News

The following is an excerpt from the book The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It - New and Expanded Edition by Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig published by Princeton University Press and reprinted here by permission. Also check out today's Capitalisn't interview with Anat Admati.

Academic writings on the optimal design of antitrust rules fail to pay sufficient attention to enforcement predictability as a relevant factor. In new research, Jan Broulík analyzes the various ways in which predictability is disregarded and their possible underlying reasons.

Following the Federal Trade Commission’s 2021 publication of “Nixing the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions,” private “right to repair” cases have multiplied against companies that leverage their market power in a “primary equipment market” (e.g., tractors) to force their customers also to purchase their offerings in “aftermarkets” (e.g., tractor repairs) that otherwise would be competitive. Daniel McCuaig argues that the application of the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. to these cases misunderstands that case and improperly shields monopolists from competitive pressures, including in Epic’s recent case against Apple.

Three artificial intelligence experts at the University of Chicago disclose the trends and issues regarding AI that they'll be watching for in 2024.

In March, the Stigler Center will welcome nine world-class journalists from the United Kingdom, United States, South Korea, Uganda, Guyana, Belgium, and Turkey for an intensive 12-week program of professional development at Chicago Booth.

The following is an excerpt from Ignacio Cofone’s new book, “The Privacy Fallacy: Harm and Power in the Information Economy,” out now.

Jonathan B. Baker provides his reactions to the final 2023 Merger Guidelines, including why they strengthen enforcement and where the antitrust enforcement agencies can further clarify their merger analysis.

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), designed to regulate Big Tech, supplements current antitrust laws that pursue case-by-case analyses of business conduct with general rules to block potentially anticompetitive behaviors. Detractors criticize the DMA for its lack of nuance. Supporters applaud its general principles as a necessary bulwark against Big Tech’s market powers, which current case-by-case analysis has been unable to rein in. However, neither side appreciates the true complexity of the DMA or how its principles interact to prevent anticompetitive behavior, writes Alba Ribera Martínez.

All eyes are on labor this year. Hiba Hafiz, Boston College: 2023 was a big year for labor antitrust. We saw the rise and fall of...

Four experts on antitrust in Europe discuss the trends and cases they're watching in 2024.