As antitrust authorities on both sides of the Atlantic hammer down on alleged anti-competitive activities that could lead to break-up orders for Apple and Alphabet's Google, a first for the sector, Big Tech is facing its toughest threat in decades.
This might then encourage watchdogs everywhere to jump on board, as seen by the increasing number of antitrust investigations in different nations after the commencement of proceedings in the US and the EU. Up until today, no American corporation has faced the prospect of a regulator-led break-up since AT&T was split up precisely 40 years ago.
While Apple said that the U.S. case was incorrect in both law and facts, Google stated that it disagreed with the EU's charges.
Ma Bell, now known as AT&T, was divided into seven separate businesses in 1984 and dubbed "Baby Bells" in order to create one of the most potent monopolies of the 20th century. At the moment, the only companies still standing are AT&T, Verizon, and Lumen.
The phrase "walled gardens" was coined because regulators now claim that businesses like Apple and Google have created impenetrable environments around their goods, making it impossible for users to transfer to other services.
The US Department of Justice, which joined forces with 15 states to sue Apple for monopolising the smartphone industry, impeding competitors, and inflating prices, cautioned the $2.7 trillion corporation on Wednesday that a break-up order is not precluded as a solution to restore competition.
Yet, the case—which Apple has vowed to fight—will probably take years to decide.
The United States' measures follow other growing threats that have been made around Europe this week.
According to people with direct knowledge of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity, Big Tech will soon come under increased scrutiny as Apple, Meta Platforms, and Alphabet are likely to be looked into for possible violations of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which could result in steep fines and even break-up orders for repeated breaches.
When Margrethe Vestager, the head of EU antitrust, accused Google last year of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour in its lucrative adtech division and hinted that the company would have to sell off its sell-side tools, she paved the path for severe action.
She stated that in order to prevent Google from allegedly favouring its own online digital advertising technology services over those of advertisers and online publishers, it appears that selling some of Google's assets is the only practical approach to avoid conflicts of interest.
Vestager is anticipated to make a definitive ruling by year's end.
Members of the European Parliament Andreas Schwab, who had a major role in the writing of the historic EU DMA tech legislation that went into effect this month, stated that MEPs want tough measures taken against Big Tech companies that break the law.
"If they don't comply with the DMA, you can imagine what Parliament will ask for. Break-ups. The ultimate goal is to make markets open, fair and allow more innovation," he said.
While they consider their options, authorities are far from guaranteed to issue break-up orders; instead, any action could just end in a punishment. Additionally, based on the 1998 lawsuit against Microsoft legal experts predicted that the case against Apple could be more challenging this time around.
Within the European Union, corporate splits are considered as a last option rather than a common practice. It has never occurred before "An anonymous Commission official stated as much.
In addition, compared to Google, Apple's heavily interwoven system would make a breakup more difficult, according to attorney Damien Geradin of Geradin Partners, who is representing a number of app creators in prior legal disputes with Apple.
"It seems to me much more complicated. You are talking about something that is integrated, for example you can't force Apple to divest its App Store. That doesn't make sense," he said.
He stated that in the case of Google, a break-up order may simply target acquisitions undertaken to improve its core services, but it would be preferable to impose behavioural remedies on Apple that require it to do specific things.
"What's more likely is they (DOJ) go for remedies like opening up hardware functionality, or making sure developers aren't being discriminated against in terms of pricing," said Max von Thun, director of advocacy group Open Markets.
"I think they want to say that everything's on the table, but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll choose that path," he said.
The majority of Apple's around $400 billion in annual revenue comes from the sale of hardware, which includes iPhones, Macs, iPads, and watches. Its services division earns about $100 billion more.
Courts will eventually test structural solutions like breakups, according to Assimakis Komninos, a partner at White & Case.
"I would say that experiences of imposed structural measures, such as breakups, are not many, but the small past experience shows that this is very tricky, aside from the formidable legal challenges," he said.
(Source:www.cnbctv18.com)
This might then encourage watchdogs everywhere to jump on board, as seen by the increasing number of antitrust investigations in different nations after the commencement of proceedings in the US and the EU. Up until today, no American corporation has faced the prospect of a regulator-led break-up since AT&T was split up precisely 40 years ago.
While Apple said that the U.S. case was incorrect in both law and facts, Google stated that it disagreed with the EU's charges.
Ma Bell, now known as AT&T, was divided into seven separate businesses in 1984 and dubbed "Baby Bells" in order to create one of the most potent monopolies of the 20th century. At the moment, the only companies still standing are AT&T, Verizon, and Lumen.
The phrase "walled gardens" was coined because regulators now claim that businesses like Apple and Google have created impenetrable environments around their goods, making it impossible for users to transfer to other services.
The US Department of Justice, which joined forces with 15 states to sue Apple for monopolising the smartphone industry, impeding competitors, and inflating prices, cautioned the $2.7 trillion corporation on Wednesday that a break-up order is not precluded as a solution to restore competition.
Yet, the case—which Apple has vowed to fight—will probably take years to decide.
The United States' measures follow other growing threats that have been made around Europe this week.
According to people with direct knowledge of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity, Big Tech will soon come under increased scrutiny as Apple, Meta Platforms, and Alphabet are likely to be looked into for possible violations of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which could result in steep fines and even break-up orders for repeated breaches.
When Margrethe Vestager, the head of EU antitrust, accused Google last year of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour in its lucrative adtech division and hinted that the company would have to sell off its sell-side tools, she paved the path for severe action.
She stated that in order to prevent Google from allegedly favouring its own online digital advertising technology services over those of advertisers and online publishers, it appears that selling some of Google's assets is the only practical approach to avoid conflicts of interest.
Vestager is anticipated to make a definitive ruling by year's end.
Members of the European Parliament Andreas Schwab, who had a major role in the writing of the historic EU DMA tech legislation that went into effect this month, stated that MEPs want tough measures taken against Big Tech companies that break the law.
"If they don't comply with the DMA, you can imagine what Parliament will ask for. Break-ups. The ultimate goal is to make markets open, fair and allow more innovation," he said.
While they consider their options, authorities are far from guaranteed to issue break-up orders; instead, any action could just end in a punishment. Additionally, based on the 1998 lawsuit against Microsoft legal experts predicted that the case against Apple could be more challenging this time around.
Within the European Union, corporate splits are considered as a last option rather than a common practice. It has never occurred before "An anonymous Commission official stated as much.
In addition, compared to Google, Apple's heavily interwoven system would make a breakup more difficult, according to attorney Damien Geradin of Geradin Partners, who is representing a number of app creators in prior legal disputes with Apple.
"It seems to me much more complicated. You are talking about something that is integrated, for example you can't force Apple to divest its App Store. That doesn't make sense," he said.
He stated that in the case of Google, a break-up order may simply target acquisitions undertaken to improve its core services, but it would be preferable to impose behavioural remedies on Apple that require it to do specific things.
"What's more likely is they (DOJ) go for remedies like opening up hardware functionality, or making sure developers aren't being discriminated against in terms of pricing," said Max von Thun, director of advocacy group Open Markets.
"I think they want to say that everything's on the table, but it doesn't necessarily mean they'll choose that path," he said.
The majority of Apple's around $400 billion in annual revenue comes from the sale of hardware, which includes iPhones, Macs, iPads, and watches. Its services division earns about $100 billion more.
Courts will eventually test structural solutions like breakups, according to Assimakis Komninos, a partner at White & Case.
"I would say that experiences of imposed structural measures, such as breakups, are not many, but the small past experience shows that this is very tricky, aside from the formidable legal challenges," he said.
(Source:www.cnbctv18.com)
Homepage
Send to a friend
Printable version
Share
