WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND LARGE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
If the program of the incoming Biden Administration in technological and digital policy could be summed up in one sentence, it would be: more (public) spending, more regulation and more multilateralism. But the truth is that neither Biden is expected to reproduce an Obama 2.0 era with the big technology companies, nor that digital policy is going to be one of the great priorities of the new Biden-Harris Administration; at least in the short term.
In the presidential elections last November, technology was off the radar or, at least, relegated to a second order of priorities. However, unlike the Republican candidate, who approached digital politics under a more generalist approach, the Democratic candidate defined an agenda with greater specificity and detail. However, Biden's team is focusing on fitting digital into the priority issues of the government transition: Covid-19, economic recovery, racial equality and climate change. Hence, the focus has been on expanding internet broadband to rural or economically depressed areas, as well as increasing public investment in technological research, and not so much in a framework of regulation and negotiation with the so-called Big Tech.
A variable geometry frame
The relationship of the Biden-Harris binomial with large technology companies has always been dual. On the one hand, some internet service providers have been part of the list of 10 donors who have contributed the most to his campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, they have contributed around $ 25 million. The Democratic tandem has added to its transition team people with previous experience in high positions in the Big Tech: Jessica Hertz was deputy legal counsel at Facebook; Cynthia Hogan was Vice President of Public Affairs at Apple; and it is considering that, in addition to being an important donor, Eric Shmidt - former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Google - could lead the Technology Industry Task Force at the White House.
In addition, Kamala Harris, who was the attorney general of California - the home of Silicon Valley - has vast experience negotiating with these types of companies. But this is not something new: the Obama Administration brought 55 Google employees into influential positions and, after its term ended, 197 government workers joined Google.
Does this mean that the Biden Administration is going to benefit tech companies? Not necessarily. The truth is that one of the fundamental pillars of Big Tech has always been to carve out a powerful group of influence among political and regulatory decision-makers. In recent years, the difference is that the rapid acceleration of digitization has made large corporations actors who used to knock on the door and are now increasingly part of decision-making. The digital does not only permeate the economic; also in the political, social, cultural, individual and collective, and in foreign policy.
This position opens the door to another debate, not entirely clear: should the Government be the sole manager of content regulation? If so, who would assume responsibility and accountability for the content on the digital economy platforms, the Executive itself or the companies? Content regulation goes hand in hand with guaranteeing freedom of expression and must be addressed, as a long-term policy, beyond the electoral cycle.
This raises the question of the United States Government's capacity for action to undertake this type of regulation. The truth is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties converge on the idea that Big Tech needs to be regulated. However, they differ on the details. A Senate dominated by the Republican wing could make it difficult for Biden to appoint key people to the positions of attorney general, the secretariats of Commerce and Treasury, the Directorate of the Office of Consumer Financial Protection and the Federal Communications Commission, which are the nerve centers from which it will be decided how to approach the investigations against Apple, Amazon, Facebook, as well as the current lawsuit against Google, accused of eliminating its rivals from the US digital search market, of which it controls 80%.
Beyond regulation
However, regulation is not everything. The United States still lacks a Federal Data Protection Act. It does exist in California, but such a large and economically competitive country cannot depend on state regulations. Biden declared that the country "should establish standards [for data], not different from what Europeans are doing in terms of privacy." This idea could pave the way for the Privacy Shield between the European Union and the United States, which was invalidated in July 2020 by the EU Court of Justice when declaring that the North American country does not comply with the principle of proportionality in the use of European data.
Added to the need for its own data law is a third issue: taxes on digital services. Biden has not talked about DSTs (Digital Service Taxes), but he has proposed increasing the corporate tax rate to 28% and the Gilti rate - on intangible assets located abroad - in order to pursue assets, such as property intellectual, which technology companies often locate abroad to pay less, as happened with IBM.
The interaction between big tech companies and the Biden Administration is not going to be a linear or straightforward process. The Big Techs are acquiring an increasingly strategic role aimed at influencing, both precisely and transversely, in the articulation of public policies. At the same time, governments are working to address the regulation of the opportunities and challenges that digitization presents through these corporations. Public-private collaboration will be undoubted in the new Biden-Harris era. Now, it remains to be seen to what extent the room for maneuver and existing capabilities will allow the United States - and thus its relations with the European Union - to adapt to the rapid acceleration of digitization and its permeability in all layers of social, economic and political life.
