PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 12, 2021
Trust-Busting for the Twenty-First Century Act
This bill makes various changes to the federal antitrust statutes and places restrictions on acquisitions involving certain dominant digital firms.
First, the bill revises the evidentiary standards for establishing an illegal monopoly. Under the bill, if a plaintiff establishes the existence of substantial market power or the detrimental effects of particular practices, then the plaintiff need not further establish the scope of the relevant market or the share of the market controlled by the defendant. Further, to prove that the procompetitive effects justify a defendant's conduct the defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the procompetitive effects of the conduct outweigh the anticompetitive effects, and (2) the defendant could not obtain substantially similar procompetitive effects through commercially reasonable alternatives. In the case of a violation, courts must order the disgorgement of all profits earned as a result of the conduct.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Next, the bill generally prohibits acquisitions by companies with a market capitalization exceeding $100 billion where the effect of the acquisition may be to lessen competition.
Finally, the Federal Trade Commission may designate as a dominant digital firm a website or online service that the commission determines possesses dominant market power based on specified factors. Acquisitions by such firms in excess of $1 million are presumed unfair trade practices under the bill. Further, a dominant digital firm that provides search functionality must disclose to users any search results are that are promoted or demoted based on whether the search result is affiliated or not affiliated with the firm.
People & committees
Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1074 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1074 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1074 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1074 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.