A new and urgently needed guide to making the American economy more competitive at a time when tech giants have amassed vast market power. The U.S. economy is growing less competitive. Large businesses increasingly profit by taking advantage of their customers and suppliers. These firms can also use sophisticated pricing algorithms and customer data to secure substantial and persistent advantages over smaller players. In our new Gilded Age, the likes of Google and Amazon fill the roles of Standard Oil and U.S. Steel. Jonathan Baker shows how business practices harming competition manage to go unchecked. The law has fallen behind technology, but that is not the only problem. Inspired by Robert Bork, Richard Posner, and the “Chicago school,” the Supreme Court has, since the Reagan years, steadily eroded the protections of antitrust. The Antitrust Paradigm demonstrates that Chicago-style reforms intended to unleash competitive enterprise have instead inflated market power, harming the welfare of workers and consumers, squelching innovation, and reducing overall economic growth. Baker identifies the errors in economic arguments for staying the course and advocates for a middle path between laissez-faire and forced deconcentration: the revival of pro-competitive economic regulation, of which antitrust has long been the backbone. Drawing on the latest in empirical and theoretical economics to defend the benefits of antitrust, Baker shows how enforcement and jurisprudence can be updated for the high-tech economy. His prescription is straightforward. The sooner courts and the antitrust enforcement agencies stop listening to the Chicago school and start paying attention to modern economics, the sooner Americans will reap the benefits of competition.

A concise but thorough resource, the guide provides a time-saving reference for the latest case law, and the most recent legislation affecting rulemaking.

After thirty years, the debate over antitrust's ideology has quieted. Most now agree that the protection of consumer welfare should be the only goal of antitrust laws. Execution, however, is another matter. The rules of antitrust remain unfocused, insufficiently precise, and excessively complex. The problem of poorly designed rules is severe, because in the short run rules weigh much more heavily than principles. At bottom, antitrust is a defensible enterprise only if it can make the microeconomy work better, after accounting for the considerable costs of operating the system. The Antitrust Enterprise is the first authoritative and compact exposition of antitrust law since Robert Bork's classic The Antitrust Paradox was published more than thirty years ago. It confronts not only the problems of poorly designed, overly complex, and inconsistent antitrust rules but also the current disarray of antitrust's rule of reason, offering a coherent and workable set of solutions. The result is an antitrust policy that is faithful to the consumer welfare principle but that is also more readily manageable by the federal courts and other antitrust tribunals.

Competition and consumer protection -- The economics of information -- Information and market power -- Agreements on information -- Exclusion by information -- "Confusopoly" and information asymmetries -- Privacy as an information product -- Information and intellectual property -- Restraint of trade and freedom of speech

In 2012, when the Justice Department sued Apple and five book publishers for price fixing, many observers sided with the defendants. It was a reminder that, in practice, Americans are ambivalent about competition. Chris Sagers shows why protecting price competition, even when it hurts some of us, is crucial if antitrust law is to preserve markets.

The most important book on antitrust ever written. It shows how antitrust suits adversely affect the consumer by encouraging a costly form of protection for inefficient and uncompetitive small businesses.

Under the purely economics-based approach to competition law, the central consideration is whether the conduct of undertakings has the effect of restricting competition or not. Such an ‘objective’ approach to antitrust enforcement leaves little room for subjective elements like intentions. But what happens when economic analysis reaches its limits? In this signal contribution, the author invokes the criminal law concept of mens rea, the idea of the ‘guilty mind’, thoroughly evaluating the normative cogency of mens rea evidence in the determination of antitrust infringements. Delving deep into the case law, the author views the subject from the standpoint of a confluence of various areas of law, including: the role of mens rea in the criminal law in France, Germany, and England and Wales; the different types of mens rea (e.g., intent, recklessness, negligence); mens rea in a corporate context; mens rea evidence in United States antitrust law; the notion of the ‘meeting of minds’ in Article 101 TFEU; relevance of intentions in the determination of the object of an agreement or concerted practice; relevance of intentions in the determination of abuse of a dominant position; and the role of mens rea in the determination of fines for antitrust breaches. The author also examines arguments both for and against the use of mens rea evidence in determining whether an antitrust infringement took place and how it should be punished. This is the first full-length assessment of what role mens rea evidence actually plays and should play in competition law even as the tools for antitrust analysis are meant to become increasingly objective. As a thoroughly researched and systematically presented commentary and analysis of the current status of the use of mens rea in antitrust enforcement and how the practice could develop, it is sure to be welcomed by practitioners as well as by policymakers and academics.