The objective of the error-cost framework is to ensure that antitrust rules, enforcement decisions, and judicial outcomes minimize the costs of (1) erroneous condemnation and deterrence of beneficial conduct (“false positives,” or “Type I errors”); (2) erroneous allowance and under-deterrence of harmful conduct (“false negatives,” or “Type II errors”); and (3) the costs of administering the system (including the cost of making and enforcing rules and judicial decisions, the costs of obtaining and evaluating information and evidence relevant to decision-making, and the costs of compliance).

Read the full piece here.

The concept of European “digital sovereignty” has been promoted in recent years both by high officials of the European Union and by EU national governments. Indeed, France made strengthening sovereignty one of the goals of its recent presidency in the EU Council.

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Background. The need for COVID-19 vaccine booster shots is controversial. When boosters were under active review in the U.S. in 2021, Krause et al.[1] and others have argued that need for a COVID-19 booster for all adults has not been sufficiently established. In late 2021, U.S. regulators initially limited booster eligibility, waited months before allowing boosters for all adults, and even longer before recommending them, with public health officials sending mixed messages on booster value. We conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) for primary and booster doses.

Methods. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or VE against four endpoints: any infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death for the four principal vaccines used in developed Western countries (BNT162b2, mRNA1273, Ad26.CoV2.S, and ChAdOx1-S), waning VE, and booster VE, during the period of Delta-variant prevalence. We reviewed all studies appearing on PubMed over Jan. 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022, supplemented with our own knowledge of other sources. 63 studies met defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Findings. The mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA1273) had very high initial VE but experienced significant VE waning after approximately six months, including against severe disease and mortality, with BNT162b2 declining faster than mRNA1273. Both mRNA vaccines outperformed the Ad26.CoV2.S and ChAdOx1-S viral vector vaccines. Booster doses reduced symptomatic infection, severe disease, and mortality. Initial evidence supports booster value against the Omicron variant.

Interpretation. Strong epidemiological evidence supports waning VE for primary COVID-19 vaccination and the value of a booster dose, roughly 6 months after initial vaccination. The emergence of the Omicron variant strengthens the value of booster doses to recipients. Boosters also provide spillover benefits to others, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, by reducing downstream infections; reducing shortage risk for scarce COVID treatments; and reducing hospital overload.

ICLE Academic Affiliate Dean Alderucci joined the All Things Data podcast to discuss patent analytics and the insight generated regarding innovation and momentum of advanced technologies. The full episode is embedded below.

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz joined Steptoe & Johnson’s The Cyberlaw Podcast to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision to review whether Section 230 protects platforms from liability for materially assisting terror groups whose speech they distribute. The full episode is embedded below.

The business press generally describes the gig economy that has sprung up around digital platforms like Uber and TaskRabbit as a beneficial phenomenon, “a glass that is almost full.” The gig economy “is an economy that operates flexibly, involving the exchange of labor and resources through digital platforms that actively facilitate buyer and seller matching.”

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Disputes over the 2020 election are now playing out in disciplinary proceedings against some of President Trump’s election lawyers. Calls for discipline should be analyzed both with respect to the legal theories advanced in President Trump’s election challenges and with respect to the support adduced for those theories.

This Article assess what it calls the endgame theory, a theory comprised of (i) the Independent State Legislature theory; (ii) an assertion about Vice Presidential power under the 12th Amendment; and (iii) an assertion that parts of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional in view of (ii). (The factual assertions behind such claims are the subject of a separate work.)

Advocacy of step one, the ISL theory, is not itself sanctionable. That theory is underdeveloped, but at least four justices and one court of appeals opinion endorse some version of the theory. That, combined with its as-yet poorly defined contours makes discipline an unrealistic response to advocacy. As used in 2020 election challenges, it is clear that the ISL theory has the potential to set election law at odds with democracy. Disciplinary actions will not stop that effort, however.

Regarding step two, the law is constantly remaking itself and lawyers are the principal (though not sole) makers. The endgame theory tests whether law can effectively impose internal limits on this process. The answer to that question ultimately is “no,” which suggests that calls for discipline are not sufficient to address the larger questions called by President Trump’s election challenges. The current, dominant conception of the Vice President’s power under the 12th Amendment is not a fact external to legal rhetoric but an achievement within it. Like all such achievements, it is provisional.

It might be possible to make a formal case for discipline based on extrajudicial advocacy of the endgame theory, but prudence counsels caution in pursuing it. Not every case that can be made should be made. One might think that is the most important point exemplified by the endgame theory.

The Biden administration wants us to believe it is doing everything in its power to reduce prices for consumers. It seems that its most recent appointee to the Federal Trade Commission didn’t get the message. Alvaro Bedoya, who joined the commission in May, argued during a recent speech that the agency should resurrect the Robinson-Patman Act. For consumers, that will mean higher prices, exactly the opposite of what the Biden administration claims to be working toward.

Read the full piece here.

Over the past two years, the Federal Trade Commission has suffered a series of stinging defeats in headline matters: the reversal in August 2020 of the district court order in the agency’s lawsuit against Qualcomm; the near-dismissal in June 2021 of one of its lawsuits against Facebook, and, most recently, the rejection in February and September 2022, respectively, by administrative law judges of its lawsuits against Altria and Illumina.

Read the full piece here.