From reading the Ken Buck minority report, though, there are 4 proposals he says Rs can support: additional funding for the agencies; data portability & interoperability; shifting burden of proof in merger cases; and market definition isn't required w/ direct proof of mkt power
On the shifting burden, Buck is a little squishy, saying "Congress must be exact in its language."
There are 7 other "maybes" that Buck says they could get behind but want further discussion/hearings about. 4 relate to monopolization law and 3 relate to mergers.
1) Changes to the law related to monopoly leveraging and predatory pricing. 2) Reviving the essential facilities doctrine. 3) Questioning product improvements as a justification. 4) Reversing Ohio v. American Express
On mergers they are proposing changes to three presumptions. 5) Rebuttable presumption over 40% for sellers and 25% for buyers (monopsony) 6) presumptive ban on Big Tech buying potential rivals and start-ups 7) Presumption that vertical mergers by dominant platforms are unlawful
Cristiano's piece goes through the ones that Rs hate -- structural separation, class action changes, arbitration
I will be interested to see the full details on what they are proposing in terms of predatory pricing, the rebuttable presumption on mergers and how they are defining who will be caught under the ban on start-up acquisitions.
Buck also had some nice words for Cicilline and the Dem side for their "collegiality, cooperation and commitment to conducting a bipartisan and holistic review" of Big Tech
While Buck said he wished the report had addressed concerns about how FB, Google and Twitter censor speech, he said he "sincerely appreciate[s] the Chairman’s friendship and dedication to making this process open and accessible to all members."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
