Use regulatory rulemaking to address unfair methods of competition and digital commerce practices.
Use agency rulemaking to define certain platform behaviors as unfair methods of competition and set clearer expectations than case-by-case litigation. Focus on an FTC Section 5 approach and keep scope defensible given the “major questions doctrine” risk described in the cause materials.
Why this works
- The FTC arguably has authority to issue rules on unfair competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- In 2022, the FTC began exploring a rule to ban non-compete clauses for workers – similarly, it could attempt a rule defining certain Big Tech platform behaviors as unfair methods of competition (for instance, self-preferencing by a dominant platform could be declared per se unfair).
- If such rules could be enacted, they bypass the need for case-by-case proving of monopoly in court and create clear obligations.
- The FCC (if reclassifying broadband under Title II again) could also get at some platform issues indirectly (though FCC mainly covers telecom, it might address app stores on mobile networks etc.
- in creative ways).
- Regulatory action can be more nimble, adjust over time, and fill in gaps (like data portability requirements to foster competition, which antitrust law alone might not impose).
Tech Oversight Project
AdvocacyHolding Big Tech accountable through policy and pressure
The Tech Oversight Project is a tech policy advocacy organization launched in 2022 to push for aggressive government action against Big Tech monopolies:. It is the only watchdog focused solely on advancing antitrust legislation and regulatory scrutiny of companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Apple. The Tech Oversight Project uses campaign-style tactics — rapid response communications, opposition research, and media outreach — to counter Big Tech’s lobbying and rally support for reforms that protect consumers, privacy, and competition:.
Mechanism
About LobbyingHow Tech Oversight Project uses funding
- Define the specific conduct to address, including self-preferencing and retaliatory platform rules.
- Submit petitions, comments, and evidence to FTC rulemaking processes.
- Translate documented harms into enforceable rule language and definitions.
- Anticipate legal challenges by tailoring scope and grounding authority.
- Maintain coalition support through a slow, procedural rulemaking cycle.
- Pair rulemaking with enforcement and other pathways so progress continues if timelines slip.
Milestones
Checkpoints and the expected timing for each step
- 1
Rule scope and authority map finalized
Near termA defensible rule outline is agreed.
- 2
Comment and record buildout
During docket processSubmissions and evidence are filed into the record.
- 3
Proposed rule analysis published
After proposalSupporters explain scope and defend authority publicly.
- 4
Final rule defense launched
At finalizationLegal response is coordinated and grounded in the record.