Showing archive for: “Monopolization”
Prudence and Precedent Counsel Modest Remedies in Google Search Case
Later this fall, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold hearings to determine the proper remedy in the Google search case. Among other options, the court could restrict Google’s ability to sign exclusive distribution contracts, force it to share data with competitors, or even break Google apart into two or more ... Prudence and Precedent Counsel Modest Remedies in Google Search Case
Google Monopolization Ruling May Not Hold Up On Appeal
In an Aug. 5 order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that Google engaged in illegal monopolization of internet “general search services” and “general text search advertising.” This decision, dubbed “an historic win for the American people” by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, may face tough sledding on appeal. The very ... Google Monopolization Ruling May Not Hold Up On Appeal
Some Thoughts on the Google Decision, for Those Who Haven’t ‘Binged’ It Yet
Readers of Truth on the Market are no doubt aware of Judge Amit Mehta’s Aug. 5 decision in the Google search antitrust case—that is, his 286-page memorandum and order finding Google liable for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act (specifically, illegal monopoly maintenance in two markets: general search services and general text advertising). Comments ... Some Thoughts on the Google Decision, for Those Who Haven’t ‘Binged’ It Yet
Judge Mehta Got It Wrong in the Google Case
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in an Aug. 5 order that Google violated antitrust law by improperly maintaining a monopoly. The case focused on “general search engines” (GSEs) used for internet search, and the impropriety was the manner through which Google secured distribution in partnering with internet-browser developers, mobile-device manufacturers, and wireless carriers. ... Judge Mehta Got It Wrong in the Google Case
Live Nation Breakup: Are Mergers Really to Blame for Ticketmaster’s Problems?
The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) announced yesterday that it has filed suit, along with 29 states and the District of Columbia, charging Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC with monopolizing the live-events industry in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the ... Live Nation Breakup: Are Mergers Really to Blame for Ticketmaster’s Problems?
DOJ’s Case Against Apple: Beware of Forcing ‘Efficiencies’
The U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) recent complaint charging Apple with monopolizing smartphone markets is, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, intended as a contribution to the agency’s “enduring legacy of taking on the biggest and toughest monopolies in history.” Unfortunately, the case has fundamental weaknesses in its assessment of both Apple’s alleged monopoly ... DOJ’s Case Against Apple: Beware of Forcing ‘Efficiencies’
US v. Apple Lawsuit Has Big Implications for Competition and Innovation
The lawsuit filed yesterday by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) against Apple for monopolization of the U.S. smartphone market (joined by 15 states and the District of Columbia) has big implications for American competition and innovation. At the heart of the complaint is the DOJ’s assertion that: [Apple’s] anticompetitive acts include, but are not limited ... US v. Apple Lawsuit Has Big Implications for Competition and Innovation
Mi Mercado Es Su Mercado: The Flawed Competition Analysis of Mexico’s COFECE
Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE, after its Spanish acronym) has published the preliminary report it prepared following its investigation of competition in the retail electronic-commerce market (e.g., Amazon). The report finds that: there are elements to preliminarily determine that there are no conditions of effective competition in the Relevant Market of Sellers and in ... Mi Mercado Es Su Mercado: The Flawed Competition Analysis of Mexico’s COFECE
How the FTC’s Amazon Case Gerrymanders Relevant Markets and Obscures Competitive Processes
As Greg Werden has noted, the process of defining the relevant market in an antitrust case doesn’t just finger which part of the economy is allegedly affected by the challenged conduct, but it also “identifies the competitive process alleged to be harmed.” Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs in such proceedings (most commonly, antitrust enforcers) often seek to set ... How the FTC’s Amazon Case Gerrymanders Relevant Markets and Obscures Competitive Processes
Market Power as a Limiting Principle in Merger Enforcement
One of the most important changes in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) draft merger guidelines is the abandonment of market power as the central element of merger enforcement. The “unifying theme” of the 2010 horizontal merger guidelines was that “mergers should not be permitted to create, enhance, or entrench market ... Market Power as a Limiting Principle in Merger Enforcement
Untangling the 9th Circuit’s Ruling in Epic Games v Apple
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late last month on Epic Games’ appeal of the decision rendered in 2021 by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Epic Games v Apple, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court’s judgment. In the original case, Epic had challenged as a violation ... Untangling the 9th Circuit’s Ruling in Epic Games v Apple
Reining in Digital Competition to No Good End: Will AICOA and OAMA Rise from the Grave?
The 117th Congress closed out without a floor vote on either of the major pieces of antitrust legislation introduced in both chambers: the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) and the Open Apps Market Act (OAMA). But it was evident at yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee that at least some ... Reining in Digital Competition to No Good End: Will AICOA and OAMA Rise from the Grave?
