Read on Twitter
Big tech companies have used tying to maintain and extend their dominance. Short thread on this unfair practice and the still good law on it.
Tying is when a firm conditions the purchase of one product on the purchase of a second, separate product (through contract or technical integration). A familiar example is cable bundles: To get the channels you want, you must also pay for the channels you won't watch.
Through tying, a dominant firm can exclude rivals, coerce consumers, and extend its power into new markets. Here are three examples from the tech sector.
In their suit against Google, @JusticeATR and eleven states accused Google of tying its search and other apps to the essential Google Play in their agreements with mobile handset makers https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1329131/download
The House Antitrust Subcommittee report documented how Amazon ties the coveted "Buy Box" for sellers with their use of Amazon shipping and delivery https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/competition_in_digital_markets.pdf
Over the summer, Slack accused Microsoft of bundling Teams with its dominant Office package as a means of foreclosing Slack and other competitors in collaboration software https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/technology/slack-microsoft-antitrust.html
The law remains good: tying by firms with "appreciable economic power" in a market is illegal. @openmarkets summarized the harms from tying and the law in an amicus brief filed in the Third Circuit on Tue. Many thanks to our local counsel @jasonrathod! https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e70dc/t/5fa2e95d69b4a72ccd79c842/1604512094415/OMI+Brief+in+Ellison+v.+ABOS+-+Filed.pdf
Will @JusticeATR, @FTC, and state attorneys general build on the Google case and enforce anti-tying law against Amazon, Microsoft, and other monopolists?
