Kamala Harris is under increasing pressure to confront the dominance of Big Tech monopolies, particularly as a landmark ruling by the US District Court for DC finds Google guilty of antitrust violations. Judge Amit Mehta’s decision has established that Google unlawfully secured its dominant position in the search engine market by spending billions of dollars annually to maintain its status as the default search engine on major browsers like Safari and Firefox. This ruling comes at a crucial moment in the ongoing battle to regulate Silicon Valley’s tech giants, which have long been accused of stifling competition and harming consumers.
The court’s ruling against Google is expected to have significant implications for other ongoing federal cases against major tech companies, including another Department of Justice suit targeting Google. This decision underscores the potential for pro-competition agendas to succeed, provided that political leaders are willing to take on the powerful tech industry.
In the lead-up to the presidential election, the issue of Big Tech’s overwhelming power could become a key factor for voters evaluating the current candidates. Harris, who has previously positioned herself as a tough prosecutor, may find herself at a crossroads, with Big Tech monopolists presenting a clear and formidable adversary. As Republicans and Democrats alike express concern over the influence of companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Apple, there is an opportunity for Harris to champion antitrust reforms that resonate across the political spectrum.
While Google’s antitrust violations are currently in the spotlight, the problem of market domination extends well beyond the search giant. Amazon has been criticized for favoring its own products over competitors, Meta for its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp to consolidate market control, and Apple for practices that create barriers for users switching away from its ecosystem. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice have initiated legal actions against all three companies, reflecting growing bipartisan support for curbing the anti-competitive behavior of Silicon Valley.
The increasing public awareness of Silicon Valley’s monopolistic practices has led to calls for tech companies to be regulated as “common carriers,” similar to public utilities. This would require companies like Google to operate in the public interest, eliminating discriminatory practices that harm competition and consumers. Although Republicans may support this approach as a means of countering perceived censorship, progressives see it as a way to restore competition and protect consumer rights.
The Democratic Party now has an opportunity to revive the monopoly-busting spirit of its New Deal and Great Society eras. This could involve sidelining corporate-friendly Democrats and focusing on policies that prioritize the interests of workers and consumers. President Biden has already made strides in this direction by appointing regulators like FTC Chair Lina Khan, who has been at the forefront of redefining American antitrust law. Khan, along with other progressive regulators such as Rohit Chopra of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Gary Gensler of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has reinvigorated efforts to hold Big Tech accountable.
However, the future of these antitrust efforts is uncertain. Although the Trump administration initiated the lawsuit against Google, the former president’s regulatory agenda often appeared motivated by personal grievances rather than a genuine concern for consumer welfare. Meanwhile, Harris’s position on Big Tech remains ambiguous. As a Bay Area native with ties to Silicon Valley, she faces conflicting pressures from advisers and donors. Some, like LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, have called for the dismissal of Lina Khan and a rollback of antitrust enforcement, raising questions about Harris’s commitment to challenging Big Tech’s influence.
Despite these challenges, Harris has cultivated an image as a prosecutor willing to take on powerful adversaries. Standing firm against the tech giants would align with her public persona and reinforce the Biden administration’s antitrust legacy. As Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel has noted, the current momentum in antitrust enforcement represents a departure from the Democratic Party’s previous coziness with Wall Street. To maintain this momentum, Harris and her allies will need to build a movement capable of resisting the influence of Silicon Valley and championing the interests of ordinary consumers.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has contributed to The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.
