Much has changed since President Trump assumed office just over 100 days ago. Despite the upheaval of many Biden Administration norms, an aggression toward the American technology companies powering innovation and the economy seems to march on. Last week marked a pivotal step in the five year long Google antitrust proceedings, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to push Meta to sell parts of its company. The ongoing antitrust battles signal a disregard for the consumer welfare standard and the spirit of innovation.

A federal judge ruled against Google last summer, declaring the company a monopoly that used “anticompetitive practices.” Last year’s ruling focused on the dominance of Google rather than the impact the company’s success was having on consumers. The consumer welfare standard, a key principle in antitrust law and competition law, has been the guiding principle for antitrust enforcement in the United States for over 40 years.

Following this ruling, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was tasked with composing a list of remedies that would “cure” Google’s dominance and return equilibrium to a market that had allegedly been disrupted.

On May 5th the DOJ and Google presented their proposed remedies. The DOJ suggested that Alphabet, Google’s parent company, sell parts of their business that handle ads in order to cure the perceived monopoly. Google argues that this kind of divestiture is both unwarranted and unfeasible because of their platform’s model. The platform went on to suggest alternative remedies that would modify but not entirely rid them of their ad technology. More hearings and filings will follow until the proposed remedies trial commences in September.

Meta is also facing the ire of the FTC. This case is centered around acquisitions the company made years ago of WhatsApp and Instagram—ones that were approved by the federal government at the time. The FTC alleges that Meta acquired the other platforms to quash competitors, although the history of both apps indicates that Meta invested in improving and transforming their models to be more successful. Competitive behavior? Sure. Anticompetitive meddling? Only under an agenda that equates large success with bad intentions. The new “big is bad” paradigm of the FTC sees history through antitrust colored glasses and is insistent that Meta is monopolizing the social media landscape.

Similar to how the Google proceedings shift focus away from the consumer impacts and to the dynamics between companies themselves, the case against Meta relies on a distorted understanding of the social media landscape. The FTC ignores the popularity of apps like TikTok, saying that Meta has no real competitors and functions as an illegal monopoly in its space.

The antagonistic zeal of the FTC towards Google and Meta is not a new phenomenon. Under the previous administration, former FTC chairwoman Lina Khan was intensely skeptical of major American tech companies and did not evaluate companies on the basis of whether or not their business practices were hurting consumers. The continuation of this approach into the new administration is directly at odds with the longstanding consumer welfare standard and with the needs of the American economy and its people.

Strong technology companies, vying fiercely to create the most innovative and popular product, are the backbone of American technological leadership. When innovators and tech companies are forced to significantly alter the features that have led to their popularity, the consumer inevitably suffers. Excessive FTC litigation stifles progress and creates a timid market. It’s time for the FTC to move on from an approach that should have exited alongside the previous administration.

Links to Learn More:

The Google Search Case: A Remedy Searching for an Ailment – R Street Institute

Trump’s Rearview Antitrust Battles – WSJ

Don’t Let Policy-Makers Break Up a Good Thing | Cato Institute