[00:00] Bryan Hyde: Welcome to the Powering America Podcast. I'm Brian Hyde, and today I'm joined by Diana Moss. She is Vice President and Director of Competition Policy with the Progressive Policy Institute. Diana, welcome to the show. Would you take just a moment to tell us about who you are and what you do? [00:15] Diana Moss: Well, thank you, Brian. It's great to be here having what I hope is gonna be a wonderful conversation. I work for the Progressive Policy Institute. We're a center-left nonprofit think tank. Our goal is to come up with pragmatic, reasonable solutions for big policy problems— affordability, energy, energy access, pricing of consumer essentials, all the cost of living issues we're dealing with right now— to solve those problems, especially in the run-up to the 2026 midterms and the 2028 election. I'm an economist. I've worked in the areas of antitrust enforcement and regulation my entire career. And right now we're in a We're finding that to be in a very, very difficult and precarious position. [01:04] Bryan Hyde: I would love to, first of all, draw on your expertise to have a little clearer understanding. If someone were to ask me, tell me what the Sherman Antitrust Act was or what antitrust, you know, actions are there for, I don't think I could give a satisfactory explanation, but I bet you could. And I would love to kind of get some background in the history of how did this come into being. Do we start with the Sherman Antitrust Act and then move forward from there? [01:31] Diana Moss: Absolutely. Yeah. So everybody should be a fan of the US antitrust laws. The US antitrust laws were the first laws to support and promote competition in our market economy and to protect consumers and workers and businesses. They're really old laws and they're really simple. In the late 1800s, early 1900s, you know, we had the economy dominated by what we call trusts, you know, monopolies, big oligopolies of just a few firms colluding on price and dividing up markets. And so the antitrust laws came into effect, the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Really simple, Brian. It covers 3 areas. It covers monopolies or big dominant firms that squeeze out smaller rivals. It covers conspiracies to fix prices or allocate markets. And it covers merger control to prevent big concentrative mergers from giving firms the ability to jack up prices and to reduce quality and service. So these laws have been enforced variously with different levels of vigor over the years. We're coming out of a phase where there was pretty vigorous enforcement under the Biden administration, but now we're in a very different boat with the Trump administration and the politicization and weaponization of those laws. So, you know, these laws are out there to protect consumers, and we need them now. We need enforcement now more than ever. [02:56] Bryan Hyde: And again, I admit I'm a neophyte on subjects like antitrust, so Can you walk me through how does it protect— how do these laws protect consumers and ensure that there's competition and how does that help them? [03:10] Diana Moss: Sure. So it kind of breaks down into 2 buckets. Merger control is huge. That's the most active area of enforcement. And the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission and the state attorney generals and private enforcers will be on the lookout for mergers that are likely to create big dominant firms or just tight oligopolies of firms who have lots of incentive to raise price and to squeeze out smaller rivals. So those mergers can be challenged in federal court or state court. Second area is just monopolization. You know, the, the ability of big dominant firms with huge market shares to throw their weight around and ice out smaller rivals, cutting off access to distribution or to inputs. So that's Sherman Act. And then finally, you know, big conspiracies where rivals don't compete hard. There's no hard-nosed competition. Instead, they sort of agree that they will fix prices and raise their profits collectively, or they'll divide up markets and only serve certain customers or certain geographic regions. So antitrust enforcers are always on the lookout for this. They got their ear to the ground. They're listening to complaints from the market. They're listening to consumers. And active, vigorous antitrust enforcement is the best way to stop this kind of anti-competitive consolidation and conduct so that consumers can see fair, competitive market prices, lots of quality, lots of variety. [04:48] Bryan Hyde: And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I would love to, I would love to hear, you know, a historical example of, like, I'm thinking back to, I remember the term Ma Bell, And the telephone companies, you know, needed to be broken up. If I'm remembering this correctly, I was pretty young at the time, but can you give me an example or show me where these laws were used and by doing so that benefited the consumer? [05:13] Diana Moss: Absolutely. So, you know, going back to the very early days of antitrust, you know, we broke up some big trusts in oil and there was railroads and steel and move along another century and we got the AT&T case. That was 1980s, right, Brian? And AT&T AT&T was deemed to be a monopolist and to be squelching competition and icing out smaller potential competitors in the market. So, you know, the government brought that case. They were successful in federal court. And the remedy, the fix to restore competition was to break up the company. So that was one of the biggest monopolization cases we've seen in the US. And that's how we got the Baby Bells, the 7 Bell operating companies. And boy, did that lower prices after those Baby Bells got up and running. And of course, things were overtaken by, ultimately, by wireless service. And now we're dealing with our own set of issues with wireless providers and a high concentration and just a few providers in those markets. But yeah, that was a big one. And we have more recent monopolization cases on deck now as well. [06:22] Bryan Hyde: I think that's a great example, by the way. There are probably many within earshot who can't imagine a world where cell phones weren't the norm and it's always been this way. But I'll tell you, there was real fear for calling after a certain time or before a certain time because the rate for a long-distance call, and it could be the next town over, they were exorbitant. And you could get a phone bill that was, you know, jaw-dropping, you know, based on what you had to pay for long distance. [06:49] Diana Moss: Gosh, you're so right. And I remember as a teenager, you know, when we had wired phones on the wall and a big long cord so that our brothers and sisters couldn't hear our conversations. Boy, as soon as we got competition after the breakup, not only did, rates dropped, but man, did innovation just take off, right? We got entry like MCI. I remember MCI. And new products and services, lots of innovation. I mean, that's what really spurred the innovation in the wireless telecoms area. So that is a really good example of why promoting competition through enforcement of the US antitrust laws is good for competition, good for consumers, good for innovation. [07:35] Bryan Hyde: Now, there is a flip side to this, though, that you alluded to, and that is that these laws can also be used in ways that tend to weaponize these antitrust acts. Talk to me a little bit about what that looks like. [07:50] Diana Moss: Yeah. So I'd say we're really in a very new and very concerning phase in antitrust enforcement in the United States. You know, antitrust enforcement tends to sort of modulate with political administration. Historically, GOP administrations have been more hands-off. Let's stay out of the market. The markets will self-regulate. Well, that's not always the case when you have big dominant firms or oligopolies, you know, sitting in the middle of a market. Democrats have more traditionally been in favor of vigorous enforcement to protect competition in markets and economic growth. What we're seeing under the Trump administration, though, is just nothing like we've seen in the past. The Trump administration came in, Trump 2.0, And basically have— they have begun to use— not begun. They are using the antitrust laws to advance a political agenda, to punish enemies and to reward allies. And Brian, I'll give you one, you know, one case, and that is the Live Nation Ticketmaster case. Big monopolization case. We all love going to live events, concerts, sporting events, whatnot. If there ever were a monopoly that should be busted, it would be Live Nation, Ticketmaster. DOJ brought a great, great case, strong case under the Biden administration. And they, and they prevailed in court. They won their case in court that Live Nation squeezed out smaller rivals by forcing venues into what are called exclusive contracts. Well, lo and behold, you know, we were all just fingers crossed for the big bust-up remedy. And the White House interfered and apparently said, you know, this case needs to be settled. So what did this settlement do? It allows Live Nation and Ticketmaster to stay integrated with one another. They still have bad incentives to exercise their market power. We will not get any good effective competition in ticketing, and we're all going to pay for it in higher ticket fees. So that's a good example of intervention in the markets. We've seen it in other markets too, if you want more examples. But It is extremely problematic, and it's really jeopardizing the rule of law and due process in a really important area of legal enforcement. [10:21] Bryan Hyde: Diana, is there risk anytime that the government intervenes, even if it's under these antitrust laws? The reason I'm asking, and this is a perception that I have, and I've heard other people express this as well, that the businesses that really want to succeed, you know, at the highest possible level have to come to some kind of peace with the government. And it could just be a particular administration. Maybe it's just the whole governmental apparatus. But I'm curious, in your opinion, does that intervention sometimes invite, I guess, partnership of sorts between big business and the regulatory arm of the federal government? [11:03] Diana Moss: Yeah, that's a really good question, Bryan. And I used to be a federal regulator. I worked in energy regulation in Washington, DC during the 1990s. And when you have big regulated industries, say electric utilities or even railroads, although railroads have now been largely deregulated, whenever you have a natural monopoly, single firm serving the market at very low cost, but, but if left to their own devices would be charging monopoly prices, then you get what's called, you know, regulatory intervention. The government is there to set up a framework so that consumers don't get ripped off with high prices. When you have that kind of vibe or dynamic in a market, you do often get a very subtle background dynamic going where where big regulated firms are actually seeking regulation that allows them to maintain their market power. And that's called— it has a name. It's called regulatory capture. And we see it all the time in different sectors— telecoms, electricity, you name it, to some extent in railroads. So, yeah, we have to be on the lookout for that. That's why in the work that I do at the Progressive Policy Institute, you know, we keep a really close eye and we're very vocal about commenting on various competition matters on the antitrust side. And also what our sector regulators are doing to enforce their statutes for the benefit of competition and markets and consumers. [12:40] Bryan Hyde: Does lobbying play into that as well? And I ask this, you know, both at the federal, even at the state level, it seems like there are certain interests that, and I'm talking primarily industries, that are extremely well represented. And in fact, sometimes, you know, at the state level, it appears sometimes legislators are just, well, you're kind of a de facto business team implementing policy on behalf of of who has the best lobbyists. And that may be a cynical way to say it, but I'm curious about your take on how lobbying plays into this, or if it plays into it at all. [13:12] Diana Moss: No, it does. And, you know, it is absolutely in the background. The ability to marshal resources to get in front of lawmakers, whether they're local, state, federal lawmakers, is always in play. You know, there are sets of rules around that that should be disciplining or containing the extent to which lobbying can really shift or sway policy outcomes or even the creation of new laws or how those laws are enforced. So it's always something that having worked in this space for many years, it's something that we see in the background. But there's a couple things that are really important for folks to know. And first is at the state level, we often get legislators who are not— they're very generalist. Some states, their lawmakers have other jobs. They have other full-time jobs while they're also serving in the statehouse, and they're really just struggling to keep on top of the issues and abreast of what's going on. And so they have a lot of people talking at them, to them at all times. As you move up the ladder into the federal framework, then you are dealing with much more expert lawmakers, or at least historically we've dealt with more expert lawmakers. And they have a, they're maybe more discerning and have staffs of people who can help advise them on what's good policy, what's not good policy. But yeah, it's absolutely there. There are theories behind this that the ability to marshal economic resources and direct them at getting certain outcomes is absolutely in the background. But good policy is aware of that. And when we make our policy suggestions at PPI in various sectors on competition issues, then our eyes are always on the ball, which is what will serve the best interests of markets, of competition, and consumers. [15:12] Bryan Hyde: Okay, one final question for you, and maybe you get this one a lot, but with the advent of AI and with data centers, you know, becoming— it's a topic a lot of people are at least hearing about, even if they're not particularly informed about it. Are we likely to see antitrust concerns coming up as this industry continues to just grow and grow? [15:32] Diana Moss: So yes, simple answer is absolutely yes. And we are gonna see AI is so interconnected in so many ways, Brian, all the way through the intelligence stack. You know, you've obviously got the big foundation models, you have hyperscalers, cloud providers, you've obviously gotta have data centers that are powered by energy to, which have enormous loads. to serve. We've got an ecosystem of AI app developers, agentic AI. And so right now it's sort of a big moving amoeba of different parts. And obviously just, you know, recent news with these security issues, everything is in chaos right now. But it's going to be a real challenge for antitrust enforcement, which tends to be a bit slow moving. But some people even say glacial. in its pace going through the court system. It's going to be, it's going to be a challenge for antitrust enforcement to stay on top of, of competition issues in AI to prevent lots of consolidation and concentration and practices that would make it hard to get a level, fair, competitive market. So, boy, that is, that is going to be one of the biggest issues we're all going to face here. [16:55] Bryan Hyde: I hope you and I have a chance to follow up on this at a future date. I would love to have that conversation. Again, we're talking with Diana Moss. She is Vice President and Director of Competition Policy with the Progressive Policy Institute. Diana, thank you for joining us on the Powering America Podcast. [17:13] Diana Moss: Thanks, Brian.