上周,美国司法部对谷歌发起反垄断诉讼,各方对此事件反应不一,但均认同这起反垄断案件或需数年时间方可尘埃落定。造成这种局面的原因有很多,比如案情较为复杂、谷歌拥有雄厚的法律资源、司法程序冗长缓慢等等。不过重要的是,在可以预见的未来,这家搜索引擎巨头仍然能够照常开展业务。
并非所有人都对这种局面感到满意。正如《纽约时报》(New York Times)报道的那样,从法学教授到前监管官员,越来越多的意见领袖开始呼吁政府推出新的监管方法。在他们看来,现行反垄断法太过拖沓,政府应该设立全新机构,对苹果(Apple)、Facebook、谷歌(Google)、微软(Microsoft)以及亚马逊(Amazon)等科技巨头进行监管。《纽约时报》报道节选如下:
“他们表示,政府需要启用反应更为敏捷的监管方式,比如设立专门监管大型科技企业的专职监管机构,设置并执行一套基本行为准则,禁止企业偏袒自己旗下公司、排斥竞争对手或收购新兴竞争对手,要求企业允许竞争对手以合理的条件使用其平台与数据。”
正如《纽约时报》所指出的那样,设置专职监管机构专门监管某些行业或企业的做法其实不算新鲜。比如,在航空公司监管方面,有联邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration);在制药企业监管方面,有食品与药品管理局(Food and Drug Administration),在AT&T和威瑞森(Verizon)等公司监管方面,有联邦通信委员会(Federal Communications Commission)。此外,政府也在根据规模对特定的金融机构进行特殊监管。
哈佛大学(Harvard University)的教授杰森·福尔曼也支持设置专职监管机构对大型科技企业进行监管,他也在与英国政府合作,就新设数字公用事业监管机构向后者提供咨询建议。福尔曼称自己是个“准保守派”,《纽约时报》指出,他与其他主张设立新监管机构的人士都算不上所谓的“进步煽动者”。
当然,这些科技巨头从未离开过监管部门的管控。美国联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)拥有一支精干的技术团队,曾经多次针对Facebook、谷歌和其他公司的各种不当行为(包括侵犯隐私)发起调查。话虽如此,联邦贸易委员会似乎仍然缺乏能够强制科技企业遵守相关规定的法律工具。"同意法令"是该委员会的主要工具,而根据该法令,如果企业为初犯,则不得对其加以罚款,此外,企业违反相关法令的代价也较小,处罚力度无法促使企业改变自己的违法行为。
因此,新设灵活、专业的监管机构可能正是防止科技巨头滥用自己垄断地位的可靠工具。但也不是所有人都赞同这一想法。福特汉姆大学(Fordham University)的法学教授、科技评论界意见领袖泽福·蒂奇奥特就警告称,那些鼓吹新设监管机构的人可能另有目的:
鼓吹新设专职科技企业监管机构而非反垄断执法机构的专家名单如下:
福尔曼,臭名昭著的新自由主义者、沃尔玛的支持者。
莫顿,为亚马逊与苹果公司提供有偿咨询服务。
吉梅尔曼,供职于PK(受大型科技企业资助)
——泽福·蒂奇奥特(@ZephyrTeachout),2020年10月22日
蒂奇奥特继续指出,大型科技监管机构的权限范围将会难以界定,而且此类机构很容易被强大的科技说客所左右(许多人声称,在737 Max空难发生之后,联邦航空管理局就受到了说客的影响)。
该提议的其他批评者还声称,只要政治领袖愿意使用,反垄断法就能够成为行之有效的工具:
反垄断法之所以没有发挥作用是因为在过去40年一直被束之高阁!(!!)
感谢西西里尼议员等领袖,让我们看到了“反垄断法+监管”对恢复公平竞争和民主本身的重要性。
——莎拉·米勒 (@sarahmillerdc) ,2020年10月22日
上述推文提及了民主党众议员大卫·西西里尼,他曾经领导起草了一份针对大型科技企业反竞争行为的里程碑式报告,西西里尼还在上周呼吁要给反垄断领域“执法不力的时代”划上句号。
不过也有其他人对新设监管机构的想法表示了赞赏。GMF Digital是一家颇具影响力的政策团体,其高管卡伦·科恩布卢赫指出,上述呼吁与她最近参与编写的报告结论不谋而合。该报告称,政府需要设置新型监管机构来审查大型科技公司滥用垄断地位行为。
不过,是否设置大型科技企业监管机构最终还是要由国会决定,而国会目前并无太多推动这项工作的动力。(财富中文网)
译者:梁宇
审校:夏林
上周,美国司法部对谷歌发起反垄断诉讼,各方对此事件反应不一,但均认同这起反垄断案件或需数年时间方可尘埃落定。造成这种局面的原因有很多,比如案情较为复杂、谷歌拥有雄厚的法律资源、司法程序冗长缓慢等等。不过重要的是,在可以预见的未来,这家搜索引擎巨头仍然能够照常开展业务。
并非所有人都对这种局面感到满意。正如《纽约时报》(New York Times)报道的那样,从法学教授到前监管官员,越来越多的意见领袖开始呼吁政府推出新的监管方法。在他们看来,现行反垄断法太过拖沓,政府应该设立全新机构,对苹果(Apple)、Facebook、谷歌(Google)、微软(Microsoft)以及亚马逊(Amazon)等科技巨头进行监管。《纽约时报》报道节选如下:
“他们表示,政府需要启用反应更为敏捷的监管方式,比如设立专门监管大型科技企业的专职监管机构,设置并执行一套基本行为准则,禁止企业偏袒自己旗下公司、排斥竞争对手或收购新兴竞争对手,要求企业允许竞争对手以合理的条件使用其平台与数据。”
正如《纽约时报》所指出的那样,设置专职监管机构专门监管某些行业或企业的做法其实不算新鲜。比如,在航空公司监管方面,有联邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation Administration);在制药企业监管方面,有食品与药品管理局(Food and Drug Administration),在AT&T和威瑞森(Verizon)等公司监管方面,有联邦通信委员会(Federal Communications Commission)。此外,政府也在根据规模对特定的金融机构进行特殊监管。
哈佛大学(Harvard University)的教授杰森·福尔曼也支持设置专职监管机构对大型科技企业进行监管,他也在与英国政府合作,就新设数字公用事业监管机构向后者提供咨询建议。福尔曼称自己是个“准保守派”,《纽约时报》指出,他与其他主张设立新监管机构的人士都算不上所谓的“进步煽动者”。
当然,这些科技巨头从未离开过监管部门的管控。美国联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)拥有一支精干的技术团队,曾经多次针对Facebook、谷歌和其他公司的各种不当行为(包括侵犯隐私)发起调查。话虽如此,联邦贸易委员会似乎仍然缺乏能够强制科技企业遵守相关规定的法律工具。"同意法令"是该委员会的主要工具,而根据该法令,如果企业为初犯,则不得对其加以罚款,此外,企业违反相关法令的代价也较小,处罚力度无法促使企业改变自己的违法行为。
因此,新设灵活、专业的监管机构可能正是防止科技巨头滥用自己垄断地位的可靠工具。但也不是所有人都赞同这一想法。福特汉姆大学(Fordham University)的法学教授、科技评论界意见领袖泽福·蒂奇奥特就警告称,那些鼓吹新设监管机构的人可能另有目的:
鼓吹新设专职科技企业监管机构而非反垄断执法机构的专家名单如下:
福尔曼,臭名昭著的新自由主义者、沃尔玛的支持者。
莫顿,为亚马逊与苹果公司提供有偿咨询服务。
吉梅尔曼,供职于PK(受大型科技企业资助)
——泽福·蒂奇奥特(@ZephyrTeachout),2020年10月22日
蒂奇奥特继续指出,大型科技监管机构的权限范围将会难以界定,而且此类机构很容易被强大的科技说客所左右(许多人声称,在737 Max空难发生之后,联邦航空管理局就受到了说客的影响)。
该提议的其他批评者还声称,只要政治领袖愿意使用,反垄断法就能够成为行之有效的工具:
反垄断法之所以没有发挥作用是因为在过去40年一直被束之高阁!(!!)
感谢西西里尼议员等领袖,让我们看到了“反垄断法+监管”对恢复公平竞争和民主本身的重要性。
——莎拉·米勒 (@sarahmillerdc) ,2020年10月22日
上述推文提及了民主党众议员大卫·西西里尼,他曾经领导起草了一份针对大型科技企业反竞争行为的里程碑式报告,西西里尼还在上周呼吁要给反垄断领域“执法不力的时代”划上句号。
不过也有其他人对新设监管机构的想法表示了赞赏。GMF Digital是一家颇具影响力的政策团体,其高管卡伦·科恩布卢赫指出,上述呼吁与她最近参与编写的报告结论不谋而合。该报告称,政府需要设置新型监管机构来审查大型科技公司滥用垄断地位行为。
不过,是否设置大型科技企业监管机构最终还是要由国会决定,而国会目前并无太多推动这项工作的动力。(财富中文网)
译者:梁宇
审校:夏林
The Justice Department's decision to sue Google last week elicited mixed reactions, but there's one point on which everyone agreed: The antitrust case will take years to play out. There are various reasons for this—from the complexity of the case to Google's vast legal resources to the sluggishness of the judicial process—but the upshot is that the search giant will be able to conduct business as usual for the foreseeable future.
Not everyone is satisfied with this situation. As the New York Times reports, a growing number of influential figures, from laprofessors to former regulators, are calling for a different approach. Concluding that antitrust law is simply too slow, they believe it's time for a new body to oversee tech behemoths like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. From the Times:
"A more rapid-response approach is required, they said. One solution: a specialist regulator that would focus on the major tech companies. It would establish and enforce a set of basic rules of conduct, which would include not allowing the companies to favor their own services, exclude competitors or acquire emerging rivals and require them to permit competitors access to their platforms and data on reasonable terms."
As the Times notes, the idea of a specialized regulator for certain sectors or companies is hardly unprecedented. The Federal Aviation Administration oversees airlines, for example, while the Food and Drug Administration regulates pharma companies, and the Federal Communications Commission watches over the likes of AT&T and Verizon. Meanwhile, the government singles out certain financial institutions for special regulation on the grounds of their size.
Among those calling for a specialized regulator for Big Tech is Jason Furman, a Harvard University professor who is advising the U.K. government on creating a new body to oversee digital utilities. Furman describes himself as a "small 'c' conservative," and the Times points out that he and other advocates for a new regulator are hardly progressive firebrands.
Currently, the tech giants aren't free from regulation, of course. The Federal Trade Commission has a sophisticated team of technical staff and has repeatedly launched into Facebook, Google, and others for a variety of misdeeds, including privacy violations. That said, the FTC also appears to lack the legal tools to bring the tech firms to heel. Its primary tool—so-called consent decrees—don't allow the agency to impose fines for a first offense and, when a company violates those decrees, the penalties haven't been enough to change their behavior.
A new agency that is both nimble and specialized could thus be just the tool to prevent the tech behemoths from abusing their monopoly positions. But not everyone is in favor of the idea. Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham University and an influential tech critic, warned that those advocating for the idea may have other agendas:
The named experts pushing a special tech regulator instead of antitrust enforcement are:
1. Furman, infamous neoliberal Walmart booster.
2. Morton, a paid consultant to Amazon and Apple.
3. Kimmelman of PK (funded by big tech)https://t.co/CTMaJdB7QR
— Zephyr Teachout (@ZephyrTeachout) October 22, 202
Teachout goes on to note that the scope of a Big Tech regulator's authority would be uncertain and that the agency would be prone to being captured by powerful tech lobbyists (something that many claim occurred at the FAA in the wake of the 737 Max air disasters).
Other critics of the proposal claimed that antitrust law is an effective tool so long as political leaders are willing to deploy it:
Re this article...antitrust hasn’t worked because it’s been stuffed in a closet for the last 40 years!(!!)
Grateful for leaders like @RepCicilline who are demonstrating how antitrust + reg is essential for restoring fair competition and democracy itself. https://t.co/gmHt11EDL5
— Sarah Miller (@sarahmillerdc) October 22, 2020
The tweet cites Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who led a landmark new report on anticompetitive activities by big tech companies, and who last week called for an end to an "era of weak enforcement" in antitrust.
Others, however, praised the idea for a new regulator. Karen Kornbluh, an executive with the influential policy group GMF Digital, noted that such calls are consistent with a recent report she coauthored that claims a new breed of regulator is required to check the abuses of big tech companies.
Ultimately, though, it would fall to Congress to create any Big Tech regulator and, for now, there appears to be little momentum to do so.