House Panel to Seek Breakup of Tech Giants, GOP Member Says, , on October 6, 2020 at 12:51 am

Financial News
By
On October 6, 2020
In Financial News
Tags:

(Bloomberg) — A House panel led by Democrats investigating competition in the technology sector is poised to propose sweeping reforms to block giants such as Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. from both owning marketplaces and selling their own products on them, according to a critique of the recommendations by one Republican member of the subcommittee.The critique and the panel’s report are still drafts and the contents of both could change. It’s not clear which members will endorse the report, whose release has been delayed because of last-minute information regarding Facebook Inc., CNBC reported earlier. The report was expected this week, but it’s been pushed back, according to a person familiar with the matter.The recommendations, which would represent the most dramatic overhaul of competition law in decades if approved, are the result of a yearlong investigation by the House antitrust panel led by Democratic Representative David Cicilline. That probe is coming to its conclusion as federal and state antitrust enforcers are also investigating Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook.Cicilline’s recommendations would include what he has called a Glass-Steagall law for technology platforms, according to the draft discussion paper from Republican Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, which was reported on earlier by Politico and obtained by Bloomberg. Buck said that recommendation and some others in the staff report would be “non-starters” for the GOP. Glass-Steagall refers to the Depression-era law separating commercial and investment banking.Cicilline’s proposal would prohibit tech companies from entering different lines of business and amount to a breakup of the companies, according to Buck. Amazon, for example, would be prevented from selling its own products on its marketplace, while Google couldn’t own both the world’s biggest search engine and YouTube. And Apple would be barred from owning the App Store and offering its own apps.“The majority’s primary remedy to create competition in the tech marketplace is to enact legislation creating structural separation,” Buck wrote in the discussion. Buck said he agrees with Cicilline on the need to rein in the power of technology companies and agrees with certain remedies such as giving more resources to competition enforcers.Spokespeople for Cicilline and Buck didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Cicilline told Bloomberg in an interview in August that the companies are engaging in “deeply disturbing” abuse of their dominance to crush competitors. The panel issued information requests that yielded millions of pages of documents and held seven hearings, including one in July that featured testimony by the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple.The draft report would also recommend legislation that would require the tech companies to allow users to easily move their data from one website to another, according to Buck. It also recommends legislation to shift the burden of proof in merger cases to the tech companies, cap the market share in some mergers to 25% for buyers, overturn Supreme Court and other decisions that critics say have hampered enforcement agencies from blocking mergers and eliminate arbitration clauses in terms of service.In addition to Cicilline’s investigation, federal and state antitrust enforcers are poised to file a historic monopolization lawsuit against Google, and additional cases could be in the pipeline, Bloomberg has reported. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is preparing a possible case against Facebook. And Amazon and Apple are facing inquiries by federal antitrust authorities.It wasn’t immediately clear whether other committee Republicans, including its top-ranking GOP members, would join Buck’s recommendations. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the top Republican on the subcommittee, said in an Oct. 1 hearing that he and Cicilline “ultimately disagree on the future of antitrust laws.”Representative Jim Jordan, who is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that includes the antitrust panel, has repeatedly used the investigation’s hearings to rail against the companies for allegedly silencing conservatives. Buck, in the report, expressed concern about “censorship” across the political spectrum and cited “bias against conservative outlets and personalities” in particular.Buck said the Democrats will recommend imposing restrictions that would make it tougher for tech companies to grow by acquiring other firms. While Buck didn’t provide details of the majority’s proposal, he described it as “shifting the burden of proof in merger cases.”During their investigation, committee members often complained that the tech companies have been able to solidify their dominance by acquiring promising startups with little or no scrutiny from antitrust enforcers.At a recent hearing, a former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division said that courts have made it nearly impossible for the government to stop dominant companies from acquiring nascent competitors and suggested one fix would be to put the burden on buyers to prove that the deals would be good for competition. That could make it easier for antitrust enforcers to block deals.While Buck said he supported a burden-shifting approach, he said Congress should gather more information on another proposal by the Democrats: a ban on acquisitions of future rivals and start-ups, like Facebook’s takeover of Instagram. Such a ban would prevent start-ups from profiting from their ideas by selling to another company, and reduce incentives for investors to back start-ups, Buck said.The report’s recommendations face an uphill battle. With time running out in this Congress, any real legislative action wont happen until 2021. They’ll likely run into Republicans’ longtime skepticism about changing antitrust law. Even if the election hands the Senate majority to the Democrats, Republicans can still use procedural tools to block bills from passing.(Updates with more recommendations, status of federal probes and likelihood of action from 10th paragraph. An earlier version of this story was corrected to show that the panel held seven hearings)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

House Panel to Seek Breakup of Tech Giants, GOP Member Says(Bloomberg) — A House panel led by Democrats investigating competition in the technology sector is poised to propose sweeping reforms to block giants such as Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. from both owning marketplaces and selling their own products on them, according to a critique of the recommendations by one Republican member of the subcommittee.The critique and the panel’s report are still drafts and the contents of both could change. It’s not clear which members will endorse the report, whose release has been delayed because of last-minute information regarding Facebook Inc., CNBC reported earlier. The report was expected this week, but it’s been pushed back, according to a person familiar with the matter.The recommendations, which would represent the most dramatic overhaul of competition law in decades if approved, are the result of a yearlong investigation by the House antitrust panel led by Democratic Representative David Cicilline. That probe is coming to its conclusion as federal and state antitrust enforcers are also investigating Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook.Cicilline’s recommendations would include what he has called a Glass-Steagall law for technology platforms, according to the draft discussion paper from Republican Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, which was reported on earlier by Politico and obtained by Bloomberg. Buck said that recommendation and some others in the staff report would be “non-starters” for the GOP. Glass-Steagall refers to the Depression-era law separating commercial and investment banking.Cicilline’s proposal would prohibit tech companies from entering different lines of business and amount to a breakup of the companies, according to Buck. Amazon, for example, would be prevented from selling its own products on its marketplace, while Google couldn’t own both the world’s biggest search engine and YouTube. And Apple would be barred from owning the App Store and offering its own apps.“The majority’s primary remedy to create competition in the tech marketplace is to enact legislation creating structural separation,” Buck wrote in the discussion. Buck said he agrees with Cicilline on the need to rein in the power of technology companies and agrees with certain remedies such as giving more resources to competition enforcers.Spokespeople for Cicilline and Buck didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Cicilline told Bloomberg in an interview in August that the companies are engaging in “deeply disturbing” abuse of their dominance to crush competitors. The panel issued information requests that yielded millions of pages of documents and held seven hearings, including one in July that featured testimony by the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple.The draft report would also recommend legislation that would require the tech companies to allow users to easily move their data from one website to another, according to Buck. It also recommends legislation to shift the burden of proof in merger cases to the tech companies, cap the market share in some mergers to 25% for buyers, overturn Supreme Court and other decisions that critics say have hampered enforcement agencies from blocking mergers and eliminate arbitration clauses in terms of service.In addition to Cicilline’s investigation, federal and state antitrust enforcers are poised to file a historic monopolization lawsuit against Google, and additional cases could be in the pipeline, Bloomberg has reported. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is preparing a possible case against Facebook. And Amazon and Apple are facing inquiries by federal antitrust authorities.It wasn’t immediately clear whether other committee Republicans, including its top-ranking GOP members, would join Buck’s recommendations. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the top Republican on the subcommittee, said in an Oct. 1 hearing that he and Cicilline “ultimately disagree on the future of antitrust laws.”Representative Jim Jordan, who is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that includes the antitrust panel, has repeatedly used the investigation’s hearings to rail against the companies for allegedly silencing conservatives. Buck, in the report, expressed concern about “censorship” across the political spectrum and cited “bias against conservative outlets and personalities” in particular.Buck said the Democrats will recommend imposing restrictions that would make it tougher for tech companies to grow by acquiring other firms. While Buck didn’t provide details of the majority’s proposal, he described it as “shifting the burden of proof in merger cases.”During their investigation, committee members often complained that the tech companies have been able to solidify their dominance by acquiring promising startups with little or no scrutiny from antitrust enforcers.At a recent hearing, a former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division said that courts have made it nearly impossible for the government to stop dominant companies from acquiring nascent competitors and suggested one fix would be to put the burden on buyers to prove that the deals would be good for competition. That could make it easier for antitrust enforcers to block deals.While Buck said he supported a burden-shifting approach, he said Congress should gather more information on another proposal by the Democrats: a ban on acquisitions of future rivals and start-ups, like Facebook’s takeover of Instagram. Such a ban would prevent start-ups from profiting from their ideas by selling to another company, and reduce incentives for investors to back start-ups, Buck said.The report’s recommendations face an uphill battle. With time running out in this Congress, any real legislative action wont happen until 2021. They’ll likely run into Republicans’ longtime skepticism about changing antitrust law. Even if the election hands the Senate majority to the Democrats, Republicans can still use procedural tools to block bills from passing.(Updates with more recommendations, status of federal probes and likelihood of action from 10th paragraph. An earlier version of this story was corrected to show that the panel held seven hearings)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Instant Quote

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

High West Capital Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with High West Capital Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. High West Capital Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Singapore

+65 3105 1295

Taiwan

Coming Soon!

Hong Kong

R91, 3rd Floor,
Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Ave.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Follow Us

Market Coverage