Breaking up Big Tech would be illegal

The argument

Antitrust laws are intended to prevent companies from dominating markets through anticompetitive practices. In other words, antitrust rules only apply in situations where a monopoly is based on factors other than than a company providing a superior product or service. These rule originate in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which were put into place during an era in U.S. history when large firms in industries including oil, energy, manufacturing, and tobacco were able to dominate resource production and operate as monopolistic cartels, crowding out competitors and fixing prices to their benefit rather than the benefit of consumers. In contrast, innocent monopolies, which occur when a company dominates simply by making a superior offering to consumers, are legal. The Big Tech companies have achieved their dominant positions by virtue of the quality of their products, so the legal basis for breaking them up is shaky. Antitrust regulations also have limited applicability to the Big Tech companies because, rather than monopolizing any well-defined single market in the way that a company like Standard Oil did, the Big Tech companies achieved their size by diversifying into many different markets. The sheer size of the company alone is not sufficient to be in violation of antitrust laws without proof of specific monopolistic practices, such as the domination of a bottleneck resource.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that 'innocent monopoly' does not immunise conduct: regulators and courts have brought active cases alleging specific anticompetitive practices — self-preferencing, exclusionary default-placement deals, and 'killer acquisitions' such as Facebook's purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp — that go well beyond merely offering a superior product. They add that diversifying across many markets is no shield; monopolisation can be proven market by market (search, app stores, digital advertising) rather than only as a single Standard-Oil-style cartel. And the body at most shows a case is contestable, not that breakup 'would be illegal' — antitrust doctrine evolves and legislatures can pass new laws, so the claim of illegality is asserted rather than established.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] 'Innocent monopoly' doesn't immunise conduct — regulators allege specific anticompetitive practices (self-preferencing, exclusionary default deals, killer acquisitions) beyond merely offering a superior product. [Rejecting P2] Diversifying across many markets doesn't prevent antitrust action; monopolisation can be proven market by market (search, app stores, digital ads), not just as one Standard-Oil-style cartel. [Rejecting P3] The body shows at most that a case is contestable, not that breakup 'would be illegal'; antitrust doctrine can evolve and legislatures can pass new laws, so illegality is asserted, not established.