Search Results

Today comes news that Senator Kohl has sent a letter to the DOJ urging “careful review” of the proposed Google/ITA merger.  Underlying his concerns (or rather the “concerns raised by a number of industry participants and consumer advocates that I believe warrant careful review”) is this…

Read the full piece here. 

Here we go again.  The European Commission is after Google more formally than a few months ago (but not yet having issued a Statement of Objections).

Read the full piece here. 

We’ve been reading with interest a bit of an blog squabble between Tim Wu and Adam Thierer ( see here and here) set off by Professor Wu’s WSJ column: “In the Grip of the New Monopolists.”  Wu’s column makes some remarkable claims, and, like Adam, we find it extremely troubling.

Read the full piece here.

The FTC settlement with Intel has been finalized with one change the Commission’s press release describes as follows…

Read the full piece here. 

We’ve discussed the all too common tactic in antitrust of rivals complaining to government agencies to get them to bring antitrust complaints.  There is nothing particularly special about this tactic.  As I’ve pointed out in the context of allegations by Microsoft and Microsoft-supported rivals of Google, conventional economic reasoning suggests that, without more, complaints from rivals should be viewed with skepticism…

Read the full piece here. 

This should be an interesting case to watch.  As I’ve discussed, if one excludes policy speeches and restricts focus to enforcement action and activity, it has been thus far difficult to distinguish the Obama Antitrust Division from the Bush II Antitrust Division when it comes to single firm or allegedly exclusionary conduct.  But the DOJ’s recent announcement of case against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan looks like the DOJ’s first major “exclusionary” conduct case — despite the fact that it is brought under Section of the Sherman Act rather than Section 2 (there is also a state antitrust law claim).

Read the full piece here. 

In a policy speech earlier this year, Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch of the Federal Trade Commission advocating the incorporation of behavioral economics into antitrust analysis suggested one concern that others might have with the approach was that “behavioral economics was simply liberalism masquerading as economic thinking.”   The Commissioner himself has been a vocal proponent of incorporating insights from behavioral economics into antitrust, as has already been done in the consumer protection realm (see, e.g. CFPB).  Indeed, with Cass Sunstein’s appointment at OIRA, the recent creation of a “Nudge” team in David Cameron’s Cabinet (aka “behavioral insight team”) in the UK, the CFPB, and the calls from at least one Federal Trade Commissioner to modify antitrust analysis suggest the behavioral regulatory regime is no longer right around the corner; it has arrived.

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Antitrust is back in vogue at the U.S. Supreme Court. Whereas the Rehnquist Court decided few antitrust cases in its latter years (only one from 1993 to 1995, one each year from 1996 through 1999, and none from 2000 to 2003), the Roberts Court issued seven antitrust decisions in its first two years alone. Numerous commentators have characterized the Roberts Court’s antitrust decisions as radical departures that betray a pro-business, anti-consumer bias. While some of the decisions do represent significant changes from past practice (see, e.g., Leegin, which overruled the 1911 Dr. Miles rule of per se illegality for minimum resale price maintenance, and Twombly, which abrogated the infamous “no set of facts” pleading standard set forth in the 1957 Conley v. Gibson decision), the “pro-business/anti-consumer” characterization of the Roberts Court’s antitrust decisions is inaccurate. The characterization – caricature, really – fails to appreciate the fundamental limits of antitrust, a body of law that requires judges and juries to make fine distinctions between procompetitive and anticompetitive behaviors that frequently resemble each other. While false acquittals of anticompetitive conduct may harm consumers, so may false convictions of procompetitive actions. And efforts to eliminate errors in liability judgments are themselves costly. Optimal antitrust rules will therefore aim to minimize the sum of decision costs (the costs of reaching a liability decision) and expected error costs (the social losses from false convictions and false acquittals). Each of the Roberts Court’s antitrust decisions can be defended in light of this “decision-theoretic” approach, an approach calculated to maximize the effectiveness of the antitrust enterprise, to the ultimate benefit of consumers. This Article first describes the fundamental limits of antitrust and the decision-theoretic approach such limits inspire. It then analyzes the Roberts Court’s antitrust decisions, explaining how each coheres with the decision-theoretic model. Finally, it predicts how the Court will address three issues likely to come before it in the future: tying, loyalty rebates, and bundled discounts.

The WSJ recently published the next installment of the Microsoft-Google antitrust wars.  A Google representative argues “competition is one click away”; Charles (“Rick”) Rule, Microsoft’s antitrust attorney, argues that Google’s conduct might harm competition.  Rule’s main point is summed up in the first line of his piece: “what goes around comes around.”  The longer version of the argument is as follows: (1) Microsoft was faced with antitrust allegations instigated by rivals that its business practices harmed competition; (2) Microsoft defended on various grounds, including that there was ample competition in high-tech markets; (3) Microsoft lost and new law was made; (4) Google is now faced with similar allegations, brought on and/or instigated by similar rivals (including Microsoft), and involving similar defenses; (5) fair play and consistency dictates that the same standard be applied to Microsoft and Google; (6) thus, Google is an antitrust problem and should lose a suit brought against it.  I will refer to (1)-(6) as the “antitrust karma” argument.

Read the full piece here.