Lobbies pick their battles – specifically true in the context of antitrust enforcement.
Alford 22 [Roger; Notre Dame Law professor teaching and with authorship in a wide range of subject-matter areas, including international trade, international arbitration, global antitrust, and transnational civil litigation; 2022; "The Bipartisan Consensus on Big Tech"; Emory Law Journal; Vol. 71, Iss. 5; https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol71/iss5/1 ;] s.low
The final proposal for addressing Big Tech’s abuse of power is to bypass the legislative approach and pursue more vigorous FTC rulemaking authority. President Biden’s Executive Order reflects this impulse, setting forth policy positions, creating a White House Competition Council, and identifying dozens of anticompetitive concerns that agencies are ordered or encouraged to enact.177 In the Executive Order, the FTC is “encouraged . . . to exercise the [its] statutory rulemaking authority . . . [in] unfair competition in major Internet marketplaces.”178 Consistent with this Executive Order, the FTC updated its rulemaking authority to pave the way for more effective rulemaking to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices.179 These changes set the stage for the FTC to promulgate administrative rules to address Big Tech’s abuse of its market power. Republican reaction to this Executive Order has been noticeably muted, particularly in light of strong statements of support from the likes of the Republican-leaning trade associations such as the American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association.180 It remains unclear whether Republicans who are deeply skeptical of Big Tech power will support more vigorous regulatory action in the form of Executive Orders and FTC administrative rules. Part of the answer may depend on whether Big Tech successfully thwarts other avenues of reform.