners impacted consumers, and Mr. Bedoya said it delayed a key case alleging PBMs colluded to raise insulin prices. Bedoya also warned that firms using shared pricing software pose antitrust risks even without direct collusion. He defended early FTC involvement in tech markets, citing the Nvidia-Arm merger as a success. On AI’s impact on workers, he called for stronger workplace protections against surveillance and automated replacement.

• Rep. Correa emphasized the importance of university research and immigrant talent to AI innovation. Mr. Chilson and Mr. Coniglio agreed, warning that cuts to research or immigration barriers would harm U.S. competitiveness.

• Rep. Hageman questioned China’s AI strategy and EU regulations. Mr. Chilson said China’s top-down model lacks U.S.-style innovation, while Mr. Coniglio warned EU rules unfairly target American firms and act as trade barriers.

• Rep. Balint asked about AI’s impact on workers and renters. Mr. Bedoya cited job displacement fears and rent inflation driven by algorithmic coordination, urging stronger protections without stifling innovation.

• Rep. Harris praised Trump’s AI EO and asked how it differed from Biden’s. Mr. Chilson said Trump’s focused on innovation, while Biden’s emphasized regulation, and recommended curbing conflicting state AI laws.

• Rep. Garcia raised labor concerns tied to deregulation. Mr. Bedoya described workers being unfairly judged and replaced by AI, calling for workplace privacy laws and limits on automated management.

• Rep. Cline asked about overregulation and IP theft. Ms. Melugin warned excessive rules could cede ground to China, supported enforcement against IP theft, and called for measured updates to copyright law.

• Rep. Johnson raised concerns about Musk’s access to federal data. Mr. Bedoya warned that once sensitive data enters AI models, it’s nearly impossible to remove, and called for stronger data safeguards.

• Rep. Jordan accused the FTC of overreach in requesting journalist names and audit pressure. Mr. Chilson agreed it was inappropriate and raised concerns about potential political coercion.

ADD TO THE NIMITZ NETWORK

Know someone else who would enjoy our updates? Feel free to forward them this email and have them subscribe here.