The concept of fairness is not foreign to competition law, nor are considerations of fairness new to it. Persistent uncertainty regarding what constitutes fairness . . .
Abstract
The concept of fairness is not foreign to competition law, nor are considerations of fairness new to it. Persistent uncertainty regarding what constitutes fairness has, however, traditionally counseled against its application as a standalone legal standard. Indeed, antitrust enforcers often have been reluctant to define even what constitutes unfair terms and conditions. Nonetheless, amid a swell of accusations of undue corporate power and market concentration in the digital economy, debates about fairness have recently taken center stage in the policy debate—particularly in Europe, where several recent regulatory interventions have been touted as promoting fairness in digital markets. This paper argues that policymakers are attracted to “fairness” remedies precisely because the term’s meaning is so ambiguous, thus granting them more discretion and room for intervention.
Introduction
In public debates over the emerging ubiquity of digital markets and platform-business models, the concept of “fairness” has been elevated into a guiding principle of competition-law enforcement. Dissatisfied with the ways that profits are allocated in digital-services markets and decrying what they see as undue corporate power and market concentration, interlocutors in such debates have invoked fairness as the cure for bigness.
This is particularly apparent in the European Union (EU), where several recent legislative initiatives have been adopted with the stated goal of promoting fairness in the digital economy. A central focus of such initiatives is the “gatekeeping” position enjoyed by a few large online platforms, which purportedly allows them to exert intermediation power over whether and under what terms the platform’s…
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directs the Federal Communications Commission to prevent discrimination in broadband access. In addition to preventing racial, ethnic, or . . .
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directs the Federal Communications Commission to prevent discrimination in broadband access. In addition to preventing racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination, the law seeks to remedy income discrimination. At the same time, the IIJA orders the FCC to take account of economic and technical feasibility of preventing the proscribed discrimination. These provisions of the IIJA raise complex legal and economic questions. Should the FCC focus on discriminatory intent or disparate impacts? How can the FCC prevent income discrimination while simultaneously accounting for economic feasibility?
This webinar discussion on the topic was recorded Feb. 13, 2023 with Rob McDowell (former commissioner of the FCC), Eric Fruits (ICLE), and Jessica Melugin (CEI), and was moderated by Kristian Stout (ICLE). Due to technical difficulties with the video feed of this event, only the audio is embedded below.
Government competition enforcers and policymakers are charged with ensuring India’s economic development by protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring freedom of trade in India’s . . .
Government competition enforcers and policymakers are charged with ensuring India’s economic development by protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring freedom of trade in India’s markets. Regulation of digital markets is an increasingly important component of this enterprise. But emulating Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) by imposing preemptive constraints on digital platforms would be particularly destructive in India’s unique and developing market.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directs the Federal Communications Commission to prevent discrimination in broadband access. In addition to preventing racial, ethnic, or . . .
Agenda: Friday, March 24, 2023 09:00 Registration & Breakfast 10:00 Introduction by the Organizers Lazar Radic, Senior Scholar for Competition Policy, International Center . . .
ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was a guest on The Hub Dialogues podcast to discuss the utility of economic theory, reasons to be skeptical about . . .
ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht was a guest on The Hub Dialogues podcast to discuss the utility of economic theory, reasons to be skeptical about sweeping policy reforms, and lessons for young economists about using social media to present their ideas, engage experts, and learn. The full episode is embedded below.
ICLE Associate Director of Legal Research Ben Sperry was a guest on the Mornings with Brian Haldane show on Talk 107.3 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss the role of targeted digital advertising in recent public debates surrounding online safety for children and teens. The full segment is embedded below.
ICLE Associate Director of Legal Research Ben Sperry was a guest on the Mornings with Brian Haldane show on Talk 107.3 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss the role of targeted digital advertising in recent public debates surrounding online safety for children and teens. The full segment is embedded below.
ICLE Director of Innovation Policy Kristian Stout appeared on the Mornings with Brian Haldane radio show in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss what the emergence of generative AI systems means for copyright. The full audio is embedded below.
ICLE Director of Innovation Policy Kristian Stout appeared on the Mornings with Brian Haldane radio show in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss what the emergence of generative AI systems means for copyright. The full audio is embedded below.
JOTWELL – ICLE Academic Affiliate Keith Hylton’s paper “Waivers” was reviewed by David Hoffman in the online journal JOTWELL. You can read full piece here. There . . .
There is nothing more worth celebrating than articles you learn from even when you think they are wrong from soup to nuts. Keith Hylton’s new draft, Waivers, is that kind of piece for me. In the paper, Professor Hylton considers waivers, which as Professor Bob Hillman once described, are “crazy stuff.” They aren’t necessarily contracts and need no consideration; they extinguish legal rights with the lightest of touches, but can be retracted just as easily, except when they can’t; and they are subject to a policing regime that varies considerably between states and across time. Is waiver x enforceable can be one of the most difficult questions for contract and tort jurists to answer. And yet, as the Waiver Society Project has illustrated, waivers are increasingly ubiquitous. We need clear thinking about this phenomenon, and Waivers is therefore a paper I like lots, even though I reject its premises, analysis and conclusion.
ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was a guest on The Cyberlaw Podcast to discuss, among other topics: the electronic surveillance capabilities of the . . .
ICLE Director of Law & Economics Programs Gus Hurwitz was a guest on The Cyberlaw Podcast to discuss, among other topics: the electronic surveillance capabilities of the downed Chinese spy balloon; the brief but pointed calls for antitrust and data privacy reform in President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address; the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent loss in court on its challenge to Meta’s acquisition of Within; and other issues that may be on the horizon for FTC enforcement later this year. The full episode is embedded below.
ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht joined the Cato Daily Podcast to discuss non?compete agreements in labor markets: why they exist, how they work, and the . . .
ICLE Chief Economist Brian Albrecht joined the Cato Daily Podcast to discuss non?compete agreements in labor markets: why they exist, how they work, and the Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban them. The full episode is embedded below.
ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff was a guest on National Public Radio’s Planet Money podcast to discuss the purpose and value of patents in the . . .
ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff was a guest on National Public Radio’s Planet Money podcast to discuss the purpose and value of patents in the economy. The full episode is embedded below.
MALONE: Adam Mossoff – law professor at George Mason University, patent expert, and knows a lot about how patents get turned into actual, you know, money.
MOSSOFF: You know, patents are property rights, and they, like all property rights, might lead to great success or may not.
MALONE: Property rights. And Adam gave us this comparison that I find really useful. He said, you know, a patent is just an idea sketched out and then legally tied to the inventor. And that really is kind of like somebody who say, you know, just owns a piece of vacant land.
BERAS: Yeah. Adam says vacant land isn’t inherently a business. Its owner would have to figure out what to do with it.
MOSSOFF: They can sit and wait for the land to grow in value. They can lease it out and become a landlord. They can build a factory on it. They can build an office building on it. They can build a home. And then, they can sell that home.
ClimateWire – ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann was quoted by ClimateWire in a story about the prospects for a long-term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program . . .
ClimateWire– ICLE Editor-in-Chief R.J. Lehmann was quoted by ClimateWire in a story about the prospects for a long-term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program in the 118th Congress. You can read full piece here.
“One reason there hasn’t been movement is there hasn’t been anything to force it,” said R.J. Lehmann, an expert on flood insurance at the International Center for Law & Economics. “There’s no reason to have votes that expose members to things they don’t want to vote on.”
Lehmann said that with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats controlling the Senate, lawmakers could be forced to scale back their ambitions for overhauling the NFIP.
“It may be the constraints of having the two chambers controlled by different parties make that a starting point,” Lehmann said.
Complexity science permeates the policy spectrum but not antitrust. This is unfortunate. Complexity science provides a high-resolution screen on the empirical realities of markets. . . .
Abstract
Complexity science permeates the policy spectrum but not antitrust. This is unfortunate. Complexity science provides a high-resolution screen on the empirical realities of markets. And it enables a rich understanding of competition, beyond the reductionist descriptions of markets and firms proposed by neoclassical models and their contemporary neo-Brandeisian critique. New insights arise from the key teachings of complexity science, like feedback loops and the role of uncertainty. The present article lays down the building blocks of a complexity-minded antitrust method.
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and machine learning (“ML”) have the potential to create breakthrough advances in a range of industries, but they also raise novel . . .
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and machine learning (“ML”) have the potential to create breakthrough advances in a range of industries, but they also raise novel legal, ethical, and privacy questions that will likely define the next era of technological advancement. Over the last several years, there has been a flurry of AI- and ML-related regulations and guidance issued by international bodies, governments, and regulators seeking to mitigate the risks posed by AI and ML, especially when these technologies are used to make important decisions related to employment or healthcare. Given the proliferation of these technologies across various industries, more regulation is likely to come. Organizations with AI and ML-based products and services should understand and consider how existing laws apply to them, as well as how the changing regulatory landscape may impact their business plans going forward. In this article, we discuss the differing approaches to regulating AI and ML in Europe and at the federal and state levels in the United States and the best practices for building compliance.
Introduction Since 1950, when Congress closed a loophole in Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust agencies have investigated actively, and prosecuted diligently, . . .
Introduction
Since 1950, when Congress closed a loophole in Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust agencies have investigated actively, and prosecuted diligently, mergers the government believed could be anti-competitive. In 1976, the Clayton Act was amended to require notification of many mergers to the agencies before consummation, allowing the government to sue to stop these mergers before they occur. Throughout the decades, merger review has become an elaborate, expensive process consuming vast resources; involving the merging parties, their attorneys, various experts, and those in the government; and rarely ending in judicial proceedings. The large majority of mergers the government opposed were either abandoned or settled with agreements requiring asset divestitures before consummation.
Prospective merger screening at the federal antitrust agencies has evolved, using advances in theoretical and empirical economics, to deemphasize structural tests in favor of an effects-based analysis. The agencies’ merger guidelines have changed with this evolution in economic knowledge and agency practice. The goal of guideline changes has been to increase the predictability and accuracy of the agencies’ merger screening, thereby decreasing the social costs of merger enforcement.
Strident critics of modern antitrust law, including merger policy, hold each key competition job in the administration of Pres. Joseph R. Biden Jr., including heads of both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. President Biden recently decried modern antitrust law and policy as a 40-year “experiment failed.”To correct these “mistakes,” the antitrust agencies plan to replace the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and the 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines…
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, . . .
Abstract
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, search advertising, internet advertising technologies, and app distribution on Android phones. In this Article, we focus on the DOJ’s claims that Google has used contracts with tech firms that distribute Google’s search services in order to exclude rival search providers and thus to monopolize the markets for search and search advertising—the two sides of Google’s search platform. The primary mechanisms of exclusion, according to the DOJ, are the many contracts Google has used to secure its status as the default search engine at all major search access points. The complaint echoes the DOJ’s claims two decades ago that Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly in personal computer operating systems by forming exclusionary contracts with distributors of web browsers, and by tying its Internet Explorer browser to Windows. The gist of the case was that Microsoft had used exclusionary tactics to thwart the competitive threat Netscape’s Navigator browser and Sun Microsystems’ Java programming technologies—both forms of “middleware”—posed to the Windows monopoly. In this Article, we argue that the treatment of market definition, exclusionary contracting, causation, and remedies in the D.C. Circuit’s Microsoft decision has important lessons for the Google litigation.
The concept of fairness is not foreign to competition law, nor are considerations of fairness new to it. Persistent uncertainty regarding what constitutes fairness . . .
Abstract
The concept of fairness is not foreign to competition law, nor are considerations of fairness new to it. Persistent uncertainty regarding what constitutes fairness has, however, traditionally counseled against its application as a standalone legal standard. Indeed, antitrust enforcers often have been reluctant to define even what constitutes unfair terms and conditions. Nonetheless, amid a swell of accusations of undue corporate power and market concentration in the digital economy, debates about fairness have recently taken center stage in the policy debate—particularly in Europe, where several recent regulatory interventions have been touted as promoting fairness in digital markets. This paper argues that policymakers are attracted to “fairness” remedies precisely because the term’s meaning is so ambiguous, thus granting them more discretion and room for intervention.
Introduction
In public debates over the emerging ubiquity of digital markets and platform-business models, the concept of “fairness” has been elevated into a guiding principle of competition-law enforcement. Dissatisfied with the ways that profits are allocated in digital-services markets and decrying what they see as undue corporate power and market concentration, interlocutors in such debates have invoked fairness as the cure for bigness.
This is particularly apparent in the European Union (EU), where several recent legislative initiatives have been adopted with the stated goal of promoting fairness in the digital economy. A central focus of such initiatives is the “gatekeeping” position enjoyed by a few large online platforms, which purportedly allows them to exert intermediation power over whether and under what terms the platform’s…
Although most studies of major communications reform legislation focus on the merits of their substantive provisions, analyzing the political dynamics behind the legislation can . . .
Abstract
Although most studies of major communications reform legislation focus on the merits of their substantive provisions, analyzing the political dynamics behind the legislation can yield important insights. An examination of the tradeoffs that led the major industry segments to support the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”) provides a useful illustration of a political bargain. Analyzing the current context identifies seven components that could form the basis for the next communications statute: (1) universal service; (2) pole attachments; (3) privacy; (4) intermediary immunity; (5) net neutrality; (6) spectrum policy; and (7) antitrust reform. Assessing where industry interests overlap and diverge and the ways that the political environment can hinder passing reform legislation provides insights into how these components might combine to support the enactment of the next Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Comment on Mastercard Incorporated; Matter No. 201 0011 Commissioners, I am an expert on the law & economics of payment cards and have written extensively . . .
Comment on Mastercard Incorporated; Matter No. 201 0011
Commissioners,
I am an expert on the law & economics of payment cards and have written extensively the subject.[1] I am submitting this comment on behalf of the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) because we have concerns regarding the effects that the consent order may have on the functioning of and innovation in payment systems.
Among there are that the agreement will undermine the security of payments made using single-message systems; set a precedent that, if applied more broadly, would undermine the security of payments more generally; and discourage investment in innovation, especially in the development of new, secure, tokenized payment systems that have the potential to reduce fraud, theft, and other forms of counterparty risk. Such an outcome would be, in our view, entirely detrimental to the future of the U.S. payment system.
To elaborate those concerns, we attach a paper we recently produced that discusses the regulation of single-message payment systems and, in particular, the regulation of routing on such networks. We hope this work will help to inform your deliberations on the matter.
Executive Summary How do we know whether an apple we buy is safe to eat; whether the pound of butter on sale is really a . . .
Executive Summary
How do we know whether an apple we buy is safe to eat; whether the pound of butter on sale is really a pound (or really butter); whether our cell phone will blow up in our hands or send all of our data to the government; or whether a taxi driver will overcharge us (or worse)? Concerns such as these have driven the creation of consumer-protection laws. But with the emergence of new ways of sharing information and rating suppliers, do we still need such laws?
This brief describes the origin, development, and implications of government-mandated consumer-protection laws and contrasts these with emergent, bottom-up solutions of various kinds, especially those made possible by the internet. Section I offers a brief history of consumer-protection legislation and its effects. Section II discusses some traditional alternatives to such top-down controls, including contract law and reputation. Section III explains the growth of the regulatory state. Section IV describes some modern alternatives to regulation that have been made possible by the internet. Section V offers examples of how the regulatory state has reacted to these new alternatives. Section VI addresses some of the major criticisms of online information sharing. Finally, Section VII concludes.
I. A Brief History of Consumer-Protection Legislation
Consumer-protection legislation is nothing new. The Babylonian code of Hammurabi, written in about 1760 BC, set prices for various goods and services, ranging from a medical operation to a ship’s rent.[1] It also set “prices” for various harms, including theft…
Large portions of the country are expected to face a growing threat of widespread electricity blackouts in the coming years. For example, the Western Electricity . . .
Large portions of the country are expected to face a growing threat of widespread electricity blackouts in the coming years. For example, the Western Electricity Coordinating Council—the regional entity charged with overseeing the Western Interconnection grid that covers most of the Western United States and Canada—estimates that the subregion consisting of Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and portions of southern Wyoming, Idaho, and Oregon will, by 2032, see 650 hours (more than 27 days in total) over the course of the year when available enough resources may not be sufficient to accommodate peak demand.
Counter-positioning is a business strategy in which a company positions itself in a way that its competitors are unwilling to replicate to avoid cannibalization. A well-known . . .
Counter-positioning is a business strategy in which a company positions itself in a way that its competitors are unwilling to replicate to avoid cannibalization. A well-known example of counter-positioning is Netflix’s policy not to charge late fees. In 2000, Blockbuster was earning a large portion of its revenue ($800 million) from late fees. When Netflix entered the market, the company began shipping DVDs to customers’ homes. Customers could pay for up to three DVDs at a time, and if they didn’t return them, Netflix simply wouldn’t send the next one on the list. This strategy caused Blockbuster to eliminate late fees in 2004, i.e., Netflix essentially forced Blockbuster to cannibalize its business model in order to survive.
By integrating ChatGPT, Bing is poised to put Google in a similarly difficult situation. In 2021, Google earned $148.95 billion (out of $256.74 billion) from search ads. The more users click on different results and reformulate requests, the more advertisers are willing to pay to appear at the top… the more Google generates revenue.
In a Feb. 14 column in the Wall Street Journal, Commissioner Christine Wilson announced her intent to resign her position on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). For those curious . . .
In a Feb. 14 column in the Wall Street Journal, Commissioner Christine Wilson announced her intent to resign her position on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).For those curious to know why, she beat you to the punch in the title and subtitle of her column: “Why I’m Resigning as an FTC Commissioner: Lina Khan’s disregard for the rule of law and due process make it impossible for me to continue serving.”
The topic of social media’s impact on childhood mental health has rapidly emerged as a hot-button political debate, becoming the subject of a hearing of the Senate . . .
The topic of social media’s impact on childhood mental health has rapidly emerged as a hot-button political debate, becoming the subject of a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee and earning a mention in President Biden’s State of the Union address. And indeed, there is a growing body of research that shows children are increasingly struggling with mental-health issues. That is a real problem, but it’s one that shouldn’t be unfairly conflated with the practice of data collection for targeted advertising.
Economists have long recognized that innovation is key to economic growth and vibrant competition. As an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on innovation . . .
Economists have long recognized that innovation is key to economic growth and vibrant competition. As an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on innovation and growth explains, “innovative activity is the main driver of economic progress and well-being as well as a potential factor in meeting global challenges in domains such as the environment and health. . . . [I]nnovation performance is a crucial determinant of competitiveness and national progress.”
More than two dozen members of Congress recently petitioned the Biden administration to upend America’s patent system – a move that could wreck our economy . . .
More than two dozen members of Congress recently petitioned the Biden administration to upend America’s patent system – a move that could wreck our economy and deprive consumers of life-enhancing new inventions.
The free speech wars are escalating at North Carolina’s flagship university. At its January, meeting the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill board of . . .
The free speech wars are escalating at North Carolina’s flagship university.
At its January, meeting the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill board of trustees directed the university administration to “accelerate its development of a School of Civic Life and Leadership.” Not surprisingly, the mandate has led to objections from UNC faculty members asserting that it is their province to determine curriculum. The president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission on Colleges, Belle Wheelan, has weighed in suggesting that the university’s accreditation may be at risk if the trustees don’t rescind their directive.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) last month that it intends to ban most noncompete agreements. Is that a good . . .
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) last month that it intends to ban most noncompete agreements. Is that a good idea? As a matter of policy, the question is debatable. So far as the NPRM is concerned, however, that debate is largely hypothetical. It is unlikely that any rule the FTC issues will ever take effect.
Various states recently have enacted legislation that requires authors, publishers, and other copyright holders to license to lending libraries digital texts, including e-books and audio . . .
Various states recently have enacted legislation that requires authors, publishers, and other copyright holders to license to lending libraries digital texts, including e-books and audio books. These laws violate the Constitution’s conferral on Congress of the exclusive authority to set national copyright law. Furthermore, as a policy matter, they offend free-market principles.
Government competition enforcers and policymakers are charged with ensuring India’s economic development by protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring freedom of trade in India’s . . .
Government competition enforcers and policymakers are charged with ensuring India’s economic development by protecting the interests of consumers and ensuring freedom of trade in India’s markets. Regulation of digital markets is an increasingly important component of this enterprise. But emulating Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) by imposing preemptive constraints on digital platforms would be particularly destructive in India’s unique and developing market.
One major way by which the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) seeks to attract foreign investors is the Pioneer Certificate Incentive. This exempts businesses that . . .
One major way by which the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) seeks to attract foreign investors is the Pioneer Certificate Incentive. This exempts businesses that introduce substantially more advanced technology, skillsets, or know-how from corporate tax or taxes them at a concessionary rate of 5 or 10 per cent for five years. The Pioneer rate is a large discount relative to the normal corporate tax rate of 17 per cent.
In the world of video games, the process by which players train themselves or their characters in order to overcome a difficult “boss battle” is . . .
In the world of video games, the process by which players train themselves or their characters in order to overcome a difficult “boss battle” is called “leveling up.” I find that the phrase also serves as a useful metaphor in the context of corporate mergers. Here, “leveling up” can be thought of as acquiring another firm in order to enter or reinforce one’s presence in an adjacent market where a larger and more successful incumbent is already active.
In our previous post on Gonzalez v. Google LLC, which will come before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments Feb. 21, Kristian Stout and I argued that, . . .
In our previous post on Gonzalez v. Google LLC, which will come before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments Feb. 21, Kristian Stout and I argued that, while the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) got the general analysis right (looking to Roommates.com as the framework for exceptions to the general protections of Section 230), they got the application wrong (saying that algorithmic recommendations should be excepted from immunity).
At the Jan. 26 Policy in Transition forum—the Mercatus Center at George Mason University’s second annual antitrust forum—various former and current antitrust practitioners, scholars, judges, and agency . . .
At the Jan. 26 Policy in Transition forum—the Mercatus Center at George Mason University’s second annual antitrust forum—various former and current antitrust practitioners, scholars, judges, and agency officials held forth on the near-term prospects for the neo-Brandeisian experiment undertaken in recent years by both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). In conjunction with the forum, Mercatus also released a policy brief on 2022’s significant antitrust developments.
Not only have digital-image generators like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney—which make use of deep-learning models and other artificial-intelligence (AI) systems—created some incredible (and sometimes . . .
Not only have digital-image generators like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney—which make use of deep-learning models and other artificial-intelligence (AI) systems—created some incredible (and sometimes creepy – see above) visual art, but they’ve engendered a good deal of controversy, as well. Human artists have banded together as part of a fledgling anti-AI campaign; lawsuits have been filed; and policy experts have been trying to think through how these machine-learning systems interact with various facets of the law.
Threads from ICLE scholars on current topics. Last week @LawEconCenter filed comments responding to Canada's @ISED_CA consultation on the future of competition policy.Here are 7 . . .
Threads from ICLE scholars on current topics.
Last week @LawEconCenter filed comments responding to Canada's @ISED_CA consultation on the future of competition policy.
Here are 7 guiding principles that jurisdictions contemplating digital market regulations should carefully consider.
.@SenMikeLee has introduced a new bill he says will "restore and protect competition in digital advertising by eliminating conflicts of interest that have allowed the leading platforms in the market to manipulate ad auctions and impose monopoly rents."https://t.co/tCd1JZaxEw
This is the end of an era for EU competition policy. The guidance paper was the high water mark of efforts to make enforcement more economically literate. That ship has sailed.
Paradoxically, repealing the guidance is absolutely the right move today.
As the @FTC and @JusticeATR prepare updated federal merger guidelines, a new @LawEconCenter paper looks back at several recent high-profile mergers that drew apocalyptic warnings about potential harm to competition and consumers. https://t.co/W57TxmYVn3
1/8 So many bad ideas, so little time. CA is proposing a new tax for online platforms, aimed at supporting journalism. However, it'll likely do more harm than good for news consumers and producers. ? https://t.co/PuaoPRoweK
1/11 We don't talk enough about how dodgy the ACCESS Act is — but we should, especially after today's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing. ?https://t.co/5kXSGVLrUp
The DMA stakeholder workshop on "App store related provisions" takes place today. Policymakers should take this opportunity to leave their comfort zone and grapple with six uncomfortable truths.?https://t.co/XztQOrJmz7
I take a deep dive into European digital privacy law with @MBarczentewicz. Among other things, we discuss: The Irish DPC’s ruling against Meta, the French CNIL’s recent sanctions of Apple & Voodoo Games, & the future of EU–US data flows. https://t.co/80172YqUik
