A common version of this story says three things: that Standard Oil’s 1911 breakup into 34 companies changed nothing, because Rockefeller stayed the richest man in the world and the 34 stayed his pawns; that U.S.
markets are now monopolies whatever their companies say; and that buyers therefore have no real choice. It is an old version: Time wrote in 1923 of “the Standard Oil monopoly, for practical monopoly it still is,” and the ABA Journal says Theodore Roosevelt, after the breakup, quoted Wall Street’s prayer: “give us another dissolution.”
This story tests that version rather than illustrating it. It sets out, market by market, who counted, what a court or regulator found, and what each company said in reply. A market share is not proof of harm, a settlement is not a finding of guilt, and a link between two firms is not evidence of wrongdoing. Cases are read to 2 November 2026; where a later step exists and was not read, the card says so.
2 Nov 2026
Choice, counted
Three claims are tested here: that Standard Oil’s 1911 breakup changed nothing, that U.S. markets are now monopolies, and that buyers have no choice. The first national count, from Census data tabulated by Federal Reserve staff: the top four firms’ average share of sales rose in 13 of 15 sectors from 1997 to 2017, by 18.9 points in retail and 0.4 in accommodation and food. A policy group, read second-hand, finds a 1-point average rise from 2002. Both are national, not local. Market by market follows, read to 2 November 2026.
+18.9 in retail, +0.4 in food and lodgingChange, 1997 to 2017, in the top four firms’ average share of sales across narrow national industries, by sector (mean, weighted by sales). It rose in 13 of 15 sectors; for food and lodging the median fell 5.5 points
Concentration is measured as the share of sales accounted for by the top 4 firms.
A note on industry concentration measurement (accessible data), FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve, 3 Feb 2023. Primary record. Open the source
15 May 1911
A quarter
On the stock list of 17 August 1907, as the Abbeville Press and Banner printed it, John D. Rockefeller came first with 247,692 of the New Jersey parent’s 983,383 shares: about a quarter. The 1911 decree sent the stock of the subsidiaries to the parent’s stockholders, a “pro rata distribution,” President Taft told Congress. Pro rata means in proportion: a holder of a quarter of the parent in 1907 would have held a quarter of each piece, before anyone sold. We found no 1911 figure and did not read the decree’s own lists. The pieces are counted in The Thirty-Four.
It in effect commanded the dissolution of this combination, directed the transfer and pro rata distribution by the New Jersey company of the stock held by it in the thirty-seven corporations to and among its stockholders;
President William Howard Taft, message to Congress, 5 December 1911, on the Standard Oil decree. Primary record. Open the source
31 May 1937
The fortune
After the split the pieces’ stock was “whooped skyward,” Time wrote in 1937. Time also said he had retired from active direction at 57, about 15 years before the breakup, and that at death, after gifts, he was worth only a few million. The “2% of GDP” figure is unverified: no source we read computes it for a stated year. The one ratio we read, 1.6%, divides career earnings by the 1937 economy; it measures no fortune at any date, and a peak year could give another answer. “Richest man in the world” is a local historical society’s phrase; we found no ranking.
1.6%Career earnings of $1.5 billion, as his obituary gave them, over the U.S. economy in 1937, by the relative-output measure Samuel Williamson of MeasuringWorth suggested, per Bloomberg (2019)
Rockefeller’s $1.5 billion was about 1.6% of the economy in 1937.
Rockefeller Was Almost Three Times Richer Than Bezos, Bloomberg Businessweek, 21 May 2019. Scholarship & press. Open the source
7 Mar 1929
Pawns? Indiana, 1929
Bonds from the Continental Trading Company were traced to Robert W. Stewart, Standard Oil of Indiana’s chairman since 1918; a Senate inquiry questioned him in 1928 and he was tried twice, for contempt and perjury, and acquitted both times. John D. Rockefeller Jr., a minority stockholder, demanded his resignation “to remove any just ground for criticism.” The board and most small stockholders backed Stewart. At Whiting on 7 March 1929 the Rockefeller faction’s large blocks of shares won, with help, the society says, from his father. It was an open, argued fight.
It seems to me that I owe fully as much to the person holding ten shares of Standard Oil of Indiana
Robert W. Stewart, chairman of Standard Oil of Indiana, 1929, as the Whiting-Robertsdale Historical Society quotes him. Scholarship & press. Open the source
11 Apr 1917
Did the pieces compete?
The best record is the FTC’s of 1917, six years after the decree. On gasoline in 1915 it found the Standard companies kept a division of territory and no substantial competition among them, which it put down to shared stock from the decree; it found no direct evidence of collusion, and sent its findings to the Justice Department. That is an agency finding about ownership and territories, not a court ruling, and it shows no one directing the companies. Before 1911 Standard’s share was already falling (a blog post) and new rivals had emerged (Yale). Time called it in 1923 a “practical monopoly.” A 1952 FTC staff report named seven international oil companies, three of them Standard successors, as working through jointly owned subsidiaries. We found no study of the decades between.
That this absence of competition is due to a community of stock ownership, which community of interest is the result of the ratable distribution of stock under the dissolution as ordered by the court.
Federal Trade Commission, report of 11 April 1917, finding 2 (finding 1: “no substantial competition in the chief petroleum products exists among the several Standard companies”). Primary record. Open the source
17 May 1984
How banks got the phrase
In May 1984 depositors ran from Continental Illinois, the nation’s seventh-largest bank, and the FDIC covered all depositors. At House hearings in September and October, Representative Stewart McKinney used the phrase twice; asked whether any large bank could ever be let fail, the Comptroller, C. T. Conover, said regulators had no way yet. The phrase was older: the New York Fed finds it in the 1970s about Lockheed, and in print about Continental by July 1984. A 1985 House staff report, for the staff only, concluded certain banks are “too big to fail.” The FDIC’s history calls the term inaccurate: shareholders lost and managers went; “too big to liquidate” fits better.
Mr. Chairman, let us not bandy words. We have a new kind of bank. It is called too big to fail. TBTF, and it is a wonderful bank.
Representative Stewart McKinney, House hearing on Continental Illinois, 1984, p. 300. Primary record. Open the source
30 Jun 2026
2008, 2010, 2023, now
In 2008 the Fed authorized up to $85 billion for AIG. Dodd-Frank (2010) aimed to end too big to fail, with failed firms unwound so “Taxpayers shall bear no losses.” In March 2023 the Treasury, Fed and FDIC protected all depositors of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature under a systemic risk exception, saying no losses fall on taxpayers, shareholders and some creditors were unprotected, and banks would pay. Size since: five banks held 44.9% of bank assets in 2008, 56.3% in 2015 and 49.7% in 2021 (World Bank data, a different measure); on 30 June 2026 the four largest of 4,213 insured banks held about 40% (our sum of FDIC data).
Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, majority report, 2011, on the autumn of 2008. Primary record. Open the source
5 Aug 2024
Google: what courts found
Judge Amit Mehta found in August 2024 that Google violated Section 2 in general search and search text ads; its U.S. search share was nearly 90% in 2020, Bing’s about 6%. In September 2025 he declined to order Chrome or Android sold (“Plaintiffs overreached”), barred exclusive deals and ordered data sharing. Google: “people use Google because they want to, not because they’re forced to.” It appealed and the plaintiffs cross-appealed; on 7 May 2026 he denied, without prejudice, a request to pause the data sharing. In ad tech a court found a monopoly in April 2025; its remedies decision, unsealed 16 September 2026, rejected a sale of AdX but set changes under a monitor for six years; at the last report, 17 September, final judgment was not entered.
Last year, this court ruled that Defendant Google LLC had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act: “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”
Judge Amit Mehta, 2 September 2025, recalling his August 2024 ruling. Primary record. Open the source
18 Nov 2025
Meta: the FTC lost
The FTC said Meta kept a monopoly in “personal social networking” by buying Instagram and WhatsApp. After five years Chief Judge James Boasberg held on 18 November 2025 that the FTC had not shown Meta holds monopoly power now: TikTok and YouTube “compete fiercely over a meaningful share of Meta’s business.” Meta said the ruling was “correct.” The court did not decide whether Meta held monopoly power in the past. The FTC said on 20 January 2026 it would appeal; we found no appeal ruling and did not read the FTC’s brief.
Whether or not Meta enjoyed monopoly power in the past, though, the agency must show that it continues to hold such power now.
Chief Judge James Boasberg, 18 November 2025. Primary record. Open the source
2 Nov 2026
Two app stores
A jury found Google had unlawfully kept monopoly power over Android app distribution and in-app billing; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in July 2025 and Google’s Supreme Court petition was dismissed in March 2026, so that finding stands. Against Apple, Epic lost its Sherman Act claims over mobile-games transactions (significant power, not durable, not kept by anticompetitive conduct) and won under California law on steering. In December 2025 the Ninth Circuit affirmed contempt in part, reversed in part and sent the commission question back; the Supreme Court took one question, with argument on 11 January 2027. The Justice Department’s separate suit alleges Apple holds 65% of smartphones; Apple says it targets only lawful refusals to deal. No merits ruling.
11 January 2027Argument date in Apple v. Epic Games, No. 25-1311, on Apple’s contempt: Apple asks whether contempt may rest on an injunction’s “spirit”; the Ninth Circuit found two restrictions violated the injunction’s strict letter
Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (25-1311), SCOTUSblog, 2 Nov 2026. Scholarship & press. Open the source
16 Jan 2024
Airlines: four firms, 80%
Judge William Young wrote in January 2024 that Delta, American, United and Southwest control 80% of the industry. Four firms are not a monopoly; the question was one merger. JetBlue and Spirit argued Spirit was struggling financially and a merged firm would be a stronger rival; the court agreed it “would likely place stronger competitive pressure on the larger airlines,” but said JetBlue was far from the only possible buyer and that Spirit’s low-price customers would likely be harmed. Spirit stopped flying on 2 May 2026 after failed rescue talks. Spirit cited fuel prices; Transportation Secretary Duffy blamed the blocked merger; we found no court or study that settles it. The First Circuit upheld the American–JetBlue alliance ruling in 2024.
80%Share of the U.S. airline industry controlled by Delta, American, United and Southwest, per the court in United States v. JetBlue, 16 January 2024; Alaska, next, had 6% of revenue
These four airlines control 80% of the industry (with the next largest airline, Alaska Airlines, garnering 6% of airline revenue in the United States).
United States v. JetBlue Airways Corp. and Spirit Airlines, Inc., Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, No. 23-10511 (D. Mass., 16 January 2024), U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 16 Jan 2024. Primary record. Open the source
5 May 2026
Meat: four packers, 85% of the steers and heifers bought
Those with few buyers are ranchers, not shoppers. USDA says high concentration can enable market power, but the link “is not tight,” and some local markets have “just two to three firms.” In November 2025 President Trump asked for a Justice Department investigation. In April 2026 Reuters, citing the Wall Street Journal, reported it was criminal; on 4 May the Acting Attorney General confirmed an antitrust investigation, with over 3 million documents reviewed. We found no charge. The department also sued the data firm Agri Stats in 2023. AP linked high prices to drought, the smallest herd in decades and tariffs. Tyson, Cargill and JBS paid tens of millions to settle price-fixing suits and denied wrongdoing. The Meat Institute: “The beef industry is heavily regulated, and market transactions are transparent.”
85%Share of U.S. steer and heifer slaughter by the four largest meatpackers in 2019, counted by USDA’s Economic Research Service; hogs 67%
In 2019, the four largest meatpackers accounted for 85 percent of steer and heifer slaughter and 67 percent of hog slaughter.
Concentration and Competition in U.S. Agribusiness, Economic Information Bulletin 256, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Jun 2023. Primary record. Open the source
12 Jun 2026
Drug middlemen: three firms, 80%
Drug Channels counted three benefit managers, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and Optum Rx, at 80% of 2025 claims. In September 2024 the FTC sued all three, alleging rebating practices “artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs”; all denied it. Express Scripts settled in February 2026 on a ten-year order that, among other things, puts low-list-price drugs on its formularies at no disadvantage; Caremark’s proposed order was published on 5 August; we read both only as proposed orders for comment. In June the FTC paused its case against Optum Rx to consider a proposed settlement; no terms read. A consent order is a settlement, not a finding. Independent benefit managers are gaining business, Drug Channels adds, though many rely on the big three.
The FTC’s action ignores significant progress PBMs have made lowering costs in the insulin market
Reply of the benefit managers’ trade group, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, 20 September 2024, to the FTC suit. Self-published. Open the source
27 Oct 2026
Tickets: a jury’s finding, and a settlement
The complaint alleged Ticketmaster handles roughly 80% or more of major venues’ primary concert ticketing. On 9 March 2026, a week into trial, the Justice Department and several states settled: Live Nation keeps Ticketmaster, divests 13 booking agreements and caps fees at 15% at its large amphitheaters, admitting nothing; 17 states and D.C. told the judge it could entrench Ticketmaster, and he is still reviewing it. Live Nation’s 21 October filing says Trump “briefly appeared” at a settlement meeting but took no part in substantive discussions. 33 states and D.C. went on; on 15 April a jury found monopolization and tying and a $1.72 overcharge per ticket at major venues in 22 states, which Live Nation puts under $150 million before trebling. No ruling on its motions by late October. The FTC has a separate suit.
And, of course, through Ticketmaster, Live Nation controls roughly 80% or more of major concert venues’ primary ticketing for concerts and a growing share of ticket resales in the secondary market.
Justice Department and states’ complaint, as published in the Federal Register in 2026 (an allegation). Primary record. Open the source
24 Sep 2024
Cards: alleged, not tried
The Justice Department alleges that more than 60% of U.S. debit transactions run on Visa’s network, earning over $7 billion a year, and that its contracts shield three-quarters of Visa’s debit volume from competition. Visa called the suit “meritless”: “Visa is just one of many competitors in a debit space that is growing.” The court refused to dismiss it in 2025. Fact discovery was moved to 29 January 2027 and no trial date was set at the last report we read; lawyers expect the fight to turn on how the market is drawn. We found no finding either way.
60%+Share of U.S. debit transactions on Visa’s network, as alleged by the Justice Department in September 2024; the complaint puts Mastercard under a quarter
More than 60% of debit transactions in the U.S. run over Visa rails, helping it charge more than $7 billion annually in processing fees, according to the DOJ complaint.
Justice Department accuses Visa of debit network monopoly that affects price of ‘nearly everything’ (CNBC, via NBC News), CNBC, via NBC News, 24 Sep 2024. Scholarship & press. Open the source
14 Aug 2026
Home internet: it depends where and how you count
FCC staff, June 2025, 100/20 Mbps: with wired service, 62% of urban households had two providers or more, 23% of rural ones; adding fixed wireless, 85% and 47%; adding satellite, about 100% and 87%, though satellite is 2.3% of fixed connections. Overall 46% had at most one wired provider, 51% a year earlier. The 2024 report, using data to 2022, gave about 45% for terrestrial service; the 2026 report calls it “a lone outlier” for adding affordability and adoption tests, and says options keep growing. In 2024 ACA Connects told the FCC two-thirds of households had at least two actual or potential options; the FCC could not verify that.
23%Share of rural households with at least two wired providers of 100/20 Mbps service, June 2025, FCC staff (report of 14 August 2026); urban 62%, so 38% of urban households had one or none
while approximately 62% of households in urban areas had at least two provider options for 100/20 Mbps Fixed Wireline Service, approximately 23% of households in rural areas and approximately 34% of households on Tribal lands had at least two options for this service.
2026 Section 706 Report, FCC 26-55 (GN Docket No. 25-223), Federal Communications Commission, 14 Aug 2026. Primary record. Open the source
Nov 2025
The economists disagree
Markups: De Loecker, Eeckhout and Unger put them at 18% above cost in 1980 and 67% in their 2017 working paper (the published version differs); in November 2025 Benkard, Miller and Yurukoglu answered that on the full sample the rise is “more muted” and “almost entirely driven by Finance and Insurance firms.” The original authors replied; we did not read the reply. Local concentration: Rossi-Hansberg, Sarte and Trachter found it falling as national concentration rose, 1990 to 2014; Autor, Patterson and Van Reenen found local job concentration falling but local sales concentration rising, 1992 to 2017. Abstracts only. Not settled.
We document that the Herfindhahl index of local employment concentration, measured at the county-by-NAICS six-digit-industry cell level, fell between 1992 and 2017 even as local sales concentration rose.
David Autor, Christina Patterson and John Van Reenen, NBER, 2023. Scholarship & press. Open the source
18 Dec 2023
How the rules changed
In Reiter v. Sonotone (1979), on whether retail buyers hurt by price fixing could sue, the Supreme Court called the Sherman Act a “consumer welfare prescription,” a phrase from Robert Bork’s 1978 book. The 1982 merger guidelines first set a line on the HHI, the sum of squared market shares: above 1,800 is highly concentrated. That held to 1997, changed by 2010, and returned in 2023 with a 30% share presumption. B. Zorina Khan, in a 2021 blog post, says antitrust is “typically motivated by politics and populism more than economics.” On 18 February 2025 the new FTC and Justice Department heads kept the 2023 guidelines; Commissioner Holyoak would “strongly consider” revising them.
specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy.
Lina Khan, Yale Law Journal, 2017; she later chaired the FTC. Scholarship & press. Open the source
26 Feb 2026
Three kinds of link, kept apart
Funds: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street each held over 5% of Chevron on the filings behind its 2026 proxy, for clients; Vanguard says its funds “pursue varied independent investment strategies.” A 2018 study reported fares “3% to 7% higher” from such ownership; BlackRock cited a consultant it hired, which found the link “not statistically different from zero.” Texas-led states allege the three coordinated on coal; a judge let most claims proceed, which is not a finding; the FTC and Justice Department had filed in support of the states’ argument in the suit; Vanguard paid $29.5 million without admission; State Street: “baseless”; BlackRock’s lawyers deny coordination. Boards: the Clayton Act bars one person directing two rivals (see The Thirty-Four). A shared supplier: DOJ alleged RealPage pooled rivals’ data; it settled with no finding. None is evidence of the others.
The common ownership concept is an unproven hypothesis that should, at a minimum, be studied in greater depth before becoming a part of the rules implementing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act
Vanguard, letter to the FTC, 1 February 2021. Primary record. Open the source
2 Nov 2026
What the record shows
Standard Oil: the FTC found in 1917 no substantial competition among the pieces in gasoline, due to shared stock from the decree, and no direct evidence of collusion. That is where the common version holds best for those years; it does not show Rockefeller directing them, and we found nothing on later decades. Monopoly found: Google in Android app distribution (affirmed; petition dismissed) and, on appeal, in search, search ads and ad tech; Live Nation, by a jury (motions pending). No monopoly found: Meta (on appeal); Apple on Epic’s Sherman Act claims. Few firms, no finding: beef buyers, drug middlemen, the big four airlines. Alleged: Visa, Apple. Choice: urban wired internet 62% with two providers or more, rural 23%. Unsettled: local concentration, markups, common ownership.
The Commission has found no direct evidence of collusion among the several Standard companies in violation of the dissolution decree.
Federal Trade Commission, 11 April 1917, finding 4, beside its finding that no substantial competition existed among the Standard companies. Primary record. Open the source