In the tech industry, first-movers often come to occupy large market shares, potentially leading to a natural monopoly in the given market. Firms might also vertically and horizontally integrate, acquiring other businesses in pursuit of efficiency gains or a competitive edge. Though maybe a red flag for competition regulators, whether such efforts by digital platforms cause measureable harms to consumers is not always easy to determine. At its heart, competition regulation seeks to limit the harms of monopoly – limited choice, high prices, and lack of innovation. This is done with the aim of maximizing consumer welfare. Regulators, in pursuing digital platforms, believe that they are doing just that. But platforms, even those that are very large, rarely fit neatly into the monopoly box. Platforms might offer unpriced services to users, and competitors are just a click away. Further, the pace of innovation is often break-neck. Firms that do not change with the times quickly lose market share – evidenced by the fact that the tech landscape of today is vastly different from even five years ago. Despite the unique nature of tech markets, competition regulation is generally pursued with traditional regulatory tools. But this leads to insufficiently dissuasive enforcement actions, with litigation processes that move slowly compared to the pace of change in the digital economy. Whether these efforts to rein in digital platforms actually boost consumer welfare – which should be a guiding question for regulators – is unclear. This is especially true where digital platforms ‘disrupt’ traditional markets with low prices, efficiency gains, and innovation.