Re: News at 10.
There are plenty of things to criticize about antitrust enforcement over the past few decades, but the consumer welfare standard isn't one of them. I say this as someone who believes Google is dangerous and that antitrust law needs to be applied to Google aggressively.(*see lawyerly disclaimer at end.)
You're saying you want to product consumers of ad space. That's exactly what the consumer welfare standard aims to do. "Consumer" in the consumer welfare standard absolutely includes businesses. "Consumer" just means the person (and firms are persons) who purchases the product. A company buying ad space is a consumer of ad space. So, no daylight between us there. Just a matter of word choice.
As for "keeping competition alive," that's what the consumer welfare standard aims to do.
The consumer welfare standard looks to the effect of the conduct from the consumer's perspective. If the conduct does _not_ increase prices, reduce quality, or reduce consumer choices, then antitrust doesn't worry about that conduct. Note that the consumer welfare standard doesn't say anything about what _conduct_ is allowed. Think of it like hospital triage. If I go into a hospital covered in someone else's blood but unharmed myself, the ER won't waste doctors' time on me. (The ER will probably call the cops, but it's not the ER's job to treat me.) Similarly, antitrust law screens out cases where consumers aren't (generally/obviously/based on economics and experience) hurt.
The historical alternative was to worry about harm to a "competitor," but that's backwards: If we protect competitors, then we protect inefficient firms, which undermines competition and ultimately harms consumers. It also gives antitrust regulators huge political power and lets the government intervene in markets in ways that you will regret (if not now, then when the political winds change).
Example: Mom and Pop's convenience store has always sold $8 gallons of regular milk. A supermarket next door starts offering $3 gallons of regular milk or $4 gallons of organic milk. The supermarket starts an advertising campaign that compares its prices with Mom and Pop and suggests that Mom and Pop have been exploiting their neighbors for years. Mom and Pop complain that the supermarket is acting anti-competitively because Mom and Pop think they couldn't sell milk for less than $8 because they lack scale (or perhaps because have an inefficient supply chain because they've always done business with a family friend. Under the consumer welfare standard, Mom and Pop are summarily laughed out of whatever tribunal they complained to. The supermarket gives consumers more choices and lower prices => consumers win => no harm to competition or the competitive process.
Under the alternative, antitrust regulators start picking and choosing winners based on favoritism or a notion of "fairness" that's unpredictable and capricious. They might choose to protect Mom and Pop for some reason. If you're cynical, the reason is that Mom and Pop donated a lot of money last election. If you're naive, then you believe the antitrust regulator when they justify their decision as protecting the "community" and a "local business" (though you might wonder how the regulator decides how to define those concepts).
As a result, people in the neighborhood pay too much for milk and have fewer choices. Mom and Pop don't need to look for more efficient suppliers or think about whether they're really in the right business. Everyone loses, except for Mom and Pop, who are now committing all the sins of a monopolist (inefficient business, no incentive to adapt to the market or consumer demands, etc).
Now, the consumer welfare standard might sound mean if you like small local businesses for some reason. But there just isn't a better way to screen out unworthy disputes. The consumer welfare standard is like representative democracy--you might not like the process, and you might dislike a lot of the outcomes, but it's the least-bad way to reach the right result most of the time, or at least over the long term.
So, please don't pay attention to the politicians and podcasters who rail against the consumer welfare standard. Or, if you do, ask them what standard they'd use. If they can give you a semi-coherent response, then ask what about their proposed standard protects against political abuse in the future.
(*IAAL, but these are my personal (and anonymous) ramblings, not legal advice or anything, really. As for bias or conflict of interest: I believe Google is a dangerous monopolist, and I have clients that are adverse to Google. Consumers, and my clients, win under the consumer welfare standard. Because the consumer welfare standard is right.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
