Antitrust: How Big Tech is Dealing with the Scrutiny of the FTC

Aaron Tsui is a sophomore studying computer engineering in the School of Engineering and Applied Science interested in technology law and intellectual property.

​As the group of multinational tech companies, collectively known as “big tech,” continue to dominate the technology industry and landscape, the judicial system has seen proportionate surges in antitrust cases. Big tech companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook/Meta, and Amazon have all faced the scrutiny of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in regards to unfair competition or antitrust, with many of these cases still ongoing.
​

From an economic standpoint, the clashing of businesses to gain more customers, also known as competition, is crucial because it not only forces prices to be driven down, but it also pushes for continuous improvements to the products and services that businesses create, allowing society as a whole to benefit. The term “antitrust” was originally introduced into the United States legal system in 1890 as the Sherman Antitrust Act, the first federal act aimed to outlaw monopolistic business practices. [1] As stated by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), “agreements among competitors to fix prices or wages, rig bids, or allocate customers, workers, or markets,” “exclusive contracts that reduce competition,” and  “[suppressing] competition by engaging in anticompetitive conduct” are all violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. [2] 

With the aforementioned big tech companies having a seemingly unstoppable influence on their respective industries, it isn’t surprising to see the FTC launching investigations and other companies filing lawsuits. However, there are some disagreements into what actually qualifies as an antitrust case. Can firms be scrutinized for simply being “too good?” Where exactly is the line drawn between strategic business practices and anti-competitive or monopolistic practices?

The currently on-going antitrust case against Alphabet’s Google, which is the “first major antitrust lawsuit against a major tech company since the U.S. sued Microsoft in the late-’90s,” alleged that Google has a monopoly over the search engine technology market. As previously stated, a lack of competition between businesses, particularly within the same niche or industry, is harmful to  innovation, and the US federal government claims that Google is doing exactly that. [3]

In particular, the DOJ argues that through agreements and contracts with other tech companies, which include smartphone makers, web browsers and wireless carriers, Google is made the pre-installed and default search engine, thereby creating a monopoly in this market. Further, with many advertising services dependent on search engines, the DOJ claims that Google was able to unfairly raise prices for advertisers. [4]

However, Google denies these claims, arguing that they hold the overwhelming majority of the search engine market share simply because their technology is better than the competition. The claim in and of itself does hold some virtue as companies shouldn’t be held responsible for monopolistic behavior just because their technology is superior. In regards to the DOJ’s claims about illegal contracts to set Google as the default search engine, Google claims that in no way does this prevent users from using other search engines, nor does it prevent other search engine companies from signing similar contracts. [5] 
​
With the Google trial still ongoing and other big tech companies also expected to face antitrust scrutiny, it is beyond apparent that the technology landscape is evolving in ways that may be harmful to the future of innovation and the benefit of society. While companies themselves may claim that their focus is simply to make better products for users and not to regulate and control competition, when it comes to making profit and the company’s success, that all really boils down to market share. Hence, the dynamic between a company’s success and unfair competition is rather undefined. For such ambiguity to have more clarity requires a great deal of work, specifically in a collaborative effort from both technology giants and the legal system.


[1] “Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed March 19, 2024. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act#:~:text=Approved%20July%202%2C%201890%2C%20The,U.S.%20Congress%20to%20prohibit%20trusts. 
[2] “The Antitrust Laws.” Antitrust Division, December 20, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you.   
[3] Klar, Rebecca. “Why Google’s Antitrust Case Is a Critical Test for Big Tech.” The Hill, September 11, 2023. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4194241-google-antitrust-big-tech/.  
[4] Nylen, Leah. “DOJ’s Google Monopoly Case Explained with Six Key Documents.” Bloomberg Law, November 17, 2023. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/dojs-google-monopoly-case-explained-with-six-key-documents.  
[5] Klar, Rebecca. “Why Google’s Antitrust Case Is a Critical Test for Big Tech.” The Hill, September 11, 2023. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4194241-google-antitrust-big-tech/.  

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.​