There’s a famous old political adage — “where you stand is where sit” (also known as Miles’ Law) — meaning basically that government policy positions are dictated more by agency imperative and institutional memory than objective consideration of the public interest. A related concept is “regulatory capture,” where administrative agencies over time become defenders of the status quo and pursue objectives more for regulated firms […]
The legal process is increasingly being used by incumbent industries to thwart change with that ancient mantra of obsolescent businesses, “consumer protection.”
Tesla is going to have to slog through a long and extremely expensive 50-state battle against archaic dealer-protection laws to implement its business model. Wish them luck.
In the ongoing saga of governmental antitrust investigations of Google, recent weeks have witnessed a new level of rhetoric and disingenuous use of the regulatory process to handicap, rather than promote, competition and innovation. The current case in point relates once again to search neutrality, but this time complaining rivals remarkably object to getting exactly what they’ve asked for over many years.
FairSearch.org is in denial. That is why its proposals should be rejected by antitrust enforcement authorities worldwide. Nothing distills the difference between the European and American approaches to competition law as much as this trend-setting investigation.
The last few weeks have seen a couple of remarkable announcements, one from the FTC about digital advertising disclaimers and one from the SEC about corporate financial disclosures, that just make digital advertising that much harder, if not totally impracticable.
Deconstructing the antitrust analysis applied by the FTC reveals the daunting task it faced in seeking to hold Google accountable for monopolization. The decision to fold-up the agency’s tent represents an admirable instance of prosecutorial restraint by a Commission that had been very publicly hounded by Google’s rivals.
That Google competitors do not like that the FTC will not sue for search monopolization is sour grapes, rather than a failure of will by the antitrust agencies. Governmental prudence toward search neutrality represents wisdom, not capitulation.
The SEC’s charge against the CEO of Netflix for a Facebook post illustrates that even government agencies that “get it” technically are often trapped in outmoded world views.
Google faces a moment of truth in the coming weeks over a lengthy US probe into potential abuse of its Internet search dominance.