Tom Blomfield, Monzo co-founder, criticizes competition regulators amid Google’s proposed Chrome sale.
- Google faces a US Department of Justice proposal to sell Chrome due to monopoly concerns.
- Blomfield labels the regulators as “religious zealots” for imposing lifestyle regulations.
- He argues Google’s services enhance consumer choice and regulation should be minimized.
- The UK and US regulators have both scrutinized Google’s market dominance recently.
Tom Blomfield, known for his role in establishing Monzo, a successful neobank, has voiced strong criticism against competition regulators. He reacted to the recent proposal by the US Department of Justice, which suggested that Google be required to divest its Chrome browser to mitigate monopoly concerns.
The proposal aims to disrupt what is seen as Google’s dominant position in the web browser market, where Chrome holds over 65% share globally. Blomfield, however, disagrees with the notion of enforced divestment. He expressed his opinions on social media, controversially describing the regulators as a group of ‘religious zealots’ who try to dictate others’ lives based on strict beliefs.
Blomfield advocates for less regulation, highlighting Google’s positive impact on consumer surplus through its various platforms like Maps, Gmail, Docs, Drive, and Android. He stated, ‘I like Google Chrome. I like Google search being the default. If I didn’t, I would change it.’ His comments reflect a belief in personal choice over regulatory interventions.
In response to queries, Blomfield acknowledged that competition regulation could benefit startups until they reach the scale where selling becomes an issue. This reflects a nuanced view of regulation, where he sees potential benefits but cautions against overreach.
Moreover, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has also been active in scrutinizing Google’s practices, investigating its advertising dominance and recent investments in AI company Anthropic. Although these inquiries often raise questions, Blomfield’s remarks suggest a preference for markets to self-regulate under consumer influence rather than through imposed rules.
Blomfield’s critique sparks a conversation on the balance between regulation and market freedom in tech industry operations.
