Consumer groups urge FTC probe into AI firms' 'hoard-and-destroy' book practices

Advocacy framing: The article leads with and emphasizes the consumer groups' concerns using their preferred terminology ('hoard-and-destroy'), presents their arguments as factual claims, and structures the narrative around their allegations without substantial opposing viewpoints.

Shift toward AI developer market concentration and information asymmetry; established tech incumbents (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) consolidating control over training data and knowledge resources; potential erosion of competitive access for smaller AI firms and public institutions; weakening of traditional publishing and library ecosystems.

Similar to 19th-century industrial monopolies controlling raw materials and destroying competitor access; parallels with tech platform gatekeeping (Google Books, Amazon) that prompted earlier regulatory scrutiny.

Consumers face reduced access to rare and out-of-print books, potentially higher AI service costs if competition is restricted to wealthy incumbents, and loss of cultural heritage as unique literary works are permanently destroyed.

Potential FTC antitrust investigation under Section 5 of the FTC Act; possible new regulations on AI training data acquisition and destruction practices; potential copyright law clarifications regarding fair use in AI training; possible requirements for data preservation or alternative training methods.