antitrust and competition

Erik Hovenkamp reviews the findings of Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling against Google for monopolizing the internet search market and discusses what the case will mean for the other ongoing Big Tech cases and the future of antitrust.

A United States federal court has found Google in breach of the Sherman Act by pursuing default status for Google Search and Google Chrome. However, Google's motives and the precise ways in which Google Search’s default status serves its interests remain poorly understood by the public and the antitrust community. They pertain to preventing users from migrating to competitors’ offerings in general and, in particular, to capturing user migration to next-generation platforms to access and search the internet. Understanding this motive will be essential in the calibration of forthcoming remedies and provide lessons for future cases against Google and other tech companies also confronted with user migration.

Aaron M. Honsowetz recounts how Senator John Sherman’s lesser-known antitrust bill, the 1866 Post Roads Act, uprooted local barriers to entry for telegraphy companies, which led them to invest more in R&D and ultimately helped produce the telephone.

Madhavi Singh argues that antitrust alone cannot reign in Big Tech monopolies. Antitrust efforts need to be supplemented by changes to corporate governance that incorporate the interests of all stakeholders and not just those of profit-maximizing shareholders.

Judge Amit Mehta's ruling declaring Google a monopolist in search represents a significant development in the ongoing debate about Big Tech's market dominance. This decision, stemming from a United States Department of Justice lawsuit, highlights the culmination of years of discussions and research on antitrust issues in the technology sector, particularly surrounding Google's search practices.

In new research, Shaoor Munir, Konrad Kollnig, Anastasia Shuba and Zubair Shafi explore how Google uses its web browser, Chrome, to maintain its dominance in other online markets, particularly advertising and search. Their findings contribute to an ecosystem analysis of Google’s anticompetitive behavior.

The following is an excerpt from Herbert Hovenkamp's new book, “Tech Monopoly,” now out at MIT Press.

Roslyn Layton discusses the major outage caused by a software update from CrowdStrike. Layton explores the debate between the risks of concentrated IT security solutions as well as their benefits. She discusses the market response to the incident and examines potential solutions, including AI-driven testing and incremental rollouts, while arguing against government intervention as a fix.

Sangyun Lee reviews the 2021 merger between Korean Air and Asiana Airlines, which was promoted by the government despite warnings from the majority of experts deeming it obviously anticompetitive and harmful to consumers. He finds that the merger is a paragon of how, under institutional constraints, the rational choices of actors and organizations can collectively lead to irrational, suboptimal outcomes.

Jake Goidell argues that the ongoing NCAA lawsuit settlements will not create a lasting solution unless athletes form a players association that is involved in determining industry-wide decisions.