Structural Power Abuse Prevention Act

SUMMARY OF PROBLEM:

Structural power in the space economy arises not only from ownership, but from system position, dependency relationships, and control over critical functions, yet there is no statutory framework addressing abuse of power embedded in system structure itself.¹
Existing legal regimes (antitrust, consumer protection, licensing) focus on discrete acts of misconduct, not on ongoing structural conditions that enable abuse without clear violations.²
Entities can exercise power through pricing, access conditions, prioritization, or integration in ways that are technically compliant but structurally coercive.
Participants subject to structural power often lack visibility, alternatives, or recourse.
The absence of structural abuse regulation allows system design itself to become a mechanism of control and exploitation.

EXAMPLES

A system operator sets access conditions that are technically neutral but functionally exclusionary.
Pricing models are structured to reinforce dependency rather than reflect cost.
Integration requirements force participants into dependent relationships.
Operational rules are designed to favor affiliated entities without explicit discrimination.

ANALYSIS / IMPACT ON SOCIETY

Structural power differs from traditional market power because it is embedded in system design and dependency relationships.³
Economic impact includes persistent inequality in access and participation.
Operational impact includes constrained system flexibility and resilience.
Market impact includes reduced competition and innovation.
Individual and enterprise impact includes exposure to coercive system conditions.
Analog systems (digital platforms, utilities, financial infrastructure) demonstrate that structural power requires proactive regulation beyond reactive enforcement.⁴
In space systems, where dependency is total and alternatives are limited, structural power can become absolute if unchecked.

SOLUTIONS

Define and regulate structural power abuse as a distinct category of conduct.
Establish standards for identifying coercive or exclusionary system design.
Require periodic review of system structures for abuse potential.
Create enforcement mechanisms that address structural conditions, not just discrete acts.

RELATED COURT CASES (IRAC + CITATIONS)

Case 1: United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

Summary: Structural advantages were used to maintain dominance.
Issue: Whether system design can be used to restrict competition.
Rule: Leveraging structural position to exclude competitors is unlawful.
Analysis: Space systems present similar risks.
Conclusion: Structural abuse must be regulated.⁵

Case 2: Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985)

Summary: Refusal to cooperate in a dependent system constituted abuse.
Issue: Whether structural control creates obligations.
Rule: Abuse of power in dependent systems is actionable.
Analysis: Space participants are similarly dependent.
Conclusion: Oversight is required.⁶

Case 3: United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966)

Summary: Structural dominance required intervention.
Issue: Whether dominance itself creates risk of abuse.
Rule: Concentration of power must be regulated.
Analysis: Space systems exhibit structural dominance risks.
Conclusion: Preventative regulation is justified.⁷

POSSIBLE SUPPORT

Regulators would support this legislation because it addresses systemic abuse.
Market participants would support this legislation because it reduces coercive conditions.
Consumer protection organizations would support this legislation because it promotes fairness.
Governments would support this legislation because it limits systemic risk.

POSSIBLE OPPOSITION

Large operators may oppose this legislation due to constraints on system design.
Commercial firms may argue that structural advantages are a result of innovation.
Investors may oppose due to increased regulatory uncertainty.
Some stakeholders may argue that existing laws are sufficient to address abuse.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

This legislation addresses power embedded in system structure, not just behavior.
This legislation aligns with evolving regulatory approaches in complex systems.
This legislation prevents abuse before it becomes irreversible.
This legislation promotes fairness and resilience.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

This legislation may increase regulatory complexity.
This legislation may create uncertainty in defining abuse.
This legislation may impose compliance costs.
This legislation may affect system design flexibility.

BUDGET IMPACT

Implementation costs are moderate and include monitoring, analysis, and enforcement systems.
Government bears administrative costs; operators bear compliance costs.
Long-term benefits include reduced systemic risk and improved market stability.

TARGET LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND JURISDICTIONS

UNITED STATES CONGRESS: This entity is relevant because it can establish structural abuse standards under 51 U.S.C. § 509 and antitrust law.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ): This entity is relevant because it enforces competition law.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC): This entity is relevant because it regulates unfair practices.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA): This entity is relevant because it oversees operational systems.
EUROPEAN UNION: This entity is relevant because it regulates dominant position abuse.
UNITED NATIONS COPUOS: This entity is relevant because it can promote international regulatory norms.

SECTIONS OF LAW IMPACTED

51 U.S.C. § 509 would require amendment to include structural abuse provisions.
Sherman Act and Clayton Act would be implicated.
Consumer protection and competition frameworks would be expanded.
International frameworks would be influenced through structural regulation standards.

ENFORCEMENT REALITY + GAP ANALYSIS

Current frameworks address discrete misconduct, not structural conditions.
Structural power is not explicitly defined or regulated.
Enforcement is reactive and limited to clear violations.
No mechanisms exist for proactive structural review.

RISK EXPOSURE ANALYSIS

Legal risk is high due to absence of structural abuse regulation.
Operational risk is significant due to embedded system control.
Financial risk is high due to persistent power imbalances.
Systemic risk is critical due to unchecked structural dominance.

LANGUAGE (MANDATORY — LEGISLATIVE CORE)

TITLE

Structural Power Abuse Prevention Act

DETAILED LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE (FULLY DEVELOPED)

Section 1 — Definitions

(a) “Structural Power” means influence derived from system position, control, or dependency relationships.
(b) “Structural Abuse” means use of such power to create exclusionary, coercive, or unfair conditions.
(c) “Operator” means any entity controlling relevant systems.

Section 2 — Scope and Applicability

This Act applies to all entities operating under 51 U.S.C. § 509 and related statutes.

Section 3 — Prohibition of Structural Abuse

(a) Operators shall not engage in Structural Abuse.
(b) Structural Abuse shall include exclusionary system design and coercive conditions.

Section 4 — Identification and Review

(a) Regulatory Authorities shall identify Structural Power conditions.
(b) Periodic reviews shall assess risk of Structural Abuse.

Section 5 — Mitigation Requirements

(a) Operators shall implement measures to mitigate Structural Abuse risks.
(b) Measures may include redesign, access adjustments, or operational changes.

Section 6 — Transparency Requirements

(a) Operators shall disclose system structures and control mechanisms.
(b) Disclosures shall support regulatory review.

Section 7 — Prohibited Conduct

(a) Operators shall not design systems to create coercive dependency.
(b) Operators shall not exploit structural position to restrict participation.

Section 8 — Enforcement

(a) Violations shall result in regulatory and judicial action.
(b) Non-compliant entities may face operational restrictions.

Section 9 — Liability

(a) Operators shall be liable for harm resulting from Structural Abuse.
(b) Liability shall include financial penalties and corrective measures.

Section 10 — Measurable Triggers

A violation occurs when:
(a) Structural Abuse is identified through review.
(b) Mitigation measures are not implemented.
(c) Disclosure requirements are not met.

Section 11 — Implementation

(a) Regulations shall be issued within 12 months.
(b) Compliance required within 24 months.

Section 12 — Penalties

(a) Violations shall result in fines and corrective measures.
(b) Repeat violations may result in enhanced enforcement actions.

Section 13 — Supremacy and Non-Waiver

(a) This Act supersedes conflicting provisions.
(b) Rights under this Act may not be waived.

FOOTNOTES

Structural power and system control studies.
Antitrust and regulatory frameworks.
Structural dominance theory.
Platform and infrastructure governance research.
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (2001).
Aspen Skiing, 472 U.S. 585 (1985).
Grinnell, 384 U.S. 563 (1966).