Showing results for: “google”
Committee Prepares to Grill Tech CEOS, but It Is the First Amendment That Could Get Torched
In what has become regularly scheduled programming on Capitol Hill, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai will be subject to yet another round of congressional grilling—this time, about the platforms’ content-moderation policies—during a March 25 joint hearing of two subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The ... Committee Prepares to Grill Tech CEOS, but It Is the First Amendment That Could Get Torched
Congress Should Not Legalize a News Media Cartel
Amazingly enough, at a time when legislative proposals for new antitrust restrictions are rapidly multiplying—see the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA), for example—Congress simultaneously is seriously considering granting antitrust immunity to a price-fixing cartel among members of the newsmedia. This would thereby authorize what the late Justice Antonin Scalia termed “the supreme ... Congress Should Not Legalize a News Media Cartel
Platform Self-Preferencing Can Be Good for Consumers and Even Competitors
Critics of big tech companies like Google and Amazon are increasingly focused on the supposed evils of “self-preferencing.” This refers to when digital platforms like Amazon Marketplace or Google Search, which connect competing services with potential customers or users, also offer (and sometimes prioritize) their own in-house products and services. The objection, raised by several ... Platform Self-Preferencing Can Be Good for Consumers and Even Competitors
Investors and Regulators Can Both Fall for Platform Bubbles
In current discussions of technology markets, few words are heard more often than “platform.” Initial public offering (IPO) prospectuses use “platform” to describe a service that is bound to dominate a digital market. Antitrust regulators use “platform” to describe a service that dominates a digital market or threatens to do so. In either case, “platform” denotes power ... Investors and Regulators Can Both Fall for Platform Bubbles
A Reflection on Commissioner Pai, Chairman Pai, and Public Service
Much of this symposium celebrates Ajit’s contributions as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and his accomplishments and leadership in that role. And rightly so. But Commissioner Pai, not just Chairman Pai, should also be recognized. I first met Ajit when we were both minority commissioners at our respective agencies: the FCC and Federal Trade ... A Reflection on Commissioner Pai, Chairman Pai, and Public Service
Why Restoring Internet Freedom Was a Landmark Accomplishment
I am pleased to participate in this retrospective symposium regarding Ajit Pai’s tenure as Federal Communications Commission chairman. I have been closely involved in communications law and policy for nearly 45 years, and, as I’ve said several times since Chairman Pai announced his departure, he will leave as one of the most consequential leaders in ... Why Restoring Internet Freedom Was a Landmark Accomplishment
The DOJ’s Antitrust Case Against Google: A Tough Slog, but Maybe an Intriguing Possibility?
The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust case against Google, which was filed in October 2020, will be a tough slog.[1] It is an alleged monopolization (Sherman Act, Sec. 2) case; and monopolization cases are always a tough slog. In this brief essay I will lay out some of the issues in the case and raise ... The DOJ’s Antitrust Case Against Google: A Tough Slog, but Maybe an Intriguing Possibility?
Trade Promotions in High Tech
As one of the few economic theorists in this symposium, I believe my comparative advantage is in that: economic theory. In this post, I want to remind people of the basic economic theories that we have at our disposal, “off the shelf,” to make sense of the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Google. I ... Trade Promotions in High Tech
Why the Federal Government’s Antitrust Case Against Google Should—and Likely Will—Fail
On October 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and eleven states with Republican attorneys general sued Google for monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the markets for general internet search services, search advertising, and “general search text” advertising (i.e., ads that resemble search results). Last week, California joined the lawsuit, making it a bipartisan ... Why the Federal Government’s Antitrust Case Against Google Should—and Likely Will—Fail
The Case Against Google Advertising: What’s the Relevant Market and How Many Are There?
U.S. antitrust regulators have a history of narrowly defining relevant markets—often to the point of absurdity—in order to create market power out of thin air. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) famously declared that Whole Foods and Wild Oats operated in the “premium natural and organic supermarkets market”—a narrowly defined market designed to exclude other supermarkets ... The Case Against Google Advertising: What’s the Relevant Market and How Many Are There?
The Antitrust Prohibition of Favoritism, or the Imposition of Corporate Selflessness
It is my endeavor to scrutinize the questionable assessment articulated against default settings in the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Google. Default, I will argue, is no antitrust fault. Default in the Google case drastically differs from default referred to in the Microsoft case. In Part I, I argue the comparison is odious. Furthermore, in ... The Antitrust Prohibition of Favoritism, or the Imposition of Corporate Selflessness
Google and Shifting Conceptions of What It Means to Improve a Product
Judges sometimes claim that they do not pick winners when they decide antitrust cases. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competitive conduct by its nature harms competitors, and so if antitrust were merely to prohibit harm to competitors, antitrust would then destroy what it is meant to promote. What antitrust prohibits, therefore, is not ... Google and Shifting Conceptions of What It Means to Improve a Product
