[ad_1]
Tuesday, federal Judge James E. Boasberg ruled that Efforts by the Federal Trade Commission to disrupt Facebook can move forward. The the only case they are far from selective. But by dismissing the FTC’s teaching that silence can harm consumers even when its products are free, the judge pointed out that Facebook – and other technology platforms – could not be defeated.
It’s a big change from last summer. In June Boasberg, a judge of the United States District Court in the District of Columbia, granted Facebook’s request to dismiss the case. (The company also made its name Meta Platforms, but Facebook is still a rival.) The problem, he said, was that the FTC – which seeks to change Facebook’s findings on Instagram and WhatsApp – did not provide any evidence that the company was monopoly. But in the same verdict, Boasberg gave a clear how to revive the case. All the government has to do is provide evidence that Facebook has a significant role to play in the online marketplace.
Two months later, the agency filed a new data-based complaint from Comscore, a monitoring company that Facebook uses, meaning that the company controls the market in a variety of ways: daily users, monthly users, and usage time. . This new evidence seems to have pleased Boasberg. “In a nutshell,” he writes recent decision, “FTC has done its homework this time.”
Market share does not resolve issues alone. The FTC, Boasberg notes, should also point out that Facebook claims monopoly has been bad for consumers. This is where the decision comes in handy. From the beginning, a group of non-corporate law enforcement agencies such as Facebook and Google has faced a major obstacle: How do you show that consumers are being harmed by companies whose main offerings are free? (Or, in the case of Amazon, the cheapest?) Antitrust law professionally does not talk about prices, but since the late 1970’s, judges have interpreted it as such. A well-known way to counteract corporate aggression is to demonstrate that this can lead to higher prices. (See, for example, a cattle companies.)
In recent years, legal thinkers, including FTC chair Lina Khan, have come up with an ingenious solution to the dangers of professionalism: If there is no competition, companies will be free to do what consumers do not like, and feel less secure. forced to promote their business. Education expert Dina Srinivasan, for example, says that Facebook has lowered its profile for users privacy information once defeated early opponents like MySpace. The FTC also summarized the theory, along with several others. Facebook’s authority, he says, has also allowed the company to carry consumer food with more promotions. And, the FTC said, Facebook killed its home photo sharing app when it bought Instagram, meaning consumers would have more options if the two companies remained competitive.
To date, it has been an open question as to whether this non-value proposition has won in court. This is why it is so difficult that Boasberg seems to have accepted them. “In summary,” he wrote, “the FTC states that while Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp did not result in higher prices, it led to poorer jobs and fewer options for consumers.”
[ad_2]
Source link
