Trust Busting in the 21st Century: Revitalizing Antitrust for the Digital Age

By Michael Kelman Portney

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American policymakers confronted the rise of monopolistic titans—industries dominated by a few wealthy barons whose stranglehold on oil, railroads, and steel threatened both economic freedom and political democracy. The resulting antitrust movement, spearheaded by President Theodore Roosevelt, led to landmark cases that broke up Standard Oil and curbed the power of monopolies. Today, over a century later, we are witnessing a new era of monopolistic dominance, driven not by oil and rail but by data, algorithms, and global-scale platforms. Modern giants like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple have amassed unprecedented control over our digital lives, sparking a renewed call for “trust-busting” in the 21st century.

This paper examines the relevance of antitrust principles in the modern digital economy, argues that current laws and policies are ill-equipped to handle the complexities of today’s tech giants, and proposes ways in which trust-busting might be revitalized to promote competition, protect privacy, and preserve democratic values. Additionally, we will explore how the recent election of Donald Trump may further entrench monopolistic power and limit antitrust progress in the near term, and discuss strategies for advocates committed to fairer, more competitive markets.

The Evolution of Monopoly Power

The monopolies of the early 20th century were straightforward: businesses consolidated ownership in one industry to control supply, fix prices, and crush competitors. Antitrust laws like the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914 were designed to tackle these abuses by breaking up large corporations that restricted market competition. Yet, while the principles of antitrust were clear in the age of industry, modern monopolies are more subtle and complex.

Today’s corporate titans leverage network effects, data accumulation, and platform ecosystems to create monopolistic structures without necessarily eliminating competitors in the traditional sense. Google dominates search, Facebook controls social media, and Amazon leads e-commerce. But instead of acquiring every competitor outright, these companies establish dominance through more nuanced means—locking users into ecosystems, hoarding vast amounts of data, and continually refining algorithms that predict and manipulate consumer behavior. In the absence of clear monopolistic practices like price-fixing, our existing antitrust laws struggle to address this new form of digital dominance.

The Unique Power of Big Tech

Tech companies wield power that extends beyond traditional economic influence. Their algorithms shape what news we read, what products we buy, and even how we vote. These platforms are not simply marketplaces; they are gatekeepers of information, curators of culture, and even arbiters of democracy. For example, Facebook and Google have vast sway over the news industry, dictating which outlets thrive and which struggle for visibility in search results or social feeds. Amazon’s scale allows it to set terms for suppliers, while its entry into cloud computing gives it access to valuable data across industries. These companies effectively operate as “digital utilities,” essential services woven into the fabric of everyday life.

This gatekeeping power, combined with control over user data, has raised concerns that Big Tech companies are no longer just market participants but essential infrastructure. Yet they operate largely unregulated, and their data-driven dominance makes it difficult for new entrants to compete, effectively stifling innovation and choice.

How Traditional Antitrust Falls Short

U.S. antitrust law, grounded in the concept of consumer welfare, primarily focuses on whether a company’s actions lead to higher prices or reduced quality. However, tech giants have disrupted this model, often offering services that are free or low-cost while still amassing enormous wealth and power. For instance, Google provides “free” search, yet it captures immense value through user data, building a competitive moat that no rival can easily overcome. Similarly, Facebook monetizes its “free” social media platform by selling targeted ads fueled by its unparalleled data on users.

The current legal framework struggles with such business models, as it is designed to assess pricing practices rather than the control of data or market access. Additionally, traditional antitrust remedies—such as breaking up companies—may be challenging in cases where platform ecosystems are highly integrated. How does one break up Facebook when its ad revenues depend on the very network effects that a breakup might dismantle? How does one untangle Amazon’s e-commerce platform from its cloud computing arm when they feed into each other’s success?

The Trump Administration’s Influence: A Setback for Trust-Busting

With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in 2024, the trajectory of trust-busting efforts may face significant challenges. Throughout his political career, Trump has often supported deregulation, favoring corporate interests and opposing expansive government intervention. Many anticipate that his administration will not only resist new antitrust reforms but could also actively weaken existing regulatory agencies, making it easier for powerful tech corporations to consolidate their influence over markets.

Historically, Trump has shown a willingness to wield government power selectively, targeting those he considers political adversaries while providing leeway to allies. In this environment, antitrust enforcement could become a tool wielded against companies or individuals who appear critical of the administration, rather than a consistent policy applied to promote fair competition. The lack of impartial enforcement could, in turn, lead to a business climate where political loyalty, rather than competition or innovation, becomes a critical factor in market success. This selective enforcement risks creating an economic landscape shaped by patronage and consolidation, rather than a competitive and fair marketplace.

Moreover, Trump’s administration may appoint agency heads and judges with a pro-business, anti-regulatory stance, making meaningful trust-busting efforts even less likely. Any existing investigations into Big Tech monopolies could stall or be abandoned altogether. In this context, advocates for antitrust reform must prepare for an uphill battle and consider alternative strategies to curb monopolistic practices while waiting for a more favorable political climate.

What Advocates for Trust-Busting Can Do

Despite the challenges, there are several avenues for those committed to trust-busting to pursue:

1. State-Level Antitrust Action: While federal agencies may be reluctant to act, state attorneys general can play a crucial role. Many states, including California and New York, have robust antitrust laws and a history of challenging monopolistic practices independently of federal policy. Advocates can support and encourage state-level lawsuits and regulatory measures against monopolistic practices, applying pressure on Big Tech and other monopolistic actors.

2. Encourage International Cooperation: Other countries, particularly in the European Union, have been more aggressive in regulating tech giants. Advocates can work with international organizations, think tanks, and lawmakers to build cross-border partnerships that challenge monopolies. By supporting international antitrust actions, activists can put global pressure on companies, even if U.S. policy remains stalled.

3. Public Awareness and Grassroots Mobilization: Building public awareness around the impact of monopolies can create a groundswell of support for antitrust reform. Grassroots movements can educate the public on how monopolistic power affects consumer choice, data privacy, and democracy. When public sentiment strongly favors antitrust action, it becomes harder for any administration to ignore the issue.

4. Promoting Alternative Platforms: Advocates for trust-busting can support alternative platforms and emerging businesses that challenge Big Tech’s dominance. Encouraging competition by promoting and investing in smaller platforms can gradually reduce the power of monopolies, offering consumers real choices outside of the Big Tech ecosystem.

5. Lobbying for Legislative Change: Even if the current administration is unresponsive, advocates can continue lobbying Congress for structural changes in antitrust law. Strengthening coalitions with lawmakers, consumer protection groups, and public interest organizations can help create momentum for future legislative reform. Persistence in pushing for stronger antitrust protections may lay the groundwork for change in the next political cycle.

Toward a New Vision of Trust Busting

Modern trust-busting requires more than traditional breakups; it demands a comprehensive reevaluation of how power is distributed in the digital economy. By adapting antitrust principles to address data monopolies, privacy concerns, and control over information, regulators can ensure that Big Tech’s influence does not come at the expense of democratic values or market competition. Furthermore, by enforcing greater transparency and accountability, governments can empower users to make informed choices, fostering a more equitable digital marketplace.

Reforming antitrust for the 21st century is not just about curbing corporate power but about preserving a fair and open society where innovation thrives, privacy is respected, and competition is the rule, not the exception. Big Tech has redefined what it means to hold power in the modern age, and our legal system must evolve to meet this challenge. The stakes are high: without effective reform, we risk allowing a small handful of corporations to shape the future of democracy, economy, and culture, leaving citizens and small businesses alike with little recourse.

Conclusion

The digital era demands a new vision for trust-busting, one that extends beyond traditional antitrust tactics to confront the realities of tech-driven monopolies. By addressing issues of data control, interoperability, and market gatekeeping, we can create a more competitive digital landscape that serves the public interest rather than corporate dominance. The challenge is daunting: unchecked corporate power has profound consequences for democracy and equity. To preserve these ideals, the time has come to revive and rethink trust-busting for a new age—before Big Tech’s grip on the digital world becomes unbreakable.