Penalties for Meta and Apple Fail to Deliver Major Consequences for Big Tech

In a sweeping move, the European Union imposed hefty fines on Apple and Meta, allegedly ensuring that competition thrives and preventing these powerful tech giants from wielding such influence over our daily lives in the future.

Or maybe not.

Do you recall when the U.S. government targeted Microsoft for its monopolistic hold on Windows and Office, and now, that hold is a thing of the past?

No?

How about when the EU enacted laws that required websites to request user consent for cookies, and now, nobody is being tracked online?

No?

What regarding the EU’s AI Act, which aimed to protect against the hazardous development of artificial intelligence, assuaging our fears about deep fakes and systemic risks?

Regulating technology has always been a challenging endeavor, and its track record often leans towards failure.

For every significant breakup of Bell Telephone, countless regulations and cases have proven, at best, ineffective and at worst, detrimental.

If the Federal Aviation Administration struggles to oversee Boeing’s safety protocols well enough to avert grave mistakes following multiple accidents, what are the chances that government oversight can successfully mitigate the monopolistic power of colossal tech firms?

What we often receive are mere stopgap solutions, such as Wednesday’s fines — 500 million euros for Apple’s App Store practices and 200 million euros for Meta’s data handling.

The scale of these companies is so vast that even relatively significant fines will barely affect their financial standing.

If Meta can throw $46 billion into its high-stakes metaverse initiative without tangible results, will a penalty of 200 million euros really instigate any meaningful change?

In the past decade, Google has faced fines exceeding $8 billion across three distinct EU cases, with some still unresolved.

Just last year, the EU fined the tech giant $2.4 billion for preferential treatment of its shopping services.

However, with annual revenues reaching $350 billion, such fines are merely a blip on Google’s radar.

While it’s true that these companies will make slight modifications to satisfy regulators and evade the worst of upcoming penalties, identifying any genuinely transformative changes remains challenging.

Much like those cookie consent pop-ups, which most users inevitably accept, these changes are often superficial.

If financial penalties are ineffective, more drastic measures such as corporate break-ups — similar to the US Justice Department’s antitrust actions against Google — could open a Pandora’s Box.

Two critical questions arise: first, what issues need addressing, and second, what is the optimal approach to tackle them?

Despite the extensive documentation showcasing anti-competitive and monopolistic actions, and the hefty fines and remedies imposed, neither of these questions comes with simple or consensus-driven answers.

While monopolies undoubtedly pose challenges, societal grievances regarding these companies often stem as much from their influence as from their monopolistic practices.

A scenario where Bing and Google share search market equally, or where Chrome doesn’t default to Google for searches, may encourage a bit more competition — yet search functionality today holds far less significance than it did a decade ago.

“Encouraging innovation” may be a commendable goal, but in the rapidly evolving digital landscape, antitrust regulators are no better at predicting where true competition will truly matter than Mark Zuckerberg.

Governments naturally tend to look back, constantly battling past conflicts.

Thus, while recent actions against the tech titans may provide satisfaction to those annoyed by Apple’s high prices and Meta’s invasive surveillance, they hardly serve as a resolution for the long-standing erosion of privacy and consumer choice that has persisted for decades.

Until a coalition of stakeholders, comprising both government and corporate entities, collaborates in good faith to envision a better digital future, regulation will remain mere surface-level activity.

David B. Auerbach is a software engineer and the author of “Meganets: How Digital Forces Beyond Our Control Commandeer Our Daily Lives and Inner Realities.”