For years, Amazon struggled third-party sellers who list imitations of everything from charging cables for iPhone to soccer jerseys on his site. Nutritional supplements are another popular target for counterfeit products, as is a largely unregulated industry. The US Food and Drug Administration has been criticized – particularly by former staff-To refuse to test food supplements for safety and effectiveness in the same way as pharmaceutical products. In this case, the problems came together: an Amazonian merchant sold authentic probiotics dupes manufactured by Align, to the brand Procter & Gamble.
"We are aware that some counterfeit Align products have been sold to Amazon through third parties," said Mollie Wheeler, spokesperson for Procter & Gamble, in an email. "Amazon has confirmed that it has stopped third-party sales of the Align products in question and that it only sells Align products received directly from P & G's manufacturing facilities."
In a statement, a spokeswoman for Amazon pointed to several initiatives that the company has developed to detect counterfeiters, such as Trademark Register and Project zero. Trademarks must generally participate in these programs and the spokesman declined to say whether Procter & Gamble or Align were already registered.
"We examine every potential counterfeit complaint thoroughly, often in partnership with brands, and in the rare cases where a bad actor succeeds, we take swift action, including removing the item for sale, by banning the bad actors, by suing, and working with the forces of the order if necessary ", one reads in the declaration. "We have taken these actions against the wrong actors in question and have proactively notified and refunded the customers." Neither Amazon nor Procter & Gamble would say who detected the first pills.
Amazon also did not answer the question of whether it was going to test the counterfeit probiotics, leaving Bressler and other customers wondering if they ingested anything dangerous. FDA you found Supplements sometimes contain prescription pharmaceuticals such as steroids or antidepressants, which can be harmful if a person takes them without being aware of them. CVS Recently announced plans to independently test each nutritional supplement offered in its stores. The fact that Amazon does not do the same thing may seem inconsiderate, but the fact is that the company has already taken many more steps than it is required by law.
Even if the counterfeit Align tablets sold by Amazon were harmful, Bressler and the other buyers would probably have little legal recourse against the company. When consumers tried to sell their products online, they have been selling their products for a few years.
Retailers, on the other hand, can be held directly responsible for selling things like dubious dietary supplements. Three years ago, the Ministry of Justice controlled CNG must pay a $ 2 million fine for selling products containing harmful hidden ingredients, and the chain has agreed to better control the goods on its shelves.
Amazon is both a retailer and a third-party market. It buys certain products directly from the manufacturers and sells them at a high price, and allows independent traders to offer their products directly to consumers, the latter representing 58 percent gross sales of goods on the platform. But the line of demarcation between these two parts of his activity is not always clear. Amazon exercises significant control over vendors, including dictating the presentation of their products in search results. In addition, it often stores and ships their products for them. And unlike eBay, Etsy or other online marketplaces, a single list of Amazon products may feature products from dozens of independent sellers, which prevents consumers from knowing who they are buying a product from. "Amazon has obviously continued to push the needle more and more to take responsibility for the products in the market," said Goldman.
US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit governed Earlier this month, such differences effectively make Amazon responsible for harmful products sold by third-party sellers under certain circumstances. "Noted judges noted noted because because because because because because", "" "" "" "The The The The Amazon The Amazon a third-party seller on Amazon in 2014. Several weeks later, while she was walking her dog, the dog was broken, leaving the woman blind permanently.Goldman notes that the decision is based on the Pennsylvania law and does not define yet precedent for the rest of the country, Amazon is also ask the court see again.
Making Amazon legally responsible for everything on its site would not be a quick fix. The immunity granted under section 230 is what has in part allowed online markets to flourish. If the platforms became totally responsible, it would make it incredibly difficult, for example, Etsy to allow independent artists to sell their work on their site. Amazon you have banned some products he was deemed dangerous, like hoverboardsbut there are an infinite number of other categories in which seemingly benign products can pose risks.
And in situations where Amazon can not be held legally accountable, it may be nearly impossible to locate entities that are. The third-party vendor who sold Align imitating tablets or the company that made them may be very difficult to find, especially if they are abroad. In the dog collar business, The Furry Gang, the third-party vendor who sold the faulty collar, has completely disappeared.
The US government takes more reviews the growing problem of counterfeits and the way online shopping has allowed many imitations to flourish. Thursday, legislators in the House of Representatives held a hearing counterfeits, where representatives of various industries spoke of the threat to their businesses. "As one of the largest and most influential online trading companies in the world, Amazon has an important role to play in ensuring that counterfeit products remain out of the reach of consumers," Robert said. C. Barchiesi of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition in written testimony. "And we look forward to their continued cooperation to this end."
Is there anything about Amazon that you should know about? Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.org or via Signal at 347-966-3806.
. (tagsToTranslate) Amazon (t) Counterfeits</pre></pre>
"The terrible message conveyed by this small gesture to the wrist is that the application of privacy protection is a hollow paper tiger in our country," said Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) at WIRED on Wednesday . "It has to be structural and behavioral and not just monetary, and that money is way too low."
Blumenthal is associated with Senators Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) and Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) to draft a very firm exploratory letter to the FTC earlier this week, after The Wall Street Journal first reported That the commission voted in favor of the parties, from three Republicans to two Democrats, to approve the Facebook settlement.
"It is clear that a fine of $ 5 billion alone is far from the type of monetary figure that would change the incentives and behavior of Facebook and its peers," he said. Senators have written to the five FTC Commissioners. "The public expects the Council to give priority to consumers and take all the necessary steps to address Facebook's privacy concerns." We are extremely disappointed to learn that the Commission has apparently failed to conclude a strong bipartite agreement, sending the wrong message to tech companies. "
Hawley-a Republican freshman who turned heads with his aggressive calls to increase regulations on big tech- was even more direct in person.
"It's a low number, I think it just indicates a lack of seriousness on the part of the FTC," Hawley told WIRED as he prepared to vote in the Senate. "If the reports specify that the agreement will not contain any restrictions on the collection of data from users and their sharing with third parties, which consent was it for the first place? Why do we even have it?"
"I think it can not even be considered a slap on the fingers, it's a way to let Facebook move forward without any legal liability."
But even the legislators who are working the hardest to lobby the FTC on Facebook are divided as to how Congress should regulate technology companies. The three senators want new modern laws and regulations to govern companies like Facebook. But Blumenthal and Markey are more focused on exceeding confidentiality constraints that most conservatives do not like. Hawley's approach is also based on claims that technology companies are censoring Conservatives – a charge done by a lot of Republicans, and one that technology companies have repeatedly denied.
But on this privacy issue with Facebook and the FTC, Hawley's voice is almost the most progressive of the room. Many Democrats have called for strengthening the powers of the FTC, but Hawley is so frustrated by what he sees as a low number that lacks teeth. It is working openly to deprive the Commission of its current role as judge in these areas. types of cases.
"I'm worried and I'm losing faith in their ability to execute, as well as in the seriousness with which they approach this task.Maybe it's not the right agency," Hawley said. "It may just be that they are structured for that – that they are better structured for monitoring than for enforcement in this way. So we may need to make changes that would give real authority to the agency that is best positioned to do it. "
Hawley does not say exactly which branch of the federal government could, he says, take over from the FTC, even though he praised the Justice Department for "his seriousness in using the jurisdiction he's has. "
Changing regulatory power is not enough for many Democrats, especially those who call for stronger oversight. That's partly why Blumenthal is firmly in the camp of lawmakers who are clamoring for a new law in laws to govern Silicon Valley, which they see as quickly and freely as possible with the data of their users.
"I think we need stronger protection of privacy in the legislation.We can enact laws," Blumenthal said. "You need legislation that hardens and strengthens enforcement, as well as standards."
Still other legislators go further.
"It's more than just legislation – I think we need to separate Facebook and other big tech giants," said Senator Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) at WIRED while she's rushed into his office, walking beside the trams under the Capitol. The presidential candidate technological monopolies as a key question at the beginning of his campaign. "I believe in competition and we do not have competitive markets here, and I'm also worried about Facebook's violations of people's privacy for their own benefit."
And Warren does not say anything about the FTC.
"I think it can not even be considered a slap on the fingers, it's a way to let Facebook move forward without any legal liability," Warren said. "This proves once again that there is no serious regulation on any of the most powerful companies in the world."
Yet these problems have been raging around Capitol Hill for over a decade, but nothing has happened. And many legislators contacted by WIRED who sit on the Trade Committee and were competent in the matter did not even seem to be aware of the terms of the FTC settlement with Facebook. Others do not seem in a hurry to change the status quo.
"I think there will be many more investigations to be done, many more potential problems that arise," Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colorado), a member of the Trade Committee, told WIRED. while he was rushing into the basements of the Capitol. "I do not think this is the last case or the last to be settled on concerns, violations or irregularities."
And there are a lot of ongoing investigations and prosecutions on Facebook, including a criminal investigation in New York, a department of housing and urban development trial, and even an investigation reported by the SEC, to name just a few on US soil alone.
Mr. Markey believes that lawmakers will be forced to spit their fangs if the FTC complies with this rule because he said that the consequences of allowing Facebook to circumvent federal regulations would affect Silicon Valley. And he says the FTC and Congress can not allow this message to ring across the valley.
"I think it's said that if you violate the privacy of Americans, the company will only have to pay the equivalent of a private parking ticket," said Markey. "Despite the infinitely greater benefits they have achieved by compromising this confidentiality, it is a message to other companies that makes it clear to them that they can actually take advantage of the privacy breach because the penalty that they pay only a small fraction of the profits. that they were able to draw from it. "Facebook reported net income of more than $ 22 billion in the last fiscal year.
Although lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum have been simmering with anger since Cambridge Analytica The news broke more than a year ago, Congress continues to collectively argue over the details of areas in which both parties seem to agree. Despite bipartite calls, always stronger for a federal law on privacynothing has emerged from this effort. Even the most technologically sensitive legislators remain divided on the opportunity to strip the FTC of power or pump the full power of steroids and money. For many observers, Congress and its leaders seem to be less equipped to deal with these problems. While Silicon Valley continues to dramatically shape the future of the country, it seems more than ever that this Congress lives in the past.
(tagsToTranslate) Facebook (t) congress (t) National Affairs</pre></pre>
Jamal Khashoggi, the chronicler murdered for The Washington Post, remains at the top of the list following a UN report accusing Saudi Arabia of his murder. Norma Sarabia is also on the list. Until 2019, Mexico is the deadliest country for journalists: at least three journalists have been confirmed as murdered as part of their work and the Committee to Protect Journalists is investigating four more murders in order to determine if they were related to the work of journalists.
Here is the list of July, listed by order of urgency:
Despite the scathing report and previous CIA findings that suggest the involvement of the Saudi Crown Prince, there is still no independent inquiry into the brutal killing of a resident of Saudi Arabia. Virginia at the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. Calls for the White House to publish intelligence reports, a deadline to respond to Congress, as required by the United States Global Magnitsky Act.
2 Norma Sarabia (Mexico): A criminal journalist was shot at her home in Mexico.
The correspondent of Daily gift and Tabasco TODAY & # 39; HUI was shot and killed at his home in Tabasco, Mexico, on June 11. Sarabia it covered crime and violence and received threats in 2014 for reporting. The Attorney General's Office of Tabasco State has announced the opening of an investigation into the murder, but the murderer is still on the run.
3 Marzieh Amiri (Iran): A journalist arrested covering May Day demonstrations.
The economic journalist of the newspaper based in Tehran Shargh Daily She was arrested by the Iranian authorities while covering the May Day protests. Since then, her family has had limited contact with her. The authorities accused Amiri of committing crimes against national security without giving further details. As of June 2019, no publication date has been given.
4 Azory Gwanda (Tanzania): An independent Tanzanian journalist is still missing.
Independent journalist working in rural Tanzania, Gwanda has been missing since November 21, 2017. Before her disappearance, Gwanda was investigating mysterious murders in his community. The Tanzanian government has so far failed to open a credible investigation into his case.
5 Stanislav Aseyev (Ukraine): A disappeared journalist disappears in prison, with limited communication.
Ukrainian freelance journalist Stanislav Aseyev faded away two years ago in Donetsk, Ukraine. He was reportedly arrested by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and reportedly confessed spying on a Russian public television channel. obvious constraint. His family members had intermittent communication with him during the last two yearsand Aseyev 's health in prison raises serious concerns.
Aasif Sultan, journalist for Cashmere Narrator, was arrested and charged with "complicity" in "harboring known terrorists" in August 2018. Sultan, who has health problems, was interrogated several times and asked to reveal his sources by the police.
7 Daphne Caruana Galizia (Malta): No progress in the murder of an investigative reporter.
Daphne Caruana Galizia, a journalist with the Panama Papers, was murdered in a car bomb attack in 2017 in Malta. He has summer little movement on his case since then, and the perpetrators are still on the run.
8 Jones Abiri (Nigeria): A journalist arrested again for dubious charges.
Since May 2019, the publisher and editor-in-chief of Weekly Source, Jones Abiri, is behind bars again under loads From Nigeria Law on cybercrime, anti-sabotage law and law on the prevention of terrorism for crimes allegedly committed in 2016. The charges correspond to those made by the authorities while he was detained without access to his family or his lawyer from 2016 to 2018.
9 Seyoum Tsehaye (Eritrea): Almost 20 years behind bars for his journalism.
Seyoum Tsehaye is one of the many Eritrean journalists arrested after the government summarily banned the private press in 2001 in response to criticism from President Isaias Afwerki. The Eritrean authorities never indicated where Tsehaye and the others were, nor what was their legal status or their health.
10 Wei Zhili (China): Chinese journalist arrested for covering labor rights.
Editor Wei Zhili was arrested by the Chinese authorities in March 2019 for breach of public order, but his family thinks it is because of his reporting on issues relating to the rights of workers in their community. According to CPJ 2018 Prison Census, China is the second largest jailer of journalists in the world.
The One Free Press Coalition has 33 leading international members, including: America Economy; The associated press; Bloomberg News; The Boston Globe; BuzzFeed; CNN Money Switzerland; Corriere Della Sera; De Standaard; Deutsche Welle; Estadão; EURACTIV; The Financial Times; Forbes; The wealth; HuffPost; India today; Insider Inc; The weather; Middle East Broadcasting Networks; Office of Broadcasting in Cuba; Quartz; Free Asia Radio; Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty; Republik; Reuters; The times of the straits; Süddeutsche Zeitung; TV TIME Azteca; Voice of America; The Washington Post; Cable; and Yahoo News.
A coalition of the free press joins the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the International Women's Media Foundation (IWMF) to identify the most urgent cases on this list, which is updated and published the first day of each month. Press organizations around the world can join the Coalition by sending an email email@example.com.
Judge Roberts agreed that states were "district maps" very partisan in every respect "- and that gerrymandering practice is prejudicial – but he wrote that federal judges do not have the right to transfer power from one political party to another, and I argue that there is no mechanism in the Constitution to do that. "Fifteen years ago, Judge Antonin Scalia similarly argued that all the supportersbut not racial-Gerrymandering claims should be deemed non-justiciable. At the time, justice Anthony Kennedy left open the possibility for some future court recourse. Now, it looks like this door has been closed.
"Justice is not controlled, the gerrymanders like those here could irreparably damage our government system," Judge Elana Kagan wrote in her scathing dissent. But the decision does not mean that all hope is overthrown by the damage caused by gerrymandering. On the one hand, reforming the practice is extremely popular among voters. In addition, policymakers, as well as citizens, can use the same technologies as supercharged gerrymandering to help stop it.
"There is a lot more sun in the process," said Michael Li, a lawyer at the NYU Brennan Center's Democracy Program, where he focused on voting issues. "The technology has allowed gerrymandering, but it will allow gerrymandering control like never before."
Kagan pointed out how new technologies allowed gerrymandering on steroids. "What was possible with paper and a pen – or even with Windows 95 – does not hold a candle (or an LED bulb?). What will become possible with developments such as machine learning," writes she. Computers are politicians who have been dividing legislative constituencies for decades, but in recent years redistricting has become much more precise. Thirty years ago, The New York Times reported at least 10 companies offered rudimentary redistricting technology to decision-makers and interest groups (or "computer-based political magic," as the title's title). Today, partisan lawmakers can use algorithms to design thousands of hypothetical district maps almost instantly. With relatively few resources, they can then carefully predict how each disposition can tip the balance in their favor, even adjusting house by house as needed. And since Republicans controlled the majority of state legislatures and the redistricting took place after the 2010 census, these maps distorted the network.
Take what happened in Wisconsin. Republican state legislators hired a professor of political science to develop a regression analysis to select the district that would benefit the most politicians in their party. In the next elections following the adoption of the card, in 2012, Republicans won less than half the vote, but more than 60% of the seats in the assembly. (The Supreme Court refused to rule on the case and referred it to the lower court.) In her dissenting opinion, Judge Kagan pointed to the same partisan efforts to redraw partisans led in the case. Ohio and Pennsylvania at about the same time.
Liberal activists decried Thursday's decision is a blow to the right to vote. And gerrymandering has happened since the beginning of American history for a reason – it works. It is difficult to vote the people who make the cards that do not do it when they make the cards.
The good news is that the technology needed to process census data and map district maps has been democratized. It is now much easier – and less costly – for journalists, researchers and human rights groups to follow the cut-off by using free or inexpensive tools running on a laptop. If a political party tries to redraw the map, citizens can quickly check for themselves whether the changes made would amount to gerrymandering. "People will know in a moment that it's really screwed up," says Li. "You have not had that kind of instant analysis in the past." I have pointed to the proliferation of open source groups that are studying gerrymandering, such as the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.
It is not only that voters have more tools at their disposal. There is also great political support for gerrymandering reform, on both sides of the aisle. Although the Supreme Court decided not to address the issue, cases were paying more attention than ever before to gerrymandering. During the past year, at least seven States have adopted or already adopted initiatives to end this practice. Laws create an independent redistricting commission or prevent a political party from taking charge of the redistricting process. A federal bill that would reform gerrymandering also past in the House of Representatives, although it is unlikely that the Senate will be adopted. And the question can always be addressed in state courts. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania already controlled The legislative districts of the state have been redrawn, for example, and another case is still pending in North Carolina.
The activists want the reforms to be put in place as soon as possible. Legislators will need to rethink district maps in 2021 to reflect new demographic and geographic information. the data of the 2020 Census (Although President Trump recently said that he wanted delay the process). Without railing in place, politicians will not be able to create new neighborhoods as they see fit. But voters will have more tools and awareness to catch the gerrymanders in the act than ever before.
(tagsToTranslate) gerrymandering (t) politics (t) Supreme Court
The walkout takes place at Copley Square, near the Wayfair headquarters. Last week, employees announced the sale of the contract: an order for beds and other furniture valued at $ 200,000 would have been given to a government supplier, BCFS, for a new detention center. in Carrizo Springs, Texas. Wayfair also sold furniture to a second BCFS facility in Screw, Texas, according to The Washington Post. C & # 39; was closed in January after a government watchdog security concerns, including a lack of background checks on staff.
About 550 Wayfair employees signed a letter sent to executives on Friday asking the company to suspend all current and future activities with BCFS, as well as other contractors who may run immigration detention camps at the border. South. he request the company establishes a code of ethics for sales to companies that "empowers Wayfair and its employees to act in accordance with our core values". Employees then asked the company to donate sales profits to: ROOTS, a non-profit organization that provides legal services to immigrants and refugees.
"We love Wayfair and work on it, we do not want to mess the CEOs, we just want to be proud of the work we do there," organizes the organizers behind the manager. @wayfairwalkout Twitter account says in a direct message.
In one letter Sent Monday that @wayfairwalkout has confirmed its authenticity, the sale of $ 200,000 would not be canceled. "No matter what one of us thinks about a problem, it's important to keep in mind that not all employees are in agreement," he writes. in part. "As a retailer, it is common practice to execute orders for all customers and we believe that it is our duty to sell to any customer acting in accordance with the laws of the countries in which we operate. " Wayfair did not immediately return a request for comment.
The walkout comes as outrage has increased in recent days over the treatment of children in a Border Patrol Detention Center in Clint, Texas, where Human Rights Watch researchers have describes the conditions as "devastating and abusive"The lawyers told the children had not bathed, suffered from the flu and The epidemics, and were forced to take care of it because of the guards' lack of attention. Several hundred children were displaced, but 100 of them were later brings back Tuesday It's not clear how long they stay.
The Wayfair protest is part of a growing political awakening among some technology employees who want more answers on how the products they build are used. During the past year, Google, Microsoft, Salesforceand Amazon have each protested against the decision of their employer to work with the US Army or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. And like L & # 39; Atlantic marksThis is not the first time that Wayfair has entered the political clash. Last year, the company shot his ads after talk-show Laura Ingraham after insulting David Hogg, a high school student who survived a shootout at a school in Parkland, Florida.
"Our action here stems from a moral and ethical obligation," wrote a Wayfair employee. anonymous op-ed posted on Vice. "We try not to define this as a left or a right, or for whom you voted, but we are living at a time in history when small decisions can have a significant impact."
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren and representative of New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both expressed support for the strike on Tuesday. "The safety and well-being of immigrant children still deserve to be defended," Warren wrote in a tweet.
It's a story in development.
It is too early to say whether this activity will lead to significant regulation or what it might look like. But for some politicians and activists, the solution to master Big Tech is already clear: Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple must be divided into several parts. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, used this week's news to revive one of her major campaign proposals. "Google has too much power and uses it to hurt small businesses, curb innovation and tilt the balance of the game against everyone," she said. tweeted. "It's time to fight, which is why I have a plan to break Google and other big tech companies." Among other things, this plan comprises the unwinding of previous mergers, such as the acquisition of Whole Foods by Amazon, the purchase of Instagram by Facebook and the acquisition of YouTube by Google.
But some experts are skeptical that the use of antitrust laws to dismantle Big Tech – at least in the manner proposed – would solve the most troubling issues for lawmakers and citizens, such as the protection of privacy. . The strategy might also not be terribly feasible. "Putting forward this solution by proposing dissolution, in a way avoids many really vital issues," said Diana Moss, economist and president of the American Antitrust Institute, a non-profit organization that encourages the enforcement of antitrust laws. "This may not be the best remedy for restoring market competition and protecting innovators, consumers and workers."
The dissolution of large corporations and the end of mergers are rare events that are difficult for regulators to achieve. "I attended these meetings and it's hard to know which parts of the business need to partner with the divested business to succeed," says Charlotte Slaiman, a former FTC antitrust lawyer who is now working to the non-profit organization Public Knowledge. "Much more corrective action has been taken in antitrust cases that do not deal with large-scale breaches," said Moss. "These are very heavy lifts for antitrust." The stakes are also high.If the government loses a lawsuit against one of the big tech companies, it could set a lower precedent for antitrust enforcement in the future.
Proposals that may seem simple, such as to break up Whole Foods of Amazon, would be hard to argue under antitrust law in force, which evaluates mergers based on how they affect prices for consumers. Since Amazon bought Whole Foods, it actually lowered the cost of certain items. Amazon also controls only a small percentage of the global grocery market in the United States. This does not mean that the acquisition has not had a negative impact on innovation in the food sales sector, but it's a difficult factor to measure. It would be tedious to prove that Amazon has prevented, for example, the startup of another grocery store. "It's a potential "Competition argument," says Slaiman. "It's a very difficult case to bring under current law, it's probably one of the most difficult to achieve."
Google and Facebook declined to comment on the registration. Amazon has not responded to a request for comment.
Supposedly network effects The partial split of Facebook could be an ineffective way to boost innovation. One of the reasons Facebook is so powerful is that everyone is already using it, which makes it difficult for small incumbents to compete. Even if Instagram were to be split, it could simply become the new dominant network, barely changing the status quo. "Breaking Facebook with nothing else is not likely to solve this problem," says Slaiman. "Because you could have a monopoly, re-enter through this network effect."
"We can not really charge antitrust with things for which it was not designed."
Diana Moss, American Antitrust Institute
This is not to say that regulators should not look closely at the mergers they have allowed in the past, says Maurice Stucke, a professor at the University of Tennessee Law School and a former lawyer at the University of Tennessee. Department of Justice antitrust department. He believes that the government has not done enough to evaluate the effectiveness of its decisions after the fact. "You basically have a person who never goes outside to see if his prediction is correct," Stucke said. "Agencies should be much more rigorous in considering the competitive risks of mergers that they have allowed."
Another problem is that antitrust laws are meant to solve competition problems, not some of the others concerning practices big tech companies, like how they manage consumption data. "We can not really charge antitrust with things for which it was not designed," says Moss. To deal with issues such as privacy protection, the government will have to use other tools than the antitrust. "There is no quick fix," Stucke says. "You really need a coordination between privacy protection, consumer protection and antitrust rules."
The problem is that Congress lets technology companies self-regulate for years. There is currently no federal law on the protection of personal information, and even l & # 39; state laws are just starting now. To fully regulate companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon, the government must adopt new laws. The call to split Big Tech is really "a proxy for scission and regulation," said Matt Stoller, a member of the Open Markets Institute. Congress could consider, for example, creating a new agency similar to the Federal Communications Commission, specifically to deal with the practices of digital platforms.
The adoption of laws will require overcoming the political challenges, as well as intense lobbying of the industry-But both sides of the aisle are becoming more supportive of regulating the most dominant technology platforms in the world. Politicians who tend to disagree on almost everything else, like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Cruz, both have recently agreed that the tech giants have amassed too much power (though they do not agree on the drawbacks of this power). Companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon now have a huge influence on what we buy, what information we see and how we communicate. But simply dividing them into simple parts will not solve these problems.
. (tagsToTranslate) Antitrust (t) Facebook (t) google (t) apple (t) Amazon