Regulation and Antitrust
Navigate forward to interact with the calendar and select a date. Press the question mark key to get the keyboard shortcuts for changing dates.
Navigate backward to interact with the calendar and select a date. Press the question mark key to get the keyboard shortcuts for changing dates.
ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy conducts legal and economic research, publishes actionable policy analysis, organizes high-level discussions, and engages with policymakers to rethink the relationship between competition and innovation for the benefit of consumers, innovative companies, the economy, and society.
The Digital Markets Act: A Triumph of Regulation Over Innovation
The Digital Markets Act presents three fundamental challenges as it nears adoption: First, it will increase regulatory fragmentation. Second, its disproportionate blanket obligations and prohibitions will be economically detrimental and legally controversial. Third, it will be difficult to implement, as some of its provisions clash with other European regulations.
More Publications and Events
March 22, 2023|Presentations
Strategic Autonomy and Europe’s Shattered Single Market
Aurelien Portuese and ECIPE discuss Europe’s single market fatigue and how it counteracts political ambitions for European strategic autonomy.
March 20, 2023|Blogs
App Store Implementation of the Digital Markets Act Exemplifies Law’s Uncertain Future
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) fails to clearly explain how it will affect different types of mobile ecosystems. The European Commission's recent workshop to examine the DMA’s requirements for alternate app distribution and interoperability provided neither regulatory clarity nor addressed economic concerns related to its unintended consequences.
March 14, 2023|Blogs
Breaking Up Big Business Would Not Reduce Lobbying
Breaking up large corporations actually would not reduce lobbying. In fact, it would have quite the opposite effect.
March 13, 2023|Reports & Briefings
Platforms Are the New Organizational Paradigm
Just as there was opposition to the corporate economy in the early 1900s, there is opposition to the platform economy today. But limiting “platformization” would have considerable long-lasting economic costs for the nation and consumers.
March 7, 2023|Op-Eds & Commentary
The Digital Coase Theorem and the News
In Competition Policy International, Aurelien Portuese writes on digital news aggregators and why the traditional approach favors inefficiency and stifles innovation.
March 2, 2023|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry of Canada Regarding the Future of Competition Policy
The regulatory onslaught from Europe will not transpose well in Canada because of the latter’s idiosyncratic circumstances: a smaller market, fewer innovation capabilities, and a more commercially avoidable market.
March 1, 2023|Reports & Briefings
The Flawed Analysis Underlying Calls for Antitrust Reform: Revisiting Lina Khan’s “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox”
In the 2017 law journal article that established her reputation, now FTC Chair Lina Khan ignored or misapplied the economics of two-sided markets, mischaracterized competitive conditions, and did not consider the pro-competitive effects of Amazon’s conduct.
February 28, 2023|Events
Can Regulators Handle the Mastodons of the World?
Watch ITIF's Center for Data Innovation's discussion on the challenges policymakers face in applying existing laws and regulations to decentralized online services.
February 24, 2023|Blogs
Virtual Reality Is an Increasingly Competitive Market, Despite the FTC’s Concerns
Companies are flocking into an emerging field, attempting to lure consumers to their platforms with competitive prices, new features, and engaging content.
February 8, 2023|Reports & Briefings
Ten Principles for Regulation That Does Not Harm AI Innovation
Concerns about artificial intelligence have prompted policymakers to propose a variety of laws and regulations to create “responsible AI.” Unfortunately, many proposals would likely harm AI innovation because few have considered what “responsible regulation of AI” entails.