The past year saw the call to break up big tech companies go from a political talking point to action, culminating in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filling an antitrust suit against Facebook aimed at reversing the company’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram. And now with a new president at the helm, the question becomes: is Facebook just the beginning?

To be sure, calls to break up large technology companies are nothing new. But in recent years they've grown louder and more numerous as companies like Amazon and Google have come under fire over alleged anti-competitive behavior, and companies like AT&T have grown larger and more powerful than ever.

This was perhaps most evident on the 2020 presidential campaign trail, as many presidential candidates called to break up or regulate large tech companies. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made waves when she called for the U.S. government to regulate big tech, while candidates like Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) argued that antitrust law had become ineffective and it was time to start anew.

But with the election behind us and Joseph R. Biden sworn in as the 46th president of the United States, the question now turns to how his administration will approach tech policy. Will he push to break up or regulate the giants? Will he upturn 40-plus years of antitrust precident? Or, will he embrace the status quo and focus on other more immediate challenges facing the nation?

The answers to these questions remain unclear, but the people Biden surrounds himself with during the early days of his administration could offer some clues as to what the future holds for big tech in America.

The Argument for Breaking Up Big Tech

The arguments for and against breaking up big tech firms are as diverse as the proposed remedies. Rationals range from promoting competition and consumer welfare to concerns over societal implications and national security, explained Sam Bowman, director of competition policy at the International Center for Law and Economics, in an interview with SDxCentral.

One of the most outspoken anti-monopoly groups in Washington has been the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), which in a recently released report called on the Biden administration to take steps to curb the powers wielded by large U.S. enterprises.

“Facebook and Google are more than technology companies: they are 21st-century communication networks that are just as vital to our communications and commerce as roads or phone lines. Amazon, too, is far more than an online retailer: it is a movie and television studio, a supermarket chain, a logistics company, an electronics manufacturer, a cloud-computing provider, and a middleman for much of the U.S. economy,“ the AELP report reads, “Yet Google, Facebook, and Amazon are almost completely unregulated, and their consolidation of power undermines democracy and makes the economy less competitive, less innovative, and less equal.”

According to Bowman, the arguments and remedies largely fall into one of three camps.

The Regulation Camp

The first of these camps calls for the breakup and regulation of large technology companies. Senator Warren’s position on antitrust and big tech most closely aligns with this camp, Bowman explains.

The Massachusetts senator has long argued that tech companies had ballooned to the point where they now have “enormous” sway over consumer’s digital lives.

“Nearly half of all e-commerce goes through Amazon. More than 70% of all internet traffic goes through sites owned or operated by Google or Facebook,” a statement from Warren’s campaign site read. And by allowing these companies to continue to expand, Warren’s campaign made the case that they have been able to squeeze out competition and “squash” innovation.

This camp, Bowman said, is really looking at the situation pragmatically and recognizing that even if the U.S. government were to break up these big tech firms, “we're probably only going to ever have one Google, or you're probably going to only ever have one Amazon, so, the best thing we can do is regulate them so that the companies that we do have act in a way that we want them to.”

To this point, Warren’s plan would have called for new regulation on big tech firms as well as reversing some previous mergers. Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods and Zappos, as well as Google’s acquisition of Waze and Nest, being just two of the breakups proposed by Warren during her presidential campaign.

The Antitrust Reform Group

Senator Klobuchar, who is set to takeover as the chair of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee tasked with dealing with antitrust and competition and is currently working on a book on antitrust, has also been a strong proponent of putting limits on corporate power.

Last month, the Minnesota senator announced plans to introduce a bill to do just that. According to a Bloomberg report, the bill would limit the ability of large companies to purchase smaller competitors.

However, unlike Warren, Bowman argues Klobuchar falls into the second camp, which is focused on antitrust reform more than regulation. “It's a much more subtle approach than the Warren approach,” he said of Klobuchar.

“When you look at the way that she has approached it, her bill that she proposed last year, involves nullification of a lot of existing antitrust precedents,” he said.

According to Bowman, Klobuchar is effectively saying the issue is that antitrust law is ill-equipped to deal with large tech companies and it's time to start anew. She’s affectively saying “we want to throw out all of the law and we want to start again, and we think that if we do that we can bring lots of court cases, we can establish lots of new precedents, and that will change the way antitrust law works,” Bowman said.

The ‘Antitrust Populists’ Camp

The final camp, which Bowman describes as the "antitrust populists," goes beyond regulatory and antitrust reforms.

“The antitrust populists go further and say ‘it isn’t just about consumer welfare, it isn’t just about lower prices and better products on the market. It’s about all the other things that the economy involves as well,’” Bowman said. “Their position is that competition is not the only goal of antitrust policy. It should be used for things other than just competition, it should be trying to improve workers' rights, it should be trying to improve environmental standards.”

Essentially, their argument is that companies that produce quality products or have powerful market positions pose a problem not just from a competitive standpoint but from a social standpoint, he explained, adding that many legal and economic experts, like Columbia Law professors Lina Khan and Tim Wu, fall into this camp.

What to Watch for

While there appears to be an appetite, especially within the Democratic Party, for breaking up and or regulating big tech, the Biden administration has given little indication as to where it stands on the issue.

“During the campaign, it was really striking that the Biden campaign basically never talked about competition or antitrust issues,” Bowman said. “In fact, the only time that I ever heard Biden talk about antitrust was with respect to non-compete agreements for fast food workers.”

“My guess is he will personally lean toward the less interventionist end of the spectrum and the kind of more nuanced end of the spectrum," he added. "I don’t think that he has a burning passion to break up big tech companies. But, that’s why I want to stress this coalition point because it’s not just him.”

Despite Biden’s apparent hesitance to take a firm stance on big tech and antitrust, Bowman argues that the administration’s appointments to the FTC and Department of Justice (DoJ) could set the tone for antitrust policy going into the next four years.

Biden has already appointed Rebecca Slaughter as the acting chair of the FTC, signaling that the new administration may be more serious about antitrust than previously known. Slaughter has previously called on the FTC to take more aggressive steps to deter large technology companies from harming U.S. consumers.

“Appointing someone like Lina Khan or appointing Tim Wu to the FTC could either be read as a sign that they’re gonna go really hard on this, they’re really, really going to fight big fights with tech, or it could be read as this is the meat that you get,” Bowman said.

Khan, who has been an outspoken opponent of big tech, is the rumored frontrunner to fill outgoing FTC commissioner Rohit Chopra's seat. According to a recent Vox report, Chopra, who will take over as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has been advocating for Khan to fill his seat.

Biden’s Tone Could Change

Regardless of growing pressure from his party, special interest groups, and his base to reign in big tech companies, there are other factors at play that could influence Biden’s approach to antitrust law, Bowman notes.

Setting aside political pressure from either party, the Biden administration’s hands could be forced on antitrust law and regulation. Bowman cites growing competition with China and plans to scrap online communication policy defined in section 230.

“There's another dimension to all this that isn't being talked about that much right now, which is China, and the kind of geopolitical struggle between China and the U.S.,” he said.

The U.S. government has steadily ratcheted up pressure on Chinese technology companies in recent months, restricting access to U.S. intellectual property and goods without special licenses. Bowman argues that continued competition with China and associated concerns over national supply chains could change the calculous for the Biden administration.

“If the administration feels that there is a risk to American influence in the Pacific that comes from American tech companies not being able to compete as effectively as they could, that might change the dynamic altogether,” he said, adding that increased competition from China could drive the U.S. government to prop up certain technology companies rather than break them up.

This scenario, which Bowman describes as the “national champion” approach, would in essence overlook anti-competitive or monopolist behavior for the sake of national security and U.S. influence abroad.

Even if the president doesn’t make tech policy a priority, that doesn’t mean Democrats in the senate or congress won’t. Given the immediate challenges ahead of the president, namely combatting the spread of COVID-19 and preventing more economic damage as a result of the virus, may be higher on Biden's agenda, Bowman added.