.png)
As the Supreme Court deliberated the case of TikTok v. Garland, an important exchange took place between the justices and the Biden administration's Solicitor General. Members of the Supreme Court and the Biden Administration's Department of Justice lawyers, agreed that service providers like Oracle, Apple and Google should feel secure hosting TikTok without fear of current or future liability, if the incoming Trump Administration made a statement of non-enforcement or in other ways delayed implementation of the law. This indeed happened when President Trump issued a clear, comprehensive and legally air tight Executive Order delaying enforcement and penalties for 75 days. Yet, despite this clear legal reprieve, TikTok remains absent from the Google App Store, meanwhile other providers like Oracle are hosting the app. This raises critical questions about the unchecked power of tech giants like Google and why their actions or inactions continue to evade meaningful antitrust scrutiny.
First, let's address the most glaring issue: Google has a direct financial incentive to suppress TikTok. As a competitor to TikTok, Google's YouTube Shorts is vying for the same audience and advertising dollars. By refusing to reinstate TikTok in its app store, Google is exploiting this situation to weaken its rival. This isn't just opportunistic; it's an abuse of monopoly power. Google controls the primary means of app distribution for billions of Android users worldwide. When a company with that kind of market dominance keeps a competitor out of the marketplace especially after receiving clear legal assurance that enforcement is delayed it's hard not to see this as anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers and stifles innovation. Google has a checkered history with President Trump too. Notably, the company banned him from YouTube for two years, underscoring its willingness to take decisive, controversial actions when it suits its interests. Google never ignored an executive order from president Biden or Obama, so why are they ignoring this lawful order from President Trump.
The behavior of Google in this case demonstrates why they deserve the antitrust scrutiny they are currently facing. Google operates a duopoly on app distribution, and their decisions affect the livelihoods of developers, the choices available to consumers, and the health of the broader tech industry. The TikTok case illustrates how this power can be weaponized not just to advance their corporate agendas but also to curry favor with policymakers.
It's time for regulators to take this as a wake-up call. Google's suppression of a direct competitor and their unlawful gatekeeping demonstrate the risks of concentrated market power. Antitrust enforcement is not just about breaking up companies for the sake of competition about protecting democracy, innovation, and consumer choice. The TikTok ban has already raised difficult questions about the intersection of technology and geopolitics, but Google's actions show why the debate must also include a serious reckoning with corporate power.
The appointment of Abigail Slater as the incoming head of antitrust at the Department of Justice offers a pivotal opportunity to address the unchecked power of tech giants like Google. Slater, known for her expertise in digital markets and platform regulation, will undoubtedly scrutinize how these companies wield their dominance over app distribution to stifle competition and manipulate consumer access. The TikTok case should serve as a prime example of their outsized influence not only ignoring a Trump executive order delaying enforcement of the TikTok ban but also leveraging their control of app ecosystems to serve their own interests. Slater's leadership could mark a turning point in holding these corporations accountable and ensuring a fairer digital marketplace.
