Tech Leaders Support California Bill to Stop 'Dominant Platforms' From Blocking Competition (ca.gov)
- Reference: 0181078550
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/22/2025249/tech-leaders-support-california-bill-to-stop-dominant-platforms-from-blocking-competition
- Source link: https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-wiener-announces-landmark-legislation-crack-down-big-techs-anticompetitive-behavior
As [2]announced by San Francisco state representative Scott Wiener , the bill "will restore competition to the digital marketplace by prohibiting any digital platform with a market capitalization greater than $1 trillion and serving 100 million or more monthly users in the U.S., from favoring their own products and services on the platforms they operate."
More from [3]Scott Wiener;s announcement :
> For years, giant digital platforms like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Meta have used their immense power to promote their own products and services while stifling competitors — a practice also known as self-preferencing. The result has been higher prices, diminished service, and fewer options for consumers, and less innovation across the technology ecosystem.
>
> Self-preferencing also locks startups and mid-sized companies out of the online marketplace unless they play by rules set by their competitors. As a new generation of AI-powered startups seeks to enter the marketplace, their success — and public access to the innovations they produce — depends on their ability to compete on an even playing field.
>
> "Anticompetitive behavior is everywhere on the internet," said Senator Wiener, "from rigged search results, to manipulative nudges boosting the 'house' product, to anti-discount policies that raise prices, to the dreaded green bubble that 'breaks' the group chat. When the world's largest digital platforms rig the game to favor their own products and services, we all lose. By prohibiting these anticompetitive practices, the BASED Act will protect competition online, empower consumers and startups, and promote innovations to improve all our lives."
The announcement includes a quote from Teri Olle, VP of the nonprofit Economic Security California Action, saying the act would "safeguard merit-based market competition. This legislation stands for a simple principle: owning the stadium doesn't mean that you get to rig the game." Some conduct prohibited by the proposed bill includes
Manipulating the order of search results to favor a provider's products or services, irrespective of a merit-based process,
Using non-public data generated by third-party sellers — including sales volumes, pricing, and customer behavior — to develop competing products that are subsequently boosted above the third-party sellers' product...
And the announcement also notes that "under the terms of the bill, providers could not prevent consumers from obtaining a portable copy of their own data or restrict voluntary data sharing (by consumers) with third parties."
[4]Read on for reactions from DuckDuckGo, Proton, Yelp, Y Combinator, and Cory Doctorow .
[1] https://www.semafor.com/article/03/20/2026/california-bill-aims-to-help-vibe-coders
[2] https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-wiener-announces-landmark-legislation-crack-down-big-techs-anticompetitive-behavior
[3] https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/senator-wiener-announces-landmark-legislation-crack-down-big-techs-anticompetitive-behavior
[4] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/22/2025249/tech-leaders-support-california-bill-to-stop-dominant-platforms-from-blocking-competition#reactions
Apropos (Score:2)
So, companies that violate this act are... debased?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny (even though I don't understand your Subject), though the obvious response involves losing access to the large market.
But you did trigger a kind of wannabe funny response: "The greedy companies have already debased themselves far above the government's poor power to add or detract."
1. mumble
2. mumble
3. PROFIT!
What about links? (Score:3)
Does this mean that platforms will no longer be allowed to block links to competing platforms? I have seen this plenty where you will get post taken down and then be punished for posting a link to a competing platform or encouraging people to switch.
How is all this stuff not ALREADY illegal? (Score:1)
The amount of anti-competitive tactics being used by the big techs firms is ridiculous - and I thought it was illegal already but the relevant authorities were just really, really slow to take action.
Example - if you are on Windows, open Microsoft Edge and type "google chrome download" into the address/search bar.
Is the top match the page to download Chrome? Technically yes. Right under a huge "Promoted by Microsoft" section which says:
"All you need is right here
Microsoft Edge runs on the same technology as
California Votes For More Government (Score:2)
I swear, California has so many laws and controls, it's a wonder why anyone does business there, let alone lives there.
How do COMPANIES enforce this? (Score:2)
Let's say a company, say AMD, wants to be compliant w/ this law. How exactly do they do that?
- Forcing customers to buy products from their competition (Nvidia, Intel)? But how?
- Make their own products prohibitively expensive?
- Take responsibility for selling products from their competition?
- Anything else?
What if they have come up w/ something new, which has no competition, and where they're not just the market leader, but the sole market player ? Do they have to create a competitor for themselves b
If this passes (Score:2)
What's the likelihood it will be preempted by one of Trumps' executive orders?
Well, there goes ... (Score:2)
... the Democrat Party.
Stupid solution idea: Tax monopoly profits (Score:2)
But what is your better solution proposal?
If there's any detectable interest in the idea I may explain how progressive profits taxation would be supposed to work. Unfortunately, in practice simple solution approaches never solve complicated problems, and the scammers just look for new ways to break any fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Make it apply to all company behavior, and lower the limits to $1M dollars and 100 monthly users.
Can't wait for GM to offer Ford Credit on a Corvette.
Re: (Score:2)
As I imagine it, the profit tax rate would be detected by a number of criteria and I don't think size per se would become relevant unless the niche producing the profits is large and fairly well established. The first criteria would be customer choice, and when the choice first appears the customers can't even say they have no choice because it's only "try it or don't" until things start rolling.
(There are at least two more criteria that should be used, but... A second would be complaints from wannabe compe
Enforce antitrust law (Score:4, Interesting)
So every few years Facebook faces an existential crisis because young people do not want to be on the same social media website as their parents so they wander off to another social media site where their parents aren't.
And Facebook just inevitably buys up wherever the young people went to. They have done this over 20 times in my lifetime already. You can Google the number of companies they have bought.
Amazon did something similar but for different reasons. The reason they got so big wasn't the amazing technology it was because bezos had a lot of connections that got him a lot of capital and he used that Capital to buy up any potential competitors.
Unless and until we stop mergers and acquisitions and start breaking up these monopolies prices are going to keep going up and up and up and up. Just like they did when the robber barons were in charge.
We all got told this in 7th grade. I don't know why we all forgot it. Or why we prioritize various bits of nonsense like trans girls in sports over antitrust law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why not use progressive taxation funds to support the creation of new business startups that will compete with established business? I think this would provide founders an alternative path outside of the private investment path, which would in-turn generate more companies that are not solely focused on ROI and would have the freedom to have a product-centric focus.
Re: (Score:2)
This is kind of my thinking on the topic, but focusing on the progressive taxation of the profits that are linked to monopoly positions in some market niche. The natural path to higher retained earnings would be to divide the monopoly into competing companies. Don't think of it as a penalty for too much success. Rather it is an incentive program to reproduce the good ideas into more companies.
But I'm still hoping to hear some better ideas...
(There are other response approaches, but these days I'm increasing