The Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act — yes, the “CARE Act” — or HR 5034, is a piece of legislation aimed at supporting “State-based alcohol regulation.”  Recall the Supreme Court’s decision in Granholm v. Heald, which held that states could either allow in-state and out-of-state retailers to directly ship wine to consumers or could prohibit it for both, but couldn’t ban direct shipment only for out-of-state sellers while allowing in for in-state sellers.  Most states thus far have opened up direct shipping laws to the benefit of consumers.    While we occasionally criticize the Federal Trade Commission from time to time here at TOTM, its own research demonstrating that state regulation banning direct shipment and e-commerce harmed consumers is an excellent example of the potential for competition research and development impacting regulatory debates.  Indeed, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Granholm cites the FTC study (not to mention co-blogger Mike Sykuta’s work here) a number of times.  But in addition to direct shipment laws, there are a whole host of state laws regulating the sale and distribution of alcohol.  Some of them have obviously pernicious competitive consequences for consumers as well as producers.  The beneficiaries are the wholesalers who have successfully lobbied for the protection of the state.  Fundamentally, the CARE Act aims to place these laws beyond the reach of any challenge under the Commerce Clause as per Granholm, the Sherman Act, or any other federal legislation.  Whether the CARE Act has any ancillary social benefits is an important empirical question — but you can bet that the first-order effect of the law, if it were to go into effect, would be to increase beer, wine and liquor prices.  More on the CARE Act and state regulation of alcoholic beverages below the fold.

Read the full piece here. 

Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal has reportedly contacted Apple and Amazon concerning their pricing arrangements with publishers (WSJ, CNN):

Mr. Blumenthal said he has sent letters to Amazon and Apple asking them to “meet with his office” to address his concerns that agreements in place may restrict rivals from offering cheaper e-books. For instance, he said, “both Amazon and Apple have reached agreements with the largest e-book publishers that ensure both will receive the best prices for e-books over any competitors.”

A “most favored nation” (MFN) clause is a contractual agreement between a supplier and a customer that requires the supplier to sell to the customer on pricing terms at least as favorable as the pricing terms on which that supplier sells to other customers.

Read the full piece here.

Dan Crane’s post on the DOJ’s antitrust activity, and in particular, monopolization enforcement, during the Obama administration notes the dissonance between rhetoric and reality.  I thought I’d post the following data from the DOJ website concerning Section 2 investigations initiated and cases won over the last 40 years for some perspective.

Read the full piece here.

In a recent NY Times column largely devoted to improving soccer in various ways and how those methods might be used to improve financial regulation as well, behavioral economist and Nudge author Richard Thaler writes the following about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…

Read the full piece here. 

While Intel Corporation nears its settlement deadline with the Federal Trade Commission, it received good news from a federal district court in Delaware evaluating the evidence of alleged consumer harm from the discounts Intel offers to buyers.  It is also very important to note that this pass from a US court applying standards of consumer harm embedded in US Section 2 case law — that is, actual harm to consumers and the competitive process rather than allowing harm to competitors to serve as a sufficient condition for proof of the former — is the first to evaluate the consumer welfare effects of Intel’s conduct from this more rigorous perspective.  One has to wonder whether this ruling will shift settlement negotiations in favor of Intel.   Its true that the FTC can use Section 5 to evade this Section 2 competitive effects analysis.  But not without eventually testing their interpretation of Section 5 in front of a panel at the D.C. Circuit.

Read the full piece here.

The biggest and most important issue for the next few months won’t be immigration, the New Black Panthers, or even the war in Afghanistan. Huge tax increases are headed our way, and it raises tough questions. On the one hand, signaling we are serious about deficits is likely a good thing. But, since politicians haven’t been able to reduce spending additional income, assuming more taxes brings more income, cutting spending would be a better course. Having locked ourselves into huge spending, maybe some tax increases are inevitable.

Read the full piece here. 

Now that Dodd-Frank is law people are focusing on the details buried in it. This includes the broad new whistle-blowing provision for 10% to 30% bounties to people who alert the Securities and Exchange Commission to securities law violations that result in million-dollar-plus SEC recoveries.

Read the full piece here.

In the world of competitive markets, if one does a bad job, the typical result is less resources, less power, and more oversight by interested parties. If a firm makes a bad product, there will be fewer profits, lost market share, and additional attention from Consumer Reports, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and regulators.

Read the full piece here.

In a recent speech at the Netroots Nation, Senator Al Franken tried to frighten the crowd by trotting out the corporate bogeyman that greedily makes decisions without regard to anything other than profit. Franken told them: “it is literally malfeasance for a corporation not to do everything it legally can to maximize its profits.” Individuals across the political spectrum share this common canard. Those on the right, like Milton Friedman, argue that the shareholder-wealth-maximization requirement prohibits firms from acting in ways that benefit, say, local communities or the environment, at the expense of the bottom line. Those on the left, like Franken, argue that the duty to shareholders makes corporations untrustworthy and dangerous. They are both wrong.

Read the full piece here.