The US congressional antitrust report is a win for privacy

Late Tuesday night, a US congressional subcommittee investigating the major tech companies for anti-competitive practices released its much-anticipated report(new window). The document, over 400 pages long, describes an internet that is highly centralized around gigantic platforms that abuse their monopoly power to the detriment of internet users.

This report by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law is significant because it is the first time a US legislative body has formally acknowledged that Big Tech monopolies are harmful and called for specific reforms. The lawmakers confirmed what we have long argued(new window) about these companies’ anti-competitive practices: They make the internet less private, more expensive, and less free.

What is most encouraging about this report is that its findings have received bipartisan support, even though the creation of the report was led by Democratic members of a judiciary subcommittee. This issue has offered a rare patch of common ground in polarized Washington.

The report recommends a major overhaul of US antitrust laws to specifically combat the unfair practices of Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. We will explain some of these recommendations below and how they relate to the Proton community and access to privacy.

Because of our position as a competitor and as a privacy-focused alternative to some of the existing Big Tech companies, antitrust investigators in both the US and the European Union have requested that we provide information about how anti-competitive practices affect Proton and online privacy. We were not legally required to respond to the US requests, but we responded to the subcommittee because this is a matter of vital public interest that will affect the future of the internet. 

Indeed, we were encouraged to find that our submission was frequently cited throughout the report, suggesting that the subcommittee took a close look at the information we submitted in creating what is perhaps the most comprehensive report ever produced on digital antitrust issues. We hope it will lay the foundation for future legislative or regulatory change.

Learn about our message to lawmakers(new window)

Key findings from the subcommittee’s report

The report is too big to summarize exhaustively here, so we will focus on the areas that impact internet access, innovation, freedom, and privacy.

Self-preferencing and walled gardens

One of the big advantages of holding a monopoly position in any market is that you can use your dominance to further consolidate your monopoly. While Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon often do this by buying up potential rivals and expanding their market share, they also use a number of techniques that are unique to the new digital economy.

For example, Google, Apple and Amazon use their control over search listings they control to preference their own products in those listings. Google and Apple also design their software so that their apps are the default, and in some cases these defaults can’t even be changed. They also bundle and network their products and services in ways that make it extremely difficult for users to switch to another provider. 

Worse, the report finds that Apple, Google, and Amazon engage in “tying,” in which access to a service is conditioned upon the purchase of another. Apple does this by requiring developers to use its in-app payment platform in order to access the App Store. When a company with monopoly power engages in tying, this is already illegal under US law. The report recommends clarifying and enforcing this regulation.

A 30% ‘tax’ on privacy-focused competitors

Google and Apple require developers who offer paid services to offer those services within the app via in-app payments. Those payments are subject to a 30% fee. There is no possibility to refer users to alternative means of purchasing those services. This is a far greater percentage than these companies would be able to charge in a competitive marketplace, and we have proposed allowing other payment processors to compete for in-app payments.

However, the size of the tax is not our primary concern. As the congressional report notes, Big Tech companies use their massive advertising revenues to offer free products to consumers, gaining enormous market share by undercutting competitors who rely on alternative business models, such as the freemium model used by Proton. At the same time, they are extracting a large fee from those very same competitors.

Often, this harms companies like ours, which charge consumers for premium features instead of spying on you and abusing your personal information for profit. Because we must pay a large portion of our revenue to our direct competitors, this slows down product development and harms our community. 

Censorship and the threat of delisting

Perhaps the most cynical aspect of Big Tech’s abuse of power is the way they enforce all their other policies against developers on their platforms using the threat of delisting. 

“Because of the severe financial repercussions associated with suspension or delisting, many Amazon third-party sellers live in fear of the company,” the report states. The exact same is true of Apple and Google, which run their app stores essentially as protection rackets, in which developers must follow the companies’ terms or essentially be put out of business through delisting.

Delisting means removal from the app store, and suspension typically involves blocking the developer from shipping software updates to existing app users — including security updates. This is an unacceptable violation of basic ethical principles. But it is all the more troubling because of what Apple has historically considered to be a violation of its rules. 

For example, one feature of Proton VPN is the ability to unblock censored websites, and we submitted an updated description of our app that referenced this feature. Apple refused to accept the update, and we were forced to either comply or be removed from the App Store.

Learn more about Apple’s anti-competitive practices

Steps toward a better internet

What is particularly clear from this report is that existing antitrust safeguards are not effective at constraining the anti-competitive practices of the Big Tech giants. Recognizing that digital platforms are fundamentally different is the first step toward creating the conditions for a free and open online marketplace. This report clearly makes the case that 19th century antitrust laws are inadequate for the 21st century.

It is encouraging that this reality is now recognized on both sides of the Atlantic. Drafting new legislation is no doubt a long and complex process, but the acknowledgement of the need for new legislation is a critical first step. In the coming years, we look forward to engaging with policymakers in both Europe and the US to work toward an internet that better serves and protects people.

UPDATE Jan. 26, 2021: The European Union is working on new legislation, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), to prevent Big Tech’s worst abuses and make the internet more competitive.

Read why Proton s(new window)upports the DMA and how it could change the internet(new window).

You can get a free secure email account from Proton Mail here(new window).

We also provide a free VPN service(new window) to protect your privacy. Proton Mail and Proton VPN are funded by community contributions. If you would like to support our development efforts, you can upgrade to a paid plan(new window). Thank you for your support.

Feel free to share your feedback and questions with us via our official social media channels on Twitter(new window) and Reddit(new window).

Protect your privacy with Proton
Create a free account

Related articles

proton scribe
Most of us send emails every day. Finding the right words and tone, however, can take up a lot of time. Today we’re introducing Proton Scribe, a smart, privacy-first writing assistant built right into Proton Mail that helps you compose and improve yo
People and companies are generally subject to the laws of the country and city where they are located, and those laws can change when they move to a new place. However, the situation becomes more complicated when considering data, which can be subjec
Your online data is no longer just used for ads but also for training AI. Google uses publicly available information to train its AI models, raising concerns over whether AI is even compatible with data protection laws. People are worried companies
iPhone stores passwords in iCloud Keychain, Apple’s built-in password manager. It’s convenient but has some drawbacks. A major issue is that it doesn’t work well with other platforms, making it hard for Apple users to use their passwords and passkeys
There are many reasons you may need to share passwords, bank details, and other highly sensitive information. But we noticed that many people do this via messaging apps or other methods that put your data at risk. In response to the needs of our com
Large language models (LLMs) trained on public datasets can serve a wide range of purposes, from composing blog posts to programming. However, their true potential lies in contextualization, achieved by either fine-tuning the model or enriching its p