Abstract

The battle over rules governing 5.9 GHz airwaves offers important lessons in both the creation of property rights and applied public choice. Set aside in 1999, the 75 MHz “Car Band” band was designated by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to support emerging vehicle telematics and computerized driving. Transportation regulators and automakers, including General Motors, Ford, and BMW, claimed this would efficiently promote road safety, fuel savings, and collision avoidance, as dedicated bandwidth would operate under a “spectrum commons” regime designed to favor such applications. While anticipated services gradually developed, the 5.9 GHz band did not. Spectrum inputs outside the “Car Band” accommodated driving applications, while the general development of wireless networks shifted social priorities. Eventually, Internet services companies such as Comcast, Google and Microsoft claimed the 75 MHz allocation was wastefully large and that switching access rules to favor WiFi would generate net benefits. Suggested for possible reallocation by the U.S. Department of Commerce since 2012, the FCC issued an order in 2020 to split the baby: 45 MHz of the band would be shifted to Wi-Fi, with 30 MHz remaining dedicated for Intelligent Transportation Systems. The FCC’s 2020 “Cost Benefit Analysis” purports to quantify the trade-offs involved, but upon scrutiny fails to plausibly value Wi-Fi services or to even consider the relevant opportunity costs. The costly, delay-intensive and ad hoc policy process (whose costs are additionally ignored by the FCC) begs for further development of auction mechanisms to rationalize alternative rights assignments.

Not only have digital-image generators like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney—which make use of deep-learning models and other artificial-intelligence (AI) systems—created some incredible (and sometimes creepy – see above) visual art, but they’ve engendered a good deal of controversy, as well. Human artists have banded together as part of a fledgling anti-AI campaign; lawsuits have been filed; and policy experts have been trying to think through how these machine-learning systems interact with various facets of the law.

Read the full piece here.

In our previous post on Gonzalez v. Google LLC, which will come before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments Feb. 21, Kristian Stout and I argued that, while the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) got the general analysis right (looking to Roommates.com as the framework for exceptions to the general protections of Section 230), they got the application wrong (saying that algorithmic recommendations should be excepted from immunity).

Read the full piece here.

At the Jan. 26 Policy in Transition forum—the Mercatus Center at George Mason University’s second annual antitrust forum—various former and current antitrust practitioners, scholars, judges, and agency officials held forth on the near-term prospects for the neo-Brandeisian experiment undertaken in recent years by both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). In conjunction with the forum, Mercatus also released a policy brief on 2022’s significant antitrust developments.

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

In bpost and Nordzucker the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice has finally arrived at a unified test for ne bis in idem, applicable to all areas of EU law. It rejected the antitrust-specific threefold condition of idem (same offender, same facts, and same protected legal interest) developed in Aalborg Portland and Toshiba, and focused solely on material acts, in line with Van Esbroek and Menci. The judgements are extremely timely given the increasing risks of overlapping decisions as a result of recent legislative initiatives undertaken at EU and national level targeting large online platforms. The paper maintains that, although bpost and Nordzucker are welcomed, some relevant issues remain unaddressed and may undermine the sound implementation of the ne bis in idem principle in the digital economy.

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was a guest on the Federal Drive with Tom Temin podcast to discuss new rules proposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ban workplace noncompete agreements. The full episode is embedded below.

The infrastructure bill that President Joe Biden signed in November 2021 included a provision requiring the Federal Communications Commission to prevent discrimination in access to broadband internet based on race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.

Read the full piece here.

Remember the hysteria when Japanese investors bought Rockefeller Center and threatened the American car industry with obliteration? Recent commentary served as the latest example in a long line of xenophobic scare tactics by claiming that “foreign adversaries” are funding “frivolous litigation” to “weaken critical industries” or to obtain trade secrets or intellectual property.

Read the full piece here.

In a prior post, I made the important if wholly unoriginal point that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent policy statement regarding unfair methods of competition (UMC)—perhaps a form of “soft law”—has neither legal force nor precedential value. Gus Hurwitz offers a more thorough discussion of the issue here.

Read the full piece here.