Showing archive for: “DOJ”
DOJ’s Threatened Reign of Error: Proposed Criminal-Monopolization Prosecutions
The Biden administration’s antitrust reign of error continues apace. The U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division has indicated in recent months that criminal prosecutions may be forthcoming under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but refuses to provide any guidance regarding enforcement criteria. Earlier this month, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Powers stated that ... DOJ’s Threatened Reign of Error: Proposed Criminal-Monopolization Prosecutions
The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act Is Fatally Flawed
The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act (CTDAA), introduced May 19 by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), is the latest manifestation of the congressional desire to “do something” legislatively about big digital platforms. Although different in substance from the other antitrust bills introduced this Congress, ... The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act Is Fatally Flawed
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
Hunting for Labor-Market Monopsonies (and Giffen Goods)
If you wander into an undergraduate economics class on the right day at the right time, you might catch the lecturer talking about Giffen goods: the rare case where demand curves can slope upward. The Irish potato famine is often used as an example. As the story goes, potatoes were a huge part of the ... Hunting for Labor-Market Monopsonies (and Giffen Goods)
Labor Antitrust Analysis Should Focus on Actual Anticompetitive Agreements
Biden administration enforcers at the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have prioritized labor-market monopsony issues for antitrust scrutiny (see, for example, here and here). This heightened interest comes in light of claims that labor markets are highly concentrated and are rife with largely neglected competitive problems that depress workers’ income. ... Labor Antitrust Analysis Should Focus on Actual Anticompetitive Agreements
Chevron and Administrative Antitrust, Redux
[Wrapping up the first week of our FTC UMC Rulemaking symposium is a post from Truth on the Market’s own Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, director of law & economics programs at the International Center for Law & Economics and an assistant professor of law and co-director of the Space, Cyber, and Telecom Law program at the ... Chevron and Administrative Antitrust, Redux
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
FTC UMC Rulemakings Would Prove Legal Failures
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) competition rulemakings, like spring, are in the air. But do they make policy or legal sense? In two commentaries last summer (see here and here), I argued that FTC competition rulemaking initiatives would not pass cost-benefit muster, on both legal grounds and economic policy grounds. As a legal matter, I stressed ... FTC UMC Rulemakings Would Prove Legal Failures
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
Antitrust Policy and National Security Interests
U.S. antitrust policy seeks to promote vigorous marketplace competition in order to enhance consumer welfare. For more than four decades, mainstream antitrust enforcers have taken their cue from the U.S. Supreme Court’s statement in Reiter v. Sonotone (1979) that antitrust is “a consumer welfare prescription.” Recent suggestions (see here and here) by new Biden administration ... Antitrust Policy and National Security Interests
The Internationalization of Due Process, Federal Antitrust Enforcement, and the Rule of Law
The acceptance and implementation of due-process standards confer a variety of welfare benefits on society. As Christopher Yoo, Thomas Fetzer, Shan Jiang, and Yong Huang explain, strong procedural due-process protections promote: (1) compliance with basic norms of impartiality; (2) greater accuracy of decisions; (3) stronger economic growth; (4) increased respect for government; (5) better compliance ... The Internationalization of Due Process, Federal Antitrust Enforcement, and the Rule of Law
How Not to Promote US Innovation
President Joe Biden’s July 2021 executive order set forth a commitment to reinvigorate U.S. innovation and competitiveness. The administration’s efforts to pass the America COMPETES Act would appear to further demonstrate a serious intent to pursue these objectives. Yet several actions taken by federal agencies threaten to undermine the intellectual-property rights and transactional structures that ... How Not to Promote US Innovation
