In modern society, capitalist monopolies control large shares of almost every sector of the economy, from hi-tech industries to pharmaceuticals and natural resources. Their power and influence are so extensive that both the state and the dominant politics are subservient to them. It's no coincidence that V.I. Lenin, based on his analysis of early 20th-century capitalism, identified a shift to monopolistic capitalism, that is, to Imperialism. Yet antitrust laws and agencies continue to exist, often seen as strict overseers of “fair” competition. So, why do monopolies still exist?

• A monopoly is an agreement among capitalists controlling production and realization in one or more economic sectors, enabling them to set high prices and gain excess profit. Types of monopolies include cartels, syndicates, trusts, and conglomerates. Monopolies emerged in the capitalist era, from the concentration and centralization of capital, which led to monopolistic capitalism (imperialism). Key traits of imperialism include the dominance of monopolies, the merger of banking and industrial capital, the export of capital, and international monopolistic alliances.
• Today’s leading monopolies are multinational corporations (MNCs) that dominate industries such as IT, telecommunications and extraction of oil, gas and other natural resources. Large corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and ExxonMobil control significant shares in global markets. MNCs control approximately 80% of global industrial production and own 90% of patents. These companies shape global economic processes and accumulate capital through mergers, acquisitions, and vertical integration.
• Antitrust agencies were created to regulate monopoly activity; however, in practice, they often work in the interests of monopolies. Companies bypass legal restrictions by creating subsidiaries, engaging in lobbying, and conducting mergers and acquisitions. Examples include cases against Google, Microsoft, Intel, and other large corporations, which manipulate antitrust mechanisms to secure their market dominance.

I. What is a Monopoly?

1.1. The Marxist Definition of Monopoly

Bourgeois economists often define a monopoly as a market situation where a particular individual or company becomes the sole supplier of a specific product. In this case, monopoly is equated with “a lack of competition.” However, this definition obscures the true nature of monopoly, enabling speculation when identifying certain companies as monopolies.

Soviet economist and Doctor of Economic Sciences, K.V. Ostrovityanov, provides a classic definition of monopoly:

A monopoly is an agreement among capitalists who control the production and realization of most goods in one or more industries, allowing them to set monopolistically high prices and make superprofits [1].

In the course of globalization, the conquest of new markets by states, and the subjugation of neighboring countries, international monopolies appear.

International monopolies are agreements among the largest monopolies from different countries regarding market division, price policies, and production volumes.

There are several forms of monopolies:

1. Cartel is a monopolistic alliance  of individual entrepreneurs that establishes specific rules for purchasing raw materials, production, and sales, determining how much product will be produced, at what price, and where it will be sold. Quotas are usually set for each member that cannot be exceeded.
2. Syndicate is a monopolistic organization of legally independent companies with a common supply and distribution system.
3. Trust  is a monopolistic organization consisting of companies that have lost their independence. The trustees oversee all supply, production, sales, and finances. Former company owners receive a share of the collective profit proportional to the number of shares they hold.
4. Concern  is an association of companies from different industries. Formally, these companies remain independent, but they have a significant ownership stake in a company that manages the activities of these companies.
5. Conglomerate or Holding — Similar to a concern, but the enterprises are not technologically interconnected.

1.2. When and Why Did Monopolies Arise?

Monopolies emerged through capital concentration and centralization among a few owners, which is directly related to the growth of the machine industry.

The rise of monopolies and monopolistic capitalism followed a period known as “free competition”.The foundations of capitalism at that time included:

— Development of Manufacturing: Manufacturing was the first large-scale industry based on labor division and manual labor. It laid the groundwork for further industrial development.

— Free Competition: At that time, markets were relatively free of monopolies, and competition was among small and medium-sized producers.

— Growth of the Working Class: Industrial development expanded the working class, which became the primary labor force.

— Formation of the Bourgeoisie: The bourgeoisie, a class of capital owners, began playing an increasingly important role in the economy and political life.

In the late 18th century, there was a shift from manual labor and manufacturing to machine-based industry, primarily affecting the most developed countries of the time, such as Western Europe and the United States. 

Machinery and automation drove a leap in production. Originally developed in light industry, machine production spread to metallurgy, fuel production, and tool making, significantly advancing these industries. In addition, in the 19th century, machines (engines, presses, etc.) themselves began to be produced by machines, giving rise to a new production sector — machine manufacturing.

However, incorporating machines into production required significant capital investment and a large workforce, which only wealthy former manufacturing owners could afford. Machine production allowed far greater production volumes at lower costs than manual labor. As a result, many small producers unable to compete with automated factories and plants went bankrupt. Those who could compete were eventually crushed by the capitalist crises of overproduction that arose during this period.

This process led to the centralization and concentration of production and capital in the hands of a few factory and plant owners as opposed to small producers. By accumulating capital, corporations could expand production both nationally and internationally. The most successful corporations eliminated small competitors by acquiring bankrupt firms during crises.

Finally, after several crises and technological advances, the concentration of production in the hands of the most successful business owners led to the rise of monopolies.

In the 19th century, growing market monopolization and the subordination of states to monopolies gave rise to a new form of capitalism: monopoly capitalism, or imperialism.

By the end of the 19th century, heavy industry: metallurgy, engineering, and mining, began to dominate production. All these industries had a high financial barrier to entry, and therefore monopolies developed most rapidly.

The big monopolies, which first emerged in Europe and the United States, soon extended their influence to countries with less developed industries and capitalist systems. European and American monopolies invested in the less developed countries in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, subordinating their raw materials and sales markets. During the 19th century, the European and American monopolies were able to subjugate many of the countries in Africa and Asia to their economic influence by establishing numerous colonial regimes on their territories.

Of course, the seizure of new raw material sources and markets in other countries allowed monopolies to increase their profits and accumulate capital. This would not have been possible without the support of the states in which they emerged. By concentrating economic power in the hands of the richest magnates, the monopolies subordinated political power to their interests.

With the development and consolidation of monopolies, market competition changed its form. It was no longer individual producers of more or less homogeneous goods competing for customers, but huge monopoly companies competing for sources of raw materials and markets.

The most notable examples of 19th-century monopolies include:

— Friedrich Krupp AG. Founded in Germany by the Krupp dynasty. By the end of the 19th century, the Krupp Group had become the largest steel and arms manufacturer in Europe, supplying Germany's military needs.

— Dynamit Nobel AG. Founded by Alfred Nobel, a Swedish chemist and engineer, and inventor of dynamite. Nobel was one of the first people to organize mass production of explosives for the mining and construction industries. At the end of the 19th century, Nobel's company controlled about 90% of the world's dynamite production.

— Rothschild & Co.  Founded in the late 18th century, the Rothschild dynasty became one of the most famous financial dynasties in the world. At the height of their influence, the Rothschilds controlled much of the European financial market, lending to many governments and financing wars and infrastructure construction. 

— American Sugar Refining Company. One of its founders was Henry Havemeyer. By the 1890s, the company controlled about 90% of the sugar production in the United States.

— Benedict Coal Company.  By the late nineteenth century, the Benedict family controlled a significant portion of the coal mines in Britain.

— Standard Oil. Founded by John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil controlled more than 90% of the U.S. oil market in the 1890s. 

1.3 Monopolistic capitalism

Monopolistic capitalism, also known as imperialism, is the highest and final stage in the development of capitalism. Its main characteristic is the transition from free competition to the dominance of monopolies.

V.I. Lenin in his book "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism" pointed out the following features of monopolistic capitalism, which are clearly observed in our modern day: 

1. The concentration of production and capital, which has reached such a high level of development that it has created monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life; 
2. The fusion of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation of a financial oligarchy on the basis of this "financial capital"; 
3. Exporting capital, as opposed to exporting goods, becomes particularly important;
4. International monopolistic unions of capitalists are formed, dividing the world;
5. The territorial division of land by the major capitalist powers was completed [2].

In the era of imperialism, competition occurs within industries, between industries, and internationally, primarily between giant corporations. Competition also occurs between monopolies and relatively small, non-monopolized enterprises. 

Scientific and technological progress becomes an important tool of this struggle. Monopolies have the opportunity to build laboratories, maintain scientific staff, and invest in research to further capitalize on new developments in the form of patents.

The economic power of monopolies makes them the most influential force in society. Monopolies have huge financial resources and access to large amounts of money, which allows them to increasingly expand their influence in the market. 

Monopolies control the economic life of society as a whole: they have a noticeable influence on employment, the level of wages (at least for their own employees), and the prices of goods. In this way, they affect the welfare of the population both directly and indirectly.

Due to their influence on the economy, monopolies also control politics and the state to further their interests. This is especially true in the struggle with other monopolies and capitals for control of markets and resources, including internationally.

Monopoly control of politics manifests itself in various forms: direct participation in politics by owners and members of corporate management; indirect participation through representatives; bribery of government officials; lobbying; financing of politicians; and control of the media.

Monopolies use political power to: (1) increase their own profits and capital, and (2) eliminate unprofitable costs.

Amid the constant crises of the capitalist system, big monopolies regularly shift the costs of their enterprises onto the working class. Since monopolies control a large part of the economy, any financial collapse directly impacts the well-being of society. Monopolists use this fact to justify bailing out their companies with government support.

In 2008, the world witnessed a global financial crisis that began with the bankruptcy of several major United States banks as a result of the mortgage crisis. The crisis and bankruptcy of the banking sector quickly spread to Europe. To save the financial monopolies, the U.S. and European governments decided to nationalize the banks' debt. In the U.S., this took the form of the TARP bailout program; in Europe, it took the form of "rescue packages" for banks. 

In 2009, General Motors' debts and losses were paid from the pockets of working Americans. In 2022, during the energy crisis, the British government subsidized energy companies to prevent their collapse which we covered at the time.

II. Contemporary Monopolies

2.1 Monopolization by countries

In every modern national market, there is a monopoly in one sphere or another, controlling either a significant share of its market or an entire sector of the entire economy.

The table below shows the percentage of market monopolization in various industries for the selected country in 2023. Companies with a significant market share in each industry are shown in parentheses.

The data for the table is sourced from public sources, and the figures are approximate.

Oil and gas production: In the U.S., ExxonMobil and Chevron are the major players, controlling 57% of the market. In China, state-owned China National Petroleum and Sinopec dominate with a 60% share. In the United Kingdom, BP and Royal Dutch Shell control 50% of the market. In Germany, Wintershall Dea is the leading player with a 45% share. In France, TotalEnergies controls 55% of the market. In Russia, the largest players are Gazprom and Rosneft, which control 70% of the market.

Rail transportation: In the U.S., Union Pacific and BNSF dominate the market, controlling 70% of the market. In China, the market is almost entirely controlled by China Railway (95%). In the UK, Network Rail handles over 90% of rail traffic. In Germany, 90% of the market is owned by Deutsche Bahn. In France, more than 90% of rail traffic is controlled by SNCF. In Russia, the rail transport market is almost entirely controlled by Russian Railways with a share of over 95%.

Telecommunication services: In the U.S., the largest companies are Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, which control 75% of the market. In China, China Mobile and China Telecom dominate with 80% of the market. In the UK, BT Group and Vodafone control 50% of the market. In Germany, Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone Deutschland have 70% of the market. In France, more than 55% of the market is controlled by Orange and SFR. In Russia, 60-65% of the market is controlled by MTS and Rostelecom.

Mining: In the U.S., the major companies Freeport-McMoRan and Newmont control 50% of the market. In China, the leading companies are China Shenhua and Zijin Mining with 65% of the market. In the UK, Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, and BHP are the leading companies with a 70% share. In Germany, 50% of the market is controlled by K+S AG and BASF. In France, 30% of the market belongs to Eramet. In Russia, Nornickel and Alrosa control more than 60% of production.

Retail: In the US, Walmart is the market leader with a 60% market share. In China, Alibaba dominates with a 55% market share. In the UK, Sainsbury's and Tesco hold 45% of the market. In Germany, Aldi and Schwarz Group hold 40% of the market. In France, 50% of the market is controlled by Carrefour, Auchan and E.Leclerc. In Russia, 30% of the market belongs to X5 Retail Group and Magnit.

E-commerce: In the U.S., Amazon is the leader with 65% of the market. In China, 60-70% of the market is controlled by Alibaba and JD.com. In the UK, Amazon controls 61% of the market. In Germany, 40% is controlled by Amazon.de and Cdiscount. In France, Amazon and Cdiscount are the market leaders with a combined share of 40%. In Russia, Wildberries and OZON control 80% of the market.

2.2. Global Market

Monopolization in the international market is primarily connected with the role of transnational corporations, which play a dominant role in the world market. Transnational corporations (hereinafter referred to as TNCs) are companies with national capital and international scope of activity. As of 2023, over 100,000 different TNCs with different working capital are known to exist in the world.

TNCs are active around the world, but their strength and origins vary greatly from region to region. 

UNCTAD estimates that by 2023, TNCs will account for about 80% of global industrial production. TNCs also own about 90% of registered patents, allowing them to control all global scientific and technological progress. Total revenues of the Fortune Global 500 TNCs will reach about $41 trillion by 2023, representing 39% of global GDP ($105 trillion).

Currently, the largest (in terms of capitalization) TNCs are:

1. Apple Inc. Market capitalization is $3.4 trillion. Apple dominates the premium smartphone market with more than 50% of the U.S. market and about 20% of the global market. Apple also controls a significant portion of the tablet (about 35%) and smartwatch (about 30%) markets.
2. NVIDIA. Market capitalization of $3.1 trillion. Controls about 80% of the graphics processing unit (GPU) market.
3. Microsoft. Market capitalization of over $3 trillion. Windows occupies about 75% of the global PC operating system market. In cloud computing, Microsoft Azure controls approximately 23% of the market, second only to Amazon Web Services.
4. Alphabet Inc. The company owns many subsidiaries, including:

• Google — Alphabet's core business including search engine, advertising, YouTube, and Android;
• Waymo — a project to develop autonomous driving technology;
• Verily —  a biomedical research and healthcare company;
• Calico — a biotech company focused on aging and health research;
• Nest — manufacturer of smart home devices such as thermostats and cameras;
• Fiber — a high-speed internet service;
• Fitbit — manufacturer of wearable fitness devices;

Market capitalization of approximately $2 trillion. Alphabet's subsidiary, Google, controls about 91% of the global search engine market and about 30% of the digital advertising market. The Android operating system, also owned by Google, accounts for approximately 71% of the global mobile device market.

5. Amazon. Market capitalization is $2 trillion. Amazon controls more than 38% of the U.S. e-commerce market and holds leading positions in the U.K., Germany, and Japan. In cloud computing (Amazon Web Services), the company has about 37% of the global market.

It is worth noting that 5 out of the 5 largest TNCs operate in IT, making it one of the most monopolized sectors of the world economy.

Among the TNCs in other areas, the following companies can be distinguished: 

State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC). The company is state-owned and therefore has no capitalization data. Nevertheless, SGCC ranks #3 on the Fortune Global 500 list in 2023 with revenues of $530 billion. It provides electricity to more than 1.1 billion people and controls 80% of China's power grid.

Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco has a market capitalization of approximately $1.8 trillion. Saudi Aramco controls approximately 13% of the world's oil reserves and is the world's largest oil producer, producing more than 10 million barrels per day.

Sinopec Group. Sinopec's market capitalization is — approximately $107 billion. Sinopec is one of the largest petrochemical companies in China and manages significant oil and gas reserves.

China National Petroleum. Its market capitalization is also unknown, but it is considered one of the largest oil companies in the world, ranking 5th on the Fortune Global 500 2023 list with revenues of $483 billion. CNPC controls vast hydrocarbon reserves and is active in oil and gas production both in China and abroad.

Data on other major TNCs and their share of the global market segment are summarized in the following table.

As can be clearly seen, the world economy is largely controlled by a few corporations, each dominating key sectors of the economy across various countries. These companies shape global trade and production, which allows them to influence economic processes worldwide. The largest TNCs control significant shares in all sectors of the global market.

This economic position allows these corporations to make immense excess profits. The capitalization and revenues of the largest corporations often exceed the budgets of entire countries, allowing them to accumulate huge amounts of capital.

Through their financial influence and political lobbying, TNCs influence the decisions of governments and international organizations. They are actively involved in shaping the laws and regulations that govern the market (trade agreements, environmental regulations) to protect their interests.

This exemplifies what Lenin wrote about in his time. He argued that the development of the capitalist system inevitably leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of a small circle of monopolies. These monopolies eventually control key sectors of the economy and influence state policies in their own interests.

III. Antimonopoly services and legislation

3.1 General structure

The existence of such economic giants as TNCs and their constant struggle for market dominance, both national and global, has naturally led to the creation of special bodies designed to regulate the market and control its activities. These structures are marketed as "tools for maintaining fair competition" and protecting the interests of consumers. Capitalist governments and corporations present their work as a way to prevent "abuse of market power" and monopolies.

Do these bodies really fulfill the declared roles, or do they merely create the illusion of control, leaving the real mechanisms of power in the hands of those same monopolists?

Antimonopoly services (AS) are government bodies that regulate and control the market. Usually, the goal of such services is declared to be the fight against the formation of monopolies and ensuring the "freedom of competition" on the market.

The main tools of antimonopoly services include:

• control of mergers and acquisitions;
• investigation and suppression of “anti-competitive practices”;
• coercion to split companies;
• price regulation in markets with natural monopolies (a type of monopoly that occurs in industries where it is more efficient to have one large supplier than several competitors).

Antitrust legislation received its first serious development in the United States. It originates from the Sherman Act of 1890. Later, in 1914, the Sherman Act was supplemented by the Clayton Act. The table below outlines the main features of these laws.

Both laws had a significant impact on the creation and development of antitrust laws in all countries of the world. The antitrust laws of European countries and Japan were largely based on American legal practice. The Sherman and Clayton Acts are still used in antitrust investigations in the United States.

There are two bodies responsible for antitrust regulation in the United States.

1. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Has the right to investigate and suppress anticompetitive practices, such as "unfair competition," monopolization, collusion, and corporate mergers that may infringe on competition. The Commission can issue orders and fines, as well as initiate legal proceedings.
2. The US Department of Justice. The antitrust division of the DOJ has the right to initiate criminal and civil cases against companies that violate antitrust laws, including cases of collusion, monopolization, and "anticompetitive" mergers. It may require the separation of companies or the imposition of fines.

In the EU area, the foundations of antitrust law originates from the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community in 1957. In general, EU antitrust law does not prohibit monopolies directly but regulates the “abuse” of a dominant market position. Because of this fact, EU antitrust law is considered more “liberal”.

There are also two antitrust regulatory bodies in the EU:

1. The European Commission. The Directorate-General for Competition (DG Competition) within the European Commission is responsible for antitrust regulation in the EU. The Commission can investigate violations of antitrust rules, impose fines, prohibit anticompetitive transactions, and order changes in the business practices of companies.
2. The EU courts (for example, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court). They hear appeals against decisions of the European Commission and can overturn or confirm its actions. They also play a key role in interpreting EU antitrust law.

Also, each country that is part of the EU has its own national bodies to control market monopolization.

Antitrust legislation in China is regulated by the Anti-Monopoly Law (2008). The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) is the main body responsible for enforcing the law.

In Russia, antitrust legislation is governed by the Federal Law "On Protection of Competition" (2006). The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) is responsible for monitoring and suppressing anticompetitive practices, as well as regulating natural monopolies.

3.2 How Corporations Circumvent Antitrust Restrictions

Capitalist governments and media present antitrust legislation as the most important tool for protecting competition and consumer rights globally. It is stated that the main goal of the AS is to prevent abuse of market power, protect consumer interests, stimulate innovation, and maintain fair competition.

Given the widespread market monopolization at all levels, it’s clear that antitrust services cannot achieve their declared goal. First of all, as a product of the capitalist system, they are not capable of going against capitalism's economic laws.

Indeed, is it possible that monopolies with colossal political influence, represented by the largest TNCs, whose turnover corresponds to half of the world's GDP, will conscientiously fulfill the requirements for protecting competition and consumers from themselves? Certainly not.

Companies often use various strategies to circumvent antitrust laws. A number of the most common ones can be identified:

— Creation of holdings and subsidiaries. In order to create the appearance of competition, to hide the fact of absorption of a significant market share, at least legally, monopolies create subsidiaries that appear independent but are actually controlled by the parent company.

This helps companies evade legislative restrictions on monopolization, although the differences between holdings and already illegal syndicates and trusts are largely formal. Thus, Amazon has subsidiaries in such areas as cloud computing (Amazon Web Services), logistics, media, and even grocery stores (Whole Foods). Procter & Gamble (P&G), a TNC in the retail sector, owns a large number of subsidiary brands (such as Tide, Gillette, and Pampers). Brands may even seem like competitors, although in fact, they belong to the same company.

— Vertical integration. This process is aimed at completely capturing one of the stages of production in an industry. For example, a monopoly can, through contracts with suppliers or their purchase, establish almost complete power over the production of the raw materials it needs. At the same time, suppliers will still seem independent.

Apple has pursued vertical integration for many years by acquiring component suppliers and developing its own retail channels (Apple Store). In 2010, Apple began actively investing in the development of its own processors for its devices, which allowed them to reduce their dependence on other companies, such as Intel.

In 2018, AT&T, an American telecommunications conglomerate, completed the purchase of media giant Time Warner for $85 billion. This deal combined AT&T's infrastructure with content production (CNN, HBO, and other channels), which allowed AT&T to control both content production and its distribution. At the same time, vertical integration allowed AT&T to provide its own content through its networks, making it difficult for competitors to access the audience.

— Joint ventures. Instead of making outright acquisitions or mergers, companies create joint ventures that allow them to collaborate in specific areas while remaining formally independent. This helps avoid the attention of antitrust authorities since such agreements are not always classified as monopolization.

In 1984, GM and Toyota created a joint venture, New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), to jointly produce cars in the United States. GM gained access to Japanese production technology, and Toyota gained access to American factories.

In 1999, Mastercard and Visa created a joint venture, EMVCo, to develop standards for the use of chip-based bank cards (EMV). This gave both companies control over new technologies used in banking transactions. The position of Visa and Mastercard allows them to effectively control the market for payment security technologies, limiting the emergence of alternative solutions.

— Use of complex financial instruments. Companies resort to complex financial schemes that hide their real market position. They may move assets through offshore companies or use derivatives to obscure ownership chains, making it difficult for antitrust authorities to uncover the true extent of their power.

Energy company Enron made extensive use of complex financial schemes, including so-called special purpose vehicles (SPVs), to hide debts and create the appearance of a successful business. This helped Enron manipulate financial statements and bypass regulatory restrictions until its collapse in the early 2000s.

— Lobbying. Corporations actively use lobbying mechanisms to change the law in their favor. By influencing politicians and regulators, they achieve changes in laws or obtain exemptions that allow them to operate without the risk of facing antitrust sanctions.

— Hidden agreements. Some companies enter into informal or hidden agreements on prices or market sharing. Such agreements are difficult to prove, especially if they are not formally recorded. This allows companies to control prices and distribute market shares without obvious violations.

In 2014, it was revealed that Apple and Google participated in an “anti-hunting” agreement that prevented their employees from switching companies. This allowed them to hold down wages, violating antitrust laws on free competition in the labor market.

— Aggressive marketing policies. Corporations may use aggressive pricing strategies, such as temporarily lowering prices below cost, to force out competitors. Such actions may not formally violate antitrust laws, but they destroy competition, preserving monopoly power in the long term.

The very fact that such ways of circumventing antitrust restrictions exist, which are absolutely known to all antitrust services, already indicates that the legislation in this area was initially structured in such a way that “necessary” companies evade it, while “unnecessary” ones are subject to sanctions.

3.3. The Struggle Of Corporations

Under conditions of high monopolization of the world market, capital overaccumulation, aggravation of capitalist crises, and the effect of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, competition among the largest corporations is greatly intensified. In such cases, antitrust services and legislation act as an inevitable and effective tool for the economic struggle of some corporations against others for a monopoly position in the market.

Even when the monopolization of the market by some companies is obvious, there are several loopholes in the antitrust legislation to justify it. Of course, until another larger corporation with more extensive political connections starts to lay claim to the market.

There are many examples in modern history of corporations using antimonopoly services in their own interests.

Fight against Microsoft

In 1998, a long and complicated lawsuit began between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The main charges were related to the fact that Microsoft included its Internet Explorer web browser in the Windows operating system, thereby hindering market access for competing browsers.

In 2000-2001, Microsoft was declared a monopoly and even was supposed to be divided into two companies, but the judge who made this decision was soon found to be biased and removed from the case. As a result, this case against Microsoft was closed, and the court recommended that the corporation change its approach to doing business.

In 2007, Google filed an antitrust complaint against Microsoft with the US Department of Justice, joining numerous complaints from other companies. This complaint had interesting consequences - the head of the antitrust division of the Justice Department began to defend Microsoft, sending memos to state prosecutors with advice to ignore Google's claims.

In 2009, the European Commission continued the case closed by the US Department of Justice. Google announced its intention to assist the European Commission in its investigation against Microsoft, i.e. to directly participate in the legal proceedings.

As a result, in 2009, the European Commission issued a decision according to which Microsoft was obliged to provide Windows users with a choice in loading Internet browsers when they first turn on their computer. Thus, the inconvenient Internet Explorer was quickly pushed out, but Google Chrome from Google, which actively participated in the fight against Microsoft, began its rise.

Just 2 years after the completion of its own trial on charges of monopoly, in 2011, Microsoft itself filed an antitrust complaint against Google, accusing the latter of dominating the search engine market.

Thus, antitrust regulation of one company "accidentally" led to another company becoming a monopolist.

Microsoft And The Acquisition Of Blizzard

In 2022, Microsoft announced its readiness to buy Activision Blizzard, one of the largest video game developers and publishers, for $68.7 billion. This became the largest deal in the history of the gaming industry, which immediately attracted the attention of not only gamers and industry representatives but also regulators in various countries. You can read more about this deal in our article.

Activision Blizzard is a huge player in the world of video games, owning iconic franchises such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Overwatch, Diablo, and Candy Crush. The purchase of such a company by a tech giant like Microsoft could potentially radically change the balance of power in the gaming market.

Almost immediately after the announcement of the deal, antitrust inspections began by the FTC, CMA (UK Antitrust Service), and the European Commission.

One of the key issues in the trial was the future of the Call of Duty (COD) franchise, one of the most popular video game series in the world. The fear was that Microsoft could make COD exclusive to its platforms like Xbox and Windows, which could deal a serious blow to its competitors, particularly Sony and its PlayStation.

Sony, Microsoft's biggest competitor in the console market, has been highly critical of the deal. In particular, Sony claimed that the purchase of Activision Blizzard would hurt PlayStation gamers by depriving them of access to popular games.

According to Microsoft, Sony owns 70% of the global console market. At the same time, PlayStation has 5 times more exclusive games than Xbox.

In December 2022, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, trying to block the deal, accusing the company of violating antitrust laws. The CMA also ruled against the deal in April 2023.

From the very beginning, Microsoft actively cooperated with antitrust authorities and tried to convince them that the purchase of Activision Blizzard would not lead to a monopolization of the market. The company's main line of defense was that Microsoft does not plan to make key games exclusive and is committed to providing Call of Duty and other franchises on all platforms, including PlayStation. Moreover, Microsoft went on to sign long-term agreements with competitors such as Nintendo and NVIDIA.

Microsoft also stated that Activision Blizzard franchises, including Call of Duty, will be available on competitors' platforms for at least 10 years after the deal is completed. Such promises helped Microsoft reach agreements with a number of regulators, including the European Commission, which approved the deal in May 2023.

The completion of the deal led to important changes in the video game industry. Microsoft now controls one of the largest video game portfolios, including many franchises with a global audience.

The Fight Against Google (European Commission, FTC, and FAS)

In 2010, the European Commission opened an investigation into Google on suspicion of anti-competitive practices and market monopolization in web browsing and advertising. The key players in launching and supporting this investigation were competitors such as Microsoft, TripAdvisor, Expedia, and Foundem. The case against Google quickly turned into a decade-long saga, dragging other national antitrust authorities into it.

Foundem, a British search engine for price comparisons, was one of the first companies to openly take on Google in the European Commission. In November 2009, Foundem (with the support of Microsoft) filed a complaint with the European Commission, accusing Google of violating EU competition law. Foundem complained that Google was deliberately reducing the visibility of its site in search results by prioritizing its own Google Shopping service.

TripAdvisor and Expedia, being major players in the online travel industry, accused Google of unfair competition by promoting its Google Travel service and other travel products in search results, which created an uneven playing field for them.

Microsoft competed with Google in the web browser market, trying to promote its Bing search engine.

In 2011, the FTC initiated an antitrust investigation into Google, followed by a number of other countries around the world. However, just 2 years later, the FTC dropped the case against the company based on Google's commitments to change its approach to competition.

Thanks to this case, Microsoft was able to gain more freedom to promote its Bing search engine and advertising services.

The fines imposed on Google and the demands for the company to ensure fair competition led to an improvement in the positions of TripAdvisor and Expedia in search results since Google was forced to change its algorithms to lower the visibility of its own services.

In 2015, as the European Commission's investigation progressed, the FTC stepped in again, accusing Google of limiting access to the Android OS for competitors.

That same year, Yandex filed an antitrust complaint against Google with the FAS of Russia. Yandex's claims boiled down to the fact that Google prevents other developer companies from developing on the Android OS and, in particular, prohibits the pre-installation of services not associated with Google. As a result, the FAS imposed a fine of 438 million rubles on the company and ordered changes to the process of pre-installation of applications.

Yandex was the one collecting the main evidence base in this trial. The FAS acted as the company's agent to protect it from an inconvenient competitor. A few years later, Yandex already owned 63% of the Russian search engine market based on Android.

In 2017, the European Commission fined Google 2.4 billion euros, and a year later - another 4.3 billion euros. The company made several attempts to overturn this penalty in 2021 and 2023. This indicates that the first fine has not yet been paid. There are also problems with the second fine - after a failed appeal, Google can still appeal it.

The FTC completed its investigation only in 2024, ruling that Google is a monopolist. Measures to stop anti-competitive practices on the part of the company have not yet been appointed.

However, one should not think that this decision will destroy the company's position. Google may again appeal both the court's decision and any regulatory measures imposed on its own activities, dragging out the trial for years.

The weakening of Google's influence in the mobile device and operating system market allowed Microsoft to further promote its Windows Phone OS, although its attempts to take a significant market share were ultimately unsuccessful.

The Fight Against Intel

In 2009, after a long investigation dragging on since the early 2000s., the European Commission imposed a fine of €1 billion on Intel, the world's largest processor maker. In 2008, it accounted for 80.5% of the market.

The proceedings against the company began after a series of complaints from AMD, the world's second-largest processor maker. Intel was accused of bribing computer manufacturers by offering substantial discounts on chips.

In 2022, the EU General Court overturned the fine, acknowledging that the European Commission had made some "key errors" in its investigation. A year later, the European Commission imposed a smaller fine on Intel — €376 million. Considering that its previous fine was overturned 13 years later, it is impossible to say for sure whether the company will end up paying anything.

It is important to note that the fight against Intel's monopoly was not intended to reduce the company's market influence. As a result, Intel did not even pay a fine, which it could easily afford - in 2009, its net profit was $4.3 billion. Apparently, AMD's political influence proved to be much weaker.

Apple vs. Qualcomm

In 2017, Apple accused Qualcomm (a mobile processor manufacturer) of monopolistic overpricing of chips and filed a lawsuit against its former partner in the US, and later in China and the UK, as well as a complaint with the FTC. In its lawsuits, Apple demanded $1 billion in compensation from Qualcomm.

Qualcomm soon filed a counterclaim against Apple, accusing the latter of concealing the real performance of its chips.

In 2018, the European Commission sided with Apple and imposed a fine of $1.2 billion on Qualcomm. The European Commission investigation revealed that the chip manufacturer paid Apple a huge amount, forcing it to use only Qualcomm processors in iPhone mobile devices. Apple was not punished for such a deal.

After the companies suspended cooperation, a problem arose with the use of patent technologies. A Chinese court declared that Apple violated patent law and used Qualcomm technology even in versions of the iPhone with an Intel processor. Following this, China banned the sale of several models of Apple mobile devices.

A German court also sided with Qualcomm and banned the sale of the iPhone with an Intel chip in Germany.

Having suffered a defeat in China and Germany and lost part of its profits due to the ban on the sale of some versions of the iPhone, Apple seemed to lose interest in its accusations of monopoly against Qualcomm. In 2019, the companies signed a 6-year license agreement and began to cooperate again. As a result of this agreement, Apple had to pay Qualcomm about $4 billion.

Breaking Up Standard Oil

The case against Standard Oil is one of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history.

Standard Oil was founded in 1870 by John D. Rockefeller and several partners. The company quickly became a dominant force in the American oil industry. Standard Oil achieved its success by acquiring competing companies (sometimes by force), and by negotiating reduced transportation rates with railroads.

The company gained control of most refineries, pipelines, and transportation facilities, which gave it the ability to dominate the market and dictate prices. By 1880, Standard Oil controlled about 90% of oil refining in the United States.

For about 15 years after the Sherman Act was passed, the company avoided any antitrust prosecutions by funding the election campaigns for both Democratic and Republican candidates, along with regular bribes to officials.

However, by 1905, two circumstances had developed that led to legal proceedings against the company. The first was that T. Roosevelt became president of the United States, having won the election, partly due to his antitrust slogans (even though a significant part of the campaign was financed by big business). The second was the investigation of journalist Ida Tarbell, which caused a sharply negative public attitude towards Standard Oil.

The trial began in 1906, and the case was heard in federal court. In 1909, the district court ruled that Standard Oil had violated the Sherman Act. The company appealed the decision, and the case reached the US Supreme Court.

In 1911, the Supreme Court issued a final decision, finding Standard Oil guilty of illegally creating a monopoly and violating antitrust laws. The court ruled that the company should be divided into several independent companies. It was also assigned a fine, which was soon canceled.

The court's decision resulted in the division of Standard Oil into 34 separate companies. Thereafter, their activities were subject to little oversight, allowing the companies to continue to negotiate prices. Some of these companies would later merge again into Exxon Mobil and Chevron, the two largest energy corporations in the United States. The merger also took over several other companies that had not previously belonged to SO.

Standard Oil of California also grew into Saudi Aramco. Standard Oil of Ohio and Standard Oil of Indiana were absorbed by British Petroleum.

At the same time, the division had no effect on the fortune of the company's owner, Rockefeller: he owned a quarter of each of the companies that emerged in place of Standard Oil and remained one of the richest people in the world.

As a result, the "largest and most successful" case against the monopoly and its owner turned out to be a mere formality to appease the public. In fact, those responsible for the actions of Standard Oil were not punished, and the divided companies continued to negotiate prices.

The Sherman and Clayton Acts also did not prevent further mergers of the divided companies or their purchase by other large global TNCs.

3.4. Payoffs And Bribes

There are cases when a monopoly company, against which an antitrust investigation is being conducted, officially pays off all claims.

In 2013, the US government approved the merger of American Airlines and US Airways, which resulted in the creation of the largest airline in the world by number of passengers. The authorities of some states in a class action lawsuit against this merger claimed that such a deal would significantly reduce competition in the air travel market. After just 2 years, it turned out that the merger led to a deterioration in the quality of service with an increase in prices for air tickets of the United American Airlines. A class-action lawsuit was filed against the company by consumers.

In 2018, American Airlines agreed to pay $45 million to formally resolve the claims. The money was paid into a dispute settlement fund, and from a legal point of view, the company was released from further claims. However, the additional profits from the price gouging were in the billions.

In 2020, Apple settled a long-running lawsuit with consumers. The class action lawsuit alleged that Apple used its monopoly position to raise prices on the App Store because app developers were required to pay a 30% commission on each sale. Apple agreed to pay $100 million to a developer compensation fund, but the company maintained  its commission and continued to earn billions in revenue from app sales.

In 2007, British Airways was accused of price-fixing with other airlines to set fuel surcharges. The company settled the claims by paying a fine of $300 million while maintaining its position in the air travel market.

In 2010, the German car manufacturer Daimler AG was accused of violating anti-corruption laws and using its monopoly position in the market. The company bribed officials in 22 countries to obtain government contracts without competitive bidding. Daimler settled the claims by paying $185 million to the US Department of Justice but retained its leadership in the car market.

Monopolies also informally negotiate with the government and antitrust services to prevent antitrust restrictions in their favor. Such agreements usually involve large sums of money.

1. Walmart, the world's largest retailer, was caught bribing the Mexican government in 2012 to expand unhindered in that country's market. It later became known that Walmart had also entered into corrupt agreements in Brazil, India, and China.
   In 2017-2018, Walmart entered into a settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice in a bribery case. The company agreed to pay the government $282 million, which is about 0.03% of its net profit for 2018. Whether this modest fine could stop the company from doing similar things in the future is a rhetorical question.
   
2. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is a British pharmaceutical corporation, one of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, regularly accused of bribery and corruption. Investigative bodies often accuse the company of bribing individual doctors to promote its products (in Poland, the UAE, and Iraq).
   
   In 2013, GlaxoSmithKline was accused of bribing Chinese officials in order to expand its presence in the market and control prices. As a result, the court fined the company $489 million (approximately how much it spent on bribes), and several managers received short prison terms. Yet again, the fine was much lower than both the company's net profit (5.4 billion in 2013) and the financial gains obtained from these actions.
   
3. Tech giant Samsung Electronics bribed the President of South Korea, Park Geun-hye, in 2016. Some researchers suggest that the bribe was carried out in order to approve the merger of Samsung and Harman, which took place that same year.
   
   The corporation managed to successfully arrange its affairs, and the vice president of Samsung Electronics ended up receiving a sentence of only 2.5 years in prison for bribing the president of the country.
   
4. German industrial giant Siemens found itself at the center of one of the largest corruption scandals in 2008. The company was accused of bribing officials in several countries, including Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, and Argentina, to win government contracts. According to the investigation, Siemens systematically paid bribes totaling about $1.4 billion over many years.
   
   In 2008, Siemens reached a settlement with the US Department of Justice and German authorities, agreeing to pay a fine of $1.6 billion, which was one of the largest fines for corruption at the time. Despite the fine, Siemens continued to operate without significant consequences for its business.
   
5. Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, found itself at the center of a high-profile scandal in 2003 related to the conclusion of government contracts with the Pentagon. The investigation revealed that senior Boeing employees had bribed US Defense Department officials to secure major contracts for aircraft and other equipment.
   
   Boeing eventually agreed to pay $615 million to settle the bribery claims in 2006. This allowed the company to avoid litigation while still preserving the majority of its profits from the contracts. Despite the large fine, Boeing's business continued to grow, and its position in the military equipment market remained virtually unchanged.
   
6. French oil and gas corporation Total in 2013 was accused of paying bribes and making illegal deals with Iranian government officials to secure lucrative contracts to extract oil and gas from Iran. According to the investigation, the company paid millions of dollars to high-ranking officials in exchange for access to the country's resources, despite international sanctions against Iran.
   
   Total agreed to pay $398 million to settle claims by the US government and French authorities. Despite this, the company continued to operate successfully and subsequently regained access to Iranian oil and gas resources after sanctions were partially lifted in 2015.

IV. So Why Doesn't Antitrust Legislation Work?

Based on the cases cited, it is clear that antitrust agencies and legislation simply do not work the way bourgeois lawyers, politicians, and economists imagine. Instead of controlling monopolies and ensuring a "fair" and "competitive" environment, restrictions are circumvented using banal and obvious schemes, payoffs, and bribes. Most importantly, the institution that was called upon to fight monopolies has become an instrument in the hands of the monopolies in their struggle with each other for control over the market.

It is enough to answer 3 basic questions about the activities of antitrust services and laws to be convinced of this.

1. Does antitrust legislation protect the interests of consumers? No, because the actions of the largest monopolists to control the market and prices are rarely limited, even as a result of judicial investigations.
2. Does antitrust legislation stimulate innovation? No, because most patents belong to large transnational corporations. At the same time, the creation of technological innovations is almost impossible without using these patents.
3. Does antitrust legislation foster a "fair" and "competitive" environment? No, not even by their own standards, because antitrust authorities regularly approve mergers of the largest companies in a particular market sector.

However, there is still the most important question: why is antitrust legislation unable to protect the market from large corporations? Why does it become a tool in the hands of the monopolies?

The fact is that it is this class of monopolists that is the ruling class in today’s society. Naturally, it protects its political power and uses it to constantly increase profits.

However, it is important for this class to create the illusion of "serving the people", which is why sometimes stories like the division of Standard Oil happen. At the same time, the owners of such monopoly companies always come out as winners.

Monopolies, possessing immense economic power, automatically concentrate political influence in their hands. This is natural: having control over a significant part of the economic life of a country or the world, they can influence political decision-making. Government institutions – from antitrust authorities to courts – act in the interests of corporations, ensuring favorable conditions for unhindered capital accumulation and suppression of competitors. As a result, the government power, which formally should monitor "fair competition", in fact only strengthens the dominance of monopolies.

And this is not an accident or isolated excess: monopolization is a natural and immutable law of capitalism. Any capital, regardless of its scale, strives for one thing – to become a monopolist. It is its nature to seek to maximize profits, eliminate competitors, and seize control over markets. Divide or not, introduce restrictions or remove them, the movement of capital towards monopolization cannot be stopped. This is an inevitable process inherent in the very nature of capitalism.

Getting rid of capitalist monopolies that use their dominant position to extract superprofits, acting contrary to the interests of society and controlling its life, is possible only by undermining the economic basis of their existence. That is, by transitioning to a socialist system. Only socialism is capable of eliminating the economic and political dominance of monopolies and directing people’s economic activity towards satisfying the needs of the whole society, and not a narrow circle of capital owners.

Sources.

1. Ostrovityanov K.V. — Political Economy — From the English translation of second revised and enlarged Russian edition Printed by Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1957

2. Lenin V. I. — Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

3. Business newspaper Vzglyad - Crisis of the American model of capitalism  — October 6, 2008

4. UNCTAD — World Investment Report 2023 — 2023.

5. UNCTAD — Publications

6. Fortune — Fortune Global 500 — 2023.

7. World Bank Group — World Bank Annual Report 2023: A New Era in Development — 2023.

8. Сompanies market cap — Largest Companies by Market Cap 

9. Сompanies market cap — Apple

10. Сompanies market cap — NVIDIA

11. Сompanies market cap — Microsoft

12. Сompanies market cap — Alphabet

13. Сompanies market cap — Amazon

14. Сompanies market cap — Saudi Aramco

15. Сompanies market cap — Sinopec group

16. U.S. Department of Justice — The Antitrust Laws 

17. Federal Trade Commission — Mission

18. CNews — Microsoft is recognized as a monopoly, but its breakup will not take place — June 29, 2001.

19. Lenta.ru — Microsoft under the protection of antitrust authorities Google complained about Microsoft and ran into the US Department of Justice — June 13, 2007

20. Газета.ru — Google got to the bottom of Microsoft — February 25, 2009

21. statcounter — Browser Market Share Worldwide

22. The Guardian — Microsoft takes on Google with antitrust complaint — March 31, 2011

23. Politsturm — Microsoft vs. Sony: On Transnational Capital — March 26, 2023.

24. GamesIndustry.biz — As it happened: Microsoft's Activision Blizzard press conference in Brussels — February 21, 2023

25. Federal Trade Commission — FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc. — December 8, 2022 

26. Interfax.ru — UK regulator blocks Microsoft's deal to buy Activision Blizzard — April 26, 2023

27. Афиша Daily — Microsoft signs multi-year deal with Nvidia to release publisher's games on GeForce Now — February 22, 2023

28. vedomosti.ru — Microsoft Completes $69 Billion Acquisition of Activision Blizzard — October 15, 2023

29. European Commission — Antitrust: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google — November 30, 2010

30. Interfax.ru — European Court Upholds €2.4 Billion Fine Against Google — September 10, 2024

31. vedomosti.ru — European Commission formally charges Google in Android case — April 20, 2016.

32. Federal Trade Commission — Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve — January 3, 2013. 

33. rbc.ru — US launches investigation against Google over Android — September 25, 2015.

34. Lenta.ru — Yandex asked the FAS to check Google — February 18, 2015.

35. vedomosti.ru — FAS fined Google 438 million rubles — August 11, 2016.

36. yandex.ru — Yandex Announces Financial Results for Q4 2023 and 2023 — February 15, 2024.

37. BBC — European Commission fines Google €2.42 billion— June 27, 2017.

38. BBC — European Commission fines Google record $5 billion — July 18, 2018.

39. BBC — Judgement Day for Google: US giant loses landmark case in Europe but fights off UK litigation — November 10, 2021.

40. pravo.ru — Google challenges €2.42bn fine in EU Court of Justice — September 19, 2023.

41. pravo.ru — EU court upholds record antitrust fine for Google — September 14, 2022.

42. Forbes — US Court Rules Google a Monopoly — August 6, 2024.

43. BBC — EU fines Intel €1.06 billion — May 13, 2009.

44. CNews — Intel Wins Overturning Huge AMD Harassment Fine 13 Years Ago — January 26, 2022.

45. rapsinews.ru — EU to fine Intel €376 million in 2009 case instead of previously cancelled fine — September 22, 2023.

46. kommersant.ru — Intel's net profit fell 18% in 2009 — October 15, 2010.

47. Reuters — Apple files $1 billion lawsuit against chip supplier Qualcomm — January 21, 2017.

48. kommersant.ru — Qualcomm files counterclaim against Apple — April 11, 2017.

49. Bloomberg — Qualcomm Fined $1.2 Billion as Apple Loyalty Comes at a Price — 2018.

50. Qualcomm — Qualcomm Granted Preliminary Injunctions Against Apple in China — December 9, 2018.

51. Business Insider — Apple to ship iPhones with only Qualcomm chips to German stores — February 14, 2019.

52. Jones Day — Qualcomm achieves global settlement with Apple — April, 2019.

53. CNews — Apple to Pay Qualcomm $4.5 Billion in Fines to Get 5G Modems — May 2, 2019.

54. Tarbell, Ida M. — The history of the Standard Oil Company — New York : McClure, Phillips, 1904.

55. kommersant.ru — American Airlines and US Airways Create World's Largest Airline — November 13, 2013.

56. tass.ru — US Airways and American Airlines Complete Merger Deal — December 9, 2013.

57. Top Class Actions — Top Airlines Hit With Ticket Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit — July 3,  2015.

58. Top Class Actions — American Airlines Will Pay $45M To Settle Ticket Price-Fixing Lawsuit — June 19, 2018.

59. Oyez — Apple v. Pepper — 2019.

60. vedomosti.ru — British Airways agrees to pay $543 million in fines — August 2, 2007.

61. Forbes — Daimler to Pay $185 Million in US Fine for Bribery of Officials in 22 Countries — March 24, 2010.

62. The New York Times — Wal-Mart Hushed Up a Vast Mexican Bribery Case — April 21, 2012.

63. Forbes — $282M Settlement: Walmart to Pay Compensation in Exchange for Dropping Corruption Charges — June 21, 2019. 

64. Marketcap — Walmart Financial Statements 2011-2024

65. gazeta.ru — Poles prescribed GlaxoSmithKline — April 14, 2014.

66. International Business Times — Drugmaker GSK Investigating Corruption Allegations In UAE — October 8, 2014г.

67. Vademecum — GlaxoSmithKline Investigates Its Activities in Iraq — April 7, 2014.

68. tass.ru — UK pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline employees suspected of bribing Chinese officials — July 11, 2013.

69. Reuters — China hands drugmaker GSK record $489 million fine for paying bribes — September 19, 2014.

70. Marketcap — GlaxoSmithKline plc Profit and Loss 2011-2024

71. wbur — What A Tech Leader's Corruption Conviction Means For Samsung And South Korea — January 25, 2017. 

72. vedomosti.ru — Dinesh Paliwal: “Samsung-Harman merger is a dream come true” — October 2 , 2017. 

73. RG.RU — Samsung Electronics CEO Sentenced to Prison for Corruption — January 18, 2021. 

74. rbc.ru — US corruption scandal will cost Siemens $800 million — December 13, 2008.

75. vedomosti.ru — Boeing fined $615 million — May 16, 2006. 

76. OCCRP — Total SA charged with bribery abroad — May 31, 2013.