big tech

The caution of Judge Amit Mehta’s remedy in the Google Search case is unlikely to open internet search to competition. Steve Salop recommends several amendments to the remedy that can improve competition without undercutting the revenue that has benefited Google’s partners to date.

In new research, Anik Bhaduri discusses how current antitrust enforcement is insufficient to address the economic influence of Big Tech companies. He argues that their market power stems from their privileged position on financial markets and their unique organizational structures, and antitrust reforms should therefore be complemented with reforms to corporate and securities law to effectively address the concentration of private power.

Victor Jiawei Zhang revisits the 2025 United States ban on TikTok and explores how it represented a case study of how the government led users to act collectively to override network effects and introduce competition to the digital market. The case study highlights research from his new article, “Digital Antitrust Collectivism,” where he explores the possibility that users’ collective power can invigorate digital market competition.

Americans’ retirement savings are disproportionately tied to the dozen Big Tech firms that now dominate the S&P. This makes any intervention into regulating Big Tech that risks devaluing them politically difficult, writes Hera Hyeonseo Lee.

Anthropic has formed an exclusive artificial intelligence consortium to use its general purpose artificial intelligence model, Claude Mythos, to identify and fix vulnerabilities in critical internet and digital infrastructure. Madhavi Singh warns this consortium, called Project Glasswing, could contravene antitrust law and argues for regulatory oversight to ensure that it does not become a front for an illegal cartel.

Meta prevailed in its monopoly case against the Federal Trade Commission by showing that the FTC’s market definition of personal social media was too narrow. However, Meta’s argument—and Judge James Boasberg’s ruling—rested on a flawed empirical assumption that confuses how users divert their time to other activities when no longer able to use a Meta platform with true product substitution.

Judge Amit Mehta’s remedies for Google’s search monopoly stopped short of banning payments for default search placement, reflecting the hope that generative AI will erode the power of traditional search. Cristian Santesteban argues the opposite: in the AI era of search, defaults may matter more by steering critical data and learning signals from AI-powered search sessions to the most dominant product. This mechanism can potentially compound Google’s advantage.

On the 150th anniversary of the first telephone call, John Haigh, Nancy Rose, and Jonathan Sallet reflect on lessons from the history of telecommunications...

Previous plaintiffs have argued unsuccessfully that Google’s Jedi Blue agreement with Facebook is anticompetitive and illegal. The agreement grants Facebook preferential access to Google’s dominant digital advertisement system in exchange for not building competing technologies. The plaintiffs’ challenges to Jedi Blue would have been on stronger ground had they argued that Jedi Blue is compelling evidence of illegal monopoly maintenance, as occurred in Microsoft, writes Joshua B. Gray.

In the second of two articles, Stavros Makris and Filip Lubinski discuss how governments can reimagine competition policy to protect democracy and citizen welfare without abandoning traditional consumer welfare goals like innovation.