> Monopoly regulators look at consumer harm, with US regulators focusing on price. I was under the impression for US regulators it was about unfair intentional

> Monopoly regulators look at consumer harm, with US regulators focusing on price. I was under the impression for US regulators it was about unfair intentional competition stifling (for different values of "fair" than EU definitions). > GDPR making more sense now? Not exactly. One might expect more active measures if inability to compete was the motive. GDPR, despite my issues with it personally, appears intended to prevent data misuse regardless of company size. Granted skeptics view it as a lance to joust large US companies with. But EU has laws on the books to punish companies misusing their size. In the EU, rulings taken collectively begin to feel like punishment is just for being a certain size. But in theory, neither side of the ocean makes it illegal to just be big and good at what you do. The paradox is that environments where competitors organically grow most of the time are the same ones where monopolies grow too. You can't really build a healthy private sector via legislation alone, much less so if the legislation favors consumers over businesses in an unbalanced way.