Global (Commonwealth Union) _ The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has officially entered a high-profile antitrust case concerning allegations that top media organisations and Big Tech firms made collaborative efforts to suppress independent viewpoints during the COVID-19 pandemic. The recent DOJ’s Statement of Interest, which was submitted on July 11 in the District Court for the District of Columbia, confirms that competition laws do apply to viewpoint control in digital news markets.
The Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a coalition formed by major news outlets, plays a major role in the case, with plaintiffs led by Children’s Health Defence and ten other independent media figures claiming that TNI acted jointly with platforms like Meta, Google, and Microsoft to limit the reach of unorthodox COVID-era narratives. Despite the tech companies not being named as defendants, they have been listed as co-conspirators.
The DOJ highlighted that viewpoint competition is crucial to a democratic information environment and that antitrust law extends beyond traditional price-related or market-share issues. The filing also states that “the Sherman Act protects all forms of competition, including competition in information quality,” implying that the suppression of viewpoint is a theoretically unlawful restriction on consumer choice.
The petitioners have claimed that their regular traffic and revenue have experienced a significant reduction due to their content being either shadow-banned, taken down, or otherwise hidden, additionally stating that the coordinated actions under the TNI had resulted in a “blacklisting” effect, which has deprived them of both audience access and advertising opportunities. The issue was acknowledged by the DOJ, which recognised that the reduced content competition may have negatively affected the plaintiffs’ capacity to make connections with consumers who value alternate viewpoints.
The line of action taken by the DOJ can be seen as a clear indication of the heightened federal attention that is being directed towards the monopolisation of online speech control. The DOJ referenced a previous Supreme Court opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, noting concern over a few private parties having “unprecedented” control over speech.
While stopping short of endorsing the plaintiff’s specific claims, the DOJ urged the court not to exempt alleged speech-related coordination from antitrust scrutiny, calling the attempt to equate content moderation with immunity from antitrust law a “novel” and flawed defence
