SENATE BILL: Breaking Big Corporations Act (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The actual solution here is obvious - congress empowers the government to act on antitrust cases if a business is violating X, Y, Z criteria and force breakups. Then upon passage it would fall to the attorney general to actually file the resulting antitrust litigation.

Any idea on how to do the specifics of that?

You need some formula combining market share, exclusive possession of "dependent" IP rights (really complex on that one) and one other escapes me right now but it was mentioned just recently in some thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So about that process?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Did I somehow infect everyone in this thread? That isn't possible I haven't been contagious since at least the fourth, even though I feel much worse now then I did then.

[YE]

Make this a resolution asking Truman to do this.

[Former President tack50]

Yeah, I have no idea how to define the processes needed. I lean towards tabling this and tackling it at another, indefinite point in the future, but I wonder what everyone else thinks.

[Mike Thick]

If nobody else wants to, I can make time tomorrow to research the regulatory standards/practices that are protecting these companies and draft a baseline bill for you guys to fine-tune.

Antitrust law can’t be that complicated. Right? Right? [echoes into the void]

[Former President tack50]

If nobody else wants to, I can make time tomorrow to research the regulatory standards/practices that are protecting these companies and draft a baseline bill for you guys to fine-tune.

Antitrust law can’t be that complicated. Right? Right? [echoes into the void]

Famous last words

[Mike Thick]

Alright. [exhale] This is based on a report from the House Judiciary Committee report concerning antitrust as it applies to big tech. Summary here, full report here.

Here is a very broad draft bill, with notes where I think more refinement is probably needed.

1. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform (DEFINE) shall operate in lines of business dependent on or interoperative with the platform.

2. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform shall preference itself in the sale of advertisements or in any other services provided; such companies shall also ensure adequate interoperability and data portability with competing platforms.

3. Mergers and acquisitions resulting in a significant change in market concentration under the Clayton Act (SPECIFY STATUTE?) shall be presumptively prohibited, unless the merging parties can prove that the merger would not have a significant negative impact on consumers or firms. (IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD?)

4. No contract clause mandating arbitration of disputes may apply to antitrust claims. (SPECIFY LAST PART?)

5. It is the sense of the Congress that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice should investigate (COMPANIES) for engaging in anticompetitive practices which violate (EXISTING STANDARDS? SOME COMPANIES MAY ONLY COME INTO CONFLICT WITH NEW STANDARDS ESTABLISHED HERE).
a. It is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice should prioritize for enforcement violators whose companies make up large shares of national markets, rather than prioritizing smaller violators.

[Blair]

Thanks Ted that's really appreciated.

Section 5 seems to be the most important part; I feel I could be wrong here but I've wondered whether it could be possible to block mergers/takeovers by putting a cap on the market share of specific corporations.

I always assumed a big problem with tech was that facebook has pretty much tried to takeover any rival in the messaging business.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for three, I would say in broad terms it is an appropriate standard but also that it needs as you said refinement. "significant negative impact" needs to be defined as would "significant change in market concentration".

[Devout Centrist]

The actual solution here is obvious - congress empowers the government to act on antitrust cases if a business is violating X, Y, Z criteria and force breakups. Then upon passage it would fall to the attorney general to actually file the resulting antitrust litigation.

Yes, this sounds workable. I think it would be best to designate certain practices as illegal per se - we could probably use Congress's authority to make them statutory illegal as well.

I think I have a list of activities that could be included in this bill.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Alright. [exhale] This is based on a report from the House Judiciary Committee report concerning antitrust as it applies to big tech. Summary here, full report here.

Here is a very broad draft bill, with notes where I think more refinement is probably needed.

1. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform (DEFINE) shall operate in lines of business dependent on or interoperative with the platform.

2. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform shall preference itself in the sale of advertisements or in any other services provided; such companies shall also ensure adequate interoperability and data portability with competing platforms.

3. Mergers and acquisitions resulting in a significant change in market concentration under the Clayton Act (SPECIFY STATUTE?) shall be presumptively prohibited, unless the merging parties can prove that the merger would not have a significant negative impact on consumers or firms. (IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD?)

4. No contract clause mandating arbitration of disputes may apply to antitrust claims. (SPECIFY LAST PART?)

5. It is the sense of the Congress that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice should investigate (COMPANIES) for engaging in anticompetitive practices which violate (EXISTING STANDARDS? SOME COMPANIES MAY ONLY COME INTO CONFLICT WITH NEW STANDARDS ESTABLISHED HERE).

a. It is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice should prioritize for enforcement violators whose companies make up large shares of national markets, rather than prioritizing smaller violators.

1 sounds highly questionable as currently worded.
2 is very good.
3 sounds mostly good as is. I would favor a standard de-emphasizing things besides overall consumer experiences.
4 is very good.
5 is all fine by me.

If something might be reasonably expected to be used to justify Youtube being split from Google, then it is (very likely) a suboptimal standard.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I wholeheartedly support this bill. Monopolies create waste, inefficiency, and disincentivize innovation. As such, they should be regulated. Controlling over 50% of the market share is unacceptable in an industry and makes it harder for entry to said industry.

The actual solution here is obvious - congress empowers the government to act on antitrust cases if a business is violating X, Y, Z criteria and force breakups. Then upon passage it would fall to the attorney general to actually file the resulting antitrust litigation.

I agree with the above.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we need to start hammering some things down. What is the x,y,z criteria going to be exactly and what is the refinement for "significant negative impact" and "significant change in market concentration"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we need to start hammering some things down. What is the x,y,z criteria going to be exactly and what is the refinement for "significant negative impact" and "significant change in market concentration"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sweet mother of god.

[Former President tack50]

Introducing the following amendment, essencially amounting to a bastardized version of Ted's proposal, where I just nuke point 1 and leave everything else.

1. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform shall preference itself in the sale of advertisements or in any other services provided; such companies shall also ensure adequate interoperability and data portability with competing platforms.

2. Mergers and acquisitions resulting in a significant change in market concentration under the Clayton Act shall be presumptively prohibited, unless the merging parties can prove that the merger would not have a significant negative impact on consumers or firms.

3. No contract clause mandating arbitration of disputes may apply to antitrust claims.

5. It is the sense of the Congress that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice should investigate several technological corporations for engaging in anticompetitive practices which violate antitrust regulations. These include but are not limited to Microsoft, Google or Amazon.

a. It is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice should prioritize for enforcement violators whose companies make up large shares of national markets, rather than prioritizing smaller violators.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

No objection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is adopted.

[Blair]

This has my support.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This bill has my general support as currently worded.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So are there any remaining steps here or is this good to go?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Motion for final vote, 24 hrs to object.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion for final vote, 24 hrs to object.

I second.