Gadgets

How will the candidates manage big technology?

The US presidential election is in its final stages. Ahead of election day on November 5, Engadget took a look at where the candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, stand on the most important technology issues of our day.

The Biden administration has been more aggressive than any in recent American history in its antitrust efforts. In the technology sector alone, it has ongoing lawsuits against Apple, Meta, Google and Amazon, not to mention its battles with Ticketmaster, Microsoft, Kroger, CVS, Visa, Penguin Random House and more. Biden, Lina Khan (the chairman of the FTC) and Jonathan Kanter (the head of the DOJ’s antitrust division) have spent the last few years working to prevent massive mergers, increase competition and punish companies (however sparingly) for unfair business practices. It is unlikely that anyone who succeeds Joe Biden will be enthusiastic about their fight with anyone. That being said, it is not only unlikely but possible that the Harris or Trump administrations would be more active in the antitrust sector.

It is expected that the Kamala Harris White House will follow these types of cases slowly. Part of that assumption rests on the fact that Harris has not said anything on the matter. He touts his record as California attorney general in leading lawsuits against the medical industry, and during his speeches that “companies need to play by the rules, respect the rights of workers and unions and comply with fair competition.” And if they don’t, I will hold them accountable.” But he usually doesn’t specify more than that.

His campaign also released a detailed economic policy document, though it was less specific about the antitrust and antimonopoly proposals. When it does discuss those issues, it focuses on homeowners, grocery stores and the pharmaceutical industry. It encourages the passage of the Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act, however. The bill would make it legal for landlords to use software from companies like RealPage and Yardi to link home values ​​and rent increases.

However, Harris’ ties to Silicon Valley have led some to believe he will pump the brakes on antitrust efforts centered around the tech industry. His brother-in-law, Tony West, is Uber’s chief legal officer, his debate counsel was Karen Dunn, the attorney currently leading Google in the ongoing antitrust case, and he counts Laurene Powell Jobs (Steve Jobs’ widow) among them. his close friends. He also remained silent in the face of calls from major sponsors such as Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn) and Barry Diller (IAC, Expedia Group and TripAdvisor) to fire Lina Khan.

However, he also surrounded many people who were deeply involved in the antitrust efforts of the Biden administration, including Brian Deese, former head of the National Economic Council (NEC); Rachel Brown, who led competition policy at the NEC and Bharat Ramamurti, who was not only Deese’s deputy at the NEC but also worked for Elizabeth Warren, who made the fight against big business a cornerstone of her political identity. It is unlikely that these religious rebels will join the Harris campaign if they do not believe that he will continue the work of the Biden administration in one way or another.

Unlike what you might expect from a typical Republican administration, the Trump White House has actually been very active in the antitrust area, with a strong focus on the technology and healthcare industries. Trump has made no secret of his hatred for some of the biggest players in the technology space, so there is no reason to believe that he can reduce or dismiss the charges against Google, Apple, Meta and Amazon.

During his first term in office, the Trump administration went after Google for search results and Facebook following its purchases of WhatsApp and Instagram in antimonopoly cases. He also sought to block the acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T. Even after leaving the White House, Trump continued his attack on big technology by filing his lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook and Google, alleging censorship. According to Concurrences (an antitrust think tank), while Republican administrations tend to prioritize corporate criminal cases, the Trump DOJ has pursued fewer of those than any administration since Nixon and has focused more on dealing with antimonopoly cases.

While Trump hasn’t said much about his no-confidence motions in his campaign, his running mate, JD Vance, has made it a regular topic of his speeches. Vance has expressed strong support for breaking up large corporations, especially in the technology industry. He even praised Lina Khan as “one of the few people in the Biden administration that I think is doing a really good job.”

Complicating this, however, is that under Trump, the DOJ and FTC were constantly at loggerheads, and he was often accused of using the agencies to punish his perceived enemies. To complicate matters further, there is no mention of antitrust or antimonopoly efforts or policies on Trump’s Agenda 47 site or the RNC’s official forum. This makes it difficult to predict what to expect from Trump’s second term. Although there was important dishonesty on his watch, it sometimes seemed to be driven by political ambitions and personal vendettas. And without a guiding principle spelled out in any official policy document, it’s impossible to know what methods the DOJ and FTC might focus on to go after companies that find themselves victims of Trump’s ire.

While Donald Trump and the RNC don’t spend too many words discussing issues of infidelity, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document does. It notes that there is still disagreement among Republicans about how aggressively to pursue antitrust action. But it is more focused on the changing opinion within the group that calls for aggressive actions to dismantle the big players in the market.

While Project 2025 pays lip service to the negative impact on consumers of having too much industry power concentrated in too few hands, it spends most of its time discussing ESG (environmental, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) efforts by businesses as a non-economic rationale. of pursuing antitrust efforts, suggesting that the Heritage Foundation sees antimonopoly laws not as a way to prevent the concentration of economic power, but as a way to punish those who promote social and political views they don’t like.


Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button