By: Jonathan M. Barnett (Truth on the Market)
The Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA), recently introduced in the U.S. Senate, exhibits a remarkable willingness to cast aside decades of evidentiary standards that courts have developed to uphold the rule of law by precluding factually and economically ungrounded applications of antitrust law. Without those safeguards, antitrust enforcement is prone to be driven by a combination of prosecutorial and judicial fiat. That would place at risk the free play of competitive forces that the antitrust laws are designed to protect.
Antitrust law inherently lends itself to the risk of erroneous interpretations of ambiguous evidence. Outside clear cases of interfirm collusion, virtually all conduct that might appear anti-competitive might just as easily be proven, after significant factual inquiry, to be pro-competitive. This fundamental risk of a false diagnosis has guided antitrust case law and regulatory policy since at least the Supreme Court’s landmark Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania decision in 1977 and arguably earlier. Judicial and regulatory efforts to mitigate this ambiguity, while preserving the deterrent power of the antitrust laws, have resulted in the evidentiary requirements that are targeted by the proposed bill.
Proponents of the legislative “reforms” might argue that modern antitrust case law’s careful avoidance of enforcement error yields excessive caution. To relieve regulators and courts from having to do their homework before disrupting a targeted business and its employees, shareholders, customers and suppliers, the proposed bill empowers plaintiffs to allege and courts to “find” anti-competitive conduct without having to be bound to the reasonably objective metrics upon which courts and regulators have relied for decades. That runs the risk of substituting rhetoric and intuition for fact and analysis as the guiding principles of antitrust enforcement and adjudication…
Featured News
Biden Administration Supports Antitrust Suit Against FIFA
Mar 18, 2024 by
CPI
Apple in Talks to Incorporate Google’s Gemini AI Amid Antitrust Scrutiny
Mar 18, 2024 by
CPI
Appeals Court Revives Regeneron’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Novartis Over Vision Treatment
Mar 18, 2024 by
CPI
Apple Responds to Criticism Over EU’s Digital Markets Act Compliance
Mar 18, 2024 by
CPI
Turkey Imposes Interim Measures on Meta Platforms
Mar 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Pricing Algorithms
Feb 28, 2024 by
CPI
Pricing Algorithms and Antitrust Enforcement: Sandboxes to the Rescue?
Feb 28, 2024 by
CPI
AI, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion
Feb 28, 2024 by
CPI
Competition & Collusion in a World of Algorithmic Pricing: Antitrust Risks & Enforcement Trends
Feb 28, 2024 by
CPI
Pricing Algorithms in Antitrust’s Sights?
Feb 28, 2024 by
CPI