News
Archive

American Institute for Economic Research – ICLE President Geoffrey Manne was cited by the American Institute for Economic Research in a blog post about the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Justice Department’s draft merger guidelines. You can read full piece here.

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown notes, however, that set of principles (relying on inconsistent meanings of competition) “could be used to justify blocking any merger,” echoing the conclusion of Geoffrey Manne, President of the International Center for Law and Economics, that “The overbroad guidelines are clearly designed to deter merger activity as a whole, regardless of the risk posed to competition.”

Medium – ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht and Academic Affiliate Thom Lambert were cited by Adam Kovacevich in a story published by Medium about the role of self-preferencing in the U.S. Justice Department’s upcoming Google case. You can read full piece here.

As Brian Albrecht noted:

In the case of retail trade promotions, a promotional space given to Coca-Cola makes it marginally easier for consumers to pick Coke, and therefore some consumers will switch from Pepsi to Coke. But it does not reduce any consumer’s choice. The store will still have both items.

…In other words, regulators or courts banning search default deals or slotting fees would likely only reaffirm the market-leading position of both Google and Oreos — but result in decreased revenue for the access points, Mozilla and Kroger. Or as Thom Lambert put it:

“The government’s success in its challenge to Google’s Apple payments would benefit Google at the expense of consumers: Google would almost certainly remain the default search engine on Apple products, as it is most preferred by consumers and no rival could pay to dislodge it; Google would not have to pay a penny to retain its default status; and Apple would lose revenues that it likely passes along to consumers in the form of lower prices.”

DOJ is likely to argue, as Lambert previewed, that Google’s deals give it higher search volume, which creates a “data barrier to entry” for Bing and DuckDuckGo — they don’t have enough scale to compete. As Lambert notes:

“In the government’s view, Google is legally obligated to forego opportunities to make its own product better so as to give its rivals a chance to improve their own offerings.”

But, he continues:

“This is inconsistent with U.S. antitrust law. Just as firms are not required to hold their prices high to create a price umbrella for their less efficient rivals, they need not refrain from efforts to improve the quality of their own offerings so as to give their rivals a foothold.”

…As Brian Albrecht put it:

Despite all the bells and whistles of the Google case…from an economic point of view, the contracts that Google signed are just trade promotions. No more, no less. And trade promotions are well-established as part of a competitive process that ultimately helps consumers.

Yahoo Finance – ICLE Senior Scholar Eric Fruits was quoted by Yahoo Finance in a story about the benefits of allowing supermarkets Kroger and Albertsons to merge. You can read full piece here.

Growth of supercenters like Walmart, along with club stores like BJ’s (BJ) and Costco (COST), could be the biggest “long-run story” in the food and grocery industry, Eric Fruits, senior scholar at the International Center for Law & Economics, told Yahoo Finance. Fruits also highlighted Amazon’s (AMZN) purchase of Whole Foods for $13.7 billion as another deal that further intensified competition within the industry.

Communications Daily – ICLE Director of Innovation Policy Kristian Stout was quoted by Communications Daily in a story about fixed-wireless access and spectrum policy. You can read full piece here.

Reason – ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was cited in a story in Reason about the Biden administration’s attempts to shift the standards of antitrust law. You can read full piece here.

Consumer welfare should be the sole standard for antitrust law. Economist Brian Albrecht wrote in National Review last December about the shift from the “Government always wins” antitrust standard that was successfully pushed by progressives until abandoned in the late 1970s. An emphasis on tangible economic reasoning allowed a consistent framework to take shape, including “the elevation of consumer welfare as antitrust regulation’s fundamental concern.” Chair Khan is trying to turn back the clock to a standard that will again allow the FTC and DOJ to always win.

KOIN – ICLE Senior Scholar Eric Fruits was quoted by Portland, Oregon television station KOIN in a story about the merger of Oregon Health & Science University and Legacy Health. You can read full piece here.

“This is certainly something that the feds are going to look at if they are going to do a merger review between OHSU and Legacy. They may even mandate that Legacy or OHSU don’t close any facilities or do better on price transparency,” said Eric Fruits, from the International Center for Law & Economics in Portland.

…“There should be some scrutiny about whether a merger such as this might exacerbate some of those issues such as higher prices or reduced services,” said Fruits.

City Journal – ICLE President Geoffrey Manne and Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz were cited in a post at City Journal about the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Justice Department’s recently unveiled draft merger guidelines. You can read full piece here.

The FTC has had a busy summer. It proposed severe new disclosure requirements for parties seeking to merge. Joining forces with the Justice Department, it moved to de-modernize the government’s merger guidelines. (“Weighted by the number of citations,” observe Gus Hurwitz and Geoff Manne, “the average year of the 50 cases the FTC and Justice Department cite in support of their approach is 1975—ages ago in antitrust law.”) The agency launched an investigation of OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, and signaled its intent to regulate artificial intelligence more broadly. It accused Amazon of using so-called dark patterns to trick users into subscribing to Amazon Prime. (It also claims that Prime is too hard to quit. Never mind that one can do so in fewer clicks than it takes to file a comment with the FTC.) And any day now, Khan is expected to file her biggest lawsuit of all: her long-planned quest to break up Amazon.

WCPO – ICLE Senior Scholar Eric Fruits was quoted by Cincinnati television station WCPO in a story about a petition from several state attorneys general asking the Federal Trade Commission to challenge to the merger of Kroger and Albertsons. You can read full piece here.

Kroger has a 75% chance of completing the proposed merger, but it might have to fight the FTC in court to get the deal done, said Eric Fruits, an antitrust expert and senior scholar for the International Center for Law & Economics in Portland Oregon.

“For the past 25-30 years, almost every single grocery merger has been allowed to go through with these spinoffs, or what are known as divestitures,” said Fruits, a Sycamore High School graduate who recently co-authored a detailed analysis of the likely legal arguments in the case. “My guess is that’s what Kroger and Albertsons are going to offer. The real question is whether or not the Federal Trade Commission will take that offer. And if they don’t, they could go to court and the judge could say, ‘This seems like a reasonable remedy. We’ll let you spin off the stores.’”

When Kroger announced the planned merger last October, it said it hoped to complete the deal by early next year. Fruits doesn’t think that can happen if the case goes to court.

“I would think that there’s bigger fish to fry than the Kroger-Albertsons merger,” said Fruits. “But you just don’t know what sort of political pressure these federal trade commissioners are under to try to show that they’re doing something big. And this is something big that they can try to block.”

ABC News – ICLE Academic Affiliate James Huffman was quoted by the ABC News in a story about the latest developments in a lawsuit by young plaintiffs who seek to overturn a Montana law that prohibits the consideration of greenhouse-gas emissions in evaluating whether to grant permits. You can read full piece here.

“The ruling really provides nothing beyond emotional support for the many cases seeking to establish a public trust right, human right or a federal constitutional right” to a healthy environment, said James Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland.