On the interplay between competition law and privacy: the impact of Meta Platforms case

 A. Gorecka, here. 

RETHINKING MY ECONOMICS

 A. Deaton, here. 

Apple’s exclusionary app store scheme: An existential moment for the Digital Markets Act

 J. Crémer et al., here. 

13 March 2024: the plenary of the European Parliament will vote on the AI Act

 Here. 

OECD Competition Open Day 2024

 Videos here.

‘Super-apps’ and the Digital Markets Act

 

Abstract

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) aims to ensure contestability and fairness in digital markets, particularly focusing on regulating Big Tech companies. The paper explores the DMA's capacity to address both current and future challenges in digital market contestability and fairness, spotlighting the trend towards platform integration and the potential rise of "super-apps" akin to WeChat and KakaoTalk. Specifically, it investigates WhatsApp, owned by Meta, as a gatekeeper that might expand its service offerings, integrating additional functionalities like AI and metaverse technologies. The paper discusses whether the DMA's obligations, such as mandated interoperability and data portability, can mitigate the emergent risks to market fairness and contestability from such integrations. Despite recognizing that the DMA has the potential to address many issues arising from platform integration, it suggests the necessity for adaptability and a complementary relationship with traditional antitrust law to ensure sustained contestability and fairness in evolving digital markets

[Very pleased to share with you, dear @Wavesblog Reader, my first draft (short paper because I had a word limit, submitted to a journal) and thankful for any comment you might have: simonetta.vezzoso@unitn.it]

Forced to Change: Tech Giants Bow to Global Onslaught of Rules

 NYTimes, here. 

DeepL translation of the Indonesian Law here. 

DMA Compliance Reports: Non-confidential "versions"

 

Alphabet;

Amazon;

Apple; 

ByteDance; 

Meta;

Microsoft - Windows Section 2 Annex - LinkedIn Section 2 Annex 

Digital Services Interoperability: Free Software in the European legislative landscape

 FOSDEM 2024, Video here.

What Have The Consultants Ever Done For Us?

 

T. Valletti, here. 

Digital Platforms, Competition Law, and Regulation: Comparative Perspectives

 Open access book with many goodies, here. 

Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning: Understanding the Costs and Benefits

 ICO, here. 

Future Software Should Be Memory Safe

 White House, here. 

Microsoft partners with Mistral in second AI deal beyond OpenAI

 The Verge, here, 

Parliament's negotiating position on the standard essential patents regulation

 EP, here. 

The Countdown to the Google Ad Tech Trial Is On: Here’s What You Need to Know

 TechPolicy.Press, here. 

RemedyFest

 Video here. 

How OpenAI/Microsoft and other 'big tech'/ AI partnerships ended up in the antitrust hotseat in both Europe and the US

 DealCast here. 

Microsoft’s AI Access Principles: Kudos to the AI which wrote it

 Microsoft Blog, here.

Innovation against change

 A. McLean, here.

Microsoft announces ‘AI access principles’ to offset OpenAI competition concerns

 TechCrunch, here.

Apple on course to break all Web Apps in EU within 20 days

 OWA, here. 

EU seeks to investigate Apple over cutting off web apps

 FT, here. 

Rotten Apple

 Adactio, here. 

How to Think About Remedies in the Generative AI Copyright Cases

 P. Samuelson, here. 

Privacy Advocates Urge European Regulators to Oppose Meta’s No-Ads Subscription Model

 CPI, here. 

Competition Law and Innovation II

 CENTI, Podcast with T. Schrepel, here. 

DOJ’s Jonathan Kanter says the antitrust fight against Big Tech is just beginning

 The Verge, here. 

7 changes to patch the EU’s Digital Markets Act and make open app markets a reality over Apple’s belligerent stance

GamesFray, here.  

Banking and Antitrust

 S. Omarova, G. Steele, here. 

Apple's App Store Compliance with the Digital Markets Act: The 7 Deadly Sins You Must Know

 Aptoide, here. 

Apple says it spent "tens of thousands of hours” on the DMA App Store solution after Microsoft complains

MSPowerUser, here.  

The American Schools of Antitrust

 T. Wu, here. 

Google Tweaked Search to Comply With EU Rules. Yelp Says It Makes Results Even More Unfair

 Wired, here. 

Whatsapp muss sich öffnen: Threema und Signal winken ab

 Heise.de, hier. 

German Court Rules Against Google in Competition Case

 Pymts, here. 

Helping Europe’s digital economy take off: An agenda for the next Commission

 CER, here. 

Reviewing Mergers Under Article 102 TFEU: Proximus/EDPnet (Belgium)

 F. Bostoen, here. 

In conversation with Sarah Cardell

  Cleary Gottlieb Antitrust Review podcast, here. 

Joint Inventorship: AI-Human Style

 Patentlyo, here. 

AG Kokott on Google Shopping

 Here. 

Data-related Obligations and Interoperability in the DMA

 CERRE, here. 

EPC Statement concerning Apple's compliance plans with the DMA

 Here. 

DOJ re Google AdTech

 PLAINTIFFS’ POST-TRIAL BRIEF, here. 

DMA Compliance workshops

18 March : Apple

19 March : Meta

20 March : Amazon

21 March : Alphabet

22 March : ByteDance

26 March : Microsoft

Here.

Can Telecommunications Regulation Inform Emerging Regulatory Approaches To Generative AI?: An Initial Inquiry

 D. Lawrence DOJ, here. 

Innovation competition and abuse of dominance in the AI age

 Presentation here.

How to Avoid Big Tech's Monopoly on AI?

 Video here. 

Amazon hides cheaper items with faster delivery, lawsuit alleges

 ArsTechnica, here. 

 

[Of course they do :-), if they can get away with it...]

AI Antitrust - Yann Guthmann

 Concurrences, here. 

Intelligence artificielle générative : l’Autorité s’autosaisit pour avis et lance une consultation publique jusqu’au vendredi 22 mars

AdlC, ici. 

Commission adopts revised Market Definition Notice for competition cases

 EC, here. 

Morning Brew: Apple isn't playing fair

 Video here. 

WhatsApp Chats Will Soon Work With Other Encrypted Messaging Apps

Wired, here. 

In its tantrum with Europe, Apple broke web apps in iOS 17 beta, still hasn't fixed them

 The Register, here. 

Effective remedies in digital market abuse of dominance cases

 A. Ganesh, here. 

Bytedance v. EU on interim relief

GC, Order here. 

F.T.C. Chair Lina Khan live at the 2024 DCN: Next Summit

 Video here. 

Launch of the GW Competition & Innovation Lab

 Video here. 

NB: None of the academic economists mentioned that they worked for consultancies - eg Richard Gilbert for Compass Lexecon. 

Interesting to see Hans Zeng (EC) there too.

Who’s financing the whole initiative isn’t mentioned on the website. I guess no private donors then (?). The “other” dynamic competition initiative hosted in Florence is instead openly financed (also) by a consultancy. 

Letter: Europe has an unri­valled record on anti­trust

 O. Guersent, here.

The article has ruffled some feathers, while others of a similar tone have passed unnoticed. It is true, as BEUC writes, the "EU’s guiding principle has been to uphold a competition enforcement standard based on broader values including consumer choice, innovation and quality rather than simply price". However, it must also be acknowledged that in the EU the more economic approach with a very strong "industrial organization flavour" and its laser focus on prices and models (along with the array of consultancies it brings along) remains fairly dominant and has not been directly challenged from a theoretical standpoint as is happening in the US. 

EU AI Act: Next Steps for Implementation

 iapp, here. 

What super-apps could mean for the communications sector

 Ofcom, here. Ofcom on interoperability here. 

CERRE DMA Conference

 Video here. 

A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation

 UK Government response to consultation, here. 

FTC Launches Inquiry into Generative AI Investments and Partnerships

 Here.

When Apple takes the European Commission for fools: An initial overview of Apple’s new terms and conditions for iOS app distribution in the EU

 D. Geradin, here. 

Is “More Clouds” the Future We Want? A Dispatch from the FTC AI Tech Summit

 Techpolicy.press, here. 

“It never hurts to read the law.”

 M. Kades, here. 

Foundation Models: how they are regulated in the AI ACT

 Radiobruxelleslibera, here. 

Caffarra's Conference 2024

 Videos here. 

Don’t let monopolies hold Taylor Swift’s next tour hostage

 M. Carrier, here. 

Large language models and generative AI

 UK Parliament, here. 

Oral hearing with Ofcom and the CMA here. 

Apple’s DMA compliance plan is a trap and a slap in the face for the European Commission

 Proton, here. 

Durchsetzung des § 19a GWB: Erste Erfahrungen und Verhältnis zum Digital Markets Act

 A. Stöhr & J. Mendelsohn, hier. 

Rebutting Gatekeeper Presumptions: How to Disprove Lock-in from Ecosystem and Network Effects

 TikTok Consultants, here. 

Readout of White House Meeting on Competition Policy and Artificial Intelligence

 Here. 

IMPLEMENTING THE DMA: SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES

 CERRE, here. 

CRA Conference 2023

 Videos here. 

Automotive Services: Google reagiert auf Vorwürfe des Bundeskartellamts

 Heise.de, hier. 

Data Capitalism

 T. Harakka, here. 

Apple challenging the DMA

 Here; here. 

Understanding the Tradeoffs of the Amazon Antitrust Case

 C. Farronato et al., here. 

Overview of the CMA’s provisional approach to implement the new Digital Markets competition regime

 CMA, here. 

Intellectual monopolies as a new pattern of innovation and technological regime

 C. Rikap, here. 

Developing Dynamic Capabilities through Acquisitions

 I. Strauss, J. Yang, here. 

Commission seeks feedback on commitments offered by Apple over practices related to Apple Pay

 EC, here. 

FTC Launches Inquiry into Generative AI Investments and Partnerships

 Here. 

Enshittification: The Rise and Fall of Big Tech — with Cory Doctorow

 Here. 

FTC's Tech Summit on AI

 Video here. 

Remarks of Samuel Levine at the FTC’s Summit on Artificial Intelligence

 Here. 

When Apple takes the European Commission for fools: An initial overview of Apple’s new terms and conditions for iOS app distribution in the EU

 D. Geradin, here. 

Statement by Executive Vice-President Vestager on announcement by Amazon and iRobot to abandon their transaction

 Here. 

DeepL Translation of the Japanese Interim report of the Study Group on Innovation and Competition Policy

 Here. 

New rules for Artificial Intelligence – Questions and Answers updated 12/12/2023

 EC, here. 

#DMACountdown

 

Three years ago, before the Commission's DMA Proposal was tabled, I had some fun doing a DMA Meme Advent Calendar. 

New EU rules needed to address digital addiction

 

EP, here. 

Apple offers to let competitors access NFC tech in EU antitrust case

 

Seeking Alpha, here. 

Google’s App Store Ruled an Illegal Monopoly, as a Jury Sides With Epic Games

 

Wired, here. 

Sanofi scraps Maze deal after FTC throws up antitrust obstacles

 

Fierce Biotech, here. 

TEMPLATE RELATING TO THE AUDITED DESCRIPTION OF CONSUMER PROFILING TECHNIQUES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15 DMA

 Here. 

Protection des données et concurrence : une ambition commune

 Adlc, CNIL, TSE, vidéo ici. 

La déclaration même ici (and here, DeepL translation). 

Alex's own ex-post take here.

EU ex-ante regulation for digital gatekeepers (Digital Markets Act): State of play and way ahead

 

Slides, here. 

Cigna abandons pursuit of Humana, plans $10 billion share buyback, sources say - very likely because of FTC's action

 CNBC, here. 

Competition and Innovation: Incorporating a More Dynamic Perspective into Enforcement

This is the text of my 15-minute intervention last week at the OECD. Happy I wrote it down and read it because I was a bit overwhelmed, to be honest. Accompanying slides here. 

The best part, however, was the interaction we had with the OECD States/competition authorities (despite sitting very far from each other).

"Thank you immensely to the Chair and the Committee for the opportunity to be here with you today. I think that we all in this room might agree that the interplay between competition and innovation is increasingly vital in our economies, in which we all face numerous challenges in devising solutions to ever more complex problems.

These challenges are starkly highlighted by the ongoing issues surrounding climate change and the digital revolution. As we know, innovation can be the creative response that entrepreneurs make to changing conditions, to new challenges. To these entrepreneurs, “innovation is the ability to see change as an opportunity - not a threat.” And we as a society, as consumers are provided with choices on how to deal with these challenges, with these changing conditions. Furthermore, the critical role of innovation has been profoundly illustrated in our emergence from the health crisis brought about by COVID-19.

In competition policy circles like this one here, innovation isn't just a buzzword we throw around to sound smart while prices and output is what antitrust law is really about. There is a profound and increasing recognition that innovation is a  real factor in shaping competitive processes and often it should be taken even more seriously than price effects in competition policy enforcement.

We are very lucky here today to stand on the shoulders of this excellent background paper prepared by the OECD Secretariat. In my brief remarks today, I will focus primarily on the highly useful distinction between the approach that focuses on innovation incentives and the approach that instead focuses on the innovation impact or innovation effects.

The clear distinction drawn between a more static and a more dynamic perspective on innovation is particularly commendable and useful. It effectively highlights the progress made in terms of competition policy so far, as well as what remains to be done, both from a theoretical standpoint and in terms of competition policy enforcement.

Both approaches have their merits and limitations, and in a certain sense, they are complementary to each other. Understanding which approach to adopt depends on the crucial assessment by competition authorities of how competition manifests itself in the specific market, sector, or industry at stake.

Is the focus on current or potential competition in identified product markets or is the focus directly on innovation processes or spaces? This differentiation, as I see it, is the real focal point of the background paper, from which the brief considerations I will present in the following emerge.

Although this differentiation is absolutely crucial and we will return to it shortly, I believe the two approaches are driven by many insights that are common to both. I will mention three of these insights here.

The first is the belief that it is possible for competition enforcers to  identify situations, markets in which innovation is a significant dimension of rivalry between companies.

The second is that a longer-term or dynamic perspective is necessary to fully grasp innovation and its relationship with competition.

The third realization or insight is that a longer-term perspective must contend with uncertainty. Here we must decidedly forego the comfort of quantifications that offer the illusion of certainty in the application of antitrust law.

I've created a table, informed by the background paper and my previous research on this topic. It outlines key differences between the two approaches, in addition to the shared insights I've just mentioned.

The first approach focuses on the circumstance that rivalry in the product market is driven by product or process innovation. The second approach, on the other hand, brings directly to the fore the innovation efforts made by competing firms.Top of Form

This is clearly evident from the background paper, to which I would only like to add the idea that it is necessary to also consider the ecosystems where the relative orchestrators appropriate and manage the innovation efforts produced by the ecosystem participants.

The following point relates to the realization that the innovation concerns in the two approaches are distinct. On one side, there is a reduction or delay in introducing new features in a product market. On the other, there's a more direct concern regarding changes to innovation levels and intensity.

The third point is a focus on financial incentives to innovate by the first approach  and on capabilities to innovate in the second.

The fourth point is that, according to the first approach, future markets can be identified in a traditional manner. In contrast, based on the second approach, it is not possible to define markets that may emerge from innovation in such conventional terms.

The fifth aspect is that for the first approach, innovation is mostly of an incremental nature, while the second approach is perhaps more oriented towards innovation that is mostly of a disruptive nature.

The sixth aspect relates to different degrees of uncertainty. For the first approach, uncertainty is linked to the fact that products have not yet entered the market or potential outcomes from innovation are not clearly identifiable. For the second, the uncertainty is more radical as it stems from the circumstance that there is high uncertainty regarding future outcomes of innovation efforts.

The seventh and final aspect concerns theories of harm. For the first approach, profit-cannibalization narratives are particularly relevant, thus analogous to unilateral price effects. Relevant are also traditional foreclosure theories, which are then adapted to an innovation context. Instead, For the impact-based approach to innovation and competition, the theories of harm aim to highlight the direct impact on innovation of a behaviour or a transaction, not merely as a consequence of a reduction in competition.

Certainly, the distinction between these two approaches is valuable for analytical clarity and for promoting theoretical and other developments, but in enforcement practice, they are often also strategically interconnected, as noted in the background document.

So, we can distinguish cases where there is a more static approach to innovation and which aligns closely with the first approach. This involves determining product markets, even if they are in the future, even if the competition is only potential, and then also relying on conventional theories of harm based for instance on a profit cannibalization rationale.

And then there are other cases where the approach to competition is more dynamic, both in terms of determining a product market or an innovation space and in terms of theories of harm.

In the final part of my reflection, I concentrate on some challenges that I still see on the horizon from the perspective of further developing this more dynamic approach to innovation.

From seven, as in the previous table, the points I would like to briefly illustrate are now eight.

The first point is that it seems to me that it’s still necessary to better conceptualize the relevant rivalry between companies as a process of innovation and knowledge creation. From this perspective, it is clear that the traditional, orthodox industrial organization thinking and approaches may provide only limited assistance. Much more useful could be economic theories that focus on innovative, dynamic processes of variation and selection, such as evolutionary economics.

I am absolutely convinced that these alternative economic conceptualizations of dynamism and competition processes should receive greater attention from antitrust enforcers. The monopolization carried out by the industrial organization in the field of so-called competition economics has so far left little room for this and other theoretical contenders or even disruptors to emerge.

The second point is that there is still a significant need to develop a better understanding of innovation capabilities, especially in sectors where innovation processes are less structured. This might be the case because, for instance, the tools of appropriation in theses sectors or market phases might be different from traditional IP rights. A different understanding of innovation capabilities might be required based on the specific type of technology/knowledge production, the specific skills required (for instance, particularly valuable AI talent), and the specialized assets needed, such as data and specific technological tools required for innovation.

The third point is that if a better understanding of innovation capabilities is essential, there are additional innovation factors beyond capabilities that require attention. These include dynamic patterns, path dependencies, absorptive capacities, technological trajectories, and so on.

The fourth point is that greater efforts may be needed in certain contexts to assess the impact of the same innovation efforts on multiple sectors (e.g., digital) – cross-market.

A fifth, more practical challenge is that in some jurisdictions, it may be necessary to clarify in the law that "market definition" under certain circumstances is not necessary, or that the market can be determined in a radically different manner from traditionally employed methods.

A sixth, more challenging point from a theoretical and analytical perspective is that it seems necessary to better understand innovation processes within ecosystems. This, for instance, requires differentiation between the production of innovation and knowledge and the mechanisms of their appropriation. This pertains to contexts and ecosystems where both incremental and disruptive innovation hold significance.

A seventh point to consider is that it would be important to incorporate concerns about the "quality" of innovation into antitrust practice, not just focusing on innovation levels and intensity. From this perspective, close collaboration with data protection authorities and, in the near future, various types of AI regulators, including sector-specific ones, could be crucial.

Last but not least, there is the challenge related to the evidence required to ultimately capture the innovation dimensions mentioned in the background note. Some are already practiced, such as portfolios of R&D activities, commercial and licensing agreements with other companies. Other evidence, for example, to assess innovation capability, may include the analysis of links to universities, participation in scientific conferences, and so on.Top of Form

If the eight challenges, taken together, may seem a bit daunting, I would suggest that antitrust authorities join forces on many common fronts. A very practical and cost-effective suggestion is that one or more antitrust authorities, from different jurisdictions, could facilitate the organization of symposia, seminars, and workshops that bring together economists (including those from non-orthodox economic schools), management experts, behavioural scientists, scientists from different fields, and technologists. These gatherings would provide a platform for cross-disciplinary collaboration, offering diverse perspectives, approaches, and knowledge to enhance the understanding of innovation processes within specific industries and sectors. They could ideally also lead to the development of new assessment tools and methodologies immediately relevant to competition policy enforcement.

Many thanks for your attention."

And as you see here, fun we had! 

EU says incoming rules for general purpose AIs can evolve over time

Natasha The Great, here.  

Behind the Clicks: Can Amazon allocate user attention as it pleases?

 R. Rock et al., here. 

FTC Files Amicus Brief Outlining Anticompetitive Harm Caused by Improper Orange Book Listings

 FTC, here. 

Open finance policy considerations

 OECD, here. 

Commission sends Adobe Statement of Objections over proposed acquisition of Figma

 Here. 

La CNMC inicia un estudio sobre los servicios de nube

 Aquì.

White Paper on the Definition of Data Intermediation Services

 T. Bobev et al., here.

The potential competition impacts of Big Tech entry and expansion in retail financial services

 FCA, here. 

Regulatory capture’s third face of power

 W. Y Li, here. 

LE NUMÉRIQUE AU SERVICE D’UN FUTUR DURABLE

 V. Blun, M. Mathon, ici. 

noyb files GDPR complaint against Meta over “Pay or Okay”

 Here. 

MEPs call to ramp up Big Tech enforcement in competition review

 Luca "The AI Hero," here. 

CAPITALISM RECONNECTED: Toward a Sustainable, Inclusive and Innovative Market Economy in Europe

 J. P. Balkenende, G. Buijs, here. 

The future of Europe’s data economy

 Economist (sponsored by Microsoft), here. 

Cyber resilience act: Council and Parliament strike a deal on security requirements for digital products

 Council, here. 

Generative AI could revolutionize health care — but not if control is ceded to big tech

 Nature, here. 

Shaping Europe's digital model Building Alliances for a Progressive European Vision

 Video here. 

Urgent Binding Decision 01/2023 requested by the Norwegian SA for the ordering of final measures regarding Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Art. 66(2) GDPR)

 EDPB, here. 

Commission adopts antitrust Guidelines for sustainability agreements in agriculture

 Here. 

Public Workshop on the DOJ/FTC Draft Merger Guidelines

 Video here.

Intellectual monopolies as a new pattern of innovation and technological regime

 C. Rikap, here. 

Press conference following the trilogue on artificial intelligence

 European Council, here. 

Open, Sovereign, Independent AI: Europe’s greatest challenge?

F. Bria, here.  And Transforming capitalism in the Age of AI. 

Protection des données et concurrence : une ambition commune

 Adlc, ici. 

On innovation and competition at the OECD: happy to help, if I can!

I was only once at the OECD before - as an observer (the topic was Big Data, with Annabelle Gawer and Hal Varian, great fun - my take here).

Next time soon (and determined to enjoy myself, whatever). 

Some of the work I've done specifically on this topic (although I stealthily applied evolutionary/innovation arguments in almost everything I wrote):

• Early 2005 article with Wolfgang Kerber (already Doktorvater at that time): EU Competition Policy, Vertical Restraints, and Innovation: An Analysis from an Evolutionary Perspective
•  My PhD Thesis in innovation economics started in a pre-digital (?) age: Zur Beurteilung vertikaler Beschränkungen in der europäischen Wettbewerbspolitik aus evolutionsökonomischer Sicht (Münchner Schriften zum Europäischen und Internationalen Kartellrecht) (also second-hand) 
• This article summarizing some results of my thesis in French: Une perspective économique évolutionniste à l'égard des restrictions verticales
• This short piece on Android in which I applied a spurious dynamic capabilities approach to ecosystems: Digital Platforms and Antitrust: Towards a More Techno-Economic Approach
• This article about incentives to innovate in the Microsoft EU decision The Incentives Balance Test in the EU Microsoft Case: A More 'Economics-Based' Approach?
• This draft paper with Wolfgang Kerber presented at Ascola 2019 on the concept of innovation spaces in Dow/Dupont: Dow/Dupont: Another Step Towards a Proper Assessment Concept of Innovation Effects of Mergers
• This with Luigi Marengo on IP and evolutionary economics: Dynamic Inefficiencies of Intellectual Property Rights from an Evolutionary/Problem-Solving Perspective: Some Insights on Computer Software and Reverse Engineering
• On an early killer acquisition in the digital sector Open Source and Merger Policy: Insights from the EU Oracle/Sun Decision
• On a dynamic approach for the assessment of buyer power Il potere verticale della domanda 
• Short ProMarket piece on Gen AI and innovation: Next-Generation Antitrust Policy in an AI-Driven World

 

P.S. This topic is particularly dear to me. My interest for it started 30+ y. ago, as a young legal scholar in Milan. After many difficult and depressing years with my mentor at that time, Prof. Denozza, who didn’t understand/support my research interest for this topic and actually hampered me from pursuing it, I wrote to him that I was quitting his School (call it “Family”) to continue my research in Germany, where I did a PhD in economics on the topic of this week’s discussion in Paris (BTW, losing the support of Prof. Denozza's powerful Academic Family totally ruined my academic prospects in Italy but made me who I am. Reminder: Italy is a country in which you might even become a Competition Commissioner - especially if your father is a good friend of a former neo-fascist who happens to be the President of the Senate - not to mention becoming the AI Chief Technological Strategist because you love potatoes recipes) 

The Last Push: A Few Quick Bullets for Sleep Deprived AI Act Negotiators

 J. Bryson, here. 

Urheberrechtskonferenz

 Video hier. 

Bill Gurley presents 2,851 Miles

 Caught Lina Khan's ear, Video here. 

VI Conferência de Lisboa 2023

 Videos here. 

Commission sends Amazon Statement of Objections over proposed acquisition of iRobot

 PR here. 

‘Compliance by Design’ With the Messenger Interoperability Obligation Under the Digital Markets Act

 

Silent Video of my presentation this week, here. 

Managing multi-tiered innovation ecosystems

 A. Reiter et al., here. 

Gatekeepers’ designation under the Digital Market Act: some comments about the market investigation opened for Apple iMessage

 A. Manganelli, here. 

Cloud Computing RFI: What we heard and learned

 FTC, here. 

AI in the Public Interest: Confronting the Monopoly Threat

 OMI, Report here. Video here. 

Intellectual monopoly capitalism: How big tech companies became the world's largest planners

 C. Rikap, video here.

Conceptions of innovation in the DMA

 S. Makris, Video here. 

Read also Where EU Competition Law and DMA Meet: Innovation Competition – Part I, here. 

FTC v. Amazon

 Explained by a *customer*, Video  here. 

Trying to make sense of how all the new chapters in the EU’s digital rulebook

 EDPS, here. 

Techtonic: The artist suing AI giants

 Article 19, Podcast here. 

Internet Fatta a Pezzi

 Video qui. 

Oversight of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division

 Memo, here. 

Digital Markets Act: Opportunity engine for startups [Hosted by DG Connect - European Commission]

 Web Summit, here. 

Web Summit 2023: Discussing AI right away (an the AI Act)

 Here (at 41:20). 

Apple Set to Challenge DMA's designations

 Bloomberg, here. 

Apple says it ‘expects to make’ App Store policy changes due to EU DMA

 TechCrunch, here. 

FS2/23 – Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

 Bank of England, here. 

Digital Market Act designations: the interoperability of Google Android

 F. Scott Morton, here. 

Licensing high-risk artificial intelligence: Toward ex ante justification for a disruptive technology

 G. Malgieri, F. Pasquale, here. 

The extraterritorial implications of the Digital Services Act

 DSA Observatory, here. 

Data Impact: LES USAGES DES DONNÉES AU SERVICE DE LA TRANSITION ÉCOLOGIQUE

Etude, ici; Inventaire des cas d'usage, ici. 

. 

What Antitrust Experts Want You to Know About the Amazon Trial

 ProMarket, here. 

The FTC Lawsuit Against Amazon Is the Biggest Antitrust Fight of Our Time

 The Nation, here. 

Lina Khan in the Lions' Den

Federalist Society, Video, here. 

New Vision – the DMA, Goals of Antitrust, Compliance

 Olivier Guersent chez Oles, here. 

Big Tech on Trial: Is Google’s Reckoning Finally Here?

 M. Stoller, here. 

A Deeper Look into the EU AI Act Trilogues: Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments, Generative AI and a European AI Office

 Kluwer Competition Law Blog, here. 

Epic v. Google: everything we’re learning live in Fortnite court

 The Verge, here. 

Potential Competition and Partial Acquisitions and Concluding Remarks

 Merger Guidelines discussed by nice "Utah" people, Video here. 

More: 

- Introduction and Panel 1: Platform/High Tech Mergers; 

- Non-Horizontal, Vertical Mergers. 

Artificial Intelligence Summit

 Video, here. 

FTC Approves Final Order Resolving Antitrust Concerns Surrounding ICE, Black Knight Deal

 Here. 

Google turns to regulators to make Apple open up iMessage

 The Verge, here. 

G7 Competition Authorities and Policymakers’ Summit Digital Competition Communiqué: Commitment to Address Competition Concerns Arising from Emerging Technologies

 Here. 

Compendium of approaches to improving competition in digital markets, here. 

Inventory of ex-ante rules, here. 

Analytical note on the inventory, here. 

Governance of foundation models in EU’s AI law starts to take shape

 Luca "Magnus," here. 

The FTC on copyright and Generative AI

 Here.

"We can't wait for the DMA obligations to be complied with!"

 30 price comparison websites, here. 

FTC Chair Lina Khan on AI regulation, startup acquisitions, and more

 Y Combinator, here. 

COMPETITION AND GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

 Portuguese Competition Authority, here.

DMA judicial review

 A. De Montcuit, here.

Is Antitrust policy good for innovation? Yes, amazingly so.

 Lina Khan, Video here. 

AN EFFECTIVE CHOICE SCREEN UNDER THE DIGITAL MARKETS ACT

 BEUC, here. 

The Rise of Ecosystem Theories: Where are we after Microsoft/Activision and Booking/etraveli?

 Video, here. 

Booking / eTraveli: assessing envelopment strategies and mixing up market power thresholds

 D. Mandrescu, here. 

The EU’s sense for the metaverse

 Euractiv, Podcast here. 

AI’s proxy war heats up as Google reportedly backs Anthropic with $2B

 TechCrunch, here. 

U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google LLC [2020] - Never Stop Giving Trial Exhibits

 Here. 

OMI on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright

Here.  

16th Annual FTC Microeconomics Conference

 Videos here. 

FTC v. Amazon, unredacted

Here.  

Meta and Amazon settle UK antitrust probes over use of third-party data to benefit marketplaces

 TechCrunch, here. 

14 big landlords used software to collude on rent prices, DC lawsuit says

 ArsTechnica, here. Complaint here. 

Letter From Chair Khan to Rep. Tiffany Regarding Merger Challenges

 Here. 

Europe’s Tech Regulation Is Not an Economic Policy

 C. Caffarra, here. 

The Rise of Ecosystem Theories: Where are we after Microsoft/Activision and Booking/Etraveli

 Seminar, Video here

Conversation w Meredith Whittaker

 Here. 

Commission welcomes G7 leaders' agreement on Guiding Principles and a Code of Conduct on Artificial Intelligence

 EC, here. 

President Biden Issues Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence

 Here. The Order, here.

Brandeis and Eucken: Two Pioneers of the Modern ‘Big Tech and Antitrust Debate’

M. Wörsdörfer, here. 

Decoding the AI Act: A Critical Guide for Competition Experts

 T. Schrepel, here. 

Reclaiming our digital future: shedding light on big tech lobbying in the European Parliament

 Greens, Video here. 

The world wants to regulate AI, but does not quite know how

 The Economist, here (and here). 

Questioning @Ofcom @CMAgovUK @TheFCA @ICOnews on how #ArtificialIntelligence is already affecting their work,

 UK Parliament, video here. 

Monopoly Power Is the Elephant in the Room in the AI Debate

 M. von Thun (Open Markets Institute), here. 

How AI Can Be Regulated Like Nuclear Energy

 H. Khlaaf, here. 

The New Merger Guidelines: Controlling Case Law and New Economics

 

The Utah Project, here (Friday, October 27, 2023, online from 5 PM CET). 

US v Google Trial Transcripts

 Capitol, here. 

"Trial of the Century": USA vs Google

 BIICL, Video here. 

DOJ v. Google Witness Tracker

 Here. 

Flight cancelled: the EC's prohibition of the Booking / Etraveli deal

 Linklaters, here.

AI Act: EU countries headed to tiered approach on foundation models amid broader compromise

 Euractiv, here. 

AI COMPANY ANTHROPIC RECENTLY SECURED UP TO $4BN IN INVESTMENT FROM AMAZON. NOW IT’S BEING SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BY UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP.

 Musuîc Business Worldwide, here. 

ICN 2023 Barcelona: Recommended online watching

 18 October

- 9.30: Reynders keynote

- 11.15 Khan keynote/interview

- 11.30 Digital mergers;

19 October

- 9 : Coeuré keynote

- 9.15: Challenges around unilateral conduct cases

- 10.15: Intersection between Competition & Privacy

20 October

- 11: Transforming Cartel Enforcement in ICN’s Third Decade: Current Trends and the Challenges Ahead

More plenary sessions here.

My impromptu reactions while listening are on the XBird, here. 

I scanned this article (badly, sorry!) for my Students, interested? Digital Platforms and Antitrust: Towards a More Techno-Economic Approach

Here.  

AI Act: EU countries headed to tiered approach on foundation models amid broader compromise

 BigLuca, here. 

Draft G7 Guiding Principles for Organizations Developing Advanced AI systems

 Here (and here). 

Safeguarding Data and Innovation: Building the Foundation for the Use of Artificial Intelligence

 House Committee Hearing, here. 

European Competition Day 2023

 Video here. 

Big techs in finance

 BIS, here. 

The Repressive Power of Artificial Intelligence

 Freedom House, here. 

8th CUTS-CIRC Biennial Conference on Competition, Regulation and Development

Day one; two.  

Foundation Models Supply Chain

 A recap: 

On compute here;

on accountability here;

on market concentration here.