Canada should approach exploratory talks regarding a Canada–EU digital trade agreement with caution. Greater alignment with the EU may appear to provide a hedge against U.S. influence, but in practice it risks importing a framework that impedes the potential for Canada’s digital economy and industries while raising compliance costs.

ITIF disagrees with the Competition and Markets Authority's provisional findings that Google's mobile platform has Strategic Market Status and that there are high barriers to entry and expansion.

ITIF does not agree with the Competition and Markets Authority's provisional findings that Apple's mobile platform has Strategic Market Status and that there are high barriers to entry and expansion.

Section 337 was made into law to help address unfair foreign trade practices. It should be used vigorously to prevent the import of IP-infringing products from firms that systemically benefit from unfair government practices in non-market, non-rule-of-law economies such as China.

The Bureau should not treat algorithmic pricing as a risk category in itself. The relevant concern is not whether pricing is algorithmic, dynamic, or AI-enabled, but whether it is used to harm competition or consumers. Addressing that will require focusing on market context and firm conduct rather than the type of tool used.

Space safety is an important and shared interest of governments, private industry, and consumers around the world. But a regulatory framework for it should be evidence-based and even-handed. If the EUSA proceeds, we can expect the same proliferation of copycat space regulations through the Brussels effect.

The Commission should seek to maximize the productivity of satellite spectrum by replacing EPFD limits with the degraded throughput methodology that is used for NGSO-NGSO spectrum sharing and for NGSO-GSO sharing in the V-band.

The CMA should not regulate a nascent and rapidly evolving field like AI chatbots as an access point to search, where competition limits the potential for market power.

Foreign governments are systematically deploying policies that constitute non-tariff attacks (NTAs) on America’s leading technology companies. ITIF and other think tank scholars and policy experts urge the administration to put these unfair NTAs on the U.S. trade agenda and insist that America’s trading partners address them.

By foreclosing Apple from charging a commission for linked transactions, the district court inexplicably decided to prohibit Apple from engaging in unilateral pricing conduct that was not—and cannot be—found to violate the antitrust laws.