Spotlight

ICLE Response to the Australian Competition Taskforce’s Merger Reform Consultation

Dirk Auer, Geoffrey A. Manne, & Lazar Radic • January 19, 2024

I. About the International Center for Law & Economics The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy . . .

I. About the International Center for Law & Economics

The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center founded with the goal of building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public-policy debates and has longstanding expertise in the evaluation of antitrust law and policy.

ICLE’s interest is to ensure that antitrust law remains grounded in clear rules, established precedent, a record of evidence, and sound economic analysis. Some of the proposals in the Competition Taskforce’s Reform Consultation (“Consultation”) threaten to erode such foundations by, among other things, shifting toward merger analysis that focuses on the number of competitors, rather than the impact on competition, as well as reversing the burden of proof; curtailing rights of defense; and adopting an unduly strict approach to mergers in particular sectors. Our overriding concern is that intellectually coherent antitrust policy must focus on safeguarding competition and the interests of consumers.

In its ongoing efforts to contribute to ensuring that antitrust law in general, and merger control in particular, remain tethered to sound principles of economics, law, and due process, ICLE has submitted responses to consultations and published papers, articles, and reports in a number of jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United States, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and India. These and other publications are available on ICLE’s website.[1]

II. Summary of Key Points

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Competition Taskforce’s Consultation. Our comments below mirror the structure of the main body of the Consultation. Section by section, we suggest improvements to the Consultation’s approach, as well as citing background law and economics that we believe the Treasury should keep in mind as it considers whether to move forward with merger reform in Australia.

Question 6 — Australia should not skew its merger regime toward blocking mergers under conditions of uncertainty. Uncertainty is endemic in merger control. Since the vast majority of mergers are procompetitive—including mergers in what is commonly called the “digital sector”—an error-cost-analysis approach would suggest that false negatives are preferable to false positives. Concrete evidence of a likely substantial lessening of competition post-merger should continue to be the decisive factor in decisions to block a merger, not uncertainty about its effects.
Question 8 — While potential competition and so-called “killer acquisitions” are important theories for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) to consider when engaging in merger review, neither suggest that the burden of proof needed to reject a merger should be changed, nor do they warrant an overhaul of the existing merger regime. Furthermore, given the paucity of evidence finding “killer acquisitions” in the real world, it is highly unlikely that any economic woes that Australia currently faces can be blamed on an epidemic of killer acquisitions or acquisitions of potential/nascent competitors. If the Treasury is going to adopt any rules to address these theories of harm, it should do so in a manner consistent with the error-cost framework (see reply to Question 6) and should not undercut the benefits and incentives that startup firms derive from the prospect of being acquired by a larger player.
Question 9 — Merger control should remain tethered to the analysis of competitive effects within the framework of the significant lessening of competition test (“SLC test”), rather than seeking to foster any particular market structure. Market structure is, at best, an imperfect proxy for competitive effects and, at worst, a deeply misleading one. As such, it should remain just one tool among many in merger analysis, rather than an end in itself.
Question 13 — In deciding whether to impose a mandatory-notification regime, Australia should be guided by error-cost considerations, and not merely seek to replicate international trends. While there are sound reasons to prefer a system of mandatory-merger notifications, the Treasury cannot ignore the costs of filing mergers or of reviewing them. It should be noted that some studies suggest that voluntary merger notification may achieve objectives similar to those achieved by compulsory systems at lower cost to the merging parties, as well as to the regulator. If the Treasury nonetheless decides to impose mandatory notification, it should seek to contain unnecessary costs by setting a reasonable turnover threshold, thereby filtering out transactions with little-to-no potential for anticompetitive harm.
Question 17 —Australian merger control should require that a decisionmaker be satisfied that a merger would likely and substantially lessen competition before blocking it, rather than effectively reversing the burden of proof by requiring that merging parties demonstrate that it would not. In a misguided attempt to shift the costs of erroneous decisions from the public to the merging parties, the ACCC’s proposal forgets that false positives also impose costs on the public, most notably in the form of foregone consumer benefits. In addition, since the vast majority of mergers are procompetitive, including mergers in the digital sector, there is no objective empirical basis for reversing the burden of proof along the proposed lines.
Question 18 — The SLC test should not be amended to include acquisitions that “entrench, materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power.” First, the Consultation seems to conflate instances of anticompetitive leveraging with cases where an incumbent in one market enters an adjacent one. The latter is a powerful source of competition and, as such, should not be curtailed. The former is already covered by the SLC test, which equips authorities with sufficient tools to curb the misuse of market power post-merger. Third, it is unclear what the term “materially” would mean in the proposed context, or what it would add to the SLC test. Australian merger control already interprets “substantial” lessening of competition to mean “material in a relative sense and meaningful.” Thus, the term “materially” risks injecting unnecessary uncertainty and indeterminacy into the system.
Question 19 — As follows from our response to Question 9, Section 50(3) should not be amended to yield an increased focus on changes to market structure as a result of a merger. It is also unclear what is gained from removing the factors in Section 50(3). More than a “modernization” (as the Consultation calls it), this appears to be a redundancy, as the listed factors already significantly overlap with those commonly used under the SLC test. To the extent that these factors place a “straitjacket” on courts (though in principle they are sufficiently broad and flexible), they could be removed, however, so long as merger analysis remained tethered to the SLC test and respects its overarching logic.
Question 20 — Non-competition public benefits should play a limited role in merger control. Competition authorities are, in principle, ill-suited to rank, weigh, and prioritize complex and incommensurable goals and values. The injection of public-benefits analysis into merger review magnifies the risk of discretionary and arbitrary decision making.

III. Consultation Responses

A. Question 6

Is Australia’s merger regime ‘skewed towards clearance’? Would it be more appropriate for the framework to skew towards blocking mergers where there is sufficient uncertainty about competition impacts?

In order for a merger to be blocked in Australia, it must be demonstrated that the merger is likely to substantially lessen competition. In the context of Section 50, “likely” means a “real commercial likelihood.”[2] Furthermore, a “substantial” lessening of competition need not be “large or weighty… but one that is ‘real or of substance… and thereby meaningful and relevant to the competitive process.’”[3] This does not set an inordinately high bar for authorities to clear.

In a sense, however, the ACCC is right when it says that Australian merger control is “skewed towards clearance.”[4] This is because all merger regimes are “skewed” toward clearance. Even in jurisdictions that require mandatory notifications, only a fraction of mergers—typically, those above a certain turnover threshold—are examined by competition authorities. Only a small percentage of these transactions are subject to conditional approval, and an even smaller percentage still are blocked or abandoned.[5] This means that the vast majority of mergers are allowed to proceed as intended by the parties, and for good reason. As the ACCC itself and the Consultation note, most mergers do not raise competition concerns.[6]

But while partially accurate, this statement is only half true. Most mergers are, in fact, either benign or procompetitive. Indeed, mergers are often an effective way to reduce transaction costs and generate economies of scale in production,[7] which can enable companies to bolster innovation post-merger. According to Robert Kulick and Andrew Card, mergers are responsible for increasing research and development expenditure by as much as $13.5 billion annually.[8] And as Francine Lafontaine and Margaret Slade point out in the context of vertical mergers:

In spite of the lack of unified theory, over all a fairly clear empirical picture emerges. The data appear to be telling us that efficiency considerations overwhelm anticompetitive motives in most contexts. Furthermore, even when we limit attention to natural monopolies or tight oligopolies, the evidence of anticompetitive harm is not strong. [9]

While vertical mergers are generally thought to be less likely to harm competition, this does not cast horizontal mergers in a negative light. It is true that the effects of horizontal mergers are empirically less well-documented. But while there is some evidence that horizontal mergers can reduce consumer welfare, at least in the short run, the long-run effects appear to be strongly positive. Dario Focarelli and Fabio Panetta find:

…strong evidence that, although consolidation does generate adverse price changes, these are temporary. In the long run, efficiency gains dominate over the market power effect, leading to more favorable prices for consumers.[10]

Furthermore, and in line with the above, some studies have found that horizontal merger enforcement has even harmed consumers.[11]

It is therefore only natural that merger regimes should be “skewed” toward clearance. But this is no more a flaw of the system than is the presumption that cartels are harmful. Instead, it reflects the well-documented and empirically grounded insight that most mergers do not raise competition concerns and that there are myriad legitimate, procompetitive reasons for firms to merge.[12]

It also reflects the principle that, since errors are inevitable, merger control should prefer Type II over Type I errors. Indeed, legal decision making and enforcement under uncertainty are always difficult and always potentially costly.[13] Given the limits of knowledge, there is always a looming risk of error.[14] Where enforcers or judges are trying to ascertain the likely effects of a business practice, such as a merger, their forward-looking analysis will seek to infer anticompetitive conduct from limited information.[15] To mitigate risks, antitrust law, generally, and merger control, specifically, must rely on certain heuristics to reduce the direct and indirect costs of the error-cost framework,[16] whose objective is to ensure that regulatory rules, enforcement decisions, and judicial outcomes minimize the expected cost 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.

Accordingly, “skewing” the merger-analysis framework toward blocking mergers could, in theory, be appropriate where the enforcer or the courts knew that mergers are always or almost always harmful (as in the case of, e.g., cartels). But we have already established that the opposite is, in fact, true: most mergers are either benign or procompetitive. The Consultation’s caveat that this would apply only in cases where “there is sufficient uncertainty about competition impacts” does not carve out a convincing exception to this principle. This is particularly true given that, in a forward-looking exercise, there is, by definition, always some degree of uncertainty about future outcomes. Given that most mergers are procompetitive or benign, any lingering uncertainty should, in any case, be resolved in favor of allowing a merger, not blocking it.

Concrete evidence of a likely substantial lessening of competition post-merger should therefore continue to be the decisive factor in decisions to block a merger, not uncertainty about its effects (see also the response to Question 17). Under uncertainty, the error-cost framework when applied to antitrust leads in most cases to a preference of Type II over Type I errors, and mergers are no exception.[17] The three main reasons can be summarized as follows. First, “mistaken inferences and the resulting false condemnations are especially costly, because they often chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.”[18] The aforementioned procompetitive benefits of mergers, coupled with the general principle that parties should have the latitude in a free-market economy to buy and sell to and from whomever they choose, are cases in point. Second, false positives may be more difficult to correct, especially in light of the weight of judicial precedent.[19] Third, the costs of a wrongly permitted monopoly are small compared to the costs of competition wrongly condemned.[20] As Lionel Robbins once said: monopoly tends to break, tariffs tend to stick.[21] The same is applicable to prohibited mergers.

In sum, Australia should not skew its merger regime toward blocking mergers under uncertainty.

B. Question 8

Is there evidence of acquisitions by large firms (such as serial or creeping acquisitions, acquisitions of nascent competitors, ‘killer acquisitions’, and acquisitions by digital platforms) having anti-competitive effects in Australia?

We do not know whether there have been any such cases in Australia. We would, however, like to offer more general commentary on the relevance of nascent competition and killer acquisitions in the context of merger control, especially as concerns digital platforms.

One of the most important concerns about acquisitions by the major incumbent tech platforms is that they can be used to eliminate potential competitors that currently do not compete, but could leverage their existing network to compete in the future—a potential that incumbents can better identify than can competition enforcers.[22]

As the Furman Review states:

In mergers involving digital companies, the harms will often centre around the loss of potential competition, which the target company in an adjacent market may provide in the future, once their services develop.[23]

Similar concerns have been raised in the Stigler Report,[24] the expert report commissioned by Commissioner Margrethe Vestager for the European Commission,[25] and in the ACCC’s own Fifth Interim Report of the Digital Platform Services Inquiry.[26] Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram is frequently cited as a paradigmatic example of this phenomenon.

There are, however, a range of issues with using this concern as the basis for a more restrictive merger regime. First, while doubtless this kind of behavior is a risk, and competition enforcers should weigh potential competition as part of the range of considerations in any merger review, potential-competition theories often prove too much. If one firm with a similar but fundamentally different product poses a potential threat to a purchaser, there may be many other firms with similar, but fundamentally different, products that do, too.

If Instagram, with its photo feed and social features, posed a potential or nascent competitive threat to Facebook when Facebook acquired it, then so must other services with products that are clearly distinct from Facebook but have social features. In that case, Facebook faces potential competition from other services like TikTok, Twitch, YouTube, Twitter (X), and Snapchat, all of which have services that are at least as similar to Facebook’s as Instagram’s. In this case, the loss of a single, relatively small potential competitor out of many cannot be counted as a significant loss for competition, since so many other potential and actual competitors remain.

The most compelling version of the potential and nascent competition argument is that offered by Steven Salop, who argues that since a monopolist’s profits will tend to exceed duopolists’ combined profits, a monopolist will normally be willing and able to buy a would-be competitor for more than the competitor would be able to earn if it entered the market and competed directly, earning only duopoly profits.[27]

While theoretically elegant, this model has limited use in understanding real-world scenarios. First, it assumes that entry is only possible once—i.e., that after a monopolist purchases a would-be competitor, it can breathe easy. But if repeat entry is possible, such that another firm can enter the market at some point after an acquisition has taken place, the monopolist will be engaged in a potentially endless series of acquisitions, sharing its monopoly profits with a succession of would-be duopolists until there is no monopoly profit left.

Second, the model does not predict what share of monopoly profits would go to the entrant, as compared to the monopolist. The entrant could hold out for nearly all of the monopolist’s profit share, adjusted for the entrant’s expected success in becoming a duopolist.

Third, apart from being a poor strategy for preserving monopoly profits—since these may largely accrue to the entrants, under this model—this could lead to stronger incentives for entry than in a scenario where the duopolists were left to compete with one another, leading to more startup formation and entry overall.

Finally, acquisitions of potential competitors, far from harming competition, often benefit consumers. The acquisition of Instagram by Facebook, for example, brought the photo-editing technology that Instagram had developed to a much larger market of Facebook users, and provided those services with a powerful monetization mechanism that was otherwise unavailable to Instagram.[28] As Ben Sperry has written:

Facebook has helped to build Instagram into the product it is today, a position that was far from guaranteed, and that most of the commentators who mocked the merger did not even imagine was possible. Instagram’s integration into the Facebook platform in fact did benefit users, as evidenced by the rise of Instagram and other third-party photo apps on Facebook’s platform.[29]

In other words, many supposedly anticompetitive acquisitions appear that way only because of improvements made to the acquired business by the acquiring platform.[30]

As for “killer acquisitions,” this refers to scenarios in which incumbents acquire a firm just to shut down pipelines of products that compete closely with their own. By eliminating these products and research lines, it is feared that “killer acquisitions” could harm consumers by eliminating would-be competitors and their products from the market, and thereby eliminating an innovative rival. A recent study by Marc Ivaldi, Nicolas Petit, and Selçukhan Ünekbas, however, recommends caution surrounding the killer acquisition “hype.” First, despite the disproportionate attention they have been paid in policy circles, “killer acquisitions” are an exceedingly rare phenomenon. In pharmaceuticals, where the risk is arguably the highest, it is they account for between 5.3% and 7.4% of all acquisitions, while in digital markets, the rate is closer to 1 in 175.[31] The authors ultimately find that:

Examining acquisitions by large technology firms in ICT industries screened by the European Commission, [we find] that acquired products are often not killed but scaled, post-merger industry output demonstrably increases, and the relevant markets remain dynamic post-transaction. These findings cast doubt on contemporary calls for tightening of merger control policies.[32]

Thus, acquisitions of potential competitors and smaller rivals more often than not lead to valuable synergies, efficiencies, and the successful scaling of products and integration of technologies.

But there is an arguably even more important reason why the ACCC should not preventively restrict companies’ ability to acquire smaller rivals (or potential rivals). To safeguard incentives to invest and innovate, it is essential that buyouts remain a viable “way out” for startups and small players. As ICLE has argued previously:

Venture capitalists invest on the understanding that many of the businesses in their portfolio will likely fail, but that the returns from a single successful exit could be large enough to offset any failures. Unsurprisingly, this means that exit considerations are the most important factor for VCs when valuing a company. A US survey of VCs found 89% considered exits important and 48% considered it the most important factor. This is particularly important for later-stage VCs.”[33] (emphasis added)

Indeed, the “killer” label obfuscates the fact that acquisitions are frequently a desired exit strategy for founders, especially founders of startups and small companies. Investors and entrepreneurs hope to make money from the products into which they are putting their time and money. While that may come from the product becoming wildly successful and potentially displacing an incumbent, this outcome can be exceedingly difficult to achieve. The prospect of acquisition increases the possibility that these entrepreneurs can earn a return, and thus magnifies their incentives to build and innovate.[34]

In sum, while potential competition and so-called killer acquisitions are important theories for the ACCC to consider when engaging in merger review, neither theory suggests that the burden of proof needed to reject a merger should be changed, much less warranting an overhaul of the existing merger regime. Furthermore, given the paucity of “killer acquisitions” in the real world, it is highly unlikely that any economic woes that Australia currently faces are due to an epidemic of killer acquisitions or acquisitions of potential/nascent competitors. Indeed, a recent paper by Jonathan Barnett finds the concerns around startup acquisitions to have been vastly exaggerated, while their benefits have been underappreciated:

A review of the relevant body of evidence finds that these widely-held views concerning incumbent/startup acquisitions rest on meager support, confined to ambiguous evidence drawn from a small portion of the total universe of acquisitions in the pharmaceutical market and theoretical models of acquisition transactions in information technology markets. Moreover, the emergent regulatory and scholarly consensus fails to take into account the rich body of evidence showing the critical function played by incumbent/startup acquisitions in supplying a monetization mechanism that induces venture-capital investment and promotes startup entry in technology markets.

In addition:

Proposed changes to merger review standards would disrupt these efficient transactional mechanisms and are likely to have counterproductive effects on competitive conditions in innovation markets.[35]

Accordingly, if the Treasury is going to adopt any rules to address these theories of harm, it should do so in a way consistent with the error-cost framework (see reply to Question 6); that does not undercut the benefits and incentives that derive from the prospect of acquisition by a larger player; and that accurately reflects the real (modest) anticompetitive threat posed by killer acquisitions, rather than one animated by dystopic hyperbole.[36]

C. Question 9

Should Australia’s merger regime focus more on acquisitions by firms with market power, and/or the effect of the acquisitions on the overall structure of the market?

Merger control should remain tethered to analysis of competitive effects within the framework of the SLC test, rather than on fostering any particular market structure. Market structure is, at best, an imperfect proxy for competitive effects and, at worst, a misleading one. As such, it should be considered just one tool among many for scrutinizing mergers, not an end in itself.

To start, the assumption that “too much” concentration is harmful presumes both that the structure of a market is what determines economic outcomes, and that anyone knows what the “right” amount of concentration is.[37] But as economists have understood since at least the 1970s, (despite an extremely vigorous, but ultimately futile, effort to show otherwise), market structure is not outcome determinative.[38] As Harold Demsetz has written:

Once perfect knowledge of technology and price is abandoned, [competitive intensity] may increase, decrease, or remain unchanged as the number of firms in the market is increased.… [I]t is presumptuous to conclude… that markets populated by fewer firms perform less well or offer competition that is less intense.[39]

This view is well-supported, and held by scholars across the political spectrum.[40] To take one prominent recent example, professors Fiona Scott Morton (deputy assistant attorney general for economics in the U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division under President Barack Obama), Martin Gaynor (former director of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics under President Obama), and Steven Berry surveyed the industrial-organization literature and found that presumptions based on measures of concentration are unlikely to provide sound guidance for public policy:

In short, there is no well-defined “causal effect of concentration on price,” but rather a set of hypotheses that can explain observed correlations of the joint outcomes of price, measured markups, market share, and concentration.… Our own view, based on the well-established mainstream wisdom in the field of industrial organization for several decades, is that regressions of market outcomes on measures of industry structure like the Herfindahl Hirschman Index should be given little weight in policy debates.[41]

The absence of correlation between increased concentration and both anticompetitive causes and deleterious economic effects is also demonstrated by a recent, influential empirical paper by Shanat Ganapati. Ganapati finds that the increase in industry concentration in U.S. non-manufacturing sectors between 1972 and 2012 was “related to an offsetting and positive force—these oligopolies are likely due to technical innovation or scale economies. [The] data suggests that national oligopolies are strongly correlated with innovations in productivity.”[42] In the end, Ganapati found, increased concentration resulted from a beneficial growth in firm size in productive industries that “expand[s] real output and hold[s] down prices, raising consumer welfare, while maintaining or reducing [these firms’] workforces.”[43] Sam Peltzman’s research on increasing concentration in manufacturing finds that it has, on average, been associated with both increased productivity growth and widening margins of price over input costs. These two effects offset each other, leading to “trivial” net price effects.[44]

Further, the presence of harmful effects in industries with increased concentration cannot readily be extrapolated to other industries. Thus, while some studies have plausibly shown that an increase in concentration in a particular case led to higher prices (although this is true in only a minority of the relevant literature), assuming the same result from an increase in concentration in other industries or other contexts is simply not justified:

The most plausible competitive or efficiency theory of any particular industry’s structure and business practices is as likely to be idiosyncratic to that industry as the most plausible strategic theory with market power.[45]

As Chad Syverson recently summarized:

Perhaps the deepest conceptual problem with concentration as a measure of market power is that it is an outcome, not an immutable core determinant of how competitive an industry or market is… As a result, concentration is worse than just a noisy barometer of market power. Instead, we cannot even generally know which way the barometer is oriented.[46]

In other words, depending on the nature and dynamics of the market, competition may well be protected under conditions that preserve a certain number of competitors in the relevant market. But competition may also be protected under conditions in which a single winner takes all on the merits of their business.[47] It is reductive, and bad policy, to presume that a certain number of competitors is always and everywhere conducive to better economic outcomes, or indicative of anticompetitive harm.

This does not mean that concentration measures have no use in merger enforcement. Instead, it demonstrates that market concentration is often unrelated to antitrust enforcement because it is driven by factors that are endogenous to each industry. In revamping its merger-control rules, Australia should be careful not to rely too heavily on structural presumptions based on concentration measures, as these may be poor indicators of those cases where antitrust enforcement would be most beneficial to consumers.

In sum, market structure should remain only a proxy for determining whether a transaction significantly lessens competition. It should not be at the forefront of merger review. And it should certainly not be the determining factor in deciding whether to block a merger.

D. Question 13

Should Australia introduce a mandatory notification regime, and what would be the key considerations for designing notification thresholds?

The ACCC has argued that Australia is an “international outlier” in not requiring mandatory notification of mergers.[48] While it is true that most countries with merger-control rules also require mandatory notification of mergers when these exceed a certain threshold, there are also notable examples where this is not the case. For example, the United Kingdom, one of the leading competition jurisdictions in the world, does not require mandatory notification of mergers.

In deciding whether to impose a mandatory-notification regime and accompanying notification thresholds, Australia should not—as a matter of principle—be guided by international trends. International trends may be a useful indicator, but they can also be misleading. Instead, Australia’s decision should be informed by close analysis of error costs. In particular, Australia should seek to understand how a notification regime would affect the balance between Type I and Type II errors in this context. A notification regime would presumably reduce false negatives without necessarily increasing false positives, which is a good outcome.

In its calculation, however, the Treasury cannot ignore the costs of filing mergers and of reviewing them. If designed poorly, mandatory notifications can be a burden for the merging firms, for third parties, and for the reviewing authorities, siphoning resources that could be better deployed elsewhere. It is here where a voluntary-notification regime could have an edge over the alternative. For instance, a study by Chongwoo Choe comparing systems of compulsory pre-merger notification with the Australian system of voluntary pre-merger notification found that:

Thanks to the signaling opportunity that arises when notification is voluntary, voluntary notification leads to lower enforcement costs for the regulator and lower notification costs for the merging parties. Some of the theoretical predictions are supported by exploratory empirical tests using merger data from Australia. Overall, our results suggest that voluntary merger notification may achieve objectives similar to those achieved by compulsory systems at lower costs to the merging parties as well as to the regulator.[49] (emphasis added).

If the Treasury nonetheless decides to mandate merger notification, the next step would be to establish a notification threshold, as it is evident that not all mergers can, or should, be notified to the Australian authorities. Indeed, many mergers may be patently uninteresting from a competition perspective (e.g., one small supermarket in Perth buying another), while others might not have a significant nexus with Australia (e.g., where an international company that does modest business in Australia buys a shop in Spain).[50] Too many merger notifications strain the public’s limited resources and disproportionately affect smaller companies, as these companies are less capable of covering administrative costs and filing fees. To mitigate such unnecessary costs, the Treasury should establish reasonable thresholds that help filter out transactions where the merging parties are unlikely to have significant market power post-merger.

But what constitutes a reasonable threshold? Our view is that there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Turnover has typically been used as a proxy for a merger’s competitive impact because it offers a first indicator of the parties’ relative position on the market. Despite the Consultation’s claim that “mergers of all sizes are potentially capable of raising competition concerns,”[51] where the parties (and especially the target company) have either no or only negligible turnover in Australia, it is highly unlikely that the merger will significantly lessen competition. If the Treasury decides to impose mandatory notification for mergers, it should therefore consider using a turnover-based threshold.

E. Question 17

Should Australia’s merger control regime require the decision-maker to be satisfied that a proposed merger:

would be likely to substantially lessen competition before blocking it; or
would not be likely to substantially lessen competition before clearing it?

The second option would essentially reverse the burden of proof in merger control. Instead of requiring the authority to prove that a merger would substantially lessen competition, it would fall on the merging parties to prove a negative—i.e., that the merger would not be likely to substantially lessen competition.

The ACCC has made this proposal because it:

Means that the risk of error is borne by the merger parties rather than the public. In the cases where this difference matters (for example where there is uncertainty or a number of possible future outcomes), the default position should be to leave the risk with the merger parties, not to put at risk the public interest in maintaining the state of competition into the future.[52]

The Consultation sympathizes. It recognizes that “there are trade-offs between the risks of false positives and false negatives in designing a merger test,” but contends that, while both lead to lower output, higher prices, lower quality, and less innovation, “allowing anti-competitive mergers means that merging parties benefit at the expense of consumers.”[53]

But this argument is based on a flawed premise. The risk of error—whether Type I or Type II error—is always borne by the public. The public is harmed by false positives in at least two ways. First, and most directly, it suffers harm through the foregone benefits that could have accrued from a procompetitive merger. As we have shown in our responses to Questions 6, 8, and 9, these benefits are common and can be economically substantial. Second, but no less important, false positives chill merger activity and discourage future mergers. This also negatively affects the public.

The extent to which chilling merger activity harms the public has, however, been obfuscated by a contrived dichotomy between “the public” and the merging parties, which taints the ACCC’s argumentation and skews the Conclusion. The merging parties are also part of society and, therefore, also part of “the public.” An unduly restrictive merger regime that prioritizes avoiding false negatives over false positives harms consumers. But it also harms the “public” more broadly, insofar as anyone could, potentially, have a direct interest in a merger, either as a stakeholder or a party to that merger.

In addition, a regime that requires companies to prove that a deal is not harmful (with the usual caveats about the difficulty of proving a negative) before being allowed to proceed unduly restricts economic freedom and the rights of defense—both of which are very “public” benefits, as everyone, in principle, benefits from them. These elements should also be taken into consideration when weighing the costs and benefits of Type I and Type II errors. That balancing test should, in our view, generally favor false negatives, as argued in our response to Question 6.

Finally, there is no objective, material justification for “[shifting] the default position from allowing mergers to proceed where there is uncertainty [which is, by definition, always in a merger review process that is forward-looking] to a position where, if there is sufficient uncertainty about the effects of a merger, it would not be cleared.” As discussed in our answer to Question 6, the vast majority of mergers are procompetitive, including mergers in the digital sector, or mergers that involve digital platforms. This presumption is reflected in the requirement, common across antitrust jurisdictions, that enforcers must make a prima facie case that a merger will be anticompetitive before the merging parties have a duty to respond. There has been no major empirical finding or theoretical revelation in recent years that would justify reversing this burden of proof. Indeed, any change along these lines would be guided by ephemeral political and industrial-policy exigencies, rather than by robust principles of law and economics. In our view, these are not sound reasons for flipping merger review on its head.

In sum, Australian merger control should require that a decisionmaker be satisfied that a merger would be likely to substantially lessen competition before blocking it.

F. Question 18

Should Australia’s substantial lessening of competition test be amended to include acquisitions that ‘entrench, materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power’?

According to the ACCC:

Under the current substantial lessening of competition test, it may be difficult to stop acquisitions that lead to a dominant firm extending their market power into related or adjacent markets.[54]

The ACCC imagines this is a problem, particularly in digital markets. Preventing dominant firms from leveraging their market power in one market to restrict competition in an adjacent one is a legitimate concern. We should, however, be clear about what is meant by “materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power.”

Merger control should not, as a matter of principle, seek to prevent incumbents from entering adjacent markets. Large firms moving into the core business of competitors from adjacent markets often represents the biggest source of competition for incumbents, as it is often precisely these firms who have the capacity to contest competitors’ dominance in their core businesses effectively. This scenario is prevalent in digital markets, where incumbents must enter multiple adjacent markets, most often by supplying highly differentiated products, complements, or “new combinations” of existing offerings.[55]

Moreover, it is unclear why the SLC test in its current state is insufficient to curb the misuse of market power. The SLC test is a standard used by regulatory authorities to assess the legality of proposed mergers and acquisitions. Simply put, it examines whether a prospective merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in a given market, with the purpose of preventing mergers that increase prices, reduce output, limit consumer choice, or stifle innovation as a result of a decrease in competition.

The SLC test is one of the two major tests deployed by competition authorities to determine whether a merger is anticompetitive, the other being the dominance test. Most merger-control regimes today use the SLC test, and for two good reasons. The first is that, under the dominance test, it is difficult to assess coordinated effects and non-horizontal mergers.[56] The other, mentioned in the Consultation, is that the SLC test allows for more robust effects-based economic analysis.[57]

The SLC test examines likely coordinated and non-coordinated effects in all three types of mergers: horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate. Horizontal mergers may substantially lessen competition by eliminating a significant competitive constraint on one or more firms, or by changing the nature of competition such that firms that had not previously coordinating their behavior will be more likely to do so. Vertical and conglomerate mergers tend to pose less of a risk to competition.[58] Still, there are facts and circumstances under which they can substantially lessen competition by, for example, foreclosing rivals from necessary inputs, supplies, or markets. These outcomes will often be associated with an increase in market power. As the OECD has written:

The focus of the SLC test lies predominantly on the impact of the merger on existing competitive constraints and on measuring market power post-merger.[59]

In other words, the SLC test already accounts for increases in market power that are capable and likely of harming competition. As to whether the “entrenchment” of market power—in line with the 2022 amendments to Canadian competition law—should be added to the SLC test, there is no reason to believe that this is either necessary or appropriate in the Australian context. The 2022 amendments to the Canadian competition law mentioned in the Consultation[60] largely align Canada’s merger control with its abuse-of-dominance provision, which prohibits anti-competitive activities that damage or eliminate competitors and that “preserve, entrench or enhance their market power.”[61] But in Australia, Section 46 (the equivalent of the Canadian abuse-of-dominance provision) prohibits conduct “that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition.” The proposed amendment would thus create a discrepancy between merger control and Section 46, where the latter would remain tethered to an SLC test, and the former would shift to a new standard. Additionally, since it remains unclear what the results of Canada’s 2022 merger-control amendments have been or will be, it would be wiser for Australia to adopt a “wait and see” approach before rushing to replicate them.

Lastly, there is the question of defining “materiality” in the context of an increase or entrenchment of market power. Currently, Section 50 prohibits mergers that “substantially lessen competition,” with no mention of materiality.[62] The Merger Guidelines do, however, state that:

The term “substantial” has been variously interpreted as meaning real or of substance, not merely discernible but material in a relative sense and meaningful.[63] (emphasis added)

The proposed amendment follows suit, referring to the concepts of “material increase” and “material extension” of market power. What does this mean? How does a “material increase” in market power differ from a non-material one? In its comments to the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (“AICOA”), the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Law Section criticized the bill for using amorphous terms such as “fairness,” “preferencing,” and “materiality,” or the “intrinsic” value of a product. Because these concepts were not defined either in the legislation or in existing case law, the ABA argued that they injected variability and indeterminacy into how the legislation would be administered.[64] The same argument applies here.

Accordingly, the SLC test should not be amended to include acquisitions that “entrench, materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power.”

G. Question 19

Should the merger factors in section 50(3) be amended to increase the focus on changes to market structure as a result of a merger? Or should the merger factors be removed entirely?

On market structure, see our responses to Question 9 and Question 18.

The merger factors under Section 50(3) already overlap with the factors typically used under the SLC test. These include the structure of related markets; the merger’s underlying economic rationale; market accessibility for potential entrants; the market shares of involved undertakings; whether the market is capacity constrained; the presence of competitors (existing and potential); consumer behavior (the willingness and ability of consumers to switch to alternative products); the likely effect on consumers; the financial investment required for market entry; and the market share necessary for a buyer or seller to achieve profitability or economies of scale.

Similarly, Section 50(3) contains a list of the factors to be considered under the SLC test, including barriers to entry, the intensity of competition on the market, the likely effects on price and profit margins, and the extent of vertical integration, among others. Structural questions, such as the degree of concentration on the market, are also one of the listed factors under Section 50(3).

As a result, it is unclear how eliminating the merger factors would transform the SLC test, or why there should be more emphasis on market structure (on the proper role of market structure in merger-control analysis, see our answers to Question 9 and Question 18).

In sum, Section 50(3) should not be amended to increase the focus on changes to market structure as a result of a merger. It is also not clear what is gained from removing the factors in Section 50(3). More than a “modernization” (as the Consultation calls it),[65] the change appears redundant. To the extent that these factors place a “straitjacket” on courts (though, in principle, they are broad enough to be sufficiently flexible), however, they could be removed, so long as merger analysis remains tethered to the SLC test.

H. Question 20

Should a public benefit test be retained if a new merger control regime was introduced?

Antitrust law, including merger control, is not a “Swiss Army knife.”[66] Public-interest considerations should generally have limited to no weight in merger analysis, except in extremely specific cases proscribed by the law (e.g., public security and defense considerations). Expanding merger analysis to encompass non-competition concerns risks undermining the rule of law, diminishing legal certainty, and harming consumers.

In Australia, the Competition Act currently does not expressly limit the range of public benefits (or detriments) that may be taken into account by the ACCC when deciding whether to block or allow a merger (this includes not limiting them to those that address market failure or improve economic efficiency).[67] Thus, “anything of value to the community generally, any contribution to the aims pursued by the society” could, in theory, be considered a public benefit for the purpose of the public-benefit test.[68] The authorization regime also does not require the ACCC to quantify the level of public benefits and detriments.

Competition authorities are, in principle, ill-suited to rank, weigh, and prioritize complex, incommensurable goals and values against one other. They lack the expertise to meaningfully evaluate political, social, environmental, and other goals. They are independent agencies with a strict, narrow mandate, not political decision makers tasked with redistributing wealth or guiding society forward. Requiring them to consider broad public considerations when deciding on mergers magnifies the risk of discretionary and arbitrary decision making and undercuts legal certainty. This is as true for blocking mergers on the basis of public detriments as it is for allowing them on the basis of public benefits. By contrast, the consumer-welfare standard, which forms the basis of the SLC, is properly understood as:

Offer[ing] a tractable test that is broad enough to contemplate a variety of evidence related to consumer welfare but also sufficiently objective and clear to cabin discretion and honor the principle of the rule of law. Perhaps most significantly, it is inherently an economic approach to antitrust that benefits from new economic learning and is capable of evaluating an evolving set of commercial practices and business models.[69]

Consequently, we recommend that the public-interest test be jettisoned from merger analysis, or at least very narrowly circumscribed, if a new merger-control regime is introduced in Australia.

I. Question 24

What is the preferred option or combination of elements outlined above? What implementation considerations would need to be taken into account?

In our opinion, and based on the arguments espoused in this submission, the best options would be as follows:

[1] International Center for Law & Economics, https://laweconcenter.org.

[2] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Limited [2020] FCAFC 77, [246].

[3] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Limited [2020] FCAFC 77, [104].

[4] Outline to Treasury: ACCC’s Proposals for Merger Reform, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2023), 5, 8, available at https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/accc-submission-on-preliminary-views-on-options-for-merger-control-process.pdf.

[5] For example, in the EU, 94% of mergers are cleared without commitments, whereas only about 6% are allowed with remedies, and less than 0.5% of mergers are blocked or withdrawn by the parties. See Joanna Piechucka, Tomaso Duso, Klaus Gugler, & Pauline Affeldt, Using Compensating Efficiencies to Assess EU Merger Policy, VoxEU (10 Jan. 2022), https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/using-compensating-efficiencies-assess-eu-merger-policy.

[6] Consultation, 4; ACCC 2023: 2, point 8e.

[7] Ronald Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4(16) Economica 386-405 (Nov. 1937).

[8] Robert Kulick & Andre Card, Mergers, Industries, and Innovation: Evidence from R&D Expenditure and Patent Applications, NERA Economic Consulting (Feb. 2023), available at https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/NERA-Mergers-and-Innovation-Feb-2023.pdf.

[9] Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Vertical Integration and Firm Boundaries: The Evidence, 45(3) Journal of Economic Literature 677 (Sep. 2007).

[10] Dario Focarelli & Fabio Panetta, Are Mergers Beneficial to Consumers? Evidence from the Market for Bank Deposits, 93(4) American Economic Review 1152 (Sep. 2003).

[11] B. Espen Eckbo & Peggy Wier, Antimerger Policy Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis, 28(1) Journal of Law & Economics 121 (Apr. 1985).

[12] See, e.g., in the context of tech mergers: Sam Bowman & Sam Dumitriu, Better Together: The Procompetitive Effects of Mergers in Tech, The Entrepreneurs Network & International Center for Law & Economics (Oct. 2021), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BetterTogether.pdf.

[13] Geoffrey A. Manne, Error Costs in Digital Markets, in Joshua D. Wright & Douglas H. Ginsburg (eds.), The Global Antitrust Institute Report on the Digital Economy, 33-108 (2020).

[14] Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88(5) Yale Law Journal 950-97, 968 (Apr. 1979).

[15] See, e.g., in the context of predatory pricing, Paul L. Joskow & Alvin K. Klevorick, A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy, 89(2) Yale Law Journal 213-70 (Dec. 1979).

[16] Manne, supra note 13, at 34, 41.

[17] Id.

[18] Verizon Comm’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 414 (2004) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 594 (1986)).

[19] Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63(1) Texas Law Review 1-40, 2-3, 15-16 (Aug. 1984).

[20] Id., (“Other things equal, we should prefer the error of tolerating questionable conduct, which imposes losses over a part of the range of output, to the error of condemning beneficial conduct, which imposes losses over the whole range of output.”)

[21] Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, 116, (1937).

[22] This section is adapted, in part, from Bowman & Dumitriu, supra note 12.

[23] Jason Furman, et al., Unlocking Digital Competition: Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel (Mar. 2019), 98, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c88150ee5274a230219c35f/unlocking_digital_competition_furman_review_web.pdf (“Furman Review”).

[24] Committee for the Study of Digital Platforms Market Structure and Antitrust Subcommittee Report, Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State (2019), 75, 88, available at https://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/stigler/pdfs/market-structure—report-as-of-15-may-2019.pdf (“Stigler Report”).

[25] Yves-Alexandre de Motjoye, Heike Schweitzer, & Jacques Crémer, Competition Policy for the Digital Era, European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (2019), 110-112, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21dc175c-7b76-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

[26] See Sections 3.2., 6.2.2. of the Digital Services Platform Inquiry of September 2022, which finds a “high risk of anticompetitive acquisitions by digital platforms,” available at https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platform%20services%20inquiry.pdf.

[27] Steven Salop, Potential Competition and Antitrust Analysis: Monopoly Profits Exceed Duopoly Profits, Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works 2380 (Apr. 2021), available at https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2380.

[28] Geoffrey A. Manne, et al., Comments of the International Center for Law & Economics on the FTC & DOJ Draft Merger Guidelines, International Center for Law & Economics (18 Sep. 2023), 38, available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/ICLE-Draft-Merger-Guidelines-Comments-1.pdf.

[29] Ben Sperry, Killer Acquisition of Successful Integration: The Case of the Facebook/Instagram Merger, The Hill (8 Oct. 2020), https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/520211-killer-acquisition-or-successful-integration-the-case-of-the.

[30] Sam Bowman & Geoffrey A. Manne, Killer Acquisitions: An Exit Strategy for Founders, International Center for Law & Economics (Jul. 2020), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ICLE-tldr-Killer-acquisitions_-an-exit-strategy-for-founders-FINAL.pdf.

[31] See Colleen Cunningham, Florida Ederer, & Song Ma, Killer Acquisitions, 129(3) Journal of Political Economy 649-702 (Mar. 2021); see also Axel Gautier & Joe Lamesch, Mergers in the Digital Economy 54 Information Economics and Policy 100890 (2 Sep. 2020).

[32] Marc Ivaldi, Nicolas Petit, & Selçukhan Ünekbas, Killer Acquisitions in Digital Markets May be More Hype than Reality, VoxEU (15 Sep. 2023), https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/killer-acquisitions-digital-markets-may-be-more-hype-reality (“The majority of transactions triggered increasing levels of competition in their respective markets.”)

[33] Bowman & Dumitriu, supra note 12.

[34] Bowman & Manne, supra note 30.

[35] Jonathan Barnett, “Killer Acquisitions” Reexamined: Economic Hyperbole in the Age of Populist Antitrust, USC Class Research Paper 23-1 (28 Aug. 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4408546.

[36] On the current wave of dystopian thinking in antitrust law, especially surrounding anything “digital,” see Dirk Auer & Geoffrey A. Manne, Antitrust Dystopia and Antitrust Nostalgia: Alarmist Theories of Harm in Digital Markets and their Origins, 28(4) George Mason Law Review 1281 (9 Sep. 2021).

[37] The response to this question is adapted from Manne, et al., supra note 28.

[38] See, e.g., Harold Demsetz, Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy, 16(1) Journal of Law & Economics 1-9 (Apr. 1973).

[39] See Harold Demsetz, The Intensity and Dimensionality of Competition, in Harold Demsetz, The Economics of the Business Firm: Seven Critical Commentaries 137, 140-41 (1995).

[40] Nathan Miller, et al., On the Misuse of Regressions of Price on the HHI in Merger Review, 10(2) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 248-259 (28 May 2022).

[41] Steven Berry, Martin Gaynor, & Fiona Scott Morton, Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization, 33(3) Journal of Economic Perspectives 44-68, 48 (2019).

[42] Shanat Ganapati, Growing Oligopolies, Prices, Output, and Productivity, 13(3) American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 309-327, 324 (Aug. 2021).

[43] Id., 309.

[44] Sam Peltzman, Productivity, Prices and Productivity in Manufacturing: a Demsetzian Perspective, Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics 917, (19 Jul. 2021).

[45] Timothy F. Bresnahan, Empirical Studies of Industries with Market Power, in Richard Schmalensee & Robert Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1011, 1053-54 (1989).

[46] Chad Syverson, Macroeconomics and Market Power: Context, Implications, and Open Questions, 33(3) Journal of Economic Perspectives 23-43, 26 (2019).

[47] Nicolas Petit & Lazar Radic, The Necessity of the Consumer Welfare Standard in Antitrust Analysis, ProMarket (18 Dec. 2023), https://www.promarket.org/2023/12/18/the-necessity-of-a-consumer-welfare-standard-in-antitrust-analysis.

[48] ACCC, 2023: 5.

[49] Chongwoo Choe, Compulsory or Voluntary Pre-Merger Notification? Theory and Some Evidence, 28(1) International Journal of Industrial Organization 10-20 (Jan. 2010).

[50] For an overview of the impact of unnecessary transaction costs in merger notification in the context of Ireland, see Paul K. Gorecki, Merger Control in Ireland: Too Many Unnecessary Notifications?, ESRI Working Paper No. 383 (2011), https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/50090.

[51] Consultation, 24.

[52] ACCC, 2023, 9.

[53] Consultation, 29.

[54] Consultation, 19; ACCC, 2023: 6-7.

[55] Nicolas Petit, Big Tech and the Digital Economy: The Moligopoly Scenario (2020); see also Walid Chaiehoudj, On “Big Tech and the Digital Economy”: Interview with Professor Nicolas Petit, Competition Forum (11 Jan. 2021), https://competition-forum.com/on-big-tech-and-the-digital-economy-interview-with-professor-nicolas-petit.

[56] Standard for Merger Review, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (11 May 2010), 6, available at https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/45247537.pdf.

[57] Id.; see also Consultation, 31, indicating that “[SLC test] would enable mergers to be assessed on competition criteria but not prescriptively identify which competition criteria should be taken into account. It may permit more flexible application of the law and a greater degree of economic analysis in merger decision-making” (emphasis added).

[58] See, e.g., European Commission, Guidelines on the Assessment of Non-Horizontal Mergers Under the Council Regulation on the Control of Concentrations Between Undertakings (2008/C 265/07), paras. 11-13.

[59] OECD, supra note 56, at 16; see also European Commission, Guidelines on the Assessment of Horizontal Mergers Under the Council Regulation on the Control of Concentrations between Undertakings (2004/C 31/03).

[60] Consultation, 30-31.

[61] Canadian Competition Act, Sections 78 and 79.

[62] Section 44G, however, does mention a “material increase in competition.” (emphasis added).

[63] ACCC, Merger Guidelines (2008), available at https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Merger%20guidelines%20-%20Final.PDF ; see also Australia, Senate 1992, Debates, vol. S157, p. 4776, as cited in the Merger Guidelines (2008).

[64] Geoffrey A. Manne & Lazar Radic, The ABA’s Antitrust Law Section Sounds the Alarm on Klobuchar-Grassley, Truth on the Market (12 May 2022), https://truthonthemarket.com/2022/05/12/the-abas-antitrust-law-section-sounds-the-alarm-on-klobuchar-grassley.

[65] Consultation, 39.

[66] Geoffrey A. Manne, Hearing on “Reviving Competition, Part 5: Addressing the Effects of Economic Concentration on America’s Food Supply,” U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law (19 Jan. 2021), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Manne-Supply-Chain-Testimony-2021-01-19.pdf.

[67] Out-of-Market Efficiencies in Competition Enforcement – Note by Australia, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (6 Dec. 2023), available at https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2023)102/en/pdf.

[68] Re Queensland Co-Op Milling Association Limited and Defiance Holdings Limited (QCMA) (1976) ATPR 40-012.

[69] Elyse Dorsey, et al., Consumer Welfare & The Rule of Law: The Case Against the New Populist Antitrust Movement, 47 Pepperdine Law Review 861 (1 Jun. 2020).

ICLE Amicus in Ohio v Google

Ben Sperry & Geoffrey A. Manne • January 30, 2024

Interest of Amicus[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual . . .

Interest of Amicus[1]

The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law and economics methodologies and economic learning to inform policy debates and has longstanding expertise evaluating law and policy.

ICLE has an interest in ensuring that First Amendment law promotes the public interest by remaining grounded in sensible rules informed by sound economic analysis. ICLE scholars have written extensively in the areas of free speech, telecommunications, antitrust, and competition policy. This includes white papers, law journal articles, and amicus briefs touching on issues related to the First Amendment and common carriage regulation, and competition policy issues related to alleged self-preferencing by Google in its search results.

Introduction

Google’s mission is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” See Our Approach to Search, Google (last accessed Jan. 18, 2024), https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/our-approach/. Google does this at zero price, otherwise known as free, to its users. This generates billions of dollars of consumer surplus per year for U.S. consumers. See Avinash Collis, Consumer Welfare in the Digital Economy, in The Global Antitrust Instit. Report on the Digital Economy (2020), available at https://gaidigitalreport.com/2020/08/25/digital-platforms-and-consumer-surplus/.

This incredible deal for users is possible because Google is what economists call a multisided platform. See David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms 10 (2016) (“Many of the biggest companies in the world, including… Google… are matchmakers… [M]atchmakers’ raw materials are the different groups of customers that they help bring together. And part of the stuff they sell to members of each group is access to members of the other groups. All of them operate physical or virtual places where members of these different groups get together. For this reason, they are often called multisided platforms.”). On one side of the platform, Google provides answers to queries of users. On the other side of the platform, advertisers, pay for access to Google’s users, and, by extension, subsidize the user-side consumption of Google’s free services.

In order to maximize the value of its platform, Google must curate the answers it provides in its search results to the benefit of its users, or it risks losing those users to other search engines. This includes both other general search engines and specialized search engines that focus on one segment of online content (like Yelp or Etsy or Amazon). Losing users would mean the platform becomes less valuable to advertisers.

If users don’t find Google’s answers useful, including answers that may preference other Google products, then they can easily leave and use alternative methods of search. Thus, there are real limitations on how much Google can self-preference before the incentives that allowed it to build a successful platform unravel as users and therefore advertisers leave. In fact, it is highly likely that users of Google search want the integration of direct answers and Google products, and Google provides these results to the benefit of its users. See Geoffrey A. Manne, The Real Reason Foundem Foundered, at 16 (ICLE White Paper 2018), https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/manne-the_real_reaon_foundem_foundered_2018-05-02-1.pdf (“[N]o one is better positioned than Google itself to ensure that its products are designed to benefit its users”).

Here, as has been alleged without much success in antitrust cases, see United States v. Google, LLC, 2023 WL 4999901, at *20-24 (D. D.C. Aug. 4, 2023) (granting summary judgment in favor of Google on antitrust claims of self-preferencing in search results), the alleged concern is that Google preferences itself at the expense of competitors, and to the detriment of its users. See Complaint (“Google intentionally structures its Results Pages to prioritize Google products over organic search results.”). Ohio asks the court to declare Google a common carrier and subject it to a nondiscrimination requirement that would prevent Google from prioritizing its own products in search results.

The problem, of course, is the First Amendment. Federal district courts have consistently found that the First Amendment protects how providers structure search results. See, e.g., e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2017 WL 2210029 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 2017); Jian Zhang v. Baidu.com Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 28, 2014); Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2007); Search King, Inc. v. Google Tech., Inc., 2003 WL 21464568 (W.D. Okla., May 27, 2003).

While Ohio and their amici argue that Google should be considered a common carrier, and thus be subject to a lower standard of review for First Amendment purposes, there is no legal basis for such a conclusion.

First, common carriage is a poor fit for Google’s search product. Courts have rejected monopoly power or being “affected with a public interest” as the proper prerequisites for common carrier status. Ohio, like other jurisdictions, has found that the “fundamental test of common carriage is whether there is a public profession or holding out to serve the public.” Girard v. Youngstown Belt Ry. Co., 134 Ohio St. 3d 79, 89 (2012) (emphasis added). See also Loveless v. Ry. Switching Serv., Inc., 106 Ohio App. 3d 46, 51 (1995) (“The distinctive characteristic of a common carrier is that he undertakes to carry for all people indifferently and hence is regarded in some respects as a public servant.”) (internal quotations omitted). Google simply does not carry information in an undifferentiated way comparable to a railroad carrying passengers or freight. It is rather a service that explicitly differentiates and prioritizes answers to queries by providing individualized responses based upon location, search history, and other factors.

Second, as mentioned above, Google’s search results are protected by the First Amendment, and simply “[l]abeling” Google “a common carrier… has no real First Amendment consequences.” Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 825 (1996) (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). As this court stated, it is the nondiscrimination requirement sought by Ohio that is subject to First Amendment scrutiny, not the common carriage label itself. See Motion to Dismiss Opinion at 16. And any purported nondiscrimination requirement should be subject to strict scrutiny, as such a requirement would constrain Google’s own speech in the form of its carefully tailored search results, and not simply the speech of others.

Argument

1. Common Carriage Is a Poor Fit as Applied to Google’s Search Product

There is a long history of common carriage regulation in this country. But there has not always been universal agreement on what constitutes the defining feature of a common carrier, with proposed justifications ranging from monopoly power (or natural monopoly) to being affected by the public interest. Over time, though, courts and commentators, including Ohio courts, have agreed that common carriage is primarily about holding oneself out to serve the public indiscriminately.

Simply put, Google Search does not hold itself out to, nor does it actually serve, the public indiscriminately by carrying information, either from users or from other digital service providers. It provides individualized and tailored answers to users’ queries, which may include Google products, direct answers, or general information its search crawlers have learned about other service providers on the Internet.

A. Common Carriage Is Not About Monopoly Power or the Public Interest, It’s About Holding Oneself Out to Serve the Public Indiscriminately

In its complaint, Ohio makes much of Google’s market share in search. See Complaint para. 19-32. Amici also argue that the “immense market dominance” of Google makes it a common carrier analogous to telegraphs or telephones. See Claremont Amicus at 6. Similarly, both Ohio and amici argue that Google’s search results are affected by a public interest. See Complaint at 40; Claremont Amicus at 3-4.

Whatever the market share of Google search, common law courts, including those of Ohio, do not find monopoly power to be a part of the definition of common carriage. For instance, the presence of competition for innkeepers did not mean they were not subject to requirements to serve. See Joseph William Singer, No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1283, 1319-20 (1996) (“On the monopoly rationale, it is important to note that none of the antebellum cases bases the duty to serve on the fact of monopoly. Indeed, the presence of competition was never a reason for denying the duty to serve in the antebellum era. In many towns, there were several innkeepers and cities like Boston had dozens of innkeepers. Yet, no lawyer, judge, or treatise writer ever suggested that innkeepers in cities like Boston should be exempt from the duty to serve the public.”). Nor does the presence of monopoly necessarily lead to common carriage treatment under the law. See Blake Reid, Uncommon Carriage, at 25, 76 Stan. L. Rev., forthcoming (2024) (“[F]irms holding effective monopolies or oligopolies in a wide range of sectors, including pharmacies and drug stores, managed healthcare providers, office supply stores, eyeglass sellers, airlines, alcohol distribution, and even candy are not widely regarded or legally treated as common carriers.”). Accordingly, Ohio does not define common carriage in relation to monopoly power. Cf. Kinder Morgan Cochin LLC v. Simonson, 66 N.E. 1176, 1182 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. Ashland County 2016) (failing to mention monopoly as part of the definition of common carrier).

Moreover, while older cases and commentators cite the “affected with a public interest” standard, courts have moved away from it because of its indeterminacy. See Biden v. Knight First Amendment Inst., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1223 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring) (this definition is “hardly helpful, for most things can be described as ‘of public interest.’”). See also Christopher S. Yoo, The First Amendment, Common Carriers, and Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, and Privacy, 1 J. of Free Speech L. 463, 468-69 (2021).

Instead, the definition of common carriage under Ohio law is defined as holding itself “out to the public as ready and willing to serve the public indifferently.” See Kinder Morgan Cochin, 66 N.E. at 1182; Girard v. Youngstown Belt Ry. Co., 134 Ohio St. 3d 79, 89 (2012); Loveless v. Ry. Switching Serv., Inc., 106 Ohio App. 3d 46, 51 (1995).

B. Google Does Not Offer an Undifferentiated Search Product to Its Users

With this definition in mind, Google is not a common carrier. Google does not offer an undifferentiated service to its users like a pipeline (like in Kinder Morgan Cochin) or railroad (like in Girard or Loveless), or even like a mall offering an escalator to customers (like in May Department Stores Co. v. McBride, 124 Ohio St. 264 (1931)). Nor does it offer to “communicate or transmit” information of “their own design and choosing” to users. See FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689, 701 (1979) (defining common carrier services in the communications context). Instead, it offers a tailored search result to its users. See Complaint at paras. 17-18 (noting that search results depend on location); How Search work with your activity, Google (last accessed Jan. 18, 2024), https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/10909618 (“When you search on Google, your past searches and other info are sometimes incorporated to help us give you a more useful experience.”). This is not a common carrier in the communications context. See Midwest Video, 440 U.S. at 701 (“A common carrier does not make ‘individualized decisions, in particular cases, whether on what terms to deal.’”) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Reg. Util. Comm’rs v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 641 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).

For instance, if a user searches for restaurants, Google’s algorithm may not only take into consideration the location of the user, but also whether the user previously clicked on particular options when running a similar query, or even if the user visited a particular restaurant’s website. While the results are developed algorithmically, this is much more like answering a question than it is transporting a private communication between two individuals like a telephone or telegraph.

Importantly, users often receive a different result even for the same search. See Why your Google Search results might differ from other people, Google (last accessed Jan. 18, 2024), https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12412910 (“You may get the same or similar results to someone else who searches on Google Search. But sometimes, Google may give you different results based on things like time, context, or personalized results.”). Google is clearly making “‘individualized’ content- and viewpoint-based decisions” when it comes to search results. Cf. Moody v. NetChoice, 34 F.4th 1196, 1220 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Midwest Video, 440 U.S. at 701).

While the court emphasized at the motion to dismiss stage that a reasonable factfinder could find Google offers to hold itself out to the public in its mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and universal,” see MTD Opinion at 7, this does not “change [its] status to common carrier[]… unless [it] undertake[s] to carry for all people indifferently.” Loveless, 106 Ohio App. 3d at 52. As the above facts demonstrate, there is no basis for finding that Google search offers an undifferentiated product to its users. The court should find Google is not a common carrier under Ohio law.

II. Google’s Search Results Are Protected by the First Amendment from Common Carriage Nondiscrimination Requirements

Ohio ultimately seeks to restrict the ability of Google to favor its own products in its search results. But this runs into a real constitutional problem: search results are protected by the First Amendment.

Moreover, as this court has previously found, the First Amendment scrutinizes not the label of common carriage, but the burdens which come with it. Here, the nondiscrimination requirement Ohio asks for is what is at issue.

This nondiscrimination requirement is inconsistent with the First Amendment. While this court thought it should be subject to intermediate scrutiny, the First Amendment requires strict scrutiny when speech is compelled. The cases cited by the court are inapposite when a speaker is delivering its own message, i.e. search results, rather than simply hosting speech of others.

A. Federal District Court Cases Establish Google Search Results Are Protected by the First Amendment

While no appellate court has considered the issue, several federal district courts have recognized search engines have a First Amendment interest in their search results. Some decisions have framed the results themselves as speech. Others have considered the issue as one of editorial judgment. But under either approach, Google Search results are protected by the First Amendment.

For instance, in Jian Zhang v. Baidu.com, 10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014), the court found that the application of a New York public accommodations law to a Chinese search engine that “censored” pro-democracy speech is inconsistent with the right to editorial discretion. The court found that “there is a strong argument to be made that the First Amendment fully immunizes search-engine results from most, if not all, kinds of civil liability and government regulation.” Id. at 438. The court noted that “the central purpose of a search engine is to retrieve relevant information from the vast universe of data on the Internet and to organize it in a way that would be most helpful to the searcher. In doing so, search engines inevitably make editorial judgments about what information (or kinds of information) to include in the results and how and where to display that information (for example, on the first page of the search results or later).” Id. Other courts have similarly found search engines have a right to editorial discretion over their results. See also e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2017 WL 2210029, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017); Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622, 629-30 (D. Del. 2007).

In this sense, Google’s search results are analogous to the decisions of what to print made by the newspaper in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), or the parade organizer in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).

At least one court has found that search results themselves are protected opinions. In Search King Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc., 2003 WL 21464568, at *4 (WD. Okla. May 27, 2003), the court found that search results “are opinions—opinions of the significance of particular web sites as they correspond to a search query. Other search engines express different opinions, as each search engine’s method of determining relative significance is unique.”

Under this line of reasoning, Google’s responses to queries are opinions directing users to what it thinks is the best answer given all the information it has on the user, her behavior, and her preferences. This is in itself protected speech. Cf. Eugene Volokh & Donald M. Falk, Google: First Amendment Protection for Search Results, 8 J. L. Econ. & Pol’y 883, 884 (2012) (“[S]earch engines are speakers… they convey information that the search engine has itself prepared or compiled [and] they direct users to material created by others… Such reporting about others’ speech is itself constitutionally protected speech.”).

In sum, the First Amendment protects Google’s search results.

B. A Common Carriage Label Does Not Change First Amendment Analysis

Amici argued that because Google is a common carrier, the nondiscrimination requirement is merely an economic regulation that is not subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. See Claremont Amicus at 17. But the issue here is not simply the label of common carriage, it is the regulatory scheme sought by Ohio. Cf. Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 825 (1996) (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“Labeling leased access a common carrier scheme has no real First Amendment consequences.”); MTD Opinion at 16 (“As for the State’s request for declaratory relief, merely declaring or designating Google Search to be a common carrier does not, of itself, violate the First Amendment or infringe on Google’s constitutional speech rights…. It is the burdens and obligations accompanying that designation that implicate the First Amendment.”).

In other words, when reviewing the nondiscrimination requirement sought by Ohio, the labeling of this as a common carriage obligation does not matter under the First Amendment.

C. The Nondiscrimination Requirement Should be Subject to Strict Scrutiny

Ohio and amici have characterized the nondiscrimination requirement that comes with common carriage as a content-neutral requirement to host the speech of others. See MTD Opinion at 16; Claremont Amicus at 15, 17. This court agreed that this was possible at the motion to dismiss stage. But the remedy sought is not content-neutral, nor is it dealing purely with the speech of others. As a result, it should be subject to strict scrutiny.

This court found that a “restriction of this type must satisfy intermediate scrutiny” as a “content-neutral restriction on speech.” MTD Opinion at 16. The court compared the situation to Turner Broadcasting System Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994). But the nondiscrimination requirement is clearly content-based.

Ohio is asking this court to enjoin Google from prioritizing its own products in its search results. See Complaint at para. 77. The only way to know whether Google is doing that is to consider the content of its search results. See, e.g., Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (“Government regulation of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.”). The idea or message expressed here is that Google’s products would be a better answer to an inquiry than another. By definition, the nondiscrimination requirement is a content-based regulation of speech, and must therefore be subject to strict scrutiny.

Nor is this just an issue of the speech of others. This court stated that “infringing on a private actor’s speech by requiring that actor to host another person’s speech does not always violate the First Amendment.” MTD Opinion at 17. The court cited PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2007), and Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). But none of these cases deals with a situation analogous to applying nondiscrimination requirements to Google’s search results.

Here, as explained above, Google’s search results are themselves protected speech. Collectively, each search result is Google’s opinion of the best set of answers, in the optimal order, to questions provided by users to Google. Requiring Google to present different results, or results in a different order, or with different degrees of prioritization would impermissibly compel Google to speak, similar to requiring car owners to display license plates saying “Live Free or Die,” see Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), or forcing a student to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, see West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). It is, in short, impossible to require “Google [to] carr[y] all responsive search results on an equal basis,” Complaint at 5, without compelling it to speak in ways it does not choose to speak.

Even if Google’s interest in its search results is characterized as editorial discretion over others’ speech rather its own speech (a dubious distinction), this would still be distinguishable from the above cases. Google is clearly identified with its results by users, unlike the shopping center with its customers in PruneYard or the law schools with military recruiters in FAIR. See Complaint at paras. 48-50 (alleging that Google was built on expectations from users that the search algorithm was in some way neutral). This is especially the case when Google is, as alleged, prioritizing its own products in search results. See id. at paras. 64-70. Google clearly believes, and its users appear to agree, that these products are what its users want to see. See Complaint at 2 (“Google Search is perceived to deliver the best search results…”). Otherwise, those users could just use another service. Cf. Zhang, 10 F. Supp. 3d at 441 (a user dissatisfied with search results can just use another search engine).

Notably, this stands in contrast to the court’s characterization of the speech at issue. See MTD Opinion at 19-20 (“When a user searches a speech by former President Donald Trump on Google Search and that speech is retrieved by Google with a link to the speech on YouTube, no rational person would conclude that Google is associating with President Trump or endorsing what is seen in the video.”). It is not the content of the links that users associate with Google, but the search results themselves, which includes the order in which each link is presented, the presentation of certain prioritized results in a different format, and the exclusion or deprioritization of certain results Google thinks the user will not find relevant. A search engine is more than a “passive receptacle or conduit” for the speech of others; the “choice of material” and how it is presented in its search results “constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258.

In sum, the reasons for subjecting must-carry provisions in Turner to intermediate scrutiny do not apply here. First, the nondiscrimination requirement sought by Ohio is not content-neutral; indeed, it is precisely Ohio’s dissatisfaction with the specific content Google provides that impels its proposed law. Cf. Turner, 512 U.S. at 653-55 (emphasizing the content-neutrality of the must-carry requirements). Second, Google must alter its message in its search results due to the regulation, as it is expressing a clear opinion that its own products are the best answer—an answer with which Google is identified and which distinguishes it from its search engine competitors. Cf. id. at 655-56 (finding the must-carry requirements would not force cable operators to alter their own messages or identify them with the speech they carry). Third, Google does not have the ability to prevent its users from accessing information, whether from other general search engines, specialized search engines, or just typing a website into the browser. Cf. Turner, 512 U.S. at 656 (“When an individual subscribes to cable, the physical connection between the television set and the cable network gives the cable operator bottleneck, or gatekeeper control over most (if not all) of the television programming that is channeled into the subscriber’s home… A cable operator, unlike other speakers in other media, can thus silence the voice of competing speakers with a mere flick of the switch.”). Absent these countervailing justifications for intermediate scrutiny in Turner, Ohio’s nondiscrimination requirement must be subject to strict scrutiny.

Finally, while it is true that economic regulation like antitrust law can be consistent with the First Amendment, see Claremont Amicus at 17 (citing Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20), that does not mean every legal restriction on speech so characterized is constitutional. For instance, in Associated Press, the Supreme Court found the organization in violation of antitrust law, but in footnote 18 disclaimed the power to “compel AP or its members to permit publication of anything which their ‘reason’ tells them should not be published.” Associated Press, 316 U.S. at 20, n. 18. The Court echoed this in Tornillo to argue that the remedy sought by Florida’s right-to-reply law was unconstitutional government compulsion of speech that would violate the newspaper’s right to editorial discretion. See Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 254-58. Restricting Google’s right to editorial discretion over its search results is similarly unconstitutional.

Conclusion

Ohio’s attempted end-run of competition law and the First Amendment by declaring Google a common carrier must be rejected by this court. Google is not a common carrier. And the nondiscrimination requirement requested by Ohio is inconsistent with the First Amendment.

[1] Amicus state that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no entity or person other than amicus and its counsel made any monetary contribution toward the preparation and submission of this brief.

Telecommunications & Regulated Utilities

ICLE Reply Comments to FCC on Title II NPRM

Eric Fruits, Ben Sperry, Kristian Stout, & Geoffrey A. Manne • January 17, 2024

I. Introduction We thank the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “the Commission”) for the opportunity to offer reply comments to this notice of proposed rulemaking . . .

I. Introduction

We thank the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “the Commission”) for the opportunity to offer reply comments to this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) as the Commission seeks, yet again, to reclassify broadband-internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.[1]

As our previous comments, these reply comments, and the comments of others in this proceeding repeatedly point out, the idea of an “open internet” is not incompatible with business-model experimentation, which could include various experiments in pricing and network management. This is particularly apparent, given the lengthy history of broadband deployment reaching ever more consumers at ever lower cost per megabit, even in the absence of Title II regulation.

As repeatedly noted in this docket, U.S. broadband providers were able to support large increases in network load during the COVID-19 pandemic, and have been pressing forward to provide hard-to-reach potential customers with service tailored to their needs, whether through cable, fiber, satellite, fixed-wireless, or mobile connections, all without a Title II regime.

By contrast, applying Title II to broadband providers risks ossifying the existing set of technical and business-model parameters and undermining the internet’s fundamental dynamism. The ability to adapt to new applications and users has long driven the internet’s success. Declaring the current network architecture complete and frozen under Title II is at odds with this reality. In essence, openness requires embracing ongoing change, not freezing the status quo.

As noted extensively by multiple commentators in this proceeding, the rationale for applying Title II is rooted in the precautionary principle. This weak basis does not warrant preemptively imposing blanket prohibitions. A better approach would be to employ an error-cost framework that minimizes the total risk of either over- or under-inclusive rules, and to eschew proscriptive ex ante mandates.

Technology markets tend to be highly dynamic and to evolve rapidly. Which technology best fits particular deployment and usage needs, particular network designs, and the business relationships among different kinds of providers is determined by context, and by complex interactions between long-term investment and fast-changing exigencies that demand flexibility.

What this means here is that the Commission should not promulgate policies that would presumptively disallow so-called blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. As detailed below, in most instances, there is no way to prohibit these practices ex ante without the risk of inducing a chilling effect on many pro-consumer business arrangements. Similarly, the General Conduct Standard threatens to foster an open-ended, difficult-to-predict regulatory environment that would chill innovation and harm consumers.

Going forward, the Commission should avoid Title II reclassification and instead hew to the policy that has guided it since the 2018 Order. Where problems occur, ex post enforcement of existing competition and consumer-protection laws provides enforcers with the tools sufficient to guarantee a truly open internet.

II. The Commission Fails to Offer Sufficient Justifications for a Change in Policy

The Commission imposed Title II regulations on broadband internet with its 2015 Open Internet Order.[2] Title II regulation was repealed with the 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order.[3] Thus, it would be reasonable to see this latest Title II proposal as a do-over of the 2015 Order. Indeed, the Commission describes its proposal as a “return to the basic framework the Commission adopted in 2015.”[4] Attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine say the proposed rules are “effectively identical” to the Open Internet Order.[5] The American Enterprise Institute’s Daniel Lyons invokes the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s observation of bad policy as a “ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.”[6]

In ex parte meetings with FCC commissioners in 2017, ICLE concluded that the 2015 Order was not supported by a “reasoned analysis.”

We stressed that we believe that Congress is the proper place for the enactment of fundamentally new telecommunications policy, and that the Commission should base its regulatory decisions interpreting Congressional directives on carefully considered empirical research and economic modeling. We noted that the 2015 OIO was, first, a change in policy improperly initiated by the Commission rather than by Congress. Moreover, even if some form of open Internet rules were properly adopted by the Commission, the process by which it enacted the 2015 OIO, in particular, demonstrated scant attention to empirical evidence, and even less attention to a large body of empirical and theoretical work by academics. The 2015 OIO, in short, was not supported by reasoned analysis.

In particular, the analysis offered in support of the 2015 OIO ignores or dismisses crucial economics literature, sometimes completely mischaracterizing entire fields of study as a result. It also cherry picks from among the comments in the docket, ignoring or dismissing without analysis fundamental issues raised by many commenters. Tim Brennan, chief economist of the FCC during the 2015 OIO’s drafting, aptly noted that “[e]conomics was in the Open Internet Order, but a fair amount of the economics was wrong, unsupported, or irrelevant.”[7]

With the current Title II NPRM, it appears the Commission is again ignoring or dismissing fundamental issues without conducting sufficient analysis. Moreover, the see-sawing between imposition, repeal, and possible re-imposition of Title II regulations invites scrutiny under the Administrative Procedures Act, especially in light of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Wages & White Lion Invs. LLC v. FDA.

The change-in-position doctrine requires careful comparison of the agency’s statements at T0 and T1. An agency cannot shift its understanding of the law between those two times, deny or downplay the shift, and escape vacatur under the APA. As the D.C. Circuit put it in the canonical case: “[A]n agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored, and if an agency glosses over or swerves from prior precedents without discussion it may cross the line from the tolerably terse to the intolerably mute.”[8]

As the NCTA notes in its comments:

“[A]n agency regulation must be designed to address identified problems.” Accordingly, “[r]ules are not adopted in search of regulatory problems to solve”; rather, “they are adopted to correct problems with existing regulatory requirements that an agency has delegated authority to address.” And because the reclassification of broadband would reverse previous agency decision-making, the Commission is obligated to show not only that it is addressing an actual problem, but that it reasonably believes the new rules “to be better” and has not “ignore[d] its prior factual findings” underpinning the existing rules or the “reliance interests” that have arisen from those rules. That is not possible here.[9]

The NPRM identifies two reasons for re-imposing Title II classification on broadband internet that mirror the reasons in the 2015 Order: (1) ensuring “internet openness” and (2) consumer protection. The NPRM also identifies several new justifications for reimposing Title II:

Increased use and importance of broadband internet during and after the COVID-19 pandemic;[10]
Federal spending on provider investments and consumer subsidies;[11]
Safeguarding national security[12] and preserving public safety;[13] and
The need for a uniform national regulatory system.[14]

As we discuss below, these justifications do not stand up to scrutiny.

A. Increased Importance of Broadband Internet During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Beyond the obvious national-comparison data demonstrating that U.S. networks already outperform other countries, there are many problems with relying on internet-usage patterns during and subsequent to the COVID-19 pandemic as justification for imposing Title II regulations on broadband providers.

The NPRM concludes: “While Internet access has long been important to daily life, the COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid shift of work, education, and health care online demonstrated how essential broadband Internet connections are for consumers’ participation in our society and economy.”[15] It further notes: “In the time since the RIF Order, propelled by the COVID-19 pandemic, BIAS has become even more essential to consumers for work, health, education, community, and everyday life,”[16] and that this importance “has persisted post-pandemic.”[17] The Commission “believe[s] the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the importance of the Internet today, and seek[s] comment on our belief.”[18]

In our initial comments on this matter, ICLE reported that, by most measures, U.S. broadband competition is already vibrant, and has improved dramatically since the COVID-19 pandemic.[19] For example, since 2021, more households are connected to the internet; broadband speeds have increased while prices have declined; more households are served by more than a single provider; and new technologies—such as satellite and 5G—have served to expand internet access and intermodal competition among providers.[20]

In these reply comments, we agree with the Commission’s assertion that internet access “has long been important to daily life.” We do, however, disagree in some key respects with the Commission’s conclusion that internet access “has become even more essential,” and we question whether the pandemic has actually “dramatically changed the importance of the Internet today.” At the risk of splitting hairs, the Commission is unclear in how it defines “post-pandemic.” On April 10, 2023, President Biden signed H.J. Res. 7, terminating the national emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic effective May 11, 2023. Thus, by the administration’s reckoning, the United States is only about nine months into the “post-pandemic” era. It is mind-boggling how the Commission could draw any firm conclusions about post-pandemic internet usage, given the dearth of information regarding internet usage over such a short period.

The NPRM attempts to support the Commission’s conclusion by citing a 2021 Pew Research Center survey “showing that high speed Internet was essential or important to 90 percent of U.S. adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.”[21] While we do not dispute Pew’s research, it seems the Commission has cherry picked from only this single report. Notably, an earlier Pew survey reported in 2017 that 90% of respondents also said high-speed internet access was essential or important.[22] By this measure, it appears the importance of the internet has not changed since 2017, let alone changed dramatically. Moreover, a COVID-era Pew survey reported that 62% of respondents said “the federal government does not have” responsibility to ensure all Americans have a high-speed internet connection at home.[23]

To support its assertion that this heightened internet usage “has persisted post-pandemic,” the Commission cites research from OpenVault, reporting that the share of subscribers using 533 GB or more of bandwidth per-month increased from 10% to almost 50% between 2017 and 2022.[24] The report cited in the NPRM, however, concludes that one factor driving the acceleration of data usage is the trend among many usage-based billing operators to provide unlimited data to their gigabit subscribers.[25] It’s more than a little ironic that providers have rolled out a policy that encourages increased data usage, only to see the FCC invoke the increased usage as a justification for regulating the policies that increased that usage. Such reasoning suggests that the Commission’s overworked “virtuous cycle” concept is nothing more than a shibboleth to be invoked only to buttress the Commission’s proposals.[26]

There are other areas in which the Commission seems to misunderstand the available data and how it affects its conclusions. Table 1 provides average U.S. broadband data usage reported by OpenVault for the third quarter of the years 2018 through 2023.[27] While it is true that internet usage increased by 40% in the first year of the pandemic, the increase in subsequent years (11-14%) was smaller than the average pre-pandemic increase of 20%. The average annual increase over the six years in Table 1 is 19%. It is simply too soon to tell whether COVID-19 caused a permanent shift in the rate of increase of internet usage.

To further support its assertion, the Commission reports that usage per-subscriber smartphone monthly data rose by 12% between 2020 and 2021.[28] But these years were directly in the middle of the pandemic, rendering this information useless for assessing post-pandemic mobile data usage. Information from CTIA indicates that, from 2016, wireless data traffic increased an average of 28% annually, from 13.7 trillion MB to 37.1 trillion MB.[29] By contrast, from 2019 to 2022, traffic increased by an average of only 19% a year, to 73.7 trillion MB. It appears that, rather than COVID-19 being associated with mobile data use increasing at a faster rate, the pandemic was actually associated with usage increasing at a slower rate.

Thus, not only did the performance of U.S. broadband providers during the pandemic demonstrate that Title II regulations were unnecessary, but the data that the Commission cites in this proceeding on this point completely undermine its case.

B. Recent Federal Spending on Broadband Deployment Undermines the Case for Title II

The Commission invokes “tens of billions of dollars” of congressional appropriations on internet deployment and access as a reason to impose utility-style regulation on the industry.[30] The NPRM identifies the following bills that appropriated such funds:[31]

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) (appropriating $200 million to the Commission for telehealth support through the COVID-19 Telehealth Program);
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, § 903, 134 Stat. 1182, (2020) (appropriating an additional $249.95 million in additional funding for the Commission’s COVID-19 Telehealth Program) and § 904, 134 Stat. 2129 (establishing an Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund of $3.2 billion for the Commission to establish the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program to support broadband services and devices in low-income households during the COVID-19 pandemic);
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, § 7402, 135 Stat. 4 (2021) (establishing a $7.171 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund to help schools and libraries provide devices and connectivity to students, school staff, and library patrons during the COVID-19 pandemic);
Infrastructure Act, § 60102 (establishing grants for broadband-deployment programs, as administered by NTIA); § 60401 (establishing grants for middle mile infrastructure); and § 60502 (providing $14.2 billion to establish the Affordable Connectivity Program).

As we note in our comments, the legislative process would have been a perfect time for Congress to legislate net neutrality or Title II regulation, as it debated four bills that proposed spending tens of billions of dollars to encourage internet adoption and broadband buildout for the next decade or so.[32] But no such provisions were included in any of these bills, as noted in comments from the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute:

The Congressional record for each of these bills appears to be devoid of discussion about the inadequacy of the prevailing regulatory framework or a need to reclassify broadband. In addition, it does not appear that any bills or amendments were proposed that sought to impose common carrier regulation on broadband ISPs. An amendment that was included in the final IIJA prohibited the NTIA from engaging in rate regulation as part of BEAD. Rate regulation is not permitted under the Title I regulatory framework but would be theoretically possible under Title II. This provides additional evidence that Congress was cognizant of the regulatory environment in which it was legislating.[33]

The fact that Congress had numerous opportunities in recent years to mandate Title II regulations suggests the Commission’s proposal is likely at odds with congressional intent and that the FCC should refrain from such excessive regulatory intervention. At the very least, the pattern of congressional spending in no way supports the presumption that Title II reimposition is important, given federal outlays.

C. There Have Been No New Developments in National Security or Safety to Support Reclassification

The Commission asserts that Title II reclassification “will strengthen the Commission’s ability to secure communications networks and critical infrastructure against national security threats.”[34] The NPRM concludes, “developments in recent years have highlighted national security and public safety concerns … ranging from the security risks posed by malicious cyber actors targeting network equipment and infrastructure to the loss of communications capability in emergencies through service outages.”[35] The Commission “believe[s] that blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, and other potential conduct have the potential to impair public safety communications in a variety of circumstances and therefore harm the public.”[36]

Comments from the Free State Foundation point out the obvious: The Commission has not identified any specific national-security threats and has not articulated any way in which Title II regulations would address these threats.

Unsurprisingly, the Notice fails to articulate any specific threats of harm to national security and public safety that Title II regulation would alleviate. And the Notice provides no basis for concluding that such regulation will improve broadband cybersecurity. If security and safety truly are vulnerable, why has the Commission kept that from public knowledge until the rollout of its regulatory proposal.[37]

Comments from the CPAC Center for Regulatory Freedom suggest that the Commission’s assertions regarding national-security threats are likely based on the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence community.[38] The latest Threat Assessment identifies potential cyber threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and transnational criminal organization (TCOs).[39] The 2017 Threat Assessment, however, identified the same sources of potential threats, with TCOs divided into terrorists and criminals.[40] Broadly speaking, the United States faces cyber threats from the same sources today that it did when Title II was repealed with the RIF Order.

The “developments” identified by the Commission are not new. The 2017 Threat Assessment reported that: “Russian actors have conducted damaging and disruptive cyber attacks, including on critical infrastructure networks.”[41] The assessment also reported an Iranian intrusion into the industrial control system of a U.S. dam and criminals’ deployment of ransomware targeting the medical sector.[42] The Commission offers no evidence that these threats have changed sufficiently since the 2018 Order to justify a change in national-security posture with respect to regulating broadband internet under Title II.

The Free State Foundation criticizes the Commission’s national-security and public-safety justifications as mere speculation:

But now the Notice suddenly makes national security and public safety into primary claimed justifications for reimposing public utility regulation on broadband Internet services. Over a dozen paragraphs in the draft notice address speculated future vulnerabilities in network management operations, functionalities, and equipment.[43]

Not only are the Commission’s asserted network vulnerabilities speculative, but so are the conclusions regarding Title II regulation’s ability to address them. The NPRM “tentatively” concludes reclassification would “enhance” the FCC’s ability and efforts to safeguard national security, protect national defense, protect public safety, and protect the nation’s communications networks from entities that pose threats to national security and law enforcement.[44] Yet, it is mute on exactly how imposing Title II obligations on broadband providers would grant or enhance its powers to combat cyber-crime.

Indeed, as noted by CTIA, it is likely that many data services used in public safety would not be subject to Title II regulations:

Public Safety: The 2020 RIF Remand Order demonstrated that public safety entities often use enterprise-level quality-of-service dedicated public safety data services rather than BIAS. Title II regulation of BIAS therefore would not reach many of the data services relied on by public safety. In contrast, as the 2020 RIF Remand Order showed, the Title I framework for BIAS benefits virtually all services that advance public safety—including consumer access to information and to first responders over BIAS connectivity—as a result of the additional network investment that is better driven by Title I.[45]

FirstNet is one such service that would not be subject to Title II regulation.

FirstNet is public safety’s dedicated, nationwide communications platform. It is the only nationwide, high-speed broadband communications platform dedicated to and purpose-built for America’s first responders and the extended emergency response community. Today, FirstNet covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories. As of September 30, 2023, 27,000 public safety agencies and direct-support organizations use FirstNet, representing more than 5.3 million connections on the network. FirstNet is designed for all first responders in the country—including law enforcement, EMS personnel, firefighters, 9-1-1 communicators, and emergency managers. It enables subscribers to maintain always-on priority access; FirstNet users never compete with commercial traffic for bandwidth, and the network does not throttle them anywhere in the country in any circumstances.

FirstNet is built and operated in a public-private partnership between AT&T and the First Responder Network Authority—an independent agency within the federal government. Following an open and competitive RFP process, the federal government selected AT&T to build, operate, and evolve FirstNet for 25 years. Custom FirstNet State Plans were developed for the country’s 56 jurisdictions, which ultimately all chose to opt in.[46]

TechFreedom also notes that Title II does not apply to data services marketed to government users.[47] The group’s comments dispel the myth that, if only the FCC had Title II authority, the legendary and nearly apocryphal Santa Clara fire-department saga could have been avoided.

For this rationale, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel relies heavily on a single incident. In 2018, the Republican-led FCC returned broadband to Title I, the lighter regulatory approach. Months later, “when firefighters in Santa Clara, California, were responding to wildfires they discovered the wireless connectivity on one of their command vehicles was being throttled,” Rosenworcel claims. “With Title II classification, the FCC would have the authority to intervene,” she said separately.

She is mistaken. Title II doesn’t apply to data plans marketed to government users; both the 2015 Order and the NPRM define BIAS as a “mass-market retail service” offered “directly to the public.” Even if Title II had applied, the FCC’s rules wouldn’t have addressed the unique confusion that occurred in Santa Clara, which involved the fire department buying a plan that was obviously inadequate for its needs, Verizon recommending a better plan, and the department refusing. But that isn’t really the point. The point is that the FCC needed to shift its speculation about the possible impacts of blocking, throttling, or discrimination to something that seemed more tangible than abstractions like “openness.” Invoking the Santa Clara kerfuffle may make the stakes seem higher, but it won’t change how courts apply the major question doctrine.[48]

It beggars belief that the Commission would impose regulations with vast economic and political significance based on speculative threats and only tentative inklings about whether and how Title II could “enhance” the FCC’s ability and efforts to address those threats. In short, before asserting public safety as a basis for imposing Title II, the Commission needs to produce evidence demonstrating both the existence of such a problem (beyond the weak anecdote of the Santa Clara incident), as well as evidence demonstrating that the vast majority of services necessary for public safety would even be subject to Title II.

D. The Commission Must Work to Establish a National Standard for Broadband Regulation

The NPRM reports that, following the 2018 Order, “[a] number of states quickly stepped in to fill that void, adopting their own unique regulatory approaches” toward broadband internet.[49] The Commission claims “establishing a uniform, national regulatory approach” is “critical” to “ensure that the Internet is open and fair.”[50] Toward that end, the FCC now indicates it intends to pre-empt these state laws with Title II regulation and “seek[s] comment on how best to exercise [its] preemption authority.”[51] Crucially, the NPRM asks whether the proposed Title II regulations should be treated as a “floor” or a “ceiling” with respect to state or local regulations.[52]

While we believe that Title II regulation is unnecessary, unwarranted, and likely harmful to both providers and consumers, we agree with NCTA’s conclusion that, if the Commission imposes Title II regulations, those rules should be imposed and enforced uniformly nationwide as both a “floor” and a “ceiling”:

At the same time, the NPRM appropriately recognizes that broadband is an inherently interstate service, and it is critical that the states be preempted from adopting separate requirements addressing ISPs’ provision of broadband. The Commission has long recognized, on a bipartisan basis, that broadband is a jurisdictionally interstate service regardless of its regulatory classification—and the Commission can and should confirm that determination. Consistent with the initial draft of the NPRM, and contrary to any suggestion in the released version, the federal framework should not serve as a “floor” on top of which states may layer additional requirements or prohibitions. Rather, it should serve as both a floor and a ceiling. A uniform national approach is particularly vital today, as states have shown a growing desire to adopt measures that conflict with federal broadband regulation precisely because they disagree with and wish to undermine federal policy choices.[53]

If the Commission imposes Title II regulation as only a “floor,” rather than both a “floor” and a “ceiling,” then the rules will do little to eliminate the “patchwork” of state regulations about which the Commission has “expressed concern.”[54] Indeed, it is likely that the “patchwork” would become even more “patchy.” It is also likely a two-tier system of regulation would arise, much as with motor-vehicle emissions, where Environmental Protection Agency rules govern emissions for some states, but 18 other states follow California’s more stringent standards.[55] The result is a patchwork of state laws with a mishmash of emissions standards. This would be unacceptable, as the Second Circuit ruled in American Booksellers Foundation:

[A]t the same time that the internet’s geographic reach increases Vermont’s interest in regulating out-of-state conduct, it makes state regulation impracticable. We think it likely that the internet will soon be seen as falling within the class of subjects that are protected from State regulation because they “imperatively demand[] a single uniform rule.”[56]

We continue to oppose the imposition of Title II on broadband providers. With that said, whatever regulatory course the Commission charts, it is crucial that it fully preempt state law so as to avoid creating a thicket of contradictory, economically inefficient requirements that will generate unnecessary red tape on broadband providers and ultimately lead to slower deployment.

III. Title II Will Commoditize Broadband Services and Stifle Innovation

Before discussing the NPRM’s particulars, it is important to note that regulatory humility is crucial when dealing with industries and firms that develop and deploy highly innovative technologies.[57] It remains a daunting challenge to forecast the economics of technological innovation on the economy and society. The potential for unforeseen and unintended consequences—particularly in hindering the development of new ways to serve underserved consumers—is considerable. Such regulatory actions could have profound and far-reaching effects. In particular, it can serve to eliminate many of the dimensions across which providers compete. The result would be to remove much of the product differentiation among competitors and turn broadband service into something more like a commodity service.

The Commission’s proposed Title II regulation of broadband internet seeks to prohibit blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid or affiliated prioritization arrangements, and would impose a “general conduct standard” that it claims would prohibit “interference or unreasonable disadvantage to consumers or edge providers.”[58] But the Commission has not identified any actual harms from these practices or any actual benefits that would flow from banning or limiting them, or from placing deployment under a broad discretionary standard. Indeed, the NPRM identifies only four concrete examples of alleged blocking or throttling.[59]

A 2005 consent decree by DSL-service provider Madison River requiring it to discontinue its practice of blocking Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone calls.[60] At the time, Madison River had fewer than 40,000 DSL subscribers.[61]
A 2008 order against Comcast for interfering with peer-to-peer file sharing.[62] Comcast claimed intensive file-sharing traffic was causing such severe latency and jitter that it made VoIP telephony unusable.[63]
A study published in 2019, using data mostly from 2018, that “suggested that ISPs regularly throttle video content.”[64] Several commenters note that this study has been “debunked.”[65] We note in our comments that the study found that, whatever throttling ISPs engaged in, the authors concluded it was “not to the extent in which consumers would likely notice.”[66]
In 2021, a small ISP in northern Idaho planned to block customer access to Twitter and Facebook; responding to public pressure, the provider backtracked on the policy.[67]

The first two examples are now more than 15 years old and provide no useful information regarding current or future conduct by broadband-internet-service providers. The third example is of questionable reliability. The fourth example is of a policy that was never fully implemented and was, indeed, rectified because of the pressures of market demand.

The Commission seems to be missing, ignoring, or dismissing a key fact: The powers it seeks under Title II are unnecessary and unwarranted, and—in many cases—it already has the power to deter harmful conduct. For example, Scalia Law Clinic finds “no credible evidence of internet service providers engaging in blocking, throttling, or anticompetitive paid prioritization.”[68]

TechFreedom notes:

The FCC could still police surreptitious blocking, throttling, or discrimination among content, services, and apps—but then, the Federal Trade Commission can already do that; it just hasn’t needed to.[69]

ITIF’s comments explain how the 2018 Order’s transparency requirements have stifled incentives to engage in undisclosed blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization, to the point that the largest providers have publicly indicated they don’t—and won’t—engage in such practices:

Harmful violations of basic net neutrality principles are exceedingly rare, and there is no evidence of them since the 2018 reapplication of the Title I regime the FCC now looks to unwind. Much of the heavy lifting of the bright line requirements is already functionally in practice. Many major ISPs have publicly foresworn blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. The RIF’s transparency requirements ensure that these practices cannot happen in secret. Therefore, to the extent a flat ban might deter the few harmful attempts that might get through, its benefits would likely be counterbalanced by the broader chilling effects of Title II.[70]

As much as the Commission would like to expand its reach across other agencies, CTIA notes that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been “active” in monitoring providers’ practices:

In any event, BIAS providers have made meaningful commitments to their customers, in keeping with the transparency rule, not to block or throttle or engage in paid prioritization, which the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) can enforce under many circumstances. And the FTC has been active in scrutinizing broadband provider practices following adoption of the 2018 RIF Order.[71]

As we note in our comments, the U.S. broadband industry is both competitive and dynamic. This vigorous competition forces providers to align their interests with those of their customers, both consumers and edge providers, as noted by CTIA:

Despite the Notice’s suggestion, regulation in a handful of states has not affected what these thousands of BIAS providers do, because it remains in their interest to offer customers service that does not block, throttle, or engage in paid prioritization. In addition, the Notice does not identify a list of harms arising since the 2018 RIF Order, and even Internet openness allegations against BIAS providers are, for all practical purposes, non-existent.[72]

More broadly, a survey of the research summarized by Roslyn Layton and Mark Jamison concludes that, with the exception of some bans on blocking, “net neutrality” regulations would do more harm than good to both consumers and providers:

But in general, the literature finds that regulations would hinder investment and harm consumers, but not under all conditions. The exception is for traffic blocking, where there is broad agreement that consumers are worse off with blocking. The literature supported the conclusion that paid prioritisation would lead to lower retail prices for broadband access and provide financial resources for network expansion. Jamison concludes that because the scenarios that give different answers are each feasible and may exist at different times, it seems that policy should favour applying competition and consumer protection laws, which can be adapted to individual cases, rather than ex ante regulations, which necessarily apply broadly[73]

And as CTIA notes:

The practical benefit of rules banning blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization would be negligible, as no such behavior exists, but the costs of reclassification to Title II would be substantial, as the switch to Title II regulation raises the specter of further regulation at the Commission’s whim, generating regulatory uncertainty that harms the Commission’s stated goals.[74]

In summary, the Commission has only speculated about whether blocking, throttling, or paid or affiliated prioritization currently exists, or would exist in the future without Title II regulation. It further speculates with respect to potential harms, and ignores or dismisses the benefits from these practices. In reality, there is no evidence to suggest that there is systematic abuse along these lines.

A. Economic Logic and the Economic Literature Support Non-Neutral Networks[75]

Tim Wu, widely credited with coining the term “net neutrality,” has argued that even a “zero-pricing rule” should permit prioritization:

As a result, we do not feel as though a zero-pricing rule should prohibit this particular implementation, as here content providers are not forced to pay a termination fee to access users.[76]

Moreover, it is important to note that not all innovation comes from small, startup edge providers. As economists Peter Klein and Nicolai Foss have pointed out:

The problem with an exclusive emphasis on start-ups is that a great deal of creation, discovery, and judgment takes place in mature, large, and stable companies. Entrepreneurship is manifest in many forms and had many important antecedents and consequences, and we miss many of those if we look only at start-up companies.[77]

Adopting a regulatory schema that prioritizes startup innovation (although, as noted, it likely doesn’t even do that) at the expense of network innovation—in part, because network operators aren’t small startups—may materially detract from consumer welfare and the overall rate of innovation.

In effect, net neutrality claims that the only proper price to charge content providers for access to ISPs and their subscribers is zero. As an economic matter, that is possible. But it most certainly needn’t be so.

At the most basic level, it is simply not demonstrably the case that content markets themselves are best served by being directly favored, to the exclusion of infrastructure. The two markets are symbiotic, in that gains for one inevitably produce gains for the other (i.e., increasing quality/availability of applications/content drives up demand for broadband, which provides more funding for networking infrastructure, and increased bandwidth enabled by superior networking infrastructure allows for even more diverse and innovative applications/content offerings to utilize that infrastructure). Absent an assessment of actual and/or likely competitive effects, it is impossible to say ex ante that consumer welfare in general—and with regard to content, in particular—is best served by policies intended to encourage innovation and investment in one over the other.

To the extent that new entrants might threaten ISPs’ affiliated content or services, the Commission’s proposal is on somewhat more solid economic ground. But such a risk justifies, at most, only a limited rule that creates a rebuttable presumption of commercial unreasonableness. Even then, the logic behind such a rule tracks precisely the well-established antitrust law and economics of vertical foreclosure, which neither justifies a presumption (even a rebuttable one), nor the imposition of a targeted regulation beyond the antitrust laws themselves.[78]

1. Economic literature

The use of paid prioritization as a means for ISPs to recover infrastructure costs raises the fundamental empirical question that has largely remained unaddressed: whether the benefits of mandated “openness” outweigh the forsaken benefits to consumers, infrastructure investment, and competition from prohibiting discrimination.

A related question was considered by Tim Wu, who acknowledged that there were inherent tradeoffs in mandating neutrality. Among other things, prohibiting content prioritization (thus precluding user subsidies) raises consumer prices:

Of course, for a given price level, subsidizing content comes at the expense of not subsidizing users, and subsidizing users could also lead to greater consumer adoption of broadband. It is an open question whether, in subsidizing content, the welfare gains from the invention of the next killer app or the addition of new content offset the price reductions consumers might otherwise enjoy or the benefit of expanding service to new users.[79]

Policy advocates that support net neutrality routinely misunderstand this dynamic, and instead seem to presume that discrimination by ISPs can only harm networks. As Public Knowledge has claimed, for instance:

If Verizon – or any ISP – can go to a website and demand extra money just to reach Verizon subscribers, the fundamental fairness of competing on the internet would be disrupted. It would immediately make Verizon the gatekeeper to what would and would not succeed online. ISPs, not users, not the market, would decide which websites and services succeed.

* * *

Remember that a “two-sided market” is one in which, in addition to charging subscribers to access the internet, ISPs get to charge edge providers on the internet to access subscribers as well.[80]

And elsewhere:

Comcast’s market power affords it advantages vis-à-vis recipients of Internet video content as well as creators of Internet video content. For example, Comcast will be able to distribute NBC content through its Xfinity online offering without having to pay itself license fees.

This two-sided market advantage results from Comcast’s position as a gatekeeper: it provides access to customers for content creators and it provides access to content for customers. Control over both directions of this transaction allows Comcast the opportunity for anticompetitive behavior against either content creators or consumers, or both simultaneously.[81]

These comments fundamentally misunderstand the economics of two-sided markets: Rather than facilitating anticompetitive conduct or enabling greater exploitation of both sides of the market, two-sided markets facilitate efficient but otherwise-difficult economic exchange, and nearly all such markets incorporate subsidies from one side of the market to the other—not excessive profiteering by the platform.[82] The “two-sidedness” of markets does not inherently confer increased ability to earn monopoly profits. In fact, the literature suggests that the availability of subsidization reduces monopoly power and increases welfare. In the broadband context, as one study notes:

Imposing rules that prevent voluntarily negotiated multisided prices will never achieve optimal market results, and…can only lead to a reduction in consumer welfare.[83]

Business models frequently coexist where different parties pay for the same or similar services. Some periodicals are paid for by readers and offer little or no advertising; others charge a subscription and offer paid ads; and still others are offered for free, funded entirely by ads. All of these models work. None is necessarily “better” than another. Indeed, each model may be better than the others under each model’s idiosyncratic product and market conditions. There is no reason the same wouldn’t be true for broadband and content.

What’s more, the literature directly contradicts the assumption that net neutrality improves consumer welfare or encourages infrastructure investment. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, and non-neutrality actually generally benefits both consumers and content providers:

Our main result is that a switch from the net neutrality regime to the discriminatory regime would be beneficial in terms of investments, innovation and total welfare. First, when ISPs offer differentiated traffic lanes, investment in broadband capacity increases. This is because the discriminatory regime allows ISPs to extract additional revenues from CPs [Content Providers] through the priority fees. Second, innovation in services also increases: some highly congestion-sensitive CPs that were left out of the market under net neutrality enter when a priority lane is proposed. Overall, discrimination always increases total welfare….[84]

Another paper finds the same result, except in a small subset of cases:

Our results suggest that investment incentives of ISPs, which are important drivers for innovation and deployment of new technologies, play a key role in the net neutrality debate. In the non-neutral regime, because it is easier to extract surplus through appropriate CP pricing, our model predicts that ISPs’ investment levels are higher; this coincides with the predictions made by the defendants of the non-neutral regime. On the other hand, because of platforms’ monopoly power over access, CP participation can be reduced in the non-neutral regime; this coincides with the predictions made by the defendants of the neutral regime. We find that in the walled-garden model, the first effect is dominant and social welfare is always larger in the non-neutral model. While this still holds for many instances of the priority-lane model, the neutral regime is welfare superior relative to the non-neutral regime when CP heterogeneity is large.[85]

The economic literature does, however, provide some support for imposing a minimum-quality standard:

We extend our baseline model to account for the possibility that ISPs engage in quality degradation or “sabotage” of CP’s traffic. We find that sabotage never arises endogenously under net neutrality. In contrast, under the discriminatory regime, ISPs may have an incentive to sabotage the non-priority lane to make the priority lane more valuable, and hence, to extract higher revenues from the CPs that opt for priority. Any level of sabotage is detrimental for total welfare, and therefore, a switch to the discriminatory regime would still require some regulation of traffic quality.[86]

Even here, however, the analysis does not consider disclosure-based (transparency) restraints on quality to be degradation, and it is entirely possible that a transparency rule (or simply the risk of public disclosure, even without such a rule) would be sufficient to deter quality degradation.

In the end, the literature to date supports, at most, a minimum-quality requirement and perhaps only a transparency requirement; it does not support mandated nondiscrimination rules.

B. Paid Prioritization

The Commission “does not dispute” that there may be benefits associated with paid prioritization.[87] Yet it “tentatively” concludes that the “potential” harms “outweigh any speculative benefits.”[88] To be blunt, the Commission is just guessing, as summarized by TPI:

The argument that paid prioritization was necessarily a net harm to society was always an unproven hypothesis. The test still has not been conducted, making it impossible to draw the conclusion that it would necessarily be bad.[89]

Indeed, both the economics of nonlinear pricing, and the evidence already added to the record, demonstrate that the Commission should not ban paid prioritization.

1. Paid prioritization is a necessary feature of providing internet service

First, as we have previously noted before the Commission, simply banning paid prioritization does not remove the need to ration broadband in a resource-constrained environment:

Scarcity on the Internet (as everywhere else) is a fact of life — whether it arises from network architecture, search costs, switching costs, or the fundamental limits of physics, time and attention. The need for some sort of rationing (which implies prioritization) is thus also a fact of life. If rationing isn’t performed by the price mechanism, it will be performed by something else. For startups, innovators, and new entrants, while they may balk at paying for priority, the relevant question, as always, is “compared to what?” There is good reason to think that a neutral Internet will substantially favor incumbents and larger competitors, imposing greater costs than would paying for prioritization. Far from detracting from the Internet’s value, including its value to the small, innovative edge providers so many net neutrality proponents are concerned about, prioritization almost certainly increases it.[90]

Essentially, banning “paid prioritization” does nothing to actually remove the need for prioritization. Instead, it merely moves the locus of decision-making out of the scope of a market made of arm’s-length transactions, and puts it into the hands of a few individuals at the Commission.

Broadband-internet access is a valuable service that requires ongoing investments and maintenance. Determining who pays for broadband access is a complex economic issue. In multi-sided markets like broadband, rigid one-size-fits-all pricing models are often inadequate. Instead, experimentation and flexibility are needed to find optimal and sustainable cost allocations between consumers and industry. Multiple business models can reasonably coexist, with costs shared in various ways.[91] Overall, broadband pricing should balance economic sustainability, consumer affordability, and the public interest.

Pricing models across industries demonstrate that there is no single best approach. For example, as with periodicals (discussed above), some websites rely entirely on subscription fees, others use a mix of subscriptions and advertising, and some are given away for free and supported solely by ads. All of these models can work, and all may appeal to different consumer segments. Similarly, for emerging data and content services that intend to attract new users, pricing flexibility and experimentation are needed. There is no one-size-fits-all model inherently superior in reaching consumers or promoting consumer welfare. The optimal strategy depends on market dynamics and consumer demand, which are uncertain and evolving in new markets. Rigid pricing mandates risk stifling innovation and growth.

Moreover, the assumption that paid prioritization inherently favors incumbents over new entrants is flawed. In many cases, new entrants are at a disadvantage with respect to incumbents. Incumbents may have any number of many advantages, including brand loyalty, mature business processes, economies of scale, etc. But prioritization can reduce the scope and scale of some of these advantages:

[P]remium service stimulates innovation on the edges of the network because lower-value content sites are better able to compete with higher-value sites with the availability of the premium service. The greater diversity of content and the greater value created by sites that purchase the premium service benefit advertisers because consumers visit content sites more frequently. Consumers also benefit from lower network access prices.[92]

Thus, there must be some evidence presented that paid prioritization benefits incumbents at the expense of new entrants before this claim can be taken seriously. There may be some cases where this is so, but it’s absolutely not a warranted presumption, and should be demonstrated as a realistic harm before it is categorically forbidden.

As noted, non-neutrality offers the prospect that a startup might be able to buy priority access to overcome the inherent disadvantage of newness, and to better compete with an established company. Neutrality, on the other hand, renders that competitive advantage unavailable; the baseline relative advantages and disadvantages remain—all of which helps incumbents, not startups. With a neutral internet, the incumbent competitor’s in-built advantages can’t be dissipated by a startup buying a favorable leg-up in speed. The Netflixes of the world will continue to dominate.

Of course, the claim is that incumbents will use their huge resources to gain even more advantage with prioritized access. Implicit in this claim must be the assumption that the advantage a startup could gained from buying priority offers less potential return than the costs imposed by the inherent disadvantages of reputation, brand awareness, customer base, etc. But that’s not plausible for all startups. Investors devote capital there is a likelihood of a good return. If paying for priority would help overcome inherent disadvantages, there would be financial support for that strategy.

Also implicit is the claim that the benefits to incumbents (over and above their natural advantages) from paying for priority—in terms of hamstringing new entrants—will outweigh the cost. This, too, is unlikely to be true, in general. Incumbents already have advantages. While they might sometimes want to pay for more, it is precisely in those cases where it would be worthwhile that a new entrant would benefit most from the strategy—ensuring, again, that investment funds will be available.

Finally, implicit in these arguments is the presumption that content deserves to be subsidized, while networks need neither subsidy nor the flexibility to adopt business models that increase returns or help to operate their networks optimally. But broadband providers, equipment makers, and the like have spent trillions of dollars to build internet infrastructure. The “neutrality for startups” argument holds that content providers shouldn’t be the ones to pay for it, but it maintains this without evidence that mandating subsidies to content providers (in the form of zero-price internet access) will actually lead to optimal results.[93]

While paid prioritization does carry risks, the impacts on competition are nuanced. Claims that it necessarily harms new entrants and benefits only incumbents oversimplify a complex issue. The real impacts likely depend on the specifics of how prioritization is implemented in a given market.

The notion that businesses’ internet-access costs should be zero reflects flawed thinking. Access is never truly zero-cost—all businesses have costs. Early-stage startups, in particular, need capital to cover expenses as they grow. Singling out broadband access as uniquely important for price parity is questionable. One could make equivalent arguments for controlling other business costs like rent, advertising, personnel, etc. Businesses rationally factor the costs of key resources into their planning and investments. Some enjoy cost advantages in certain areas, and disadvantages in others. Whether “equal” pricing is mandated across businesses is often irrelevant to long-term investment decisions. While fair-access policies have merits, the costs of resources like internet access are just one factor among many that businesses must weigh.

This is not an argument unique to broadband service pricing. “Paid prioritization” is a pricing technique that occurs in many other areas, and frequently is useful for solving rationing problems. And where it is banned, this yields downstream effects that we would similarly expect to occur in the broadband market. As the Nobel Laureate economist Ronald Coase pointed out, banning paid prioritization for radio airplay (i.e., payola) actually benefits large record labels at the expense of smaller artists.[94] Simply banning payola, however, did nothing to rectify the underlying problem: airtime on radio was scarce and radio stations had to resort to other ways to ration it. As with insider trading, [95] the de facto practice necessarily is reconstituted elsewhere. The dollars previously spent on payola simply end up somewhere else, such as in advertising.[96] On the radio, this meant more ads taking up airtime, creating more scarcity and less music of any kind. While the specific mix of actual songs played may be different, there is no reason to believe it is in any way “better” or even more diverse without payola, and every reason to believe that there will simply be less of it.

Retail-store slotting contracts provide another helpful analogy:

Retailer supply of shelf space can therefore be thought of as creating incremental or “promotional” sales that would not occur without the promotion. The promotional shelf space provided by retailers induces these incremental sales by increasing the willingness of “marginal consumers” to pay for a product that they would not purchase absent the promotion. The generation of these promotional sales may occur by more prominently displaying a known brand, for example, in eye-level shelf space or a special display, or by providing shelf space for an unknown or new product.[97]

As with prioritization on the internet, an intuitive fear about such arrangements is that they will be used by established content providers to hamstring their rivals:

The primary competitive concern with slotting arrangements is the claim that they may be used by manufacturers to foreclose or otherwise disadvantage rivals, raising the costs of entry and consequently increasing prices. It is now well established in both economics and antitrust law that the possibility of this type of anticompetitive effect depends on whether a dominant manufacturer can control a suf?cient amount of distribution so that rivals are effectively prevented from reaching minimum ef?cient scale.[98]

The problem with this argument is that:

[S]lotting fees are a payment that must be borne by all manufacturers. Competition for shelf space that leads to slotting may raise the cost of obtaining retail distribution, but it does so for everyone…. However, competition between incumbents and entrants for retail distribution generally occurs on a level playing field in the sense that all manufacturers can openly compete for shelf space and it is the manufacturer willing to pay the most for a particular space that obtains it.[99]

While not a violation of antitrust law, the NPRM’s approach would ban this practice without evidence of harm. So long as there are minimum-service guarantees in place, however, there is no reason to believe that the practice would actually harm startups or consumers. Moreover, these sorts of arrangements are usually tailored to the firms in question, with larger firms that demand more service also drawing higher prices for that service. Thus, in practice, the opportunity to pay for prioritization is relatively less attractive to large firms.

A blanket ban on paid prioritization risks locking in inefficient and suboptimal pricing models. It would restrict the very experimentation and innovation in business models that could help expand internet access. Rather than a one-size-fits-all ban, tailored oversight and monitoring of prioritization practices through the existing transparency rules would better balance the complex tradeoffs involved.

In the NPRM, the Commission notes that “In adopting a ban on paid prioritization in 2015, the Commission sought to prevent the bifurcation of the Internet into a ‘fast’ lane for those with the means and will to pay and a “slow” lane for everyone else.”[100] It then tentatively concludes that this concern remains valid today. But this framing makes as little sense now as it did in 2015.

The concept of “fast lanes” is a gross oversimplification, even apart from paid-prioritization schemes. In most cases, prioritization involves applying network-management strategies to guarantee certain content meets minimum-performance levels appropriate for its data type. For example, this could include prioritizing video-conferencing data for lower latency, or streaming video for better throughput. Technically, this creates a “fast lane,” but it is highly misleading to refer to it as such.

The costs and benefits of prioritization are nuanced and context-dependent. Whether prioritization is beneficial or harmful depends heavily on the presence of congestion. Prioritization matters most when congestion exists, since it inherently involves improving service for some content at the expense of other content.[101] While prioritization schemes risk worsening service for non-prioritized content, they also can improve quality for higher-value applications. Congestion levels, minimum standards, and other factors combined to determine the impact. Overly simplistic “fast lane” rhetoric should be avoided in favor of careful analysis of the tradeoffs, given technical and market conditions. What works as a better default is to provide minimum-performance guarantees for internet service.

A minimum-performance guarantee means that prioritized services cannot degrade non-prioritized content below a certain level. It also limits the extent to which prioritized content can receive better service, given the bandwidth needed to satisfy the minimum guarantees. As a result, ISPs that offer prioritization may actually increase total network capacity to deliver meaningful priority benefits without violating minimums. [102]

Even without expanded capacity, prioritization with minimum guarantees does not necessarily create starkly differentiated service levels. During congestion, “slower” service becomes a reality for non-prioritized content. But simultaneously, the meaningfulness of “faster” service decreases in proportion to congestion levels. The practical difference between prioritized and non-prioritized traffic is less than is often assumed, and varies based on fluctuating traffic volumes. With appropriate safeguards, the fears of dramatic disparities created by “fast lanes” are overblown. For latency-insensitive content, even degraded “slow lanes” would have minimal effect. Thus, even if prioritization were to become widespread, its value and price would likely decrease. More content providers could thereby afford priority, further lessening any differentiation. With marginal speed differences and cheap priority access, dramatic impacts are unlikely.

We see the same dynamic even within edge providers’ operations with respect to what are glibly deemed “slow” and “fast” lanes on the open internet. For example, it was discovered in 2015 that Netflix had been throttling its own transmission rate in certain situations, likely in order to optimize customers’ viewing experience.[103] But under the framing presented in this NPRM, the incentive for this sort of self-disciplining behavior—which optimally rations scarce network resources—would disappear.

2. The record reflects that the Commission should not ban paid prioritization

As we discuss below, the Commission asserts that “minimal” compliance costs are associated with a ban on blocking and a “minimal” compliance “burden” is associated with a ban on throttling. The Commission has no principled means to make this determination.

CEI’s comments point out the obvious: Paid prioritization is ubiquitous, even in the federal government, with TSA PreCheck and USPS Priority Mail,[104] as well as paid priority (i.e., “expedited service”) for passports.[105] The Federal Highway Administration not only condones paid prioritization of roadways (e.g., high-occupancy toll lanes, or “HOT lanes”), it encourages them, concluding that:

HOT lanes provide a reliable, uncongested, time saving alternative for travelers wanting to bypass congested lanes and they can improve the use of capacity on previously underutilized HOV lanes. A HOT lane may also draw enough traffic off the congested lanes to reduce congestion on the regular lanes.[106]

In our comments on this matter, we note that the Commission fails to distinguish between instances where so-called “paid prioritization” has pro-consumer benefits and where it may constitute an anticompetitive harm.[107] For example, Netflix’s collocation of data centers within different networks to expedite service and reduce overall network load are unequivocally pro-consumer.[108] In addition, AT&T’s Sponsored Data program and T-Mobile’s Binge On offerings provide more choices, potentially lower prices, and introduce competitive threats to other providers in the market.[109]

Under the Commission’s proposed Title II regulations, these innovations would be illegal. As a result, as ITIF points out, firms and potential entrants would have reduced incentives to experiment with and roll out new and innovative services to a wide range of consumers, especially lower-income consumers:

In the case of paid prioritization there would be significant harm to presuming conduct unlawful. The 2017 RIF order found that banning all paid prioritization chilled general innovation and network experimentation. These harms disproportionately fall on potential new entrants who are most likely to want to differentiate their service, perhaps by “zero-rating” popular services, but who are also least able to afford the cost of lawyers and consultations. It might also preclude practices that could have increased equity. For example, an agreement between an ISP and a content provider to guarantee a certain service quality for an application across varying network speeds would likely benefit subscribers to lower speeds most of all. ISPs have an incentive to provide the type of service consumers value, but insofar as limited competition in some areas of the country might prevent consumers from switching providers if they are unhappy with their ISP’s practices, the Commission should have expected those risks to have been greatest when competition was lowest. Since competition is increasing over time as more technologies emerge, the fact that ISPs have so far not required bright-line prohibitions to keep them from engaging in specifically harmful behaviors suggests that they are no more likely to in the future.[110]

We agree with several commenters who conclude that the proposed ban on paid prioritization may be at odds with the Commission’s desire to “preserve” and “advance” public safety. For example, the Free State Foundation says:

[T]he Notice does not even appear to directly permit any form of traffic prioritization for serving public safety purposes. And to the extent that such an omission is inadvertent, it might suggest the Commission has not adequately carried out its duty to consider the negative effects that a ban on paid prioritization can have on “promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.”[111]

NCTA points out that public safety during emergencies is one of the key instances in which prioritization is clearly beneficial:

If anything, retaining a light-touch regulatory regime for broadband would benefit public safety users by allowing ISPs to prioritize such critical traffic in times of emergency without fear of becoming subject to enforcement action for being “non-neutral.”[112]

A recurring theme throughout this rulemaking process is that the U.S. broadband industry is both competitive and dynamic. This vigorous competition forces providers to align their interests with those of their customers, as noted by CEI:

A bright line prohibition is also unneeded because the market will impose rationality on prioritization practices. If an ISP engaging in paid prioritization provides an inferior consumer experience, its customers are empowered to take their business elsewhere because most consumers have multiple options in ISPs. This is exactly how the market functions throughout the economy.[113]

The broadband market’s competitiveness and dynamism are demonstrated by two seemingly contradictory, but completely consistent statement from WISPA. First, it notes that anticompetitive paid prioritization can harm smaller providers:

WISPA is concerned that preferential traffic management techniques that are anti-competitive can be used to disadvantage providers that are unable to secure access to certain content or lack the leverage to obtain commercial terms afforded to broadband access providers with regional and national scope.[114]

At the same time, WISPA reports that there is no evidence of such anticompetitive conduct, and that if such conduct were found, it could be addressed under existing regulations:

These open internet principles can be preserved by maintaining the current light-touch regulatory approach. There is no market failure or evidence of blocking, throttling, paid prioritization or bad conduct from smaller providers that justifies saddling them with monopoly- based common carrier regulations.[115]

Comments in this proceeding reinforce our conclusions that, in nearly every case, paid prioritization benefits ISPs, consumers, and edge providers. To date, there has been no evidence of the anticompetitive use of paid prioritization or any harms to consumers or edge providers from the limited instances of above-board paid or affiliated prioritization arrangements. Thus, the Commission’s proposal to ban such arrangements is based on mere speculation, rather than “reasoned analysis.”

C. Blocking

The Commission proposes a “bright-line rule” prohibiting providers from “blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.”[116] The Commission “tentatively” concludes that providers “continue to have the incentive and ability to engage in practices that threaten Internet openness.”[117] But, just two paragraphs later in the NPRM, the Commission reports:

As far back as the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement in 2005, major providers have broadly accepted a no-blocking principle. Even after the repeal of the no-blocking rule, many providers continue to advertise a commitment to open Internet principles on their websites, which include commitments not to block traffic except in certain circumstances.[118]

At a conceptual level, issues like blocking and throttling could raise valid legal concerns when they are not done for valid network-management reasons. To date, however, there hasn’t even been a potential harm raised that would, if proven, not be remediable under existing antitrust law. Thus, arrogating more power to itself will do little to enhance the FCC’s ability to deter this conduct. the Providers’ behavior is already scrutinized under the Commission’s transparency rules, and any anticompetitive behavior can be pursued by antitrust enforcers.

But in practice, as the Commission notes, the providers have all committed to refrain from blocking and throttling unrelated to reasonable network management. This is akin to the old joke about clapping to keep away elephants.[119] We not aware of any comment in this matter that offers reliable evidence that any provider currently blocks lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. As noted above, the NPRM does not identify any examples of blocking in the last 15 years since the Madison River and Comcast peer-to-peer matters, and most providers have adopted explicit no-blocking policies.[120] The Commission concludes “this principle is so widely accepted, including by ISPs, we anticipate compliance costs will be minimal.”[121]

In comments on the 2015 Order, ICLE and TechFreedom noted that (1) many internet users are tech-savvy, (2) blocking is easily detectable by even those users who are not tech-savvy, and (3) blocking is widely unpopular. Therefore, providers likely have more disincentives to block content than incentives to do so:

There are already millions of tech-savvy Americans on the web, and the tools necessary to detect a blocking or serious degradation of service are widely available, so there is every reason to suspect that any future instances of such blocking will also be detected. If they are truly nefarious (i.e., the ISP is blocking a legal service/application that its customers are trying to access), then public outcry by the affected subscribers should likely be sufficient to convince the ISP to change its practices, rather than bear the brunt of public backlash, in hopes of pleasing its customers (and its investors).[122]

Even so, the Commission nonetheless also asserts that Title II regulation is necessary to ban a practice in which no one engages. Such assertions venture far away from “reasoned analysis” territory and deep into “arbitrary and capricious” territory.

D. Throttling

The Commission proposes to prohibit providers from “throttling lawful content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices.”[123] This is because the FCC “believe[s] that incentives for ISPs to degrade competitors’ content, applications, or devices remain”[124] even though the Commission also “believes” providers “have had a strong incentive to follow their voluntary commitments to maintain service consistent with certain conduct rules established in the 2015 Open Internet Order” during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.[125] TechFreedom concludes, “There is no real debate over these principles; everyone has agreed that blocking and throttling is such a bad idea that the marketplace has rejected it.”[126] Moreover, the Commission reports that the incidence and likelihood of provider throttling is so low that there will be “a minimal compliance burden” associated with the proposed ban:

Even after the repeal of the no-throttling rule, ISPs continue to advertise on their websites that they do not throttle traffic except in limited circumstances. As a result, we anticipate that prohibiting throttling of lawful Internet traffic will impose a minimal compliance burden on ISPs.[127]

Consistent with ICLE’s comments in this matter, 5G Americas reports that the change in the competitive broadband landscape, along with existing transparency rules, render blocking and throttling prohibitions unnecessary:

Blocking and throttling prohibitions are not needed, because internet business models require delivering the lawful content consumers want, at the speeds they expect. There have been no instances of mobile broadband providers engaging in discriminatory conduct since the 2017 RIF Order. This is because the internet ecosystem is dramatically different from when Title II regulation was first discussed in the early 2000’s. Today it is widely understood that content providers have more market power than ISPs. Reimposition of the 2015 rules is a proposal in search of a problem that doesn’t exist in the vastly differentiated marketplace of today.

In addition, the existing transparency rule is sufficient to protect against unlikely discriminatory conduct, making the general conduct rule, as well as the blocking and throttling prohibitions, unnecessary. It is notable that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking makes no attempt to argue that since the 2017 RIF Order broadband providers have engaged in anticompetitive or non-transparent conduct that would justify regulating the entire industry as common carriers subject to ex ante oversight.[128]

The NPRM cites a study published in 2019, using data mostly from 2018, that “suggested that ISPs regularly throttle video content.”[129] We urge the Commission to be skeptical of relying on this study. As we report above, several commenters report that it has been “debunked.”[130] Moreover, we note in our comments that, to the extent the study found throttling, the authors concluded it was “not to the extent in which consumers would likely notice.”[131] In other words, the study does not reliably demonstrate “regular” throttling of content and any throttling detected was de minimis. CTIA’s comments provide a detailed summary of the study’s shortfalls:

The Notice also asserts that a study “suggested that ISPs regularly throttle video content,” but the Commission makes no findings and the Notice does not recognize the thorough rebuttal debunking the claims in the paper. The Li et al. Study purported to show throttling of video sites by wireless providers, but as CTIA noted at the time, the study used simulated traffic between artificial network end points and failed to account for basic network engineering, consumer preference, or how mobile content is distributed. Consumers, for example, have the ability to alter video resolution settings or sign up for steaming service plans that offer varying levels of resolution. Additionally, many video applications take actions themselves to automatically adjust to a network’s available bandwidth to improve the user experience. What the study identified, if found in a real-world setting, would be either reasonable network management, consumer choice, or data management practices used by content providers. allegation was therefore without merit and does not show harm to Internet openness.[132]

As with its proposed ban on blocking, the Commission asserts that Title II regulation is necessary to ban throttling—a practice in which no one engages. Such assertions venture far from “reasoned analysis” territory and deep into “arbitrary and capricious” territory.

IV. General Conduct Standard[133]

In this NPRM, the Commission seeks to revive the General Conduct Standard (also known as the Internet Conduct Standard) that was removed in the 2018 Order.[134] The General Conduct Standard is a catch-all rule that would allow the Commission to intervene when it finds that an ISP’s conduct generally threatened end users or content providers under some principle of net neutrality.[135] As “guidance,” the Commission proposes a non-exhaustive list of factors that could possibly (but not necessarily) be used to prove a violation.[136] The factors comprise an uncertain mashup of competition law, consumer-protection law, and First Amendment law and include 1) the effect on end-user control; 2) competitive effects; 3) effect on consumer protection; 4) effect on innovation, investment, or broadband deployment; 5) effects on free expression; 6) whether the conduct is application-agnostic; and 7) whether the conduct conforms to standard industry practices.[137]

The U.S Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected US Telecom’s arguments that the 2015 General Conduct Rule should be invalidated.[138] Notwithstanding that decision, the Commission should be wary in moving forward with this provision. While the court may have found the General Conduct Standard was not vague in all its applications, the Court did not consider that, under State Farm, the Commission’s choice to implement such a far-reaching, ambiguous standard lacked a rational connection with FCC’s proffered facts.[139]

In the 2015 Order, the FCC claimed it had not created a novel, case-by-case standard, but rather that it was taking an approach similar to the “no unreasonable discrimination rule,” which was accompanied by four factors (end-user control, use-agnostic discrimination, standard practices, and transparency).[140] While the “no unreasonable discrimination rule” was grounded in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, basing the General Conduct Standard in Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act (in addition to Section 706) enabled an unprecedented expansion of FCC authority over the internet’s physical infrastructure.[141] Then-Commissioner Ajit Pai noted at the time:

The FCC’s newfound control extends to the design of the Internet itself, from the last mile through the backbone. Section 201(a) of the Communications Act gives the FCC authority to order “physical connections” and “through routes,” meaning the FCC can decide where the Internet should be built and how it should be interconnected. And with the broad Internet conduct standard, decisions about network architecture and design will no longer be in the hands of engineers but bureaucrats and lawyers. So if one Internet service provider wants to follow in the footsteps of Google Fiber and enter the market incrementally, the FCC may say no. If another wants to upgrade the bandwidth of its routers at the cost of some latency, the FCC may block it. Every decision to invest in ports for interconnection may be second-guessed; every use of priority coding to enable latency-sensitive applications like Voice over LTE may be reviewed with a microscope. How will this all be resolved? No one knows. 81-year-old laws like this don’t self-execute, and even in 317 pages, there’s not enough room for the FCC to describe how it would decide whether this or that broadband business practice is just and reasonable. So businesses will have to decide for themselves—with newly-necessary counsel from high-priced attorneys and accountants—whether to take a risk.”[142]

In the 2015 Order, the FCC relied on its 2010 findings, without advancing new evidence from the intervening five years of internet innovation to justify taking vastly greater authority over the physical infrastructure of the internet than it had in the 2010 Order.[143] In this NPRM, the Commission again advances no new evidence to justify such a massive takeover. The Commission contemplates using Sections 201 and 202 as the basis for the General Conduct Standard.[144] But when it previously invoked those sections and added more factors to the General Conduct Standard than were in the “no unreasonable discrimination rule,” it merely addressed the reason the rule was overturned by the D.C. Circuit in Verizon, rather than articulate a dire need to grab power.[145] Thus, the Commission again fails to articulate its need.

Vastly expanding the FCC’s authority to implement a vague list of non-exhaustive factors is a terrible way to determine rules of conduct for firms that necessarily invest billions of dollars in infrastructure over the course of decades. Even on the relatively shorter timescale required to offer innovative new service packages to consumers, a tremendous volume of negotiations are required among the broadband networks, rights holders, and any other third parties. The only practical way to comply with the General Conduct Standard would be to involve the FCC in business decisions at every level. For providers, such a “standard” cannot help but chill innovation and ultimately harm consumers through higher prices, reduced quality, and limited choice.

In addition, unlike the General Conduct Standard, which applies to both fixed and mobile broadband providers, the “no unreasonable discrimination rule” adopted in the 2010 Order only applied to fixed broadband providers.[146] The D.C. Circuit in US Telecom did not consider the FCC’s failure to create a rational connection between the facts the Commission found and its choice to establish a conduct standard for mobile in the 2015 Order. First, the FCC’s reliance on the 2015 Broadband Progress Report to demonstrate that the “virtuous cycle” was in peril did not consider mobile broadband. Second, the FCC attempted to sidestep the need to perform competitive analysis for imposing the standard on mobile by stating, “even if the mobile market is sufficiently competitive, competition alone is not sufficient to deter mobile providers from taking actions that would limit Internet openness.”[147] Instead, the FCC stated that the General Conduct Standard could apply to mobile based on a handful of “incidents.”[148] Closer inspection of the examples cited, however, critically undermine the foundation of the FCC’s argument.

One such example stated that “AT&T blocked Apple’s FaceTime iPhone and iPad applications over AT&T’s mobile data network in 2012.”[149] Already operating on Wi-Fi, Apple made FaceTime available over mobile operators’ networks starting with iOS 6, which launched in September 2012 and was designed to handle more data than previous iOS versions.[150] Sprint and Verizon announced that they would make the service available to mobile data subscribers of all data plans.[151] AT&T maintained that it was taking a more cautious approach and only made FaceTime available on shared data plans, because it could not sufficiently model how much subscribers would use the app and thus its network impact.[152]

If FaceTime use were to exceed modelled expectations, AT&T claimed that its network data usage may have adversely impacted voice quality.[153] In November 2012—two months after the release of a cellular version of FaceTime and without threat of FCC action—AT&T announced its network would support FaceTime on all tiered data plans with an LTE device, and would continue to monitor its network to expand the availability of FaceTime to customers on other billing plans.[154] An additional plausible explanation for AT&T’s actions is that it made FaceTime available over its mobile network four months after competitors Sprint and Verizon also announced they would make FaceTime available over on all data plans. On balance, in a year in which AT&T doubled its nationwide 4G LTE coverage, this example hardly seems the nefarious “they’ve done it before and will do it again” rationale trotted out in this and the handful of other examples cited by the FCC as justification for including mobile broadband under the Internet Conduct Standard.[155]

Theoretically, such a case-by-case standard should focus on the market’s ability to mitigate any alleged harms through competition. The General Conduct Standard is instead a novel, catch-all standard established without input from Congress.[156] It contains no insight as to which factor is most important, how the FCC will resolve the inevitable conflicts among factors, or even if the factors are dependent on one another or disjunctive.

This General Conduct Standard, in short, provides no meaningful guidance for firms or consumers, and leaves regulation up to the Commission’s whim.

V. Data Caps and Usage-Based Pricing

The NPRM is virtually silent on the topic of data caps, asserting only that individuals with disabilities “increasingly rely” on internet-based communications that are “particularly sensitive to data caps,”[157] and asking whether the Commission should require more detailed disclosures regarding the “requirements, restrictions, or standards for enforcement of data caps.”[158]

But this near silence in the NPRM appears to belie the Commission’s deep interest in regulating data caps. In June 2023, Chair Rosenworcel announced she would ask her fellow commissioners to support a formal notice of inquiry to learn more about how broadband providers use data caps on consumer plans.[159] The same day, the FCC launched a “Data Caps Stories Portal” for “consumers to share how data caps affect them.”[160] It would not be a stretch to surmise that the Commission intends to regulate data caps under the “general conduct” rules in its proposed Title II reclassification.

The NPRM is similarly silent on the issue of usage-based pricing and zero rating, with only a passing reference in a footnote[161] and a request for comments regarding whether “any zero rating or sponsored data practices that raise particular concerns under the proposed general conduct standard.”[162] Nevertheless, since the 2015 Order, at least some members of the Commission appear to have maintained keen interest in scrutinizing providers’ zero-rating offerings, with an eye toward regulating them. For example, in the last days of the Obama administration, the Commission released a report of a staff review of sponsored data and zero-rating practices in the mobile-broadband market.[163] In a letter to Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the Commission summarized its conclusions:

While reiterating that zero-rating per se does not raise concerns, it finds that two of the programs reviewed, AT&T’s “Sponsored Data” program and Verizon’s “FreeBee Data 360” program. present significant risks to consumers and competition. In particular, these sponsored data offerings may harm consumers and competition by unreasonably discriminating in favor of downstream providers owned or affiliated with the network providers. The Commission has long been concerned about the ability and incentives of network owners to thwart their downstream competitors’ ability to serve consumers.

In the early days of the Trump administration, the Commission announced it would end its inquiry into zero rating.[164] Chair Rosenworcel has added her view that: “A lot about zero net rating is about data caps.”[165] She also had expressed her concerns with zero rating:

But over the long haul, what that does is it constrains where you can go and what you can do online. Because you’ll get a fast lane to go to all of those sites that your broadband provider has set up a deal with, and you’ll get consigned to a bumpy road if you want to see anything else. And that erodes net neutrality over time.[166]

AT&T, probably more familiar than most with the Commission simultaneously declaring that it abjure rate regulation only to shoehorn such regulation into catch-all General Conduct rules, notes in comments to this proceeding:

For example, the proposed conduct rule raises the investment-killing specter of rate regulation, despite the Commission’s empty assurances to the contrary. ISPs have seen this movie before. The Commission similarly forswore rate regulation in 2015, yet it followed up a year later with threats to punish ISPs under the conduct rule for the rate structure of their sponsored data programs, which offered consumers the economic equivalent of bundled discounts and thus provided more broadband for less. Indeed, even while denying plans for rate regulation, the NPRM itself vows to scrutinize the structure of broadband pricing plans for evidence of “prohibit[ed] unjust and unreasonable charges.” Long-term revenues are difficult enough to project even in the absence of such unpredictable regulatory prohibitions. But the prospect of creeping rate regulation would further imperil the business case for investment by threatening to upend assumptions about future revenue streams.[167]

The Commission appears to be playing coy. It gives the impression that it has little interest in regulating data caps or zero rating, yet it also has a long and ongoing history of making moves to regulate such practices. In the remainder of this section, we explain that, in most cases, nonlinear pricing models like zero rating are pro-competitive and benefit ISPs, consumers, and edge providers alike.

A. Nonlinear Pricing Models Are Pro-Consumer

Forbidding usage-based pricing for internet service can actually frustrate consumer demand for data and content. With so-called “neutral” pricing, consumers have little ability or incentive to prioritize their own internet use based on preferences, beyond simply consuming or not consuming the service altogether. This creates deadweight loss, as users forgo benefits from services they cannot afford under an all-or-nothing full-access model. It also encourages inefficient network-usage patterns since consumers cannot signal their priorities. Additionally, restricting pricing models limits innovation in offerings that could leverage more nuanced pricing approaches. The rigid one-size-fits-all nature of “neutral” pricing can negatively impact consumer welfare and network efficiency.

With undifferentiated pricing, the cost to users is the same for high-value, low-bandwidth data (e.g., telehealth) as it is for low-value, high-bandwidth data (e.g., photo hosting), so long as the user’s total bandwidth allotment is not exceeded. Undifferentiated pricing can lead consumers to overconsume lower-value data like photo sharing while under-consuming higher-value uses like telehealth. Content developers respond by overinvesting in the former and underinvesting in the latter. The end result is a net reduction in the overall value of both available and consumed content, along with network underinvestment.

The notion that consumers and competition benefit when users lack incentives to consider their own usage runs counter to basic economic principles. Evidence does not support the proposition that preventing consumers and providers from prioritizing high-value uses leads to optimal outcomes. More flexibility in pricing and service tiers could better align investment and usage with true value.

The goal of broadband policy should be to optimize internet use in a way that maximizes value for consumers, while offering incentivizes for innovation and investment. This requires usage-based pricing and prioritization models tailored to address congestion issues efficiently. Since consumer preferences are diverse, a flexible approach is needed, rather than one-size-fits-all mandates. ISPs should have room to experiment with options that encourage users to prioritize data based on their individual needs and willingness to pay. Effective policy aims for an internet that maximizes benefits and incentives for all through flexible, value-driven models.

Evidence does not support claims that restricting providers from accounting for externalities improves outcomes. In fact, usage-based pricing and congestion pricing could, in many cases, encourage expansion of network capacity.[168] It is possible that, under some conditions, differential pricing could provide incentives for artificial network scarcity.[169] If that is the concern, however, economic analysis should clearly establish when such risks exist before regulating. Additionally, regulation should be narrowly targeted to address only proven harms, while avoiding constraints on beneficial incentives for investment, usage, and innovation.

Importantly, limiting ISP pricing flexibility may hinder faster network construction and ultimately reduce consumer welfare. In a 2013 paper, former DOJ Chief Economist and current FTC Chief Economist Aviv Nevo (and co-authors) explained:

Our results suggest that usage-based pricing is an effective means to remove low-value traffic from the Internet, while improving overall welfare. Consumers adopt higher speeds, on average, which lowers waiting costs. Yet overall usage falls slightly. The effect on subscriber welfare depends on the alternative considered. If we hold the set of plans, and their prices, constant, then usage-based pricing is a transfer of surplus from consumers to ISPs. However, if we let the ISP set price to maximize revenues, then consumers are better off.[170]

The authors further note that overall (and ISP) welfare could be increased further with $100/month flat-rate pricing on a Gigabit network. But as the authors note, “[f]rom the ISP’s perspective, the capital costs of such investment would be recovered in approximately 150…months. Similarly, this estimate is a lower bound on the actual time required.”[171]

While such cost recovery is feasible, it assumes no significant changes in technology, regulation, or demand that would alter the calculation; relatively high population density; and, most importantly, the ability to charge relatively high rates, leading to decreased penetration. And the authors further note that the optimal fixed fee for Gigabit was almost $200/month. While:

This revenue-maximizing price is in the middle of the range of prices currently offered for Gigabit service in the US…, due to restrictions on rates from local municipalities, an ISP may have a difficult time charging this rate.[172]

The bottom line is that regulatory restrictions on pricing generally serve to reduce welfare and incentives for broadband investment. The FCC should avoid adopting such restrictions, particularly without the evidence or economic analysis sufficient to justify them.

B. The Record Reflects that the Commission Should Not Interfere with Usage-Based Pricing

Data caps lay at the heart of zero rating and usage-based pricing. Thus, it is unsurprising that the Commission has taken the first steps to inquire about consumers’ experiences with data caps, especially given its demonstrated antagonism toward zero rating. But without data caps, zero rating certain applications is irrelevant because, effectively, every application is zero rated. Similarly, without data caps, usage-based billing is meaningless from the consumer’s standpoint, as data would be “too cheap to meter.”

Practically speaking, data caps are one of many ways in which providers can use pricing and data allowances to manage network congestion. Even so, it appears that consumer demand is guiding providers away from data caps. According to Statista, 45% of mobile consumers say they have unlimited data plans.[173] It should be axiomatic that consumers who subscribe to unlimited data plans prefer those plans over the alternatives.[174] Perhaps that’s why OpenVault reports a “trend” among many operators to provide unlimited data to their gigabit subscribers.[175] If this continues, data caps and, in turn, zero rating and usage-based billing may soon be practices of the past, much like long-distance telephone charges.[176] EFF’s comments in this matter echo this observation:

Given abundant capacity, throttling, paid prioritization, and data caps become all the more unreasonable. This is already apparent in broadband plans, both wireline and mobile, where increasingly there are very high to no data caps. As more fiber is laid, data caps should disappear altogether. Certainly, the need to manage the volume of traffic as a matter of “reasonable network management” will be even less plausible than it is today as time goes on.[177]

Until the day that data caps “disappear altogether,” however, providers will likely continue offering plans with zero rating or usage-based pricing. Because we still live in a world of limited capacity and periodic congestion, zero-rating policies provide a benefit to many consumers, as reported in our comments in this matter.[178] Free State Foundation’s comments support our conclusion:

The regulatory uncertainty caused by the Title II Order’s general conduct standard and the Wheeler FCC’s investigation of free data plans effectively halted new offerings for unlimited data plans. But the Pai FCC’ rescission of the Wheeler FCC’s report and the RIF Order’s repeal of the Title II Order provided a market climate hospitable to innovative “free data plans.”156 And there is no evidence in the Notice of anyone being harmed by the offering of such plans. Accordingly, the Commission should not risk the elimination of “free data plans” by reimposing public utility regulation and the vague “general conduct” standard. The existing policy of market freedom should be retained to the benefit of consumers. Or at the most, the Commission should analyze future complaints involving innovations like “free data” plans under a commercially reasonable standard such as the one addressed later in these comments.[179]

Layton & Jamison further highlight the benefits of zero rating in encouraging U.S. veterans to connect with U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health-care providers:

The US Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) video app which is called VA Video Connect and is offered in partnership with US broadband providers, allows veterans and caregivers to meet with VA healthcare providers via a computer, tablet, or mobile device without data charges. The VA reported that more than 120,000 veterans accessed the app (Wicklund, 2020), which was important because VA hospitals were under high stress during the pandemic and could not maintain their prior level of routine care. The VA also reported that the app increased the VA’s ability to reach roughly 2.6 million veterans from remote locations with limited transportation or hesitancy over in-person, medical visits. Politico reported, “Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs are privately sounding the alarm that California’s new net neutrality law could cut off veterans nationwide from a key telehealth app.”[180]

The Commission’s antagonism toward data caps and zero rating has always been somewhat misguided. Past and future investments in broadband capacity, however, have and will render efforts to regulate, reign in, or eliminate such practices increasingly unnecessary, unwarranted, and quixotic.

[1] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Sep. 28, 2023) [hereinafter “NPRM”] at ¶1.

[2] Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 (Mar. 15, 2015) [hereinafter “2015 Order”].

[3] Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108 (Jan. 4, 2018) [hereinafter “2018 Order”]

[4] NPRM at ¶114.

[5] Maria Browne, David Gossett, K. C. Halm, Nancy Libin, Christopher Savage, & John Seiver, Here We Go Again—FCC Proposes to Revive Net Neutrality Rules, JD Supra (Oct. 2, 2023), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/here-we-go-again-fcc-proposes-to-revive-5527239.

[6] Daniel Lyons, Why Resurrect Net Neutrality?, AEIdeas (Oct. 4, 2023), https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/why-resurrect-net-neutrality.

[7] ICLE, Notice of Ex Parte Meetings, Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108 (Nov. 6, 2017), available at https://laweconcenter.org/images/articles/icle_fcc_rif_ex_parte.pdf. See also, ICLE, Policy Comments, WC Docket No. 17-108 (July 17, 2017), available at https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/icle-comments_policy_rif_nprm-final.pdf.

[8] Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C. v. Food & Drug Admin., No. 21-60766, 21-60800 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (quoting Greater Bos. Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (footnote omitted); accord Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 222 (2016) (“When an agency changes its existing position, it … must at least display awareness that it is changing position and show that there are good reasons for the new policy.” (quotation and citation omitted)).

[9] Comments of NCTA, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 49.

[10] NPRM at ¶1 (“[T]he COVID-19 pandemic … demonstrated how essential broadband Internet connections are for consumers’ participation in our society and economy.”).

[11] Id. (“Congress responded by investing tens of billions of dollars into building out broadband Internet networks and making access more affordable and equitable, culminating in the generational investment of $65 billion in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.”).

[12] NPRM at ¶3 (“[R]eclassification will strengthen the Commission’s ability to secure communications networks and critical infrastructure against national security threats.”).

[13] Id. (“[T]his authority will allow the Commission to protect consumers, including by issuing straightforward, clear rules to prevent Internet service providers from engaging in practices harmful to consumers, competition, and public safety, and by establishing a uniform, national regulatory approach rather than disparate requirements that vary state-by-state.”).

[14] Id.

[15] NPRM at ¶1.

[16] NPRM at ¶16.

[17] NPRM at ¶17.

[18] Id.

[19] Comments of ICLE, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 4, 9-18.

[20] Id.

[21] NPRM at ¶17 (citing Colleen McClain et al., The Internet and the Pandemic: 1. How the internet and technology shaped Americans’ personal experiences amid COVID-19, Pew Research Center (Sep. 1, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/how-the-internet-andtechnology-shaped-americans-personal-experiences-amid-covid-19.

[22] Monica Anderson & John B. Horrigan, Americans Have Mixed Views on Policies Encouraging Broadband Adoption, Pew Research Center (Apr. 10, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/04/10/americans-have-mixed-views-on-policies-encouraging-broadband-adoption (“[R]oughly nine-in-ten Americans describe high-speed internet service as either essential (49%) or important but not essential (41%)”).

[23] Emily A. Vogels, Andrew Perrin, Lee Rainie, & Monica Anderson, 53% of Americans Say the Internet Has Been Essential During the COVID-19 Outbreak, Pew Research Center (Apr. 30, 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/04/30/53-of-americans-say-the-internet-has-been-essential-during-the-covid-19-outbreak.

[24] NPRM at ¶17.

[25] OpenVault, Broadband Insights Report (OVBI) 4Q22 (Feb. 8, 2023), https://openvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/OVBI_4Q22_Report.pdf.

[26] See, NPRM at ¶131 (describing the “virtuous cycle” as one in which “market signals on both sides of ISPs’ platforms encourage consumer demand, content creation, and innovation, with each respectively increasing the other, providing ISPs incentives to invest in their networks.”)

[27] OpenVault, Broadband Industry Report (OVBI) 3Q 2019, (Nov. 11, 2019), https://telecompetitor.com/clients/openvault/Q3/Openvault_Q319_Final.pdf; OpenVault, Broadband Insights Report (OVBI) 3Q21, (Nov. 15, 2021), https://openvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/OVBI_3Q21_Report.pdf; OpenVault, Broadband Insights Report (OVBI) 3Q23, (Nov. 3, 2023), https://openvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/OVBI_3Q23_Report_FINAL.pdf.

[28] NPRM at ¶17.

[29] CTIA, 2023 Annual Survey Highlights (Nov. 2, 2023), available at https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-Annual-Survey-Highlights.pdf.

[30] NPRM at ¶1.

[31] NPRM at n. 59.

[32] ICLE Comments, supra n. 19, at 3.

[33] Comments of the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 12. See also, Comments of CTIA, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 43 (“In the Notice, the Commission ignores that Congress has recently acted to address the ‘availability and affordability of BIAS’ via the IIJA, which focused on BIAS in detail and, throughout that lengthy discussion, chose not to apply Title II.”). See also, Comments of NCTA, supra n. 9, at 83 (“The $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (‘IIJA’) that President Biden signed into law in November 2021, for example, allocates $65 billion to support broadband deployment, adoption, and digital equity across the country, without regard to broadband’s regulatory classification.”) and id. 84 (“As with legislation relating to national security and other issues, the fact that Congress took comprehensive action on broadband affordability and adoption without requiring or authorizing regulation of broadband as a Title II service speaks volumes.”).

[34] NPRM at ¶3.

[35] NPRM at ¶25.

[36] NPRM at ¶119.

[37] Comments of the Free State Foundation, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 22.

[38] Comments of CPAC Center for Regulatory Freedom, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 9.

[39] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (Feb. 6, 2023), available at https://www.odni.gov/files/odni/documents/assessments/ata-2023-unclassified-report.pdf.

[40] Daniel R. Coats, Statement for the Record, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Senate Armed Services Committee (May 23, 2017) at 1-2, available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/newsroom/testimonies/sasc%202017%20ata%20sfr%20-%20final.pdf.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] Comments of the Free State Foundation, supra n. 36, at 22.

[44] NPRM at ¶¶21, 26, 27.

[45] Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 36.

[46] Comments of AT&T, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 20-21.

[47] Comments of TechFreedom, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 46 (“The Communications Act specifies that ‘public safety services’ are those which are ‘not made commercially available to the public by the provider.’ Accordingly, the 2015 Order explicitly ‘excluded [such services] from the definition of mobile [BIAS].’ Likewise, the Act defines a ‘telecommunications service’ (the thing Title II covers) as ‘the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public.’ Accordingly, the 2015 Order applied Title II only to ‘broadband Internet access service’ (BIAS), defined as a ‘mass-market retail service’ offered ‘directly to the public.’”)

[48] Id. at 44-45. See also, Comments of Technology Policy Institute, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 39 (“But this example highlights the need for public safety to have prioritized access to networks, which demonstrates potential benefits of prioritization.”). See also, Comments of AT&T at 20-21 (“FirstNet users never compete with commercial traffic for bandwidth, and the network does not throttle them anywhere in the country in any circumstances.”)

[49] NPRM at ¶21.

[50] NPRM at ¶21.

[51] NPRM at ¶21.

[52] NPRM at ¶96.

[53] Comments of NCTA, supra n. 9, at 10.

[54] NPRM at ¶24.

[55] Section 177 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7507) is a provision that allows states to adopt and enforce California’s motor vehicle emission standards, which are often more stringent than federal standards. This section was implemented due to California’s unique authority to set emission standards, as it had vehicle regulations that preceded the federal Clean Air Act. See also, California Air Resources Board, Section 177 States Regulation Dashboard (2024), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/states-have-adopted-californias-vehicle-regulations.

[56] Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean, 342 F.3d 96, 104 (2003), citing Cooley v. Bd. of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299, 319 (1852).

[57] See, e.g., Geoffrey A. Manne & Joshua D. Wright, Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust, 6 J. Competition L. & Econ. 153 (2010).

[58] FACT SHEET: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel Proposes to Restore Net Neutrality Rules, Fed. Commc’n Comm’n. (Sep. 26, 2023), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397235A1.pdf.

[59] In public comments, Commissioners have invoked a fifth example regarding 2018 allegations of Verizon throttling the Santa Clara Fire Department’s wireless broadband service during a wildfire emergency. However, it’s unlikely the service would have been subject to Title II regulation and, even if it was, whether such regulation would have addressed the allegations in this particular example. See, for example, Comments of TechFreedom, supra n. 46, at 44-45. It is perhaps for these reasons that this example was not included in the NPRM, except obliquely in a footnote. See NPRM at n. 56.

[60] NPRM at n. 7.

[61] Declan McCullagh, Telco Agrees to Stop Blocking VoIP Calls, CNET (Mar. 5, 2005), https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls.

[62] NPRM at n. 7.

[63] Comments of TechFreedom, supra n. 46, at 27.

[64] NPRM at ¶128.

[65] See, Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 11 (“[T]he Commission makes no findings and the Notice does not recognize the thorough rebuttal debunking the claims in the paper.”). See also, Comments of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 5 (“[T]he Commission cites a single 2019 study regarding alleged throttling practices by wireless ISPs in the U.S. and elsewhere—the methodology, veracity, and import of which has been contested by providers and others.”)

[66] Comments of ICLE, supra n. 19, at 29.

[67] NPRM at n. 484. See also, Comments of CTIA at 10-11.

[68] Comments of the Scalia Law Clinic, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 6. Critics of the net neutrally repeal advanced a parade of horribles, speculating that internet providers would engage in various undesirable practices, including throttling, anticompetitive paid-prioritization, and blocking. Yet none of this has come to pass. To date, there is no credible evidence of internet service providers engaging in blocking, throttling, or anticompetitive paid prioritization. That is unsurprising given the competitive environment. See RIF, 83 Fed. Reg. 7900 (“[N]o Internet paid prioritization agreements have yet been launched in the United States, rendering any concerns about such practices purely theoretical.”), id. at 7901 (“[T]here is scant evidence that end users, under different legal frameworks, have been prevented by blocking or throttling from accessing the content of their choosing.”); USTelecom Reply Comments, supra, at 7-8 (“[The 2018 Order’s critics] raise alarm regarding the potential for harmful blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization, but the record lacks any evidence that ISPs have employed these practices since the RIF Order took effect.”); Charter Communications, Inc., Comments on Restoring Internet Freedom, at 3 (Apr. 20, 2020) (“For the nineteen years before the Commission’s Title II Order, there were only isolated incidents of purported ISP blocking or discrimination, and there is no evidence that ISPs have engaged in such practices since the adoption of the RIF Order in 2017.”).

[69] Comments of TechFreedom, supra n. 46, at 28.

[70] Comments of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 7. See also, Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 19 (“The Notice does not identify a single BIAS provider that has disclosed it engages in blocking or throttling or paid prioritization, or a single instance where a BIAS provider has failed to make such a disclosure in violation of existing law. This more than demonstrates that market forces and transparency are sufficient to prevent harm to openness, and there is no basis to re- impose the Internet conduct rules.”). See also, Comments of NCTA, supra n. 9, at 53 (“[A]s the Commission is well aware, providers’ commitments are enshrined in their disclosures under the Commission’s Transparency Rule, which the Commission can independently enforce—holding providers to their obligations to clearly and publicly disclose on their websites the terms and conditions of their broadband offerings, including any practices regarding blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.”)

[71] Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 18-19.

[72] Id. at 12.

[73] Roslyn Layton & Mark Jamison, Net Neutrality in the USA During COVID-19, in Beyond the Pandemic? Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Telecommunications and the Internet (Jason Whalley, Volker Stocker & William Lehr eds., 2023).

[74] Comments of CTIA at 97.

[75] Many of our findings and conclusion submitted during the 2018 Order’s rulemaking process remain true today and much of this section builds on those comments. ICLE, Policy Comments, supra n. 7.

[76] Id. at 73-74.

[77]Ángel Martin Oro, Interview: Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein on “Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment,” Sintetia (Jul. 7, 2014), http://www.sintetia.com/interview-nicolai-j-foss-and-peter-g-klein-on-organizing-entrepreneurial-judgment. See also Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (2014).

[78] See Thomas W. Hazlett & Joshua D. Wright, The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality, 45 Ind. L. Rev. 767 (2012).

[79] See, e.g., Robin S. Lee & Tim Wu, Subsidizing Creativity Through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality, 23 J. Econ. Perspectives 61, 67 (2009).

[80] Michael Weinberg, But For These Rules…., Public Knowledge (Sep. 10, 2013), https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/these-rules.

[81] Public Knowledge, Petition to Deny, In the Matter of Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company and NBC Universal, Inc. for Consent to Assign Licenses or Transfer Control of Licensees, MB Docket No. 10-56, available at https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/PK-nbc-comcast-20100621.pdf.

[82] See generally Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets, 1 J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 990 (2003).

[83] Larry F. Darby & Joseph P. Fuhr, Jr., Consumer Welfare, Capital Formation and Net Neutrality: Paying for Next Generation Broadband Networks, 16 Media L. & Pol’y 122, 123 (2007).

[84] Marc Bourreau, Frago Kourandi & Tommaso Valletti, Net Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms, 63 J. Indus. Econ. 1 (2015).

[85] Paul Njoroge et al., Investment in Two-Sided Markets and the Net Neutrality Debate, 12 Rev. Network Econ. 355, 361 (2013). Some previous papers have found the opposite result in some instances. All of these models exclude important aspects of the more updated literature, however. See Id. 362-65, for a literature review. One, in particular, finds a welfare increase from neutrality, although not with monopoly platforms, interestingly. But this paper does not incorporate infrastructure investment incentives in its models. See Nicholas Economides & Joacim Tåg, Network Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-sided Market Analysis, 24 Info. Econ. & Pol’y 91 (2012).

[86] Marc Borreau, et al., supra n. 85 at 33-34.

[87] NPRM at ¶160.

[88] Id.

[89] Comments of the Technology Policy Institute, supra n. 47, at 15.

[90] ICLE Policy Comments, supra n. 7, at 50.

[91] See, e.g., Daniel A. Lyons, Innovations in Mobile Broadband Pricing, 92 Denv. U. L. Rev. 453 (2015).

[92] Mark A. Jamison & Janice Hauge, Dumbing Down the Net: A Further Look at the Net Neutrality Debate, Internet Policy And Economics: Challenges And Perspectives 57-71 (William H. Lehr & Lorenzo Maria Pupillo, eds., 2009).

[93] See, e.g., Lee & Wu, supra n. 77, at 67.

[94] See Ronald H. Coase, Payola in Radio and Television Broadcasting, 22 J.L. & Econ. 269 (1979), available at http://old.ccer.edu.cn/download/7874-3.pdf.

[95] See Stephen M. Bainbridge, Manne on Insider Trading (UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 08-04), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096259.

[96] See Gabriel Rossman, Climbing the Charts: What Radio Airplay Tells Us about the Diffusion of Innovation (2012).

[97] Joshua D. Wright, Slotting Contracts and Consumer Welfare, 74 Antitrust L. J. 439, 448 (2007). See also Benjamin Klein & Joshua D. Wright, The Economics of Slotting Contracts, 50 J. L. & Econ. 421 (2007).

[98] Klein & Wright, supra note 5 at 422.

[99] Id. at 423-24.

[100] NPRM at ¶158.

[101] See, e.g., Jan Krämer & Lukas Wiewiorra, Network Neutrality and Congestion Sensitive Content Providers: Implications for Service Innovation, Broadband Investment and Regulation, (MPRA Paper No. 27003, Oct. 2010), available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/27003/1/MPRA_paper_27003.pdf. See also Drew Fitzgerald, How the Web’s Fast Lanes Would Work Without Net Neutrality, Wall St. J. (May 16, 2014), http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579565880257774274.

[102] See Mark A. Jamison & Janice A. Hauge, Getting What You Pay For: Analyzing The Net Neutrality Debate (TPRC 2007) at 14-15, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081690. (“When the non-degradation condition holds, a network provider will increase network capacity when providing premium transmission service.”).

[103] Steven Musil, Netflix: We’re the Ones Throttling Videos Speeds on AT&T and Verizon, CNET (Mar. 24, 2016), https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-admits-throttling-video-speeds-on-at-t-verizon.

[104] Comments of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 15.

[105] U.S. Department of State, Passport Fees (Aug. 1, 2023), https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/how-apply/fees.html.

[106] Federal Highway Administration, High-Occupancy Toll Lanes (Partial Facility Pricing) (Feb. 11, 2022), https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestionpricing/strategies/involving_tolls/hot_lanes.htm.

[107] Comments of ICLE, supra n. 19, at 7.

[108] Id.

[109] Id. at 23.

[110] Comments of ITIF, supra n. 69, at 7-8.

[111] Comments of the Free State Foundation, supra n. 36, at 29. See also, Comments of the Scalia Law Clinic, supra n. 67, at 7 (“Prioritization can be helpful in the public safety context and allows for providers to make ‘tradeoffs’ that can help increase speed and accessibility for all.”)

[112] Comments of NCTA, supra n. 9, at 72.

[113] Comments of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, supra n. 102, at 15.

[114] Comments of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 39.

[115] Id. at 7.

[116] NPRM at ¶150.

[117] Id.

[118] NPRM at ¶152.

[119] Patrick, Chasing Away Elephants, Fairytalenight.com (Apr. 16, 2020), https://www.fairytalenight.com/2020/04/16/chasing-away-elephants (“A man is walking down the street, clapping his hands together every ten seconds. Asked by another man, why he is performing this peculiar behavior, he responds: ‘I’m clapping to scare away the elephants.’ Visibly puzzled, the second man notes that there are no elephants there, where upon the clapping man replies: ‘See, it works!’”)

[120] There is, however, a pro-competitive explanation for Comcast’s alleged conduct. Comments of TechFreedom, supra n. 46, at 27 (Explaining that intensive file-sharing traffic was causing such severe latency and jitter that it made VoIP telephony unusable. Comcast wanted to launch its VoIP offering with dedicated network capacity but feared accusations of making it impossible for rival VoIP services to compete. Throttling BitTorrent was pro-competitive in that it allowed Comcast and its competitors to offer VoIP services.) In addition, in the wake of the Comcast matter, Micro Transport Protocol, or μTP, was developed reduce congestion related to peer-to-peer file sharing. See, Drake Baer, How BitTorrent Rewrote the Rules of the Internet, Fast Company (Mar. 5, 2014), https://www.fastcompany.com/3026852/how-bittorrent-rewrote-the-rules-of-the-internet.

[121] NPRM at ¶152.

[122] ICLE & TechFreedom, Policy Comments, GN Docket No. 14-28 (Jul. 17, 2014) at 15-16, https://laweconcenter.org/resources/icle-techfreedom-policy-comments.

[123] NPRM at ¶153.

[124] NPRM at ¶156.

[125] NPRM at ¶156.

[126] Comments of TechFreedom, supra n. 46, at 2.

[127] Id.

[128] Comments of 5G America, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 8.

[129] NPRM at ¶128.

[130] See, Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 11 (“[T]he Commission makes no findings and the Notice does not recognize the thorough rebuttal debunking the claims in the paper.”). See also, Comments of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supra n. 64, at 5 (“[T]he Commission cites a single 2019 study regarding alleged throttling practices by wireless ISPs in the U.S. and elsewhere—the methodology, veracity, and import of which has been contested by providers and others.”).

[131] Comments of ICLE, supra n. 19, at 29.

[132] Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 10-11.

[133] Many of our findings and conclusion submitted during the 2018 Order’s rulemaking process remain true today and much of this section builds on those comments. ICLE, Policy Comments, supra n. 7

[134] NPRM at ¶166.

[135] NPRM at ¶165

[136] NPRM at ¶165.

[137] Id.

[138] United States Telecom Ass’n v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 825 F.3d 674, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

[139] Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52 (1983).

[140] 2015 Order at ¶138.

[141] Report and Order, In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, ¶68 (Dec. 23, 2010), [hereinafter “2010 Order”]; 2015 Order, supra n. 2, at ¶137.

[142] Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai, In the Matter of Protecting & Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28, 30 F.C.C. Rcd. 5601, 5921 (2015).

[143] 2015 Order at ¶137-38.

[144] NPRM at ¶167.

[145] Cellco Partnership v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 700 F.3d 534, 548 (D.C. Cir, 2012); Verizon v. F.C.C., 740 F.3d 623, 657 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

[146] 2010 Order at ¶68.

[147] 2015 Order at ¶148.

[148] Id.

[149] 2015 Order at n. 123. See also, Comments of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, WC Docket No. 23-320 (Dec. 14, 2023) at 7.

[150] Jordan Crook, Apple Introduces iOS 6, Coming This Fall, TechCrunch (Jun. 11, 2012), https://techcrunch.com/2012/06/11/apple-announces-ios-6-wwdc.

[151] 9to5Mac, Sprint Says It Will Not Charge For FaceTime Over Network, Verizon Calls iOS 6 Pricing Conversations ‘Premature’, 9to5Mac (Jul. 18, 2012), https://9to5mac.com/2012/07/18/sprint-says-it-will-not-charge-for-facetime-over-cellular-verizon-calls-talk-premature; Jon Brodkin, Verizon Will Enable iPhone’s FaceTime On All Data Plans, Unlike AT&T, ArsTechnica (Sep. 13, 2012), https://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/09/verizon-will-enable-iphones-facetime-on-all-data-plans-unlike-att.

[152] Jim Cicconi, A Few Thoughts On FaceTime, AT&T Public Policy (Nov. 8, 2012), https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/a-few-thoughts-on-facetime.

[153] Id.; At the time, a FaceTime call consumed on average 2-4 times more bandwidth than a similar call carried out via Skype. FCC, Open Internet Advisory Committee – 2013 Annual Report, at 3.

[154] Jim Cicconi, A Few Thoughts On FaceTime, AT&T Public Policy (Nov. 8, 2012), https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/broadband/a-few-thoughts-on-facetime.

[155] Press Release, AT&T, AT&T 4G LTE Coverage Double In 2012 (Nov. 16, 2012), https://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=23553&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=35717.

[156] And note, such a vast arrogation of power surely will factor into a “major questions analysis.” See, Comments of ICLE, surpra n. 19, at nn. 153-185, and accompanying text.

[157] NPRM at ¶120.

[158] NPRM at ¶175.

[159] FCC, Chairwoman Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate How Data Caps Affect Consumers and Competition (Jun. 15, 2023), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-394416A1.pdf.

[160] FCC, FCC Launches Data Cap Stories Portal (Jun. 21, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-governmental-affairs/fcc-launches-data-cap-stories-portal.

[161] NPRM at ¶534.

[162] NPRM at ¶166.

[163] FCC, Policy Review of Mobile Broadband Operators’ Sponsored Data Offerings for Zero-Rated Content and Services (Jan. 11, 2017), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-342987A1.pdf.

[164] FCC, Statement of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly on Conclusion of Zero Rating Inquiries (Feb. 3, 2017), available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-343340A1.pdf.

[165] Full Transcript: FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Answers Net Neutrality Questions on Too Embarrassed to Ask, Vox (Dec. 20, 2017), https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16797164/transcript-fcc-commissioner-jessica-rosenworcel-net-neutrality-questions-too-embarrassed-to-ask.

[166] Id.

[167] Comments of AT&T, supra n. 45 at 5-6.

[168] See generally, Robert D. Willig, Pareto Superior Nonlinear Outlay Schedules, 11 Bell J. Econ. 56 (1978).

[169] See Nicholas Economides, Why Imposing New Tolls on Third-Party Content and Applications Threatens Innovation and Will Not Improve Broadband Providers’ Investment (NYU Center for Law, Economics & Organization Working Paper No. 10-32, Jul. 2010), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1627347.

[170] Aviv Nevo, John L Turner, & Jonathan W. Williams, Usage-Based Pricing and Demand for Residential Broadband 38 (Working Paper, Sep. 12, 2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2330426.

[171] Id. at 37.

[172] Id. at 38.

[173] Most Common Mobile Data Plans in the U.S. as of September 2023, Statista (Nov. 2023), https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997206/most-common-mobile-data-plans-in-the-us (Response to the question, “How large is your monthly data volume according to your main smartphone contract/prepaid service?”).

[174] Comments of CTIA, supra n. 32, at 102-103 (“[U]sage-based pricing and zero-rating are quintessential examples of offers that facilitate choice. Usage-based pricing plans involve customers paying a fixed monthly fee for a fixed amount of data per month, so that consumers do not need to choose between “all you can eat” or nothing. Zero-rating involves certain traffic that does not count towards any usage-based pricing limit, meaning consumers get the benefits of more choice of price points and extra data”).

[175] OpenVault (2023), supra, n. 26.

[176] See, Comments of AT&T, supra, n. 45 at 26-27 (describing zero-rating as the “equivalent of toll-free calling”).

[177] Comments of Electronic Frontier Foundation, supra n. 146 at 14-15.

[178] ICLE comments, supra n. 19 at 30-32 (summarizing and FCC report concluding data caps provide revenues to fund broadband buildout, provide incentives to develop more efficient ways of delivering data-intensive services, and enable business-model experimentation).

[179] Comments of the Free State Foundation, supra n. 36 at 55-56.

[180] Layton & Jamison, supra n. 72, at 199.

IN THE MEDIA

Brian Albrecht on the FTC’s AI Investigation

Brian Albrecht • January 30, 2024

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was quoted by GZero, in a story about the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of investments by tech giants into smaller . . .

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was quoted by GZero, in a story about the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of investments by tech giants into smaller AI startups. You can read the full piece here.

Brian Albrecht, chief economist for the International Center for Law & Economics, said there’s no question that Khan “believes there was too little scrutiny on previous tech acquisitions and wants to get ahead.” He says she’s been overeager with a “desire to bring any tech case, instead of good cases” (such as the Meta-Within case). Still, while the FTC hasn’t yet brought a case against these AI investments, Albrecht says it “has a flavor of ‘we need to do something, and this is something.’”

…“The arrangement does not get some sort of special immunity because it isn’t a standard investment,” Albrecht says. “That being said, investments, joint ventures, strategic partnerships have often (and should) received more leniency from the agencies.”

…“The current state is that any Big Tech company has to worry about the FTC for any major investment or business decision they make,” Albrecht says. “That makes investments relatively more attractive than acquisitions.”

ICLE on Kroger and Albertsons’ Combined Market Share

ICLE • January 24, 2024

An ICLE white paper on the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons was cited by National Review in a story about a potential Federal Trade . . .

An ICLE white paper on the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons was cited by National Review in a story about a potential Federal Trade Commission challenge of the merger. You can read the full piece here.

Although the merger would likely make Kroger-Albertsons the second-largest retail store after Walmart, its market share would still be far behind that of Walmart. According to data from Euromonitor, a London-based research and consultancy firm, the combined market share of Kroger (8.1 percent) and Albertsons (4.8 percent) added up to only 12.9 percent, approximately half the market share of Walmart (25.2 percent). Other sources, such as the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), estimate an even lower combined market share for Kroger and Albertsons.

Brian Albrecht on the Economics of Degrowth

Brian Albrecht • January 24, 2024

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was interviewed by James Pethokoukis about the economics of the “degrowth” movement as part of a Q&A segment for Pethokoukis’ . . .

ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was interviewed by James Pethokoukis about the economics of the “degrowth” movement as part of a Q&A segment for Pethokoukis’ Substack newsletter Faster, Please! You can read the full piece here.

This is the most sensible contribution from degrowthers. On the surface, rich countries intentionally slowing resource usage to leave space for still-developing economies sounds sensible. Near term, this would marginally lower commodity prices from reduced US/European demand, helping poorer countries import more fossil fuels, minerals or timber at better prices. But this view remains excessively static.

We must ask what happens to long run incentives and innovation from demand constraints in wealthier countries. Imagine we implemented stringent resource consumption limits in the US a decade or more ago. Would breakthrough technologies like hydraulic fracturing still have emerged? What substitutes and efficiencies fail to materialize going forward if policy suppresses market signals communicating scarcity?

Lasting global equitable prosperity requires dramatically cheaper, cleaner energy and materials accessible to every part of the world. Rather than rationing machinery or plastic as extravagant indulgences, climate justice demands radical technology cost deflation through innovation. That only happens by rewarding entrepreneurs and innovators when they find ways to do more with less.

Lazar Radic & Dan Gilman on Epic v Apple

Lazar Radic & Daniel J. Gilman • January 24, 2024

ICLE Senior Scholars Lazar Radic and Daniel J. Gilman were quoted by the Washington Examiner in a story about the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to . . .

ICLE Senior Scholars Lazar Radic and Daniel J. Gilman were quoted by the Washington Examiner in a story about the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Epic v Apple decision. You can read the full piece here.

Scholars from the International Center for Law and Economics disagree, writing in the amicus brief they filed for the 9th Circuit that “ultimately, this case boils down to Epic wanting a free ride for its own Epic Games store and its own [in-app purchase] on [Apple’s operating system].”

ICLE senior scholar for competition policy Lazar Radic told the Washington Examiner that the injunction may expose consumers to “increased security and privacy threats posed by third-party in-app payment systems.” His colleague, Daniel Gilman, agreed and added that consumers are not likely to see lower prices or a greater selection of apps. He points to Epic’s own $245 million fine by the Federal Trade Commission in 2023 for “deceiving consumers and tricking them into making unauthorized purchases” as an example of the security risks posed by the injunction.

ICLE on McDonald’s v DesLandes

ICLE • January 2, 2024

An amicus brief submitted by ICLE to the U.S. Supreme Court was cited in a Law360 story about the McDonald’s v DesLandes no-poach case. You . . .

An amicus brief submitted by ICLE to the U.S. Supreme Court was cited in a Law360 story about the McDonald’s v DesLandes no-poach case. You can read full piece here.

The International Center for Law & Economics and the International Franchise Association both argued in Dec. 27 briefs that the Seventh Circuit wrongly opened up franchise-based arrangements, like McDonald’s rules that bar franchisees from hiring employees who had worked at another restaurant in the chain in the past six months, to treatment as per se or automatically illegal under U.S. antitrust law.

…ICLE argued that plaintiffs can invoke the per se standard and avoid the “presumption” in favor of rule of reason treatment “only when they show that the challenged restraint falls squarely within a class or category that ‘always or almost always’ harms competition.”

“For a court to make that prediction with confidence, it must have sufficient experience with the restraint. Here, the Seventh Circuit turned settled law on its head. From a dearth of experience, the court of appeals reasoned that a per se claim was plausible and sustainable. This approach threatens to chill interbrand competition,” the think tank said in its brief.

…”The economic literature shows that intrabrand vertical restraints tend to benefit competition. While there are circumstances under which certain vertical restraints can be anticompetitive, there is no literature demonstrating that they are typically anticompetitive,” the ICLE said. “In the franchise context, intrabrand vertical restraints strengthen the franchise’s brand overall and thus foster competition. The existence of some horizontal aspects or applications of such a restraint, moreover, does not negate these procompetitive virtues.”

…ICLE also criticized the Seventh Circuit for writing off “positive effects on consumers,” arguing courts are supposed to look at the full commercial realities of a situation.

“Economic arrangements should be measured by their overall competitive effects, factoring in their effects on consumer welfare. An overly formalistic repudiation of ‘cross-market’ effects risks condemnation of restraints that are, on balance, beneficial to both competition and consumers,” ICLE said.

Gus Hurwitz on Cases To Watch In 2024

Gus Hurwitz • January 1, 2024

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by Law360 about major cybersecurity and privacy cases to watch in 2024. You can . . .

ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was quoted by Law360 about major cybersecurity and privacy cases to watch in 2024. You can read full piece here.

“The FTC has decided to go for the jugular against Meta, and Meta is going for the jugular against the FTC,” Gus Hurwitz, the director of law and economics programs at the International Center for Law & Economics, said.

…The dispute reflects a broader shift in the relationship between the FTC and Big Tech, which until recently has been a largely “cooperative” one, with companies typically choosing to settle with the commission rather than fight its charges in legal proceedings, Hurwitz noted.

“Meta’s challenge really encapsulates how that relationship has fallen apart,” he said. “The current FTC seems to have decided that they don’t want to play that game any more and instead want to be more aggressive in pushing the boundaries of their authority, and when that happens, regulated companies like Meta are going to change their strategy as well.”

If Meta is successful in its constitutional challenge, the result would decimate the administrative process that the FTC regularly uses to adjudicate not only data privacy disputes but also the antitrust, consumer protection and data security matters it has authority over, likely making it harder for the FTC to extract settlements but requiring its complaints to be filed directly with the courts rather than be heard in-house, Hurwitz said.

The dispute could also end up drawing interest from the Supreme Court, which over the past decade has shown a keen interest in administrative law issues, according to Hurwitz, who noted that Meta’s new complaint was filed on the heels of the high court hearing oral arguments in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which challenges the constitutionality of the SEC’s in-house courts.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed poised during arguments to declare that in-house proceedings like the ones overseen by the SEC’s administrative law judges deprive defendants of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and Hurwitz said he’ll be watching to see how those proceedings impact Meta’s similar challenge.

Giuseppe Colangelo on Korea’s Platform Competition Promotion Act

Giuseppe Colangelo • January 16, 2024

ICLE Academic Affiliate Giuseppe Colangelo participated in a webinar hosted by the South Korean law firm Bae, Kim, & Lee exploring the proposed Platform Competition . . .

ICLE Academic Affiliate Giuseppe Colangelo participated in a webinar hosted by the South Korean law firm Bae, Kim, & Lee exploring the proposed Platform Competition Promotion Act. Video of the full webinar is embedded below.

ISSUE BRIEFS

Gerrymandered Market Definitions in FTC v Amazon

Geoffrey A. Manne • January 26, 2024

Introduction Market definition is a critical component of any antitrust case. Not only does it narrow consideration to a limited range of relevant products or . . .

Introduction

Alleging the relevant market in an antitrust case does not merely identify the portion of the economy most directly affected by the challenged conduct; it identifies the competitive process alleged to be harmed.[1]

This unfortunate trend—allegations of harm to artificially constrained and gerrymandered markets—is exemplified in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent proceedings against Amazon.

I. The Alleged ‘Online Superstore’ Market

A. Brick-and-Mortar Competes with Amazon Because Shopping Is Not the Same Thing as Consuming

Online shopping is almost certainly quicker than offline—at least, once one is sitting in front of a computer with Internet access. But the complaint seems to conflate shopping with consuming.

B. ‘Depth and Breadth’ Isn’t Solely Available from Superstores, and Consumers Buy Products, Not Store Types

Moreover, online shoppers regularly use third-party sites to research (shop) for products, and these, too, aggregate information from across a huge range of sources. As Search Engine Land reports:

Reviews and ratings can make or break a sale more than any other factor, including product price, free shipping, free returns and exchanges, and more.

Overall, 77% of respondents said they specifically seek out websites with reviews—and this number was even higher for Gen Z (87%) and millennials (81%).[33]

II. The Alleged ‘Online Marketplace Services’ Market

The complaint is similarly flawed when it assesses the scope of competition from the point of view of sellers.

Also remarkable is that he FTC’s complaint alleges that SaaS providers are not in the relevant market because:

SaaS providers, unlike online marketplace service providers, do not provide access to an established U.S. customer base. Rather, merchants that use SaaS providers to establish direct-to-consumer online stores must invest in marketing and promotion to attract U.S. shoppers to their online stores.[40]

And Google Shopping is not alone. Selling through social media has boomed. According to one source, Instagram is an online-shopping juggernaut.[44] Among other things:

130 million people engage with shoppable Instagram posts monthly;
72% of users say they made a purchase based on something they saw on Instagram;
70% of Instagram users open the app in order to shop; and
81% of Instagram users research new products and services on the platform.[45]

III. Cluster Markets

A. Assessing Cluster Markets

Widespread use (and the occasional fairly serious analysis) of cluster markets notwithstanding, it is worth noting that the economic logic of such markets is, at best, poorly established.

In the UMG/EMI case, for example, the Commission rested on the following factors in concluding that markets should not be separated out by genre (let alone by artist):

The market investigation showed that, by and large, a segmentation of the recorded music market based on genre is not appropriate. First, the borders between genres are often blurred and artists and songs can fit within several genres at the same time. Second, several customers also underline that placing of a song or an album into a specific genre is entirely subjective. Third, a vast majority of customers indicated that they purchase and sell all genres of music.[54]

In fact, the defendants in PNB argued before the district court that:

commercial banking in its entirety is not a product line. Rather, they submit it is a business which has two major subdivisions—the acceptance of deposits in which the bank is the debtor, and the making of loans in which the bank is the creditor. Both of these major divisions are further divided by distinct types of deposits and loans. As to many of these functions, there are different types of customers, different market areas, and, most importantly, different types of competitors and competition. With the possible exception of demand deposits, there is an identical or effective substitute for each one of the services which a commercial bank offers.[56]

The court, however, rejected these arguments with little more than a wave of the hand (a conclusion that was then simply accepted by the Supreme Court):

It seems quite apparent that both plaintiff’s and defendants’ positions have some merit. However, it is not the intention of this Court to subdivide a commercial bank into certain selected services and functions. An approach such as this, carried to the logical extreme, would result in many additional so-called lines of commerce. It is the conglomeration of all the various services and functions that sets the commercial bank off from other financial institutions. Each item is an integral part of the whole, almost every one of which is dependent upon and would not exist but for the other. The Court can perceive no useful purpose here in going any further than designating commercial banking a separate and distinct line of commerce within the meaning of the statute. It is undoubtedly true that some services of a commercial bank overlap, to some degree, with those of certain other institutions. Nevertheless, the Court feels quite confident in holding that commercial banking, viewed collectively, has sufficient peculiar characteristics which negate reasonable interchangeability.[57]

These types of evidence and analyses are simply not in evidence in the FTC’s case against Amazon—certainly not as they’ve presented it thus far.

B. The Problem of Cluster Markets in the FTC’s Amazon Complaint

The FTC’s approach to market definition in Amazon appears in sharp contrast with prior cases involving what were, arguably, valid cluster markets and somewhat narrow market definitions.

1. Buyer-side clustering

2. Seller-side clustering

3. Implications

IV. Out-of-Market Effects

Feedback loops between the two relevant markets further demonstrate the critical importance of scale and network effects in these markets. While the markets for online superstores and online marketplace services are distinct, an online superstore may operate an online marketplace and offer associated online marketplace services to sellers. As a result, the relationship and feedback loops between the two relevant markets can create powerful barriers to entry in both markets.[68]

A critical mass of customers is key to powering what Amazon calls its “flywheel.” By providing sellers access to significant shopper traffic, Amazon is able to attract more sellers onto its platform. Those sellers’ selection and variety of products, in turn, attract additional shoppers.[70]

Legal doctrine aside, ignoring benefits in one interconnected market while focusing on harms in another will lead to costly overdeterrence of procompetitive conduct.

Sellers who buy marketplace services from Amazon provide much of the product selection that helps Amazon attract and keep its shoppers. As more shoppers turn to Amazon for its product selection, more sellers use its platform to gain access to its ever-expanding consumer base, which attracts more shoppers, and so on. . . . The interplay between Amazon’s shoppers and sellers increases barriers to new entry and expansion in both relevant markets and limits existing rivals’ ability to compete. In this way, scale builds on itself, and is cumulative and self-reinforcing.[86]

Conclusion

[1] Gregory J. Werden, Why (Ever) Define Markets? An Answer to Professor Kaplow, 78 Antitrust L.J. 729, 741 (2013) (emphasis added).

[2] See, e.g., Josh Sisco, The FTC Puts Your Lunch on Its Plate, Politico (Nov. 21, 2023), https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/21/feds-probe-10b-deal-for-subway-sandwich-chain-00128268.

[4] Id. at ¶ 124.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Nike Store (last visited Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.nike.com.

[8] Wayfair (last visited Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.wayfair.com.

[9] E-Commerce Retail Sales as a Percent of Total Sales (ECOMPCTSA), FRED Economic Data (last updated Nov. 17, 2023), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECOMPCTSA.

[10] Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶ 185.

[12] See Geoffrey A. Manne & E. Marcellus Williamson, Hot Docs vs. Cold Economics: The Use and Misuse of Business Documents in Antitrust Enforcement and Adjudication, 47 Ariz. L. Rev. 609 (2005).

[14] See Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶ 117.

[15] See id. at ¶ 163.

[16] See id. at ¶ 123 (“Online superstores offer shoppers a unique set of features”).

[18] See Matthew Johnston, 10 Biggest Retail Companies, Investopedia (last updated May 8, 2023), https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/122415/worlds-top-10-retailers-wmt-cost.asp.

[20] See Matthew Johnston, supra note 18.

[21] See E-Commerce Retail Sales as a Percent of Total Sales, supra note 9.

[22] Werden, supra note 1, at 741.

[24] Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 897 F.3d 1109, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2008)).

[25] See Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶¶ 128-33.

[27] Jackets, Columbia (last visited Dec. 10, 2023), https://www.columbia.com/c/outdoor-jackets-coats.

[29] See Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶¶ 148-59.

[31] See Khadeeja Safdar, supra note 38.

[33] See Danny Goodwin, 50% Of Product Searches Start on Amazon, Search Engine Land (May 16, 2023), https://searchengineland.com/50-of-product-searches-start-on-amazon-424451.

[34] Id.

[35] See Shopify (last visited Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.shopify.com; BigCommerce (last visited Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.bigcommerce.com.

[36] Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶ 198 (“SaaS providers’ services are not reasonably interchangeable with online marketplace services.”).

[38] See, e.g., Khadeeja Safdar, Nike to Stop Selling Directly to Amazon, Wall Street J. (Nov. 13, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/nike-to-stop-selling-directly-to-amazon-11573615633.

[40] Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶ 199 (emphasis added).

[41] Id. at ¶ 5.

[42] See infra Section III.

[44] See Mohammad. Y, Instagram Commerce Statistics and Shopping Trends in 2023, OnlineDasher (last updated Sep. 19, 2023), https://www.onlinedasher.com/instagram-shopping-statistics.

[45] Id.

[46] Checkout on Instagram, Instagram for Business (last visited Dec. 7, 2023), https://business.instagram.com/shopping/checkout.

[48] Promedica Health Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 749 F.3d 559, 565 (6th Cir. 2014).

[49] Id. at 567.

[50] Id. (quoting 2B Areeda, Antitrust Law, ¶ 565c at 408).

[51] See EU Commission, Universal Music Group / EMI Music, Case No. COMP/M.6458, Decision, 21 September 2012, ¶¶ 141-58.

[54] Universal Music Group / EMI Music, supra note 51, at ¶ 141.

[55] PNB, 374 U.S. at 356 (emphasis added).

[56] United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 201 F. Supp. 348, 361 (E.D. Pa. 1962).

[57] Id. at 363.

[60] Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Penn State Hershey Med. Ctr., 838 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2016).

[63] F.T.C. v. Staples, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997).

[66] Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 (1977) (quoting Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 320).

[67] See Gilman, Albrecht & Manne, supra note 13.

[68] Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶ 119.

[69] Id. at ¶ 9.

[70] Id. at ¶ 215.

[71] Id. at ¶ 269.

[72] Id. at ¶ 218.

[73] 138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) (“Amex”).

[75] Amex, 138 S. Ct. at 2280.

[76] See Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶¶ 119, 176, 179, 209, 215, & 217.

[78] PNB, 374 U.S. 321; United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972) (“Topco”).

[79] United States, et al. v. Am. Express Co., et al., 88 F. Supp. 3d 153, 171 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).

[80] Id., 88 F. Supp. 3d at 247 (citing Topco, 405 U.S. at 610; PNB, 374 U.S. at 370).

[81] Amex, 138 S. Ct. at 2303 (quoting Topco, 405 U.S. at 611).

[85] See Brian Albrecht, Is Amazon’s Scale a Harm?, Truth on the Market (Oct. 13, 2023), https://truthonthemarket.com/2023/10/13/is-amazons-scale-a-harm/.

[86] Amazon Complaint, supra note 3, at ¶¶ 214 & 216.

[88] Id. at 605 (emphasis added).

SHORT FORM WRITTEN OUTPUT

The 2023 Merger Guidelines: What Are They Good For?

Daniel J. Gilman • January 29, 2024

tl;dr Background: In July 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) Antitrust Division jointly released new draft merger guidelines, to . . .

tl;dr

Background: In July 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) Antitrust Division jointly released new draft merger guidelines, to much fanfare and even more controversy. Five months later, the agencies published the final 2023 Merger Guidelines. Many of the same controversies remain.

But… It is appropriate to raise the questions of what exactly the guidelines are and what they are intended to accomplish. According to the DOJ, the merger guidelines “are a non-binding statement that provides transparency on aspects of the deliberations the Agencies undertake in individual cases under the antitrust laws.” According to the FTC, the guidelines “describe factors and frameworks the agencies utilize when reviewing mergers and acquisitions.”

KEY TAKEAWAYS

AGENCY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS OFFER A WINDOW ON AGENCY POLICY AND PROCESS

The merger guidelines are an example of agency guidance, which is itself a type of “soft law.” Soft law is not really law at all. It doesn’t prohibit anything or require anything—not with the force of law. “Guidance” or “guidelines” are not federal regulations. And courts are not required to interpret, apply, or even consult them.

But guidance documents can nonetheless be extremely useful. Laws and regulations are not algorithms. They always require at least some degree of interpretation—sometimes a great deal. Guidance documents can provide a window into how agencies interpret the laws they are charged to enforce.

This is especially true in antitrust law, whose core provisions are written broadly and do not require (or perhaps even permit) implementing regulations. Those laws have been given some detail in federal case law, but the application of that case law to new facts and circumstances also requires interpretation. The case law also continues to develop in response to actions brought by, among others, the FTC and the DOJ.

Moreover, useful explanations of the law can vary tremendously depending on the intended audience. Hence, guidance documents may be styled “guidance for consumers” or “guidance for industry.” Other potential audiences include the judiciary and, not least, agency staff.

MERGER GUIDELINES AS AN EXAMPLE OF ‘PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY’

Prior iterations of the merger guidelines have been more than just a transparency document. They’ve had at least some influence on the courts, which often cited, e.g., the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines as “persuasive authority.” In brief, “persuasive authority” might be anything a court thinks informative that’s not binding on the court.

Judicial opinions can cite other judicial opinions in support of their reasoning. Depending on the relationship between the courts, those other opinions are either “binding” or “persuasive” authority. Lower courts, such as the federal district courts, are bound to follow the holdings of higher ones, such as their own federal circuit courts of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Opinions published by other district courts or courts in other circuits might be cited as persuasive authority–opinions that the courts consider informative, even though they are not bound to follow them. Courts can also cite to secondary sources, like law-review articles or noted treatises, as persuasive authority; that is, they can cite expert opinions they may consider more or less informative.

Agency guidelines are not binding, but they might be deemed persuasive (or not—it’s up to the court).

2023 GUIDELINES ABANDON CONSENSUS, PROVIDE SCANT GUIDANCE

Prior editions of the guidelines could be persuasive—and often were—because courts thought they provided a useful synthesis of established law, economic learning, and agency experience. While they were not simply backward-looking reports summarizing prior decisions, they did reflect at least a rough consensus in the antitrust community.

As Luke Froeb, D. Daniel Sokol, and Liad Wagman put it, earlier merger guidelines encouraged a dialogue “between potential plaintiffs and potential defendants and between attorneys and economists that moved antitrust law and policy forward to promote competition and innovation.” The new guidelines do not so much continue that dialogue as they seek to dictate the terms of a new one. And they replace a rough consensus with none.

There are many points of contention. For one, despite several decades of literature de-emphasizing the role and reliability of structural presumptions (such as measures of market share) in antitrust analysis, the new merger guidelines rely heavily on simplistic, and even stronger, structural presumptions than did the prior guidelines. More fundamentally, central to established antitrust law is the fact that mergers can be either harmful or beneficial (or benign). Antitrust enforcers are only supposed to block the bad ones.

The 2023 Merger Guidelines give very short shrift to the simple notion that mergers may confer benefits, as well as costs. While the guidelines sketch a number of ways in which the agencies might deem mergers to be anticompetitive, they do not provide staff, industry, or the judiciary any guidance at all on the basic question of how to parse the good from the bad.

Which brings us back to the original question: what are guidelines for? Perhaps not for this.

For more on this issue, see the “Comments of the International Center for Law and Economics on the FTC & DOJ Draft Merger Guidelines,” as well as several entries in Truth on the Market’s symposium on “The FTC’s New Normal.”

How the FTC’s Amazon Case Gerrymanders Relevant Markets and Obscures Competitive Processes

Geoffrey A. Manne • January 26, 2024

As Greg Werden has noted, the process of defining the relevant market in an antitrust case doesn’t just finger which part of the economy is allegedly . . .

As Greg Werden has noted, the process of defining the relevant market in an antitrust case doesn’t just finger which part of the economy is allegedly affected by the challenged conduct, but it also “identifies the competitive process alleged to be harmed.” Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs in such proceedings (most commonly, antitrust enforcers) often seek to set exceedingly narrow parameters for relevant markets in order to bolster their case. In the extreme, these artificially constrained definitions sketch what can only be called “gerrymandered” markets—obscuring rather than illuminating the competitive processes at issue.

This unfortunate tendency is exemplified in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent complaint against Amazon, which describes two relevant markets in which anticompetitive harm has allegedly occurred: (1) the “online superstore market” and (2) the “online marketplace services market.” Because both markets are exceedingly narrow, they grossly inflate Amazon’s apparent market share and minimize the true extent of competition. Moreover, by lumping together wildly different products and wildly different sellers into single “cluster markets,” the FTC misapprehends the nature of competition relating to the challenged conduct.

What Do We Do with Presumptions in Antitrust?

Daniel J. Gilman • January 25, 2024

Winter was coming, as it does. We knew the agencies were going to issue new merger guidelines, and then they did. On Dec. 18, 2023, . . .

Winter was coming, as it does. We knew the agencies were going to issue new merger guidelines, and then they did. On Dec. 18, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) jointly issued merger guidelines, supplanting 2023’s draft guidelines, the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, and the 2020 (partially withdrawn) Vertical Merger Guidelines.

That’s big news in antitrust, even though the guidelines do not have the force of law. There’s more on the merger guidelines below. But what else is new?

The Boomerang Effects of the Proposed EU Regulation on SEPs

Giuseppe Colangelo • January 22, 2024

As the European Parliament is on the verge of expressing its view on the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on standard essential patents (SEPs), it . . .

As the European Parliament is on the verge of expressing its view on the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on standard essential patents (SEPs), it seems appropriate to draw the attention to potential disruptive effects of this legislative initiative. Although some commentators have portrayed the proposed regulation as a balanced, innocuous and ‘common-sense’ solution, the reality is very different, as the regulation will likely have adverse effects on European innovation, tech sovereignty and the competitiveness of the European Union in the global arena.

Intellectual Property & Licensing

A European Commission Challenge to iRobot’s Acquisition Is Unjustified and Would Harm Dynamic Competition

Alden Abbott • January 22, 2024

Once again, a major competition agency, the European Commission, appears poised to take an anticompetitive enforcement action—in this case, blocking Amazon’s acquisition of consumer robotic-manufacturer . . .

Four Problems with the Supreme Court’s Refusal To Hear the Epic v Apple Dispute

Lazar Radic & Daniel J. Gilman • January 18, 2024

The U.S. Supreme Court this week rejected both parties’ petitions for certiorari in appeals of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision Epic Games . . .

The U.S. Supreme Court this week rejected both parties’ petitions for certiorari in appeals of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision Epic Games v Apple. Many observers—including Epic CEO Tim Sweeney—have marked this as an unmitigated loss for Epic.

That’s partly right. The district court had correctly rejected Epic’s federal antitrust claims against Apple (and against Epic, on Apple’s breach-of-contract counterclaim); the 9th Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision; and the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant cert leaves those Epic losses undisturbed.

But Apple was denied a sweep at the district court, which ruled in favor of Epic’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The 9th Circuit likewise sustained that state law decision. The Supreme Court has thus left both that state law decision and the district court’s nationwide injunction undisturbed.

Slouching Toward Disconnection and the End of the ACP

Eric Fruits • January 17, 2024

It’s our first post of the New Year, and we’re having a hard time feeling the Hootenanny vibes. Rather than Congress taking a “new year, . . .

It’s our first post of the New Year, and we’re having a hard time feeling the Hootenanny vibes. Rather than Congress taking a “new year, new you” approach to telecom policy, it seems that D.C. is starting the year with the “same old, same old” of brinkmanship. This time, with broadband subsidies.

Telecommunications & Regulated Utilities

Consent for Everything? EDPB Guidelines on URL, Pixel, IP Tracking

Mikołaj Barczentewicz • January 17, 2024

You may know that the culprit behind cookie consent banners is not the GDPR but the older ePrivacy Directive, specifically its Article 5(3). The EDPB, a . . .

You may know that the culprit behind cookie consent banners is not the GDPR but the older ePrivacy Directive, specifically its Article 5(3). The EDPB, a representative body of EU national data protection authorities, has just issued new Guidelines on this law. Setting aside that they arguably didn’t have the authority to issue the Guidelines, this new interpretation is very expansive. They would expect consent for e-mail pixel tracking, URL tracking, and IP tracking. In general, in their view, consent would be required for all Internet communication unless very limited exceptions apply (even more restrictive than under the GDPR).

Data Security & Privacy

The Conundrum of Out-of-Market Effects in Merger Enforcement

Daniel J. Gilman, Brian Albrecht, & Geoffrey A. Manne • January 16, 2024

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that harm competition in “in any line” of commerce. And, indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Philadelphia National . . .

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that harm competition in “in any line” of commerce. And, indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Philadelphia National Bank and Topco are often cited on behalf of the proposition that this means any single cognizable market, and that anticompetitive effects in one market cannot be offset by procompetitive effects in another.

That would appear to simplify antitrust analysis, and it certainly can. But as is so often the case in antitrust, apparent simplicity can be confounding in application. Is it really true that harm in any market, however narrow, is grounds to block a merger, whatever its broader effects? Is that the best reading of legal precedent? Is it required? And is it either practicable or desirable?

FTC v. Illumina/Grail – A Rare FTC Merger Victory? (Actually, a Loss for Consumers)

Alden Abbott • January 16, 2024

Although it was overshadowed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) year-end release of the 2023 merger guidelines, one should also note . . .

Although it was overshadowed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) year-end release of the 2023 merger guidelines, one should also note the abrupt end of the FTC v. Illumina/Grail saga. The saga finished with the FTC’s Dec. 18 press release announcing that Illumina decided on Dec.17 to divest itself of its recently reacquired Grail cancer blood-testing subsidiary.

The press release crowed that the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “issued an opinion in the case finding that there was substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s ruling that the deal was anticompetitive.”

In Reforming Its Antitrust Act, Argentina Should Not Ignore Its Institutional Achilles Heel

Mario A. Zúñiga • January 16, 2024

As part of a set of “shock therapy” measures introduced to deregulate and stabilize its economy, the Argentinian government led by newly elected President Javier . . .

As part of a set of “shock therapy” measures introduced to deregulate and stabilize its economy, the Argentinian government led by newly elected President Javier Milei has already adopted an emergency decree (Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia) that makes broad array of legal changes. Toward the same goal, the government in late December sent up an omnibus bill on Bases and Starting Points for the Freedom of Argentines Act that, among its 600 changes, proposes to modify the current Act for the Defense of Competition (Act No. 27.442).^[1]

Is the Debate Around Social Media Another Tech Panic?

Aubrey Kirchhoff & Jessica Parkinson • January 16, 2024

In 2005, California proposed legislation to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. This law was a culmination of growing concerns that violent . . .

In 2005, California proposed legislation to ban the sale of violent video games to minors. This law was a culmination of growing concerns that violent video games were causing children to become more aggressive. Commentators noted that perpetrators of mass shootings, as in the case of Columbine, Heath High School, and Sandy Hook, often played video games considered to be violent such as Doom, Grand Theft Auto, and Call of Duty.1 Studies on the connection between video games and aggression came pouring out. In response, policymakers began to introduce laws banning or otherwise regulating the sale of violent video games to minors.

This would seem to be the ideal result. Lawmakers were able to come together and pass a law that addressed the issue at hand. The only problem is that there is little to no evidence that video games, even violent ones, lead to increases in aggressive behavior let alone that they are a driving factor behind school shootings.

Three Problems with Accelerated Access: Will They Be Overcome?

Roger Bate • January 10, 2024

This post discusses three important problems with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) accelerated-approval process. The first is that regulatory authorities and patient groups maintain . . .

This post discusses three important problems with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) accelerated-approval process. The first is that regulatory authorities and patient groups maintain that, legally, the standards of accelerated approval are the same as standard approval. Yet from a risk perspective, the standards are quite different; by shifting risk taking from regulator to patient, physician, and payer, this creates problems. The second problem is more practical and is generally considered the most significant problem with accelerated approval. Some companies that have received accelerated approval for their products have not done confirmatory studies, as required by their agreement with FDA. This leads to distrust of these companies and their products, and threatens to undermine the accelerated-approval program. The third problem is the issue of approving medicines with marginal benefits.

The Porcine 2023 Merger Guidelines (The Pig Still Oinks)

Alden Abbott • January 10, 2024

Well, they have done it. On Dec. 18, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) issued their final 2023 merger guidelines, as an . . .

Well, they have done it. On Dec. 18, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) issued their final 2023 merger guidelines, as an early New Year’s gift (nicely sandwiched between Hanukkah, which ended Dec. 15, and Christmas) of the porcine sort.

The two agencies try to put lipstick on this pig by claiming that the guidelines “emphasize the dynamic and complex nature of competition,” an approach that supposedly “enables the agencies to assess the commercial realities of the United States’ modern economy when making enforcement decisions.” But no amount of verbal makeup prevents this porker from oinking, despite the valiant best efforts of the antitrust agencies’ talented and highly respected chief economists (Susan Athey and Aviv Nevo) to argue otherwise.

Colorado Is Mapping a Dangerous Path on Access to Credit

Todd J. Zywicki • January 2, 2024

The credit card you used to purchase your latte this morning and to fill your car with gas was probably issued by a bank based . . .

The credit card you used to purchase your latte this morning and to fill your car with gas was probably issued by a bank based in Delaware, South Dakota or some state other than Colorado. Why? Because under a unanimous 1978 decision authored by liberal lion William Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled that banks holding a “national charter” would be governed by the interest rate ceilings of the state in which the bank is based instead of the state of the customer’s residence. This one decision transformed the American economy, unleashing unprecedented competition and putting Visa, Mastercard and other credit cards in the hands of millions of American families who were previously reliant on pawnbrokers, personal finance companies and store credit to make ends meet.

Yet a law set to go into effect in Colorado in July would deprive the most credit-deprived Coloradans of the same access to competitive financial services available to the more well-off and effectively destroy the rapidly growing fintech industry in the state. The consequences to Colorado’s more financially strapped households could be catastrophic. Other states are considering following suit.

Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance

AMICUS BRIEFS

ICLE Amicus in Ohio v Google

Ben Sperry & Geoffrey A. Manne • January 30, 2024

Interest of Amicus[1] The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual . . .

Interest of Amicus[1]

Introduction

Argument

1. Common Carriage Is a Poor Fit as Applied to Google’s Search Product

A. Common Carriage Is Not About Monopoly Power or the Public Interest, It’s About Holding Oneself Out to Serve the Public Indiscriminately

B. Google Does Not Offer an Undifferentiated Search Product to Its Users

II. Google’s Search Results Are Protected by the First Amendment from Common Carriage Nondiscrimination Requirements

A. Federal District Court Cases Establish Google Search Results Are Protected by the First Amendment

In sum, the First Amendment protects Google’s search results.

B. A Common Carriage Label Does Not Change First Amendment Analysis

In other words, when reviewing the nondiscrimination requirement sought by Ohio, the labeling of this as a common carriage obligation does not matter under the First Amendment.

C. The Nondiscrimination Requirement Should be Subject to Strict Scrutiny

Conclusion

COMMENTS & STATEMENTS

ICLE Response to the Australian Competition Taskforce’s Merger Reform Consultation

Dirk Auer, Geoffrey A. Manne, & Lazar Radic • January 19, 2024

I. About the International Center for Law & Economics The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, non-partisan global research and policy . . .

I. About the International Center for Law & Economics

II. Summary of Key Points

Question 6 — Australia should not skew its merger regime toward blocking mergers under conditions of uncertainty. Uncertainty is endemic in merger control. Since the vast majority of mergers are procompetitive—including mergers in what is commonly called the “digital sector”—an error-cost-analysis approach would suggest that false negatives are preferable to false positives. Concrete evidence of a likely substantial lessening of competition post-merger should continue to be the decisive factor in decisions to block a merger, not uncertainty about its effects.
Question 8 — While potential competition and so-called “killer acquisitions” are important theories for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) to consider when engaging in merger review, neither suggest that the burden of proof needed to reject a merger should be changed, nor do they warrant an overhaul of the existing merger regime. Furthermore, given the paucity of evidence finding “killer acquisitions” in the real world, it is highly unlikely that any economic woes that Australia currently faces can be blamed on an epidemic of killer acquisitions or acquisitions of potential/nascent competitors. If the Treasury is going to adopt any rules to address these theories of harm, it should do so in a manner consistent with the error-cost framework (see reply to Question 6) and should not undercut the benefits and incentives that startup firms derive from the prospect of being acquired by a larger player.
Question 9 — Merger control should remain tethered to the analysis of competitive effects within the framework of the significant lessening of competition test (“SLC test”), rather than seeking to foster any particular market structure. Market structure is, at best, an imperfect proxy for competitive effects and, at worst, a deeply misleading one. As such, it should remain just one tool among many in merger analysis, rather than an end in itself.
Question 13 — In deciding whether to impose a mandatory-notification regime, Australia should be guided by error-cost considerations, and not merely seek to replicate international trends. While there are sound reasons to prefer a system of mandatory-merger notifications, the Treasury cannot ignore the costs of filing mergers or of reviewing them. It should be noted that some studies suggest that voluntary merger notification may achieve objectives similar to those achieved by compulsory systems at lower cost to the merging parties, as well as to the regulator. If the Treasury nonetheless decides to impose mandatory notification, it should seek to contain unnecessary costs by setting a reasonable turnover threshold, thereby filtering out transactions with little-to-no potential for anticompetitive harm.
Question 17 —Australian merger control should require that a decisionmaker be satisfied that a merger would likely and substantially lessen competition before blocking it, rather than effectively reversing the burden of proof by requiring that merging parties demonstrate that it would not. In a misguided attempt to shift the costs of erroneous decisions from the public to the merging parties, the ACCC’s proposal forgets that false positives also impose costs on the public, most notably in the form of foregone consumer benefits. In addition, since the vast majority of mergers are procompetitive, including mergers in the digital sector, there is no objective empirical basis for reversing the burden of proof along the proposed lines.
Question 18 — The SLC test should not be amended to include acquisitions that “entrench, materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power.” First, the Consultation seems to conflate instances of anticompetitive leveraging with cases where an incumbent in one market enters an adjacent one. The latter is a powerful source of competition and, as such, should not be curtailed. The former is already covered by the SLC test, which equips authorities with sufficient tools to curb the misuse of market power post-merger. Third, it is unclear what the term “materially” would mean in the proposed context, or what it would add to the SLC test. Australian merger control already interprets “substantial” lessening of competition to mean “material in a relative sense and meaningful.” Thus, the term “materially” risks injecting unnecessary uncertainty and indeterminacy into the system.
Question 19 — As follows from our response to Question 9, Section 50(3) should not be amended to yield an increased focus on changes to market structure as a result of a merger. It is also unclear what is gained from removing the factors in Section 50(3). More than a “modernization” (as the Consultation calls it), this appears to be a redundancy, as the listed factors already significantly overlap with those commonly used under the SLC test. To the extent that these factors place a “straitjacket” on courts (though in principle they are sufficiently broad and flexible), they could be removed, however, so long as merger analysis remained tethered to the SLC test and respects its overarching logic.
Question 20 — Non-competition public benefits should play a limited role in merger control. Competition authorities are, in principle, ill-suited to rank, weigh, and prioritize complex and incommensurable goals and values. The injection of public-benefits analysis into merger review magnifies the risk of discretionary and arbitrary decision making.

III. Consultation Responses

A. Question 6

Is Australia’s merger regime ‘skewed towards clearance’? Would it be more appropriate for the framework to skew towards blocking mergers where there is sufficient uncertainty about competition impacts?

In spite of the lack of unified theory, over all a fairly clear empirical picture emerges. The data appear to be telling us that efficiency considerations overwhelm anticompetitive motives in most contexts. Furthermore, even when we limit attention to natural monopolies or tight oligopolies, the evidence of anticompetitive harm is not strong. [9]

…strong evidence that, although consolidation does generate adverse price changes, these are temporary. In the long run, efficiency gains dominate over the market power effect, leading to more favorable prices for consumers.[10]

Furthermore, and in line with the above, some studies have found that horizontal merger enforcement has even harmed consumers.[11]

In sum, Australia should not skew its merger regime toward blocking mergers under uncertainty.

B. Question 8

Is there evidence of acquisitions by large firms (such as serial or creeping acquisitions, acquisitions of nascent competitors, ‘killer acquisitions’, and acquisitions by digital platforms) having anti-competitive effects in Australia?

As the Furman Review states:

In mergers involving digital companies, the harms will often centre around the loss of potential competition, which the target company in an adjacent market may provide in the future, once their services develop.[23]

Facebook has helped to build Instagram into the product it is today, a position that was far from guaranteed, and that most of the commentators who mocked the merger did not even imagine was possible. Instagram’s integration into the Facebook platform in fact did benefit users, as evidenced by the rise of Instagram and other third-party photo apps on Facebook’s platform.[29]

In other words, many supposedly anticompetitive acquisitions appear that way only because of improvements made to the acquired business by the acquiring platform.[30]

Examining acquisitions by large technology firms in ICT industries screened by the European Commission, [we find] that acquired products are often not killed but scaled, post-merger industry output demonstrably increases, and the relevant markets remain dynamic post-transaction. These findings cast doubt on contemporary calls for tightening of merger control policies.[32]

Thus, acquisitions of potential competitors and smaller rivals more often than not lead to valuable synergies, efficiencies, and the successful scaling of products and integration of technologies.

Venture capitalists invest on the understanding that many of the businesses in their portfolio will likely fail, but that the returns from a single successful exit could be large enough to offset any failures. Unsurprisingly, this means that exit considerations are the most important factor for VCs when valuing a company. A US survey of VCs found 89% considered exits important and 48% considered it the most important factor. This is particularly important for later-stage VCs.”[33] (emphasis added)

A review of the relevant body of evidence finds that these widely-held views concerning incumbent/startup acquisitions rest on meager support, confined to ambiguous evidence drawn from a small portion of the total universe of acquisitions in the pharmaceutical market and theoretical models of acquisition transactions in information technology markets. Moreover, the emergent regulatory and scholarly consensus fails to take into account the rich body of evidence showing the critical function played by incumbent/startup acquisitions in supplying a monetization mechanism that induces venture-capital investment and promotes startup entry in technology markets.

In addition:

Proposed changes to merger review standards would disrupt these efficient transactional mechanisms and are likely to have counterproductive effects on competitive conditions in innovation markets.[35]

C. Question 9

Should Australia’s merger regime focus more on acquisitions by firms with market power, and/or the effect of the acquisitions on the overall structure of the market?

Once perfect knowledge of technology and price is abandoned, [competitive intensity] may increase, decrease, or remain unchanged as the number of firms in the market is increased.… [I]t is presumptuous to conclude… that markets populated by fewer firms perform less well or offer competition that is less intense.[39]

In short, there is no well-defined “causal effect of concentration on price,” but rather a set of hypotheses that can explain observed correlations of the joint outcomes of price, measured markups, market share, and concentration.… Our own view, based on the well-established mainstream wisdom in the field of industrial organization for several decades, is that regressions of market outcomes on measures of industry structure like the Herfindahl Hirschman Index should be given little weight in policy debates.[41]

The most plausible competitive or efficiency theory of any particular industry’s structure and business practices is as likely to be idiosyncratic to that industry as the most plausible strategic theory with market power.[45]

As Chad Syverson recently summarized:

Perhaps the deepest conceptual problem with concentration as a measure of market power is that it is an outcome, not an immutable core determinant of how competitive an industry or market is… As a result, concentration is worse than just a noisy barometer of market power. Instead, we cannot even generally know which way the barometer is oriented.[46]

D. Question 13

Should Australia introduce a mandatory notification regime, and what would be the key considerations for designing notification thresholds?

Thanks to the signaling opportunity that arises when notification is voluntary, voluntary notification leads to lower enforcement costs for the regulator and lower notification costs for the merging parties. Some of the theoretical predictions are supported by exploratory empirical tests using merger data from Australia. Overall, our results suggest that voluntary merger notification may achieve objectives similar to those achieved by compulsory systems at lower costs to the merging parties as well as to the regulator.[49] (emphasis added).

E. Question 17

Should Australia’s merger control regime require the decision-maker to be satisfied that a proposed merger:

would be likely to substantially lessen competition before blocking it; or
would not be likely to substantially lessen competition before clearing it?

The ACCC has made this proposal because it:

Means that the risk of error is borne by the merger parties rather than the public. In the cases where this difference matters (for example where there is uncertainty or a number of possible future outcomes), the default position should be to leave the risk with the merger parties, not to put at risk the public interest in maintaining the state of competition into the future.[52]

In sum, Australian merger control should require that a decisionmaker be satisfied that a merger would be likely to substantially lessen competition before blocking it.

F. Question 18

Should Australia’s substantial lessening of competition test be amended to include acquisitions that ‘entrench, materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power’?

According to the ACCC:

Under the current substantial lessening of competition test, it may be difficult to stop acquisitions that lead to a dominant firm extending their market power into related or adjacent markets.[54]

The focus of the SLC test lies predominantly on the impact of the merger on existing competitive constraints and on measuring market power post-merger.[59]

The term “substantial” has been variously interpreted as meaning real or of substance, not merely discernible but material in a relative sense and meaningful.[63] (emphasis added)

Accordingly, the SLC test should not be amended to include acquisitions that “entrench, materially increase or materially extend a position of substantial market power.”

G. Question 19

Should the merger factors in section 50(3) be amended to increase the focus on changes to market structure as a result of a merger? Or should the merger factors be removed entirely?

On market structure, see our responses to Question 9 and Question 18.

H. Question 20

Should a public benefit test be retained if a new merger control regime was introduced?

Offer[ing] a tractable test that is broad enough to contemplate a variety of evidence related to consumer welfare but also sufficiently objective and clear to cabin discretion and honor the principle of the rule of law. Perhaps most significantly, it is inherently an economic approach to antitrust that benefits from new economic learning and is capable of evaluating an evolving set of commercial practices and business models.[69]

Consequently, we recommend that the public-interest test be jettisoned from merger analysis, or at least very narrowly circumscribed, if a new merger-control regime is introduced in Australia.

I. Question 24

What is the preferred option or combination of elements outlined above? What implementation considerations would need to be taken into account?

In our opinion, and based on the arguments espoused in this submission, the best options would be as follows:

[1] International Center for Law & Economics, https://laweconcenter.org.

[2] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Limited [2020] FCAFC 77, [246].

[3] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pacific National Pty Limited [2020] FCAFC 77, [104].

[6] Consultation, 4; ACCC 2023: 2, point 8e.

[7] Ronald Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4(16) Economica 386-405 (Nov. 1937).

[9] Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Vertical Integration and Firm Boundaries: The Evidence, 45(3) Journal of Economic Literature 677 (Sep. 2007).

[10] Dario Focarelli & Fabio Panetta, Are Mergers Beneficial to Consumers? Evidence from the Market for Bank Deposits, 93(4) American Economic Review 1152 (Sep. 2003).

[11] B. Espen Eckbo & Peggy Wier, Antimerger Policy Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis, 28(1) Journal of Law & Economics 121 (Apr. 1985).

[13] Geoffrey A. Manne, Error Costs in Digital Markets, in Joshua D. Wright & Douglas H. Ginsburg (eds.), The Global Antitrust Institute Report on the Digital Economy, 33-108 (2020).

[14] Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88(5) Yale Law Journal 950-97, 968 (Apr. 1979).

[15] See, e.g., in the context of predatory pricing, Paul L. Joskow & Alvin K. Klevorick, A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy, 89(2) Yale Law Journal 213-70 (Dec. 1979).

[16] Manne, supra note 13, at 34, 41.

[17] Id.

[18] Verizon Comm’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 414 (2004) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 594 (1986)).

[19] Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63(1) Texas Law Review 1-40, 2-3, 15-16 (Aug. 1984).

[21] Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, 116, (1937).

[22] This section is adapted, in part, from Bowman & Dumitriu, supra note 12.

[33] Bowman & Dumitriu, supra note 12.

[34] Bowman & Manne, supra note 30.

[37] The response to this question is adapted from Manne, et al., supra note 28.

[38] See, e.g., Harold Demsetz, Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy, 16(1) Journal of Law & Economics 1-9 (Apr. 1973).

[39] See Harold Demsetz, The Intensity and Dimensionality of Competition, in Harold Demsetz, The Economics of the Business Firm: Seven Critical Commentaries 137, 140-41 (1995).

[40] Nathan Miller, et al., On the Misuse of Regressions of Price on the HHI in Merger Review, 10(2) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 248-259 (28 May 2022).

[41] Steven Berry, Martin Gaynor, & Fiona Scott Morton, Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization, 33(3) Journal of Economic Perspectives 44-68, 48 (2019).

[42] Shanat Ganapati, Growing Oligopolies, Prices, Output, and Productivity, 13(3) American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 309-327, 324 (Aug. 2021).

[43] Id., 309.

[44] Sam Peltzman, Productivity, Prices and Productivity in Manufacturing: a Demsetzian Perspective, Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics 917, (19 Jul. 2021).

[45] Timothy F. Bresnahan, Empirical Studies of Industries with Market Power, in Richard Schmalensee & Robert Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1011, 1053-54 (1989).

[46] Chad Syverson, Macroeconomics and Market Power: Context, Implications, and Open Questions, 33(3) Journal of Economic Perspectives 23-43, 26 (2019).

[48] ACCC, 2023: 5.

[49] Chongwoo Choe, Compulsory or Voluntary Pre-Merger Notification? Theory and Some Evidence, 28(1) International Journal of Industrial Organization 10-20 (Jan. 2010).

[51] Consultation, 24.

[52] ACCC, 2023, 9.

[53] Consultation, 29.

[54] Consultation, 19; ACCC, 2023: 6-7.

[56] Standard for Merger Review, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (11 May 2010), 6, available at https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/45247537.pdf.

[60] Consultation, 30-31.

[61] Canadian Competition Act, Sections 78 and 79.

[62] Section 44G, however, does mention a “material increase in competition.” (emphasis added).

[65] Consultation, 39.

[68] Re Queensland Co-Op Milling Association Limited and Defiance Holdings Limited (QCMA) (1976) ATPR 40-012.

[69] Elyse Dorsey, et al., Consumer Welfare & The Rule of Law: The Case Against the New Populist Antitrust Movement, 47 Pepperdine Law Review 861 (1 Jun. 2020).