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
Bank Regulators Clarify That Crypto Qualifies as Collateral Under Capital Reserves Rule
Mar 6, 2026 by
CPI
States Are Drawing a Hard Line on AI in the Workplace
Mar 6, 2026 by
CPI
States Prepare New Legal Challenge to Trump’s Global Tariffs
Mar 5, 2026 by
CPI
OpenAI Accused in Chicago Lawsuit of Acting as Unlicensed Legal Advisor
Mar 5, 2026 by
CPI
Senate Democrats Target Meatpacking Giants With New Antitrust Bill
Mar 5, 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