CHAPTERS
- 0:01 – 1:32
Sen. Wiener unveils the BASE Act to curb Big Tech self-preferencing
Scott Wiener opens the press conference by announcing SB 1074, a pro-competition bill aimed at stopping the largest online platforms from favoring their own products over competitors. He frames the coalition behind the bill—startups plus civil society advocates—as a signal of the bill’s significance.
- •SB 1074 introduced as pro-competition legislation targeting self-preferencing
- •YC and Economic Security California Action highlighted as co-sponsors/partners
- •Framing: dominant platforms “rigging the internet” against startups and mid-sized firms
- •Goal: protect competition and innovation online
- 1:32 – 3:04
Concrete examples of self-preferencing by Apple, Google, Amazon, and Meta
Wiener lists familiar consumer-facing examples of platform conduct that allegedly disadvantages competitors. The examples illustrate how control over app distribution, discovery, pricing, and information flows can be used to tilt markets.
- •Apple: blocking competing app stores; forcing App Store fees
- •Google: manipulating search results toward owned/invested properties
- •Amazon: most-favored-nation policies; competing with sellers using platform power/data
- •Meta: demoting competing links in news feeds
- 3:04 – 5:06
Why this matters now: AI-driven startup boom needs a level playing field
Wiener connects anticompetitive platform behavior to the current surge of AI-enabled entrepreneurship. He argues public confidence in the AI boom depends on ensuring new companies can reach users without gatekeeper manipulation.
- •Platform conduct harms consumers via higher prices and degraded experiences
- •Innovation is accelerating via AI and “vibe coding”
- •Risk: value captured primarily by entrenched giants rather than new entrants
- •Policy aim: restore trust that innovation benefits the public
- 5:06 – 6:06
Limits of current antitrust tools and the push for new enforcement mechanisms
Wiener describes existing federal and court-based efforts as insufficient despite notable wins. He positions SB 1074 as an updated tool tailored to modern digital markets.
- •Old antitrust tools described as inadequate for today’s platform scale
- •Cites: Ninth Circuit on Apple (anti-steering), FTC Amazon suit, Google antitrust finding
- •Past victories haven’t meaningfully changed platform behavior
- •Need state-level, modernized legal tools
- 6:06 – 7:46
What SB 1074 (BASE Act) does: thresholds and prohibited conduct
Wiener summarizes the bill’s scope, defining which platforms qualify and what behaviors would be banned. He emphasizes specificity: outlawing enumerated forms of self-preferencing and related tactics.
- •Applies to platforms over $1T market cap and 100M+ monthly US users
- •Modeled on California’s Cartwright Act, adapted for digital markets
- •Prohibits tactics like search manipulation, MFN clauses, and using non-public data to compete
- •Goal: restore consumer choice and a more open internet
- 7:46 – 9:47
Garry Tan: the web got easier to build on—but harder to reach users
YC CEO Garry Tan contrasts the early open web with today’s distribution chokepoints. He argues AI makes building software dramatically easier, yet founders face gatekeeper barriers in mobile app distribution and search discovery.
- •AI lowers the barrier to creating apps and services
- •Apple App Store described as arbitrary/opaque with a ‘30% tax’
- •Google search described as increasingly closed and self-referential
- •Phones framed as reducing user and developer freedom versus computers
- 9:47 – 13:26
Tan: BASE Act targets anti-competitive ‘market corruption,’ not vertical integration
Tan anticipates criticism and draws a line between beneficial vertical integration and abusive gatekeeping. He characterizes the targeted behaviors as using infrastructure control to rig outcomes against startups.
- •Clarifies bill is not a blanket attack on vertical integration
- •Focus on edge-case abuses: tying, blocking interoperability, burying rivals, using third-party data
- •Frames conduct as ‘anti-corruption’ rather than anti-innovation
- •YC’s mission: ensure the best idea wins, not the best-connected platform
- 13:26 – 15:27
Economic Security California Action: the ‘toll road’ analogy and affordability impacts
Teri Oley argues dominant platforms function like essential infrastructure and can exploit informational advantages to compete unfairly. She ties reduced competition to higher prices, fewer choices, and weaker innovation—an affordability issue for consumers.
- •Digital marketplace described as controlled by a handful of dominant firms
- •Toll-road analogy: infrastructure owner launching a competing trucking business
- •Examples: data harvesting to clone products; restricting portability; manipulating ranking
- •Links competition to affordability, quality, and consumer experience
- 15:27 – 18:36
Why California should lead: EU action, federal gridlock, and a clear rule against self-preferencing
Oley cites European enforcement and fines as proof these practices can be addressed. She argues federal legislative and enforcement efforts have stalled, making California the logical leader to set a strong standard.
- •EU cited as acting against Google self-preferencing in travel/shopping
- •Claim: less competition leads to higher prices and lower quality by design
- •Congressional efforts stalled; enforcement portrayed as insufficient/retreating
- •SB 1074: ‘compete on merit’—no smothering rivals via infrastructure control
- 18:36 – 21:52
Founder story: AltStore and how the EU DMA enabled alternative iOS app stores
Shane Gill recounts building AltStore to distribute apps Apple rejected, including the Delta emulator. He argues the EU’s Digital Markets Act forced Apple to allow alternatives and that competition pushed Apple to loosen emulator rules globally.
- •AltStore created to enable ‘sideloading’ apps Apple wouldn’t approve
- •EU DMA enabled official alternative app stores on iOS in 2024
- •Apple review delays and rule changes undermined AltStore’s exclusivity strategy
- •Delta’s success shows consumer demand; AltStore expands with donation-friendly model
- 21:52 – 25:35
Founder story: Beeper/Pebble on interoperability barriers—features allowed in Europe, not the US
Eric Migicovsky describes how self-preferencing is hard for consumers to perceive because it prevents products from existing or thriving. He highlights Apple limiting third-party smartwatch capabilities on iPhone, contrasting it with DMA-mandated interoperability in Europe.
- •Hidden consumer harm: products die before users can try them
- •Pebble faces iOS restrictions that advantage Apple Watch
- •Example: third-party watches blocked from voice replies to notifications
- •EU DMA forces interoperability; US users lack equivalent access
- 25:35 – 28:54
Founder story: Poke vs Meta—platform power, bans, and pricing as a barrier to competition
Marvin von Hagen describes Meta moving to block or price out a third-party AI assistant integrated with WhatsApp after launching its own assistant. He argues Europe’s regulatory posture created leverage for competition that US users currently lack.
- •WhatsApp described as critical communications infrastructure globally
- •Meta allegedly targeted competitors after introducing its own AI assistant
- •Italy ruled in favor of the startup; EU opened an investigation
- •Ban replaced with high fees—‘one barrier for another’—limiting competition
- 28:54 – 32:05
Founder story: Blue voice assistant and the ‘dongle’ workaround for restricted phone control/accessibility
Peter Krogue explains Blue’s vision: an AI that can operate the phone end-to-end through voice. He argues platform restrictions forced them into a hardware workaround, and that opening access would improve competition and accessibility for users with disabilities.
- •Blue aims for full phone control via voice (work apps, shopping, social posting)
- •Built a USB dongle to simulate taps/typing due to lack of OS-level access
- •Accessibility stakes emphasized (motor/visual impairments, Parkinson’s)
- •Bill framed as enabling equal access so software can replace unnecessary hardware
- 32:05 – 42:30
Press Q&A: prohibited behaviors, enforcement, politics, and security arguments
Wiener and Tan respond to questions about what the bill bans, how it will be enforced, and anticipated opposition. They also address concerns about consumer security and claims that the bill conflicts with other California competition efforts.
- •Specific prohibitions reiterated: search manipulation, non-public data misuse, MFNs, tying, data portability, discriminatory pricing
- •Enforcement: Cartwright Act mechanisms—AG action and private lawsuits
- •Political outlook: acknowledged as a tough fight; no read on Gov. Newsom yet
- •Tan rebuts ‘security’ justification; Oley explains complementarity with AB 1776 (Compete Act)
