Elizabeth Warren calls for breaking up Facebook, Google, Amazon

Saying they have “too much power over our economy, our society and our democracy,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren laid out a plan to break up Facebook, Google and Amazon, drawing swift criticism from the tech industry and cheers from those who have been calling for more regulation.

Weak antitrust enforcement has stifled innovation and discouraged the rise of startups, the U.S. presidential candidate and Democratic senator from Massachusetts said Friday in a blog post revealing her plan.

“I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules,” Warren wrote.

Warren is far from alone in tackling stricter regulation of tech, an issue that has been gaining steam with regulators and advocacy groups concerned about privacy and misuse of user data, foreign interference in U.S. elections, competition and political bias.

Some advocacy groups already have called for the breakup of Facebook. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, last year took a proposal for breaking up Google, Facebook and Twitter to former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who held a closed-door meeting with other state AGs about the matter. And last week, the Federal Trade Commission announced an antitrust task force, which it said would investigate anti-competitive behavior in the tech industry and look into reversing mergers.

Other Democratic presidential candidates such as Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also have taken aim at big tech companies. Sanders last year introduced a bill that zeroed in on Amazon and other employers over providing a living wage to their workers. Klobuchar last year introduced the Honest Ads Act, which helped goad Facebook, Google and Twitter into disclosing who pays for political ads on their platforms. But Warren is the first to introduce a detailed plan for Google, Facebook and Amazon that goes beyond individual issues such as advertising or privacy.

Warren, who cited the U.S. government’s antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s as helping “clear a path” for the rise of companies such as Google and Facebook, has said her administration would take two major steps to address the issue.

She would back legislation that would designate companies with annual revenue of at least $25 billion that offer a platform to connect third parties — such as Google search, Google’s Ad Exchange and Amazon’s Marketplace — as “platform utilities.” Those companies would not be allowed to own participants on their platforms.

She would also appoint regulators committed to reversing mergers completed long ago, such as Facebook’s purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram, Google’s acquisition of Waze, Nest and DoubleClick, and Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods and Zappos.

Tech industry trade groups were quick to criticize the senator’s plan.

“These companies have provided lower cost and better access to goods and services,” said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, whose members include Google and Facebook. “If the reward for building a successful company is to destroy that company through the political process, the message to entrepreneurs across America is that America is closed for business.”

To address some of Warren’s concerns, “the answer is not to break up tech companies but to pass a national privacy framework, campaign finance reform legislation, and laws regarding political ads,” said Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

But the groups that last year urged the FTC to break up Facebook applauded Warren’s plan.

“She’s been talking about this for a few years and has put in a lot of time and effort,” said Robert Cruickshank, campaign director for Demand Progress. “I think most people know the internet was never supposed to be dominated by a few companies.”

“No serious presidential candidate can present a proposal to address economic inequality and strengthen democracy without being willing to name names and break up monopoly power,” said Open Markets Institute Deputy Director Sarah Miller.

How might Warren’s proposal affect her chances in the crowded Democratic field in the presidential primary, and in California — home to Facebook and Google?

“Given that California is now pretty much an early voting state, I could see it playing a much bigger role during the primary,” said Rebecca Eissler, assistant professor in the political science department at San Francisco State University.

Warren, whose efforts helped lead to the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has long been outspoken against the rich and powerful. She is proposing an “ultra-millionaire tax” on American households with a net worth of $50 million or more. And as she kicked off her presidential campaign this year, she said she would not take money from political action committees.

“She speaks from a position of real authority of the dangers to consumers of these large companies,” Eissler said. “That might make her popular with some consumers, but maybe not the people who work for the companies who stand to profit when those companies do well.”

Larry Gerston, professor emeritus for San Jose State University’s political science department, said Warren’s proposal “will not endear her to many voters in Silicon Valley,” especially considering “the large numbers of employees, vendors and suppliers who support and benefit from” the companies the senator is targeting.

Related Articles Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s next big bet rides on better batteries

San Jose City College gets $112 million career complex

Judge agrees to delay US government restrictions on WeChat

Coronavirus economy: In Mountain View, tech gives and takes away

Trump backs proposed TikTok deal with Oracle, Walmart Facebook and Amazon said they would have no comment on Warren’s proposal. Google has not returned a request for comment.

Share this: Print

View more on The Mercury News