South Korea’s proposed Online Platform Regulation Act has taken multiple turns amid political upheaval, pressure from the United States, and a fiercely competitive domestic tech market. Hwang Lee explores how global geopolitics, strong domestic platforms, and the "Brussels Effect" are reshaping the country’s approach to digital regulation.| ProMarket
Gary Kalman writes that actions under the second Trump administration to dismantle recent anti-corruption initiatives, including those pioneered during the first Trump administration, will cost dearly the American and global economy and enable many of the nefarious actors President Trump has publicly admonished.| ProMarket
Anat R. Admati reviews Unjust Debts: How Our Bankruptcy System Makes America More Unequal (2024) by Melissa B. Jacoby.| ProMarket
In new research, Axel Gottfries and Gregor Jarosch develop a model to understand how wage-fixing cartels operate and show how to gauge the harm they cause to workers.| ProMarket
Judge Amit Mehta will shortly provide his remedy to Google’s monopoly in internet search. Fiona Scott Morton and Paul Heidhues argue that the remedy must include a cap on Google’s payments to the mobile phone manufacturers, carriers, and web browsers that propelled its monopoly. Because any outright ban risks harming Google’s current partners in the short term, Judge Mehta should consider pursuing a flexible ban that instead limits the revenue these partners can receive from Google in o...| ProMarket
Mark MacCarthy writes that the case law supports Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson’s charge that collaboration by social media companies on content moderation practices would be anticompetitive collusion. However, the author argues that open and transparent cooperation might actually benefit a troubled internet, and Congress should consider carving out a content-neutral antitrust exemption for platforms in the way it has in the past for broadcast networks.| ProMarket
Andrey Mir writes that antitrust scholarship and enforcement seeking to break up platform monopolies overlook the benefits that these platforms provide because they are monopolies. He says the community must keep this in mind as it seeks to alleviate harms that any monopoly incurs to the economy.| ProMarket
Johannes Fritz and Tommaso Giardini examine the state of AI rulemaking around the world and find that, despite global alignment on principles, execution at the national level diverges on three important metrics. The risk is fragmentation in AI as firms choose to exclude entire markets rather than navigate the intricacies of compliance in different regions.| ProMarket
Most users on social media have encountered toxic content: rude, disrespectful, or hostile posts or comments. A study using a browser extension estimates the effect of toxic content on user engagement and welfare.| ProMarket
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reflects on the history of cryptocurrency and his experience adjudicating criminal cases involving it.| ProMarket
Stigler Center Assistant Director Matt Lucky reviews Kenneth Rogoff’s new book, Our Dollar, Your Problem: An Insider’s View of Seven Turbulent Decades of Global Finance, and the Road Ahead, which reflects on the rise and ongoing fall of the American dollar’s global dominance. Rogoff discusses his book with Bethany McLean and Luigi Zingales on this week’s Capitalisn’t episode, which you can listen to here.| ProMarket
In new research, Filippo Lancieri, Laura Edelson, and Stefan Bechtold explore how the political economy of artificial intelligence regulation is shaped by the strategic behavior of governments, technology companies, and other agents.| ProMarket
As India contemplates adopting its Digital Competition Bill, Amber Darr and Madhavi Singh examine lessons from the European Union’s and United Kingdom’s legislative forays into digital markets. They argue that India must rethink its reliance on formal long-form enforcement and invest in regulatory capacity if it hopes to deliver an ex ante regime for a fair and contestable digital economy.| ProMarket
Christina M. Sautter writes that the passage of Senate Bill 21, which rebalances power away from shareholders to corporate management, represents a 150-year-long development in corporate law spurred by regulatory capture that has removed countless restrictions on firm behavior.| ProMarket
There are many differences between European and American antitrust regulation, but recent enforcement against Big Tech shows that in the most important ways they are converging on an anti-monopoly philosophy, writes Paul Friederiszick.| ProMarket
In the 1930s, staffers at the newly established Federal Communications Commission devised a novel rationale for limiting network power in radio, telephony, and the press. While much has changed since the “age of radio,” the concerns they raised inform the present-day debate over the control that social media platforms exert over public discourse, writes Richard R. John.| ProMarket
Allen Grunes comments on the core continuity in antitrust enforcement between the Biden and second Trump administrations. He argues that the continuity reflects, in Zephyr Teachout’s words, the “homecoming” of antitrust to the “domain of law.” The following is a revised version of remarks Grunes delivered at the Loyola Antitrust Colloquium in April.| ProMarket
Karina Montoya reflects on the end of the remedies phase of the Department of Justice’s case against Google for monopolizing the online search market. She argues that Google’s warnings against divestiture of its browser, Chrome, fall short and that a breakup will benefit the security of the internet, innovation, and users.| ProMarket
David Chan Smith argues that tariff regimes during the eighteenth century encouraged modern history’s first offshore markets to reroute goods through jurisdictions that faced lower tariff rates. This historical “entrepôt trade” could outstrip the legal trade of some goods and carries lessons for contemporary revisions to international trade.| ProMarket
Eleanor Fox argues that the leading law firms should have immediately and collectively resisted President Donald Trump’s attacks. Strong, timely collective resistance may have helped staunch democratic backsliding and prevented normalization of repeated, speech-chilling demands. Doing so, however, the firms would have faced the risk of violating the antitrust laws. This article assesses antitrust’s treatment of political action and argues that the space for protected political action need...| ProMarket
Big Tech’s monopoly over online discourse threatens democracy. “Middleware” promises a path forward by adding competitive, customizable layers of recommendation algorithms. But can middleware decentralize social media without falling prey to old monopolistic patterns? In new research, Madhavi Singh argues that without targeted regulatory guardrails—including mandatory API access, structural separation, and stakeholder empowerment—even middleware could […]| ProMarket
Media pluralism is a core democratic value in Europe. Upholding it requires that media concentration is scrutinized beyond its impact on competition in the traditional economic formulation. By addressing the challenges posed by dominant media players and fostering a diverse information ecosystem, Europe aims to uphold media plurality as a democratic value and ensure that citizens can engage in informed decision-making. From this angle, the European approach to protecting media pluralism might...| ProMarket
Ula Furgal and Magali Eben review the United Kingdom’s efforts to address the lopsided balance of power between traditional news media and digital platforms, embodied in the Cairncross recommendations and subsequent Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. Although U.K. news media have met the Act with optimism, there remain reasons why the new payment and […]| ProMarket
Melissa Newham reviews how investors can alter the incentives and behavior of pharmaceutical companies to reduce competition and consumer welfare through common ownership and “rollup” deals.| ProMarket
Populist leaders like United States President Donald Trump are zealously challenging the authority of independent technocrats and judges. This backlash follows decades of steadily increasing delegation of policymaking authority to unelected experts, bureaucratic agencies, and the judiciary. In new research, Gabriele Gratton and Jacob Edenhofer argue that such backlash is a predictable development in political environments where majorities are unstable and new political coalitions frequently f...| ProMarket
Over the last year, the United States government has demonstrated increased concern about private equity’s involvement in health care. Barak Richman and Richard Scheffler discuss why the government’s actions have not yet matched the energy of its words and how academics and policymakers must continue to investigate private equity’s influences as they devise policy to […]| ProMarket
Herbert Hovenkamp writes that the court presiding over the Google Ad Tech case gave the government an important win. However, by relying on the per se tying rule instead of rule of reason, the court perpetuated a flawed court precedent that can preclude serious market analysis for competitive harms.| ProMarket
In new research, Xuelin Li, Sijie Wang, Jiajie Xu, and Xiang Zheng find that the involvement of specialized venture capital firms influences a biotech startup’s drug portfolio by focusing research and development on fewer products.| ProMarket
Rose Chan Loui explains the current controversy surrounding OpenAI’s decision to abandon its nonprofit status. To learn more about OpenAI’s proposed restructuring, what it means for the race to develop artificial general intelligence, and how it highlights the tricky legal concept of a nonprofit’s “purpose,” listen to Chan Loui’s recent appearance on Capitalisn’t.| ProMarket
In new research, Ryan Stones revisits the alleged disagreement between two influential schools of antitrust on how to handle big businesses. Instead of finding contrasting policy recommendations, he highlights a strikingly similar relaxation of attitudes toward enforcement in the Chicago School and Ordoliberalism in the post-war period.| ProMarket
Steven C. Salop writes that the Biden administration oversaw a paradigm shift in antitrust, but it was the full adoption of the ideas of the Post-Chicago school, whose intellectual influence has countered Chicago since the 1980s, rather than the empowerment of the Anti-Monopoly or Neo-Brandeisian school of thought. This latter school of thought played an important role by motivating increased enforcement and corralling political support, even if it did not lead to cases that could not have be...| ProMarket
Daniel Francis reviews the evolutionary and revolutionary dimensions of the Biden administration’s antitrust work, and argues that these two projects have been in deep tension. He concludes that the administration’s evolutionary work within the welfarist paradigm has generated some important successes, but that the revolutionary effort to restore a pre-welfarist vision of antitrust has failed on its own terms — and, in failing, has left welfarism all the stronger.| ProMarket
In new research, Jitendra Aswani finds that India’s mandatory corporate social responsibility contribution for large firms increased corporate borrowing costs, but transparency and clear communication to investors about these contributions reduced the additional costs.| ProMarket
Elizabeth Popp Berman writes that the history of the antimonopoly movement and industrial policy in the United States shows that antitrust and industrial policy, currently considered by many to be in conflict, can complement each other in pursuit of shared goals.| ProMarket
Tim Brennan finds the new shift in antitrust thought and enforcement connected to the Neo-Brandeisian movement to be flawed for the most part. However, he writes that a reinvigorated focus on tacit collusion, which some have blamed on the rise of prices for groceries and apartment rents, may deserve consideration and further study.| ProMarket
John B. Kirkwood explains six ways in which Big Tech’s alliances with AI startups could harm competition, making clear that the antitrust agencies have good reasonto monitor and investigate them.| ProMarket
Erik Hovenkamp reviews the findings of Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling against Google for monopolizing the internet search market and discusses what the case will mean for the other ongoing Big Tech cases and the future of antitrust.| ProMarket
Vivek Ghosal reviews the data, economics, and market conditions of the growing artificial intelligence market and finds that it is quite dynamic in terms of evolving partnerships and firms, and is relatively competitive. Thus, Big Tech investments into AI startups do not warrant investigation by the government at this time.| ProMarket
In new research, Shaoor Munir, Konrad Kollnig, Anastasia Shuba and Zubair Shafi explore how Google uses its web browser, Chrome, to maintain its dominance in other online markets, particularly advertising and search. Their findings contribute to an ecosystem analysis of Google’s anticompetitive behavior.| ProMarket
Eleanor Fox writes that the paradigm shift in United States antitrust is not best understood as an embrace of neo-Brandeisian anti-bigness ideas but rather a rejection of neoliberal principles that have prevented effective antitrust regulation for decades. The shift encompasses the concerns and efforts of centrists, progressives, and neo-Brandeisians.| ProMarket
John W. Mayo reviews whether or not the articulated principles and priorities of the Neo-Brandeisian movement in antitrust scholarship and enforcement represent a “paradigm shift,” per the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn. Mayo finds that the Neo-Brandeisian discourse is best understood as situated within the continuum of the current antitrust paradigm, and that many of its efforts to substantiate its distinctive ideas have failed to properly ground them in empiricism or repudiate existing studies.| ProMarket
On May 29, Exxon Mobil held its 2024 corporate election. Before the election, the company sued two investors over their proposal to include a commitment in its proxy statement to accelerate the company’s reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Sarah Haan argues that the election and the lawsuit shed more light on current upheavals in corporate democracy than they do on the success of the ESG movement.| ProMarket
In the first of two articles, Ioannis Lianos analyzes the implications of Mario Draghi’s report on the future of European Union competitiveness. He explores its suggestions for protecting competition, moving to an ex-ante regulatory regime, and moving beyond traditional consumer welfare goals, dispelling exegesis from those who cite the report in support of and against current competition policies.| ProMarket
Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have proposed policies that encourage the redistribution of resources rather than maximizing efficiencies to grow the economic pie. Jeffrey Miron and Constantin Wells argue these preferences will harm the American economy and voters in the long term.| ProMarket
From collaborator to commentator, economist Leopoldo Fergusson offers a unique perspective on his work with recent Nobel laureates in economics. Fergusson reflects on their groundbreaking research on institutions, political incentives, and social norms, while providing personal insights into the brilliance and generosity of James Robinson and Daron Acemoglu.| ProMarket
Randy Priem reviews the current discussions about fortifying the independence of determination committees deciding whether a credit event took place for single-name credit default swaps. He offers several possible strategies.| ProMarket
On September 10, the highest judicial authority in the EU, the Court of Justice, will rule on Google Shopping, closing a case opened 15 years ago and instrumental in changing the narrative on Big Tech. Christian Bergqvist summarizes the history of Google Shopping and discusses its possible outcomes.| ProMarket
Stacey Dogan writes that antitrust regulators in the United States and Europe are right to investigate Big Tech-AI partnerships. Even if AI markets remain competitive today, history and economics show that the Big Tech companies will push to monopolize segments of the AI market if given the opportunity. The investigations serve as a deterrent against anticompetitive behavior and give the regulators access to the knowledge and information that will be necessary to detect anticompetitive patter...| ProMarket
Blaine Saito writes that the end to the Chevron deference doctrine could lead to a return to the National Muffler standard that grants judicial deference to long-standing agency rules and rules promulgated contemporaneously with Congressional statute. This may mean that the courts overturn newer taxation rules, though the Internal Revenue Code provides explicit discretionary rulemaking power to the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, which should further limit Loper Bright’s impact on th...| ProMarket
Judge Amit Mehta's ruling declaring Google a monopolist in search represents a significant development in the ongoing debate about Big Tech's market dominance. This decision, stemming from a United States Department of Justice lawsuit, highlights the culmination of years of discussions and research on antitrust issues in the technology sector, particularly surrounding Google's search practices.| ProMarket
Utsav Gandhi discusses the findings of the May 2024 Google SEO leak, which gave analysts a novel, albeit speculative, look into how Google might choose to promote and demote content. The findings have possible implications for businesses and news organizations struggling to compete for views and suggest that transparency could become an increasing factor in the future search market as new, artificial intelligence-powered competitors enter the market.| ProMarket
A United States federal court has found Google in breach of the Sherman Act by pursuing default status for Google Search and Google Chrome. However, Google's motives and the precise ways in which Google Search’s default status serves its interests remain poorly understood by the public and the antitrust community. They pertain to preventing users from migrating to competitors’ offerings in general and, in particular, to capturing user migration to next-generation platforms to access and s...| ProMarket
Summary Teaser: Howell E. Jackson revisits George Stigler’s famous 1964 critique of the Securities and Exchange Commission and particularly his critique of the work of SEC lawyer Milton Cohen, who headed the SEC’s Special Study of Securities Markets in the early 1960s. Although time has validated Cohen’s intuitions regarding the value of expanding SEC oversight into over-the-counter markets, Stigler’s call for more careful economic analysis supported by robust empirical justificatio...| ProMarket