Vienna Woods Law & Economics

Blog focused on issues in law, economics, and public policy.

Europe’s Latest Antitrust Fine Treads on U.S. Economy, Sovereignty – By Asheesh Agarwal — October 14, 2025

Europe’s Latest Antitrust Fine Treads on U.S. Economy, Sovereignty – By Asheesh Agarwal

[Note: This post originally appeared at DC Journal on Oct. 13, 2025.]

The European Union is taking upon itself the authority to restructure the U.S. economy. In its latest move, the EU imposed a staggering $3.45 billion fine on Google for alleged antitrust violations and signaled that “only the divestment” of Google’s components would resolve the matter. In the meantime, France fined Google 325 million euros over privacy issues. These moves raise concerns about Europe’s motives, opacity, disregard for international comity, and broader agenda to target successful American companies.

For the United States, the moves raise the prospect that foreign regulators, motivated by protectionist impulses and budgetary constraints, may assume the authority to restructure innovative American companies.  As President Trump wrote in a message that should resonate across the Atlantic, “We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American ingenuity.”

Europe’s latest fines are part of a pattern in which it deliberately uses exorbitant penalties to transfer wealth from American companies, workers and shareholders to European coffers. As outlined in an extensive study, the Europeans afford themselves “significant fining authority” and “maximum discretion” to impose billions of dollars in fines on American companies based on ambiguous statutes.  To date, the “fines against American companies have been orders of magnitude larger than those imposed on domestic firms.”

As Trump pointed out, Google has paid “$13 Billion Dollars in false claims … How crazy is that?”

Indeed, the fines’ size and opacity call into question whether U.S. firms in Europe can receive even a semblance of due process. Despite issuing a multibillion-dollar fine, the EU provided almost no clarity on its calculation, saying only that it “considered various elements,” such as “the duration and gravity of the infringement,” Google’s European ad turnover, and past fines on Google.  

The EU, however, never explained whether the fine correlated with actual consumer harm or higher prices. Fines of this magnitude, untethered to demonstrable harm, appear to transform enforcement actions into revenue-generating schemes. The EU’s lack of transparency undermines trust and raises questions about its commitment to due process.

Even more concerning is the EU’s desire to break apart Google as a remedy. Such an unprecedented move would shatter norms of international law enforcement comity. The United States, home to Google and its parent company, Alphabet, has a robust antitrust framework. 

Emphatically, it is not the place of Europe to dictate the structure of an American company, especially when U.S. courts and regulators are actively considering similar issues. The EU’s overreach infringes on U.S. sovereignty, creating a chaotic and fragmented regulatory environment.

Notably, the EU is imposing these drastic remedies for conduct that is, at worst, ambiguous from a competitive standpoint. The conduct at the heart of the EU’s case — so-called “self-preferencing” — is a common and often pro-competitive practice among vertically integrated companies. Retailers promote their private-label products, streaming platforms highlight their original content, and countless other businesses engage in similar practices. While it is true that a federal court has found Google’s practices problematic (a decision subject to appeal), any remedies should tie directly to consumer harm and consider that similar conduct has often been found to be pro-competitive.

Beyond the facts of this case, the fine raises broader concerns for the Western alliance and the race for global technological supremacy. Excessive fines and aggressive regulatory actions risk stifling innovation and investment while benefiting Chinese companies, which often operate with significant state support and fewer regulatory constraints. 

In his AI Action Plan, Trump declared that “it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance,” a goal that “requires the Federal government to create the conditions where private-sector-led innovation can flourish.”

How can American companies innovate to their fullest potential when foreign regulators threaten them with dismemberment and exorbitant multibillion-dollar fines? At a time when the global tech race is intensifying, the EU’s actions could suppress innovation and investment.

Benjamin Franklin’s famous political cartoon, Join or Die, highlighted the importance of American unity in the face of European incursions. Today, consistent with Trump’s position, U.S. policymakers and private enterprise must stand together in defending America’s economy and sovereignty from discriminatory and excessive regulatory actions.

 

* Asheesh Agarwal is the president of Agarwal Strategies. He previously served in senior roles at the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). He wrote this for InsideSources.com.  See more about Mr. Agarwal here, including his other posts.

How the White House’s AI Action Plan Could End Antitrust Overreach – By Asheesh Agarwal — October 13, 2025

How the White House’s AI Action Plan Could End Antitrust Overreach – By Asheesh Agarwal

[This post originally appeared at Truth on the Market on Oct. 8, 2025.]

The AI Action Plan unveiled in July by President Donald Trump could mark a turning point for U.S. antitrust policy. By directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize innovation, the plan offers a historic opportunity to lift onerous regulatory burdens, restore measured enforcement, and repudiate the overreaches of former FTC Chair Lina Khan’s regime.

To seize this moment, the FTC should pursue an alignment strategy to ensure that its guidance, regulations, and enforcement actions reflect the action plan’s pro-innovation vision, rather than the speculative anti-business theories of the past. In practice, the FTC should:

  1. publicly repudiate Khan-era guidance and affirm the pro-competitive benefits of common business practices;
  2. use its competition-advocacy tools to push states toward pro-innovation laws;
  3. withdraw from its misguided cooperation agreement with European and British regulators; and
  4. reevaluate ongoing litigation to ensure alignment with precedent and the action plan’s principles.

At the same time, the White House should broaden the plan’s reach to include the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and all forms of American innovation.

The Biden Administration’s Misaligned Antitrust Agenda

The AI Action Plan repudiates the excesses of the Khan era, when the commission’s antitrust-enforcement agenda was consistently misaligned with the realities of AI markets. At every turn, the FTC sought to manufacture competitive concerns in a sector defined by record investment, rapid innovation, and fierce global competition—especially from China.

For instance, the agency speculated that investments from large technology companies could raise problems related to access to data, talent, or network effects. It declared open-source AI models problematic because, at some future point, companies could choose to close those models. Acting on these views, the FTC launched a sweeping study of AI markets, partnered with European and British regulators to probe U.S. firms, and targeted ordinary transactions such as investments, hiring, or bundling services—often at the urging of anti-tech lawmakers.

The AI Action Plan Aligns with Innovation

By contrast, the AI Action Plan directs the FTC to realign its mission by embracing the private sector’s role in driving innovation. It requires the agency to review all investigations, orders, and decrees to ensure they do not “unduly burden AI innovation.”

To fully embrace the plan’s letter and spirit, the FTC should go even further. It should repudiate Khan–era guidance and publicly affirm the pro-competitive benefits of common business practices. By doing so, the commission would eliminate uncertainty and solidify this vision for U.S. AI leadership.

Acknowledge competition in AI markets

The agency should repudiate its prior statements expressing competitive concerns about AI markets and publicly recognize that these markets are flush with investment and rivalry, primarily among U.S. and Chinese firms.

Moreover, the FTC should publicly acknowledge that many routine practices spur innovation, including hiring top talent; investing in small companies; bundling multiple products; seeking access to data for training purposes and signing exclusive contracts of reasonable length. By publicly acknowledging these market realities, the agency’s leadership could help to assure the private sector that the FTC will no longer seek to manufacture antitrust claims.

new paper, for example, highlights the benefits of mergers and acquisitions to AI innovation. Whereas China uses intellectual-property theft and state industrial policy to advance its technologies, America’s innovation ecosystem relies on the robust flow of private capital to encourage investment, new entry, and patent filings.

Use competition advocacy to promote pro-innovation state policies

In 2025 alone, lawmakers introduced more than 1,000 AI-related regulation bills, with nearly 100 becoming law the prior year. In the absence of a federal AI moratorium, the FTC should advocate for laws that promote innovation and resist overly aggressive state lawsuits, preventing a patchwork of conflicting rules that could hobble growth.

Withdraw from joint agreements with foreign regulators

Under the leadership of Khan and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, respectively, the FTC and DOJ signed the “Joint Statement on Competition in Generative AI Foundation Models and AI Products” with their European counterparts, echoing ideological claims about the dangers of scale and concentration.

The joint statement repeats numerous fallacies about the dangers of data, scale, and concentration, and gives foreign regulators an excuse to target U.S. firms. The agencies should withdraw and renegotiate an agreement consistent with the AI Action Plan.

Reconsider lawsuits against US tech leaders

The FTC has already dropped its case against Microsoft’s Activision acquisition. Next, it should reevaluate its sweeping suits against Amazon, Meta, and others. No company is above scrutiny, but lawsuits that stretch precedent and ignore market realities could jeopardize U.S. AI leadership at a time when private firms are investing tens of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure.

Since the FTC first brought these suits, markets have changed dramatically, output and innovation have skyrocketed, and new companies—including Chinese competitors—have gained global prominence. The FTC should reconsider whether its law-enforcement actions continue to comport with the AI Action Plan, precedent, and the national interest.

Extending this Alignment Strategy to the DOJ and Other Agencies

Similarly, the White House should expand the AI Action Plan’s alignment strategy to cover all FTC activities, the DOJ, and all forms of innovation. For instance, the DOJ is also pursuing aggressive cases against companies that are investing heavily in AI infrastructure. Should these suits result in breakups or significant constraints on lawful business practices, there are serious questions as to whether the firms or their successors would retain the resources, talent, and capacity to absorb the attendant risks that come with investing heavily in AI infrastructure.

Finally, the plan’s logic should extend beyond AI. No agency should “unduly burden” any form of innovation. Expanding the directive to fields like biotech and quantum computing would send a powerful message: the federal government is united behind a single alignment strategy—ensuring American innovation leads the world and secures U.S. technological dominance for the future.

* Asheesh Agarwal is president of Agarwal Strategies LLC and an advisor to the American Edge Project.  See more about Mr. Agarwal here.