Abstract
AbstractCiting corporate concentration and lax enforcement since the Reagan era, the Biden administration has declared a new era of aggressive antitrust prosecution, bringing antimonopoly actions against tech giants such as Meta, Google, and Amazon. But what’s so bad about monopoly or corporate concentration? The standard answer appeals to economic consequences, such as higher prices or deadweight losses. This paper offers a different framework. It argues monopolizing can be a form of cheating, which is a wrong that attaches to means, not just ends; an athlete who cheats but loses still does wrong. In particular, this paper argues that certain market-controlling strategies constitute a form of cheating I call ‘structural cheating,’ best illustrated by the metaphor of creating an unlevel playing field: rather than compete fairly on merits such as product quality and price, a firm that acquires rivals biases the market in its favor, thereby entrenching a dominant position that effectively forces would-be competitors to compete uphill. By framing (alleged) antitrust violations as cheating, while using the FTC’s lawsuit against Facebook (now Meta) as a test case, this paper provides a needed corrective to those citing market success as evidence of merit or skill. A further upshot is the structural cheating account better explains the distinctively problematic features of social media market concentration than Heath’s Market Failures Approach. More generally, this paper provides a normative lens for analyzing fair market competition and shows why it’s not only winning or losing that counts in capitalism, but how one plays the game.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference57 articles.
1. Anderson, E. (2017). Private government: how employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press.
2. Aspin, D. (1975). Ethical aspects of sport and games and physical education. Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, 1975, 49–71.
3. Aydinliyim, L. E. (2022). The case for ethical non-compete agreements: Executives versus sandwich-makers. Journal of Business Ethics, 175(3), 651–668.
4. Blunden, C. (2022). Between market failures and justice failures: Trade-offs between efficiency and equality in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(3), 647–660.
5. Boonin, D. (2014). The non-identity problem and the ethics of future people. Oxford University Press.