Commentary

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.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to permeate across different industry sectors, offering unprecedented opportunities alongside significant risks. Effective governance necessitates coordinated cross-border efforts to build institutional expertise, dispel misconceptions, foster innovation, and align global safety priorities. Advocating structured dialogue and a bottom-up approach, Oscar Borgogno and Alessandra Perrazzelli present a proposal which aims to avoid institutional redundancy and legal unpredictability for individuals and firms.

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.

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.

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 search the internet. Understanding this motive will be essential in the calibration of forthcoming remedies and provide lessons for future cases against Google and other tech companies also confronted with user migration.

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 justification has heavily influenced how the SEC and other financial regulators stive to operate today.

Joel Seligman's article examines the historical debate surrounding the Securities and Exchange Commission's mandatory corporate disclosure system, focusing on George Stigler's influential 1964 critique and subsequent discussions. While acknowledging Stigler's role in sparking important questions about regulatory necessity, Seligman argues that critics often underestimated the historical evidence of securities fraud and the need for public market confidence, ultimately defending the continued relevance of mandated disclosure in securities regulation.

Madhavi Singh argues that antitrust alone cannot reign in Big Tech monopolies. Antitrust efforts need to be supplemented by changes to corporate governance that incorporate the interests of all stakeholders and not just those of profit-maximizing shareholders.

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.

Hamid Mehran examines the governance failures at Boeing that led to safety issues with its aircraft and proposes several measures to improve the company's safety culture and accountability. Mehran suggests enhancing board accountability through increased disclosure requirements, improving FAA oversight, fostering a culture that prioritizes safety and employee concerns, and restructuring employee compensation to incentivize teamwork and vigilance in detecting safety issues.