A House Committee passed a series of comprehensive cartel reforms on Thursday after around 23 hours of debate.
While the advancement of the six technology-oriented bills that will be debated by the House Judiciary Committee starting Wednesday is a victory for the bipartisan members who brought them in, the impact opened rifts within the parties that could ultimately affect the chances of the bills To become law.
Several lawmakers made it clear that they believed the rollout-to-markup process arrived prematurely in less than two weeks despite a lengthy investigation before the bills. Some said they were hoping for more changes before the legislation reaches parliament.
Nonetheless, the final stage of the debate offered some signs of optimism to those hoping to move the bills forward. Fresh from a break after the Fifth Act was passed after 5 a.m. on Thursday, lawmakers returned to the committee room at around 11:30 a.m. to discuss the Ending Platform Monopoles Act
The bill – sponsored by Antitrust Subcommittee Vice Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., And co-sponsored by Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas – would prevent dominant platforms from owning businesses that present conflicts of interest, such as through incentives preferring their own products to their service-dependent competitors.
The bill was one of the most aggressive in the package, including updates to merger filing fees for dominant platforms, a shift in the burden of proof for acquisitions, and a provision for attorneys general to have a say in the jurisdiction of their antitrust proceedings. It could essentially force the dissolution of companies like Amazon and Apple, both of which sell products or services on their own marketplaces that also serve third parties. Both stocks closed slightly lower for the day.
Despite the huge impact of the bill, it wasn’t the most controversial. The legislature has argued about the mandate for data portability under the Access Act for much longer than when it assessed potential security problems, for example.
Jayapal’s bill also sparked a lively debate. In the end, the vote was similar to the others (it was passed at 21:20, supported by Democrats and MPs Ken Buck, R-Colo. And Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., And against the Republicans supported by Rep. Greg. Stanton, D-Ariz., And the California Democrats Lou Correa, Zoe Lofgren and Eric Swalwell). Throughout the discussion, however, it was clear that many in the group broadly agreed with the principles of the bill, even though they felt it could use some fine-tuning.
“I’m telling you, I’m not 100% there to destroy big tech, but I’m close,” said Rep. Dan Bishop, RN.C. “And this is the calculation that, if done right, would be the vehicle to put that on the table.”
Although an amendment he proposed failed, Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, DR.I. and Jayapal expressed a willingness to work with Bishop to possibly include a reference to his idea in the bill. Bishop was essentially trying to bring antitrust cases to court by removing a regulatory move. Cicilline had called it “the most interesting change in markup,” although he didn’t endorse it, and Justice Committee chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio called it “the change.”
In a post-markup interview Thursday, Buck, the senior member of the antitrust subcommittee that supported the legislation, told CNBC he expected more work to be done before the bills move forward.
“I don’t think the bills will be down for a couple of months because of the August break, so I think the opportunity to work together is certainly there,” he said.
It is clear that even after such a long debate, there is still a lot of work to be done on the drafters of the bill. After the service was adjourned, bipartisan members of the California delegation issued a joint statement in committee urging further revision of the bill despite its approval by the committee. They also said committee members did not have enough time to properly review the bills before serving.
“The legislative text as debated is far from ready for Floor,” wrote Correa, Swalwell, Lofgren and Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., And Tom McClintock, R-Calif. “We urge sponsors of the bills to take the time necessary to commit to a comprehensive approach and to work with their bipartisan counterparts on this committee to address the concerns raised during the markup in order to further develop these bills.”
Responding to criticism from his colleagues who felt they did not have enough time to review the bills, Buck said that “it is a common objection” but that “the ideas in the bill have been summarized in reports written last October “.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.
WATCH: How US Antitrust Law Works and What It Means for Big Tech
