Breaking up Big Tech would be illegal

Antitrust laws are intended to prevent companies from dominating markets through anticompetitive practices. In other words, antitrust rules only apply in situations where a monopoly is based on factors other than than a company providing a superior product or service. These rule originate in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, which were put into place during an era in U.S. history when large firms in industries including oil, energy, manufacturing, and tobacco were able to dominate resource production and operate as monopolistic cartels, crowding out competitors and fixing prices to their benefit rather than the benefit of consumers. In contrast, innocent monopolies, which occur when a company dominates simply by making a superior offering to consumers, are legal. The Big Tech companies have achieved their dominant positions by virtue of the quality of their products, so the legal basis for breaking them up is shaky. Antitrust regulations also have limited applicability to the Big Tech companies because, rather than monopolizing any well-defined single market in the way that a company like Standard Oil did, the Big Tech companies achieved their size by diversifying into many different markets. The sheer size of the company alone is not sufficient to be in violation of antitrust laws without proof of specific monopolistic practices, such as the domination of a bottleneck resource.

[P1] Big Tech companies are not actually in contravention of antitrust laws. [P2] Breaking up the Big Tech companies would be illegal.