By Alan Reynolds (Cato Institute)
In the middle of last century, policymakers and the courts came to accept the “Chicago school” interpretation of antitrust: unless it is demonstrated that consumers are being harmed, government should not intervene in firm concentration. Recently, some commentators have charged that this view is mistaken and that government should intervene on the simple grounds that “big is bad” regardless of whether consumers are harmed. This article argues that the reasoning behind this new view is flawed and conflicts with recent decades of antitrust history.
Featured News
T-Mobile Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Sprint Merger After Appeal Denied
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
Google Faces Backlash Over Introduction of AI-Generated Summaries in Searches
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
CMA Launches Phase 2 Probe into AlphaTheta’s Acquisition of Serato
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
NFL Executive Escapes Testifying in High-Stakes Trial Over Televised Games
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
EU Consumers Lodge Complaint Against Chinese Retailer Temu Over Content Rules Breach
May 16, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI