Vaughn Walker, Apr 30, 2009
I do not argue here that concern about judicial competence regarding complex economic evidence is without substance. Nor do I contend that mergers are best committed in the final analysis to generalist judicial officers who lack expertise in issues of industrial organization although, as will be noted, this provides some check against complete capture of merger policy for purely political purposes. Rather, accepting that in the United States we have committed important decisions about mergers to generalist judges, I argue that a judge´s task in a merger case does not entail recondite analysis. Rather, the judge´s task is less one of economic learning than it is of using the economic analysis to bring the evidence into sufficient focus to reach a decision.
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