The Missing Element in the Google Case
Through laudable competition on the merits, Google achieved a usage share of nearly 90% in “general search services.” About a decade later, the government alleged that Google had maintained its dominant share through exclusionary practices violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case was tried in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. last ... The Missing Element in the Google Case
Shining the Light of Economics on the Google Case
The U.S. Justice Department has presented its evidence in the antitrust case alleging that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over “general search services” by “lock[ing] up distribution channels” through “exclusionary agreements” with makers and marketers of devices. Google’s agreements with Apple, for example, have made its search engine the default in Apple’s Safari browser. The ... Shining the Light of Economics on the Google Case
The FTC Lacks Authority for Competition Rulemaking
Before becoming chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Lina Khan advocated the use of rulemakings to implement the prohibition on unfair methods of competition (UMC) in Section 5 of the FTC Act. As chair, she proposed a rule, which likely will be finalized in the spring, to ban noncompete clauses in employment contracts. But ... The FTC Lacks Authority for Competition Rulemaking
Werden and Froeb: The Conspicuous Silences of the Proposed Vertical Merger Guidelines
The proposed Vertical Merger Guidelines provide little practical guidance, especially on the key issue of what would lead one of the Agencies to determine that it will not challenge a vertical merger. Although they list the theories on which the Agencies focus and factors the Agencies “may consider,” the proposed Guidelines do not set out ... Werden and Froeb: The Conspicuous Silences of the Proposed Vertical Merger Guidelines
