Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Senate Judiciary Committee advances antitrust bill targeting Big Tech

U.S. Capitol Building. Credit: Alejandro Barba/Unsplash

A bipartisan antitrust bill aimed at stopping tech giants from "self-preferencing" their own products and services on platforms they own is headed for a vote before the full Senate.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 16-6 vote on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal has reported.

Targeting tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Apple, the bill would prohibit Big Tech companies from favoring their own services in way that's anti-competitive. For example, the bill lists specific instances such as a platform referencing its own products or services in search results, or a company using nonpublic platform data to compete with similar but smaller businesses.

While the bill had bipartisan support, it also faced criticism from senators on both sides of the aisle.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who voted to advance the bill out of committee, said it specifically targets companies in her home state of California and added that it should include any company engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

The ranking Republican on the judiciary committee, Sen. Mike Lee, has concerns. In the committee meeting, he said the bill has been written too broadly and could cause "collateral damage" to the industries it was trying to protect, and to the larger tech economy as a whole.

Earlier in the week, Apple called out the legislation and urged the committee to shoot it down. The Cupertino tech giant claimed that the bill could hurt competition and innovation, and would cause "realm harm" the consumer privacy and security.

From an industry perspective, as a general rule, small businesses are opposed to the bill and the multinational corporations with valuations in the millions or billions of dollars favor the legislation.

As it pertains to Apple, the company believes that the legislation, if passed as-is, will allow side-loading of software from nearly any source. The company believes that it will lead to a rash of "malware, ransomware, and scams."

Originally, the bill applied to the largest of companies like Apple and Google. Amendments have lowered the floor on who it applies to, and opens the door for enforcement to companies with majority foreign owners like TikTok.

The legislation is headed to the Senate floor for wider debate and voting, the committee may hold another hearing on it.



14 Comments

maestro64 19 Years · 5029 comments

Why is this just gear toward high tech companies, you could target grocery store with their store brands, as well as car companies which and their parts department who only preference their own branded parts. This become more and more of an issue with the fact most all new cars can only be repaired by the dealer for anything more than standard maintenance. Some cars you can not even replace the rear brakes since the have electronic control e-brakes and it required dealer only software to disengage them. 

viclauyyc 10 Years · 847 comments

If it passes, I don’t think it stand a chance in court. This is so biased on one industry but not the other. This is very far away from fair.

Can you ask Walmart to use other payment system? If you think it is nonsense, then why it is ok to ask AppStore or Google Play store to have other means of payment. 

maciekskontakt 15 Years · 1168 comments

maestro64 said:
Why is this just gear toward high tech companies, you could target grocery store with their store brands, as well as car companies which and their parts department who only preference their own branded parts. This become more and more of an issue with the fact most all new cars can only be repaired by the dealer for anything more than standard maintenance. Some cars you can not even replace the rear brakes since the have electronic control e-brakes and it required dealer only software to disengage them. 

Because grocery stores do not have that big impact on reality and competition as Big Tech. Banning legitimate channels, content creators or preventing other providers running on the platform causes all competition problems and limits freedom of speech as well as creativity and progress (it should not  not be reserved to Big Tech by their deep pockets and ability to do hostile market maneuvers). One of examples is some social media being banned from Amazon based on weak or no properly written rules, but political correctness and feelings. Some were forced to start their own infrastructure to return those social media, but problems were still existent.

At this point we have far too overgrown Big Tech companies who own way too many patents and block many initiatives by pulling economic tricks on smaller competitors. There are also  large tech companies like credit card processors (Fiserv - "maiframe company") who perform hostile acquisitions (OnDot) and then the people who came with the company start having hands tied in doing modern tech in cloud while owner is clueless about their potential and just keeps them in check (I spent there several months watching this menace until I quit recently).

This is the most dangerous and antitrust laws have been already in place for 100 year, but this needs reinforcement in new paradigm just like with telecommunication took place in '80 and '90 keeping them in check.

dantheman827 9 Years · 118 comments

viclauyyc said:
If it passes, I don’t think it stand a chance in court. This is so biased on one industry but not the other. This is very far away from fair.

Can you ask Walmart to use other payment system? If you think it is nonsense, then why it is ok to ask AppStore or Google Play store to have other means of payment. 

Walmart isn't the only way for you to purchase products, nor is it the only place that companies can sell their products.

The App Store however is the only way to get apps for iOS devices, with the Play Store having a huge advantage over any competition.

It's about leveling the playing field.

maciekskontakt 15 Years · 1168 comments

viclauyyc said:
If it passes, I don’t think it stand a chance in court. This is so biased on one industry but not the other. This is very far away from fair.

Can you ask Walmart to use other payment system? If you think it is nonsense, then why it is ok to ask AppStore or Google Play store to have other means of payment. 

It does... exactly the same as with telecommunication few decades ago. Read about Baby Bells. Your feelings are misplaced. This has proven to work in EVERY court.

And to be honest you should thank for this because otherwise you would be paying for your mobile upwards $300 for AT&T service monthly today if they did not break up telecommunication decades ago.