Big Tech roared back into the headlines last week after US President Donald Trump declared that Washington would ban the Chinese video-sharing platform TikTok. The sudden announcement came just days after the US House Judiciary subcommittee grilled four tech chiefs -- Google's Sundar Pichai, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Apple Inc's Tim Cook, and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg -- in a marathon five-and-a-half-hour antitrust hearing. The US-based firms, worth nearly US$5 trillion (156 trillion baht), stand accused of stifling competition and establishing "monopolistic" dominance.
The semi-virtual meet was the culmination of a 13-month-long probe in which investigators, both Republicans and Democrats, collected 1.3 million documents as evidence to show how big tech companies have become too powerful and why they must be either regulated or broken up to protect consumers.
It wasn't the first time the men have faced Congress. With the exception of Jeff Bezos -- both Mr Pichai and Mr Zuckerberg went before Congress in 2018 and Mr Cook in 2013 -- but last week's momentous hearing signalled a change in attitude. For the first time, lawmakers came together in a bipartisan effort to ask the CEOs difficult (and knowledgeable) questions, leaving them stumped and on occasion visibly shaken.
As we wait on the panel to finalise its findings and make policy recommendations in the coming weeks, there is no clear playbook on how to proceed. Even proponents of regulatory action agree that current antitrust laws, which were first drafted in the US in 1890 as the Sherman Act and later revised in 1914 under the Clayton Antitrust Act, are either outdated or not well-suited for the herculean task of limiting their power. For that, the antitrust law must be "reinvented" for the 21st century.
At present, legislation is based on frameworks which prioritise price and/or company size. While these laws were effective in breaking up the monopolies of yesteryear -- Standard Oil for example -- tech products are essentially "free" to use. There is no cost to the consumer to use Google's search or email function or to sign up for Facebook. Additionally, Amazon is relatively cheaper than retail alternatives in the countries where it operates. It is this positive "benefit to consumers" argument that the behemoths have used to avoid antitrust action and the scrutiny of lawmakers in the past.
Moreover, many accusations against Big Tech such as Facebook censoring conservative viewpoints or Google dropping a contract with the Pentagon to develop AI have little to do with anti-competitive behaviour.
If Big Tech's power is to be kept in check, antitrust laws must be reformed to define how markets function in the digital age. In this era, user data is the "currency" that consumers pay to use services. Essentially, Big Tech firms have established data monopolies at the expense of users. Why does this matter? For one, it undermines user privacy but more importantly, it creates a dangerous precedent where these firms become the gatekeepers of information and knowledge.
The EU has on occasions clamped down on Big Tech's reach -- namely Google -- citing antitrust regulations. However, "record-breaking" fines have done little to dissuade the giants to change their ways.
Regardless of the direction this story takes moving forward, one thing is certain -- tech titans can no longer escape public scrutiny. As technology becomes more embedded in our lives, it's important to have a conversation about Big Tech's power, no matter how messy or uncomfortable it may be. And if the past is any indication, new regulations are likely to follow public uproar sooner rather than later.