News Room

The European Commission’s reasoning that Google is leveraging a dominant position for competitive advantage in another market goes beyond what U.S. antitrust law allows. This shines a light on how Europe is yet again taking a more interventionist approach to penalize American tech companies.

The court’s decision to reject the Justice Department’s radical bid to break up Google was the right one. However, the decision errs by imposing a problematic series of data-sharing and syndication remedies under the guise of denying Google the supposed fruits of its violation.

Counterfeit and infringing products remain readily available on major Chinese e-commerce platforms, an investigation by ITIF has found. The investigation points to structural misalignments between the platforms’ incentives and their lax compliance with IP and consumer protection laws.

Delaying further action on the proposed Online Platform Act is the right decision. It would create barriers to entry that stifle the growth of smaller firms, while distorting market incentives and penalizing standard commercial practices of larger firms. By enabling direct regulatory targeting of U.S. digital firms, it also raises concerns over discriminatory treatment and market access.

Congress should expand Section 337 of the 1930 Tariff Act to better address unfair trade practices that China uses to capture market share in advanced industries at America’s expense. When China violates global rules or norms to benefit particular firms, they should be denied access to the U.S. market.

While a framework that could avert a destructive transatlantic trade war is a welcome development, unless this potential agreement addresses the EU's systematic non-tariff attacks on American technology companies, it will be a significant missed opportunity.

In response to President Trump’s three new executive orders on artificial intelligence (AI), the Center for Data Innovation released this statement from Senior Policy Manager Hodan Omaar.

In response to the Trump administration’s release of its AI Action Plan, the Center for Data Innovation released the following statement from Senior Policy Manager Hodan Omaar.

We congratulate Assistant Secretary Roth on her confirmation at a critical time for NTIA. Her leadership and expertise will be critical to ensuring the BEAD program can efficiently and effectively address the remaining causes of the digital divide.

The New York Times quoted Rob Atkinson in coverage of the challenges facing companies trying to navigate erratic tariff and trade moves from the administration.

Just Style featured an ITIF report urging US policymakers to implement a unified strategy to eliminate counterfeit products on Chinese e-commerce sites.

Reason quoted Stephen Ezell on the impact of using march-in rights within the Bayh-Dole Act.

The Globe and Mail mentioned a recent ITIF report arguing that revenue cuts from drug price caps would limit discoveries, harming treatments worldwide.

BBC News quoted Rob Atkinson on the underlying reason for the Trump Administration taking a stake in Intel in their larger coverage of conservative backlash to the move.

Tech HQ quoted Rob Atkinson, who argued that restricting AI could slow wage and economic growth.

The American Spectator cited a 2024 ITIF report arguing that reviving the Robinson-Patman Act will not lead to more competition or a better economy.

Punchbowl News quoted Daniel Castro in a story about exporters becoming worried that they’ll have to give the U.S. government a percentage of their global sales from certain advanced or sensitive tech products, considering Nvidia and AMD’s recent agreement to do so.

The Economic Times interviewed Stephen Ezell on the job-transformative impact of AI, the need for India to continue investing in AI, and the importance of not overregulating AI based on hypothetical risks.

The Washington Post quoted Rob Atkinson in a story about the AFL-CIO and other labor groups working to advance AI regulations designed to protect workers.