Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 245 Results in Consumer Protection
TOTM Others already have noted that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently released 6(b) report on the privacy practices of Internet service providers (ISPs) fails to comprehend that widespread adoption . . .
Others already have noted that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently released 6(b) report on the privacy practices of Internet service providers (ISPs) fails to comprehend that widespread adoption of privacy-enabling technology—in particular, Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) and DNS over HTTPS (DoH), but also the use of virtual private networks (VPNs)—largely precludes ISPs from seeing what their customers do online.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM In the U.S. system of dual federal and state sovereigns, a normative analysis reveals principles that could guide state antitrust-enforcement priorities, to promote complementarity in . . .
In the U.S. system of dual federal and state sovereigns, a normative analysis reveals principles that could guide state antitrust-enforcement priorities, to promote complementarity in federal and state antitrust policy, and thereby advance consumer welfare.
TOTM Thank you, Victoria, for the invitation to respond to Mr. Coscelli and his proposal for a legislatively founded Digital Markets Unit. Mr. Coscelli is one . . .
Thank you, Victoria, for the invitation to respond to Mr. Coscelli and his proposal for a legislatively founded Digital Markets Unit. Mr. Coscelli is one of the most talented, successful, and creative heads a competition agency has ever had. In the case of the DMU [ed., Digital Markets Unit], however, I think he has let hope triumph over experience and prudence. This is often the case with proposals for governmental reform: Indeed, it has a name, the Nirvana Fallacy, which comes from comparing the imperfectly functioning marketplace with the perfectly functioning government agency. Everything we know about the regulation of competition tells us the unintended consequences may dwarf the intended benefits and the result may be a less, not more, competitive economy. The precautionary principle counsels skepticism about such a major and inherently risky intervention.
TL;DR Four months after a similar antitrust measure was advanced to the floor of the U.S. House, a bipartisan group of senators, led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), announced that they will introduce legislation designed to drastically reduce the ability of digital platforms to favor their own goods and services.
Four months after a similar antitrust measure was advanced to the floor of the U.S. House, a bipartisan group of senators, led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), announced that they will introduce legislation designed to drastically reduce the ability of digital platforms to favor their own goods and services. Dubbed the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, the bill presumes that the practice of “self-preferencing” is inherently harmful to competition.
While the draft Senate bill does make certain improvements over its House counterpart, the legislation fundamentally misunderstands the nature of platform competition and the benefits that accrue to consumers from many self-preferencing practices. The bills also would delegate enormous power and discretion to antitrust regulators, who may use that power to achieve fundamentally political ends.
Read the full explainer here.
Regulatory Comments ICLE submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission about potential rulemaking to prohibit employee non-compete clauses and various other forms of exclusive dealing.
Petitioners in this proceeding have called for the FTC to use its rulemaking authority pertaining to unfair methods of competition to prohibit employee non-compete clauses and various forms of exclusive dealing. These rulemaking proposals are deeply misguided from both a procedural and substantive standpoint, however.
Bright-line competition rules, as opposed to broader judicially enforced standards, are appropriate only when it is possible to isolate a category of identical practices that routinely harm competition. This is not the case for the categories of conduct currently under consideration. More fundamentally, these calls ignore positive and significant consumer benefits generated by vertical agreements, in general, and exclusive dealing and non-competes, more specifically. Critics seem to assume that powerful firms foist these exclusive agreements upon their helpless commercial partners (whether employees or other companies). Yet a vast body of economic literature clearly rejects this premise. Instead, it shows that these clauses entail costs and benefits that each party must carefully weigh when they a enter into a commercial relationship.
Of course, this does not mean that non-compete clauses or exclusive dealing should be categorically out of bounds for antitrust authorities. Rather, they should be assessed on a case-by-case basis (i.e., under the rule of reason), accounting for both their pro- and anti-competitive potential. This would limit enforcement efforts only to the limited instances where those clauses harm consumers, thereby preserving the tremendous aggregate benefits they generate.
Read the full public comments here.
TOTM Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan’s Sept. 22 memorandum to FTC commissioners and staff—entitled “Vision and Priorities for the FTC” (VP Memo)—offers valuable insights into the . . .
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan’s Sept. 22 memorandum to FTC commissioners and staff—entitled “Vision and Priorities for the FTC” (VP Memo)—offers valuable insights into the chair’s strategy and policy agenda for the commission. Unfortunately, it lacks an appreciation for the limits of antitrust and consumer-protection law; it also would have benefited from greater regulatory humility. After summarizing the VP Memo’s key sections, I set forth four key takeaways from this rather unusual missive.
TL;DR All around the world, policymakers are proposing legislative changes that would drastically alter the ways that online platforms can operate.
All around the world, policymakers are proposing legislative changes that would drastically alter the ways that online platforms can operate. Motivating these initiatives have been fears that, absent explicit regulation, digital markets would suffer from failures that could not later be remediated.
These putative reforms are not rooted in a rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits of regulatory intervention. In lieu of empirical evidence, lawmakers are relying on highly abstracted theories of potential harm whose bearing on real-world markets is uncertain. Policymakers should instead rely on the tried-and-tested Consumer Welfare Standard that has successfully guided U.S. antitrust enforcement for the better part of a century.
TOTM Words can wound. They can humiliate, anger, insult. University students—or, at least, a vociferous minority of them—are keen to prevent this injury by suppressing offensive . . .
Words can wound. They can humiliate, anger, insult.
University students—or, at least, a vociferous minority of them—are keen to prevent this injury by suppressing offensive speech. To ensure campuses are safe places, they militate for the cancellation of talks by speakers with opinions they find offensive, often successfully. And they campaign to get offensive professors fired from their jobs.
TOTM The American Choice and Innovation Online Act (previously called the Platform Anti-Monopoly Act), introduced earlier this summer by U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), would significantly change the nature . . .
The American Choice and Innovation Online Act (previously called the Platform Anti-Monopoly Act), introduced earlier this summer by U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), would significantly change the nature of digital platforms and, with them, the internet itself. Taken together, the bill’s provisions would turn platforms into passive intermediaries, undermining many of the features that make them valuable to consumers. This seems likely to remain the case even after potential revisions intended to minimize the bill’s unintended consequences.
