Antitrust Laws and Competition Issues

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris and a New Economic Vision

      by

      Kamala Harris is beginning to offer the first definitive clues of a new economic vision — one with the potential not only to offer a unifying vision for the Democratic Party but also to serve as the foundation for a governing philosophy that crosses party lines.In recent years, both parties have broken with a markets-know-best default setting. The question is, what comes next?One influential school of thought, advanced by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, argues for increasing the supply of essentials such as housing, health care and clean energy, in part by using government to break the choke points that make these goods too scarce and costly in the first place. This has truth — the much-criticized million-dollar-toilet problem gets at something real.But it doesn’t fully reflect the realities of how powerful interests hold captive parts of our economy, and then our political system. A second intellectual camp focuses on these forces, and its avatars include Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission and the modern antitrust movement, and the U.A.W. leader Shawn Fain and re-energized labor unions. Yet it, too, is incomplete as a governing wisdom, as it lacks affirmative answers for our largest challenges, like how to decarbonize quickly and at scale, and how to contend with a rising geopolitical competitor in China.Ms. Harris’s early proposals suggest she is drawing from both strands in telling a more holistic and entirely new story about how the economy works and the aims it should serve. Put differently, her slogan “We’re not going back” might well extend beyond political and social rights to include a different brand of economics.This new story has two themes — call them “build” and “balance.” The first focuses on pointing and shaping markets toward worthy aims; the second corrects upstream power imbalances so that market outcomes are fairer and need less after-the-fact redistribution.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks Joint Streaming Service from Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery

      by

      The planned service from Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery was slated to cost $42.99 a month and aimed at fans who had abandoned cable TV.A judge issued a preliminary injunction against Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery on Friday over a planned sports-focused streaming service from the companies, saying the joint venture would most likely make the market for sports viewership less competitive.The 69-page ruling from a federal judge in New York’s Southern District effectively halts — at least for the moment — the companies’ ambitious plans for the service, called Venu, which was aimed at sports fans who had abandoned cable television.The service, which had been expected to become available this fall and cost $42.99 a month, promised to offer marquee games from the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball.But the idea raised alarms with rivals, most notably a sports streaming service called Fubo, which sued to block the new service’s formation after it was announced this year. In a statement accompanying its complaint, filed on Feb. 20, Fubo alleged that Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery had “engaged in a long-running pattern” of trying to stymie its business through anticompetitive tactics.The complaint led to a hearing this month that focused on whether Fubo should be able to obtain a preliminary injunction against Venu, essentially stopping the sports-media venture from proceeding.In her ruling, Judge Margaret Garnett said Fubo was likely to prevail in its claim that the new service would “substantially lessen competition and restrain trade.” She added that refusing to grant the injunction could limit the effectiveness of any court order reached after a trial.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Why Google, Microsoft and Amazon Shy Away From Buying A.I. Start-Ups

      by

      Google, Microsoft and Amazon have made deals with A.I. start-ups for their technology and top employees, but have shied from owning the firms. Here’s why.In 2022, Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas left their jobs developing artificial intelligence at Google. They said the tech giant moved too slowly. So they created Character.AI, a chatbot start-up, and raised nearly $200 million.Last week, Mr. Shazeer and Mr. De Freitas announced that they were returning to Google. They had struck a deal to rejoin its A.I. research arm, along with roughly 20 percent of Character.AI’s employees, and provide their start-up’s technology, they said.But even though Google was getting all that, it was not buying Character.AI.Instead, Google agreed to pay $3 billion to license the technology, two people with knowledge of the deal said. About $2.5 billion of that sum will then be used to buy out Character.AI’s shareholders, including Mr. Shazeer, who owns 30 percent to 40 percent of the company and stands to net $750 million to $1 billion, the people said. What remains of Character.AI will continue operating without its founders and investors.The deal was one of several unusual transactions that have recently emerged in Silicon Valley. While big tech companies typically buy start-ups outright, they have turned to a more complicated deal structure for young A.I. companies. It involves licensing the technology and hiring the top employees — effectively swallowing the start-up and its main assets — without becoming the owner of the firm.These transactions are being driven by the big tech companies’ desire to sidestep regulatory scrutiny while trying to get ahead in A.I., said three people who have been involved in such agreements. Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft are under a magnifying glass from agencies like the Federal Trade Commission over whether they are squashing competition, including by buying start-ups.“Large tech firms may clearly be trying to avoid regulatory scrutiny by not directly acquiring the targeted firms,” said Justin Johnson, a business economist who focuses on antitrust at Cornell University. But “these deals do indeed start to look a lot like regular acquisitions.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

      by

      Two billionaire Democratic donors have publicly pressured Vice President Kamala Harris to replace the F.T.C. chair, Lina Khan. Wall Street insiders are worried that could backfire.Wall Street Democrats have spent the last eight years complaining about their relationship with Washington. They found former President Donald Trump’s presidency unpredictable, and then became estranged from the Democratic Party as President Biden hired the most aggressive antitrust regulators in recent memory. But now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, they see a chance to regain influence.Some have returned to a long tradition of writing checks, scheduling fund-raising dinners and orchestrating subtle campaigns. But others, embracing the public lobbying welcomed by Trump and employed by outspoken C.E.O.s like Elon Musk and Bill Ackman, are openly calling for Harris to oust Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission: “I think she’s a dope,” Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC, told CNBC. (He later apologized for calling her a dope, but not for critiquing her policies.)Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder, spoke to CNN twice about his Khan concerns. “Antitrust is fine,” Hoffman said. “Waging war is not.” (He later clarified that he would support Harris regardless of whether she replaced Khan.)Few on Wall Street would disagree with that stance — Khan has moved to block deals with seemingly little concern over losing in court. But behind the scenes, many are irked by this kind of public lobbying, arguing that it exposes a misunderstanding of the way the Washington game is played, and that it could backfire.Their concerns are echoed by strategists: “I’m not really sure if it’s very effective,” Stuart Stevens, a political consultant who previously worked for Mitt Romney, told DealBook. “I’ve always felt once you make these things public, it makes it harder for politicians to do.”Critics immediately called the public lobbying self-interested. The F.T.C. has reportedly opened multiple investigations that involve subsidiaries of Diller’s IAC, according to CNN, and Hoffman has a seat on the board of Microsoft, whose investment in OpenAI is also under scrutiny from the F.T.C.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      N.F.L. Sunday Ticket Verdict Is Thrown Out by Judge

      by

      The decision, five weeks after a jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages in an antitrust case, is a reprieve for the league.The $4.7 billion verdict against the National Football League for colluding to raise prices for its Sunday Ticket television package was overturned late Thursday by a federal judge, who disqualified expert testimony used by the jury to determine damages.The judge, Philip Gutierrez of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, ruled a day after lawyers for the N.F.L. had asked him to exclude testimony from key witnesses for plaintiffs representing thousands of customers who bought Sunday Ticket, a season-long package that showed all out-of-town games and was sold by DirecTV.The jury’s verdict five weeks ago in favor of those plaintiffs threatened to upend the league’s strategy of selling exclusive television packages to broadcasters.In his 16-page decision, Judge Gutierrez said the plaintiffs’ two economic witnesses had used flawed methodology in their attempts to show that the league overcharged Sunday Ticket customers. The jury’s calculations of damages were thrown out because they were based on the witnesses’ testimony, which included comparisons to how college games are broadcast and unsubstantiated speculation on how the N.F.L. might sell games individually, the judge said.“The court finds that the jury’s damages awards were not based on the ‘evidence and reasonable inferences’ but instead were more akin to ‘guesswork or speculation,’” he wrote.Judge Gutierrez also said the jury had not followed his instructions for calculating damages, which in antitrust cases like this one are tripled and would have led to a $14.1 billion verdict against the league.“We are grateful for today’s ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the league said in a statement. “We believe that the N.F.L.’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television.”Calls and text messages to Bill Carmody, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, were not immediately returned.Before the judge’s decision, the N.F.L. said it was prepared to appeal the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs can potentially appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The monthlong trial featured testimony from the N.F.L.’s commissioner, Roger Goodell; Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys; and Sean McManus, who recently retired as the chairman of CBS Sports.Last season, the N.F.L. ended its relationship with DirecTV and sold the rights to the Sunday Ticket package to YouTube for as much as $2.5 billion annually. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman and Other Tech Billionaires Brawl Over Politics

      by

      Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman and other tech billionaires, many of whom are part of the “PayPal Mafia,” are openly brawling with one another over politics as tensions rise.Less than an hour after a gunman in Butler, Pa., tried to assassinate Donald J. Trump this month, David Sacks, a venture capitalist based in San Francisco, directed his anger about the incident toward a former colleague.“The Left normalized this,” Mr. Sacks wrote on X, linking to a post about Reid Hoffman, a technology investor and major Democratic donor. Mr. Sacks implied that Mr. Hoffman, a critic of Mr. Trump who had funded a lawsuit accusing the former president of rape and defamation, had helped cause the shooting.Elon Musk, who leads SpaceX and Tesla and previously worked with Mr. Sacks and Mr. Hoffman, then weighed in on X, name-checking Mr. Hoffman and saying people like him “got their dearest wish.”In Silicon Valley, the spectacle of tech billionaire attacking tech billionaire has suddenly exploded, as pro-Trump executives and their Democratic counterparts have openly turned on each other. The brawling has spilled into public view online, at conferences and on podcasts, as debates about the country’s future have turned into personal broadsides.The animus has pit those who once worked side by side and attended each other’s weddings against one another, fraying friendships and alliances that could shift Silicon Valley’s power centers. The fighting has been particularly acute among the “PayPal Mafia,” a wealthy group of tech executives — including Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Musk, Mr. Sacks and the investor Peter Thiel — who worked together at the online payments company in the 1990s and later founded their own companies or turned into high-profile investors.Other tech leaders have also been pulled into the political spats, including Vinod Khosla, a prominent investor, and Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz of the Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Google Close to Its Biggest Acquisition Ever, Despite Antitrust Scrutiny

      by

      The search giant’s negotiations to buy Wiz, a cybersecurity start-up, for $23 billion, come as the Biden administration has taken a hard line against consolidation in tech and other industries.Google, which became one of the world’s the most valuable companies through its search engine and other consumer internet services, is nearing its largest-ever acquisition to improve what it can offer to business customers.Google is in talks to buy Wiz, a New York-based cybersecurity start-up, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions, who were not authorized to discuss them. Wiz was last valued at $12 billion.The companies have valued the deal at roughly $23 billion, said one of the people, easily making it Google’s most expensive acquisition and nearly double what the company paid for Motorola Mobility in 2012.While a deal looks likely, talks could still fall apart, the people said.Google and Wiz did not respond to requests for comment. The Wall Street Journal earlier reported that the companies were discussing a deal.Google has moved forward with negotiations despite the possibility that regulators might try to block the deal. But the company may be willing to fight to beef up its cloud-computing division, which lags behind Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure.Google was sued by the Justice Department in two separate antitrust cases, one targeting its ubiquitous search engine and another seeking to break up its digital advertising-technology business. A verdict in the search case is expected this summer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Going After the Middleman

      by

      Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, the Justice Department’s top antitrust official, talked with DealBook about the agency’s focus on middlemen companies and the challenge of A.I.With the presidential election approaching, many chief executives have been glued to the shot clock counting down to Election Day, wondering which companies and industries the Biden-appointed regulatory apparatus — perhaps the most aggressive in a generation — may try to target before it goes to zero.Business leaders have been combing through comments and transcripts to try to understand the pending priorities of regulators like Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division.They’ve zeroed in on what may sound like a nerdy legal theory, but one that could have huge implications: the tyranny of the intermediary, middleman companies that abuse their role by squeezing out competition or creating artificially expensive moats. The Justice Department has already made one high-profile strike along these lines, suing to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation.It is reportedly investigating at least two others. One is RealPage, a property management company that uses artificial intelligence to suggest prices and has already been sued by renters accusing it of facilitating a new type of collusion. The second is UnitedHealth Group, the health care conglomerate that owns a cobweb of businesses that include an insurer and another unit that employs about 10,000 physicians in the United States.RealPage said in a statement this week it was “proud of the role our customers play in providing safe and affordable housing to millions of people.” It has also launched a website about its software.Guessing what other names could be on the list has become something of a parlor game for dealmakers. A travel booking service that jacks up fees? A brokerage firm that an apartment building requires its renters to use? Shareholder advisory firms that can determine whether a deal goes through? Marketplaces that take a cut every time an NFT changes hands?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More