by Adeeb Ali 62

with their customers. The closed payments system they operate is hugely lucrative for Apple although allegedly the company says it does not know exactly how much it makes from these payments. On 10th September, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers ruled that ‘the court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist’. However, a permanent injunction was issued so Apple can no longer restrict purchases to through their app store. In the grand scheme of things, Apple came out victorious. Not only did Epic fail to demonstrate that Apple was operating in an illegal monopoly, they also have now provided precedence for Apple to roll back on in case of further allegations (Clayton & Fox, 2021). This shows that if you allege that a ‘Big Tech’ company has conducted illegal anticompetitive behaviour, you better be able to prove it, or they may use it against you. There is now case law ruling in favour for Apple that it does not own a monopoly over the app store.

Psychological Argument When these pieces of legislation are enacted, of course they are going to be held to a utopian sense of scrutiny. The public and academics are never going to be happy or deem antitrust ‘successful’, as there are always improvements to be made. This view leads to a bias where everything is seen through a negative lens. This argument is more primary, as literature has not seemed to pick this up yet. Of course, Antitrust is going to be seen in a negative light, as exceptions where anticompetitive behaviour slips through the cracks, the whole sector of legislation is thrown into reputational damage. It is human nature for one to obey commands. Putting the argument forth that the mere existence of antitrust legislation in an economy is a success, is one that is not as common as initially thought. It is not possible to compare antitrust in the USA, to if there weren't antitrust in the USA, as this is strictly a hypothetical. It is not possible to determine if antitrust has been deeply unsuccessful without seeing the effect on the economy without any antitrust. For this reason, there is an argument to be made that the mere existence of antitrust is enough for most companies to abide by. It is not common human nature to break rules, and the regulatory headache is normally enough for firms to engage in competition fairly.

Conclusion After inspection of all the ‘Big Tech’/ (FAAMG) companies and how antitrust legislation is affecting them, it’s clear to see that the effect is miniscule (Baer, 2020). The FTC and DOJ may be investigating behind closed doors; there is nothing of substance that has been formalised in the courts at this time. This may be subject to change, but the literature and current news do not point toward this conclusion. It is clear to see that ‘Big Tech’ companies are being regulated or efforts to regulate them are being made, but this is internationally, not in the US. This is evidenced by the fines the EC have imposed on Google.

This study concludes that Antitrust legislation has failed catastrophically in what it is designed to prevent anticompetitive behaviour. This is due to legislation always playing catchup to the innovation of FAAMG companies. In markets such as technology, a one size fits all antitrust stance cannot be efficient. Reform is necessary and luckily this seems to be coming. US senator Amy Klobuchar, the lead Democrat on the Subcommittee on Antitrust, introduced new legislation in February to reinvigorate America’s Antitrust laws. This bill has been read twice in the senate and is making its way onto the agenda slowly but hopefully surely.

BIO Adeeb Ali is a former pupil who studied A levels in Economics, Politics, Maths and Further Maths. He is reading Economics at University College London.