We would like to emphasize the need to distinguish between the proper and improper uses of antitrust in approaching discussions of market power, and are concerned that today’s hearing could lead to the use of antitrust to address concerns surrounding online content moderation, data privacy, equality, or other socio-political issues that are unrelated to the competitive process.

America’s technology companies have created huge gains for consumers, developing networks and products that connect the world in ways that were inconceivable just 20 years ago. Yet this progress has not been without its critics. The dominance of large platforms has led to concerns about the harmful effects of lock-in and path dependency, with many arguing the technology sector is unique and requires new approaches to antitrust policy. In particular, it is argued that the consumer welfare standard that guides American antitrust policy is ineffective for regulating Big Tech. Yet with the lack of demonstrable consumer harm, would increased government interventions improve the market?

Please join the Committee for Justice and Innovation Defense Foundation for a discussion of this important issue in advance of the House Judiciary Committee's hearing, "Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google," with industry CEOs.

Media Contact: Curt Levey

(202) 510-0128; clevey@committeeforjustice.org

Committee for Justice president Curt Levey issued the following statement:

Washington, D.C. -- The Committee for Justice decided to get involved in this case because several of the issues at stake – including overcriminalization, fair notice, the rule of lenity, and the federal-state balance in criminal law – are at the heart of CFJ's mission of promoting the rule of law and preserving the Constitution's limits on federal power and its protection of individual liberty.

While the language of the CFAA is arguably ambiguous, the government's reading, which would make it a crime merely to access a computer or the internet for an unauthorized purpose, cannot be correct. As our...

Op-ed by Committee for Justice President Curt Levey in the Washington Post: At least for the moment, the conservative dream of a solid majority on the Supreme Court is dead. The trio of recent votes by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. siding with the court’s four liberal justices shows that Roberts has gone full Kennedy — that is, following in the disappointingly centrist footsteps of previous swing justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court struck down the CFPB’s leadership structure under a single director that the President cannot remove except for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. But the justices stopped there, leaving the bureau in place, and declined to revisit Humphrey’s Executor more broadly. Nonetheless, the Court’s decision was a victory for separation of powers principles. Our panel of legal and regulatory experts will discuss the implications of the opinion for independent agencies and removal power, as well as what the decision means for consumers.

From a conservative perspective, Chief Justice John Roberts is now zero for four on the major culture war issues decided by the Supreme Court this term—abortion, gun rights, LGBT rights and DACA—after voting today to strike down Louisiana's abortion law in June Medical Services.

The death of George Floyd and the nation's reaction to it have raised a variety of interesting legal issues, including police reform, racial profiling, qualified immunity, censorship, criminal charges against policemen, and the scope of the president's power to use troops to quell civil unrest. Our panel of legal experts will analyze the legal issues involved and how they are likely to play out in the months ahead, while also discussing the broader implications for the law and our society.

The death of George Floyd and the nation's reaction to it have raised a variety of interesting legal issues, including police reform, racial profiling, qualified immunity, censorship, criminal charges against policemen, and the scope of the president's power to use troops to quell civil unrest. Our panel of legal experts will analyze the legal issues involved and how they are likely to play out in the months ahead, while also discussing the broader implications for the law and our society.