The enforcement of the American antitrust will probably change in the new administration. However, it is also likely that the antitrust cases against large technology companies – and worries about their effects on society – will continue. In recent years, countries around the world have been adopted or consider new laws that antitrust authorities can use to prosecute what is seen as abuse by large technical platforms. The EU in particular has passed and now maintains the Digital Markets Act.
Similar new laws were presented, but could not be adopted, in the United States, and told enforcers that the way to prosecute new damage is to do the traditional antitrust way: bring things along Ex post Against behavior that agencies consider illegal under the existing antitrust laws. This enforcement method, instead of ex ante Forbidden less for entrepreneurship and is more friendly for an innovative economy. The EU has indeed had a more interventionist approach to antitrust enforcement that has suppressed the development of more innovative industries, which were the subject of Mario Draghi Report on EU competitive capacity. The report notes that productivity growth between the US and the EU can only be explained by the growth in the American technical sector.
Starting with the first Trump administration, antitrust enforcers have brought electricity areas with “Big Tech”. The Biden administration continued this attack and even made antitrust policy an important pillar of its economic policy. It bought wholesalers in the “Neo-Brandeisian” conviction that industrial concentration is the biggest culprit for stagnating wages, income inequality and even inflation.
Although the most important American technology companies have continued to progress, as is apparent from their continuous growth of market capitalization in the past four years, the sector can be bumped through ongoing antitrust cases that look for major changes in the current makeup, as well as the proliferation of digital market regulation after the DMA that focuses primarily on American companies.
Market capitalization of the major technology companies*
| Company | 2020 years of final capital (trillion USD) | 2024 Market capitalization (trillion USD) | Annual growth of market capitalization: 2020-2024 ** |
| Alphabet | 1,185 | 2,354 | 18.72% |
| Amazon | 1,634 | 2,196 | 7.67% |
| Apple | 2,255 | 3,411 | 10.9% |
| Meta | .778 | 1,603 | 19.8% |
| Microsoft | 1,681 | 3,341 | 18.73% |
*Data from Companiesmarketcap.com
** Calculation of the author
It goes without saying that their continuous growth is proof of the value that consumers distract from their products and services. If American agencies are successful in obtaining structural (ie disintegration) or harsh behavioral dependence of courts against the practices they have directed, this has an effect on the value that digital platforms bring to consumers by forcing them to change their offer. This could in turn lower, income, income and valuations. It can also endanger the incentives for continuous innovation.
A good example is the case of the Ministry of Justice against Google Search. The DOJ successfully argued in court that Google has monopolistic strength in online search and that the contracts of Google with device makers such as Apple’s browser to charge Google were competitive. The DOJ asks the court to order Google to sell Android and Chrome. While enforcers are looking for a scalp to hang on the wall, this remedy would be disproportionate to the damage that may have occurred from this business practice.
This preference for deconcentration is a pernicious ideology in antitrust. Indeed, focus on concentration – “bigness” – in Antitrust is not useful for many reasons. One of the most striking is that concentration as an exogenous and indicative of inefficiency in market performance requires. This “Structure Conduct-Performance” paradigm was refuted in the work of Harold Demsetz and other economists in the middle of the late 20one century.
Instead of continuing with Neo-Bandeisian policy, Antitrust in the new administration should make more use of the literature that investigates how companies are evolving In response to stimuli, market forces and even happiness. Market concentration can increase competition and consumers are better service and tackling the fears they have about new technology by stimulating innovations that make them better.
Of course, in addition to complaints based on poor economy, there are other issues related to the technology sector that make part of the American public uncomfortable. Exactly where those legitimate concerns can stay is a matter of discussion. However, insofar as non-competitive problems are the problem, it is likely that antitrust enforcement is the wrong tool to tackle them: Antitrust is about preventing damage to competition and consumers. For example, if consumers are concerned about greater privacy, this is a matter that must be treated with privacy and law enforcement of consumer protection.
Giorgio Castiglia is an economic policy analyst for the Schumpeter project at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.