When we are sick or in pain, we need relief. We know available prescription drugs won’t always be perfect. They sometimes have side effects. But we are grateful for even imperfect relief as an alternative to perfect pain.

Pharmaceutical companies aim to identify good drugs and get them to market, while constantly returning to the lab to innovate and make them even better, working to get the next version closer to perfect and with fewer side effects. But, thanks to a recent decision by a California appellate court, the incentives to develop new drugs and innovate to find even better alternatives may be over. California may have permanently impeded all pharmaceutical innovation by holding that a drug company can be sued for bringing two safe drugs to market, but not discovering the better one first. If a new court decision holds, these companies can be punished unless they bring no drug until they find the perfect drug.

Read the full piece here.

Once upon a time (July 9, 2021, to be precise), President Joe Biden issued an executive order on “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” which declared that “a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy.”

Read the full piece here.

2024 will be a make-or-break year for the $42 billion taxpayer-funded Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Making BEAD a success and achieving the Biden Administration’s vision of “Internet for All” requires an ambitious “all-of-the-above approach” from federal, state, and local policymakers to take much-needed action on utility pole reforms – an often-neglected issue that is critical to ensuring unserved, rural communities are connected to reliable, high-speed internet.

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Antitrust law and policy rely on a hypothetical average consumer. But no one is average. With this basic observation in mind, we show how agent-based modeling (“ABM”) allows enforcers and policymakers to bypass imaginary averages by observing interactions between unique agents. We argue that agent-based regulatory and enforcement policies have a greater potential than average-based public policies because they are more realistic. As we show, the realism brought by ABM enables antitrust agencies and policymakers to better anticipate the effects of their actions and, perhaps more importantly, to time their interventions better.

Read at SSRN.

Abstract

As it relates to Bitcoin, there are several interesting questions to address:

(1) Why does money exist and what role does it play in society? How does bitcoin fit within our understanding of the role of money in society?
(2) What is bitcoin worth?
(3) Is bitcoin (or can bitcoin be) a sound form of money?
(4) Should states or governments be involved? Should they buy bitcoin?

In this paper, I attempt to provide some answers to these questions by drawing on insights from mainstream economic theory.

The press is abuzz with news about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Feb. 26 announcement that it would challenge the proposed Kroger/Albertsons mega-supermarket merger, which had been in the works since the fall of 2022. If the FTC succeeds in obtaining a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Oregon federal district court (a big if), it plans to review the transaction in an administrative hearing beginning in late July.

Read the full piece here.

La implementación de la Ley de Mercados Digitales (LMD) en Europa nos puede dar algunas lecciones regulatorias a los países que, desde este lado del Atlántico, queremos emular al viejo continente (ya hay una iniciativa en Brazil; y la Comunidad Andina y México han indicado su intención de estudiar el tema).

Read the full piece (in Spanish) here.

ICLE research on the proposed merger of supermarkets Kroger and Albertsons was cited on an episode of the Econception podcast. The full episode is embedded below. Discussion of the ICLE white paper begins at around the 20:43 mark.

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Ohio v. American Express (“Amex”) remains central to the enforcement of antitrust laws involving digital markets. Specifically, the decision established a framework to assess business conduct involving transactional, multisided platforms from both an economic and legal perspective. At its crux, the Court in Amex integrated both the relevant market and competitive effects analysis across the two distinct groups who interact on the Amex platform, that is, cardholders and merchants. This unified, integrated approach has been controversial, however. The primary debate is whether the Court’s ruling places an undue burden on plaintiffs under the rule of reason paradigm to meet its burden of production to establish harm to competition. Enter Epic v. Apple (“Epic”): a case involving the legality of various Apple policies governing its iOS App Store, which, like Amex, is a transactional, multisided platform. While both the district court and the Ninth Circuit largely ruled in favor of Apple over Epic, these decisions are of broader interest for their fidelity to Amex. A careful review of the decisions reveals that the Epic courts operationalized Amex in a practical, sensible way. The courts did not engage in extensive balancing across developers and users as some critics of Amex contended would be required. Ultimately, the courts in Epic (a) considered evidence of effects across both groups on the platform and (b) gave equal weight to both the procompetitive and anticompetitive effects evidence, which, this Article contends, are the essential elements of the Amex precedent. Relatedly, the Epic decisions illustrate that the burden of production on plaintiffs in multisided platform cases is not higher than in cases involving regular, single-sided markets. Additionally, both parties, whether litigating single-sided or multi-sided markets, are fully incentivized to bring evidence to bear on all aspects of the case. Finally, this Article details how the integrated Amex approach deftly avoids potential issues involving the out-of-market effects doctrine in antitrust, which limits what type of effects courts can consider in assessing conduct.

Read at SSRN.