The Archives

The collection of all scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

Showing results for:  “digital markets act”

The DOJ’s Approval of the CVS/Aetna Merger and Vertical Innovation by Incumbents

Last week, the DOJ cleared the merger of CVS Health and Aetna (conditional on Aetna’s divesting its Medicare Part D business), a merger that, as I previously noted at a House Judiciary hearing, “presents a creative effort by two of the most well-informed and successful industry participants to try something new to reform a troubled ... The DOJ’s Approval of the CVS/Aetna Merger and Vertical Innovation by Incumbents

Telemarketing, Technology, and Why the Telephone Sucks (and how to fix it)

It is a truth universally acknowledged that unwanted telephone calls are among the most reviled annoyances known to man. But this does not mean that laws intended to prohibit these calls are themselves necessarily good. Indeed, in one sense we know intuitively that they are not good. These laws have proven wholly ineffective at curtailing ... Telemarketing, Technology, and Why the Telephone Sucks (and how to fix it)

Reflections on the recent filings in Qualcomm/FTC dispute

On Monday, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Qualcomm reportedly requested a 30 day delay to a preliminary ruling in their ongoing dispute over the terms of Qualcomm’s licensing agreements–indicating that they may seek a settlement. The dispute raises important issues regarding the scope of so-called FRAND (“fair reasonable and non-discriminatory”) commitments in the context ... Reflections on the recent filings in Qualcomm/FTC dispute

The economic impact of smoke-free air laws on the restaurant and hospitality industries

The puzzling lack of economic impacts One focus in the analysis of smoke-free air (SFA) laws has been on measuring the impact smoking bans have on the restaurant and hospitality industries. The overwhelming or “consensus” result of this research is that bans impose no adverse impact on industry revenues and employment levels (Scollo et al., ... The economic impact of smoke-free air laws on the restaurant and hospitality industries

Applying harm reduction to smoking

Abstinence approaches work exceedingly well on an individual level but continue to fail when applied to populations. We can see this in several areas: teen pregnancy; continued drug use regardless of severe criminal penalties; and high smoking rates in vulnerable populations, despite targeted efforts to prevent youth and adult uptake. The good news is that ... Applying harm reduction to smoking

Putting Politics over Policy at the FCC

FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel penned an article this week on the doublespeak coming out of the current administration with respect to trade and telecom policy. On one hand, she argues, the administration has proclaimed 5G to be an essential part of our future commercial and defense interests. But, she tells us, the administration has, on the ... Putting Politics over Policy at the FCC

Vapor products, harm reduction, and taxation: More questions than answers for a young and dynamic product market

ICLE has released a white paper entitled Vapor products, harm reduction, and taxation: Principles, evidence and a research agenda, authored by ICLE Chief Economist, Eric Fruits. More than 20 countries have introduced taxation on e-cigarettes and other vapor products. In the United States, several states and local jurisdictions have enacted e-cigarette taxes. The concept of ... Vapor products, harm reduction, and taxation: More questions than answers for a young and dynamic product market

More Evidence Against the Common Ownership Problem

I posted this originally on my own blog, but decided to cross-post here since Thom and I have been blogging on this topic. “The U.S. stock market is having another solid year. You wouldn’t know it by looking at the shares of companies that manage money.” That’s the lead from Charles Stein on Bloomberg’s Markets’ ... More Evidence Against the Common Ownership Problem

Amazon-Whole Foods symposium wrap-up

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, Truth on the Market and the International Center for Law and Economics presented a blog symposium — Is Amazon’s Appetite Bottomless? The Whole Foods Merger After One Year — that looked at the concerns surrounding the closing of the Amazon-Whole Foods merger, and how those concerns had played out over ... Amazon-Whole Foods symposium wrap-up

The Amazon-Whole Foods merger: Natural and organic competition in the evolving grocery industry

What actually happened in the year following the merger is nearly the opposite: Competition among grocery stores has been more fierce than ever. “Offline” retailers are expanding — and innovating — to meet Amazon’s challenge, and many of them are booming. Disruption is never neat and tidy, but, in addition to saving Whole Foods from potential oblivion, the merger seems to have lit a fire under the rest of the industry. This result should not be surprising to anyone who understands the nature of the competitive process. But it does highlight an important lesson: competition often comes from unexpected quarters and evolves in unpredictable ways, emerging precisely out of the kinds of adversity opponents of the merger bemoaned.

Whole Foods? Seriously? Why Are We Talking About Whole Foods?

So why this deal, in this symposium, and why now? The best substantive reason I could think of is admittedly one that I personally find important. As I said, I think we should take it much more seriously as a general matter, especially in highly dynamic contexts like Silicon Valley. There has been a history of arguably pre-emptive, market-occupying vertical and conglomerate acquisitions, by big firms of smaller ones that are technologically or otherwise disruptive. The idea is that the big firms sit back and wait as some new market develops in some adjacent sector. When that new market ripens to the point of real promise, the big firm buys some significant incumbent player. The aim is not. just to facilitate its own benevolent, wholesome entry, but to set up hopefully prohibitive challenges to other de novo entrants. Love it or leave it, that theory plausibly characterizes lots and lots of acquisitions in recent decades that secured easy antitrust approval, precisely because they weren’t obviously, presently horizontal. Many people think that is true of some of Amazon’s many acquisitions, like its notoriously aggressive, near-hostile takeover of Diapers.com.

Are the antitrust laws any defense to the real dangers of mega-mergers and big technology power aggregation?

One year ago, Amazon acquired Whole Foods in a $13.7 billion deal. At the time, David Balto, a disciple of current antitrust orthodoxy, wrote: Those who are saying the Amazon-Whole Foods merger is a competition problem are leading us into the jungle without a compass and no clear objective. Antitrust law should stick to protecting consumers and ... Are the antitrust laws any defense to the real dangers of mega-mergers and big technology power aggregation?