Aurelien Portuese

The revised version of the Klobuchar bill (S.2992), aimed at prohibiting a few large tech companies from self-preferencing their services and forcing them to grant their rivals access to vital proprietary assets, fails to correct the critical deficiencies of the bill’s original version. This report provides a legal analysis of the new, yet uncorrected, pitfalls of the Klobuchar bill.

European regulation is on a collision course with innovation, and looms in the hazards of overregulation.

It is time for members of Congress to reflect on the numerous unintended consequences of the AICOA bill, or else the passing of this bill will weaponize antitrust laws at the expense of innovation and consumer welfare.

These bills are punitive: They would decrease consumer welfare, stifle innovation, and deter the process of creative destruction, which characterizes the dynamism of capitalist societies and underpins the march toward progress through technological changes.

The Biden administration should withdraw its support of S.2710 at least until the NTIA provides evidence of alleged anticompetitive conduct in a failing mobile apps market through its study. Until then, support for the S.2710 is rushed and undermines the effectiveness of the fact-finding exercise carried out by the NTIA via its RFC.

Biden antitrust is nothing but the Progressives’ agenda to endorse a populist “big is bad” stance and advocating for firms to be trimmed down so that none can ever exercise market power, even if such exercise benefits consumers and promote innovation.

The best way to regulate competition and enforce antitrust to prevent anticompetitive conduct remains the judicial process: Judge-made law better preserves adherence to the rule of reason, efficiency considerations, and, more generally, to the rule of law, which provides greater legal certainty. In other words, the enforcement of antitrust laws ought to remain predominantly dynamic, using the evolutionary process of the court system.

The Senate’s main antitrust bills—the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act—emulate a stalled House package and the EU’s deeply flawed Digital Markets Act. They err on many fronts, and the main arguments for them are at odds with reality.

Accepting Epic’s arguments and preventing Apple from continuing to operate its closed mobile ecosystem would eliminate a signature attractive feature of Apple’s products, to the detriment of consumer welfare, competition, and innovation.

Facebook’s business justification for limiting platform access for rival app developers was self-evident: It did not want to help them replicate its core functions, nor did it want to share its intellectual property—certainly not for free. That is rational competition, not unlawful anticompetitive behavior.

Antitrust is the wrong tool to address content moderation—and weaponizing antitrust because of animus to certain companies is simply wrong.

In revising merger guidelines, antitrust agencies should refrain from embracing the populist narrative that pursues market deconcentration and corporate disintegration at the expense of companies’ innovation, efficiency, and competitiveness.

Join ITIF for an expert discussion about how to integrate the Schumpeterian perspective into competition policy as an alternative to the Neo-Brandeisian movement agenda.

Please join ITIF for the latest in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy hosts leading scholars and antitrust enforcers to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation.

Dr. Aurelien Portuese delivered a guest lecture for Judge Douglas Ginsburg’s course on antitrust at George Mason University.

Please join ITIF for the latest in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which ITIF’s Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy hosts leading scholars and antitrust enforcers to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation.

With new leadership at the Federal Trade Commission and a new antitrust chief at the Department of Justice, what does this mean for Big Tech?

Marking the release of the new book “Algorithmic Antitrust,” ITIF’s Portuese moderated as the authors discussed their respective essays and debated how companies compete through algorithms and what it means for competition agencies.

Join ITIF for the twelfth in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s director of antitrust and innovation policy, sits down with leading scholars and antitrust enforcers in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation. Join us to discuss the interaction between antitrust and innovation with Professor Thomas Lambert and ITIF's Julie Carlson.

ITIF hosted a discussion about the new FTC's priority with Professors Daniel Crane and Andrew Gavil. This is the eleventh in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s director of antitrust and innovation policy, sits down with leading scholars and antitrust enforcers in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation.

Join us to discuss this report and the proposal of banning self-preferencing with Professor Herb Hovenkamp. This is the tenth in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s director of antitrust and innovation policy, sits down with leading scholars and antitrust enforcers in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation.

Jointly organized by ITIF's Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and held at the IEA's offices at Lord North Street in the heart of Westminster, this conference features world-leading experts, officials, and scholars. The conference debated current concepts and misconceptions of the meaning of competition in the digital era.

ITIF hosted the ninth in a series of discussions on “dynamic antitrust,” in which Aurelien Portuese, ITIF’s director of antitrust and innovation policy, sits down with leading scholars and antitrust enforcers in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere to discuss the path forward in making antitrust a foundation for innovation.

The FTC should advocate for a national privacy law that applies to all U.S. companies instead of being willing to unilaterally enforce sector-specific privacy standards that would distort competition across industries.