In policy discussions about the digital economy, a background assumption that frequently underlies the discourse is that intermediaries and centralization always and only serve as a cost to consumers, and to society more generally. Thus, one commonly sees arguments that consumers would be better off if they could freely combine products from different trading partners. According to this logic, bundled goods, walled gardens, and other intermediaries are always to be regarded with suspicion, while interoperability, open source, and decentralization are laudable features of any market.

Read the full piece here.

Antitrust policymakers around the world have taken a page out of the Silicon Valley playbook and decided to “move fast and break things.” While the slogan is certainly catchy, applying it to the policymaking world is unfortunate and, ultimately, threatens to harm consumers.

Read the full piece here.

The European Commission and its supporters were quick to claim victory following last week’s long-awaited General Court of the European Union ruling in the Google Shopping case. It’s hard to fault them. The judgment is ostensibly an unmitigated win for the Commission, with the court upholding nearly every aspect of its decision.

Read the full piece here.

Why do digital industries routinely lead to one company having a very large share of the market (at least if one defines markets narrowly)? To anyone familiar with competition policy discussions, the answer might seem obvious: network effects, scale-related economies, and other barriers to entry lead to winner-take-all dynamics in platform industries. Accordingly, it is that believed the first platform to successfully unlock a given online market enjoys a determining first-mover advantage.

Read the full piece here.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have just unveiled their long-awaited draft American Innovation and Choice Online Act. If passed into law, the bill would effectively outlaw a wide array of common tech industry practices in which platforms favor their own products. This despite scant evidence that such practices are detrimental to consumers, that they prevent rivals from entering online markets, or that they harm innovation.

Read the full piece here.

Recent commentary on the proposed merger between WarnerMedia and Discovery, as well as Amazon’s acquisition of MGM, often has included the suggestion that the online content-creation and video-streaming markets are excessively consolidated, or that they will become so absent regulatory intervention. For example, in a recent letter to the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ), the American Antitrust Institute and Public Knowledge opine that…

Read the full piece here.

INTRODUCTION

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.

Background…

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.

But…

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.

Read the full explainer here.

The dystopian novel is a powerful literary genre. It has given us such masterpieces as Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451. Though these novels often shed light on the risks of contemporary society and the zeitgeist of the era in which they were written, they also almost always systematically overshoot the mark (intentionally or not) and severely underestimate the radical improvements that stem from the technologies (or other causes) that they fear.

Read the full piece here.