The Commission should ground its analysis in consumer experience rather than arbitrary thresholds, and recognize that it is time to recalibrate its priorities to address adoption and affordability barriers that remain the primary drivers of the digital divide.

The focus of the guidelines is to help assess whether a merger would significantly impede effective competition or create or strengthen a dominant position. Unfortunately, this structural understanding of competition differs from a conception of competition as either a dynamic process or a consumer welfare proscription, both of which are far better suited to having a productive and growing economy.

EU regulatory regimes discriminate against leading U.S. tech firms, chill innovation and the liberties that underlie a culture of freedom, encourage copycat regulations around the world, and undermine the West’s competitiveness against China.

Rehearing is not only permissible but warranted in this exceptionally important case. It is necessary to reconcile this Court’s antitrust rulings on the robust nature of competition in the highly dynamic mobile gaming space.

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.