Top Hat and Thimble - April 2026

Welcome to NextGen Competition’s monthly recap, delivering insider insights on antitrust battles, Big Tech shakeups, AI trends, and more.

Welcome to NextGen Competition’s monthly recap, delivering insider insights on antitrust battles, industry shakeups, AI trends, and more.

Twitter | Bluesky | Website | Research | Contact | Donate

We have written before how pay-to-play antitrust in the Trump administration is undermining enforcement. President Trump and his family are using the presidency to make billions – the latest, Trump’s sons taking a stake in a Kazakh miner that got $1.6 billion in US government support. None of this is normal.

But what about US CEOs enabling this corruption and indulging in this influence peddling? They are undermining the policy predictability that businesses need, the ability to make independent decisions guided by market signals, and potentially opening themselves and their ‘advisors’ to legal peril during subsequent investigations.

Take three recent examples – HPE-Juniper, Live Nation/Ticketmaster, and Nexstar/Tegna. In each case, a bipartisan coalition of State AGs has stepped up to challenge these corrupt dealings, leading to an increasing but necessary fragmentation of antitrust enforcement with states and federal authorities taking diverging views. HPE-Juniper is being challenged under the Tunney Act – the case was settled at the behest of lobbyists against the advice of the DOJ’s antitrust division. State AGs won a unanimous jury verdict against Live Nation/Ticketmaster after the DOJ leadership inexplicitly settled without informing the DOJ’s own case attorneys, who subsequently resigned, like Roger Alford and Gail Slater – both of whom praised State AGs for continuing to pursue the case. State AGs also won an injunction against the Nexstar/Tegna merger – which was approved after the Trump FCC waived the statutory 39% national ownership cap to allow a combined entity that would reach roughly 80 percent of American households.

Big Tech companies have also spent millions to successfully lobby the Trump administration and Republican congressional leadership against supporting any meaningful effort to rein in their market power, provide basic privacy safeguards, protections for kids online, or guardrails against potential harms from rolling out half-baked AI services. The result, again, has been growing divergence between federal and state enforcers. For example, it is New Mexico, not the federal government, that brought and won a landmark win against Meta for misleading consumers and endangering children. And States are taking the lead in setting up guardrails for AI deployment.

Most CEOs have known for a while and have admitted behind closed doors that:

Trump is undermining an economic system that took decades to build and has long benefited the U.S. more than any other country, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, all for short-term gains. They see what’s happening as a hollowing out of U.S. economic foundations and institutions.

These CEOs need to speak up and cut out the corrupt dealmaking to protect our democratic market foundations. A democratic market is a competitive one where market forces, not political patronage, decide winners and losers. This democratic competitive market has been the engine of our growth and prosperity and we must protect it.

Finally, Congress, like the states, is meant to be a check on executive power and corruption. A tradition that dates back to the Magna Carta. A change in the balance of power in either the House or Senate will mean more investigations that are sure to air even more of this dirty laundry. Hopefully this creates an added incentive for CEOs to take a stand if one is needed.

Thank you for reading and your support.

With regards,

Sumit Sharma
Executive Director
NextGen Competition

Europe Must Hold the Line Against Big Tech’s Pressure Campaign

Hold the Line, Europe: As pressure mounts from Washington, the EU is facing a defining test on the autonomy of its digital regulation and enforcement, and whether it will stand firm or cave to coordinated lobbying from the Trump administration and Big Tech.

Last month, NextGen Competition joined a coalition of civil society groups urging EU leaders to resist efforts to weaken landmark digital protections like the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Digital Services Act (DSA), and GDPR. In light of the “continue pushing for deregulation” NextGen and nine others “called on the EU to stand up for digital and privacy rights, to back their own laws, and to refuse to soften or weaken them.”

For years, the Trump administration has framed EU digital regulation as an attack on American companies. Now, Brussels’ “simplification” efforts are being weaponized to reinforce that narrative. What was pitched as streamlining has quickly become Exhibit A for critics claiming the EU’s rules “stifle innovation.” A talking point straight out of the Big Tech playbook.

The pressure campaign focused on the EU is organized and well-funded. A new report from Public Citizen finds that Big Tech has spent at least $653 million to win favor with Trump and Republican allies, part of a broader effort to shape policy at home and abroad.

This past March, The Washington Post exposed how the Trump administration is using the State Department to attack EU laws like the DSA for “stifling American speech.” Bills have been introduced to exempt U.S. companies from following European regulations, and U.S. trade policy is increasingly being weaponized to advance Big Tech’s deregulatory agenda.

The EU’s digital framework remains the most credible global counterweight to concentrated platform power. The DMA, in particular, is one of the few serious attempts to structurally address gatekeeper dominance before it calcifies. If Europe backs down now, it won’t just weaken its own rules. It will validate a strategy designed to dismantle regulation everywhere.

The Youth Mental Health Crisis, Sponsored by Big Tech

Last week, John Oliver devoted a segment of Last Week Tonight to AI chatbots, warning that these tools are increasingly being used as emotional companions, mental health stand-ins, and pseudo-friends, especially by young people. His core point was simple: behind the friendly interface is a corporation trying to keep users engaged and paying. The risks to adolescents are not abstract problems. Chatbots can flatter, manipulate, encourage dependency, and in some cases reinforce dangerous thoughts or delusions.

At the same time, Meta is facing a historic reckoning in New Mexico. In March, a Santa Fe jury found Meta liable for 75,000 willful violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act and ordered the company to pay $375 million. The case, brought by Attorney General Raúl Torrez, alleged that Meta made false public statements about platform safety while knowing internally that its products facilitated child sexual exploitation.

Now the case has entered a second phase, where New Mexico is seeking actual platform reforms, including stronger age verification, changes to recommendation systems, and other child safety measures. Meta, predictably, is fighting back and has even threatened to pull its platforms from the state if ordered to make changes it calls impractical.

The parallels to Big Tobacco are becoming impossible to ignore, as The New York Times noted. For years, powerful companies sold addictive products, denied the harm, fought regulation, and insisted personal responsibility was the answer. Big Tech is following a familiar script, but this time the product is algorithmic attention, social isolation, and increasingly, AI companionship.

That is why the public backlash is growing. In London, activists recently hijacked billboards with messages like “The Youth Mental Health Crisis, Sponsored by Meta” and “We’re more lonely with Meta.”

Call it the Moms Demand Action moment for Big Tech. Parents, advocates, state attorneys general, and lawmakers are beginning to recognize that voluntary safeguards and corporate promises are not enough. Because the question is no longer whether Big Tech knows its products can harm kids. The question is how long we are going to let them keep profiting from it.

NextGen Competition Takes on Netflix and CFPB

Last month, NextGen joined eight other groups in an effort led by Open Markets Institute, to urge the FTC and DOJ to investigate Netflix for affronts to “competition, creators, and consumers,” writing:

Fair competition in media and cultural markets is essential not only for consumer welfare, but for a

dynamic creative economy and a pluralistic democratic society. When one firm attains gatekeeping

power over distribution at scale, it can shape which voices are heard, which stories are told, and on

what terms creators participate in the market.

The letter goes on to make several recommendations for the federal agencies, including examining everything from video distribution to pricing trends to using its weight to influence creators. The effort was featured in Sara Fischer’s Axios Media Trends newsletter:

Finally, we were proud to join Demand Progress’ effort to revise the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Draft Strategic Plan, urging the organization to reverse course on a deregulatory agenda and restore strong oversight of corporate financial practices

Track where NextGen is adding its voice to coalition advocacy here.

Other Competition News

Headlines from the past month you might have missed:

The People Have the Power: In a powerful joint New York Times op-ed on checking corporate power, Former FTC Chair Lina Khan and Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Doha Mekki illustrate why the Livenation trial was a “watershed moment,” the vital role of a jury, and what antitrust lessons can be gleaned for the future. They also explicitly referenced the crucial role state attorneys general play in reining in corporate misdeeds:

The Live Nation ruling demonstrates the important role that state attorneys general play in our antitrust system. State A.G.s, more directly attuned to local concerns and economic pain points, are often our first line of defense against corporate misconduct. They also have a long history of pursuing some of the worst and most powerful offenders, especially when the federal government is missing in action.

As Sumit alluded to in his letter above, Roger Alford, Former Deputy AAG for Antitrust that was booted likely due to his opposition to the HPE-Juniper merger, echoed this sentiment in Bloomberg last month discussing the Live Nation-Ticketmaster debacle:

The stakes were too high, and the settlement too weak. With the stellar DOJ trial team sidelined, the state AGs were understaffed and outgunned. Yet they planned and pivoted and recruited some of the best antitrust lawyers in the world. On a moment’s notice, they rose to the occasion and delivered a stunning blow to one of the most powerful corporations in the country.

Apple Turns Over a New Leaf: With Tim Cook stepping down, plenty of people are speculating about John Ternus, Apple’s new CEO, including how he will lead the four trillion dollar company. Brian X. Chen of The New York Times has even penned a wish list, which we would like to add to: less coziness with the administration, more real innovation, and an end to harmful business practices. 📋

Hollywood is So Back: In a recent Substack post, Matt Stoller argues that Tinseltown is getting its anti-monopoly groove back in response to the Paramount-Warner deal. He points to growing backlash, including commentary from Mark Ruffalo and Ben Stiller, the former of whom quoted a Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweet criticizing the deal in his post. 🎥

These lines stand out:

From its founding in the early 1900s, the film and then TV industries were built on an anti-monopoly policy framework to ensure that culture was not controlled by a small group… they have come to regain their understanding that the roots of the dysfunction are political in nature, and thus something they can affect. And that renewed sense of civic confidence may move to other parts of the country, as Americans recognize in what Hollywood is going through something akin to their own experience.

Europe’s Big Tech Breakup Problem: In POLITICO, Mathieu Pollet and Anouk Schlung examine Europe’s growing push to reduce its reliance on U.S. tech, and the reality that breaking free won’t be easy. From Amsterdam to Schleswig-Holstein, governments are attempting to reduce dependency on Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, only to run headfirst into the costs, complexity, and “lock-in effects” that come with Big Tech dominance. The piece makes clear that what was once framed as efficiency is now being recognized as strategic vulnerability:

The frame of the free market being good for innovation is a fake frame. It is not a real free market because there were just a few very dominant companies, and the European market didn’t really have a chance.

Big Tech’s Climate Retreat: As the construction of data centers accelerates, climate promises are shrinking. Fast Company highlights how emissions are rising, net-zero goals are getting quieter, and sustainability messaging is taking a backseat to the AI arms race. The hypocrisy is stunning: the same companies claiming AI as a solution to meeting climate targets are struggling to reconcile that with their rapidly increasing emissions. 🏭

Don’t Mess with Texas: In an op-ed from The Paisano, Kolbe Chan reports that Texas stands to lose $1.3 billion in revenue from Big Tech’s data centers. He delves into why Big Tech is skirting by, what one state legislator is doing to stop it, and why the average Texan should be concerned:

The most important aspect of over a billion dollars lost in taxes is its effect on the average Texan. It means they are losing the money that could pay 22,000 teachers, double the entire state fund for rural healthcare or simply remain as available capital, relieving the pressure of maintaining the state’s schools and roads from the shoulders of the taxpayer.

Emergency, Paging Dr. AI: Americans are turning to AI chatbots for medical advice, platforms which are often dangerously wrong and insecure, according to Caleb Ecarma on Oligarch Watch. Meanwhile, the companies behind them keep cashing in:

As it happens, Meta, Amazon, and Google-parent Alphabet, three of the companies now hawking AI-powered health advice to Americans, have all benefited from tax cuts that were partially offset by reductions in healthcare spending. The companies avoided a combined $49.6 billion in federal income taxes last year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Standby For Our Next Q&A: We’re gearing up for the third entry in our Q&A series. Any guesses on who’s next? 👀 In the meantime, catch the second installment with Harvard lecturer, union organizer, and New Hampshire’s 1st District congressional candidate Carleigh Beriont here.

Until next month! In the meantime, follow us on X, BlueSky, and subscribe to our Substack for the latest on Big Tech, AI, and antitrust.