Entrepreneurship is essential to economic progress and to upward mobility. But market concentration in the services, retailing, and light manufacturing industries has removed the incentive for small business owners to innovate, compete, and invest in research and development.
Lina Khan published an op-ed in the New York Times explaining how the Ohio v. American Express Supreme Court case could shield tech corporations like Amazon, Google, and Facebook from antitrust scrutiny.
Open Markets Institute Advisory Board Member Roger McNamee published an article in Washington Monthly explaining why the social media platform’s business model is such a threat—and what to do about it.
By introducing a special rule for “two-sided” markets, the Second Circuit needlessly departed from a longstanding approach to antitrust law. Its new rule greatly raises the burden that a plaintiff in the “twosided” market context must carry at the very earliest stage of litigation. Not only is the new rule unjustified, it is pegged to a concept that is contested and ill-defined. Defendant companies ranging from airlines to chicken processors could reasonably claim that they meet the definition of “two-sided,” winning themselves more favorable judicial review.
“To rebuild an economy that works for everyone, not just the big guys, it is critical to reduce concentrated power in our markets,” U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren said at the Open Markets Institute event, America’s Monopoly Moment, this past week. Watch the event here.