Harry First and Stephen Webber Wallace ‘Pairing Public and Private Antitrust Remedies’ in Albert A. Foer Liber Amicorum, Concurrences (Forthcoming)

Discussions on private competition remedies most often deal with questions of optimal deterrence and effectiveness. Lost in conversation is the basic idea that antitrust violations cause economic harm, and that those victimised by that harm should be entitled to damages from those who have violated the law. This is the underappreciated compensatory function of antitrust. Section 4A of the Clayton Act is a powerful, yet historically underused enforcement tool that empowers the United States to obtain treble damages for anticompetitive conduct when the government is itself the victim. The paper, which can be found here, focuses on whether the US government should not only pursue public enforcement activities, but also engage in private enforcement claims to be compensated for losses as a result of anticompetitive conduct. It examines the limited use of Section 4A, and discusses some possibilities for future cooperation between public and private plaintiffs that could advance the compensatory goal of antitrust. It is structured as follows: Section I looks…

OECD work on Crisis Cartels (2009)

The OECD background paper on this topic was written by Professor Simon J. Evenett in 2011, and can be found here. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether changes in policies towards cartel formation are merited during economic crises and associated recoveries. The paper is structured as follows: Sections two defines crisis cartels. The term crisis cartel is used to refer to a cartel that was formed during a severe sectoral, national, or global economic downturn. Such cartels can occur without state permission or legal sanction, which may trigger enforcement; or they may be permitted, even fostered, by a government, which may trigger advocacy. The impact of a crisis on the incentive of firms to cartelise will depend on the nature of the crisis, be it sectoral, national, or international. In thinking through the impact of each type of crisis on the behaviour of cartel members, one must identify the ways in which the crisis affects the business…

David S. Evans  ‘Basic principles for the design of antitrust analysis for multisided platforms’ (2019) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 7 319

Competition agencies and courts have increasingly had to deal with multiplatform businesses – and have started to incorporate economic insights on their operation into their decisions. Nonetheless, many questions concerning the design of antitrust analysis involving platform businesses remain unsettled. This article, available here, develops three basic principles for conducting the antitrust analysis of multisided platforms in light of economic learning, as follows: Section II explains how multisided platforms increase welfare by reducing transactions costs and resolving externalities among economic agents. Platforms lower transaction costs by bringing potential traders to a common place for interacting, thereby solving a collective action problem. The economics literature often relies on simple indirect network effects to explain how two-sided platforms create value. Positive indirect network externalities arise because the presence of additional numbers of the right counterparties increases the likelihood of good exchanges. In practice, however, the externality issues addressed by platforms are broader and subtler. Platforms also often deal with negative network externalities…

Francesco Ducci ‘Procedural implications of market definition in platform cases’ (2019) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 7 419

One of the most important questions raised by the economics of platforms, particularly for the adjudication of competition law disputes, is how to structure a legal framework that incorporates multi-sidedness while remaining consistent with the general principles guiding a rule of reason/effects-based analysis. Such framework becomes more complex in platform cases because the presence of multiple sides with interrelated demand coordinated by an intermediary platform raises additional questions that need to be confronted. This include: (i) How many markets should be defined, a single platform market or separate markets on each side? (ii) Should one aggregate the welfare effects on different users on the various sides of a platform, or should effects on each market side be treated in isolation? (iii) How should the burden of proof of anticompetitive and pro-competitive effects be allocated? Depending on whether the relevant market includes the platform as a whole or just one side, the boundary of the relevant market has fundamental consequences for…

Gregory Werden and Luke Froeb  ‘Antitrust and Tech: Europe and the United States Differ, and it matters’ (working paper)

While merger and cartel enforcement lead to similar outcomes on both sides of the pond, there are significant differences regarding “abuse of dominance” and “monopolisation”. The European Commission and some national competition authorities in Europe have taken on tech giants in high-profile cases. However, hard-wired differences between the European and American enforcement regimes make very difficult for the US antitrust enforcement agencies to emulate their European counterparts. This piece, available here, seeks to identify these differences. A first set of differences relates to how an administrative model prevails in Europe, while the US system is mostly accusatorial. The European system was conceived of as regulation enforced by an administrative agency, not as law enforcement by the courts as in the US.  One important distinction in this respect is that a contested court order in the United States typically contains a series of conduct mandates and prohibitions, while administrative decisions usually merely provide for cease-and-desist orders. Furthermore, the European system is driven by…

Herbert Hovenkamp ‘Platforms and the Rule of Reason: The American Express Case’ (2019) Columbia Business Law Review, 1 34

In Ohio v. American Express Co. (“Amex”), the Supreme Court had its first explicit opportunity to apply the rule of reason to an allegedly anticompetitive practice on a two-sided platform– i.e. a business that depends on relationships between two different, noncompeting groups of transaction partners (e.g. newspapers, as regards readers and advertisers). This article, available here, considers how the rule of reason should be applied to an exclusionary practice on a platform market. It considers the rule of reason’s basic burden-shifting framework, unique elements of market delineation on platform markets, and the relevance of placing production complements into the same “market.” It criticises the Supreme Court’s unjustified conclusion that a market definition is necessary in an antitrust challenge to a vertical practice; its odd treatment of free rider problems; its lack of attention to the record and to economic analysis; and its confusion of total with marginal harms and benefits. Finally, it looks at the implications of the Court’s decision for market…

Jay Matthew Strader ‘Google, Monopolization, Refusing to Deal and the Duty to Promote Economic Activity’ (2019) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 50(5) 559

Almost no consumers have the resources to assess the quality of information online. Search engines seek to remedy asymmetries in information, effectively providing a quality certification service to consumers. Google claims to rank organic results ‘‘scientifically’,’ based strictly on relevance and the quality of the listings. Ninety two percent of all Google search traffic occurs on the first page, encompassing the top ten organic results and paid ads, which reflects high levels of consumer trust.   This paper, available here, argues that Google’s search engine is indispensable for innumerable companies, which cannot compete effectively when Google fails to rank organic results according to relevance. However, Google’s ad-based business model creates incentives for it to promote paying advertisers or its own business, in particular by lowering the rank of more relevant results. This leads to lower quality in the search market, to lower output in downstream markets and, ultimately, to lower consumer welfare – independently of whether Google operates downstream or…

Yannis Katsoulacos ‘Substantive Criteria and Legal Standards in Recent Abuse of Dominance Cases across the Atlantic’ (2019) CPI Antitrust Chronicle March

Legal standards in competition law fall across an analytical continuum whose boundaries are set, respectively, by categorical rules of condemnation (per se illegality) or acquittal (per se legality) on the one end, and an elaborate, fact-intensive assessment of reasonableness (Rule of Reason) on the other. These poles are connected by a range of intermediate tests that seek to combine some of the clarity and economy of bright-line rules with the greater analytical accuracy that a fuller examination of evidence can produce – e.g. in the US, the modified per se and the truncated effects based tests. This paper, available here, reviews a number of recent cases in high technology markets on both sides of the Atlantic (Intel, Google, QUALCOMM), to compare how abusive practices are treated in Europe and the US. Section II compares legal tests in the EU and the US. In the EU, there are multiple goals guiding antitrust enforcement. Under the influence of a strong Ordo-Liberal tradition, the…

Michael Funk and Christian Jaag ‘The More Economic Approach to Predatory Pricing’ (2018) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14(2) 292

This paper, available here, argues that legal requirements and economic reasoning are not aligned as regards predatory pricing. Predation is not a strategy predominately used by ex ante dominant firms, but rather a strategy to gain ex post dominance. Consequently, the current legal practice in Europe and other jurisdictions, which requires ex ante dominance to pursue predatory pricing, makes the prosecution of predatory pricing virtually impossible because it overlooks the basic economic rationale for predatory pricing. This inconsistency has become even more severe because the adoption of a “more economic approach”: in fact, the more accurate the economic assessment is, the less probable is a conviction of harmful predation under the current legal framework. The authors suggest prohibiting predatory pricing independently from other exclusionary abuses. Instead, predatory pricing should be subject to the same analytical framework as mergers, where a similar economic and business logic applies. Since recoupment of predation is akin to the unilateral effects arising from the merger…

Giuseppe Colangelo and Mariateresa Maggiolino ‘Applying Two-Sided Markets Theory: the MasterCard and American Express Decisions’ (2018) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14(1) 115

The first judgments to apply the economic theory of multisided markets to the payment card industry have been recently adopted in the UK and in the US. This paper, available here, uses these cases to try to show that antitrust authorities should take into consideration the two-sided nature of the credit-card industry, and to explain how this can be done. Taking the multisided nature of payment systems into account is necessary to arrive at a realistic description of these markets, and to develop solid theories of harm and procompetitive justifications that can explain some business practices involving credit cards. It is structured as follows: Section II briefly describes the main economic features of multisided business models. Different authors have defined multisided markets differently, as they looked at different markets and business models. Nonetheless, the following generic traits tend to characterise all such markets: the presence of indirect network externalities that cannot be internalised through a bilateral exchange (usage and membership…