It is not often that Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz agree. However, when it comes to regulating Big Technology, both have strongly advocated for political action to curb the influence of incumbent giants. In recent months, legislators from both sides of the aisle have called for action to stifle the alarming control that Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple hold over what consumers buy, see and think. The Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and Congress have all launched sweeping anti-trust investigations of these big technology companies amidst concerns of anti-competitive practices. Even President Trump has weighed in against Big Tech, charging that “something is going on in terms of monopoly” and that it is “a bad situation.”

Concerns over these technology giants’ anti-competitive conduct have driven several politicians to propose anti-trust legislation to “break up Big Tech,” with Senator Warren leading the charge. Warren and others, however, face a significant barrier to their goal of fracturing Big Tech: anti-trust legislation. The Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, passed in 1890 and 1914 respectively, fail to provide a compelling case against technology giants despite their broadly worded nature. The precedent for applying these statutes has been to prove that consolidation within a market has harmed consumers, often pointing to price as a primary indicator. Unfortunately for Warren, Big Tech’s business tactics, whether unethical or not, have resulted in heightened convenience for consumers. Though third-party providers and technology startups feel repressed in what they feel is an anti-competitive environment, consumers benefit tremendously from Amazon’s low prices and free access to Google’s search services and Facebook’s social networking platform. It would be a daunting task to prove that fracturing technology giants would result in better outcomes for consumers.

As a result, Big Tech opponents have sought to frame their anti-trust argument in a different light. Pivoting from price, they have pinned technology giants’ exploitation of private data as the case for how their monopolistic practices harm consumers. Warren and others assert a link between increased competition and superior data protection, arguing that breaking up Big Tech will limit the misuse of consumer data by giving people “more control over how their personal information is collected, shared and sold.” This paranoia over how Big Tech companies use data resonates with consumers, as a recent YouGov survey reports that nearly two- thirds of Americans would support breaking up Big Tech companies to ensure more competition in the future. In light of how beneficial Big Tech’s services are, this sentiment illustrates the severity of consumers’ discomfort with how much personal information these companies accumulate and how that data is handled. What is unclear, however, is whether anti-trust action would actually give individuals more privacy or ensure superior data security practices.

The pro-privacy argument for breaking up Big Tech hinges on the notion that forcing these companies to compete on privacy features will make them more transparent and accountable with consumer data. Though this reasoning may seem intuitive, there are serious potential drawbacks to having smaller firms handle our data. For example, large technology firms have a significant advantage over small companies when it comes to data security. Many security updates involve fixed costs that bigger entities can better afford to invest in since they can amortize the cost over a larger user base and benefit from economies of scale.

Larger firms can also hire larger and more experienced security teams to detect and respond to new threats, and many of these larger firms like Facebook have steadily increased the size of their security staffs in light of more prevalent breach threats. Big Tech companies lie at the forefront of privacy research and development efforts which many other institutions find unfeasible, so breaking up these firms could actually harm privacy innovation rather than improve it. Some advocates argue that smaller firms better protect consumers from data breaches simply because they hold less personal information. However, there is no reason to believe that consumer data is more protected if four firms hold information on twenty-five million Americans versus if one firm holds data on one-hundred million. Plenty

of companies with far less data than Facebook such as Under Armour and Caribou Coffee have experienced significant data breaches in recent years. With inferior security capabilities, smaller organizations would arguably be even more attractive targets for malicious actors.

Specific regulations that enforce superior transparency and security present a much clearer path towards resolving data privacy concerns. Some argue in favor of creating a quasi-property right to consumers’ data on social media to regulate its collection. This approach resembles Europe’s GDPR initiative which forbids the tracking of activity or use of personal information without permission. It also outlaws making consent to collect data a condition of access to services. Others, like Questrom Professor of Management Marshall Van Alstyne, believe government should take a less interventionist approach and strive to promote data use in a non-exploitative manner rather than restricting its collection outright. More concretely, this would involve more rigorous standards for transparency on how information is gathered and utilized.

Whatever the correct approach to regulation may be, the critical takeaway is that increasing competition alone will not necessarily spurn superior privacy protection among technology companies. Although advocates of breaking up Big Tech may find it convenient to lump data privacy into their mandate for the sake of litigation, there is no compelling reason to believe anti-trust measures alone would ensure more favorable privacy practices. In fact, it is likely that fracturing technology giants would have a detrimental impact on consumer data security. While there are valid reasons to support Warren’s call to dissolve the Big Tech monopolies, improving the way technology companies handle our personal information does not belong under that umbrella.

Drugs play a critical role in our daily lives – they can be used to reduce pain, regulate bodily processes, and even mitigate metastasizing of cancer. Since pharmaceutical drugs are essential to the health of American citizens, the public reacts sensitively when a price of a lifesaving drug goes up. When the price of a lifesaving drug goes up by a marginal amount, consumers will usually swallow the additional cost. But when the price goes up significantly, many might push for reform rather than passively accept the change. An instance of this happened recently when the price of a drug increased by more than 5000 percent within the span of 24 hours.

In September, price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry was brought to public attention when Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, raised the per-pill price of his newly-acquired product, Daraprim, from $13.50 to $750 overnight. Daraprim had been on the market for 62 years and was a very widely used drug for curing toxoplasmosis, a common parasitic infection.

This exorbitant price increase is known as price gouging, a market phenomenon and concern that involves firms jacking up the prices of their product by rates that are considered unfair. Price gouging is considered unfair when the new high prices make them financially inaccessible to masses. And yet, price gouging is not regulated in the pharmaceutical industry.

This price hike caused a huge public and social media backlash, with people denouncing Shkreli as a “thief”, “brat’’, or “criminal”. Shkreli, however, claimed to the Los Angeles that he wasn’t going to put “this money in [his] pocket and use it to pay [himself] a dividend,” but rather invest it in research aimed at eliminating toxoplasmosis. Many medical professionals, though, have doubted his rationale as it’s widely accepted that Daraprim is effective already with little to no side effects according to Dr. Carlos del Rio of Emory University. Eventually, Shkreli’s damaging actions, drew the attention of powerful figures and organizations. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised to personally look into reforming the drug market. The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association claimed that this price gouging was unjustifiable, and the encapsulating Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America disavowed Shkreli as a member.

Shkreli’s price gouging is particularly revealing of the dilemma that price gouging in the pharmaceutical markets presents and how difficult it is to find a resolution to this dilemma. This dilemma and resulting difficulty can be underscored through three key ideas:

One, the ubiquity of price gouging makes preventative measures difficult.

Most major pharmaceutical and biotechnology groups have attempted to paint Shkreli’s decision as an anomaly. In truth, though, price hiking is commonplace among pharmaceutical companies. Drugs that are more life saving and far more consequential than Daraprim have had their prices increased gradually over time to avoid media backlash.

According to Alliance Bernstein, a global asset management firm, the Canadian drug company Valeant increased the prices of their two heart-related drugs, Cuprimine and Isuprel by more than 2000 percent over the past two years. Similarly, Wolters Kluwer’s PriceRx database, a database of drug prices information, reflects that the prices of the Pfizer’s drugs have gone up by 115.9 percent since 2013. And the well known Gilead Sciences, the research based biotechnology company, charges $84,000 per treatment for its widely sought out hepatitis C drug treatment, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

These examples show that price hikes are not a rare phenomenon in the pharmaceutical market. It is a practice that is more pervasive than what is evident, and therefore these examples only detail a small aspect of the price gouging and unfair market practices that pharmaceutical companies employ. So while encompassing groups such as PhRMA attempt to portray Shkreli’s actions as uncommon, in reality, Shkreli is actually emblematic of a widespread practice, and an even larger issue in the industry.

Two, the pharmaceutical market structure facilitates price gouging.

The pharmaceutical market is imperfect with evidence of monopolistic competition in specific drug categories. Drug manufacturers produce differentiated products and can have complete market share within a therapeutic segment rather easily due to the variety of diseases encompassed under the pharmaceutical umbrella. Consequently, many drugs are not substitutes of one another, and many do not have substitutes at all. Because of this, firms can remain immune to the price changes of other drugs, essentially eliminating producer competition altogether.

What needs to be considered in conjunction with a firm’s external price immunity is the inelastic demand for certain drugs. Some people need certain drugs to live and function. These drugs are absolute necessities for these people, and in many cases, because of the market structure, these drugs have no substitutes. Thus, the pharmaceutical companies that produce these drugs can jack up the price of their drugs because they have a consumer base that has a strongly inelastic demand for these drugs, guaranteeing that sales will not wane over time.

Three, price gouging is hard to resolve from the producer side as potential solutions are hard to implement.

One way to potentially resolve this situation is to introduce competition. While this seems theoretically simple, as any firm could offer a cheaper substitute to Daraprim and push Turing out of the market, it’s not exactly feasible in practice. Drug producers looking to create substitutes might be turned off while looking at the profitability in markets that are small and dictated by a single, established firm. In addition, the patent process takes too long for firms to join in on the market. Patents for new drugs to compete with monopolistic ones like Daraprim would take an average of a little under 3 years to be approved, and because the market that the drug would compete in would probably have changed within that time, entrepreneurs are not willing to make that investment. Therefore, Shkreli’s production of Daraprim is a monopoly in its market that is created by not only market forces, but also protocols and regulations.

One possible way to combat high prices in the pharmaceutical market is by demanding transparency in pharmaceutical firms and government regulation. But government regulation in itself can be tricky to implement in that it can be too in favor of the consumer. Imposing policy that lowers drug prices may in the short run make drugs more affordable to the consumer, but it can also dramatically stifle the revenue of the pertinent pharmaceutical firms. This can lead to the loss of innovation and incentives for improvement of drugs in the long run.

Ultimately, society must decide if life-saving drugs should be more affordable for those who desperately need. However, this will have to be considered with the trade-off of creating an efficiency loss and drastically cutting the revenues of pharmaceutical companies that will put that revenue to use in research and development in the pipeline for new drugs.

The latest quarter results for Netflix, a service website that enables its users with access to television shows and movies via online streaming and in the mail, saw its membership increase by 610,000. According to CEO Reed Hastings, this marked the biggest surge in the number of users, a sharp rebound from a debacle last summer when 800,000 members quit the service following an unexpected price hike and Netflix’s decision, which has since been reversed, to separate the company’s streaming and mail-order DVD rental businesses.

In an industry once dominated by firms like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video, Netflix has since taken over the competition by revolutionizing the video rental process. First, it pioneered the movie-by-mail business that put many video rental stores out of business. Instead of having customers travel to the stores, Netflix essentially reversed this relationship by directly reaching out to the customers themselves.

The company also made highlight in making a smooth transition from “old technology” (delivering movies via mail) to “new technology” (having an online database that streams movies and shows online). Since then, Netflix has transformed the way people watch television shows and films. Currently, it boasts over 75 thousand selections for its 24.4 million subscribers in the US, Canada, and even parts of Central America.

Critics of the company are quick to posit that the success of Netflix is an ephemeral phenomenon. They claim that just as Netflix was able to overtake its competitors in a short span of time, it too will be a victim of technological innovations in the near future. All businesses rise and fall. People believed MySpace would last for a long time, given the great level of innovation in networking it brought to the market at the time… until companies like Facebook emerged. Perhaps there will be a time when a new innovative high- flier shuts down Netflix’s business. However, current conditions indicate that it won’t happen for any time soon.

In the midst of heightened public sensitivity over Internet piracy due to H.R.3261 (Stop Online Piracy Act) and S.968 (Protect Intellectual Property Act), Netflix is one of the few that is insulated from the consequences of these legislations. Although Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has withdrawn the House bill, the Senate legislation is still up for debate. However, regardless of whether PIPA is passed into law or vetoed, Netflix will be in good standing.

If the bill passes, Netflix would become the most financially viable option to watching shows and movies for many consumers. Besides the computer gurus who might be able to work around the regulations and download from illegal websites or networks, most consumers are left to seek legal alternatives. Having to pay ten dollars for a movie ticket versus paying eight dollars for a monthly Netflix membership fee, the consumers would much rather choose the latter because consumers can access many more shows while paying less per shows that they watch. By having a Netflix account, subscribers can view thousands of television shows and movies provided by the website. Rather than being able to watch the one movie from buying the movie ticket, consumers can watch many more shows for the same price.

Furthermore, having the ability to stream for shows online eliminates the implicit costs of time and money to travel to video stores or the movie theaters. Therefore, consumers who may otherwise not have subscribed to Netflix will have even more incentives to subscribe if online piracy regulations are passed into law.

This may give Netflix a near monopoly power over the industry, which they can leverage to hike up membership fees. However as long as they can adjust their monthly charges at a reasonable rate, it seems hard to doubt the continuity of Netflix’s high- flying success. Even if the bill is not passed, Netflix can still potentially benefit from this result, as some consumers worried about the legitimacy of their pirated contents may end up switching to the legally viewable sites like Netflix.

Additionally, in a high-piracy environment, Netflix can profit from favorable contracts with media companies. As content owners become more disheartened to see their content being shared without them receiving any revenue, they will offer more favorable negotiating terms to Netflix, which can help them monetize beyond box-office tickets, pay-per-view or DVD sales.

Internet piracy will never completely go away, but the ebb and flow is something that Netflix can capitalize on. Perhaps Netflix is the true winner of this ongoing battle over online piracy.