antitrust and competition

Herbert Hovenkamp writes that the First Court’s recent ruling against American Airlines and JetBlue for coordinating operations in New York City and Boston exemplifies the correct application of antitrust’s rule of reason, which has troubled courts and plaintiffs and led to underenforcement for decades.

Tim Brennan finds the new shift in antitrust thought and enforcement connected to the Neo-Brandeisian movement to be flawed for the most part. However, he writes that a reinvigorated focus on tacit collusion, which some have blamed on the rise of prices for groceries and apartment rents, may deserve consideration and further study.

In a new report from the Knight-Georgetown Institute, Alissa Cooper, Jasper van den Boom, and Zander Arnao examine how to make remedies most effective in the Google Search antitrust case. They argue that restoring competition in online search requires a comprehensive package of remedies that takes into account the multiple levers by which Google Search built, maintains, and could rebuild its monopoly.

Eleanor Fox writes that the paradigm shift in United States antitrust is not best understood as an embrace of neo-Brandeisian anti-bigness ideas but rather a rejection of neoliberal principles that have prevented effective antitrust regulation for decades. The shift encompasses the concerns and efforts of centrists, progressives, and neo-Brandeisians.

John W. Mayo reviews whether or not the articulated principles and priorities of the Neo-Brandeisian movement in antitrust scholarship and enforcement represent a “paradigm shift,” per the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn. Mayo finds that the Neo-Brandeisian discourse is best understood as situated within the continuum of the current antitrust paradigm, and that many of its efforts to substantiate its distinctive ideas have failed to properly ground them in empiricism or repudiate existing studies.

In new research, Filippo Lancieri and Tommaso Valletti analyze the shortcomings of the current merger review system and defend stronger rebuttable structural presumptions as an important step forward.

Fiona Scott Morton reviews the merits of the Federal Trade Commission’s complaint against the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for suppressing competition in pharmaceutical markets. Although the complaint’s alleged harms are narrow, it is a welcome start that promises to shed light on the PBM’s expansive anticompetitive practices and ultimately lower drug prices for Americans.

Competition policy in the European Union is moving toward a new phase. Max von Thun parses ideas from two recent documents outlining the future of competition in the EU—a report from former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and a “Mission Letter” from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen—to understand what questions competition chief Margrethe Vestager’s appointed replacement, Teresa Ribera, must address as she lays out her own vision for the future of competition policy in the EU.

Kevin Frazier writes that the Neo-Brandeisian movement’s focus on bigness as a harm to society in itself neglects the true focus of antitrust policy—protection of individual liberty, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. He argues that a Neo-Jeffersonian approach would clarify antitrust’s goals and produce more appropriate government intervention in markets.

In the second of two articles (read the first part here), Ioannis Lianos discusses how the incipient ideas and suggestions Mario Draghi presents in his report on the future of competition in the European Union could be developed into real-world policy.