FILE - Google headquarters

Google headquarters in Mountain View, California.

To millions of Americans, Google and Apple have made virtually all aspects of life simpler and more enjoyable. Because of competition and the quest for more customers, search engines, phones, and “personal assistants” made by these companies and others continue to improve.

The first iPhone is vastly different from the latest model, and today’s personal assistants are leaps and bounds ahead of their first-generation predecessors, a tremendous evolution in just a few years. But to some bureaucrats and presidential candidates, leading tech companies are simply too large and need to be “reined in.” Instead of waging a misguided war on digital entrepreneurs, the government should govern with a light touch and encourage even more innovation.

Despite all of the benefits that consumers continue to experience from leading tech products and services, elected and non-elected public officials have misunderstood the dynamic tech and app industries. First came Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s, D-Mass., disastrous idea to use the might of the federal government to break up tech giants such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Now, the Department of Justice is preparing an antitrust investigation of Google, and a probe of Apple is likely on the way.

Echoing the concerns of European regulators, American bureaucrats seem to be concerned that these companies/websites are being “anti-competitive.” Whatever that means, neither Google nor consumers would want a repeat of the disastrous European investigation; the European Commission fined the search giant $1.7 billion in March for allegedly using their market power to harm competitors. But these allegations are without merit. Google is certainly a leader in online searches, but if consumers are unhappy with their data collection practices, they are free to go to other search engines that have had no trouble growing despite Google’s reach and “market power.”

The Gigablast search service, for instance, has been an open-source, fully functional search service for years, and has steadily increased its portfolio of indexed pages. Don’t count Bing out either, which has turned into a respectable search engine with double-digit annual advertising revenue growth. And then there’s at least 25 other competitors offering their own interesting spins on the traditional internet search.

Contrary to the claims of regulators and pundits, smaller businesses and their consumers face no real harm from one company being the go-to for a particular service, and on the contrary, many small businesses have benefited incredibly by being able to use services such as Google to compete against larger and more established enterprises.

In a recent piece, NetChoice’s Carl Szabo implores bureaucrats to consider the local greeting card store. Szabo argues that, “A decade ago this business could barely afford to place an ad in a local newspaper, let alone on TV or radio. But for less than $10 spent with online platforms, this small business can reach thousands of potential customers, and target them more accurately than ever too.”

Apple’s revolutionary products have allowed millions of start-ups and entrepreneurs access to devices that allow them to make calls, check emails, and record notes all on the same device. Just 15 years ago, only larger, more established businesses were able to make investments into developing these capabilities at once. Surely, any antitrust criteria based on competition must also consider downstream effects for small businesses across the economy, instead of just in the digital domain. The fact that small businesses now have the same technological advantages that were once the privileged domain of large multinational corporations is something that should be celebrated, and not cracked down upon.

In addition, Google is constantly re-evaluating its search engine algorithms to identify websites that frequently update their content and provide in-depth analysis, instead of more static websites with boilerplate language. Fines and regulatory gusto from the government, however, could discourage the company from fine-tuning its products, leaving millions of niche, quality webpages – and the businesses that rely upon them - in the lurch.

These tech innovations have also saved small businesses and organizations millions of dollars in overhead costs such as office space or commuting. For example, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has grown by leaps and bounds over the last eight years because of this technological revolution. Blogs and reports by yours truly have been written in places as far away as Australia and Lebanon. This would not have been possible without innovative products and light-touch regulation.

Regulators are right to be concerned about barriers to entry, but “bigness” in itself isn’t the problem. To bring about even more competition, governments around the world should reduce onerous regulations that only the very largest players can afford to comply with.

Instead of pursuing disastrous antitrust policy that would make further iPhone development or search optimization more difficult, the federal government should encourage further innovation in the most effective way possible – by cheering it on from the sidelines. Any wrongheaded crusade for regulation in the name of competition will only destroy innovation to the detriment of millions.

Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.