US House approves report accusing Big Tech of monopolistic behavior
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has formally approved its report that accuses Big Tech companies of engaging in anticompetitive practices to maintain market power.

Credit: WikiMedia Commons
After a monthslong investigation into market power in the technology industry, the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee released its report in October 2020. The report called the power of Big Tech "monopolistic" and recommended sweeping changes.
On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 24-17 along party lines to formally approve the report, according to Reuters. As a result, the more than 400 pages will become an official committee report and a blueprint for legislative action.
"Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook each hold monopoly power over significant sectors of our economy. This monopoly moment must end," Rep. David Cicilline, the committee's chair, said in a statement. "Now that the Judiciary Committee has formally adopted our findings, I look forward to crafting legislation that addresses the significant concerns we have raised."
The committee is currently considering regulations and changes that could rein in the power of large technology companies. The first such bill has already been introduced. In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would make it easier for news outlets to negotiate collectively with tech platforms.
Some of the proposals in the House's report include aggressive measures like barring companies from operating in markets in which they compete. It also includes tamer ideas like increasing the budgets and powers of market regulators and antitrust agencies.
In addition to the House report, the U.S. Senate has also been pushing toward antitrust reform. In March, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she planned to hold hearings on the App Store and other potential areas of reform.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

Credit: WikiMedia Commons
After a monthslong investigation into market power in the technology industry, the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee released its report in October 2020. The report called the power of Big Tech "monopolistic" and recommended sweeping changes.
On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 24-17 along party lines to formally approve the report, according to Reuters. As a result, the more than 400 pages will become an official committee report and a blueprint for legislative action.
"Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook each hold monopoly power over significant sectors of our economy. This monopoly moment must end," Rep. David Cicilline, the committee's chair, said in a statement. "Now that the Judiciary Committee has formally adopted our findings, I look forward to crafting legislation that addresses the significant concerns we have raised."
The committee is currently considering regulations and changes that could rein in the power of large technology companies. The first such bill has already been introduced. In March, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would make it easier for news outlets to negotiate collectively with tech platforms.
Some of the proposals in the House's report include aggressive measures like barring companies from operating in markets in which they compete. It also includes tamer ideas like increasing the budgets and powers of market regulators and antitrust agencies.
In addition to the House report, the U.S. Senate has also been pushing toward antitrust reform. In March, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she planned to hold hearings on the App Store and other potential areas of reform.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Comments
So, that would bar Apple retail?
Apple competes to sell phones, so they’re not allowed to sell phones?
Or are you trying to suggest something like they’re not allowed to have a Podcasts app because there are other companies that sell their podcast apps on Apple’s App Store?
And not to strike a tone in the image of 'whataboutism', but in the grand scheme of things that are harming Americans (and there's plenty) - these actions are so disproportionate with other forms of harm. Healthcare, student loans, lethal gun/police violence, disinformation and the resulting civil unrest... so lawmakers give us... a review of Netflix?
Nailed it….
There are so many ways to try and destroy those companies who actually make products people want to buy yet we can't get Congress to enact laws to protect people of color, reasonably priced prescriptions and medical care, or a way to lower all the money being given to the military complex. Why don't we start with these first.
I can kind of see that argument, but only if applied consistently. Cable companies do far, far worse. If this same argument is used to say you can't both own transmission lines and sell stuff over those lines, that would definitely be a win.
I see it falling down in that a lot of things which came with the OS originally have now been carved into separate free applications. A phone vendor should include some software with the price of purchase. Where the line is between what should be included to make the phone useful out of the box and what the manufacturer should not even be allowed to make to preserve a market for other companies? The US federal government hasn't ever been overly concerned with the practical implications of its decisions, though.
I think that's probably right, but I also don't think barring them from selling apps themselves is a good idea, nor a reasonable one. I can see regulation on allowing fair competition within the platform. The same applies to the other tech companies in different ways. Google and Amazon prioritize their "stuff" over competitors that really must use their dominant platforms. I don't know that the solution is to tell Amazon they can't sell Amazon Basics brand stuff.
so actually the biggest winners in this so called monopoly wars will be the biggest monopolies (as there are no competitors to FB or GOOG, hey not even MS is able to bring Bing to the table)
talking about Irony ...
I see two major issues that need to be addressed. First, these companies are clearly using their monopolies or dominant positions to harm their direct competition. They must be prevented from both competing in a space and regulating that space to the determent of their competition. This means they can't favor their own products over their competitors, especially in deceptive ways. They should have to disclose paid promotions clearly. That means Amazon would have to disclose a sponsorship if they, say, accepted payment to promote something as "Amazon's choice." It also means Apple can't downgrade search results for apps that compete with theirs (ditto on Google), etc. It's my view that whenever it comes to financial interests (especially in politics), full disclosure is better than just having "rules." Look at campaign finance laws. They don't exactly work like a dream. Of course, there would have to be serious anti-trust penalties imposed if these companies demonstrably harmed competition in their marketplaces.
The second issue is censorship. Repealing section 230 will be a mess. It will basically shut down all comment sections on the internet, including this one. Censorship will grow far, far worse than it is now. To address this, I'd much rather see a more targeted approach. I think companies over a certain size should be explicit prevented from engaging in ideological discrimination. They should be declared part of the new public square, and required to operate 1st Amendment-friendly platforms. Yes, they are private companies. But their size and positions have changed the game. These large companies should fall under a regulatory agency, perhaps the FCC. They would investigate and resolve complaints of bias, issue penalties, etc. They would be required to apply their moderation policies consistently and on a much tighter standard than the "otherwise objectionable" one found in 230. Alternately or additionally, Congress could make it easier for private citizens to sue these companies for fraud and breach of contract. Twitter and Facebook are the worse offenders in those terms, I think.
I again have few hopes of any of that happening.
If health costs are much higher than in comparable nations, then it is a real problem for the vast majority of a nation's citizens.
If lethal violence is much higher than in comparable nations, it is a real problem for the vast majority of a nation's citizens.
If civil unrest reaches the level of a physical attack on a national government building and thus the national government body, and this gets broadcast across the world, it is a real problem for the vast majority of a nation's citizens.
If multinational corporations enact policies that restrict the freedom, reduce the privacy and raise the financial costs for people around the world, yes, it is a real problem for the vast majority of a nation's citizens and for the world's population.
You're entitled to your opinion about how to prioritise solving the listed problems. So is the original poster, so am I. And you're right that far more people are being affected by the big tech companies' behaviour, but I would argue that the scale of the harm is much lower per capita than for the other social problems listed.
One of the things guaranteed by the US Constitution is the pursuit of happiness. We know that feelings of happiness are most likely to arise when individuals feel in control of their circumstances. From the outside, it looks to me like the US population feels like everything is out of control but that just maybe the election of President Biden is the first step on the long journey back to some semblance of order. Part of that will include reining in the spread of disinformation, and part of it will entail fomenting perceptions of equality among its citizens, instilling a shared sense of purpose, of belonging, of feeling like a single nation rather than a country of "Americans" and "people who came here after we did." I don't think that denigrating other people's choices is a part of that journey - you'll be better served by doing the hard work of arriving at a mutually beneficial plan (which, by definition, means that each party to the agreement will end up with a sub-optimal result individually). Since you have a dim view of people who are too lazy to work, I'm confident that you'll step up to the challenge.
Your dismissal of the other issues seems pretty silly and pig-headed, but your "imagined" gun problem opinion is absolutely gobsmacking.
Do you seriously think that a person on a shooting spree does not already have a death wish? Do you think the death penalty would be a successful deterrent against people like that?
If you cannot see that the US has a serious gun-violence problem, then you are really too close to the problem.