The government vs. Big Tech: Is this a breaking point?
Last call! Please help us improve the Project Liberty newsletter by taking our quick three-minute survey. Make your voice heard and help shape the future of the newsletter. Take the survey here.
~~~
In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a memo to executives at Facebook.
“I wonder if we should consider the extreme step of spinning Instagram out as a separate company,” he wrote. “As calls to break up the big tech companies grow, there is a non-trivial chance that we will be forced to spin out Instagram and perhaps WhatsApp in the next 5-10 years anyway.”
Zuckerberg’s words were prescient. Last week in Washington, D.C., the U.S. government kicked off its trial against Meta. Regulators argued that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp neutralized potential rivals, creating a monopolistic dynamic for the social media platform.
Google is also under investigation by the government. Last week, a federal judge ruled that Google acted as an illegal monopolist in parts of its ad business.
After decades of a laissez-faire approach to regulating technology companies—which arguably has led tech to become Big Tech—the U.S. government is seeking to reign in today’s technology giants.
In this week’s newsletter, we explore the latest news in Big Tech antitrust regulation, and what it could mean for the future of the internet.
// The case against Google
Last Thursday, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in its advertising business—a business that accounts for $31 billion in revenue, or about 10% of the company’s overall sales.
The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by the U.S. Department of Justice and joined by eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia), alleged that Google used its market dominance to stifle competition.
Specifically, the Justice Department said that Google had acquired smaller rivals and forced publishers to use its dominant advertising tools, DFP (a platform that helps publishers manage and sell their website's ad inventory) and AdX (an ad exchange), to effectively squeeze competitors.
This marks the second time in eight months that Google had been labeled a monopolist. What comes next is still uncertain. Google plans to appeal the ruling. If upheld, the remedies could remake the company:
- Structural remedies could force Google to divest parts of its ad business to restore competition.
- Behavioral remedies could be imposed to ensure fair access to DFP and AdX without requiring a breakup.
// The case against Meta
In contrast to Judge Brinkema's decision in the Google case, Meta’s hearing only began last week and could run into July before a ruling. Initially filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2020, the case was originally dismissed. But the FTC amended its complaint, and the case has moved forward. Now, it is “one of the most aggressive cases the government has ever brought against a big tech company,” according to The New York Times’ The Daily Podcast.
In the case, the FTC is arguing that Meta created an anti-competitive dynamic in the social media space by combining its various platforms. It contends that Zuckerberg bought Instagram and WhatsApp in a bid to remove competition. Zuckerberg, who took the stand last week in Washington, D.C., testified that Meta’s resources actually helped the platforms become more successful than they would have been otherwise.
If federal prosecutors succeed in persuading U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Meta could be forced to divest of Instagram and Whatsapp, two platforms that are central to its business.
// How antitrust regulation is changing
Google and Meta are not alone. Apple and Amazon are also under scrutiny, as lawmakers in both parties advance a new wave of antitrust campaigns. This marks a growing consensus that the hands-off, market-will-correct-itself approach of the past few decades is no longer adequate in the digital age.
For years, the prevailing argument against intervention rested on two assumptions:
- The internet’s “openness” would naturally foster competition.
- Because many tech platforms offer services for free, there was little consumer harm to regulate.
But for many internet companies, these assumptions are proving to be incorrect.
“Twenty years ago there was no antitrust in tech, supported by an ideology that you didn’t need it in that space,” Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig said. “Now you see people who fought an intellectual war claiming antitrust has an essential role, and you’re going to see a bunch of these victories.”
Traditional antitrust law focuses on price harm—whether a dominant company is making consumers pay more. But in digital markets, the product is often free, and the real price is paid in data and attention.
Big Tech is different. It exercises its power by:
- Locking users into ecosystems and limiting data portability.
- Blocking interoperability, making it hard for rivals to compete or for users to switch.
- Controlling key infrastructure (like ad exchanges or app store rails) in ways that shape entire markets.
In response, companies argue that users can leave at any time, and that popularity proves value, not harm (an approach Google has taken before).
Today's regulators are pushing back, leading to a new framework for antitrust: one focused on fair access, platform neutrality, and consumer autonomy. As legal theory catches up with the architecture of the internet, the outcomes could reshape not only how Big Tech operates—but how we define a monopoly itself.
// What is the goal of antitrust regulation?
As landmark cases move through hearings, rulings, and appeals, the real question isn’t just what they’ll dismantle—but what they might help build.
Breaking up Big Tech companies may reduce their immediate power, but it doesn't prevent new monopolies from forming or address the underlying structural issues in how the internet functions. Whether it’s online search, digital ads, social media platforms, or AI, antitrust regulations have their limitations.
In 1998, the same year that Google was founded, the US Justice Department sued Microsoft for illegally grouping its various products in a way that stifled competition and reduced consumer choice. The Judge ruled in favor of the Justice Department, paving the way for a competitive market that enabled the upstart Google to become a viable competitor.
// Building The People's Internet
Beyond the important work of regulating Big Tech today, there are people building the tech models of tomorrow:
Stronger regulation is part of the solution—but only if paired with a broader ambition: not just to rein in today’s giants, but to build a better internet from the ground up. One where people have real voice, choice, and stake in the platforms they use every day.
.jpg?upscale=true&width=1160&upscale=true&name=newsletter_antitrust3%20(1).jpg)
.png?upscale=true&width=1120&upscale=true&name=mw_new%20(1).png)
