antitrust and competition

Steven C. Salop recommends that the next presidential administration continue to focus competition policy on protecting against adverse labor market outcomes. He suggests several policies the administration might pursue to achieve these benefits.

Herbert Hovenkamp applauds the Biden administration’s antitrust authorities for intervening in labor markets and more robustly challenging mergers between competitors. However, the next administration should clarify in its guidance that the objective of stronger antitrust enforcement must focus on lowering prices, increasing output, and removing any restraints on innovation.

The United States power grid is increasingly strained by the surging electricity demand driven by the AI boom. Efforts to modernize the power infrastructure are unlikely to keep pace with the rising demand in the coming years. Barak and Eli Orbach explore why competition in AI markets may create an electricity demand shock, examine the associated social costs, and offer several policy recommendations.

Steve Salop explores the basis for warranting strong remedies in the Google Search case and the set of remedies Judge Amit Mehta might consider for restoring competition in the search market by jump-starting the competitive process.

Douglas Ross writes that for most of its history, the Federal Trade Commission did not rely on the Chevron doctrine to enforce its mandate to prohibit “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Thus, Loper Bright will not significantly alter the FTC’s historical role in regulating competition. However, the Chevron doctrine could have been a useful ally to the current FTC, which under Chair Lina Khan has pursued more ambitious rulemaking, such as to ban noncompete clauses. Without the Chevron doctrine, the FTC will face a more arduous path to defending its new rules as they are challenged in the courts.

On September 10, the highest judicial authority in the EU, the Court of Justice, will rule on Google Shopping, closing a case opened 15 years ago and instrumental in changing the narrative on Big Tech. Christian Bergqvist summarizes the history of Google Shopping and discusses its possible outcomes.

Stacey Dogan writes that antitrust regulators in the United States and Europe are right to investigate Big Tech-AI partnerships. Even if AI markets remain competitive today, history and economics show that the Big Tech companies will push to monopolize segments of the AI market if given the opportunity. The investigations serve as a deterrent against anticompetitive behavior and give the regulators access to the knowledge and information that will be necessary to detect anticompetitive patterns as the AI market matures.

John B. Kirkwood explains six ways in which Big Tech’s alliances with AI startups could harm competition, making clear that the antitrust agencies have good reasonto monitor and investigate them.

Vivek Ghosal reviews the data, economics, and market conditions of the growing artificial intelligence market and finds that it is quite dynamic in terms of evolving partnerships and firms, and is relatively competitive. Thus, Big Tech investments into AI startups do not warrant investigation by the government at this time.

Matt Perault writes that there is little indication that Big Tech investments in artificial intelligence startups are harming competition. In fact, the opposite is likely true. Antitrust regulators should instead focus their attention on the real threat to AI competition: rules and regulations that will make it harder for startups that to compete with large tech companies.