Senate Judiciary Committee Confronts Digital Dominance
A pivotal antitrust hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has brought renewed focus to the immense power wielded by major digital platforms and the potential remedies to foster competition. The June 24, 2025 hearing, titled 'Deregulation & Competition: Reducing Regulatory Burdens to Unlock Innovation and Spur New Entry,' featured testimony from key regulators, legal experts, and industry representatives who debated solutions ranging from data portability mandates to interoperability requirements.
FTC Commissioner Mark R. Meador testified about the agency's evolving enforcement strategies, noting 'Our focus has shifted toward targeted, case-by-case enforcement that addresses specific anticompetitive conduct while acknowledging legitimate business interests.' This comes after courts blocked the FTC's broad 2024 Non-Compete Clause Rule, prompting the agency to withdraw the rule in September 2025 and pivot to more surgical approaches.
The Data Portability Debate
Central to the hearing was discussion of data portability as a potential competition remedy. Daniel Francis, Assistant Professor of Law at New York University, emphasized in his testimony that 'Mandating data portability could significantly reduce consumer lock-in and lower barriers to entry for emerging competitors.' The concept, which allows users to transfer their personal data between services in machine-readable formats, has gained traction as lawmakers consider legislation like the bipartisan ACCESS Act (Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching).
Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA), who reintroduced the ACCESS Act in May 2025, argues the legislation would target platforms with over 100 million monthly active users in the U.S., requiring them to make services interoperable and enable easy data transfer. 'Interoperability and data portability are essential tools to limit anti-competitive behaviors and give consumers more power in the digital marketplace,' Warner stated in recent remarks.
Platform Power Under Scrutiny
The hearing examined how major tech companies have consolidated market power through network effects and data accumulation. Doha Mekki, Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice, highlighted that 'Digital platforms create natural monopolies through scale that traditional antitrust remedies struggle to address effectively.' This concern has been amplified by recent enforcement actions, including major litigation against Google across adtech, search, and app distribution that demonstrates judicial willingness to impose structural remedies on digital platforms.
Roger Alford, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, outlined ongoing efforts to adapt enforcement to digital markets. 'We're testing new theories and tools in technology, AI, and digital platform markets where both U.S. and EU authorities are pushing boundaries,' Alford testified. The European Commission has intensified Digital Markets Act enforcement, creating parallel pressure on global tech giants.
Competition Remedies and Innovation
Witnesses debated whether regulatory interventions might inadvertently stifle innovation. Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF, cautioned that 'Overly prescriptive regulations could hamper the very innovation we seek to encourage.' However, proponents argue that without intervention, market concentration will continue to suppress competition.
The hearing revealed a growing consensus that traditional antitrust approaches need updating for digital markets. As Professor Francis noted, 'The three main U.S. antitrust statutes—the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and FTC Act—were designed for industrial economies, not data-driven platforms.' This has led to calls for legislative updates that specifically address digital market dynamics.
Global Context and Future Directions
The U.S. debate occurs against a backdrop of global regulatory shifts. The European Union's Digital Markets Act represents the most comprehensive approach, mandating data portability for 'gatekeeper' platforms. Academic analysis suggests that while the EU favors regulatory frameworks, the U.S. relies more on antitrust enforcement and common law development.
Looking ahead, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider multiple legislative proposals. The ACCESS Act represents one approach, while other lawmakers advocate for different mechanisms to address platform power. What remains clear is that data portability and interoperability have emerged as central themes in the competition policy conversation, with significant implications for consumers, businesses, and the future of digital innovation.
As the hearing concluded, Commissioner Meador emphasized that 'The challenge is balancing effective competition enforcement with preserving the benefits that digital platforms provide to consumers and the economy.' This delicate balance will likely define antitrust policy for years to come.