On this episode Jennifer Huddleston, the director of Technology and Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum, comes back on the show to discuss some of the latest antitrust bills shaking up the business and tech world this month, and we learn more about the legislative process on how a bill becomes law and the committee processes. Jennifer joined us in June 2021 to discuss some of these bills at their initial introduction, and you can find that discussion here. While a great episode for extra details, it is not necessary background for this one.
On this episode Jennifer Huddleston, the director of Technology and Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum, comes back on the show to discuss some of the latest antitrust bills shaking up the business and tech world this month, and we learn more about the legislative process on how a bill becomes law and the committee processes. Jennifer joined us in June 2021 to discuss some of these bills at their initial introduction, and you can find that discussion here. While a great episode for extra details, it is not necessary background for this one.
Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and has not been thoroughly reviewed for completeness or accuracy.
[00:00:00] Gus Herwitz: This is Tech Refactored. I'm your host, Gus Herwitz, the Menard director of the Nebraska. And Technology Center at the University of Nebraska. Today we're joined by Jennifer Huddleston, Policy Council at Net Choice. This is actually Jennifer's second time joining us. Last year we spoke with her about a slate of antitrust bills that were being considered by the House of Representatives, and today we're going to be talking about some of those same bills as they're now being considered by the United States Senate.
The backstory on this episode is that just today, the Senate had a hearing at which as some of these bills, actually only one of these bills was considered. So we're going to be [00:01:00] talking both about the, the substance of some of these bills and underlying policy, but we're also going to, uh, get to do a bit of a deep dive on the legislative process and the hearing process to learn about some of the, the procedures and mechanisms by which a bill becomes a law.
Jennifer, welcome back to Tech Refactored.
[00:01:20] Jennifer Huddleston: Thanks for having me back, Gus. Great to chat with you again.
[00:01:24] Gus Herwitz: So our, our original plan for this episode was actually going to be a preview of a Senate markup hearing that was scheduled to, to happen next Thursday, January 20. After we scheduled this discussion, other legislative priorities took place and, uh, the, the hearing was rescheduled for today, Thursday, January 20th, and one of several antitrust pieces of antitrust legislation that the Senate is currently considering.
The America Inve, the, the America Innovation and Choice. Um, [00:02:00] was discussed in a markup session today. Uh, I I'd like to just start with a bit of level setting before we jump into the really exciting topic of what is a Senate markup hearing. Um, but, uh, can, can you just, uh, remind us, uh, what the various bills, or at least, uh, what some of the, uh, uh, highest profile antitrust bills that the Senate is currently, uh, considering.
[00:02:26] Jennifer Huddleston: Right. So as you mentioned last summer, there was a over a day long hearing, um, in the house, um, marking up a package of five bills. There have been a few different bills introduced in the Senate, the one that had its mark up today, the American Innovation and Choice Act. Is probably the one that has received the, the most attention and where the conversation has been focused.
A companion bill exists to this in the house, and this proposal was, uh, led by Senators Klobuchar and Senator Grassley and claims to [00:03:00] be aimed around questions of. Self-referencing. There are a lot of concerns in this bill about what it would do as well as there were questions about who it would cover and why some of these questions did come up in the markup today.
This seems to have been a relatively rushed process. We did not see. Hearings on this bill. Um, we saw it, you know, as you mentioned, it was originally supposed to be on the 27th because of some changes in the Senate calendar. It got moved up a week, and the kind of general take on the, the markup today was that there were clearly a lot of questions and a lot of senators voicing concerned on the contents of this bill.
Some of those chief questions include. Why this would only cover certain platforms when it comes to the practice of self-referencing. So why, for example, would Amazon be targeted but not Walmart or Target? What kind of authority does this give [00:04:00] to it? Different administrative agencies, notably the FTC in determining who isn't, isn't covered by this bill.
Additionally, there are some pretty specific concerns about how the elements of the bill that involve interoperability and access to data. Could impact companies that are trying to improve cyber security or improve their privacy practices when it comes to consumers, as well as the impact that could have on some of the things that consumers have been most concerned about.
Um, when it comes to, to privacy and security and what that would mean for companies having to hand over data, not just to potential competitors in the US but to potential foreign competitors as.
[00:04:44] Gus Herwitz: So we have a couple of things, uh, that have already been queued up in that discussion. So just to, uh, highlight some of them, we'll want to, uh, talk a bit about what self preference, what self referenc is and the concerns there, this idea of interoperability [00:05:00] and also, uh, get into some of the back and forth.
At the, uh, hearing today and, uh, that, that's the first of, uh, several bills that are under consideration, and that's the one that was discussed today. Can you, uh, tell us, there's also the Open Markets Act is a, another piece of legislation, and there there are a couple other, uh, pieces that the Senate might still take up our, we'll focus our discussion probably on today's markup, but if you could just refresh us with what those other pieces of legislation.
[00:05:31] Jennifer Huddleston: So the Open Markets app refers particularly to impact on the app store market. There's been a, a growing amount of debate over this, including issues such as side loading, and we've seen this play out both in the house, uh, bills as well, um, as some ongoing. Court cases involving app stores. Additionally, there is a bill out there involving mergers and acquisitions that would place significant burdens on companies [00:06:00] that are seeking to acquire smaller companies that sometimes emerges from what has been called the the kill zone, the idea that they'll often misguided idea that large companies are gobbling up small companies before they can become competitors or rivals.
That Bill has some really interesting elements in terms of how it locks in who can be covered by the bill and what that could mean for companies that just missed that threshold right now that may one day pass it, versus companies that would be currently covered by it. Additionally, there is another proposal that hasn't necessarily received as much attention called the Team Act that is led by.
Senators Mike Lee and Senator Chuck Grassley. That is a much more conservative set of reforms. It looks to do things such as enshrine, the consumer welfare standard. It addresses concerns about certain, um, areas that haven't been discussed a lot in the antitrust context. Board immunity when it [00:07:00] comes to licensing boards and antitrust discussion.
That bill also was not up for markup today.
[00:07:06] Gus Herwitz: Just to highlight for listeners, um, Most, most listeners are probably generally aware of, and, uh, they might have their own concerns about big tech and antitrust and all of, uh, uh, this stuff. What so much of this legislation is trying to do is make pretty small.
Technical, but really important tweaks or changes. So one of the things that's common through, uh, uh, most of these bills is defining who is subject to the bills. So they'll have thresholds of like, uh, if you have, uh, uh, 50 million active users, um, a month or, uh, your. A market value of more than 550 million or something like that.
Then you are covered by these bills. Um, o other sort of things, the, the merger bill that you discuss. One of the big things that it does, and why it's so controversial is [00:08:00] it reverses the burden of proof. So historically when companies want to merge the, the burden of proof is on the government to show that that merger would be anti-competitive.
And what some of the proposals would do is flip that burden of proof. And the presumption would be if you're a large company buying another company, it's presumed to be anti-competitive and you bear the burden. Disproving that. So the, these small procedural things, the sort of stuff that you've gotta be a lawyer to really get excited about, they can have really, uh, uh, massive consequences.
[00:08:35] Jennifer Huddleston: Absolutely. I think that's really important to consider, and it's important to consider not only the impact that these proposed changes have on large companies, but also the impact that these proposed changes have on consumers and on smaller companies. So particularly when we're talking about the kind of acquisitions, what does that mean?
For that as an exit strategy for some small companies. While many, we, I [00:09:00] know we talked about this when we talked about the house bills, when some small companies want to go public and have that IPO and become the the next major. Company and competitor. Other companies may be just trying to make an existing product better, or you may have someone who's a kind of serial entrepreneur where their their strength is really getting an idea, taking it to market, but then finding a different exit strategy when it comes to expanding the company.
When we're talking about changing the way that, that burn of proof is, it's not only a question of what does that do. To large player's ability to gain talent, to improve their products and to benefit consumers through mergers and acquisitions. But what does that also mean in terms of the exit strategies to having a variety of options to continue to have a really healthy startup ecosystem?
[00:09:54] Gus Herwitz: So let's also take a, a moment just to flesh out, uh, the Open Markets Act. [00:10:00] Um, th this is, uh, a piece of legislation that is scheduled for markup in another, I guess, two weeks. So, uh, th this is definitely on track for at least consideration by committee and possibly getting to, uh, the floor. This, as you said, deals.
App stores. And you mentioned a couple of things, This idea of side loading, and also I know another big thing going on here is payment systems and in app versus, uh, outside of app payments. Um, can, can you explain first what side loading is and why this is an issue? And, uh, then perhaps also say a little bit about, uh, the, the payments.
[00:10:39] Jennifer Huddleston: So I think when we talk about app stores in general, it's important to think about what a complicated ecosystem this is. And this really shows how multiple markets can be in play and that we often have to be very careful with considering the kind of. Tinkering changes and the broader impact those could have.
Side [00:11:00] loading. As you mentioned, refu refers to the ability to access apps outside of a app store that is approved on a certain device. So for example, being able to either. Go outside of. To have to go outside and download an app onto your device can raise a lot of security concerns for the security of a device.
What is interesting though, is that also goes to questions around the competition for operating systems. So for example, Apple does not. Ease does not allow side loading on its devices and an effort to keep them more secure. There are other devices out there that allow side loading, but consumers may feel those are less secure devices.
As a result, you have competition between which type of process do you want to have. We also have to remember that app stores have been incredibly beneficial for app developers in their ability to. [00:12:00] Reach consumers, but that there's actually more options to reach consumers than just being in an app store.
That app stores are competing with other ways of, you know, traditional software, direct downloads, mobile website performance. Not to mention the proliferation of app stores. Well, we often think of Google Play and Apple's App Store. There also is an Amazon app store. If you have, you know, a Roku on your tv, there's an app store there.
If you have a PlayStation or an Xbox, those all have their own app stores as well. So I think oftentimes we hear the app store conversation only thinking about a very narrow segment. When, when we take a step back and think about as a consumer, all the different ways we have to choose to access certain forms of media or to access apps, the different options there are there.
We also need to think about this a bit from the, from when it comes to the benefits of app stores to app developers, the way that. [00:13:00] That can signal to consumers that certain standards have been met and that their apps are safe and secure to download, and that that can also help build consumer trust. In a world where this kind of collection goes away, you have the, uh, harder time on some of these developers in terms of establishing that same level of trust, and I would highly recommend looking at work that the that act, the app association does.
They really talk a lot about how. This plays out from that kind of developer side of things as well.
[00:13:35] Gus Herwitz: And what's going on with, uh, the payments discussion? For a little bit of background here, the, the way that most app stores work, and I, I think it's probably fair to say that the Open Markets Act is in may ways targeted at Apple in specific in their app store and devices.
With the App store, you as a developer can put your apps online for free. Um, or [00:14:00] there's a, a modest, uh, development developers fee that you need to pay, but, uh, there isn't a significant economic cost to getting your apps listed. But then if you start to monetize your apps, uh, if you start to charge for them or have, uh, in-store purchases, the app store takes a.
Commission for those and there's this ongoing lawsuit involving Epic that isn't going very well for Epic right now in the courts. Putting that to the side where Epic is saying we shouldn't, we should be able to, uh, charge our customers outside of the App store environment. It's problematic or anti-competitive for Apple to insist that we can only charge users for in-game purchases.
Through the app store that Apple then takes a 30% commission on. Uh, and th this, it's my understanding that the Open Markets Act would prohibit that sort of restriction that Apple has on companies like Epic trying to do these payments outside of the [00:15:00] App store. So what, what's uh, going on with all of that?
[00:15:03] Jennifer Huddleston: So I think, I think it's interesting that a lot of times these arguments are about conflicts between companies that are actually very, You know, powerful players themselves, Epic is, is quite successful in the gaming industry with, with Fortnite. Um, you know, and that when you look at it, the percentage of apps in the app store that are actually paying these fees is rather.
Low. With that in mind, this is also at the heart, oftentimes a contract dispute. It's about did you like the terms that were necessary to be in that particular app store? And there may be differences in terms that may lead a developer to choose one platform or over the other, but that's part of the developer trying to determine who to reach and how to best reach.
Their audience. I really worry about the impact that policymakers [00:16:00] intervening in these business decisions and micromanaging potentially how much a business can charge to, to use their product or service could have in allowing future development and in, and really, you know, intervening in a market that that may be much more competitive than they realize.
[00:16:19] Gus Herwitz: Mm-hmm. . Okay, well, it's, uh, almost time for us to turn to the, the really exciting part of the discussion. And I, I say that, uh, somewhat ironically, some, somewhat not. We are going to take a, a brief break however, uh, and when we come back, I'm going to open up with a question. What is a Senate markup hearing?
So stay tuned. We'll be back in a moment.
[00:16:48] Paige Ross: I'm Paige Ross, a student fellow at the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center. The student fellows at the center are drawn from across the University of Nebraska, including the colleges of law, business [00:17:00] engineering, and journalism, and mass communications. In the program, we develop research projects focused on the intersection of society and technology, and working in multidisciplinary teams, think about how to communicate our work to the world.
Some of this year's subjects include designing autonomous vehicles with drivers in mind, satellite congestion and low earth orbit, and taking the politics out of online content moderation. We have some fun and network with fellow students and faculty too. The program is open to graduate or law students at the University of Nebraska and welcome students from all departments.
Now back to this episode of Tech Refactored.
[00:17:46] Gus Herwitz: And we are back talking with Jennifer Huddleston about the Senate markup hearings of the America Innovation and Choice Act, a piece of legislation dealing with antitrust law that was [00:18:00] heard by or discussed by the Senate today in a committee markup hearing. And as hard as it is to believe, Jennifer, When I talk to most people about Senate markup hearings, they've got no idea what I'm talking about.
So, uh, for our listeners, can you, can you explain, uh, what a Senate markup is and how this relates to the legislative process? You
[00:18:22] Jennifer Huddleston: know, I, I think we all just. Think of that Schoolhouse rock song about how I'm just a bill and, and a bill becomes a law. But there are a lot of processes within the Senate, within the house itself that for a bill to make progress, it has to go through one of those steps is a committee markup, which is a session where the committee that is, that the bill has been referred to debates.
The, the proposal. Amendments to a bill can be proposed. Sometimes you'll hear what's called a manager's amendment, which is kind of an amendment by the, [00:19:00] by the leaders of the the bill that makes changes that have been discussed. Um, And o before, before the meeting and, and whatnot and, and can rewrite significant portions of the proposed legislation.
And then at the end of a markup, a bill is voted on in committee and is either voted favorably, meaning that it, it moves on and can then potentially be called up for debate on. The floor or it can, or it moves, or it, or it is voted down in committee. Um, at times there are other steps in the process and the process varies a little bit.
Between the House and the Senate, but basically it's the time that the senators in the committee are actively debating the bill with one another. They're proposing amendments as opposed to other processes and committee hearings where you're hearing from experts. The senators are [00:20:00] having an opportunity to find out more about what a bill could do.
This is kind of more of the active process of.
[00:20:07] Gus Herwitz: Yeah, so, so generally most of the authoring and development of the bill happens either before or during the markup stage. If it is voted out of committee successfully, as we should say, uh, this bill, uh, today was, it will then possibly go to the full floor of the Senate.
I say possibly because it needs to be calendared, it needs to get on the calendar of the full Senate, and they have a limited. Days before the Senate session expires. Um, and if the bill isn't considered before the end of the Senate session, uh, the congressional session, it evaporates. It's as though it never no longer happens, so they're going to need to restart the process and once it's at the, the floor stage, there can be more work on it.
But really the, the bill should be completed for the most part at that stage.
[00:20:58] Jennifer Huddleston: And I know we'll get more into [00:21:00] the the contents of the bill, but I think one of the things that was particularly concerning watching today's markup is how many senators express concerns of the bill needing further work, even if they voted for it favorably.
This shows that there's still a lot of work to be done. There's still a live dispute and dispute between. On both sides of the aisle. It, it's not as simple as a, a straight party line type of of thing. Um, that there were a lot of concerns about the underlying security and privacy concerns. That there are a lot of questions that- that all the, that many of the senators involved had about the bill that they felt needed further discussion despite the fact that it was voted out, uh, voted in the markup today.
[00:21:48] Gus Herwitz: So let, let's, uh, turn to, uh, the, the substance of the bill as you outlined, um, for us before the break. Uh, this bill has a [00:22:00] couple of primary features.
Probably the two biggest things that it tries to do are. It prohibits self-referencing. That's where a company that is covered by the bill sends customers to, or sends users to its own products preferentially compared to those of others. So for instance, Google sending users to Google Maps for, uh, map results or Amazon sending, suggesting users by Amazon Basics products or other products.
Uh, made by Amazon over, uh, alternatives made by, uh, third parties. And then there's this interoperability idea that third parties need to have, uh, equal access to the platform, uh, uh, the back end of the platform that a company itself has access to. One of the the remarkable, uh, things, as you mentioned about today's markup is, uh, it was a bipartisan.[00:23:00]
Both on the pro and the con side of thing. Uh, the, the bill was passed out of the, the committee, uh, 16 to six, which means there were several Republicans, uh, and Democrats who supported it, but also, uh, there were several Republicans and Democrats who expressed concerns about it. Let's just go through the arguments for and against, uh, self-referencing and then interoperability.
What, what's the idea behind banning self-referencing?
[00:23:28] Jennifer Huddleston: So, I think it's really. Interesting. You know, you mentioned the, the idea of Amazon Basics and Google Maps and the way it's often portrayed by proponents of this kind of legislation is that it is somehow anti-competitive for when you type in.
Restaurants nearby for a Google map to pop up, or for Amazon to put their prime eligible products or their Amazon basics at the top [00:24:00] of the list, that showing that Prime logo in a search is unfair to products that might be listed that aren't part of the the Prime program, but, It doesn't take into account the way that we see this playing out in other contexts by other even large players.
So for example, if Walmart's not covered by the bill, but Amazon is, then Walmart can list, its Sam's choice Soda at the top of search results for. Soda, but Amazon couldn't do the same thing even if they both were interacting online until one was designated a covered platform. So a lot of times these are things that consumers actually either enjoy or that they.
Consider indifferent of, they, they don't see themselves as necessarily harmed by the fact that the generic cereal is on the shelf right next to the, the Lucky Charms brand that they can make the choice of if they want to save a little bit of money and, and by the [00:25:00] generic, or if they're loyal to a, to a certain brand.
This would potentially allow kind of the government to come in and say, No, you, you have to, you have to. You can't put those. Own products or those own services. First in a way that it has to be completely random. The other thing it does though, is it takes away some of those consumer friendly features that many of us enjoy as well.
So I gave the example of, you know, if you type in find a. Chipotle near me, um, into Google. A a map at the top. That's a, a Google map will pop up and it'll show you kind of where all the, the Chipotle's nearby are, and it may even offer you an opportunity to click on a button and get walking directions there or whatever.
It's still below that map shows. All the, the website results as well. You can click on Chipotle's website and type in the same information there if you don't want that map. But what it is, is many consumers in, in [00:26:00] that moment, like having that feature, they like having Googles learn that that's. The information that you're actually often looking for when you type in something like that, and they're making it e more easily accessible.
Instead, what this would do is remove the ability to offer a feature like that because it would be considered a violation of this law that is referencing you to use that product as opposed to. Provide. Just providing you a blanket list and making you choose.
[00:26:31] Gus Herwitz: Yeah. And in, in principle, Google could still offer a.
They just wouldn't be able to offer a Google Maps map, which, that's kind of a principle, but that raises all sorts of questions. How would Google choose which mapping provider to put the information with there if they contract with some other company? Is that an anti-competitive contract that's tan, tantamount to referencing themself because they have a, a, a contract with them [00:27:00] and for that, Why would they bother doing that?
Going to the trouble of designing a new interface that, uh, uh, is going to have to benefit very likely one of their competitors because Google does mapping in addition to search engines. So there's a. Intuitive, appealing idea that this sort of self referenc, it's anti-competitive for some reason. But once you start digging down into it, you, you realize, okay, if we don't allow this sort of stuff, we might not get really useful services, features and new types of products.
And even if we do, they might manifest in really weird ways.
[00:27:44] Jennifer Huddleston: Right. And I think that goes back to. The benefits of focusing on consumers and on the consumer welfare standard, we want antitrust law to work to make sure that consumers are the ones that are being protected, that [00:28:00] we don't have the government picking winners and losers, or deciding how products need to be designed.
[00:28:07] Gus Herwitz: You should, we should also just highlight, uh, point that you've made in, uh, your comments. This isn't unique. This sort of behavior isn't unique to the online context. Walmart you've mentioned has their own store brand of products. Every supermarket has store brands. Um, so you can buy store brand cereal, um, uh, store brand of almost.
Consumer staples, and it's, if you go to your local auto parts store, you're going to find the exact same thing. And it turns out that, uh, the, the stores, they tend to know what consumers want because they see what consumers buy and they're able to use that information to develop, uh, low cost alternatives to potentially more expensive brands in a way that, uh, consumers are typically very happy, uh, to [00:29:00] engage.
[00:29:01] Jennifer Huddleston: And I would just point out too, you know, when we talk about the self preference element of that, if you walk into a lot of Walmarts or CVSs or auto parts stored, the store brand will be on the end cap. Um, the store brand will be at eye level or, or something like that. Under this bill, which you're, you're basically saying is online, we're going to tell you that it can't be in that.
You know, prime consumer real estate, that it, that not so much that you can't offer it at all, but that you can't draw attention to it the same way that a, a brick and mortar retailer is drawing attention to, to their brands.
[00:29:41] Gus Herwitz: What's the idea behind interoperability mandates and what are the
[00:29:45] Jennifer Huddleston: concerns there?
One of the interesting features in this bill is that it does have certain requirements around the access to data. I think some of the stems from concerns about our platforms, not only [00:30:00] are platforms engaging in self referenc due to the data that they have, and if so, should, should the retailers on those platforms or the those that are using platforms have access to that data.
Same data. The interesting thing here though is that we're at a time where the top tech policy concern of many Americans is data privacy and security, and you're potentially requiring tech companies to hand over data to, with very little check to potential competitors and not just to potential competitors in the term way.
You know, Walmart and Amazon may compete with each other to competitors that may have a bit of nefarious intention, whether they're a foreign adversary or just, you know, someone looking to do something with data. If you remember, this kind of third party access is the type of thing that led to the Cambridge Analytica.
So you're now [00:31:00] mandating that companies have this access and the only real option they have to defend against it is an affirmative defense on privacy and security grounds. Well, that's a very high standard for a company to do. If nothing else says, Senator Cornin said in the the hearing today. For the law nerds out there that, you know, an affirmative defense is basically a presumption of guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around.
So you're having to go in and prove this. Not to mention that. In many cases, you know, national security is going to be very difficult to prove because the parties requesting this data aren't going to show that they're, you know, acting on behalf of Iran or, or whatever other party may be trying to get information on Americans or, or on even.
Other, uh, even on expatriates living in, in the US that may have, that companies may have that data [00:32:00] on.
[00:32:00] Gus Herwitz: Yeah. And on, on the national security front, reading some, uh, tea leaves, which can be a dangerous exercise. One of the most surprising. And I think contentious exchanges at the markup hearing today was between Democratic Senator, uh, Klobuchar, who introduced, uh, the legislation and Senator, uh, Feinstein, who came out against the legislation and voted not to advance it.
And one of the things that Sentor Feinstein said was that she had heard that there were agencies in the federal government that had concerns about. This legislation and the thet, uh, leave reading that The question is now, well, who, who is she hearing is going to be concerned about this? And, uh, it seems, uh, Senator Klobuchar hadn't heard these sort of concerns.
Uh, Senator Feinstein of course, is on the, uh, Senate Select Committee for Intelligence and has been a long time member there [00:33:00] and figure in the intelligence community within the Senate. Um, I personally expect, um, and this is pure speculation on my, uh, part, that there have been law enforcement intelligence community concerns expressed about just exactly this sort of thing that are animating some of Senator Feinstein's concerns.
[00:33:23] Jennifer Huddleston: And I think this goes to a lot of the concerns that were expressed about the process. That there are these serious conversations that many of the senators want to have and feel need to be had that didn't get to be had in a hearing where maybe they heard from law enforcement about were the, how these concerns might play out, where they didn't necessarily hear from cybersecurity experts about.
Whether or not this was something that could lead to, to listenening of security and privacy. You know, I, I would also point out it, it was really interesting watching that exchange, and this [00:34:00] goes back to what we were talking about earlier of in the hearing, you know, you had. Mike Lee and, and Diane, Senator Mike Lee and Senator Feinstein both expressing various serious concerns about these bills, and those are not two senators you usually hear on the, on the same side of it of an issue.
You also had some really good points raised, for example, by Senator Padilla from. California as well about how this isn't actually the concern that most Americans have when it comes to tech policy. That, you know, constituents are asking for federal data privacy legislation and instead in this case what we're seeing is a bill that has serious privacy and security concerns in
[00:34:47] Gus Herwitz: it.
And what one of the remarkable dynamics as well on the Republican side there. Uh, were. Senators who basically said they think [00:35:00] the bill has serious problems, but it's targeting big tech and they have big problems with big tech. So they were willing to support , Um, the, the legislation, I think
[00:35:09] Jennifer Huddleston: it's really interesting hearing, hearing that expressed in part because there's very little, if anything, to keep this bill only in the tech space.
You know, we've mentioned how. Some of these practices around self preference could impact other companies such as Walmart within a, a matter of years at, at the rate of growth that we're seeing and given the, the large online presence and and whatnot there. And not to mention that these bills don't address a lot of what.
Those same Republican senators are concerned about when it comes to tech. These bills don't address concerns around online content moderation. They hand over significant power to agencies like the DOJ and and Federal Trade Commission. Um, To make decisions [00:36:00] about who is and isn't covered under these builds.
In some cases, not to mention these builds don't reach some of the smaller but significant tech players that many of the senators are, are concerned about. Like Twitter. So if your concerns are related to content moderation, if your concerns are related to data privacy, these are antitrust is not the right tool, let alone these particular bills.
And they, these bills are going to have significant. Very significant consequences for consumers, for smaller players as well, and I think we can't lose sight of that and can't let consumers and small players be collateral damage in an animosity towards big tech.
[00:36:48] Gus Herwitz: So what comes next?
[00:36:52] Jennifer Huddleston: I think that's a, a very good question.
I think what we've seen is that there are significant concerns around these [00:37:00] proposals. The vote was, was held today, as you mentioned, to vote at least one of these bills favorably. But I think there's still a lot of debate in a lot of contention that shows that, um, they probably are not ready to, to go on to that next phase of, of floor debate yet.
Okay. That being said, we're also going to continue to see a lot of conversation around antitrust in both chambers of con in both chambers of Congress. We're also continuing to see court cases evolve as well. We haven't , we in our, in our now two part series, we've barely, uh, touched on what's going on in the courts, but we mentioned Epic v Apple earlier.
There's also a refiled case by the FTC against Facebook. That was recently allowed to continue the, the motion to dismiss wasn't granted. So that case is moving forward as well. So I think we'll continue to watch what plays out in the courts as well, and also to [00:38:00] see if any of these other Senate bills, um, Comes up for, for further discussion or for, for markup.
[00:38:08] Gus Herwitz: And boy oh boy, we, we also haven't spoken about all this state antitrust, uh, litigation that's ongoing or everything coming out of, uh, Europe, uh, and from around the globe. Uh, it's amazing how all of these issues, it's a global phenomenon. From literally, uh, the entire global community down to, uh, individual states.
And it's, it's just really remarkable. All of that is to say that I look forward to having you back again, to talk about any number of those issues and certainly, uh, as this legislation continues to move forward. Hopefully we'll have you back to talk more about this process a bit more.
[00:38:52] Jennifer Huddleston: And well, thank you so much for, for having me on to, to talk.
[00:38:56] Gus Herwitz: And, uh, thank you to our listeners [00:39:00] as well. I've been your host, Gus Herwitz. As always, we appreciate when you join us for these episodes of Tech Refactored. If you want to learn more about what we're doing here at the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center, or submit an idea for a future episode, you can go to our website at ngtc.uml.edu.
Or follow us on Twitter at UNL underscore NGTC. If you enjoyed this show, please don't forget to leave us a rating and review wherever you listen to your podcasts. Our show is produced by Elsbeth Magilton and Lysandra Marquez and Colin McCarthy created and recorded our theme music. This podcast is part of the Menard Governance and Technology Programming Series.
Until next time, keep those markup hearings.[00:40:00]