Showing results for: “Google shopping manne”
The Market Challenge to Populist Antitrust
The wave of populist antitrust that has been embraced by regulators and legislators in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and other jurisdictions rests on the assumption that currently dominant platforms occupy entrenched positions that only government intervention can dislodge. Following this view, Facebook will forever dominate social networking, Amazon will forever dominate cloud ... The Market Challenge to Populist Antitrust
Chair Khan’s Latest Flawed Perspective on Mergers Ignores Empirics and Sound Economics
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan missed the mark once again in her May 6 speech on merger policy, delivered at the annual meeting of the International Competition Network (ICN). At a time when the FTC and U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) are presumably evaluating responses to the agencies’ “request for information” on possible merger-guideline ... Chair Khan’s Latest Flawed Perspective on Mergers Ignores Empirics and Sound Economics
The ABA’s Antitrust Law Section Sounds the Alarm on Klobuchar-Grassley
Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)—cosponsors of the American Innovation Online and Choice Act, which seeks to “rein in” tech companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon—contend that “everyone acknowledges the problems posed by dominant online platforms.” In their framing, it is simply an acknowledged fact that U.S. antitrust law has not kept ... The ABA’s Antitrust Law Section Sounds the Alarm on Klobuchar-Grassley
The FTC Abandons the Free Market
In December 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its statement of regulatory priorities for 2022, which describes its intention to expand the agency’s rulemaking activities to target “unfair methods of competition” (UMC) under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), in addition to (and in some cases, presumably in place of) ... The FTC Abandons the Free Market
UMC Rulemaking After Magnuson-Moss: A Textualist Approach
Introduction The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ability to conduct substantive rulemaking under both its “unfair methods of competition” (UMC) and “unfair and deceptive practices” (UDAP) mandates was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1973’s National Petroleum Refiners Association v. FTC. Nonetheless, the FTC has seldom exercised this authority with ... UMC Rulemaking After Magnuson-Moss: A Textualist Approach
Application of the Proper ‘Outer Boundary’ of Antitrust Liability for Alleged Refusals to Deal in New York v Facebook
Introduction The States brought an antitrust complaint against Facebook alleging that various conduct violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The ICLE brief addresses the States’ allegations that Facebook refused to provide access to an input, a set of application-programming interfaces that developers use in order to access Facebook’s network of social-media users (Facebook’s Platform), ... Application of the Proper ‘Outer Boundary’ of Antitrust Liability for Alleged Refusals to Deal in New York v Facebook
Attention Markets: They Know Them When they See Them
A raft of progressive scholars in recent years have argued that antitrust law remains blind to the emergence of so-called “attention markets,” in which firms compete by converting user attention into advertising revenue. This blindness, the scholars argue, has caused antitrust enforcers to clear harmful mergers in these industries. It certainly appears the argument is ... Attention Markets: They Know Them When they See Them
Assessing Less Restrictive Alternatives and Interbrand Competition in Epic v Apple
The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and 26 distinguished law & economics scholars with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the hotly anticipated and intensely important Epic Games v Apple case. A fantastic group of attorneys from White & Case generously assisted us ... Assessing Less Restrictive Alternatives and Interbrand Competition in Epic v Apple
In Apple v Epic, 9th Circuit Should Remember that Antitrust Forbids Enhancing, not Exercising, Market Power
On March 31, I and several other law and economics scholars filed an amicus brief in Epic Games v. Apple, which is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit. In this post, I summarize the central arguments of the brief, which was joined by Alden Abbott, Henry Butler, Alan Meese, Aurelien ... In Apple v Epic, 9th Circuit Should Remember that Antitrust Forbids Enhancing, not Exercising, Market Power
Suggested Redline Edits to the DOJ’s Letter to Judiciary Committee Leadership
The Biden administration finally has taken a public position on parallel House (H.R. 3816) and Senate (S. 2992) bills that would impose new welfare-reducing regulatory constraints on the ability of large digital platforms to engage in innovative business practices that benefit consumers and the economy. The administration’s articulation of its position—set forth in a March ... Suggested Redline Edits to the DOJ’s Letter to Judiciary Committee Leadership
Call for Submissions on FTC UMC Rulemaking Authority
The Limits of FTC UMC Rulemaking Symposium There is widespread interest in the potential tools that the Biden administration FTC may use to address a range of competition-related and competition-adjacent concerns. Among other issues, there have been indications that the FTC may use its broad UMC authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to ... Call for Submissions on FTC UMC Rulemaking Authority
Final DMA: Now We Know Where We’re Going, but We Still Don’t Know Why
After years of debate and negotiations, European Lawmakers have agreed upon what will most likely be the final iteration of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”), following the March 24 final round of “trilogue” talks. For the uninitiated, the DMA is one in a string of legislative proposals around the globe intended to “rein in” tech ... Final DMA: Now We Know Where We’re Going, but We Still Don’t Know Why
