By James Bernard & Rebecca Kirk Fair (Analysis Group), D. Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
We suggest that consumer welfare is the appropriate standard for antitrust analysis across an array of industries. Unlike critiques that treat consumer welfare as a caricature within a simplistic early-1970s framework of “Chicago School” economics, we suggest that consumer welfare, as understood today, adapts to changes in economic thinking and industry dynamics. Changes in economics lead to different legal presumptions. When shifts occur in economic understanding, this may lead to a reevaluation of the legal presumption underlying the behavior in question and the potential need for a more nuanced treatment of certain conduct under the rule of reason. Because economic analysis allows for more precision and objectivity than “fairness,” we believe that it is important to highlight case examples that show how economic analysis has shifted over time in ways that both promote enforcement and limit enforcement. All too often, the populist narratives of antitrust overlook such flexibility and the evolution in economic thinking, where practitioners have applied new theories and approaches to new settings.
Featured News
UK’s CMA Investigates Education Software Company for Market Abuse
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Schumer Urges FTC Caution on Chevron’s $53B Hess Deal Over Gas Price Fears
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Amazon Urges US Judge to Block FTC Probe into Data Preservation
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado Makes History: First State to Enact Comprehensive AI Legislation
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Class Action Settlement Reached in Cheerleading Monopoly
May 14, 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