Joseph V. Coniglio

The ruling against Google in the ad tech case has been heralded as a straightforward effort to hold Big Tech accountable. But in reality, the mixed decision is a regrettable misstep that rests on shaky legal foundations and risks severe knock-on consequences for innovation.

The prevailing left and right populisms—neo-Brandeisian and national conservatism—do not present desirable models for grounding the next generation of U.S. antitrust law and share important key flaws.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the AI revolution.

AI provides no reason at this time for either heavy-handed enforcement of our antitrust laws or fundamental changes to them. The right approach is to maintain antitrust law’s traditional focus on promoting competition and innovation by proscribing collusive and exclusionary anticompetitive conduct.

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.

By deciding not to pursue digital competition regulation, Australia can avoid the problems that are already materializing as a result of ex-ante regimes like the EU’s DMA.

The possibility of a new bipartisan consensus based on the Biden administration’s failed merger policies should concern Senate Republicans.

While ITIF commends the MBIE for analyzing the efficacy of its current regime, substantial changes to New Zealand’s competition laws should be a response to clear market failures that improves consumer welfare, and not merely an attempt to keep up with perceived global or regional trends.

Neo-Brandeisian antitrust will not form the basis of a new bipartisan antitrust consensus.

Instead of treating Apple as a public utility, the Commission should work to ensure that interoperability requirements align with the broader theoretical framework that orients European competition policy, such as condemning unilateral conduct that may harm rivals only when it does not constitute competition on the merits.

There are several reasons for thinking DOJ is on shaky ground in attempting to define three separate ad exchange, ad server, and ad network markets given the Supreme Court’s decision in Amex.

While the FTC has lived to fight another day, the likelihood that it will overcome the hurdles implicated by Judge Boasberg’s summary judgment opinion is slim.

Please join ITIF for a virtual panel with top experts who will discuss this important decision, its implications for the ad tech space, and what it means for Google as its antitrust battles with the DOJ escalate.

Watch now for a virtual panel with top experts who will discussed the key issues going to trial, the implications for Google and the future of search, and what the case means for U.S. antitrust law and the broader “big tech” debate.

Watch the webinar event where panlists discussed how antitrust enforcement might change with the new administration, whether the Trump enforcers will carry forward any of the neo-Brandeisian policies, and what the future may have in store for the FTC.

Watch now for a virtual panel discussion with experts exploring the merits and implications of the DOJ v. Google ad tech case.

Watch now for an event hosted by ITIF's Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy, featuring leading antitrust experts from Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the United States.

Watch now for a timely panel discussion featuring leading antitrust lawyers from India and the United States.

Watch now for an expert panel discussion about the merits and implications of the DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple.

Watch now to learn more about the ongoing efforts to reform U.S. antitrust law.

Watch now for an expert panel discussion on the possible outcomes and implications of this landmark antitrust case.

Watch this expert discussion about the merits and implications of the FTC’s landmark challenge to Amazon.