News
Archive

Bloomberg Technology, reporting on a push by California and New York to create their own Net Neutrality rules in 2018, quoted ICLE Executive Director Geoffrey Manne:

“California has a long and questionable history of passing laws and regulations that end up applying to the whole country, because companies don’t want to or can’t change their products to sell them just in California,” said Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law & Economics, a research group. If California, Washington and New York all passed similar guidelines, it could carry a significant amount of weight.

The internet doesn’t lend itself cleanly to state lines. It could be difficult for Comcast or Verizon to accept money from services seeking preferential treatment in one state, then make sure that its network didn’t reflect those relationships in places where state lawmakers forbade them, Manne said. Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly raised this point at the December meeting when the rules were passed, saying the preemption provision in the rules protected internet providers against such a messy situation.

Geoffrey Manne was quoted in Bloomberg Technology on the effects that California laws have on the rest of the country:

Even supporters of state legislation on net neutrality think this may go too far. California State Senator Scott Wiener introduced a bill this week that would only apply to behavior within the state, saying any other approach would be too vulnerable to legal challenge. “We’re expecting that there will be litigation,” he said. Wiener said that the internet providers who backed Pai’s plan shouldn’t flinch at his bill. “They say that, as a matter of internal policy, they adhere to net neutrality.”

But this wouldn’t be the first time a large state threw around its weight in ways that reverberate beyond its borders. The texbook industry, for instance, has long accommodated the standards of California and Texas. Just last month, more than a dozen states asked the Supreme Court to block a California law that required egg sellers to abide to certain guidelines in their treatment of hens, arguing it attempts to regulate industry in other states.

“California has a long and questionable history of passing laws and regulations that end up applying to the whole country, because companies don’t want to or can’t change their products to sell them just in California,” said Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law & Economics, a research group. If California, Washington and New York all passed similar guidelines, it could carry a significant amount of weight.

Click to read the Bloomberg Technology article here. 

Geoffrey Manne was quoted in Axios on the antitrust claims involving Google’s new ad blocker in its Chrome web browser:

Why it matters: The move is meant to help clean up the web, and create better ad experiences for all Chrome users, but some see it as an antitrust problem, because the world’s biggest advertiser will have the ability to block ads through a browser it owns.

While U.S. antitrust officials have been pretty quiet about the news since this summer, E.U. regulators have been more vocal about their concerns. In response to the implementation news over the summer, European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager responded on Twitter: “We will follow this new feature and it’s effects closely.”

Others think an antitrust argument would be difficult to make. “If the ad-blocker improves Chrome by building into it the ability to thwart harmful ads (say, ads with malware or that slow computers) regardless of ad platform, and if users can continue to install other ad-blockers, an antitrust case would be a very hard sell,” says Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director of the International Center for Law & Economics.

Click to read the Axios article here. 

The National Law Review, covering last week’s Federal Trade Commission “Informational Injury Workshop,” reported on ICLE Executive Director Geoffrey Manne’s participation:

Another area of sharp disagreement between the panelists was whether risk of future injury from disclosure constitutes an injury in and of itself… Geoffrey Manne, Executive Director of the International Center for Law & Economics, pushed back on these points, arguing that there cannot be an injury to consumers just because the risk of disclosure has been increased because defining injury in this way would prevent businesses from taking any risks.

Several panelists focused on the role of consumer agency in assessing whether an injury had occurred… Professor Cooper and Mr. Manne both emphasized the benefit to consumers from data collection practices, such as broader information sharing and insights that may be derived from data aggregation.

In discussing the role of government intervention in assessing injury, the panelists took a number of positions… Mr. Manne warned against deterring experimentation and the development of new technologies through over-regulation. All the panelists agreed that not all injuries necessitate government intervention and that a clearer definition of injury is needed to guide the FTC in bringing enforcement actions.

Read the full article.

Geoffrey Manne was quoted in the LA Times on the risk that AT&T would use the merger to keep certain programming away from rivals:

The government’s lawsuit argued that AT&T would use its market clout to keep Time Warner programming, such as CNN, HBO and sports programming on TNT and TBS, away from its rivals. But analysts say that is unlikely because TV programmers make more money by selling their programming to as many outlets as possible.

“They are going to have a hard time proving that in the courts,” said Geoffrey A. Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law and Economics in Portland, Ore. “There are so many factors that make that theory unlikely — it’s a stretch.”

The Justice Department also argues that the merger could stymie technology innovations, including the expansion of streaming services. The government argues that AT&T would have an incentive to thwart Netflix, Google Amazon.com and other innovators because they compete with AT&T’s satellite TV service, DirecTV, and its U-Verse service.

Click here to read the LA Times article.

Geoffrey Manne was quoted in the Washington Post on the idea that Yelp might push for antitrust actions against Google in the US, similar to what led to a record $2.7 billion fine in the EU.

Key federal officials, such as Acting FTC Chairwoman Maureen Ohlhausen, were part of a group that chose to end an agency investigation into Google five years ago. And Makan Delrahim, Trump’s Justice Department nominee for antitrust issues, is viewed by analysts as an independent professional who is unlikely to bow to outside pressure.

Still, some of the same companies that pushed for European antitrust action could launch a similar campaign in the United States. “We are going to leave all options on the table,” said Luther Lowe, vice president of public policy at Yelp, which played a major role in lobbying against Google at the European Commission.

Should Yelp push for U.S. regulators to act, there is no guarantee that they will. Even if they do, the resulting investigation may not necessarily lead to an enforcement action, and any enforcement action would need to pass muster with a judge, said Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law and Economics, which is partly funded by Google. “Unless you can convince a court, you’re stuck,” said Manne.

Click here to read the Washington Post article. 

On Tuesday, October 14, Geoffrey Manne appeared on a panel discussion sponsored by PEN America, a non-profit group that defends the freedom of writers and editors. Mr. Manne appeared alongside noted ‘Net Neutrality’ proponent Tim Wu, and argued that common carrier regulation will impede innovation:

Proponents of net neutrality argue that the relatively level playing field of the Internet has been a major factor in its success and growth, providing a platform for new companies to take off. They argue that stronger regulation is necessary to control what Mr. Wu described as monopolistic pricing of broadband access. “Most of us are being overcharged, paying first world prices for third world services,” Mr. Sifry said.

“I definitely take issue with the characterization of much of this,” said Mr. Manne. The parties that advocate for more regulation of carriers include rich and powerful Internet companies, he said, arguing “there is no reason to think they are advocates for the little guy. The problem with common carrier regulation is that it locks the Internet into a kind of status quo. It will actually impede innovation.”

A non-neutral Internet favors the rise of new pricing models, according to Mr. Manne. Already, there are some cases in which mobile carriers wave data charges when customers use their phones to access particular apps, panelists noted. In poor areas, that may be better than no access at all, according to Mr. Manne. “I would choose a closed system over no system. That may be the choice,” he said.

Click here to read the full Wall Street Journal article.

While the FCC didn’t ask for any additional commitments in this case, beyond what the DOJ asked for, they’ve laid down the marker, and they can in the future, said Geoffrey Manne, the executive director of the International Center for Law and Economics and lecturer at the Lewis and Clark Law School, to Bloomberg BNA Aug. 27. Now they could potentially demand concessions or even stop the transaction on the basis of an ancillary commercial agreement. They are asserting that they have more control over the economic value of the deal.

Find the entire article on BNA.

BBC Online Magazine – ICLE Academic Affiliate Paul Rubin was interviewed by BBC Online Magazine in a story about Google’s use of data. You can read full piece here.

“It makes the internet work much better, in many dimensions.

“If you and I search on the same topic, we may have different interests, if the results are tailored to me and tailored to you, that’s a better experience.”

When the data is used to sell ads, the ads we get are tailored to things we might like, and the profits can work in our favour.

“Sure, Google makes some money, but they use that money to give away all kinds of stuff, like Gmail,” says Mr Rubin.