UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

 

Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

 

1 

Opening Statement of 

FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra*

As Prepared for Delivery

Before the U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law 

Hearing on Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 3: 

The Role of Data and Privacy in Competition 

October 18, 2019 

Chairman Cicilline, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for holding this hearing. Today’s topic could not be more important or timely as it seems 

almost daily we learn of problems stemming from lack of competition. The future of our 

economy and democracy will be determined by our ability to restore “free and unfettered 

competition as the rule of trade." 

To this end, we need to focus on four ways companies are undercutting competition: 

concentration, conflicts of interest, contracts, and capture. Market power is concentrated with a 

few giants in nearly every industry thanks to decades of mergers, acquisitions, and roll ups. 

Conflicts of interest allow these dominant firms to rig the market in their favor at the expense of 

upstarts and companies that fairly compete. One-sided take-it-or-leave-it contracts and terms of 

service impose self-serving regulations on consumers and businesses. And all too often, the 

government is too captured by dominant incumbents that used their power to dictate their own 

preferred policies. 

Competition in the tech market is structured around data, a valuable asset with unique economic 

features. Our personal data is powering the profits and dominance of tech companies that offer 

basic services like email, search, or photo sharing that are not truly free. The unique features and 

value of data should shape our thinking about market definitions, barriers to entry, and other 

anticompetitive abuses. 

Fortunately, many of our international colleagues are leading the way forward. Reports from 

regulators in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union are must-reads for 

everyone concerned about the future of our digital economy. 

 

* These remarks represent my own views and not necessarily those of the Commission or any other individual 

Commissioner.
2

In the United States, our efforts are a work in progress. Last month, the FTC chairman and staff 

announced the next steps forward following the hearings on competition. I agree that we need to 

take a fresh look at our policies and guidance. As we do, it is important that any assessment 

begin with a rigorous review of quantitative market data and an analysis of the financial 

incentives driving market-distorting behavior. Since joining the commission, I have argued that 

the FTC should be using our authority under Section 6(b) to get the data we need to effectively 

police these markets and report our findings to the public. We have not yet launched any of these 

studies, but I hope we will. 

When it comes to enforcement, I am more optimistic, now that scores of states attorneys general 

from both sides of the aisle are teaming up to investigate anticompetitive conduct in our digital 

economy. In this moment, it is all hands on deck, and I stay in constant communication with 

them. Decades ago, state AGs played a pivotal role in ending Microsoft’s chokehold over the 

future of the internet. Without that action, there would likely be no Google or Facebook or 

Amazon. 

While the FTC’s recent settlements with Facebook and Google’s YouTube included fines that 

made for great headlines, they did little to fix the core problems that fueled these companies’ 

data abuses. Big fines are not big penalties for the world’s biggest companies. As we have seen 

time and again, when a company can simply pay a fine from its ill-gotten gains, this isn’t a 

penalty – this is an incentive. 

As Congress, federal antitrust enforcers, and state attorneys general pursue their investigations, 

we will need to pursue remedies that reduce concentration, eliminate conflicts of interest, rescind 

abusive contract terms, and limit capture. For example, recent scholarship has revealed that 

antitrust actions that separated lines of business, required interoperability of standards, or ordered 

more patents available for public use all led to massive innovation and economic growth. These 

are useful tools in the toolbox for policymakers and enforcers to consider when looking to 

remedy and prevent harm.

In conclusion, while some believe that lax enforcement and absentee government are the 

ingredients of innovation, history teaches us that without a vigilant and active government 

promoting competition, markets cannot thrive. Sometimes that means providing corporations 

with benefits, like limited liability, licenses, contract enforceability, intellectual property, and 

other business opportunities. At the same time, free and fair markets simply won’t work without 

meaningful consequences for lawbreakers, including the loss of some of these generous benefits 

provided by the public. Inaction by government is a price we simply cannot afford to pay.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions.