We, the undersigned economic, legal, and public policy experts, write to express concern over legislative and executive branch proposals aimed at dramatically expanding government antitrust and competition regulation authority over the technology sector and ultimately the entire economy. Now is a particularly important time to remind policymakers that the principles embodied in the consumer welfare standard and light touch regulation remain relevant, applicable, and vital to our future prosperity.
Earlier this year, several antitrust bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate, supposedly to improve competition in the U.S technology sector. In reality these bills would punish American companies for offering integrated services, regardless of the benefits to consumers those services provide, and make a number of common business practices like selling private labels alongside name brands a violation of antitrust laws. Rather than advancing helpful competition standards based on sound economics, these proposals would require U.S. tech firms to obtain government pre-approval to promote and integrate new products. Such proposals are not based on any findings of market power or the ability to exclude rivals. Instead these are punitive measures that target a handful of tech firms that fall under a set of arbitrary criteria.
Many of us have warned about proposals that distort existing antitrust standards and fail to focus on harm to consumers. The Senate bills would almost certainly lead to such harm. They would disrupt the processes through which tech firms design new products and operate, thereby impairing competition in such markets. They would also erode the ability of American firms to compete with rivals in China and elsewhere in a wide range of emerging technologies, ranging from existing digital products to artificial intelligence, advanced robotics and quantum computing.
Government-required break-ups, restructuring, or restrictions on business models do not usually serve the interests of the consumers whom public officials seek to protect. If companies are utilizing business practices in demonstrably anticompetitive ways to harm consumers, existing antitrust law adequately equips the government with the tools to take reasonable action. These proposals seek to shift the focus of antitrust law away from helping consumers and toward bolstering competitors, thereby hindering economic growth and undermining decades of existing antitrust precedent. Moreover, they do not offer a solution to broader concerns about technology and privacy.
It is extremely rare to see proposals that would dramatically increase antitrust authority for only a small number of targeted companies. This could represent a very troubling turning point in competition policy that substantially shifts the focus away from the consumer welfare standard and endangers future innovation and competition. Accordingly, we urge public officials to avoid unnecessary, overzealous changes to antitrust laws that would weaken an already fragile economy and instead look for targeted reforms to improve the lives of consumers and promote pro-growth policies.
Pete Sepp National Taxpayers Union | Kenneth V. Greene Binghamton University | Patrice Onwuka Independent Women's Forum |
| Asheesh Agarwal Former Assistant Director, Federal Trade Commission | Stephen K. Happel Arizona State University | Yael Ossowski Consumer Choice Center |
| Charles W. Baird California State University, East Bay | Jeff Haymond Cedarville University | Sam Peltzman University of Chicago, Booth School (Emeritus) |
| Ashley Baker Committee for Justice | Tom Hebert Open Competition Center | Eric Peterson Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation |
| Don Bellante University of South Florida | Patrick Hedger Taxpayers Protection Alliance | Steve Pociask American Consumer Institute |
| James T. Bennett George Mason University | David R. Henderson Hoover Institution | Aurelien Portuese Information Technology and Innovation Foundation |
| Bruce L. Benson Florida State University | Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin American Action Forum | Arturo C. Porzecanski American University |
| Michael T. Bond University of Arizona | Jeffrey Rogers Hummel San Jose State University | Barry W. Poulson University of Colorado Boulder |
| Samuel Bostaph University of Dallas | Mark A. Jamison University of Florida and the American Enterprise Institute | Andrew F. Quinlan Center for Freedom and Prosperity |
| Donald J. Boudreaux George Mason University | Raymond J. Keating Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council | Nancy Roberts Arizona State University |
| Scott Bradford Brigham Young University | Daniel B. Klein George Mason University | Paul Rubin Emory University |
| Jason Brennan Georgetown University | Richard N. Langlois University of Connecticut | John Ruggiero University of Dayton |
| Wayne T. Brough R Street Institute | Kent Lassman Competitive Enterprise Institute | Joseph T. Salerno Mises Institute |
| Peter T. Calcagno College of Charleston | Thomas Lehman Indiana Wesleyan University | Timothy Sandefur Goldwater Institute |
| James H. Cardon Brigham Young University | Curt Levey Committee For Justice | Charles Sauer Market Institute |
| Yong Chao University of Louisville | Stan J. Liebowitz University of Texas, Dallas | Dan Savickas Taxpayers Protection Alliance |
| Joe Cobb Retired | Tony Lima Professor Emeritus of Economics, California State University, East Bay | Tom Schatz Council for Citizens Against Government Waste |
| Joab Corey University of California, Riverside | Christopher Lingle Universidad Francisco Marroquin | William Franklin Shughart II Utah State University |
| Wayne Crews Competitive Enterprise Institute | Carrie Lukas Independent Women's Forum | Vernon L. Smith Chapman University |
| Joseph S. DeSalvo University of South Florida, Tampa | Abir Mandal University of Mount Olive | Daniel J. Smith Middle Tennessee State University |
| Anthony Dukes University of Southern California | Michael L. Marlow California Polytechnic State University | Daniel Sutter Troy University |
| Gerald P. Dwyer Clemson University | Scott E. Masten University of Michigan | John Tamny FreedomWorks |
| James Edwards Conservatives for Property Rights | Beverly McKittrick FreedomWorks | Edward Tower Duke University |
| Richard A. Epstein NYU School of Law; the Hoover Institution; the University of Chicago Law School | W. Douglas McMillin Louisiana State University (Emeritus) | Liad Wagman Illinois Institute of Technology |
| John A. Flanders Central Methodist University | Jessica Melugin Competitive Enterprise Institute | Jeffrey Westling American Action Forum |
| Vivek Ghosal Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Jim Miller Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission | Josh Withrow R Street Institute |
| Tom Giovanetti Institute for Policy Innovation | Dan Mitchell Center for Freedom and Prosperity | Bill Z. Yang Georgia Southern University |
| Casey Given Young Voices | Michael C. Munger Duke University | Ryan Young Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Stephan F. Gohmann University of Louisville | Iain Murray Competitive Enterprise Institute | Benjamin Zycher American Enterprise Institute |
| Grover Norquist Americans for Tax Reform |
Institutional affiliations are provided for identification purposes only.