Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 132 Results in Consumer Welfare Standard
TL;DR Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has introduced the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA), sweeping legislation that, if enacted, would change the antitrust rules not just for Big Tech, but for the whole economy.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has introduced the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA), sweeping legislation that, if enacted, would change the antitrust rules not just for Big Tech, but for the whole economy.
Read the full explainer here.
TL;DR Returning to a pre-Consumer Welfare Standard state of the law would lead antitrust enforcement to become confused, contradictory, and ineffective at promoting competition. The CWS makes antitrust economically coherent and democratically accountable.
In antitrust law, the Consumer Welfare Standard (CWS) directs courts to focus on the effects that challenged business practices have on consumers, rather than on alleged harms to specific competitors. Critics of the standard claim this focus on consumer welfare fails to capture a wide variety of harmful conduct. In addition to believing that harm to competitors is itself a valid concern, critics of the CWS believe it leads to harmful concentrations of political and economic power by biasing antitrust enforcement against intervention. Under this view, the CWS contributes to such harms as environmental degradation, income inequality, and bargaining disparities for labor.
Returning to a pre-CWS state of the law would lead antitrust enforcement to become confused, contradictory, and ineffective at promoting competition. The CWS makes antitrust economically coherent and democratically accountable.
The CWS is agnostic about how much antitrust enforcement is necessary. Indeed, many advocates of more vigorous antitrust enforcement are also defenders of the CWS. The standard uses objective economic analysis to identify actual harms and to recommend remedies when those harms are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers. While the issues the CWS critics care about may be important, antitrust law is a bad way to address them.
TL;DR The Department of Justice and a few Republican state attorneys general have filed an antitrust suit against Google. But… The DOJ case will struggle.
The Department of Justice and a few Republican state attorneys general have filed an antitrust suit against Google. The complaint alleges that Google’s deals with Android smartphone manufacturers, Apple, and third-party browsers to make Google Search their default general search engine are anticompetitive, harming consumers by denying Google’s competitors the scale and data they need to compete.
The DOJ case will struggle. Nothing in these deals limits the ability of users to switch from Google to another search engine if they want to, and switching is trivially easy. Nor do the deals constrain Android smartphone makers from pre-installing competing search engines alongside Google. In fact, consumers benefit from these deals because they mean lower handset prices and greater incentive for Google to invest in Android. Moreover, the competition among general search engines to secure these default positions isn’t constrained by Google, and that competition should encourage all search providers to invest in their products.
TL;DR Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has come under close scrutiny. Section 230 provides important immunity to online platforms for the content of third-party users.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has come under close scrutiny. Section 230 provides important immunity to online platforms for the content of third-party users. Section 230 also guarantees legal immunity when platforms moderate objectionable content on their services: so-called “good samaritan” immunity.
Reform efforts are aimed at creating more carve-outs to Section 230 immunities, and limiting the scope of content platforms can moderate.
Many of these proposals would make bad policy by creating disincentives to moderate content in order to avoid a flood of litigation.
TL;DR Data doesn’t create a barrier to entry, but privacy regulations might.
Data doesn’t create a barrier to entry, but privacy regulations might.
Some fear that incumbents’ access to user data gives them the ability to improve and target their products in ways that new entrants cannot replicate, creating a barrier to entry that holds back competition in ways that are harmful to consumers.
While access to data may confer some advantages on incumbents, they are not insurmountable by others, and they are akin to other benefits like reputation that are not considered to be barriers to entry.
Download the tl;dr explainer PDF here
Scholarship Geoffrey A. Manne, Kristian Stout, Eric Fruits, "The Fatal Economic Flaws of the Contemporary Campaign Against Vertical Integration", Kansas Law Review, Kansas Law Review Inc. 2019 vol. 68(5)
This paper proceeds as follows. First, we examine the academic calls for stronger presumptions against vertical mergers based on, among other things, the alleged substitutability of contract for merger as a means of vertical integration, and the alleged equivalence of harms that arise from vertical and horizontal mergers. We analyze these claims on their own terms before proceeding in the next part to survey the economic literature that undermines the foundation of these arguments. We then proceed to analyze the critical differences between horizontal and vertical mergers that makes conflation of these two distinct methods of business combination impossible to truly treat as analytically equivalent. Next, we discuss the mistake of substituting static analysis for a more thorough dynamic analysis, particularly in industries marked by fluid product cycles and flexible business models.
Scholarship "Platform competition is more complicated than simple theories of vertical discrimination would have it, and there is certainly no basis for a presumption of harm."
Over the past several years, a growing number of critics have argued that big tech platforms harm competition by favoring their own content over that of their complementors. Over time, this “vertical discrimination presumption” has become the go-to argument for big tech’s staunchest critics seeking to level novel charges of anticompetitive conduct against these platforms. Indeed, judging by the grandiose claim made by one critic at a recent Senate hearing—“Digital platform self-preferencing threatens the American Dream”—the argument may be the very apotheosis of “populist antitrust.”
According to this line of argument, complementors are “at the mercy” of tech platforms. By discriminating in favor of their own content and against independent “edge providers,” tech platforms cause “the rewards for edge innovation [to be] dampened by runaway appropriation,” leading to “dismal” prospects “for independents in the internet economy—and edge innovation generally.”
The problem, however, is that the claims of presumptive harm from vertical discrimination are based neither on sound economics nor evidence.
Written Testimonies & Filings Pursuant to the House Judiciary Committee’s request for information to aid its inquiry concerning the state of existing antitrust laws, Antitrust Economists, Legal Scholars, and Practitioners offer the following joint submission.
Pursuant to the Committee’s request for information to aid its inquiry concerning the state of existing antitrust laws, we offer the following joint submission:
We are economists, legal scholars, and practitioners—focused on antitrust law, economics, and policy—who believe in maintaining healthy markets and well-functioning antitrust institutions. We value the important role of antitrust as the “Magna Carta of free enterprise,” which sets the rules that govern how firms compete against one another in our modern economy. Many of us have served in antitrust enforcement agencies. Each of us believes it is vital that the antitrust laws promote competitive markets, innovation, and productivity by deterring anticompetitive conduct throughout our economy, including in digital markets.
We write because the modern antitrust debate has become characterized by sustained attacks on the integrity of antitrust institutions and by unsubstantiated dismissals of debate. This atmosphere has led to a variety of proposals for radical changes to the antitrust laws and their enforcement that we believe are unsupported by the evidence, counterproductive to promoting competition and consumer welfare, and offered with an unwarranted degree of certainty.
Vigorous debate and disagreement have long been a hallmark of antitrust scholarship and policy. Competition policy has been formed through an iterative process echoed in the courts’evolving doctrine over more than a century. Today, however, efforts to sidestep the discussion, or to declare it over, and to force hasty and far-reaching changes have come to the fore. These proposals are numerous and include: (1) abandoning the consumer welfare standard; (2) overturning unanimous and supermajority judicial precedents, which are foundational to modern antitrust law; (3) imposing obsolete and arbitrary market share tests to determine the legality of mergers; (4) shifting the burden of proof from plaintiffs to defendants to render large swaths of business behavior presumptively unlawful; (5) creating another federal regulator to oversee competition in digital markets; (6) breaking up major tech companies or their products without evidence of antitrust harm or that the remedy would make consumers better off; and (7) imposing a general prohibition on all mergers either involving specific firms or during the current health crisis.
Such proposals would abandon the legal and political traditions that helped transform antitrust from an unprincipled and incoherent body of law, marred by internal contradictions, into a workable system that contributes positively to American competitiveness and consumer welfare. It should be noted that we use the term “consumer welfare” throughout this letter, consistent with modern parlance about competition policy, to include the benefits of competition to the welfare of workers and other input suppliers, as well as consumers. Thus, the consumer welfare standard is not a narrowly circumscribed objective, but rather a prescription for the general social wellbeing generated by the competitive process. By contrast, many of the current proposals would (1) undermine the rule of law; (2) undo the healthy evolution of antitrust law in the courts over time; (3) require antitrust agencies to micromanage the economy by picking winners and losers; (4) abandon a focus on consumer welfare in favor of vague and politically-oriented goals; and (5) undermine successful American businesses and their competitiveness in the global economy at the worst-imaginable time.
The assertions about the state of antitrust law and policy that purportedly justify these radical changes are not supported by the evidence. A more accurate reading of the evidence supports the following view of the American economy and the role of antitrust law:
We believe open discussion of existing evidence is necessary to advance contemporary debates about the performance of antitrust institutions in the digital economy. We welcome that discussion. We discuss below various dimensions of antitrust law, economics, and institutions that have been the targets of radical reform proposals. The signatories to this letter hold a steadfast belief that antitrust institutions, including the courts, are up to the task of protecting competition, and that the federal antitrust laws as written are effective in accomplishing that goal. While many signatories have offered diverse proposals to improve the functioning of those institutions—a few of which we share in this letter—we hold the common view that the proposed radical reforms would make consumers worse off in the short run and over the long haul by chilling efficient behavior and stymieing innovation.
Read the full submission here.
Scholarship This Article makes the case in support of the current consumer welfare standard and against a sweeping set of unsupported populist antitrust reforms.
Populist antitrust notions suddenly are fashionable again. At their core is the view that antitrust law is responsible for a myriad of purported socio-political problems plaguing society today, including but not limited to rising income inequality, declining wages, and increasing economic and political concentration. Seizing on Americans’ fears about changes to the modern US economy, proponents of populist antitrust policies assert the need to fundamentally reshape how we apply our nation’s competition laws in order to implement a variety of prescriptions necessary to remedy these perceived social ills. The proposals are varied and expansive but have the unifying theme of returning antitrust to the “big-is-bad” enforcement era prevalent in the first half of the twentieth century.
But the criticisms populist antitrust proponents raise are generally unsupported and often dramatized, and the resulting policy proposals are, accordingly, fatally flawed. There is sparse evidence today suggesting that the underlying trends these critics purportedly identify are real or in any way linked to lax antitrust enforcement. Ironically, populist antitrust proponents ignore that antitrust law debated over 50 years ago the same proposals that they are raising anew today. At that time, leading jurists, economists, enforcers, and practitioners from across the political spectrum rejected the use of liability standards that seek to evaluate a variety of vague and often contradictory socio-political goals or that condemn conduct based simply on the size of a company. They recognized that these tests led to incoherent and paradoxical results that often did more to hinder than to promote competition by undermining the rule of law and fostering corporate welfare. Instead, antitrust evolved the elegant “consumer welfare standard” that simplified the core issue of what constitutes harm to competition into a straightforward question: does the conduct at issue harm consumers?
Today, the consumer welfare standard offers a rigorous, objective, and evidence-based framework for antitrust analysis. It leverages developments in modern economics more reliably to predict when conduct is likely to harm consumers as a result of harm to competition. It offers a tractable test that is broad enough to contemplate a variety of evidence related to consumer welfare but also sufficiently objective and clear to cabin discretion and honor the principle of the rule of law. Perhaps most significantly, it is inherently an economic approach to antitrust that benefits from new economic learning and is capable of evaluating an evolving set of commercial practices and business models. These virtues are precisely the target of the new populist antitrust movement, which seeks to reject economics in favor of mere supposition.
This Article makes the case in support of the current consumer welfare standard and against a sweeping set of unsupported populist antitrust reforms. There is significant room for debate within the consumer welfare model for what types of conduct should face antitrust scrutiny, what evidence is relevant, and where liability standards should be drawn. Such debate is healthy and to the benefit of antitrust enforcement. But it does not require abandoning decades of experience and economic learning that would turn back the hands of time and return us to an era where antitrust enforcement was incoherent and deleterious.
