Supreme Court

Assessing Supreme Court Decisions

This article originally appeared in in the Milken Institute Review. Thanks to reforms of...

Corporations Are Not “We the People”

The Citizens United ruling contradicts the Founders, decades of Supreme Court precedent and the will of the American people.

What Citizens United Did Not Predict and Why It’s Time To Reconsider

Citizens United v. FEC stands in the public eye as the U.S. Supreme Court case that flooded U.S. elections with “dark money”...

The NCAA Goes After College Athletes’ NIL Money—Here are the Antitrust Implications for Workers and Consumers

Having lost in the Supreme Court on student-athlete academic benefits, the NCAA has signaled a continuing attempt to suppress competition in the...

Chart of the Week: Both Democrat- and Republican-Nominated Supreme Court Justices Increasingly Ruled Against Antitrust Enforcement

With the upcoming vote to confirm new Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, this week’s chart highlights a new dataset compiled...

Big Tech’s Tightening Grip On Internet Speech

Social media platforms have so transformed American life that many now view online speech as a right of citizenship—a right to be...

What does NCAA v. Alston Tell Us About Antitrust and Labor Markets?

The Supreme Court's recent ruling against the NCAA and in favor of student-athletes may seem narrow or trivial, but the Court's acknowledgement...

States Beat NCAA, Feds in Race Towards Student-Athlete Pay

For decades, NCAA amateurism regulations limited student-athlete benefits to scholarships and related stipends, even as revenues soared into the billion dollar range....

Revisiting Ohio vs. American Express: It’s Time for a More Nuanced Approach to Market Definition

Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Court decided the case of Ohio vs. American Express, which turned out to be one of...

Is Corporate Personhood to Blame for Money in Politics?

Just because corporations are “legal persons” doesn’t mean that they should get all of the same rights as human persons. Yet over...

LATEST NEWS

Revising Guideline 6 With Evidence To Establish a Structural Inference for Input Foreclosure

Vertical merger law lacks the structural presumption of horizontal merger law, which shifts the burden from the government to the merging parties to provide evidence that a merger will not produce anticompetitive effects when it is known that the merger will substantially increase market concentration. To improve Guideline 6 of the draft Merger Guidelines concerning vertical foreclosure, Steven Salop develops a three-factor criteria with which the government antitrust agencies can show an analogous structural “inference” that shifts the burden of evidence to the merging parties.

How US Antitrust Enforcement Against Xerox Promoted Innovation by Japanese Competitors

Xerox invented modern copier technology and was so successful that its brand name became a verb. In 1972, U.S. antitrust authorities charged Xerox with monopolization and eventually ordered the licensing of all its copier-related patents. As new research by Robin Mamrak shows, this antitrust intervention promoted subsequent innovation in the copier industry, but only among Japanese competitors. Nevertheless, their innovations benefited U.S. consumers.

Revising the Merger Guidelines To Return Antitrust to a Sound Economic and Legal Foundation

The draft Merger Guidelines largely replace the consumer welfare standard of the Chicago School with the lessening of competition principle found in the 1914 Clayton Act. This shift would enable the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Antitrust Division to utilize the full extent of modern economics to respond to rising concentration and its harmful effects, writes John Kwoka.

How Anthony Downs’s Analysis Explains Rational Voters’ Preferences for Populism

In new research, Cyril Hédoin and Alexandre Chirat use the rational-choice theory of economist Anthony Downs to explain how populism rationally arises to challenge established institutions of liberal democracy.

The Impact of Large Institutional Investors on Innovation Is Not as Positive as One Might Expect

In a new paper, Bing Guo, Dennis C. Hutschenreiter, David Pérez-Castrillo, and Anna Toldrà-Simats study how large institutional investors impact firm innovation. The authors find that large institutional investors encourage internal research and development but discourage firm acquisitions that would add patents and knowledge to their firms’ portfolios, hampering overall innovation.