Podcast Summary

The Monopoly Report

Episode 50: Part 2 – Jon Leibowitz on Antitrust and Privacy in Today’s Digital Media Marketplace
Host: Alan Chapell
Guest: Jon Leibowitz (Former FTC Commissioner & Chairman)
Date: October 8, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode is a deep-dive conversation between host Alan Chapell and former FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, focusing on the evolution and ongoing challenges of antitrust and privacy regulation in the digital marketplace, particularly regarding Big Tech. Key topics include first-party data controversies, historical antitrust cases (with emphasis on Intel and Google), the intersection of journalism and technology, seminal enforcement actions (notably the Google/Safari browser case), and critical reflections on recent landmark antitrust remedies against Google.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Limitations and Realities of First-Party Data

[02:59]

• Alan opens with skepticism about Big Tech’s “first-party advantage,” noting that companies “with their buttons all over the Internet” are often granted unfair regulatory exemptions.
• Leibowitz points out that while working with Comcast, he understood first-party data involves distinct equities due to direct consumer relationships, but it still warrants robust consumer protections.
  • Quote: “It’s still the collection of data and you should still give consumers more control over their data.” – Jon Leibowitz [03:20]

2. Intel Antitrust Case as a Precedent

[03:20–05:16]

• Leibowitz reflects on the successful FTC case against Intel for anti-competitive practices such as exclusive buying and technical hindrances to competitors (e.g., Nvidia).
• The remedies led to Nvidia’s market cap doubling at the time, illustrating the real-world impact of antitrust action.
  • Quote: “Sometimes you accomplish something meaningful, but it turns out to be bigger.” – Jon Leibowitz [04:24]

3. Journalism’s Fate in the Internet Era

[05:16–09:25]

• Discussion on 2009–2010 FTC town halls exploring how the Internet affects journalism, particularly competition between legacy journalism and tech platforms.
• Leibowitz supported the concept of collective bargaining for news organizations (as in Australia) given challenges in monetizing journalism online.
• The spread of misinformation online due to unregulated user-generated content is flagged as an emergent problem.
  • Quote: “It’s hard in the Internet era to compete with free... Journalism is again critically important to democracy, but also not thriving maybe the way it had pre-Internet.” – Jon Leibowitz [07:21]

4. The Google/Safari Browser Enforcement Case

[09:25–13:17]

• Alan revisits the landmark 2012 FTC case and $26 million fine against Google for the circumvention of Safari’s privacy controls to drop cookies, an incident influenced by Google’s earlier abuses with Google Buzz.
• Leibowitz details how these settlements set long-term precedents and forced Google into greater self-restraint on browser-based tracking and fingerprinting.
  • Quote: “We put them under a broad order… and then several years later they did exactly what you described.” – Jon Leibowitz [11:47]

5. The Privacy vs. Advertising Tradeoff

[13:52–17:10]

• Discussion on the fallout from such privacy enforcement: Google and Meta brought data in-house and limited third-party partnerships after scandals (e.g., Cambridge Analytica).
• Leibowitz muses on possible future consumer data monetization frameworks, noting that true consumer data empowerment remains elusive.
• Both agree that “acceptable trade-offs” in privacy/advertising balance are highly context-dependent and may disadvantage lower-income individuals.
  • Quote: “What may be an acceptable trade-off for both of us may be very different for someone who is of a different economic class…” – Jon Leibowitz [16:44]

6. Google Search Antitrust Remedies and Legal Philosophy

[17:10–22:28]

• Alan asks about the amicus brief submitted by former enforcers in the Google search antitrust trial; Leibowitz expresses that their brief opposed calls for a Chrome divestiture as too extreme, preferring more moderate remedies.
• Leibowitz critiques Judge Mehta’s remedies as “a little cautious,” particularly allowing Google to continue payments that might still entrench monopoly power.
  • Quote: “One thing he did was he prohibited exclusivity, yet he allowed payments to companies which may become exactly the same thing.” – Jon Leibowitz [19:41]
• Discussion extends to the potential for more decisive remedies in the AdTech trial, where forced divestiture of acquired businesses (e.g., DoubleClick) may be more justified due to clearer links to anti-competitive behavior.

7. Structural vs. Behavioral Remedies — Lessons from Microsoft to Big Tech

[22:28–26:29]

• Chapell and Leibowitz discuss the inherent difficulties in crafting effective remedies, referencing the Microsoft case and the challenge of getting judicial consensus on what works.
• Leibowitz suggests that although structural remedies (breaking up firms) are preferable in theory, behavioral remedies (imposed rules) often play a crucial role, especially amid judicial caution.
  • Quote: “Structural remedies are inherently better than behavioral remedies… but in monopolization cases, behavioral remedies can serve an important purpose…” – Jon Leibowitz [25:55]

8. Industry Self-Regulation and the Elusive Federal Privacy Law

[27:24–32:11]

• Leibowitz describes his post-FTC privacy coalition, which advocated for federal privacy legislation, noting the uneven regulatory standards between telcos and “edge providers.”
• He recounts the FTC’s thwarted efforts to obtain broader rulemaking authority for privacy, stymied by Congressional resistance.
• Alan and Jon agree that the lack of clear U.S. rules—and the EU’s consent-heavy regime—both ultimately benefit the largest incumbents at the expense of competition and innovation.
  • Quote: “When you do a rule… be careful that you don’t protect the incumbents because… they can comply, but the startups can’t always.” – Jon Leibowitz [32:32]

9. Policy Reflections and Future Directions

[33:15–34:07]

• The two agree that data minimization and retention limits might be preferable to ubiquitous consent requirements.
• Leibowitz jokes about helping Alan in a hypothetical future role as “privacy czar” out of an office in Montana, underscoring their shared passion but occasional policy disagreements.

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On First-Party Data:

  • “First party is in our world at a complete exemption from almost anything. At least it was then, right?” – Alan Chapell [02:59]

• On Regulation’s Unintended Consequences:

  • “The entire industry was very worried we would use finding authority in a muscular way, which they did not want to see.” – Jon Leibowitz [31:07]

• On EU Style Consent:

  • “The lack of rules has been to our disadvantage in the same way that the EU consent-for-everything style rules have also been to our disadvantage, because both of those approaches favor Big Tech.” – Alan Chapell [32:11]

• On Journalism and Misinformation:

  • “…it’s great that people can say anything they want online, but sometimes that results in misinformation. You don’t have a lot of editing on top of your blogger sometimes.” – Jon Leibowitz [07:56]

• On Remedies:

  • “Remedies are hard. Reasonable people can disagree.” – Jon Leibowitz [26:09]

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:59 | The illusion of first-party data “exemptions” | | 03:20 | FTC’s Intel case and anti-competitive practices | | 05:16 | Journalism and FTC’s early inquiries into online news | | 09:25 | Google’s circumvention of Safari browser controls | | 13:52 | Impact of privacy settlements on Google and Meta strategy | | 17:10 | Google search antitrust remedies and the amicus brief | | 19:41 | Critique of Judge Mehta’s remedies in Google search case | | 22:28 | Principles behind structural vs behavioral remedies | | 27:24 | Post-FTC privacy advocacy and rulemaking authority | | 32:11 | Policy debate: Consent vs. data minimization | | 33:15 | Policy reflections and “Montana” privacy czar joke |

Language and Tone

• Conversational, highly knowledgeable, occasionally wry and self-deprecating.
• Notable use of wit, especially by Leibowitz (dad jokes referenced [26:53]).
• Alan Chapell is probing yet collegial, encouraging Leibowitz to reflect candidly on regulatory history and his own record.

Takeaways

• Regulatory settlements, like the one against Google for Safari circumvention, have lasting ripple effects for corporate behavior and broader industry practices.
• Effective remedies against anti-competitive conduct are difficult to craft and are subject to both judicial caution and practical considerations.
• Calls for federal privacy law remain stymied by congressional gridlock, inadvertently reinforcing Big Tech dominance as smaller players struggle to comply with emerging patchwork or EU-inspired requirements.
• Both host and guest agree that consumer empowerment, perhaps through data minimization and retention, should be a guiding principle, with less emphasis on formalistic, universal consent.

For those interested in the evolution of digital privacy, antitrust, and the regulatory chess game between tech giants and government, this episode is a goldmine of historical insight and candid policy reflection.