A bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate would fundamentally remake the online digital-display advertising market by forcing the physical separation of a vertically . . .
Abstract
A bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate would fundamentally remake the online digital-display advertising market by forcing the physical separation of a vertically integrated market, and by imposing fiduciary-like duties on those buying and selling online ads for others. Proponents of this legislation—previously called the Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act (CTDA), although the current version is known as the Advertising Middlemen Endangering Rigorous Internet Competition Accountability (AMERICA) Act—have pointed to rules allegedly used in the regulation of securities markets as the basis for the legislation. According to the academic and political proponents of the legislation, these two principles—physical separation and a best-interests rule—are effectively used in stock-market regulation. This article demonstrates that these claims are false. Stock markets are not physically separate from brokers, either in law or fact, as the backers of the AMERICA Act claim. Moreover, rules about best-price execution are (1) utilized only because vertical integration is permitted and common, (2) are nevertheless not a significant limitation on trading behavior, and (3) yet require a massive federal and private apparatus to support them. But more importantly, this article shows that, whatever the facts on the ground in stock markets, any analogy to them is misplaced, because it fails to appreciate the purpose of stock-market regulation. The sale of stocks is regulated in the way that it is because of the centrality of stocks to the savings and investments of everyday Americans, as well as the various vital roles stocks and stock markets play in…
This week the Federal Reserve announced that it expects a recession in the coming months. Companies are already engaging in hiring freezes and layoffs, and several economic . . .
This week the Federal Reserve announced that it expects a recession in the coming months. Companies are already engaging in hiring freezes and layoffs, and several economic indicators point to a pessimistic future. But a pending Department of Labor (DOL) rule could make this recession more severe by cutting off work opportunities for millions of Americans.
The European Commission is working on a legislative proposal that would regulate the licensing framework for standard-essential patents (SEPs). A regulatory proposal leaked to the press has already been . . .
The European Commission is working on a legislative proposal that would regulate the licensing framework for standard-essential patents (SEPs). A regulatory proposal leaked to the press has already been the subject of extensive commentary (see here, here, and here). The proposed regulation apparently will include a complete overhaul of the current SEP-licensing system and will insert a new layer of bureaucracy in this area.
The European Union is considering a new regulatory regime for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs) that will destabilize the global telecommunications . . .
The European Union is considering a new regulatory regime for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs) that will destabilize the global telecommunications market. This proposed regulatory regime is unbalanced in favoring implementers over innovators, and thus it threatens to hamstring the explosive technological and economic growth in this vital sector of the modern innovation economy. Although the EU has finally awoken to the competitive and geopolitical threat posed by China, this regulatory proposal undermines efforts by the EU and the United States to sustain their global technological leadership.
Throughout its 100-year-plus history, U.S. antitrust policy has studiously ignored the issue of global economic competitiveness. Indeed, in their zeal to maintain competitive balance between . . .
Throughout its 100-year-plus history, U.S. antitrust policy has studiously ignored the issue of global economic competitiveness. Indeed, in their zeal to maintain competitive balance between players in America’s domestic markets, U.S. antitrust enforcers have often harmed U.S. companies while helping their foreign counterparts. This has diminished U.S. international competitiveness, especially in advanced industries. The latest example is the Justice Department’s possible intervention to block Microsoft from acquiring video game maker Activision, a move that would benefit the Japanese company Sony at the expense of U.S. competitiveness.
In the era of Uber and DoorDash, state governments are grappling with how to address the problems stemming from a growing independent or “gig” workforce. . . .
In the era of Uber and DoorDash, state governments are grappling with how to address the problems stemming from a growing independent or “gig” workforce.
In Utah, there are more than 80,000 self-employed and independent workers who may not have access to traditional work benefits. This arrangement reflects a relic of the past. Many decades ago, tax incentives were created to encourage our benefits to be tied to our jobs, and labor laws were created to restrict companies from providing benefits to nontraditional employees.
Imagine that Florida’s financial regulators told banks and insurance companies that they should consider the risk that working with Planned Parenthood might pose to them. . . .
Imagine that Florida’s financial regulators told banks and insurance companies that they should consider the risk that working with Planned Parenthood might pose to them. Or that Texas’s regulators said that banks and insurance companies should consider whether serving organizations that support undocumented migrants might damage their reputations. Alarming, right?
ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff took part in a webinar hosted by the Council for Innovation Promotion on the use of Title 28 of the . . .
ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff took part in a webinar hosted by the Council for Innovation Promotion on the use of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1498(a), in light of a recent U.S. government statement of interest filed in a patent-infringement suit against Moderna, Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccine. Video of the full event is embedded below.
Welcome & Introduction Welcome & Introduction ICLE is excited to share the first issue of a bi-monthly review of its Academic Affiliate network. These reports . . .
Welcome & Introduction
Welcome & Introduction
ICLE is excited to share the first issue of a bi-monthly review of its Academic Affiliate network. These reports will share updates for our growing network of law & economics scholars, including highlights of our affiliates’ work, research and funding opportunities, and announcements of new ICLE initiatives.
Read on to learn about our affiliate network, the chance to win a prize by sharing your thoughts about law & economics, a funding opportunity for your students, and more.
