Antitrust and Competition

Preventing AI Oligopoly and Digital Enclosure Via Compulsory Access

The largest artificial intelligence firms are able to afford access to quality data from content producers like the New York Times, while smaller startups are being left out. This dynamic risks concentrating markets and creating unassailable barriers to entry. Compulsory licenses offer one solution to lower barriers to entry for nascent AI firms without harming content producers and consumers, writes Kristelia García.

Content Licensing Agreements Will Concentrate Markets Without Standardized Access

Christian Peukert argues that the market for licensing content from copyright owners like newspapers or online forums requires a standardized regime if access to this data, used to train artificial intelligence models, is to remain available for more than just the largest AI firms. A failure to maintain non-discriminatory access will result in the consolidation of both the AI and content production markets.

The False Hope of Content Licensing at Internet Scale

Is there a world where AI developers could get the training data they need through content licensing deals? Matthew Sag argues that content licensing deals between developers of artificial intelligence and content owners are only possible for large content owners and cannot feasibly apply to the bulk of producers and owners of content on the internet.

Anticompetitive Acquiescence in AI Content Licensing

Large AI firms like OpenAI and Amazon are licensing content to train their models that they might otherwise have been able to access for free under the fair use doctrine. Mark A. Lemley and Jacob Noti-Victor write that this behavior may constitute anticompetitive acquiescence—where large firms agree to license content they don’t have to in order to raise rivals’ costs.

Novo Nordisk’s Offer To Acquire Metsera Constitutes Attempted Monopolization

Hannah Pittock uses weight-loss company Novo Nordisk’s offer to acquire Metsera to create a three-prong framework by which the antitrust agencies can identify when an invitation to exclude a rival from a market constitutes illegal exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

How Should We Address the Amazon Web Services Outage?

Roslyn Layton examines the recent Amazon Web Services outage and compares it with last year’s CrowdStrike outage to illustrate differences in scope, responsibility, and systemic impact. She argues that cloud providers should contribute to the Universal Service Fund, ensuring financial contribution to resilience and critical infrastructure for essential services.

Brazil’s Calibrated Revolution in Digital Competition

Victor Oliveira Fernandes analyzes the contributions to digital market regulation presented in Brazil’s Fair Competition Act for Digital Markets. The proposed act reflects a careful balance between antitrust orthodoxy and innovation and, in its success or failure, will pave the way for additional digital regulation in the Global South.

Novo Nordisk’s Killer Non-Acquisition Merger Contract Proposal Is a Case of “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose”

Steve Salop explores the anticompetitive innovation behind weight-loss giant Novo Nordisk’s offer to acquire Metsera. Novo’s proposed contract presents a new tactic by which firms with market power can preclude rival mergers that will lead to procompetitive entry.

How Google Revenue-Sharing Payments Contribute to Apple’s Monopoly Power

The Google Search monopoly case focused on how Google’s agreements with Apple to set Google Search as the exclusive default search engine on Apple’s mobile devices allowed Google to solidify its monopoly in internet search. However, a less-explored dimension of these agreements is how they likewise fortified Apple’s monopoly power in the smartphone market, writes Steven C. Salop.

Brazil’s Fair Digital Competition Bill Offers an Alternative to Regulating Big Tech

Beatriz Kira argues that Brazil’s proposed digital competition bill shows how the Global South can strengthen regulation of Big Tech platforms without forfeiting competitiveness. Brazil’s efforts build on global models yet chart their own course and belie the false dichotomy between encouraging national business development and protecting competition and its benefits.

Latest news