Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

guitar_vigilante t1_j9tpgke wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in U.S. Justice Dept accuses Google of evidence destruction in antitrust case by batmaninwonderland

Anti-trust action doesn't usually require one to have an actual monopoly in a market. Being sufficiently large and concentrated such that one can influence the market in an anti-competitive and bad-for-consumers manner is all it takes. And 60% is certainly enough to trigger that.

3

[deleted] t1_j9u7ftj wrote

[removed]

0

guitar_vigilante t1_j9u7td7 wrote

Because anti-trust jurisprudence in the US has been incredibly poor for the past 30 years. The courts have in general been much more willing to allow industry concentration and will put down anti-trust suits pretty often. It's part of why pretty much every industry has seen a trend towards concentration in the past 30-40 years without much pushback from the federal government and why the last major successful anti-trust action was the Bell breakup in the 80s.

edit: and AT&T only had a 45% market share before the breakup.

6