Antitrust at the Agencies: Private Anticompetitive Censorship Edition

By: Daniel J. Gilman (Truth on the Market)

In this article, author Daniel J. Gilman discusses the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent inquiry into technology platform censorship.

On February 20, the FTC issued a press release announcing the launch of a “public inquiry to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users’ access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.” To facilitate this inquiry, the agency published a Request for Public Comment Regarding Technology Platform Censorship.

This type of request for information (RFI) is not a law enforcement investigation, nor does it compel responses from any party—there is no subpoena power or compulsory process involved. Instead, it serves as a broad, informal inquiry that may help the commission better understand market dynamics and, potentially, inform future studies or investigations. This approach aligns with the FTC’s authority under Section 6(a) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency to gather and compile information on businesses and their practices.

In that sense, the inquiry is consistent with the FTC’s ongoing efforts to monitor market developments through empirical studies, workshops, and RFIs. The press release does not mention whether a commission vote was required to authorize the RFI, though it is possible that none was needed.

However, the framing of this particular inquiry raises some questions. By focusing on “censorship” and how technology platform conduct “may have violated the law,” the initiative appears to lean in a particular direction—especially without specifying which provisions of antitrust law or the FTC Act might be implicated. The request for input from users who have been “banned, shadow banned, demonetized, or otherwise censored” also suggests a selective solicitation, rather than a neutral examination of platform policies and their broader effects.

Further adding to the charged nature of the inquiry, the FTC’s press release states that “Censorship by technology platforms is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal.” A similar statement appeared on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, where FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson wrote: “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal.” Commissioner Melissa Holyoak echoed this sentiment, describing tech censorship as “one of the most consequential issues facing our nation.”

This rhetoric prompts several questions. Is the inquiry focused only on “big tech,” and if so, how is that defined? Why are other forms of alleged censorship by smaller platforms—or by other entities—not receiving the same scrutiny? And perhaps most fundamentally, what qualifies as “censorship” in this context?

While the inquiry remains in its early stages, these questions highlight the potential implications of the FTC’s approach and the broader debate surrounding platform governance and regulatory oversight…

CONTINUE READING…