Europe’s Antitrust Demagogues Shake Down Google

thumbnail_imageToday the European Union imposed a $5 billion fine on Alphabet Inc., owner of Google, for antitrust violations. The punishment illustrates the power of that most abiding of monopolists, government, to extract rents and impose deadweight losses.

The EU’s core theory is that Google improperly pressures smartphone manufacturers to bundle Google apps with Android, Google’s free smartphone operating system. Continue reading “Europe’s Antitrust Demagogues Shake Down Google”

Thanks to the Court, Justice Done in AT&T/Time Warner Merger Challenge

DOJOur nation’s federal prosecutors recommend themselves as dispassionate champions of the law. As then-Attorney General Robert Jackson put it: “Although the government technically loses a case, it has really won if justice has been done.” The government, he said, should seek “truth and not victims.” The United States’ top lawyers repeat these sentiments often.

For the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, seeking “truth and not victims” means prosecuting cases that benefit consumers. And it means winning with strong economic analysis rather than with legalistic maneuvering or chicanery.

By this measure the government’s lawsuit to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner was a shambles. Continue reading “Thanks to the Court, Justice Done in AT&T/Time Warner Merger Challenge”

Solicitor General Inveighs Against Antitrust-Law Revolution in SCOTUS “Apple v. Pepper” Amicus Brief

app storeEd. Note: With this post we welcome WLF’s newest attorney, Corbin K. Barthold, as a WLF Legal Pulse author.

Many legal disputes pit the affective and sometimes utopian thinking of lawyers against the statistical and efficiency-oriented thinking of economists. The archetypal lawyer subscribes to the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium—“where there is a right, there is a remedy.” The archetypal economist is more likely to agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s view that “such words as ‘right’ are a constant solicitation to fallacy.”

In antitrust cases, at least, the Supreme Court often sides with the economists. Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a good example. It says that only the direct purchaser of an abusive monopolist’s goods or services may sue the monopolist for violating the antitrust laws. Someone who buys a product only indirectly—someone who, say, buys from a retailer who buys from an antitrust-law-violating manufacturer—is out of luck. She may not sue even if the retailer incorporated some of the supracompetitive wholesale price into the retail price. It would be too difficult, Illinois Brick concludes, to accurately apportion damages among distributers, retailers, and consumers. Continue reading “Solicitor General Inveighs Against Antitrust-Law Revolution in SCOTUS “Apple v. Pepper” Amicus Brief”