Meta prevailed in its monopoly case against the Federal Trade Commission by showing that the FTC’s market definition of personal social media was too narrow. However, Meta’s argument—and Judge James Boasberg’s ruling—rested on a flawed empirical assumption that confuses how users divert their time to other activities when no longer able to use a Meta platform with true product substitution.

In a new volume chapter, Shai Agmon and Samuel Bagg argue that academic and policy references to “competition” often fail to distinguish between competition’s many forms. Their disaggregation of competition into two complementary processes—parallel and friction competition—helps to clarify the neo-Brandeisian approach to competition policy and its advantages over the traditional consumer welfare approach.

In new research, Alejandro Herrera-Caicedo, Jessica Jeffers, and Elena Prager find that firms that share a C-suite executive or board director are much more...

Antitrust authorities increasingly assess mergers through the lens of innovation, particularly in research-intensive sectors such as pharmaceuticals. In new research, Carmine Ornaghi and Lorenzo Cassi show how mergers disrupt human capital and reduce innovation in what they call manslaughter acquisitions.

In new research, Jack Kappelman and Haotian Chen investigate how mass violence impacts legislative voting on firearm-related bills. They conclude that on average, state...

Judge Amit Mehta’s remedies for Google’s search monopoly stopped short of banning payments for default search placement, reflecting the hope that generative AI will erode the power of traditional search. Cristian Santesteban argues the opposite: in the AI era of search, defaults may matter more by steering critical data and learning signals from AI-powered search sessions to the most dominant product. This mechanism can potentially compound Google’s advantage.