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
Glencore and Rio Tinto in Talks Over Deal That Could Create $260 Billion Mining Giant
Jan 8, 2026 by
CPI
Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix Set to Avoid Tough EU Curbs: Report
Jan 8, 2026 by
CPI
EU Antitrust Review of Google-Wiz Deal Draws Intense Scrutiny Ahead of 2026 Deadline
Jan 8, 2026 by
CPI
Bankers Renew Their Plea to Close ‘Loophole’ in Stablecoin Law’s Ban on Interest Payments
Jan 8, 2026 by
CPI
M&A Rebound Lifts Elite Law Firms After Near-Record Deal Year
Jan 8, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 16, 2025 by
CPI
Learning from Divergence: The Role of Cross-Country Comparisons in the Evaluation of the DMA
Dec 16, 2025 by
Federico Bruni
New Regulatory Tools for the EU Foreign Direct Investment Screening and Foreign Subsidies Regulation
Dec 16, 2025 by
Ioannis Kokkoris
“Suite Dreams”: Market Definition and Complementarity in the Digital Age
Dec 16, 2025 by
Romain Bizet & Matteo Foschi
The Interaction Between Competition Policy and Consumer Protection: Institutional Design, Behavioral Insights, and Emerging Challenges in Digital Markets
Dec 16, 2025 by
Alessandra Tonazzi