Policy Backgrounder : - Google and Meta Antitrust Cases

• The cases are important tests of the continued relevance of the “consumer welfare” standard to digital platforms, as regulators seek to broaden the scope of antitrust enforcement to encompass harms to potential competitors and the broader consumer market through anticompetitive acquisitions, policies for third-party developers, and other business structures that tech firms use to reinforce marke. [...] In commenting on the settlement, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said that “attorneys general across the country are unified, and we are prepared to use the full weight of our collective authority to ensure free and fair access to the digital marketplace [.]” Epic, however, declined to participate in the states’ settlement but chose to take the case to a jury trial, seeking greater and d. [...] “There was no valid claim that Facebook was a monopolist — and that has not changed,” Meta responded, adding that the “FTC’s claims are an effort to rewrite antitrust laws and upend settled expectations of merger review, declaring to the business community that no sale is ever final.” In December, the FTC asked the judge to move the litigation forward; however, Meta’s lawyers responded that the ca. [...] While the FTC argues it has authority to decide whether its settlements should be changed, Meta responded by suing the FTC to stop the agency from changing the terms of the 2019 settlement and more broadly challenging the constitutionality of its enforcement powers. [...] … The FTC shouldn’t be the prosecutor, judge, and jury in the same case.” However, the judge disagreed, ruling that the FTC can continue its efforts to change the settlement, which could then be appealed to the US Court of Appeals.