4 ms·
The "anti-monopoly" (anti-trust) laws are not only about actual monopolies but rather about having a dominant market position and using that for anti-competitiv
by PeterisP 5y ago
The "anti-monopoly" (anti-trust) laws are not only about actual monopolies but rather about having a dominant market position and using that for anti-competitive behavior which is forbidden not only for monopolies but various dominant not-really-monopolies.
Asserting "X is not really a monopoly" is not particularly relevant because that's not the standard which matters. It's perfectly plausible for a not-really-a-monopoly with a large but shrinking market share to abuse a dominant position in a particular market (often defined more narrowly than you might think) in ways that violate anti-trust laws.
- shadowgovt 5y agoAlways important to note the philosophy underpinning monopoly differs in the EU and the US. In particular for US law, this part: > having a dominant market position and using that for anti-competitive behavior For the EU, the question can stop there; in the US, there's an additional burden of proof that anti-competitive behavior harms the consumer. Google is allowed to build a giant search empire because so far, courts have agreed that while it's hard to compete with Google, the consumer is not harmed because a competitor is always a click away and barrier to switching is low.
- codyb 5y agoIn this case though seems like there’s plenty of consumers harmed? Here it would be the ad buyers and sellers who cannot use other exchanges and end up paying more or receiving less than they could in a fairer market with the bidding system Google and Facebook colluded to quash.