Critiques of big tech are ten a penny, but it’s not often that you hear a politician, let alone a Conservative one, saying we should shut down tech companies altogether. So it was a surprise to see Tory MP Tobias Ellwood arguing in the Mail on Sunday that we would be better off if the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Twitter did not exist at all.

Read the full piece here.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz joined the Technology Policy Institute’s Two Think Minimum podcast on an episode titled “Gus Hurwitz on the Rural Digital Divide and Platforms.” The full episode can be played below.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz joined Steptoe & Johnson’s The Cyberlaw Podcast on an episode titled “Well, Have You Ever Seen Dr. Octopus and Sen. Klobuchar Together?” The full episode can be played below.

The biggest threat now facing the country is from new variants of Covid that are resistant to our vaccines. It is already clear that this is possible: Novavax’s vaccine efficacy is 95.6% against the original Covid variant, 86% against the current UK variant, and only 60% against the South African variant, for example. If one emerges that is even more resistant, we could be back to square one.

Read the full piece here.

One of the themes that has run throughout this symposium has been that, throughout his tenure as both a commissioner and as chairman, Ajit Pai has brought consistency and careful analysis to the Federal Communications Commission (McDowell, Wright). The reflections offered by the various authors in this symposium make one thing clear: the next administration would do well to learn from the considered, bipartisan, and transparent approach to policy that characterized Chairman Pai’s tenure at the FCC.

Read the full piece here.

Background…

Thousands of U.S. businesses have filed insurance claims for business interruption since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly where civil authorities have ordered businesses to shutter. The overwhelming majority of such claims have been denied, however, as standard commercial property insurance policies typically require an insured to demonstrate evidence of physical damage. Most policies also explicitly exclude losses related to viral contagion. Many of these claims disputes have ended up in the courts.

But…

Lawmakers at the state and federal level have responded to these claims denials with several ill-considered legislative proposals. Bills that would vitiate contract language and require coverage retroactively for COVID-19 business interruption claims were introduced in more than 10 states in 2020, though none were passed into law. In May 2020, U.S. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney introduced the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (PRIA), establishing a $750 billion reinsurance program that would have the federal government pay 95 percent of business interruption claims arising from a future viral contagion.

However…

Both the magnitude and the extreme correlation of business interruption losses arising from a pandemic make them nearly impossible to insure. Rewriting contract language to require payment of claims that are explicitly excluded would jeopardize both the rule of law and the solvency of the global insurance industry. Disallowing virus exclusions in future policies could threaten the availability of coverage for business interruption altogether. While it is possible to structure a government backstop that could draw interest from private insurers, the details of any such proposal need to be closely scrutinized. Ultimately, the question should be raised whether insurance is actually the tool best suited to the problem

Read the full explainer here.

We thank the Commission for the opportunity to comment on its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) concerning future amendments to the premerger notification rules under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR’’).

The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center whose work promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public policy debates. We believe that intellectually rigorous, data-driven analysis will lead to efficient policy solutions that promote consumer welfare and global economic growth.

ICLE’s scholars have written extensively on competition and consumer protection policy. Some of our writings are included as references in the comment below. Additional materials may be found at our website: www.laweconcenter.org.

Our comment argues that the FTC’s rulemaking initiatives should be informed by the error-cost framework. As we explain, the framework offers several key insights that authorities should carefully consider when reviewing existing merger rules and guidance.

Among other things, it demonstrates that the societal costs stemming  from false negatives (i.e. anticompetitive mergers that evade antitrust enforcement) are inextricably linked to those that originate from false positives (efficient mergers that are prohibited or deterred) and administrative costs (the social costs that are created by the operation of a given regulatory regime). As a result, any attempt to reduce one of these costs necessary entails a tradeoff as far as the others are concerned. All three costs should thus be considered together.

In short, we urge the FTC to take a holistic view when updating HSR rules and interpretations of those rules. In particular, it is important to consider the overall welfare costs of new rules, and not just their ability to plug existing enforcement gaps.

Read the full comments here.

There is a good chance that the UK’s 2021 is a lot like Australia and New Zealand’s 2020. With vaccinations running at a decent speed, and assuming the Johnson & Johnson and Novavax jabs are also approved, the UK should be able to vaccinate most of the at-risk population against coronavirus by the middle of the spring.

But other countries are much further behind on vaccinations, so there is a danger of a vaccine-resistant variant emerging abroad. If it makes its way to the UK, that could bring us back to stage one, where the virus could again only be controlled by a return to lockdowns.

Read the full piece here.

Toby Young (25 Jan) writes that “lockdowns will cause more harm than they prevent.” But he cites a study that undermines his own claims. The paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research says, “Without any doubt, lockdowns save lives” and proposes that policy-makers “[combine] lockdowns with policy interventions meant to reduce economic distress”.

It looks at the effects of the pandemic as a whole and stresses that much of the economic damage has come from the virus itself. It does not support Young’s claims that the lockdown, rather than the pandemic itself, is the main cause of our economic woes.

Read the full piece here.