Abuse of Dominance Laws Would Hurt Small Businesses

In statehouses across the country, lawmakers are considering new “abuse of dominance” (AOD) laws. Intended to curb leading tech companies’ power, the laws would prevent market-leading firms from engaging in practices like offering suites of integrated services, or selling products and services at prices competitors can’t match. These laws pose a serious, if unintended, threat to small businesses. As Hofstra University professor Richard Hayes pointed out in his recent op-ed, that’s because small businesses leverage top tech companies’ integrated, affordable digital tools to find customers, compete, and succeed. If passed, AOD laws could break those tools, badly hurting small businesses.

Millions of small businesses, for instance, use Google’s Business Profile tool — the all-in-one box of helpful information like hours of operation, reviews, and directions that pops up when you search for a local business online — to connect with customers, generate foot- and web-traffic, and drive sales. Business Profile offers online visibility at no cost, making it extremely valuable to small businesses like pharmacies or hardware stores, which typically have limited marketing budgets. Likewise, small retailers save time and money by using integrated fulfillment services to seamlessly handle their warehousing, packaging, shipping, and returns. Those services allow even the smallest sellers to deliver their goods to customers across the country — allowing them to quickly scale their businesses. And small businesses increasingly use integrated AI-powered tools like Google’s Performance Max to run efficient ad campaigns across platforms like Google Search, Maps, and YouTube.

These tools empower small businesses to succeed. But because the tools are provided by leading companies and offered as integrated services, AOD laws would likely deem them illegal. That means millions of small businesses would lose access to affordable, world-class tools that help them reach and serve customers. Instead, they’d be forced to cobble together a hodgepodge of disparate, less effective services — costing them time and money, and hurting their bottom lines. Research from the Data Catalyst Institute shows that if AOD laws were broadly passed in the U.S., they’d cost small businesses some $600 billion in annual lost sales. That translates to thousands of dollars in monthly losses per business.

AOD laws are problematic in several other regards. First, they’re likely to disproportionately harm minority- and women-owned businesses. These businesses often struggle to access business loans and capital, making access to affordable, integrated digital tools and platforms critical to their success — and the loss of such access particularly damaging. 

Second, AOD legislation could be interpreted to mean that any successful company — say, a small chain of high-quality vegan bakeries that outperforms competitors in a given local market — could be accused of anticompetitive behavior. That means businesses could be penalized for offering the best products, services, and prices, and may leave small businesses vulnerable to fines and lawsuits they can’t afford. 

AOD legislation wrongly assumes that market leadership is evidence of “abusive” business practices rather than high-quality offerings that consumers and small businesses value. It also fails to acknowledge that the presence of a market leader often spurs competitors to innovate, improve services, and reduce prices for small businesses and consumers. Indeed, it was the productive — rather than “abusive” — nature of competition that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in part acknowledged in his November 2025 decision deeming tech-leader Meta not a monopolist, but a catalyst for productive competition.

Lawmakers need to understand that in today’s digital economy, the smallest and biggest businesses are often partners. Small businesses choose to work with big companies because they offer cutting-edge capabilities, efficiencies, and reach that small businesses can’t achieve on their own. Abuse of dominance legislation may be intended to curb big technology companies’ power, but it’s likely to prove most disempowering to small businesses that leverage larger partners’ tools to grow and succeed in today’s digital economy.