Will the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint make consumers better or worse off? A central question in the review of this merger—as it is in all merger reviews—is the likely effects that the transaction will have on consumers. In this post, we look at one study that opponents of the merger have been using to support their claim that the merger will harm consumers.

Read the full piece here.

Summary

Amazon has largely avoided the crosshairs of antitrust enforcers to date (leaving aside the embarrassing dangerous threats of arbitrary enforcement by some US presidential candidates). The reasons seem obvious: in the US it handles a mere 5% of all retail sales (with lower shares in the EU), and it consistently provides access to a wide array of affordable goods. Yet even with Amazon’s obvious lack of dominance in the general retail market, the EU and some of its member states are opening investigations.

This isn’t new: the EU and its member states have pursued many competition claims against the big tech platforms. In the last two years alone, the EU imposed over $9B USD in fines on Google for “harms” that were highly speculative and hard to square with concern for consumers.

The theories of harm in the pending investigations of Amazon demonstrate some of the same confused antitrust theories that cropped up in the EU Google Shopping case. Platforms like Amazon and Google are criticized for allegedly discriminating against certain platform users who are also competitors or potential competitors of one or more of the platform’s services (or, in some cases, the platform itself).

Commissioner Margarethe Vestager’s probe into Amazon came to light in September, and centers on whether Amazon is illegally using its dominant position vis-á-vis third party merchants on its platforms in order to obtain data that it then uses either to promote its own direct sales, or else to develop competing products under its private label brands. More recently, Austria and Germany have launched separate investigations of Amazon rooted in much the same concerns as those of the European Commission.

The Austrian investigation will examine “whether Amazon abused its dominant position against retailers, that are active on the Amazon market place.” According to Andreas Mundt, president of the German competition authority, “Amazon functions as a kind of ‘gatekeeper’ [for sellers’ access] to customers. Its double role as the largest retailer and largest marketplace has the potential to hinder other sellers on its platform.” The German investigation also focuses on whether the terms of the contractual relationships that third-party sellers enter into with Amazon are unfair because these sellers are “dependent” on it.

Claims of competitive harm arising from this so-called vertical discrimination or bias are light on both theory and empirics. One of the fundamental, erroneous assumptions upon which they are built is the alleged “essentiality” of the underlying platform or input. But these cases are more often based on stories of firms that, unfortunately, chose to build their businesses to rely on a specific platform. In other words, their own decisions — from which they substantially benefited — made their investments highly “asset specific” and thus vulnerable to otherwise avoidable risks. When a platform on which these businesses rely makes a disruptive move, the third parties cry foul, even though the platform was not — nor should have been — under any obligation to preserve the status quo on behalf of third parties.

This issue brief explores the flaws in designating Amazon as something like an “essential facility,” as well as the attendant errors of treating the distribution mechanism of Internet-based commerce as though it were a market definition, and the problems with failing to learn the innovation-damaging effects of the Microsoft case.

Click here to read the full issue brief.

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio, et al v Am Express Co, et al (‘Amex’)[1] is uniquely important for the antitrust analysis of firms in the modern platform economy. Although it is undoubtedly not the last word on the subject, the case represents the Court’s first comprehensive effort to address the thorny and previously indeterminate question of how courts should define the relevant market and assess competitive effects in antitrust cases involving two-sided or multi-sided platforms (‘two-sided markets’). In this article, I evaluate the Supreme Court’s approach to this question, discuss the economic and legal underpinnings of how it approached market definition and effects analysis, and demonstrate why the primary criticisms of the Court’s decision are misguided. While the Court’s approach has been roundly decried by some, its conclusion—that both sides of a two-sided market must be considered in defining the relevant market and evaluating the existence and consequences of a firm’s exercise of market power—is, indeed, the proper one.

[1] (2018) 138 S Ct 2274 (Slip Opinion) [hereinafter, ‘Amex’ and ‘Amex Slip Op.’].

ICLE Academic Affiliate Christopher Yoo participated in the FTC’s Hearing #11: The FTC’s Role in a Changing World on the panel, Implications of Different Legal Traditions and Regimes for International Cooperation. Read the full transcript here. Video of the event is embedded below

Click here to read the full issue brief. 

Summary

In his commentary, Geoffrey A. Manne supports the Supreme Court’s decision, and offers insightful analysis of why, to his mind, the decision properly identifies the competitive process of platforms.

Tim Wu’s critique, on the other hand, raises concerns as to the treatment of evidence and theory in this case and the legacy of the ruling, which may undermine the efficacy of future antitrust enforcement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio, et al v Am Express Co, et al (‘Amex’) is uniquely important for the antitrust analysis of firms in the modern platform economy. Although it is undoubtedly not the last word on the subject, the case represents the Court’s first comprehensive effort to address the thorny and previously indeterminate question of how courts should define the relevant market and assess competitive effects in antitrust cases involving two-sided or multi-sided platforms (‘two-sided markets’). In this article, I evaluate the Supreme Court’s approach to this question, discuss the economic and legal underpinnings of how it approached market definition and effects analysis, and demonstrate why the primary criticisms of the Court’s decision are misguided. While the Court’s approach has been roundly decried by some, its conclusion—that both sides of a two-sided market must be considered in defining the relevant market and evaluating the existence and consequences of a firm’s exercise of market power—is, indeed, the proper one.

Click here to read the full paper.

ICLE academic affiliate Christopher Yoo participated in the FTC’s Hearing #10: Competition and Consumer Protection Issues in U.S. Broadband Markets on the panel, Evolving Markets and Technological Developments: Policy Applications. Read the full transcript here. Video of the event is embedded below.

Blockchain technology and smart contracts hold some promise for reinvigorating competition, providing more efficient and secure ways of doing business on the internet, while at the same time lifting the bar in data protection and privacy.

But is this new general purpose technology all that it’s made out to be? Will it challenge the power of the major digital platforms?  And what are the risks that blockchain itself will become concentrated and fall prey to anti-competitive conduct?

ICLE Academic Affiliate Thibault Schrepel joins the Competition Lore Podcast to take on these challenging questions. The full episode is embedded below.

Near the end of her new proposal to break up Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple, Senator Warren asks, “So what would the Internet look like after all these reforms?”

Read the full piece here.