Institutional Design and Federal Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: Renovation or Revolution?
Michael McFalls, Sep 11, 2014
Institutional design, properly defined, both circumscribes and defines the practice of antitrust law in the United States. The structure of antitrust law and enforcement in the United States reflects so many disparate strands of political thought and expression that it seems almost impossible that it could function, much less cohere. But that very mixture of currents and cross-currents is quintessentially American — and keeps the importance of institutional design very much alive and significant in U.S. antitrust law. And although fundamental reinvention is unlikely, incremental changes are both possible and desirable, particularly those within the discretion of the enforcement agencies themselves. Below, we discuss what kinds of changes may be useful for the enforcement agencies to consider.
Featured News
Croatia Competition Authority Approves HPB Acquisition of Croatia Banka
Jul 19, 2026 by
CPI
Democratic Lawmakers Urge DOJ to Closely Examine Fox-Roku Merger
Jul 19, 2026 by
CPI
US Judge Clears Path for Broad Beef Antitrust Class Actions Against Major Meatpackers
Jul 19, 2026 by
CPI
India’s Competition Regulator Dismisses Antitrust Complaint Against Reliance Jio and 4,500 Firms
Jul 19, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Opens Early Settlement Discussions With DOJ
Jul 17, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Agentic AI & Antitrust
Jul 16, 2026 by
CPI
AI Agents and Collusion: The Two Faces of Agentic AI
Jul 16, 2026 by
Giovanna Massarotto
Agentic AI’s Regulatory Conundrum
Jul 16, 2026 by
Anant Raut
Inter-AI-Agent Competition
Jul 16, 2026 by
Stefan Thomas
Navigating the Increasing Regulatory Scrutiny of AI-Pricing Tools: Competition and Other Emerging Risks
Jul 16, 2026 by
Mark Krotoski & Vinny Sidhu