This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Breakups are not a widely supported policy for successful firms[edit]
Recent demands for breakup of major technology companies (Amazon, Facebook) -- notably by the current US FTC Chair and allied policy groups such as the FTC Chair's past employer the Open Market Institute -- have attracted doubt and wide criticism, even from enforcement officials otherwise committed to aggressive antitrust enforcement, such as EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager. Divestitures are more-or-less routine in the merger control context. Prearranged divestitures are often an effective method to eliminate potential competitive problems in specific affected relevant markets while permitting transactions to proceed. But outside the merger context, a policy of attacking large, successful technology firms by breaking them up is a controversial idea not supported by sound research and analysis. Although past such cases are rare, the success of major divestitures -- Standard Oil Co. (1911), United Shoe Machinery Corp. (1968), for example -- in advancing competition policy objectives remains subject to intense debate. The Bell System divestiture (1984) is probably the only such example supported by a fairly broad consensus of experts in antitrust law, economics and policy. 96.252.116.107 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
