Auckland Professor Urges Structural 'Unmaking' of Big Tech Monopolies

Professor Susan Watson of the University of Auckland is calling for a fundamental restructuring of Big Tech, arguing that companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon have evolved beyond market competitors to become owners of essential digital infrastructure. In a new paper, Watson warns that this concentration of power threatens societal stability and requires a shift toward structural regulation.

In her paper, titled "Reining in Big Tech Corporations: Why Platform Governance Requires Structural Regulation," Watson asserts that today's tech titans represent a modern version of corporate power concentration, though they operate on digital rather than physical territory. She draws historical parallels to the East India Company and the "Gilded Age" oil and railroad barons of the 19th century. To address this, she points to the 1890 Sherman Act as a precedent, noting it was created specifically to break up corporate monopolies that controlled key infrastructure.

The Case for Structural Reform

The research, published as part of a Cambridge University Press collection edited by Professor Alexandra Andhov, examines corporations as legal entities created by governments. Watson argues that because these companies are "artificial persons," they can be reformed or "unmade" by the same legal mechanisms that created them. She likens the current state of corporate power to Frankenstein's monster, suggesting that just as humans created these entities, they possess the power to dismantle them.

Watson's proposal includes several concrete regulatory fixes. She advocates for the banning of surveillance-based business models and the implementation of strict limits on corporate claims over data. Additionally, she proposes that major platforms should be required to operate under licenses with specific, attached conditions to ensure public accountability.

Shifting the Regulatory Paradigm

This approach marks a significant departure from reactive regulation, which typically attempts to fix harms after they have already occurred. Watson argues that waiting for a "disastrous" event—potentially involving a weapon—before taking action is a dangerous precedent. Because these corporations now control the digital territory upon which both businesses and governments depend, she contends that the risk of inaction is too high.

Furthermore, Watson challenges the narrative surrounding artificial intelligence, arguing that current AI tools are not "intelligent" in a human sense, but are instead high-value assets owned by a small group of tech titans.

A New Governance Model

To replace the current top-down corporate structure, Watson suggests a governance model inspired by the legal personhood of New Zealand's Whanganui River. Under this framework, governance rights would not reside solely with shareholders or executives, but would be shared among affected users, employees, and public regulators.

While the proposal offers a radical path forward, the primary challenge remains whether governments are willing to move beyond fines and behavioral tweaks toward the structural "unmaking" of the world's most powerful companies.