Iowa AG Says State Enforcers Examining Tech Algorithms
State attorneys general are examining the impact of social media algorithms like those that keep young users hooked to apps like Facebook, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller (D) told a National Association of Attorneys General event Monday. “We’re looking at it,” he said. “We’re trying to get up to speed on how algorithms are used, how they’re misused, either intentionally or unintentionally, and get into that concept and secure as much reform that we can.” It’s an issue getting increasing bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill (see 2110280067).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
State AG work against Big Tech is one area of bipartisan consensus, Colorado AG Phil Weiser (D) said during the event in Washington. Nebraska AG Doug Peterson (R) told us after the panel it’s going to take some degree of compromise for Congress to pass new antitrust laws. He noted a September letter signed by 32 AGs supporting antitrust “modernization.” There may be support and opposition for individual bills from various members, he said: “It’s not as if the package is completely embraced by all, by 100%. So you have different elements of it, but I think that’s the same way it works its way through the House.They have to come to some degree of compromise.” Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery (R) told us data portability and data protection are “real issues.”
Enforcers owe a “debt of gratitude ” to the Microsoft antitrust case, said Weiser: “This is a similarly important time for antitrust in technology that can and will have a real impact on consumers and consumer choice.” It’s an issue “we’re thinking long and hard about,” he said.
“It’s in everyone’s best interests to keep the cases moving” against Big Tech, said Pederson during the panel. He credited the steering committee on the Google case for helping to keep depositions moving from the outset: “One frustration is institutional slowness.”
Maintaining bipartisan collaboration against Big Tech is a “national service,” said Weiser. “We don’t have enough examples of that type of bipartisan collaboration. Frustration on that is ... the lack of collaboration in Washington, D.C.” He noted his support for bipartisan legislation that would mean AG cases aren’t subject to multidistrict litigation (see 2109230039). “That to my mind is a no-brainer,” he said. “It has strong bipartisan support from” Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., and House Antitrust Subcommittee ranking member Ken Buck, R-Colo. “It’s not moving right now in Congress, which is a symptom of Congress not working effectively even on relative no-brainers,” Weiser said.
“Wrestling with Big Tech and competition issues is a real challenge, one that we are embracing,” said North Carolina AG Josh Stein (D). He noted the No. 1 complaint to his office is robocalls. He wants a “comprehensive strategy” that includes pushing federal regulators to impose requirements earlier and working with phone companies to better deploy technology to screen out such calls. He suggested working with phone companies to identify wrongdoers and hold phone service providers accountable when they “turn a blind eye.”
The panel was asked about a unanimous Supreme Court decision that weakened the FTC’s Section 13(b) authority in AMG Capital Management v. FTC (see 2104270086). Weiser and Stein regarded it as a negative outcome. “It’s taking the biggest cop off the beat because their jurisdiction wasn’t exclusive to ours,” said Stein. “Their having that authority didn’t [inhibit] our ability to protect consumers.” It means the most “well-resourced consumer protectors can do less.”