News
Archive

An amicus brief signed by several ICLE scholars was cited in a story by Law360 in a story about the case, CoStar v. CRE. You can read the full piece here.

A group of former federal enforcers and academics filed an amicus brief on Monday supporting CoStar Group Inc.in the appeal from Commercial Real Estate Exchange Inc., which is trying to revive antitrust counterclaims in a suit accusing CREXi of “industrial-scale” copyright infringement.

The brief argues that the lower court correctly applied traditional antitrust principles when tossing the claims. It adds that the position advanced by CREXi and the FTC in the appeal threatens to upend those principles.

“The arguments pushed by CREXi and the FTC, if accepted, would open the floodgates to baseless antitrust suits,” Monday’s brief says. “In rejecting these arguments below, the district court properly concluded that CREXi failed to meet its pleading burden for its antitrust counterclaims. This court should affirm.”

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was quoted by Axios in a story about the Federal Trade Commission’s opposition to Tapestry’s acquisition of Capri Holdings. You can read the full piece here.

Zoom in: The FTC may have been encouraged by its success in blocking the merger of JetBlue and Spirit, say Oliver and Brian Albrecht, chief economist at the International Center for Law & Economics.

…The intrigue: It’s rare that the U.S. is not in lock step with its antitrust counterparts in the European Union and Japan, which both cleared the deal, say Oliver and Albrecht.

ICLE Senior Scholar Ben Sperry was quoted by the New York Sun in a story about President Joe Biden signing legislation that would force ByteDance to sell its stake in TikTok. You can read the full piece here.

“Do we really want to set the precedent that it’s a good thing to shut down communications platforms?” the analyst, Ben Sperry, a senior scholar at the International Center for Law & Economics, tells the Sun. He filed an amicus brief in a suit against the president. “Yes, we should make sure Americans are protected, but I think we all hope for more obvious evidence of harm to America’s national security.”

…That broad scope mitigates the risk of it becoming a bill of attainder, an expressly forbidden act that abridges due process, Mr. Sperry says. Yet, he asks, “what does it mean to be under the influence and control of a hostile foreign nation?” The legislation, as it’s written, fails to answer that question.

…Though some argue that foreign entities do not have constitutional rights, Mr. Sperry says, “corporations that have some degree of foreign ownership are allowed to participate in the marketplace of ideas as a general matter.”

…The government could also see lawsuits from Americans themselves. Businesses and services that use TikTok to promote their products, as well as consumers of that content, might invoke their First Amendment rights to access or promote their products, Mr. Sperry says.

…Mr. Sperry invokes another analogy. He calls the unfolding battle “a cat and mouse game between technology and the law, and the law might win — or at least win enough that most people won’t use the technology anymore.” Be it a “cat,” or a “dictator,” Communist China could retaliate through measures to stop Americans from conducting business on their turf.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was cited by Cox Media Group in a story about President Joe Biden signing legislation that seeks to force the divestment of TikTok. You can read the full piece here.

A court battle over the app could string along for some time, with the potential for appeals that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would likely uphold the law due to its current composition, Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School, told the AP.

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was cited by The Dispatch in an item on the Federal Trade Commission’s vote to ban nearly all noncompete agreements in employment contracts. You can read the full piece here.

The Federal Trade Commission approved a rule that effectively bans all non-compete clauses. These contract provisions stop workers from working for competitors or starting a competing business after they leave a job. In response, economist Brian Albrecht explored the limits to the research the FTC cited.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was cited by the Huffington Post in a story about President Joe Biden signing legislation that seeks to force the divestment of TikTok. You can read the full piece here.

ICLE Senior Scholar Eric Fruits was quoted by Law360 in a story about the Federal Communications Commission’s vote to reimpose Title II regulation on broadband internet-access service providers. You can read the full piece here.

“I’m skeptical that Congress would actually act to do any sort of CRA reversal,” said Eric Fruits, a senior scholar at the International Center for Law and Economics, and a critic of the order. “And so that means you’re going to have the lawsuits. And the other big story of the year would be if no one filed a lawsuit. I bet you there’s someone, somewhere, who already has a lawsuit written.”

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was cited by The Dispatch in a story on the Federal Trade Commission’s vote to ban nearly all noncompete agreements in employment contracts. You can read the full piece here.

But these are just projections, and some economists argue more research needs to be done on the economic effects of restricting the use of non-competes before a nationwide ban is instituted. “While there’s increasing evidence that banning non-competes—at least the way that it’s been done—increases wages, it’s not conclusive,” Brian Albrecht—the chief economist at the International Center on Law and Economics—told TMD. “There are not that many papers on this. We do not have that many clear examples.” He cited Oregon’s statewide ban on non-competes for hourly workers as a clear example of wages rising after a ban went into effect, but argued that there’s comparatively little research on the effects of a ban applying to every level of income.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by the Associated Press in a story about President Joe Biden’s signing of a bill requiring Chinese firm ByteDance to sell its TikTok subsidiary. You can read the full piece here.

The battle could also string along for some time, with the potential for appeals that could go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would likely uphold the law due to its current composition, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.

…“One of the unfortunate and really frustrating things about national-security legislation (is that) it tends to be a trump card,” Hurwitz said. “Once national-security issues come up, they’re going to carry the day either successfully or not.”

Hurwitz added that he thinks there are legitimate national-security arguments that could be brought up here. National security can be argued because it’s a federal measure, he added. That sets this scenario apart from previously unsuccessful state-level legislation seeking to ban TikTok, such as in Montana.