Expect antitrust legislation to be introduced in the “late days of this Congress” to curb Big Tech’s dominance, House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., said Friday, discussing his panel’s recent report (see 2010070067). Regulation is on the agenda for this and next Congress, said during a Public Knowledge event, calling the report “just the beginning.”
Karl Herchenroeder
Karl Herchenroeder, Associate Editor, is a technology policy journalist for publications including Communications Daily. Born in Rockville, Maryland, he joined the Warren Communications News staff in 2018. He began his journalism career in 2012 at the Aspen Times in Aspen, Colorado, where he covered city government. After that, he covered the nuclear industry for ExchangeMonitor in Washington. You can follow Herchenroeder on Twitter: @karlherk
The Supreme Court met arguments from Google and Oracle with skepticism Wednesday in a case that could decide whether programming code is copyrightable (see 2008070054). Oracle sued Google for its use of Java programming code. Google has a right to provide a “certain functionality to make a computer do something” under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, argued Google attorney Thomas Goldstein. If there were alternatives, that would be “another matter,” he said, but because there’s only one way, there’s no copyright protection.
Congress should consider legislation including structural separation and line of business restrictions to address abuse of market power in the digital economy, House Antitrust Subcommittee Democratic staff recommended in a long-awaited report Tuesday. Republicans didn’t sign on but released their own report. Recommendations include prohibition of self-preferencing, portability requirements, mandating that platforms provide due process before taking action against market participants, and amendments to the Clayton, Sherman and FTC acts.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should grant the FTC’s request for en banc review in its antitrust case against Qualcomm (see 2009250068), tech groups, auto manufacturers, consumers and scholars told the court in briefs filed through Tuesday (in Pacer). The agency is appealing a three-judge panel’s decision in favor of Qualcomm (see 2008190043).
Momentum is building in both chambers for a Digital Millennium Copyright Act update as stakeholders remain at odds if a new DMCA is necessary or beneficial. Experts offered varying predictions in interviews about proposals to the Senate IP Subcommittee and House Judiciary Committee (see 2009300068).
The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously voted Thursday to issue subpoenas to Facebook, Google and Twitter for testimony from CEOs Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey (see 2009250037). The vote was a “big, bipartisan signal to Big Tech,” Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told us, saying there’s agreement that Communications Decency Act Section 230 is “overdue for a makeover.” During Thursday’s executive session, Democrats suggested the hearing be held after the November election to avoid any influence over platform election content.
Expect the House Antitrust Subcommittee to release its report on Big Tech next week, Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., told us after Thursday’s final hearing on the matter. House Judiciary Committee Republicans planned to introduce legislation to amend Section 230 and limit liability protections for platforms making “editorial decisions,” ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, announced at the hearing.
The House Judiciary Committee is “quite possibly” exploring legislation to update Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 512 (see 2006090063), Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., told us Wednesday. “It’s not clear what the end game is,” Nadler said. “We’re undertaking a major review of it, and we’ll see” what develops. He hadn’t had direct conversations with ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, though staffs may have been in touch. “It’s a nonpartisan issue,” added Nadler.
A bipartisan pair of senators introduced legislation Tuesday to amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 and require platforms to report illegal drug sales and other illicit activity. Tech industry and privacy advocates oppose the bill. Experts raised issues with proposals aimed at amending industry’s liability shield, in interviews.
Communications Decency Act Section 230 can be modified to ensure it’s not abused by tech companies seeking to avoid legitimate civil liability, FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter said on C-SPAN's The Communicators, to have been televised this weekend. Section 230 is important for a thriving internet, but there are concerns about tech companies using it as a shield against civil liability outside the statute's scope, she said. She said requiring viewpoint neutrality doesn’t have any basis in the law concerning Section 230. It’s difficult to visualize any actions the FTC could take consistent with its legal mandates in response to President Donald Trump’s social media executive order (see 2009220049), she said. The FTC isn’t “political speech police,” the Democratic commissioner added, calling the EO “confounding” from a legal basis. Slaughter supports an FTC study on targeted advertising, which Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Christine Wilson also support. There should be transparency in the “black box” into which platforms funnel data, Slaughter said. Congress needs to look at court cases that limited antitrust enforcement, and the agency needs more antitrust resources, she argued. With large companies, agencies are likely to find anticompetitive activity, which her agency needs to examine, she said. The next administration should reinstate net neutrality rules and return broadband to the FTC’s purview as a Communications Act Title II service, she said.