Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
Popular Media WATCH: Video
Republic 3.0’s Capitol Hill briefing on design patents featuring David Gerk, USPTO; Rebecca Tushnet, Georgetown University School of Law; Julie Hopkins, Tydings & Rosenberg LLP; Geoffrey Manne, International Center for Law and Economics; and Anne Kim and Rob Keast, Republic 3.0.
Popular Media The Federal Trade Commission’s recent enforcement actions against Amazon and Apple raise important questions about the FTC’s consumer protection practices, especially its use of economics. . . .
The Federal Trade Commission’s recent enforcement actions against Amazon and Apple raise important questions about the FTC’s consumer protection practices, especially its use of economics. How does the Commission weigh the costs and benefits of its enforcement decisions? How does the agency employ economic analysis in digital consumer protection cases generally?
Join the International Center for Law and Economics and TechFreedom on Thursday, July 31 at the Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company for a lunch and panel discussion on these important issues, featuring FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics Martin Gaynor, and several former FTC officials. RSVP here.
Commissioner Wright will present a keynote address discussing his dissent in Apple and his approach to applying economics in consumer protection cases generally.
Geoffrey Manne, Executive Director of ICLE, will briefly discuss his recent paper on the role of economics in the FTC’s consumer protection enforcement. Berin Szoka, TechFreedom President, will moderate a panel discussion featuring:
The FTC recently issued a complaint and consent order against Apple, alleging its in-app purchasing design doesn’t meet the Commission’s standards of fairness. The action and resulting settlement drew a forceful dissent from Commissioner Wright, and sparked a discussion among the Commissioners about balancing economic harms and benefits in Section 5 unfairness jurisprudence. More recently, the FTC brought a similar action against Amazon, which is now pending in federal district court because Amazon refused to settle.
The “FTC: Technology and Reform” project brings together a unique collection of experts on the law, economics, and technology of competition and consumer protection to consider challenges facing the FTC in general, and especially regarding its regulation of technology. The Project’s initial report, released in December 2013, identified critical questions facing the agency, Congress, and the courts about the FTC’s future, and proposed a framework for addressing them.
The event will be live streamed here beginning at 12:15pm. Join the conversation on Twitter with the #FTCReform hashtag.
Thursday, July 31 11:45 am – 12:15 pm — Lunch and registration 12:15 pm – 2:00 pm — Keynote address, paper presentation & panel discussion
Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company – Rehearsal Hall 641 D St NW Washington, DC 20004
Questions? – Email [email protected]. RSVP here.
See ICLE’s and TechFreedom’s other work on FTC reform, including:
The International Center for Law and Economics is a non-profit, non-partisan research center aimed at fostering rigorous policy analysis and evidence-based regulation.
TechFreedom is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.
Filed under: administrative, announcements, antitrust, consumer protection, cost-benefit analysis, error costs, federal trade commission, international center for law & economics, law and economics, regulation, section 5, technology Tagged: Amazon, Apple, consumer protection, Federal Trade Commission, ftc, icle, section 5, techfreedom, Unfairness
Presentations & Interviews Thanks to everyone for joining Part 4 of the Capitol Forum’s Conference Call series on the Comcast-Time Warner cable merger. I’m Jonathan Rubin, Capitol Forum Senior Correspondent. And with me today is Geoffrey A. Manne.
Geoffrey A. Manne joined Capitol Forum Senior Correspondent Jonathan Rubin to discuss why he believes the Comcast-Time Warner cable merger will not give rise to anti-competitive harm under modern theories of antitrust enforcement. A transcript of the event can be found here.
TOTM The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) and TechFreedom filed two joint comments with the FCC today, explaining why the FCC has no sound . . .
The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) and TechFreedom filed two joint comments with the FCC today, explaining why the FCC has no sound legal basis for micromanaging the Internet and why “net neutrality” regulation would actually prove counter-productive for consumers.
The Policy Comments are available here, and the Legal Comments are here. See our previous post, Net Neutrality Regulation Is Bad for Consumers and Probably Illegal, for a distillation of many of the key points made in the comments.
Read the full piece here.
Regulatory Comments "No one’s against an open Internet. The notion that anyone can put up a virtual shingle—and that the good ideas will rise to the top—is a bedrock principle with broad support; it has made the Internet essential to modern life..."
“No one’s against an open Internet. The notion that anyone can put up a virtual shingle—and that the good ideas will rise to the top—is a bedrock principle with broad support; it has made the Internet essential to modern life. Key to Internet openness is the freedom to innovate. A truly open Internet would preserve for all players the right to experiment with innovative content delivery methods and business models.
In the face of rapid technological advance, evolving consumer demand and Internet usage, demonstrated investment incentives and the dearth of demonstrated neutrality problems, the best approach would be to maintain the “Hands off the Net” approach that has otherwise prevailed for 20 years. That means a general presumption that innovative business models and other forms of “prioritization” are legal. The Internet doesn’t need a host of new prescriptive rules and prior restraints on innovation. What it needs is humility about the limits of central planning: The FCC should take an error-cost approach, carefully and rigorously evaluating the tradeoffs from intervention, recognizing that the unintended consequences of over-inclusive rules may be far worse than the demonstrably successful status quo…”
Regulatory Comments "In its proposed rules, the FCC is essentially proposing to do what can only properly be done by Congress: invent a new legal regime for broadband..."
“In its proposed rules, the FCC is essentially proposing to do what can only properly be done by Congress: invent a new legal regime for broadband. Each of the options the FCC proposes to justify this — common carrier reclassification, and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act — is deeply problematic. If the FCC believes regulation is necessary, it should better develop its case through more careful economic analysis, and then make that case to Congress in a request for new legislation. In the meantime, the FCC could play a valuable role in helping to convene a multistakeholder process to produce a code of conduct that would be enforceable—if not by the FCC, then by the Federal Trade Commission—above and beyond enforcement of existing antitrust and consumer protection laws.”
TOTM TechFreedom and the International Center for Law & Economics will shortly file two joint comments with the FCC, explaining why the FCC has no sound legal basis for . . .
TechFreedom and the International Center for Law & Economics will shortly file two joint comments with the FCC, explaining why the FCC has no sound legal basis for micromanaging the Internet—now called “net neutrality regulation”—and why such regulation would be counter-productive as a policy matter. The following summarizes some of the key points from both sets of comments.
Popular Media Today the FTC filed its complaint in federal district court in Washington against Amazon, alleging that the company’s in-app purchasing system permits children to make . . .
Today the FTC filed its complaint in federal district court in Washington against Amazon, alleging that the company’s in-app purchasing system permits children to make in-app purchases without parental “informed consent” constituting an “unfair practice” under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
As I noted in my previous post on the case, in bringing this case the Commission is doubling down on the rule it introduced in Apple that effectively converts the balancing of harms and benefits required under Section 5 of the FTC Act to a per se rule that deems certain practices to be unfair regardless of countervailing benefits. Similarly, it is attempting to extend the informed consent standard it created in Apple that essentially maintains that only specific, identified practices (essentially, distinct notification at the time of purchase or opening of purchase window, requiring entry of a password to proceed) are permissible under the Act.
Such a standard is inconsistent with the statute, however. The FTC’s approach forecloses the ability of companies like Amazon to engage in meaningful design decisions and disregards their judgment about which user interface designs will, on balance, benefit consumers. The FTC Act does not empower the Commission to disregard the consumer benefits of practices that simply fail to mimic the FTC’s preconceived design preferences. While that sort of approach might be defensible in the face of manifestly harmful practices like cramming, it is wholly inappropriate in the context of app stores like Amazon’s that spend considerable resources to design every aspect of their interaction with consumers—and that seek to attract, not to defraud, consumers.
Today’s complaint occasions a few more observations:
Filed under: consumer protection, federal trade commission, markets, section 5, technology Tagged: Amazon, Amazon.com, Apple, Commissioner Wright, Free Time, ftc, In-app purchases, Kindle, section 5, Unfair Practices, Unfairness
TOTM Today the FTC filed its complaint in federal district court in Washington against Amazon, alleging that the company’s in-app purchasing system permits children to make in-app purchases . . .