Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 55 Publications by Michael E. Sykuta
Amicus Brief In this amicus brief for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, ICLE and a dozen scholars of law & economics address the broad consensus disfavoring how New York and other states seek to apply the “unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine in an antitrust case against Facebook.
Amici are leading scholars of economics, telecommunications, and/or antitrust. Their scholarship reflects years of experience and publications in these fields.
Amici’s expertise and academic perspectives will aid the Court in deciding whether to affirm in three respects. First, amici provide an explanation of key economic concepts underpinning how economists understand the welfare effects of a monopolist’s refusal to deal voluntarily with a competitor and why that supports affirmance here. Second, amici offer their perspective on the limited circumstances that might justify penalizing a monopolist’s unilateral refusal to deal—and why this case is not one of them. Third, amici explain why the District Court’s legal framework was correct and why a clear standard is necessary when analyzing alleged refusals to deal.
This brief addresses the broad consensus in the academic literature disfavoring a theory underlying plaintiff’s case—“unilateral refusal to deal” doctrine. The States allege that Facebook restricted access to an input (Facebook’s Platform) in order to prevent third parties from using that access to export Facebook data to competitors or compete directly with Facebook. But a unilateral refusal to deal involves more than an allegation that a monopolist refuses to enter into a business relationship with a rival.
Mainstream economists and competition law scholars are skeptical of imposing liability, even on a monopolist, based solely on its choice of business partners. The freedom of firms to choose their business partners is a fundamental tenet of the free market economy, and the mechanism by which markets produce the greatest welfare gains. Thus, cases compelling business dealings should be confined to particularly delineated circumstances.
In Part I below, amici describe why it is generally inefficient for courts to compel economic actors to deal with one another. Such “solutions” are generally unsound in theory and unworkable in practice, in that they ask judges to operate as regulators over the defendant’s business.
In Part II, amici explain why Aspen Skiing—the Supreme Court’s most prominent precedent permitting liability for a monopolist’s unilateral refusal to deal—went too far and should not be expanded as the States’ and some of their amici propose.
In Part III, amici explain that the District Court correctly held that the conduct at issue here does not constitute a refusal to deal under Aspen Skiing. A unilateral refusal to deal should trigger antitrust liability only where a monopolist turns down more profitable dealings with a competitor in an effort to drive that competitor’s exit or to disable its ability to compete, thereby allowing the monopolist to recoup its losses by increasing prices in the future. But the States’ allegations do not describe that scenario.
In Part IV, amici address that the District Court properly considered and dismissed the States’ “conditional dealing” argument. The States’ allegations are correctly addressed under the rubric of a refusal to deal—not exclusive dealing or otherwise. The States’ desire to mold their allegations into different legal theories highlights why courts should use a strict, clear standard to analyze refusals to deal.
Read the full brief here.
Amicus Brief A brief of amici curiae from the International Center for Law & Economics and other notable law & economics scholars in the 10th Circuit case of Sanofi v Mylan.
Sanofi is seeking to overturn the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mylan, which held that Mylan’s EpiPen rebate agreements (loyalty discounts) did not foreclose Sanofi from competing in the market for epinephrine auto-injectors. As this brief argues, finding in favor of Sanofi would mark a misguided departure from the error-cost framework that has been the linchpin of modern antitrust enforcement. Loyalty discounts – and the lower prices they bring – routinely benefit consumers. The Court accordingly should not endorse a dubious theory of harm that does not adequately distinguish between procompetitive and anticompetitive behavior, as doing so would chill firms’ incentives to compete on price.
Anticompetitive (that is, consumer-harming) strategies capable of foreclosing even efficient competitors are difficult – often impossible – to distinguish from vigorous competition (which benefits consumers). Courts are compelled to rely on a limited set of observable parameters to infer whether a firm’s behavior falls under one or the other category. This process entails significant pitfalls. See Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright, If Search Neutrality Is the Answer, What’s the Question?, 2012 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 151, 184-85 (“The key challenge facing any proposed analytical framework for evaluating monopolization claims is distinguishing pro-competitive from anticompetitive conduct. Antitrust errors are inevitable because much of what is potentially actionable conduct under the antitrust laws frequently actually benefits consumers, and generalist judges are called upon to identify anticompetitive conduct with imperfect information.”).
When it comes to allegedly anticompetitive lowering of prices – predation, discounts, and rebates – low prices themselves are the posited mechanism for anticompetitive foreclosure and thus a key component of the liability regimes pertaining to pricing practices. Yet low prices are also precisely the consumer benefit that antitrust law ordinarily seeks to preserve, especially when these low prices are sustained in the long run. In almost every circumstance, rebates and discounts represent welfare-enhancing price competition; nevertheless, economic theory teaches that strategic pricing can be anticompetitive. As Judge Easterbrook described, “[l]ow prices and large plants may be competitive and beneficial, or they may be exclusionary and harmful. We need a way to distinguish competition from exclusion without penalizing competition.” Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 26 (1984). In short, false positives in these settings may be especially costly because they penalize consumer-benefiting low prices.
The challenge for courts is distinguishing between robust competition and anticompetitive conduct when a primary indicator of both – low prices – is the same. Although the dividing line will always be imperfect such that it is not always clear when anticompetitive conduct is occurring, the academic literature and the courts have established guiding rules and standards designed to minimize error, maximize ease of administration, and protect consumer welfare. Sanofi’s approach, by contrast, would increase the risks of wrongly imposing antitrust liability and, in turn, harming consumers, while being more difficult to administer.
Read the full amicus brief here.
Written Testimonies & Filings The signatories of this letter, active or emeritus professors employed at public or private universities in the United States, come from across the political spectrum, and have a wide variety of views on regulation, environmental and consumer protection, and free enterprise as a general matter, but find common ground on the important issue of automotive direct sales.
We, the signatories of this letter, are active or emeritus professors employed at public or private universities in the United States. We specialize in economics, competition policy, market regulation, industrial organization, or other disciplines bearing on the questions presented in this letter. We come from across the political spectrum, and have a wide variety of views on regulation, environmental and consumer protection, and free enterprise as a general matter, but find common ground on the important issue of automotive direct sales.
Amicus Brief INTRODUCTION The district court’s decision is disconnected from the underlying economics of the case. It improperly applied antitrust doctrine to the facts, and the result . . .
The district court’s decision is disconnected from the underlying economics of the case. It improperly applied antitrust doctrine to the facts, and the result subverts the economic rationale guiding monopolization jurisprudence. The decision—if it stands—will undercut the competitive values antitrust law was designed to protect.
Antitrust law should seek to minimize error and decision costs to maximize consumer welfare and reduce the likelihood of self-defeating antitrust interventions. See Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1 (1984). The Supreme Court has thoroughly incorporated the economic logic of this “error cost” framework into its antitrust jurisprudence. See Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2287 (2018) (“Any other analysis would lead to ‘mistaken inferences’ of the kind that could ‘chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.’ ”) (quoting Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 226 (1993)); see also Thomas A. Lambert & Alden F. Abbott, Recognizing the Limits of Antitrust: The Roberts Court Versus the Enforcement Agencies, 11 J. Competition L. & Econ. 791 (2015).
In contrast, this case is a prime—and potentially disastrous— example of how the unwarranted reliance on inadequate inferences of anticompetitive effect lead to judicial outcomes utterly at odds with Supreme Court precedent.
The district court’s decision confuses several interrelated theories of harm resting on the central premise that Qualcomm’s business model is purposefully structured to preserve its ability to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) to device makers (OEMs) at “unreasonably high royalty rates,” thus “impos[ing] an artificial surcharge on all sales of its rivals’ modem chips,” which “reduces rivals’ margins, and results in exclusivity.” FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 2206013, slip op. at 183 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) (hereinafter slip op.).
But, without more, high royalty rates, artificial surcharges, the reduction of rivals’ margins, and even exclusivity do not violate the Sherman Act. Indeed, high prices are as likely the consequence of the lawful exercise of monopoly power or the procompetitive offering of higher quality products, and harm to competitors is a hallmark of vigorous competition. See, e.g., Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004) (“The mere possession of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful; it is an important element of the free-market system.”). Avoiding the wrongful condemnation of such conduct is precisely the point of the Court’s error cost holdings.
The district court commits several key errors inconsistent with both Supreme Court precedent and its underlying economic framework.
First, the court failed to require proof of the anticompetitive harm allegedly caused by Qualcomm’s conduct. Instead, the court infers both its existence and its cause, see slip op. at 42–43, justifying its approach with reference to a single case: United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“We may infer causation when exclusionary conduct is aimed at producers of nascent competitive technologies as well as when it is aimed at producers of established substitutes.”).
But the court misreads Microsoft and disregards contrary Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, both the Court and Microsoft made clear that a finding of illegal monopolization may not rest on an inference of anticompetitive harm.
In Brooke Group, the Court took the unusual step of reviewing an appellate decision for the sufficiency of evidence, prodded by the need to protect against the costs of erroneously condemning procompetitive conduct. See 509 U.S. at 230. It held that only evidence defendant’s conduct injured “competition, not competitors” supports a monopolization claim. Id. at 224 (citation omitted). And because harm to competitors doesn’t necessarily mean harm to competition, inferring anticompetitive harm from such evidence would not suffice: “mistaken inferences are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.” Id. at 226 (citation omitted).
In subsequent cases, the Court redoubled its commitment to minimizing error costs arising from erroneous inferences of anticompetitive effect. See Trinko, 540 U.S. at 414 (“The cost of false positives counsels against an undue expansion of § 2 liability.”) (citation omitted); Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 451 (2009).
As law and economics scholars, we are concerned that, because the district court’s decision rests on tenuous, unsupported inferences, “[i]f the district court’s holding is not repudiated on appeal, then the obvious consequence will be for companies to be deterred from much innocent and potentially procompetitive business conduct.” Douglas H. Ginsburg, Joshua D. Wright & Lindsey M. Edwards, Section 2 Mangled: FTC v. Qualcomm on the Duty to Deal, Price Squeezes, and Exclusive Dealing 2 (George Mason Univ. Law & Econ. Research Paper Series 19-21, Aug. 19, 2019), http://bit.ly/2z7aZzA.
This concern is not just academic. See FTC v. Qualcomm, No. 19- 16122, Order at 6 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2019) (recognizing the DOJ and Departments of Energy and Defense all classified this decision as a costly false positive).
Second, the court erred in finding Qualcomm had an antitrust duty to deal with rivals. The evidence adduced could sustain the district court’s ruling through only one theory: an illegal unilateral refusal to deal.2 See Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highland Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985)). But this narrow exception—“at or near the outer boundary of § 2 liability,” Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409—is subject to strict limitations.
Finding a duty to deal requires that the company gave up a profitable course of dealing with rivals and adopted a less profitable alternative. The evidence before the district court uniformly shows that Qualcomm’s challenged practices were more profitable, and thus insufficient to support an antitrust duty to deal.
Finally, because the court didn’t perform a competitive effects analysis, it failed to demonstrate the “substantial” foreclosure of competition required to sustain a claim of anticompetitive exclusion. To avoid the costs of mistaken condemnation, the Court placed tight guardrails around finding exclusionary conduct anticompetitive, requiring foreclosure of “a substantial share of the relevant market.” See Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 328 (1961). Without this finding, which also may not be inferred, a claim of anticompetitive foreclosure is unsupportable.
In sum, the district court’s approach extends antitrust law beyond the clear boundaries imposed by the Supreme Court and risks deterring significant pro-competitive conduct. If upheld, amici anticipate significant harm from the district court’s decision.
Amicus Brief ICLE filed a brief in support of Petitioners in the D.C. Circuit case, Mozilla v. FCC, a case that challenged the FCC's authority to issue the Restoring Internet Freedom Order ("RIFO").
ICLE filed a brief in support of Petitioners in the D.C. Circuit case, Mozilla v. FCC, a case that challenged the FCC’s authority to issue the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (“RIFO”). In RIFO, the FCC repealed the Title II classification on ISPs, preempted conflicting state laws, and applied a transparency rule against ISPs, among other provisions. In our brief, we argue that:
Contrary to the claims of Petitioners, the Commission acted well within its authority in adopting the Order. The Commission developed a comprehensive regulatory scheme for ISPs that includes both obligations imposed under the Communications Act, as well as complementary regulation and potential enforcement under antitrust law by the Commission’s sister agencies. As we show below, this competition-oriented, light touch regulatory regime comports with the relevant provisions and stated goals of the Communications Act far better than the ex ante rules adopted in the Title II Order. In adopting this competition-oriented regulatory regime, the Commission also acted within its authority to preempt contradictory state laws under well- established precedent. The Commission did so while properly allowing for states to continue to regulate under other laws of general applicability that do not conflict with or frustrate the federal policies underlying the Order. Accordingly, the Order should be upheld and the petitions for review should be denied.
Contrary to the claims of Petitioners, the Commission acted well within its authority in adopting the Order. The Commission developed a comprehensive regulatory scheme for ISPs that includes both obligations imposed under the Communications Act, as well as complementary regulation and potential enforcement under antitrust law by the Commission’s sister agencies. As we show below, this competition-oriented, light touch regulatory regime comports with the relevant provisions and stated goals of the Communications Act far better than the ex ante rules adopted in the Title II Order.
In adopting this competition-oriented regulatory regime, the Commission also acted within its authority to preempt contradictory state laws under well- established precedent. The Commission did so while properly allowing for states to continue to regulate under other laws of general applicability that do not conflict with or frustrate the federal policies underlying the Order.
Accordingly, the Order should be upheld and the petitions for review should be denied.
Written Testimonies & Filings We are a group of eight scholars of antitrust law and economics affiliated with the International Center for Law & Economics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center based in Portland, OR. Without taking a position on the merits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, this letter provides a brief explication of our views on some of the important economic issues involved in the transaction’s antitrust review.
Dear Senators Grassley, Feinstein, Lee, and Klobuchar,
We are a group of eight scholars of antitrust law and economics affiliated with the International Center for Law & Economics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center based in Portland, OR. Without taking a position on the merits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, this letter provides a brief explication of our views on some of the important economic issues involved in the transaction’s antitrust review.
At the highest level, and as discussed in more detail below, we believe that an appropriate concern for consumer welfare in the regulatory review of the transaction demands that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) account for the dynamic, fast-moving nature of competition in the markets affected by the merger. Above all, this means that the agencies should shun the mechanical application of obsolete market-share and concentration presumptions that could wrongly condemn the merger.
Modern antitrust principles, sound economics, and the public interest dictate that an analysis of the proposed merger incorporate these foundational precepts:
These principles are particularly appropriate here given the clear importance to the parties’ decision to merge of their interest in launching a competitive, national 5G network. If successful, the deal could create a combined T-Mobile and Sprint that is a stronger competitor to AT&T and Verizon, which, in turn, could spur increased investment competition in the market. Realizing those objectives — which could result in enormous benefit to consumers and enhance competition in the wireless communications and broadband markets — will take time, and the process will entail business model disruption, corporate reorganization, experimentation, and significant investment.
It is crucial to ensuring that the claimed consumer benefits of this process can be realized that the proposed merger not be thwarted by regulators inappropriately focused on short-term, static effects.
TOTM The US agriculture sector has been experiencing consolidation at all levels for decades, even as the global ag economy has been growing and becoming more . . .
The US agriculture sector has been experiencing consolidation at all levels for decades, even as the global ag economy has been growing and becoming more diverse. Much of this consolidation has been driven by technological changes that created economies of scale, both at the farm level and beyond.
Read the full piece here.
Amicus Brief "The court of appeals’ decision poses a grave risk to the innovation economy. The court condemned as per se violations of the antitrust laws practices that made competition possible in a nascent market through introduction of a new business model..."
“The court of appeals’ decision poses a grave risk to the innovation economy. The court condemned as per se violations of the antitrust laws practices that made competition possible in a nascent market through introduction of a new business model. And it did so in the absence of any precedent holding that the novel combination of practices at issue could be deemed per se illegal. The court of appeals’ decision thus sends a chill wind through industry sectors where entrepreneurs are contemplating the launch of innovative business models to fuel the modern economy.
This Court’s precedent on application of the per se rule is clear: “[I]t is only after considerable experience with certain business relationships that courts classify them as per se violations” of the antitrust laws. Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 441 U.S. 1, 9 (1979) (“BMI”). Per se condemnation is appropriate only when a practice lacks any plausible procompetitive rationale. Cal. Dental Ass’n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 771 (1999). If there is no long track record of judicial experience establishing that a practice always or almost always lessens competition, then the practice should be subject to analysis under the rule of reason. BMI, 441 U.S. at 23-24. In that way, a finding that a novel practice (or an old practice in a new context) is anticompetitive may be made only after a rigorous analysis of all the facts and circumstances. Such a rule sensibly avoids unintentional condemnation of economically valuable activity where the full effects of that activity are simply unknown to the courts.
In disregard of these principles, the court of appeals applied the per se rule to a novel combination of competition-enabling practices in an emerging market. The negative consequences of the court’s ruling will be particularly acute for modern high technology sectors of the economy, where entrepreneurs planning to create entirely new markets or inject competition into existing ones through adoption of new business models will now face exactly the sort of artificial deterrents that this Court has strived to prevent. “Mistaken inferences and the resulting false condemnations ‘are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect…’”
