Existing U.S. antitrust laws can address Big Tech monopolies, DOJ antitrust chief says


The U.S. Justice Department antitrust chief said on Friday that existent U.S. antitrust laws are “flexible enough” to address harm caused by technology companies, in the face of growing criticism that such laws cannot tackle tech monopolies.

Makan Delrahim spoke at an antitrust conference at Harvard Law School hosted by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which counts companies like Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet’s Google as members.

Delrahim also warned tech companies that collecting vast troves of consumer data could create competition concerns in the eyes of regulators. He did not name any company specifically.

MacDailyNews Take: Well, he certainly wouldn’t name Apple as per “collecting vast troves of consumer data.” Facebook and Google are entirely different stories, of course.

The real problems where too much power is concentrated and the potential for abuse of their market power is greatest is clearly Google and Facebook, not Apple.

Since Apple does not have a monopoly in any market in which they participate, there is no legal basis for action against Apple Inc. You cannot abuse a monopoly when you do not have a monopoly to begin with. Being the best is not a crime.

Worldwide smartphone OS market share, October 2019:
• Android: 76.67%
• iOS: 22.09%


  1. Apple has absolute and total monopoly on iOS applications.
    Leads to anticompetitive influence over the existence of Apps it doesn’t own running on machines it doesn’t own.

    a) No 3rd party apps. Code them themselves or buy them outright.
    b) Stop impeding alternate stores.

        1. Yes many of us are too dull to appreciate your brilliance. LOL

          Here’s an idea. Go start your own company and then you can make your own rules on your own ‘monopoly’. I think Apple is just fine on this one.

    1. And Macdonald’s has a monopoly on Big Macs. And FedEx has a monopoly on FedEx drop boxes.

      BIG clue… I you NEED to include the name of a trademarked PRODUCT to define a monopoly, then you are NOT defining a monopoly. You’re defining a product that a company makes.

      Otherwise you find yourself saying stupid things like “Ford has an unfair Monopoly on the F150! Other companies should be able to sell the F150 if they want!” Or “Browning has a monopoly on the X-Bolt Max Long Range Rifle, how can anyone else compete?!”

        1. “the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market…”
          PC market… again, generic. Microsoft didn’t have a monopoly on the WINDOWS market, You call something a company makes, a PRODUCT, not a monopoly. It was Microsoft’s monopoly position in the broader PC market that was the concern.

          Again, if you are using a trademarked name in your attempt to define a monopoly, you’re failing at understanding the basic idea of a monopoly. Kia doesn’t have a monopoly on the Optima, Cadbury doesn’t have a monopoly on the Creme Egg, and Denny’s doesn’t have a monopoly on Moons Over My Hammy.

  2. MDN always touts the iOS versus Android stats, but is that what regulators take into consideration? I would think it would be based on company versus company, which would show a different outcome.

    1. Android is a close substitute for iOS and outsells iOS by Ann extremely wide margin, making it the number one most popular phone OS. Apple can’t even compete against the sheer onslaught of Android phones.

      I can’t recall an instance of a SMALLER competitor in a sector being accused of a monopoly. That’s usually pointed towards the market leader.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.