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
Greenberg Traurig Grow Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Dutch Regulator Fines Uber €10 Million for Privacy Violations
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
DOJ Investigates AI Competition, Eyes Microsoft’s OpenAI Deal: Bloomberg
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Japanese Regulator Approves Korean Air’s Merger with Asiana Airlines
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Netgear Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Huawei Alleging Patent Misuse
Jan 31, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – The Rule(s) of Reason
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
Evolving the Rule of Reason for Legacy Business Conduct
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Object Identity
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
In Praise of Rules-Based Antitrust
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI
The Future of State AG Antitrust Enforcement and Federal-State Cooperation
Jan 29, 2024 by
CPI