SCOTUS, Douglas Ginsburg, Derek Moore, Apr 01, 2010
Neoclassical economics or “price theory” has had a profound effect upon antitrust analysis, first as practiced in academia and then as reflected in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. More recently, behavioral economics has had a large and growing influence upon legal scholarship generally. Still, behavioral economics has not yet affected judicial decisions in the United States in any substantive area of law. The question we address is whether that is likely to change in the foreseeable future, i.e., whether the courts’ present embrace of price theory in antitrust cases portends the courts’ imminent acceptance of behavioral economics in either antitrust or consumer protection cases.
Featured News
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada Welcomes Former Competition Commissioner as Partner
Mar 3, 2026 by
CPI
Lawmakers Press for Review of Sports Broadcasting Act as Streaming Shifts Accelerate
Mar 3, 2026 by
CPI
FCC Chair Signals Quick Approval Likely for Paramount’s Warner Bros. Discovery Bid
Mar 3, 2026 by
CPI
European AI Imaging Firms Unite to Expand Global Reach in Fracture Detection
Mar 3, 2026 by
CPI
Federal Court Rules Nevada Can Seek to Bar Prediction Markets Despite CFTC Objection
Mar 3, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece