Antitrust policy relies too heavily on static models that focus on prices and market shares while treating innovation as external. A dynamic approach that views competition as a process of innovation is better suited to guiding policy in today’s technology-driven economy.

Rather than adopt the European Union’s model for regulating competition, policymakers considering how to govern digital markets should carefully evaluate whether digital antitrust regulation is justified and consider whether concerns about anticompetitive behavior can be addressed with less intrusive and more cost-effective tools.

While ITIF commends the Commission for its extensive review of California’s antitrust laws, the Recommendation would, in several key respects, harm and upend the status quo.

Despite evidence to the contrary, a persistent narrative during the past two administrations has been that corporate power is getting increasingly concentrated, ergo antitrust breakups are warranted. But the latest Census Bureau data once again puts the lie to that argument.

If enacted, the draft law may inadvertently harm Vietnamese consumers, stifle digital innovation, and complicate bilateral trade relations between the United States and Vietnam to the detriment of both nations.

The antitrust procedural framework can be improved by measures that create a less burdensome and more objective evidentiary process, as well as provide investigated parties with greater access to the Commission’s complete file.

DMA is not an effective tool of competition policy. On the contrary, it has resulted in demonstrable consumer welfare losses, chilled procompetitive behavior, and even harmed small businesses. What’s more, it has done so by imposing obligations and penalties that inexcusably target America’s leading technology companies.