Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
264,916
result(s) for
"ANTITRUST"
Sort by:
State-Level Antitrust Enforcement: Revisiting the Determinants
State-level antitrust enforcement has historically been an important tool that promotes competition in the U.S. The total number of cases that were filed between 1990 and 2006 averaged 22 per year, and generally fluctuated in a fairly tight band. In an earlier article we found that political and macroeconomic variables tended to explain well these filing patterns. However, since then the number of state cases filed has dropped dramatically and averaged just 12 cases over the five years that preceded Covid. In this paper we consider again the political economy of antitrust enforcement at the state level: we find similar explanations to our 2010 article, with the size of the state economy, the macroeconomic conditions that face the state, and the political party in charge of enforcement continuing to drive antitrust filing activity.
Journal Article
Antitrust and Platform Monopoly
Contrary to common belief, large digital platforms that deal directly with consumers, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, are not \"winner-take-all\" firms. They must compete on the merits or otherwise rely on exclusionary practices to attain or maintain dominance, and this gives antitrust policy a role. While regulation may be appropriate in a few areas such as for consumer privacy, antitrust's firm-specific approach is more adept at addressing most threats to platform competition. When platforms exert their market power over other firms, liability may be apt, but remedies present another puzzle. For the several pending antitrust complaints against Google and Facebook, for instance, what should be the remedy if there is a violation? Breaking up large firms that benefit from extensive economies of scale and scope will injure consumers and most input suppliers, including the employees who supply labor. In many situations, a better approach would be to restructure management rather than assets, which would leave the platform intact as a production entity but make decisionmaking more competitive. A second option to breaking up firms would be to require interoperability—and in the information context, mandate the pooling of valuable information. These measures could promote competition and simultaneously increase the value of positive network effects. Finally, this Article examines another aspect of platforms — their acquisitions. For the most salient category of platform acquisitions of nascent firms, the greatest threat to competition comes from platforms' acquisitions of complements or differentiated technologies. Current merger-enforcement tools are ill suited to analyze this new variation on competitive harm. New approaches are required.
Journal Article
Competition law and economic regulation : making and managing markets
\"Niamh Dunne undertakes a systematic exploration of the relationship between competition law and economic regulation as legal mechanisms of market control. Beginning from a theoretical assessment of these legal instruments as discrete mechanisms, the author goes on to address numerous facets of the substantive interrelationship between competition law and economic regulation. She considers, amongst other aspects, the concept of regulatory competition law; deregulation, liberalisation and 'regulation for competition'; the concurrent application of competition law in regulated markets; and relevant institutional aspects including market study procedures, the distribution of enforcement powers between competition agencies and sector regulators, and certain legal powers that demonstrate a 'hybridised' quality lying between competition law and economic regulation. Throughout her assessment, Dunne identifies and explores recurrent considerations that inform and shape the optimal relationship between these legal mechanisms within any jurisdiction\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Multisided Platforms and Antitrust Enforcement
Multisided platforms are ubiquitous in today's economy. Although newspapers demonstrate that the platform business model is scarcely new, recent economic analysis has explored more deeply the manner of its operation. Drawing upon these insights, we conclude that enforcers and courts should use a multiple-markets approach in which different groups of users on different sides of a platform belong in different product markets. This approach appropriately accounts for cross-market network effects without collapsing all of a platform's users into a single product market. Furthermore, we advocate the use of a separate-effects analysis, which rejects the view that anticompetitive conduct harming users on one side of a platform can be justified so long as that harm funds benefits for users on another side. Courts should consider the price structure of a platform, and not simply the net price, in assessing competitive effects. This approach in turn supports our final conclusion: that antitrust plaintiffs should not be required to prove as part of their prima facie case more than occurrence of competitive harm in a properly-defined market; thereafter, the burden to produce procompetitive justifications should shift to defendants.
Journal Article
Research handbook on the economics of antitrust law
One might mistakenly think that the long tradition of economic analysis in antitrust law would mean there is little new to say. Yet the field is surprisingly dynamic and changing. The specially commissioned chapters in this volume offer a rigorous analysis of the field's most current and contentious issues.
Book
Antitrust Enforcement Against Platform MFNs
Antitrust enforcement against anticompetitive platform most favored nations (MFN) provisions (also termed pricing parity provisions) can help protect competition in online markets. An online platform imposes a platform MFN when it requires that providers using its platform not offer their products or services at a lower price on other platforms. These contractual provisions may be employed by a variety of online platforms offering, for example, hotel and transportation bookings, consumer goods, digital goods, or handmade craft products. They have been the subject of antitrust enforcement in Europe but have drawn only limited antitrust scrutiny in the United States. Our Feature explains why MFNs employed by online platforms can harm competition by keeping prices high and discouraging the entry of new platform rivals, through both exclusionary and collusive mechanisms, notwithstanding the possibility that some MFNs may facilitate investment by limiting customer freeriding. We discuss ways by which government enforcers in the United States and private plaintiffs could potentially reach anticompetitive platform MFNs under the Sherman Act, and the litigation challenges such cases present.
Journal Article
The curse of bigness : antitrust in the new gilded age
\"From the man who coined the term 'net neutrality,' ... comes a warning about the dangers of excessive corporate and industrial concentration for our economic and political future\"--Provided by publisher.
Book
Horizontal Shareholding and Antitrust Policy
\"Horizontal shareholding\" occurs when one or more equity funds own shares of competitors operating in a concentrated product market. For example, the four largest mutual fund companies might be large shareholders of all the major United States air carriers. A growing body of empirical literature concludes that under these conditions market prices are higher than they would otherwise be. We consider how the antitrust laws might be applied to this practice, identifying a theory of harm and how it matches the law, examining the issues that courts are likely to encounter, and attempting to anticipate litigation problems. While the current literature on horizontal shareholding does not offer a single robust explanation of how the price increase mechanism works, we show that the \"effects\" test expressed in the Clayton Act does not require proof of the precise mechanism. Further, Section 7's \"solely for investment\" exception typically will not apply. We also briefly discuss special problems of private plaintiff challenges. Finally, we elaborate the two ways that efficiencies are relevant to analysis of such mergers.
Journal Article