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
States Move to Rein In Crypto Kiosks as Fraud Concerns Mount
Apr 29, 2026 by
CPI
Italian Drugmaker to Buy KalVista for $1.9 Billion
Apr 29, 2026 by
CPI
France Flags Systemic Rule Violations in Online Marketplaces Amid EU Crackdown
Apr 29, 2026 by
CPI
NCAA Agrees to End Prize Money Restrictions in Settlement with Tennis Players
Apr 29, 2026 by
CPI
South Korea Regulator’s Move on Coupang Founder Triggers Planned Lawsuit
Apr 29, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Unilateral Effects
Apr 28, 2026 by
CPI
A Net Present Value Approach to Merger Analysis
Apr 28, 2026 by
Joseph J Simons & Malcolm Coate
Generative AI and Competitive Disruption: Increasingly Relevant for Merger Analysis?
Apr 28, 2026 by
Andrea Coscelli, Emily Chissell, Nitika Bagaria & Tega Akati-Udi
Non-Price Unilateral Effects In Media Mergers
Apr 28, 2026 by
Lapo Filistrucchi & Teresa Oriani
Ecosystem Mergers and Unilateral Effects? A Framework for Assessing the Ecosystem Theory of Harm
Apr 28, 2026 by
Ethel Fonseca, George Tucker & Helder Vasconcelos