In the US, the main problems are housing, healthcare, and education. All with heavy government involvement, so Senators decide to get involved in Tech to stop what is legal in every other industry?
Housing? Look at the pressure that companies like Zillow are applying to housing market by buying up houses and holding on to them without providing any real value to the market. Healthcare? Google and Amazon are both making inroads to capturing and owning various aspects of healthcare data transfer and management, which is one the most cumbersome and expensive aspects of healthcare today. Education? Several big tech companies are involved there as well.
You can't separate big tech from any of the industries you just listed because their hands are in all of them, which is one of the big reasons we're having this conversation now.
Edit: To be clear, I don't think this is good for society as a whole, but they do provide value to someone -- they aren't just sitting in the middle rent seeking.
When you go to defend a company that essentially acts to exclude large swaths of the community from home ownership by accumulating real estate assets and driving prices up $400+/sq ft in many communities without actually doing any work to these houses, it's important to distinguish who exactly benefits here, because it's not most people that benefit from this.
Defending a company that adds value exclusively to the wealthier, property-owning class to everyone else's detriment by arguing that they "add value" is a bit of an oversimplification, isn't it?
Like I said, I think it's a net negative for society, but there are people who get value from it.
Unlike other industries, tech companies haven't banded together to create some SuperPAC named something like "American Association of Tech Innovators" to lobby/bribe politicians against regulating.
For healthcare, you have the vile "American Hospital Association" and "Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America " goblins trying to block any legislation that will lower healthcare costs at their expense.
For housing, the high costs are heavily affected by restrictive local zoning limiting the new supply of housing. The "lobbying" in this case is local NIMBY groups that every state/city has to fight.
For education, the high cost of college is due to the fact that the federal government originates/backs the vast majority of student loans. They basically allow colleges to charge whatever they want, pay them up front, and then it's on the federal gov to collect from students afterwards.
When they're effectively handing colleges blank checks, no shit they're going to charge the max they can get away with. It's so straightforward and infuriating that this point is rarely ever discussed in the debates around college costs. If these "non-profit" colleges (vast majority are) want access to that vast student loan money, they should have to play ball and only charge what the feds will allow. If they want to charge more, it should be their problem to find a way to get paid.