Australia proposing new laws to curb big tech market power

AppleInsider

After a long study period, Australia's anti-trust body has proposed a series of new laws, regulations, and penalties intended to constrain Apple, Google, and others.

An Apple Store in Sydney Australia

Apple and Google have both previously protested against the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) antitrust investigations, and most recently Google was fined $40 million by the regulator for location tracking. Now the ACCC has published what it calls an interim report, and which calls for extensive regulatory reform.

"Our analysis has identified significant consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services," writes the ACCC in the full report. "These include financial losses to scams and unresolved disputes, reduced choice and an inability to make informed choices, reduced innovation and quality, and higher (monetary and non-monetary) prices."

"The conduct causing these harms is widespread, entrenched, and systemic," it continues. "The ACCC has observed high levels of concentration and entrenched market power in relation to app store (Google and Apple), search (Google), ad tech (Google) and social media (Meta) services."

Australia's regulator also notes that these "large and influential companies" have "significant financial resources."

"For example," it says, "as at April 2022, the market values of both Apple and Alphabet (Google's parent company) each exceeded Australia's total annual gross domestic product in 2021."

The ACCC argues that the financing of Big Tech companies, and the economies of scale they benefit from, means that this "can raise barriers to entry and put smaller rivals at a cost disadvantage."

Building on existing laws

Australia does already have anti-competition regulation in the form of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). However, the new report claims that even when Big Tech's actions come under this law, it is now insufficient.

"While many of the types of conduct... could potentially breach the competition provisions of the CCA," writes the ACCC, "it could take many years to progress cases against the full range of conduct observed."

"In that time, harm to competition would continue, with potentially significant detrimental outcomes," continues the report. "The resulting economic losses to Australians in terms of choice, innovation, privacy and potentially, higher prices (for example, for digital advertising) would be substantial."

Targeting Apple, Google, and Meta

While the ACCC's report specifically names Apple, Google, and Meta, it says that Meta will be considered under a separate social media report in 2023. This current report avoids tying its recommendations down to these companies, saying instead that it would be applied to what it calls Designated Digital Platforms.

These are companies "that meet clear criteria relevant to their incentive and ability to harm competition." In other words, the Australia authority wants to reserve the ability to declare which firms any future laws apply to.

Nonetheless, it does single out actions it says show Apple and Google allegedly abusing their position. It cites three main examples.

• Apple ranking its own apps above third-party ones in the App Store


• Apple and Google using data collected from their App Stores


• Google promoting its own services in search results

Proposed new regulations

The ACCC recommends many measures, including:

• Strengthening of unfair contract terms laws


• New and expanded economy-wide consumer measures


• Processes to prevent and remove scams, fake reviews


• Public reporting


• Independent external ombuds scheme


• Prohibiting the exclusive installation of a firm's own apps


• Making "frustrating consumer switching" to other services illegal

"These regulatory arrangements should be developed through close consultation with relevant Australian Government departments and agencies," continues the report's recommendations, "given the overlapping jurisdiction of multiple agencies in respect of digital platforms."

Read on AppleInsider

rob53

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

wonkothesane

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Two thoughts here:
1. while many companies truly act on a global level, many of the countries they operate in are years behind in that they look at these companies through the limiting viewfinder of their own single country. 

2. I perceive quite some degree of helplessness from many cpu tires regarding how to deal with the power certain companies have gained. And while in some cases I personally have impression that the purpose of bureaucracy is putting rules simply to justify their existence and independent of any value-add, or consequences. On the other hand, some corporations are pushing the boundaries in their unchecked (ab)use of power. 

It’s a difficult one. 

22july2013

...show Apple ... allegedly abusing their position.... Apple ranking its own apps above third-party ones in the App Store

What exactly do they want Apple to do? Rank its own apps last? Or not sell apps at all? Or include all their apps for free with the OS? What do they want? I'm open to ideas. But right now, they have no ideas. What ranking system do they think is "fair"? They should be specific. I'm prepared to listen to logic, but right now what are they saying Apple should do?

filemakerfeller

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

How about, instead, we encourage the corporations to obey the laws of the countries they operate in? Especially when a lengthy and thorough analysis has been conducted showing

1. how the laws are being circumvented
2. how the social policies driving those laws are being affected
3. the potential long-term consequences of allowing the status quo to continue

Nothing about this is clear-cut, neither the government nor the corporations are acting selflessly, and nobody expects an optimal outcome. But at least in this case there has been work done to clearly identify the issues to be redressed, with long-term scope. That's worth respecting.

filemakerfeller

Also: Australia competes fairly well on the world stage in IT. Wireless networking benefitted substantially from the work conducted by Australia's CSIRO, for example. Two leading SaaS companies, Atlassian and Canva, are Australian-born.

Just something to think about.

danox

wonkothesane said:

Ng adults rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Two thoughts here:
1. while many companies truly act on a global level, many of the countries they operate in are years behind in that they look at these companies through the limiting viewfinder of their own single country. 

2. I perceive quite some degree of helplessness from many cpu tires regarding how to deal with the power certain companies have gained. And while in some cases I personally have impression that the purpose of bureaucracy is putting rules simply to justify their existence and independent of any value-add, or consequences. On the other hand, some corporations are pushing the boundaries in their unchecked (ab)use of power. 

It’s a difficult one. 

Australia like the UK builds nothing, they are a little smaller than the continental United States, with a population (only 26 million people) which is smaller than California with a housing problem whereby the young can’t afford to buy a condo or house in the cities how can that be? Apple should be the last thing on their little minds, note Canada also has the same problem affecting their young adults.

Australia and Canada should be world powers by now not sycophants sitting on the back bench.

avon b7

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Any country/company can come up with their own products. That isn't the problem.

The problem is that those products can't get a foothold in the market because the current duopoly does not allow it.

It does not allow it due to the reasons laid out in the report and the article. 

The result, as per the investigation, is anti-competitive behaviour, stifling of innovation and consumer harm. 

The solution, eventually, is to level the playing field and maybe fine those companies for their actions.

No one is saying their use should be restricted.

entropys

Good old ACCC. in a couple of weeks they will promote themselves through the annual pre Christmas  fuel prices campaign.

as usual, it is a toothless tiger but the bureaucrats get fat on the self promotion. It’s all they ever do.

entropys

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Any country/company can come up with their own products. That isn't the problem.

The problem is that those products can't get a foothold in the market because the current duopoly does not allow it.

It does not allow it due to the reasons laid out in the report and the article. 

The result, as per the investigation, is anti-competitive behaviour, stifling of innovation and consumer harm. 

The solution, eventually, is to level the playing field and maybe fine those companies for their actions.

No one is saying their use should be restricted.

Australia actually manufacture something! Bwahahahaha! 

We have high labour costs, high energy costs and high regulatory costs. You might get away with two of those, like we used to when we had among the lowest energy prices in the world. But that was twenty years ago. Now we have among the highest. We have exported all our manufacturing businesses  and those nasty emissions that go with them to China.

avon b7

entropys said:

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Any country/company can come up with their own products. That isn't the problem.

The problem is that those products can't get a foothold in the market because the current duopoly does not allow it.

It does not allow it due to the reasons laid out in the report and the article. 

The result, as per the investigation, is anti-competitive behaviour, stifling of innovation and consumer harm. 

The solution, eventually, is to level the playing field and maybe fine those companies for their actions.

No one is saying their use should be restricted.

Australia actually manufacture something! Bwahahahaha! 

We have high labour costs, high energy costs and high regulatory costs. You might get away with two of those, like we used to when we had among the lowest energy prices in the world. But that was twenty years ago. Now we have among the highest. We have exported all our manufacturing businesses  and those nasty emissions that go with them to China.

Products don't have to be 'manufactured' in this case. They can be services-based and services-financed, be that through direct subscription or ad financed etc.

Even manufactured goods can be made elsewhere (like Apple does mostly) to keep costs down. 

Personally, I believe the digital 'walls' need 'gates' in them but there should not be gatekeepers trying to deter you from leaving if you wish.

You should be able to move freely from one digital services provider to another and not leave a trace once the move has completed if you choose. 

That will require a degree of interoperability among providers and within providers too. Accounts should not be siloed if the user requests two accounts be merged or one set of digital assets is to be transferred to another for example. 

Levels of abstraction will be required and legislation to establish requirements. 

rob53

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Any country/company can come up with their own products. That isn't the problem.

The problem is that those products can't get a foothold in the market because the current duopoly does not allow it.

It does not allow it due to the reasons laid out in the report and the article. 

The result, as per the investigation, is anti-competitive behaviour, stifling of innovation and consumer harm. 

The solution, eventually, is to level the playing field and maybe fine those companies for their actions.

No one is saying their use should be restricted.

When Apple released its first computer, there were plenty of other computer makers. When Apple released their first iPhone and iPod, there were plenty of other companies manufacturing similar items. Apple's products destroyed the old products by selling something people wanted. The people have spoken with their purchases. It has nothing to do with a duopoly, it has everything to do with their products. Apple came from nothing and not countries want to destroy it instead of coming up with the next great product. Apple broke the monopolies when they brought out superior products. Instead of complaining about Apple's success, maybe countries should support new ideas to bring out new products instead of simply complaining all the time.

foregoneconclusion

avon b7 said: The problem is that those products can't get a foothold in the market because the current duopoly does not allow it.

The problem is that creating an OS is a significantly higher degree of difficulty than creating the hardware or an individual app. There's no shortage of companies that produce phone hardware. There's no shortage of companies that produce apps. But creating an OS? Even Microsoft failed at that on mobile.

avon b7

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

It's sad when a country can't come up with their own products and needs to degrade foreign-owned companies by restricting their use. Come on Australia, provide a competitor instead of trying to break up a good company. 

If you can't beat them, destroy them--is the motto of way too many countries.

Any country/company can come up with their own products. That isn't the problem.

The problem is that those products can't get a foothold in the market because the current duopoly does not allow it.

It does not allow it due to the reasons laid out in the report and the article. 

The result, as per the investigation, is anti-competitive behaviour, stifling of innovation and consumer harm. 

The solution, eventually, is to level the playing field and maybe fine those companies for their actions.

No one is saying their use should be restricted.

When Apple released its first computer, there were plenty of other computer makers. When Apple released their first iPhone and iPod, there were plenty of other companies manufacturing similar items. Apple's products destroyed the old products by selling something people wanted. The people have spoken with their purchases. It has nothing to do with a duopoly, it has everything to do with their products. Apple came from nothing and not countries want to destroy it instead of coming up with the next great product. Apple broke the monopolies when they brought out superior products. Instead of complaining about Apple's success, maybe countries should support new ideas to bring out new products instead of simply complaining all the time.

Sorry, that is incorrect and as a former Mac II user I can tell you that the Mac never destroyed anything in the PC business from a market share perspective. 

entropys

We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.

Ed Colligan

Palm's Ed Colligan laughs off iPhone in Engadget (21 November 2006).