Read on Twitter
This article confuses a couple of distinct matters. It’s one thing to say that privacy is an aspect of product quality, cognizable under the consumer welfare standard. But that doesn’t mean reducing privacy is itself an antitrust violation. 1/5 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-11-25/privacy-lapses-could-be-part-of-google-facebook-antitrust-cases
Appropriate antitrust intervention requires a “yes” answer to 3 separate questions: (1) Is there harm to consumers? (2) Is it b/c of a market power-creating combination or exclusionary act? (3) Can a court order reduce the harm without creating greater harms? 2/5
Saying a privacy loss is consumer harm gets at the first question only. That harm itself is not an exclusionary act. Indeed, poor privacy protections, like monopoly prices, invite entry (eg, duck duck go). 3/5
Even if the consumer harm is the result of exclusionary conduct or an illicit agreement (say, FB’s acqusition of IG), improving matters via a court order would be extraordinarily difficult, as @WillRinehart has explained: 4/5 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/breaking-up-big-tech-is-hard-to-do-1532290123
This is not to say that the tech investigations won’t uncover illicit combinations or exclusionary conduct, or that a welfare-enhancing remedy is impossible. But merely saying privacy losses are cognizable consumer harms is no silver antitrust bullet. 5/5
