3 ms·

Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to transl

Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. That argument would either hinge on the cost of advertising being passed along to consumers. Very hard to prove. Or the higher cost decreasing the total amount of advertising, somehow harming consumers. Dubious when ad-free products are generally considered premium and desirable

ViViDboarder 6y ago
> Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. I don’t believe this is true. The law doesn’t set that criteria, but rather it’s a standard of interpretation known as the Chicago School. This was established far after, but is not law. There’s a lot of debate on whether or not we should continue to maintain the standard. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school-antitrust-law https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school... Antitrust legislation was originally established to prevent monopoly power from giving a company influence that could challenge that of government and harm democracy.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  It is an interpretation, but one explicitly endorsed by 30 years of Supreme Court precedent. Given the current composition of the court, it's unlikely that we'll ever see the consumer welfare standard overruled in our lifetime.
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
The consumers here are the advertisers.
tripzilch 6y ago
> Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. Almost as if what harms the ad industry is good for consumers ... Also, "direct harm to consumers" is about the lowest bar you can set. It would be way more responsible to take some preventative action, before the harm to consumers occurs.

ViViDboarder 6y ago

> Probably true, but antitrust law is based on consumer welfare. I don’t believe this is true. The law doesn’t set that criteria, but rather it’s a standard of interpretation known as the Chicago School. This was established far after, but is not law. There’s a lot of debate on whether or not we should continue to maintain the standard. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school-antitrust-law https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/reassessing-chicago-school... Antitrust legislation was originally established to prevent monopoly power from giving a company influence that could challenge that of government and harm democracy.

dcolkitt 6y ago
It is an interpretation, but one explicitly endorsed by 30 years of Supreme Court precedent. Given the current composition of the court, it's unlikely that we'll ever see the consumer welfare standard overruled in our lifetime.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

The consumers here are the advertisers.

tripzilch 6y ago

> Let’s say Google uses monopoly power in the ad market to squeeze advertisers. It’s hard to translate that into direct harm to consumers. Almost as if what harms the ad industry is good for consumers ... Also, "direct harm to consumers" is about the lowest bar you can set. It would be way more responsible to take some preventative action, before the harm to consumers occurs.