Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons^™

Pooling And Exchanging Competitively Sensitive Information Among Rivals: Absolutely Illegal Not Just Unreasonable, Peter C. Carstensen, Annkathrin Marschall

University of Cincinnati Law Review

An agreement to exchange competitive sensitive information among rivalrous competitors usually results from an intent to inhibit or restrict the discretion of those firms to engage in competition. Basic economic logic about competition leads to that conclusion. Hence, such an exchange is in itself a naked agreement in restraint of trade without legal justification. Currently, case law requires a more convoluted and irrelevant inquiry into market definition and market power before a court can condemn such agreements. This is the result of ambiguous Supreme Court decisions as well as the recognition that in a few instances there are plausible arguments …

A Comment On Markovits's Welfare Economics And Antitrust, Keith N. Hylton

Faculty Scholarship

I criticize two features of the new book by Richard Markovits. One is the notion that ethics or moral judgments should be part of our analysis of antitrust. The other is the notion that market definition is incoherent.

Antitrust For Dominant Digital Platforms: An Alternative To The Monopoly Power Standard To Restore Competition, Jordan Ramsey

Senior Honors Theses

Antitrust law is meant to promote competition by prohibiting anticompetitive business practices such as mergers and acquisitions as well as exclusionary conduct. Judicial interpretation of antitrust law has allowed dominant digital platforms to undertake anticompetitive actions without prosecution. The Sherman Antitrust Act should be amended to remove the monopoly power standard that allows firms to engage in anticompetitive conduct as long as the conduct does not create or uphold monopoly power. The amendment would make anticompetitive conduct illegal regardless of monopoly power, as long as six proof requirements are met. This would result in lessened market concentration, which would benefit …

Antitrust Interoperability Remedies, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Compelled interoperability can be a useful remedy for dominant firms, including large digital platforms, who violate the antitrust laws. They can address competition concerns without interfering unnecessarily with the structures that make digital platforms attractive and that have contributed so much to economic growth.

Given the wide variety of structures and business models for big tech, “interoperability” must be defined broadly. It can realistically include everything from “dynamic” interoperability that requires real time sharing of data and operations, to “static” interoperability which requires portability but not necessarily real time interactions. Also included are the compelled sharing of intellectual property or …

Anticompetitive Corporate Spin-Offs, Alexa Rosen Grealis

University of Miami Business Law Review

Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code allows corporations to “spin-off” parent-controlled businesses tax-free. Traditionally an important tool for divestitures and restructurings with U.S. tax consequences, recent trends suggest section 355 is also of interest to firms facing US antitrust consequences. Statements and maneuvering by some such companies indicate firms are considering spinning-off businesses to avert liability and ‘break up’ on their own terms. Despite widespread renewed interest in using antitrust laws to break up large corporations, the antitrust implications of corporate spin-offs have thus far escaped scholarly notice and scrutiny.

This Note posits that it is a mistake to …

Section 5 In Action: Reinvigorating The Ftc Act And The Rule Of Law, Lina M. Khan

Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 didn’t just create a new agency. It created new law for that agency to enforce. The heart of that law is Section 5, which provides that ‘unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce’ are ‘hereby declared unlawful’. In passing this law, Congress also tasked the FTC with identifying the range of methods of competition that qualify as unfair, since lawmakers recognized they could not specify them all prospectively.

This is a straightforward reading of the statute, and yet it is somewhat controversial. There is a school of thought that considers Section 5’s …