Wednesday, October 08, 2025

What a Dutch Court Ruling Against Meta Signals for Private DSA Enforcement

 R. Jahangir, here.

Algorithmic Antitrust: California's New Pricing Law

 FKKS, here.

AI Act Single Information Platform

EC,  here.

Announcing DTI’s Data Trust Registry

 Here.

How Google's AI Overviews are affecting Australian news websites

 ABC, here.

How to Overturn an Oligarchy

 

M. Stoller, here

 

 

 

 

 

On this side of the Atlantic, the CMA: "It is plausible that to the extent Activision content is
added to Game Pass, the price of Game Pass subscriptions may increase
commensurately and therefore the purported benefit from the Merger may not
ultimately accrue to UK consumers to the extent claimed, or even at all" - so: price increase for UK consumers ok, because of added Activision content? 

Saturday, October 04, 2025

Who were those academics and other economists lavishly paid to say this would never happen, BTW?

 


Coordination and Power

 


F. Gernone, here.

This is a very basic AI generated video overview produced by Notebook LM - potentially lowering your barriers to entry (these days, experimenting using it with my Students and also with you, dear Wavesblog Readers). The paper offers antitrust folks still reliant on IO economics a different and original lens through which to view things — and that, in itself, is already something decidedly worthwhile!

Algorithmic pricing and competition in G7 jurisdictions

 OECD, here.

Amazingly timely, thank you! Next week topic...

 


 

Updated Compendium of approaches to improving competition in digital markets

 G7, here.

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

The Economics of the DMA: Insights from the European Commission’s Expert Workshop

 SCIDA, here.

[Disclosure: I submitted an evol econ paper to the conf but it was turned down - it happens, cheer up - soon in ORDO;  a very friendly lawyer was kind enough to describe the paper as groundbreaking - sure it isn't but I had fun writing it!]

Teresa Ribera at the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics

 Video here.

Friday, September 26, 2025

Why Meta Thinks It Can Challenge Apple in Consumer AI Devices

 WSJ, here.

The Digital Markets Act turns 1: one year of pushing for Device Neutrality

 FSFE, here

Joint Section Comment to the EC on their First Review of the Digital Markets Act

 ABA Antitrust, here

Sanzione per oltre 936 milioni complessivi a Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras e Tamoil per intesa restrittiva della concorrenza

 AGCM, here

If it's good enough for Big Oil and Big Tobacco, it's good enough for Cupertino.

 Infrequently.org, here

Meta to launch ad-free subscription to Facebook and Instagram in UK

 Independent, here

Sidelined UX Research: Lessons From Meta’s Senate Hearing

 here.

Judge Alsup grants preliminary approval of $1.5 billion settlement, largest in copyright history, in class action filed by Bartz v. Anthropic.

 ChatGPTiseatingtheworld, here.

Conference Debrief – Highlights from the UK Digital Markets Competition Regulation Forum 2025

 SCiDA, here.

Without a Payment Ban, What Can We Expect from the US v. Google Data Sharing Remedies?

 A. Cooper, here.

Latest iOS beta hints at notifications on non-Apple watches

 The Verge, here

Commission opens investigation into possible anticompetitive practices by SAP regarding maintenance and support services for its popular business management software

 EC, here

Consultation on the 2025 Review of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)

 SCIDA, here.

The Digital Markets Act is good for European consumers and must be protected: EU consumer groups’ response to Apple

 BEUC, here.

Thursday, September 25, 2025

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

GERECHTSHOF AMSTERDAM: META AND 5(2) DMA

 Hier.

A clean, just and competitive European Industry Policy Conference 2025

 Video here

Como promover uma lei de concorrência digital justa no Brasil

 P. Bello et al., aqui.

How Google Paid the Media Millions to Avoid Regulatory Pressure

 TechPolicy, here.

Commission requests information under Digital Services Act from Apple, Booking.com, Google and Microsoft on financial scams

 EC, here

Sixth AI Pact webinar on the General-Purpose AI Models and Code of Practice

 DigitalEU, Video here.

Remedies Should Account for the Past to Protect the Future

 


Plaintiffs, here.

Remedies Trial Update, Septembeer 23, 2025: Four industry witnesses, and a somber reminder that this trial is about the future of journalism

 USvGooleAds, here

Examination of technology: Immersive technologies

Digital Platform Regulators Forum, here

Brazilian DMA at the UN General Assembly!

 President Lula, here

Digital agriculture

 EPO, here

Canada TikTok Privacy Investigation

DPAs, here.

California Finalizes Regulations to Strengthen Consumers' Privacy

 CPPA, here

Tuesday, September 23, 2025

FSFE’s Statement in Intervention: Apple v European Commission (Case T-1080/23)

 Here

Will Google’s AI Overviews Swallow the News?

 Preiskel & Co, here

De vervanging van regels door macht en de toenemende beïnvloeding van de vrije wil

 M. Snoep, hier

Inside the EU's Courtroom Playbook on Competition w/ Fernando Castillo de la Torre

 The Binary Agora, here

Appraising the Google Search Antitrust Remedies

 E. Hovenkamp, D. Melamed, here.

Even moderate "traditionalists" are unhappy...

Google Developer Verification Policy and the DMA

 F-Droid, here.

Smart resilience

 Human forward, here.

The treatment of innovation in EU merger control at the crossroads

 White & Case, here.

Tech went all in. Now what?

 

Here

It's Groundhog Day for a Google Breakup

 Big Tech on Trial, here

DMA: Apple's (first 5) waiver requests turned down, more to come?

 EC, decision here

Anything in the DMA preventing the EC from being flooded by Apple's waiver requests :-)?  

How Wikipedia Can Save the Internet With Advertising

 R. Berjon, here

How AI startups are fueling Google’s booming cloud business

TechCrunch, here.

N.B. "Neither Lovable nor Windsurf have signed a preferred cloud provider agreement" 

Why oh why this clarification ;-)? 


DOJ vs Google: Back to Court for Remedies to Break Digital Ads Monopoly

 K. Montoya, here

Remedies Trial Update, September 22, 2025: Google's proposed remedies are like "putting a band-aid on a severed limb"

USvGoogleAds, here

Saturday, September 20, 2025

Sunday, September 14, 2025

How to Build a Post-American Liberal Order

P. O'Brien, here.  

International Competition Law: My Syllabus, Unbound

 Course Description

Competition policy has long been regarded as an essential framework for any economy based on market exchange. Its logic is not confined to capitalist systems; rather, it establishes the conditions under which markets can function at all. Traces of such principles can already be discerned in the Roman world two millennia ago, anticipating many features of modern regimes. In recent years, competition has also been valued as a mechanism for stimulating innovation across a wide range of fields, extending far beyond its important role in driving price rivalry.

Unlike other areas of law, there has never been a codified body of international competition law. Yet practice has always carried a strong cross-border dimension. The case of Google in Europe is emblematic: multiple abuses of a dominant position by a U.S. company not only harmed European consumers but also affected European firms, as well as other companies operating within the EU. Many of the latter were themselves U.S. firms.

Traditionally, transatlantic cooperation between the European Union and the United States provided an anchor for international enforcement. These two jurisdictions have also been at the origin of several international initiatives in the field, most notably the creation and promotion of the International Competition Network. The OECD, though a more limited “club” of states, has likewise played an influential role in shaping cross-jurisdictional competition policy.

In recent months, however, the pace of history has accelerated. Established alliances have weakened, autocracies have flourished, and new partnerships among democratic blocs are bound to shape global competition policy in novel ways.

This course begins with a brief historical excursus before moving swiftly to the current order. The beginning of modern legislation in the field of competition policy is usually identified with the enactment of the Sherman Act in the United States in 1890, often regarded as the foundational statement of modern antitrust principles. These principles directly influenced the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which founded the European Economic Community in the late 1950s. Competition was enshrined there into core legal provisions, as it was seen as an important tool to achieve the European single market—a pivotal project, all of which was to be based firmly on the rule of law.

In the closing decades of the twentieth century, competition policy spread widely, with antitrust legislation being adopted in almost every jurisdiction, including China. Yet rather than being strengthened, it often lost force under the prevailing neoliberal ideology. That system rested on a stylised belief that markets tended to function well on their own, requiring only minimal intervention in cases of market failure. The result was a competition policy that became hesitant, overly cautious, and in many respects ineffective.

Today, however, we are entering a post-neoliberal phase. This shift poses new challenges for competition policy, which must be re-imagined and made more effective in order to confront the multiplication of monopolies, particularly in key sectors such as digital technologies and global platforms.

The course will adopt a pragmatic, case-based approach, relying on inductive reasoning rather than abstract theory. From the outset, students will be actively engaged with leading cases and encouraged to draw broader lessons from them. Class sessions will provide ample opportunity for discussion and group work. The material provided will focus on case analysis and critical reflection, always with an eye to the broader context of profound change. What has been done in the past may prove of limited use for the future, and it is precisely this transition that the course aims to address.


Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, students will be able to:

  • Understand what competition policy is and how it is designed to shape the functioning of a market economy.
  • Recognise how the principles of competition policy are being transformed in light of the digital economy, the growing role of data as a source of value, and the rise of AI.
  • Apply these principles to future-oriented scenarios, whether from the perspective of a business, a policy-making role, or a consultancy context.
  • Use competition policy concepts in a strategic way, linking theory to practical challenges.
  • Identify avenues for further study and research in competition law and policy.
  •  

Assessment

Active participation is both mandatory and strongly encouraged, as it forms an integral part of the final grade. Students will be expected to contribute through presentations and small group assignments conducted throughout the course.


The final examination will be written ("paper and pen") and divided into two parts:

  • a theoretical section with three open-ended questions;
  • a case-based section, consisting of one question relating to a case discussed during the course.


Course Materials and Weekly Assignments

There is no single textbook for this course. Instead, students will receive weekly assignments consisting of readings and case materials. Each class session will build directly on this material, which together forms the required study corpus for the final exam. Weekly study and active participation are therefore not only encouraged but are in themselves the most effective preparation for the assessment.


Frequently Asked Questions: Data Act

 EC, here.

Dynamic Effects in Merger Control

 I. Lianos et al., here

Friday, September 05, 2025

Sunday, August 31, 2025

Surrender a pair of shoes today and who knows what you are going to give up tomorrow?

 FT, here.

Big Tech’s political power has been channelled through the market. By now, we shoud've learned our lesson. AI technologies imposed on consumers and business users are new forms of intermediation. Left to well known dynamics, enshittification is inevitable. US citizens and consumers have no choice, but is it what we want for the EU? Again? 

AI quietly mediates our world

 BBC, here.

New cloud and AI development Act

 Public submissions, here.

EU's pace is utterly inadequate, in these changing times. What to do? 

Friday, August 29, 2025

Google set to face modest EU antitrust fine in adtech investigation, sources say

 Reuters, here.

The crawl-to-click gap: Cloudflare data on AI bots, training, and referrals

 The Cloudfare Blog, here.

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater Delivers Remarks to the Ohio State University Law School

 Speech here.

Waiting for Judge Mehta's remedies...

Lina Khan recently reminded us that antitrust is “pro-growth” because it clears away private choke points. Europe has written that logic into law through the DMA; the US still waits on individual judges to prise open markets. Mehta’s decision (from here, at some point) will tell us whether American enforcement can rise to the challenge—or whether the choke points will remain firmly in place, and further expand into the gatekeepers AI age. 

Inside the Lobbying Blitz Over Colorado's AI Law

 TPP, here.

Google kneecaps indie Android devs, forces them to register

 The Register, here.

Anthropic users face a new choice – opt out or share your chats for AI training

 TechCrunch, here.

EuroStack: Enough Contemplation, but also Enough Straw Mannerism

 The Eurostack, here.

[Interestingly, straw mannerism has been the preferred tactic also against DMA supporters - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose]


BREAKING UP WITH BIG TECH

 Amnesty International, here.

EU speed-learning how to bull-fight with Trump?

T. Ribera, here

T. Breton, here and here

And, finally, H. Virkkunen, here (on her favourite social network).

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

President Trump is kindly invited to our DMA Conference. Thank you.

Mr President,


Perhaps it is all a misunderstanding. Our EU laws are not meant to punish your most prized tech companies, but to secure contestability and fairness in European digital markets. In your own language, it is about levelling the playing field, making markets great again, and ensuring that everyone gets, as you would put it, a fair deal.


In the spirit of cultivating a more balanced understanding in our transatlantic intercourse, we would be delighted to welcome you to our forthcoming conference on the Digital Markets Act, in person or online. There you will hear from independent researchers—a species now sadly endangered in the United States—that the DMA is not contrived to screw your crown jewels, but to build European digital markets on principles rather different from those across the Atlantic, namely firmly rooted in contestability and fairness.


For years we in Europe played the dutiful vassal, scarcely noticing the role, nodding along while our digital industries were subdued and our consumers cheerfully milked. Only recently, as one of our leading thinkers put it, has our faith in this US promoted version of neoliberalism been broken—and here too, Mr President, your role was not negligible. We now see our dependencies and chains—bound to technologies devised elsewhere, with embedded values ofter far from our own.


Thank you for your kind attention. We look forward to your prompt feedback.


Kindest regards



Monday, August 25, 2025

Elon Musk’s xAI Sues Apple and OpenAI, Alleging They Are ‘Monopolists’

 WSJ, here. Here.


Draghi's Rimini Speech: Game Over for Europe?

 Here. Video here.

It seems that the antitrust authorities now find themselves caught between hammer and anvil. On the one side, their governments may bow to Trump’s policy line, dismantling digital ex-ante legislation in the process. The clearest cases are South Korea and, quite possibly, India. On the other side comes Draghi, declaring the world order over—with obvious consequences for the international role of independent competition authorities which were established as part of the neoliberal package. Truly, interesting times lie ahead. The EU "adapted" to that age too, as Draghi reminded us (more economic approach, anyone?), but it needs to change again. Quickly. 

Zur Abhängigkeit deutscher Unternehmen von den Clouddiensten ausländischer Anbieter

 Bundesregierung, hier.

Urteil: Landgericht untersagt Google Gmail-Bevorzugung bei Android-Einrichtung

 Heise.de, hier. 

BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE AS AMICUS IN SUPPORT OF EPIC

 Here.

Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Meta urged to ban child-like chatbots amid Brazil’s safety concerns

 DigWatch, here

Judge says Amazon must disclose its research funding to economists, academics and think tanks as part of a class action lawsuit.

Motion to compel, here.

Order granting motion to compel, here.

This is Lina Khan's article BTW, from Wavesblog archives.

[What about an academic who writes an economic paper "recommending caution" from enforcers - exculpating Amazon's self-preferencing - and a few days after publication starts working for Amazon. Does it count as external or internal? 

More fundamentally: does this type of intellectual capture work like this? Amazon supplies data (and money), friendly IO economists in academia supply theories - models, and the outcomes neatly reinforce the economics that defend entrenched power? Huge ROI possible.

[Possibly, however, the real problem of  this type economics is that it's used by Big Tech as a distraction. [Spend precious time debating models - like Romans were doing over entrails? - instead of devoting time and efforts observing and trying to understand the complexities of the technological world and their societal implications. Clearly, we'd need a different type of social science for that]].


What happened?

 


Google updates terms for app marketplace following EU pressure

 


Euronews, here

Virtual (ASCOLA) Townhouse Meeting With Lina Khan

  September 4, 10-11 am Eastern Time, here to sign up. 

Monday, August 11, 2025

An AI Replay of the Browser Wars, Bankrolled by Google

 Bloomberg, here.

How AI-Driven Search May Reshape Democracy, Economics, and Human Agency

 C. Pattison et al., here.

Businesses can use your online data to overcharge you. What can customers do?

 NPR, here.

Wie energisch greift die EU gegen Big Tech durch?

 ARD, Tagesschau hier.

The proposed ex-ante regime downgraded to a market study in India: Big Win for Big Tech

 FE, here.

That was soon after South Korea's decision to dump its DMA too. Big Tech in Asia is likely celebrating, with Trump's support. By the way, how effective and influential are independent civil society orgs and academics in those jurisdictions? 

More post-mortem (of the Draft Digital Competition Bill) next 13 August, 14.30 CET here

Friday, August 08, 2025

Apple’s lock on iPhone browser engines gets a December deadline

 The Verge, here.

Should UK private competition enforcement be dismantled as well?

 UK Gov, here.

Reminder: a Labour Government. 

Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December

 OWA, here.

Thousands of hotels in Europe to sue Booking.com over ‘abusive’ practices

 The Guardian, here

Yep, agreed - since 2016 here

Opinion: McGrath must take on giants of social media

 J. Ryan, here

‘I Feel Like I’m Going Crazy’: ChatGPT Fuels Delusional Spirals

 WSJ, here

Building Public Compute for the Age of AI

 Lawfare, here

Google vs. Perplexity fight plays out in India as AI battle intensifies

 RestofWorld, here

The Urgent Need For Revolutionizing Economic Statistics

 D. Coyle, here

["...if, in the not-too-distant future, my personal AI agent conducts affairs on my behalf with my bank’s AI bot, is that valuable economic activity? How should it be measured in any case?]

Cloud: "...competitors aren't able to do the competitive thing we like about capitalism"

DHH, here.

 

Re: Investigate Meta's de facto vertical acquisition of Scale AI

 

Here

Tuesday, August 05, 2025

How Brazil's innovative 'Pix' payment system is angering Trump and Zuckerberg

 France24.com, here.

Totally disagree with the myopic economist's comment 😊

OpenX v. Google

Here.

Curbing Google’s Dominance: The UK’s First Test of Its New Digital Competition Powers [Promising?]

 KGI, here.

Well...Problematic to say the least is "making its next steps contingent on the decisions of a US district court." 

Nextcloud-CEO: “Digitale Souveränität ist für mich nicht gelöst”

 Computerwoche.de, hier.

Submission on Proposed SMS Guideline from an Independent Media Alliance

 Here.

Japan: Regulator takes aim at app store - as in Europe.

Heise.de, here

Guidelines here.  

The Guidelines are essential reading. Not just from a European vantage point, and not merely as part of a deepening dialogue between the EU and Japan. It matters equally for jurisdictions already exploring DMA-like regimes, and for others now stirred into action.

From what I’ve seen so far, this may well be the first unmistakable success of the DMA’s extraterritorial footprint. A quiet vindication of the bold choices made by the Commission and co-legislators since 2020. No legal instrument is flawless, of course. But if others now refine what we’ve built into the DMA, there should be a clear and iterative path to integrate such improvements.