Are Antitrust Efforts Against Big Tech Losing Steam?

Key Takeaways:

• The Trump administration’s AI-focused policies, coupled with more moderate leadership at the FTC and DOJ, may result in less aggressive antitrust enforcement compared with prior years.
• Recent legislation and litigation have not materially altered operating models, though regulatory risks remain.
• Investors should continue to monitor antitrust developments and potential shifts in enforcement strategies.

When I co-authored “Antitrust Anxiety” in 2021, it seemed a tidal wave of antitrust enforcement was on the horizon. Litigation, proposed legislation, and aggressive leadership from watchdogs like Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter signaled significant changes for Big Tech regulation. With a barrage of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuits, alongside the rollout of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), years of building momentum seemed to indicate that the proverbial vultures were circling Big Tech.

Yet, for the first time in years, regulatory pressure on Big Tech appears to be easing in the United States. This is a positive development for credit investors concerned about major penalties and operational disruptions. While such headwinds are far from over, recent developments suggest that efforts to transform the antitrust landscape have not yet fully materialized.

Big Tech, AI, and Power: Inside the Administration’s Playbook

The easing of regulatory pressure on Big Tech may reflect President Trump’s AI-focused stance and the U.S. desire to lead in the global AI race. Within days of taking office, Trump rolled back AI regulations and ordered an “AI Action Plan”.[1] Major fines, divestitures, or other penalties on Big Tech could dampen AI investment, creating a disincentive for major antitrust enforcement.

Trump also criticized overseas legislation targeting American technology firms, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA), viewing them as discriminatory He threatened tariffs and penalties against countries imposing restrictions on U.S. tech companies—a strategy that has proven to be a successful bargaining chip in trade negotiations.[2] For example, China dropped its Android antitrust probe, and the UK shelved its request to access encrypted iCloud data. While core legislation like the DMA and the DSA remains largely intact, Trump’s pro-American tech policies contrast with the Biden administration’s more critical approach to Big Tech oversight.

Big Tech Shakeup? Google Gets a Wrist Slap, Not a Hammer

The conclusion of United States v. Google LLC (2020) marked the most pivotal antitrust case against Big Tech since Bell Systems in the 1980s. The result: A resounding dud.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) successfully argued that Google held illegal monopolies in segments of online search, resulting in restrictions on exclusivity contracts tied to key apps. However, Google avoided virtually every major proposed concession. Most notably, it retained Chrome and Android, despite the DOJ’s calls for divestiture, and continues paying distribution partners for app preloading or placement, as long as placement isn’t exclusive. This means multi-billion dollar deals, like Google’s arrangement with Apple, can continue. Jonathan Kanter publicly criticized the ruling in a New York Times op-ed.

In a second lawsuit, the DOJ found Google held monopolies in digital advertising. Remedies for this case have not yet been ordered, but even if divestiture occurs, the affected segment contributes a smaller portion of Alphabet’s revenue, limiting potential financial impact. Overall, Google’s operations remain largely unaffected, despite ongoing antitrust scrutiny.

Exhibit 1: Google Network has declined as a % of Alphabet revenue while Google Cloud has grown

Source: Company filings

Who’s Calling the Shots in Big Tech?

The first Trump administration was critical of Big Tech, as evidenced by their 2020 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit against Google and efforts to unwind Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The second Trump administration has continued to act against tech companies, but the new watchdogs appear relatively restrained compared with the last two administrations.

The new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair, Andrew Ferguson, appointed by President Biden in 2023, appears more moderate than his high-profile predecessor, Lina Khan. Ferguson previously worked as an antitrust lawyer and counsel to several Republican politicians. While he upholds Khan’s stricter merger oversight guidelines and pledges to “never back down from taking on big tech,”[3]^,[4] he is expected to be more selective, focusing on cases with higher success probability, or pursuing settlements. This contrasts with Khan’s broad-based approach, which led to multiple losses, including the failed attempt to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision-Blizzard. As a result, the FTC may pursue less action against Big Tech under Ferguson.

Gail Slater now serves as Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division, replacing Jonathan Kanter. Confirmed by the Senate in a relatively uncontested 78-19 vote, Slater brings 10 years of experience at the FTC and has served as a technology adviser at the National Economic Council (NEC). She views antitrust enforcement as a tool to promote innovation and ensure a level playing field, priorities that align with advancing AI development. Slater has also said antitrust should only intervene ex-post and on a case-by-case basis, suggesting a narrower enforcement scope than the previous administration.[5]

A notable difference from the previous watchdogs is increased scrutiny of online censorship. This may draw attention to content moderation practices on social media, search engines, and GenAI platforms like ChatGPT. In February 2025, the FTC launched a request for information (RFI) suggesting that certain platform communications may violate the law.[6] In July 2025, the DOJ issued a statement indicating that suppression of “alternative, competing viewpoints” fall under antitrust enforcement, as it threatens the free flow of information to consumers.5 While regulatory pressure may raise headline risk, companies are likely to cooperate with government officials without materially affecting product quality.

Recent Shifts in Big Tech Oversight

Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have not initiated new litigation targeting major operational changes or divestitures of Big Tech. Instead, regulators have focused on ongoing cases, including DOJ and FTC lawsuits against Google. In a notable resolution, the FTC reached a $2.5 billion settlement in 2023 lawsuit over alleged “dark patterns” in Amazon Prime subscriptions—a relatively minor penalty compared with Amazon’s $93 billion in cash and cash equivalents. The FTC is reportedly investigating misleading advertising practices at Google and Amazon, though nothing has been confirmed to date.[7] Meanwhile, the DOJ has not pursued new antitrust cases against Big Tech companies during this administration. For instance, it initially sought to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s acquisition of Juniper Networks, but approved the deal following minor concessions.

Despite this restrained approach, regulators continue to pursue major lawsuits still in the fire. The FTC’s lawsuit against Meta awaits a verdict following a trial in May, while ongoing cases against Amazon and Apple for anticompetitive practices—instituted under Lina Khan’s tenure—are scheduled for 2027. Overall, the last nine months suggest that the current FTC and DOJ leadership lack the fervor of the previous administration in pursuing aggressive antitrust enforcement against Big Tech.

Digital Markets Act: Limited Impact So Far

In 2024, I wrote that the Digital Markets Act—one of the most sweeping European antitrust policies to date—warranted monitoring, even if financial impacts were expected to be limited. Since then, record earnings suggest that Europe’s regulatory changes have not materially affected Big Tech.

A key reason the DMA has failed to revolutionize the digital landscape is that some “Gatekeepers” (companies subject to the DMA) have delayed implementing major changes. For example, Apple outlined concessions in January 2024 to allow third-party app stores and modify commissions. However, the European Commission deemed these measures inadequate, imposing a €500 million fine in May 2025, after which Apple offered greater concessions. This tug-of-war demonstrates the extended timeline for significant operational changes.

Even when changes occur, customers largely continue to choose well-known incumbents. The DMA mandated “choice screens” for web browsers and search engines, removing default settings for products like Google Chrome and Google Search. Despite this change, market share for these products has hardly budged.[8],[9] This suggests that operations and consumer behavior may remain relatively unscathed even when companies are required to provide greater access to competing products.

Exhibit 2: Market Share for Google and Chrome Fairly Stable in Europe

Source: Statcounter

Big Tech Takeaways: What Investors Need to Know

Recent antitrust trends indicate that regulatory threats to Big Tech operating models have eased, reversing years of increasingly strict antitrust enforcement. In the United States, the new regulatory watchdogs at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have been more amicable, in part due to the administration’s support of AI. Regulators have been less vocal about reigning in Big Tech and appear to be more selective in their enforcement, suggesting the U.S. is less likely to pursue groundbreaking lawsuits and is instead focusing on existing cases. Furthermore, stricter overseas regulations have yet to significantly impact credit quality, offering some reassurance to investors concerned about regulatory risk.

However, investors should remain vigilant. Friendlier regulators are not necessarily lenient; ongoing antitrust oversight and public support for regulating Big Tech mean legal action could still have material impacts. U.S. fiscal and legislative policy remain unpredictable, as seen in the firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners, highlighting the volatility of regulatory enforcement. Meanwhile, the FTC and DOJ are prioritizing concerns about online censorship on tech platforms and promoting a greater diversity of opinions. Companies perceived to violate these priorities may face renewed scrutiny, turning regulators from tenuous allies into foes. Investors should continue monitoring regulatory trends closely when assessing Big Tech risk.

---

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/

[2] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115092243259973570

[3] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/how-trumps-ftc-chairman-is-bringing-a-maga-approach-to-antitrust-enforcement-66b286d5

[4] https://apnews.com/article/amazon-ftc-doge-trial-delay-3265683227438a61503d2f6727cab5bb

[5] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-suppression-competition-marketplace-ideas

[6] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/federal-trade-commission-launches-inquiry-tech-censorship

[7] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-12/amazon-google-probed-by-ftc-over-search-advertising-practices

[8] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/europe

[9] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/europe/