The Antitrust Paradox with The Honorable Douglas H. Ginsburg

The Supreme Court’s antitrust jurisprudence was incoherent until the 1960s, when it became systematically destructive. The byword then was “big is bad,” with “big” defined as laughably small in terms of market share. The implications for such jurisprudence were many, from always-successful challenges of trivial mergers to condemning almost every form of vertical restraint as per se unlawful.

The work necessary for reform was done in the academy in the 1960s and 1970s, culminating in the Supreme Court towards the end of the 1970s when it endorsed the consumer welfare standard announced in The Antitrust Paradox. Since then we have had more than forty years of economically sensible antitrust regulation. Until now. Proponents of one or another unmanageable alternative to the consumer welfare standard are regressing towards a “big is bad” worldview. The consequences are many, including a war against Big Tech. What do we make of this shift and where do we go from here?

Speaker: 

• Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Space is limited; we reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone not pre-registered.