New SIIA White Paper: Why “Monopoly Broth” Is a Recipe for Bad Antitrust Policy
In April, we published a white paper on the “monopoly broth” theory of antitrust, with assistance from the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. The paper addresses the recent antitrust enforcement trend that bypasses the traditional conduct-based test for determining monopolistic conduct. The theory posits that a company can be found liable for monopolization by combining multiple lawful business actions—such as price cuts or acquisitions—if those actions collectively can be said to harm competition and were taken with anticompetitive intent. In the paper, we argue that monopoly broth is both legally flawed and harmful to sound competition policy. It conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent, which favors clear, conduct-based tests for assessing monopolization, and it undermines due process by allowing liability without clear rules. As a policy matter, it also risks chilling procompetitive behavior and increasing legal uncertainty for businesses, ultimately harming consumers and the broader economy.
Aligning Brussels and Washington in the Geopolitical Tech Competition
In April, Paul participated in a Track 1.5 dialogue in Brussels on converging the US-EU agenda on technology and China (PRC). Participants included representatives from the European Commission, EU member states, think tankers from the United States and EU, and the private sector. Paul was the only participant representing U.S. industry. The discussion generated a number of important insights relevant to SIIA’s policy and advocacy and helped to strengthen relationships that SIIA has with European officials and thought leaders from both sides of the Atlantic.
Artificial Intelligence and Federal R&D
In April, we:
Joined a coalition letter of leading technology companies and trade organizations in supporting the TAKE IT DOWN Act. This included SIIA member companies Amazon, Google, and Meta. The letter encouraged its passage in the House and was amplified in a Senate Commerce Committee press release.
Published a blog on the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) release of two new memos (M-25-21 and M-25-22) on federal AI use and acquisition, fulfilling a directive from President Trump’s January executive order and replacing Biden-era memos (M-24-10 and M-24-18). The memos streamline governance, reduce bureaucratic hurdles, and also remove the high-risk classification of education-related AI use. Paul was quoted in anInside AI Policy article on this issue.
Were featured as one of the supporting organizations in Senator Coons’ press release introducing the Expanding Partnerships for Innovation and Competitiveness (EPIC) Act. The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 2 by Senators Coons, Young, Hickenlooper, and Fischer.
Endorsed Paul Dabbar for Deputy Secretary of Commerce. Check out our endorsement letter for more background.
Education and Children's Privacy
In April, we:
Released a statement commending the EO on AI in Education, specifically the emphasis on public-private partnerships to enhance AI education and the adoption of AI tools in education. We also wrote a blog outlining the key takeaways from the EO, were quoted in anInside AI Policy article, and met with the Department of Education and the White House to discuss implementation of the EO.
Testified on behalf of SIIA to South Carolina's Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Commerce and Industry in relation to Senate Bill 268 and House Bill 3431. Danny testified on how the Age Appropriate Design Code bills present issues with stifling innovation for businesses, prohibiting a child's access to educational content online, as well as limiting freedom of expression.
Met with key congressional staff to discuss SIIA's education platform and priorities, insights from the ed tech field, including SIIA’s AI in Education principles, ed tech's involvement in education related to content, workforce development, funding, K-20 learning, and the implications unclear policies at the federal level have for companies doing business across the United States.
Joined the Friends of IES, which submitted a letter urging Congress to provide at least $900 million for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the FY 2026 appropriations. The final letter, which is linked here, reflects strong support from across the education and research communities, with 72 organizations signing on.
Were featured in a Chalkbeat story about education and school districts across the U.S. and how they are bracing for budget challenges as enrollment drops, the ending of pandemic relief funding, and the economic uncertainty due to the impact of Trump’s tariffs. See the article and Sara’s quote here. Sara was also quoted on this topic inThe Hill and aChild in the City article.
Privacy, Data, Cybersecurity and Government Procurement
In April, we:
Published a legal memo on First Amendment protections. In 2022, SIIA commissioned former Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman to examine the constitutionality of restricting publicly-available information under the First Amendment. As Congress moves on from previous federal privacy drafts, we have now released this memo to the public. The memo makes clear not only that the creation and dissemination of information is speech for First Amendment purposes, but that inferences derived from it are as well. As a result, government regulation of that activity must pass heightened judicial scrutiny, and regulations that would restrict its publication are likely unconstitutional.
Submitted comments to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce’s Privacy Working Group, emphasizing the need for a preemptive federal privacy law. A national framework will provide consistency for consumers, clarity for businesses, and promote innovation. SIIA also joined a coalition letter led by the Chamber of Commerce.
Submitted comments opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) Proposed Rule amending Regulation V. In our comment, we argue that the Proposed Rule exceeds the Bureau’s authority under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and would have severe unintended consequences.
Submitted a letter to U.S. officials urging U.S. action against the UK’s encryption backdoor mandate. The UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal has revealed Apple’s legal battle with the UK government, rejecting a bid by Britain’s Home Office to have the case heard in private. The now-public case involves a government order for the company to provide “backdoor” access to its encrypted cloud storage service.
Published an article on the privacy and security concerns raised by DOJ’s proposal in the antitrust case against Google concerning the internet search market. DOJ proposed to force Google to share an expansive set of user data with its rivals, and in the article, Paul points out the significant issues this proposal raises for internet users and the broader internet ecosystem.
Published an article for CEPA’s Bandwidth, in which SIIA’s Joshua Stein explored the growing global pressure on end-to-end encryption — and the risks it poses to privacy and security.
Competition, Digital Trade, and Innovation Policy
In April, we:
Released a statementcriticizing the European Commission for seeking to interfere in company operational decisions, impeding competition, and repeatedly moving the goalposts, after the Commission announced the first fines levied under the Digital Markets Act.
Submitted a letterto the House Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, providing insights on the evolving landscape of AI and competition.
Joined a coalition of organizations urging Congress to overturn the FTC’s recently promulgated rule on recurring subscriptions and negative option programs.
Issued a statementregarding the start of the remedy phase in the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Google Search, urging the court to reject the extreme remedies proposed by the DOJ that threaten to undercut American innovation and harm consumers.
Published a blog encouraging U.S. policymakers to learn from the EU’s Digital Markets Acts’ mistakes and continue to focus on a pro-growth agenda.
Published a blog on the importance of market definition in antitrust cases, and how the enforcement agencies, and the FTC specifically, has used highly gerrymandered market definitions in an effort to make tech companies appear more dominant than they really are.
State Policy
In April, we:
Published a commentary piece authored by Paul Lekas in the Times Union in New York. The op-ed outlines concerns associated with the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act. These are similar concerns we raised about SB 1047 in California last year, such as the unrealistic burdens on developers and the implications of a state patchwork of AI regulations.
Submitted comments to the Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models, making recommendations on developing legislation for AI frontier model regulation. It is expected that the recommendations from the Working Group will be incorporated into currently pending legislation, specifically SB 53.
Signed on to several California Chamber letters of opposition, including: SB11, AI Technology; SB295, The CA Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025; SB259, Online Pricing Restrictions; AB1355, Location Privacy; AB1018, High Risk Automated Decision Systems; and SB384, Pricing Algorithms. We also signed onto letters from the CalChamber on anti-trust related bills including: SB763 and AB324.
Met with New York Assemblymember Bores on the NY RAISE Act, the subject of an SIIA op-ed published in the Times Union.
.jpg?upscale=true&width=300&upscale=true&name=SIIA%20Policy%20(1).jpg)
