Rewritten: The DC attorney general compares the battle against big tech to David versus Goliath.

• In an interview with CNBC, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine discussed his experience as the underdog against Big Tech during his final year in office.
• Amazon, Facebook, Google, DoorDash, and Grubhub are facing competition and consumer protection complaints from Racine.
• Despite recent setbacks in court cases against Big Tech, Racine maintains confidence in his office's ability to succeed.

As an underdog, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine faces challenges in his battles against Big Tech.

Racine stated in a CNBC interview that taking on technology is like David versus Goliath, requiring thoroughness, precision, and a willingness to go the distance.

Despite announcing that he will not seek reelection, Racine has shown his determination in legal battles against companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and others. However, his office has faced setbacks in recent months with regards to actions against Amazon and Meta.

Racine stated that his office intends to proceed with each of the cases and request the courts to reevaluate them. He expressed that he was not astonished that tech companies would hire the most skilled lawyers to support them and engage in a process that "crushes smaller players and plaintiffs." Additionally, he expressed confidence that the courts, after receiving additional clarification on the specifics of their cases, would ultimately reverse their decisions.

Racine stated, "We are ready to assume the David role, and I believe David ultimately triumphed."

The role of state AGs

As the first independently-elected attorney general in D.C., Racine views the role of state AGs as crucial due to Congress' sluggish performance in taking action.

Upon being elected in 2014, he did not anticipate that tackling the tech industry would be as significant a part of his work as it has turned out to be. However, he soon realized that his position offered a unique opportunity for this task.

Racine stated that our state AG office had a role to play because we were aware of Congress' paralysis and the increasing concentration of power.

The tech industry is facing potential challenges from a set of competition bills being considered by Congress, but the bills' specifics are still being debated, and Big Tech companies are lobbying against them, while other priorities, such as the war in Ukraine, are also hindering their passage.

Attorneys general possess the ability to act swiftly and effectively, allowing companies to rectify issues immediately, according to Racine. Alternatively, they can bring matters to court, where no amount of lobbying can influence the court's judicial responsibility to determine if the law has been violated. AGs are active because they have the public's ear and the necessary enforcement tools to hold companies accountable.

Despite Congress's tech efforts being hindered by partisan and inter-party disputes, state AGs have shown broad agreement on significant tech issues and legal actions, such as the antitrust lawsuits against Facebook and Google, which involved the majority of state enforcers.

The cohesion of attorneys general offices is attributed to their proximity to their constituents, as Racine stated.

As the people's lawyers, state attorney generals perform their best when they are frank, engaged, and listening to the residents of their jurisdictions.

Racine acknowledged that bringing lawsuits can be an important and more immediate result of state AG's work, even though the process of writing new laws is slow-moving.

The process of giving companies the chance to do the right thing by examining the potential consequences of a lawsuit, determining their guilt, and adjusting their behavior to comply with the law is often overlooked and underestimated, as it is not commonly seen in public.

Racine has achieved some victories against the tech sector. He mentioned a letter he wrote to Facebook, along with other state AGs, following the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, requesting the platform to remove targeted ads of military tactical gear and weapons accessories until after the inauguration. The following day, Facebook complied.

Racine has reached settlements with tech companies resulting in restitution for impacted District residents.

In 2020, the company agreed to a $2.5 million settlement over allegations that it misled consumers about how it would allocate tips to workers. This agreement was reached just a couple of weeks after the company filed to go public. Out of the total amount, $1.5 million was set to be paid as relief to delivery workers, $750,000 to the District, and $250,000 to two local charities.

Recently, Grubhub was sued by Racine's office for allegedly using misleading marketing tactics, including deceiving consumers about how their purchases would benefit small restaurants during the pandemic. Grubhub has denied any wrongdoing and vowed to defend its practices.

Lawsuit setbacks

Recently, the D.C. attorney general's office has faced challenges in several major tech cases.

In quick succession, a federal judge dismissed a multistate lawsuit against Facebook for illegal monopolization, a District judge rejected Racine's request to add Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant in a consumer protection lawsuit related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and another judge threw out a suit Racine filed against Amazon, believed to be the first government antitrust suit against the company.

Although Racine faced a string of setbacks, he maintained his faith in the judicial system.

He emphasized the importance of presenting clear facts and educating the court on the law.

Rewritten sentence: By expanding the scope of existing statutes, more cases can be brought under their jurisdiction.

According to Racine, there have not been many antitrust cases in the District of Columbia. His lawsuit against Amazon, brought under the District's antitrust statute, was the first time the courts were looking at these cases. Racine believes that it will take some time for the court to learn and become familiar with the legal principles that it does not interact with on a regular basis.

Amazon is planning to appeal the court's decision against it, as a federal judge in Seattle recently allowed similar claims to proceed.

Amazon didn’t provide a comment.

The coalition of states that sued Facebook on antitrust grounds is appealing a federal judge's decision to dismiss their lawsuit. The judge in this case argued that the states waited too long to bring charges after Facebook acquired Instagram and WhatsApp years earlier. According to federal antitrust law, both federal and state enforcers have the authority to bring cases under the statutes and reserve the right to challenge mergers even after they have been closed.

The AG's office was criticized by District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Maurice Ross for waiting too long to add Zuckerberg's name to the Cambridge Analytica-related suit. The judge questioned the value to consumers of naming the CEO to the suit, as much of the information needed to do so was already available.

The judge stated in a court transcript that the subsequent motion to reopen discovery filed less than three months after agreeing to a final schedule for discovery appeared to be in bad faith. The judge added that there was no prejudice to the individual filing the motion, but it only served to divert attention from the company to the individual.

Racine contended that his office required additional evidence from the company to confidently assert that the CEO was liable for violating consumer protection laws. He asserted that Facebook's sluggish disclosure of evidence prolonged the time it took his office to establish that it had sufficient information to support this conclusion.

Facebook did not provide a comment.

Racine stated that they are considering filing a separate lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg, as it falls within the statute of limitations, due to the evidence indicating that Mr. Zuckerberg was directly involved in the misrepresentations regarding user privacy retention.

It makes sense for Congress to update federal antitrust law to clarify the application of those statutes to the tech industry on the federal level, as he stated.

"With the facts now available, Congress can better customize antitrust actions and remedies to match what is happening online," he stated.

What’s next

Racine stated that his decision not to run for reelection was a deeply personal one, as he now has a baby boy to take care of. Although he wouldn't rule out another stint in government, he said it's not where his "first look" is at the moment.

He stated that, as a Haitian-American, he would be particularly drawn to opportunities that enable him to address problems in Haiti. Additionally, he mentioned that he is examining other possibilities, including those within the private sector.

Racine hopes his successor will continue to advocate for D.C. residents, including many of us who rely on technology. He has endorsed Brian Schwalb, the partner-in-charge of Venable's D.C. office, with whom he worked before becoming AG.

Racine emphasized the importance of being a check and balance on how technology affects our lives and people, and using the law to promote fairness and protect against hate, misinformation, and disinformation. As the People's Lawyer, he hopes the next attorney general will continue this fight.