Podcasts about antitrust law

Fix SLP was never just about making noise—it was built to challenge systems that gatekeep, exploit, and mislead. In this foundational episode, Dr. Jeanette Benigas and Preston Lewis, MS/SLP, explain why the CCC isn't just unnecessary—it might be illegal.We walk through the Sherman Antitrust Act, our official complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and how we allege ASHA's CCC requirement may violate federal law by restricting access to jobs, supervision, and professional advancement in speech-language pathology.We expose the financial structure behind ASHA's business model, the myth of the clinical fellowship year, and how the CCC props up a pay-to-play system that disproportionately harms new grads, small business owners, and anyone without institutional backing.This is the legal case that lit the fire behind Fix SLP, and we're just getting started.Find Fix SLPs resources for students and new grads here.Want to earn some PDHs or CEUs with a discount? Find our most up-to-date promo codes and discounts here.Want to lead or join your state team? Email your name and state to states@fixslp.com.Become a sustaining partner to support our work.Follow us on Instagram.Find all our information at fixslp.com, and sign up for our email list to be alerted to new episodes and content.Email us at team@fixslp.com.Leave a message on our Minivan Meltdown line! ★ Support this podcast ★

Vidushi Dyall (Chamber of Progress) discusses the remedies phase of the Google search antitrust trial. Will Judge Mehta order Google to sell Chrome? To license its search data? To stop paying Apple for default status? And: With AI advancing rapidly, why are we talking about any of this?Sorry about Corbin's sound quality! He'll be back in front of a proper microphone next episode.Links:Tech Policy Podcast 353: The Google Search Antitrust TrialTech Policy Podcast 393: Herbert Hovenkamp on the State of Antitrust Law 

Thursday May 1, 2025 House GOP Proposes Eliminating Key Antitrust Law

Discord begins to trial face scanning for age verification in the UK and Australia, and Anthony Spadafora from Tom's Guide shares his AR-driven productivity experience after getting rid of his laptop.Starring Jason Howell, Huyen Tue Dao, and Anthony Spadafora.Show notes can be found here.

State attorneys general (State AGs) are becoming increasingly active in the realm of antitrust enforcement, focusing on mergers, monopolization, and ESG-related cases. In recent years, state AGs have taken assertive roles in challenging major mergers, such as JetBlue's attempted acquisition of Spirit Airlines and Kroger's attempted acquisition of Albertsons. These actions highlight a trend of state AGs bringing their own cases in state courts, sometimes parallel to federal enforcement efforts. State AGs have also been at the forefront of monopolization cases, particularly against big tech companies, and have challenged algorithmic pricing and data sharing arrangements. Additionally, ESG-related antitrust actions have emerged, with red state AGs investigating financial institutions supporting environmentally conscious investing. In the latest episode of MoForecast, Morrison Foerster partners Carrie H. Cohen, global co-chair of the Investigations + White Collar Defense Group and State + Local Government Enforcement team, and Megan Gerking, partner in the firm's global Antitrust Law practice, discuss the current state of antitrust enforcement by state AGs and what to expect in 2025. They explore the potential for state AGs to continue active participation in merger and conduct investigations, possibly filling perceived gaps in federal enforcement under the new Trump administration. Listen to the episode to gain a deeper understanding of the future of state AG enforcement in the antitrust arena.

Herbert Hovenkamp (Penn Law and Wharton) shares his thoughts on the progressive antitrust movement, the government's antitrust campaign against Big Tech, the 2023 Merger Guidelines, the famous tech antitrust cases of the past, and more.Links:Charting Antitrust's FutureAntitrust Policy After BidenStructural Antitrust Relief Against Digital PlatformsBreaking Up Google Would Be a Big MistakeWhat Big Tech Antitrust Gets Wrong

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King's College LondonAbstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law's ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public's trust in it.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activitiesFor more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King's College LondonAbstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law's ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public's trust in it.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activitiesFor more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In the podcast episode titled "Keeping the Playing Field Fair: How Antitrust Law Shapes Professional Sports," the discussion delves into the intricate relationship between antitrust law and professional sports. The episode begins by examining the Sherman Antitrust Act, which serves as the foundation for antitrust law in the United States. This act prohibits monopolies and cartels that restrain trade and harm competition. The episode then delves into the concept of the "single entity" defense, which is often used by sports leagues to argue that they are immune from antitrust laws. This defense argues that leagues, teams, and players are all part of a single entity and that any agreements or rules made within the league are not subject to antitrust scrutiny. However, the episode highlights that the "single entity" defense has limitations and has been challenged in several landmark antitrust cases. One such case, the landmark 1976 Supreme Court decision in Flood v. Kuhn, is discussed in detail. In this case, the court ruled that the reserve clause, which bound players to their teams for life, violated antitrust laws. This decision paved the way for free agency and revolutionized player movement in professional sports. The episode also explores other major antitrust cases, such as the 1984 ruling in North American Soccer League v. National Football League, which found that the NFL had monopolized professional football, and the 1995 decision in Major League Baseball v. United States, which upheld antitrust exemptions for baseball. The episode delves into the impact of antitrust law on various stakeholders in professional sports, including players, teams, and fans. It discusses how antitrust law has promoted fair competition, ensured player mobility, and protected the rights of fans to watch competitive sports. Finally, the episode concludes by considering possible future challenges and emerging issues in sports antitrust. It touches upon the rise of sports betting and the potential for data sharing and technology to impact antitrust law in the future. Overall, the podcast episode "Keeping the Playing Field Fair: How Antitrust Law Shapes Professional Sports" provides a comprehensive overview of the intersection of antitrust law and professional sports. It highlights the significance of antitrust law in maintaining fair competition, preserving player rights, and protecting the interests of fans. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

A group of antitrust lawsuits blames the nationwide affordable housing crisis in part on a conspiracy among some of the country's top landlords to drive up rent using artificial intelligence tools. The scheme allegedly works through property management software that crunches data provided by its customers—the landlords—to maximize rent. Another group of lawsuits also targeted the top hotel-casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, saying they operated a parallel cartel using similar software. Two federal judges recently threw out the casino cases, rejecting the idea that relying on the same software is the type of collusion covered by antitrust law. The rulings cast doubt on the broader legal effort to rein in AI pricing algorithms. On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, reporters Katie Arcieri and Justin Wise discuss the antitrust cases confronting the residential housing sector and a related push by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

What are the antitrust implications of AI systems? At a recent conference co-hosted by Lawfare and the Georgetown Institute for Law and Technology, Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein sat down with David Lawrence, the Policy Director at the the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division to talk about how competition law applies to the makers and users of AI models.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate kick off with a look at Jack Smith's unsealed brief on Trump's election interference case before digging into some cases the court is hearing this week, including one centered around ghost guns–unserialized guns that can be put together from component parts. Then, Melissa and Leah speak with Doha Mekki and Jonathan Kanter of the DOJ's Antitrust Division about how antitrust law can be a vehicle for progressive social change.Listen back to our 2023 interview with one of Richard Glossip's lawyers Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

The Antitrust Law Section's new Chair is a lawyer, professor, and author of countless books and articles, with decades of leadership experience in the Section. What changes will he bring? In this episode, co-hosts Alicia Downey and Puja Patel ask Steve Cernak about his unusual career path, the priorities and initiatives he is planning to pursue in his one-year term, and the legal trends that he believes will affect the Section's members and their clients. Listen to this episode to get to know Steve a little better as the leader of a global association of professionals in the fields of antitrust, competition, consumer protection, and data privacy law--and as a loyal baseball fan. With special guest: Steven Cernak, Partner, Bona Law PC Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Puja Patel, A&O Shearman US LLP

More than 20 years ago, executives at rival auction houses Sotheby’s and Christie's were found guilty of coordinating a massive price-fixing scheme. Leaders from the companies held covert meetings, where they set identical commission fees. Today, active antitrust cases show that the ways in which companies might conspire are changing. Algorithms can replace secret meetings, but U.S. regulators say it's still collusion, whether it’s a human or a bot pulling the strings. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Joe Harrington at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School about how antitrust law holds up against new technology.

More than 20 years ago, executives at rival auction houses Sotheby’s and Christie's were found guilty of coordinating a massive price-fixing scheme. Leaders from the companies held covert meetings, where they set identical commission fees. Today, active antitrust cases show that the ways in which companies might conspire are changing. Algorithms can replace secret meetings, but U.S. regulators say it's still collusion, whether it’s a human or a bot pulling the strings. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Joe Harrington at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School about how antitrust law holds up against new technology.

More than 20 years ago, executives at rival auction houses Sotheby’s and Christie's were found guilty of coordinating a massive price-fixing scheme. Leaders from the companies held covert meetings, where they set identical commission fees. Today, active antitrust cases show that the ways in which companies might conspire are changing. Algorithms can replace secret meetings, but U.S. regulators say it's still collusion, whether it’s a human or a bot pulling the strings. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Joe Harrington at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School about how antitrust law holds up against new technology.

The US Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that Google violated antitrust law, X is shuttering its San Francisco-based headquarters, and Ziff Davis is buying CNET for $100 million. MP3 Please SUBSCRIBE HERE. You can get an ad-free feed of Daily Tech Headlines for $3 a month here. A special thanks to allContinue reading "A US Court Has Ruled That Google Violated Antitrust Law – DTH"

The marked inflation of food pricing is apparent upon any trip to the grocery store. Can new regulations aimed at governing the relationship between farmers and the corporations to which they sell their livestock help bring food prices down while allowing farmers to earn more for their labor? The Biden Administration has issued four regulations […]

The marked inflation of food pricing is apparent upon any trip to the grocery store. Can new regulations aimed at governing the relationship between farmers and the corporations to which they sell their livestock help bring food prices down while allowing farmers to earn more for their labor? The Biden Administration has issued four regulations that aim to (1) prohibit certain previously common contractual terms between farmers and the purchasers of their livestock, (2) allow farmers to use an antitrust statute to assert claims of racial and other types of discrimination, and (3) allow farmers in general to more easily sue meat processors with claims of unfair competition. Are these new regulations legally sound, and will they work to bring down food prices? Join Minnesota Congressman Brad Finstad, Farm Action's Joe Maxwell, and the North American Meat Institute's Mark Dopp in a panel moderated by Judge Stephen Alexander Vaden as they debate these questions. Featuring: Mark Dopp, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, North American Meat InstituteU.S. Congressman Brad Finstad, (MN-01)Joe Maxwell, President, Board of Directors, Farm Action(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating nearly 13 years broadcasting on the internet. On Wednesday's show, Bob Levy, Chairman Emeritus of the Cato Institute, and I discuss antitrust law under the Biden administration. Author and Professor Andrew Joppa and I discuss a variety of topics including the social and political impact of the Trump trial in New York, and we discuss Fauci and the public health response to COVID. Please join us on Thursday's show. We'll visit with Keith Flaugh from the Florida Citizens Alliance, Collier County candidate for Supervisor of Elections Tim Guerette, Less Government President Seton Motley, and former Mayor of Naples, Bill Barnett. Please access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating nearly 13 years broadcasting on the internet. On Wednesday's show, Bob Levy, Chairman Emeritus of the Cato Institute, and I discuss antitrust law under the Biden administration. Author and Professor Andrew Joppa and I discuss a variety of topics including the social and … The post Free Markets and Antitrust Law appeared first on Bob Harden Show.

This episode analyzes the legal ramifications of Trump's recent felony convictions in New York, including the potential sentencing outcomes at his upcoming hearing and implications for a future presidential run. It also examines debates around licensing practices in New York's growing cannabis industry. Finally, it provides an update on how real estate brokers are adjusting compensation structures in the wake of the NAR antitrust settlement. 

While California is often seen as being on the forefront of Progressive legislation and individual rights, the state's main anti-trust law, The Cartwright Act, dates back to the Roosevelt era - the TEDDY Roosevelt era, that is - 1907, to be exact. The Cartwright Act is often invoked in tandem with the federal anti-trust statute, The Sherman Act of 1890, but in fact, the federal law has stricter proscriptions against monopolies than the California legislation. That may be about to change.In 2022, the legislature passed a resolution tasking the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) with providing recommendations on how to update The Cartwright Act. The CLRC set up a series of working groups to prepare in depth reports on a set of seven specific issues - the working groups have published their reports, which are now being discussed at a series of public meetings. After these meetings, the CLRC will prepare a final report with recommendations for the legislature, teeing up new legislation to update The Cartwright Act in 2025.We're joined today by Teri Olle, Director of Economic Security California Action. She walks us through the specifics of what The Cartwright Act does, how it differs from the Sherman Act, and why updating it for the 21st Century matters.EPISODE NOTES2:16 The Cartwright Act vs. The Sherman Act4:25 The Commission process and potential impacts5:33 "Neoliberalism"6:49 The impact of monopolization on healthcare in California7:58 Concentration of food and gas markets9:17 What specifically be changed here?12:46 The first time in a generation to look at what our economy looks like RIGHT NOW16:46 How to get people to engage? (#taylorswift)22:02 How is monopolization handled in other jurisdictions?23:59 How to have a say26:09 "The economy is not the weather: we shape it"26:43 WWCA - Third time is not the charmWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang"#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

Season 6, episode 20 on the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast with Jeremy Evans, interviewing Jill Manning at Pearson Warshaw, LLP, an attorney and partner with over twenty years of experience representing businesses and consumers in complex antitrust law cases concerning the NCAA to MLB. Copyright © 2024.  California Sports Lawyer®.  All Rights Reserved (www.CSLlegal.com).

Ethan Bearman is a multifaceted talent spanning law, technology, politics, and media. He has his own law firm, he has 25 years of business experience and 10 years of media experience. He had his own radio show, and he's been on networks like CNN, DW, France24, HLN, i24 News, NewsNation, Fox Business, and Fox News, where he's sparred with the likes of Jenna Ellis. Ethan is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and is admitted to practice in California and the United States District Court, Central District of California. He is a contributor to California State Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law (Matthew Bender 2018). And most recently, he is the legal expert on Really American.In this conversation, Greg Olear and Ethan Bearman discuss the potential ban on TikTok, the issue of free speech, defamation, the role of the media, the housing market, and the impact of conservative policies on the middle class. They also touch on antitrust laws, the Supreme Court, and the upcoming election. Finally, they speculate on the potential impact of the upcoming trial on the MAGA movement and the importance of voter registration and engagement. Plus: dirty laundry disco!“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” – Anatole FranceFollow Ethan:https://twitter.com/EthanBearmanhttps://www.instagram.com/ethanbearman/https://linktr.ee/ethanbearmanReally American:https://www.youtube.com/@ReallyAmerican/videos Subscribe to the PREVAIL newsletter:https://gregolear.substack.com/aboutWould you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

In this episode, CJ is joined by Jason Kap, the founder and CEO of Blue Rocket, a world-renowned pricing consultancy for top enterprise tech companies like Salesforce, Cisco, PagerDuty, Brex, and GitLab. Jason discusses the invaluable experience he gained working at Microsoft under Bill Gates in the early 2000s, including his role in the canonical antitrust case. Then he takes a deep dive into all things pricing, covering where in the organization pricing should sit, how often companies should update their pricing models, his philosophy on discounting, how CFOs can better work with sales teams to determine pricing ranges, the role of framing and psychology in how a deal is presented in price to the end consumer, and how this all relates to corporate strategy.—SPONSORS:Maxio is the only billing and financial operations platform that was purpose built for B2B SaaS. They're helping SaaS finance teams automate billing and revenue recognition, manage collections and payments, and put together investor grade reporting packages.

The antitrust law bubble, particularly in the U.S., has in recent years focussed on the mantra of promoting efficiency above all else. In the age of the global polycrisis and increasing corporate concentration and power in numerous sectors, should this bubble be popped? Dr Cristina Caffarra, leading competition economist, joins Barry Nigro and Matthew Hall to discuss the wider issues antitrust and competition law enforcement should be considering, which was the focus of a January 2024 Brussels conference described as the "Anti-Davos" and "Woodstock of Antitrust". Listen to this episode to learn more about the "Antitrust, Regulation, and the Next World Order" conference led by Dr Caffarra, why antitrust law should be taking a wider approach than efficiency and narrow consumer welfare and the links with trade and industrial policy. With special guest: Cristina Caffarra, University College London, CEPR Competition RPN Related Links: Cristina Caffarra article in CPI Columns Europe February 2024 (source: CPI) Cristina Caffarra article part 1 in VoxEU (CEPR) January 2024 (source: VoxEU) Cristina Caffarra article part 2 in VoxEU (CEPR) January 2024 (source: VoxEU) Cristina Caffarra article in VoxEU (CEPR) March 2024 (source: VoxEU) Angus Deaton article "Rethinking My Economics" March 2024 (source: IMF) Politico article on Antitrust, Regulation, and the Next World Order conference February 2024 (source: Politico) The Capitol Forum article on Antitrust, Regulation, and the Next World Order conference February 2024 (source: The Capitol Forum) Cristina Caffarra speaking notes Antitrust, Regulation, and the Next World Order conference January 2024 (source: ofthewedge.com) Hosted by: Barry Nigro, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP and Matthew Hall, McGuireWoods London LLP

—Here are 3 big things you need to know—   One —  The UN Security Council will vote today on a U.S.-sponsored Gaza ceasefire resolution.  The resolution warns against an Israeli military offensive in Rafah, and strongly condemns restrictions that prevent aid from entering the Gaza Strip.  The resolution also calls for an immediate ceasefire in Israel's war against the Palestinian militant group Hamas, without a time limit, and condemns all acts of terrorism, including the Hamas-led attacks of October 7th.      Two—  Michigan's unemployment rate is at three-point-nine-percent for February.  The Michigan Center for Data and Analytics says the state is maintaining a stable jobless rate for several months.  The unemployment rate in the state is now the same ad the national jobless rate.   And number three — The Department of Justice is suing Apple for alleged antitrust law violations.  The DOJ along with 16 state and district attorneys general claims Apple has monopolized the smartphone market by blocking competitors from accessing hardware and software features of the iPhone.  Apple pushed back in a statement, claiming the lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law.

Lawmakers are scrambling to avoid a partial government shutdown.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pam Karlan and labor law expert and former NLRB chair William Gould IV explore the quickly changing arena of college athletics including the push for student-athlete unionization, the debate over compensation, and other issues at the intersection of sports and academia. From the Dartmouth College men's basketball team's union election to the broader challenges facing university athletics, they discuss the complex issues shaping the law and the future of collegiate sports.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:William Gould IV >>> Stanford Law School PageRecent Q&A with Gould >>> Stanford's Bill Gould on the Dartmouth College Basketball  Union Vote (00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction to the Intersection of Sports and Labor LawPam Karlan introduces the topic of sports law and labor law, highlighting the recent developments in the field and the significance of the intersection between the two areas. Bill and Pam look at an overview of the Dartmouth College men's basketball team unionization case and its implications for the traditional understanding of student-athlete status.(00:02:03) Chapter 2: The Evolving Definition of Student-AthleteWilliam B. Gould IV delves into the historical context of the student-athlete designation, tracing its origins and evolution over time. He discusses the complexities of defining student-athletes within the framework of labor law and examines the factors that have contributed to the recent challenges to this classification.(00:06:49) Chapter 3: Labor Law Considerations in Collegiate AthleticsGould explores the key principles of labor law as they apply to collegiate athletics, emphasizing the factors that determine employee status and the obligations of universities as employers. The chapter addresses issues such as control over athletes, compensation, and the role of collective bargaining in shaping the future of collegiate sports.(00:10:00) Chapter 4: Implications for Intercollegiate SportsKarlan and Gould discuss the broader implications of the Dartmouth case and similar unionization efforts for intercollegiate sports as a whole. They examine the challenges posed by conference realignment, Title IX considerations, and the evolving landscape of athlete compensation, including name, image, and likeness rights.(00:14:23) Chapter 5: Legal and Policy PerspectivesThe conversation shifts to a discussion of the legal and policy considerations surrounding student-athlete rights and the role of the courts in shaping future outcomes. Gould offers insights into the potential impact of Supreme Court decisions and judicial attitudes towards higher education institutions and their treatment of athletes.(00:21:08) Chapter 6: Looking AheadIn the final chapter, Karlan and Gould reflect on the future of collegiate athletics in light of ongoing legal battles and shifting societal norms. They explore potential scenarios for reform and address lingering questions about the balance between academic and athletic pursuits, the role of unions in protecting athlete rights, and the broader implications for labor relations in the sports industry.

It's often said that patent protection rewards innovation and benefits consumers. But are there competition law issues with having "too many" patents? Kate Swisher, an antitrust litigator at White & Case, joins co-hosts Alicia Downey and Lijun Zhang to discuss the tension between patent law and antitrust law in the context of so-called "patent thickets," particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Listen to this episode to learn how courts are treating claims that obtaining a large number of patents for a single product may be an anticompetitive practice. With special guest: Kate Swisher, White & Case LLP Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Lijun Zhang, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

Spirit and JetBlue on March 4 ended their merger plans, saying that regulatory obstacles won't permit the airlines to close the deal in a timely fashion. But before the news broke, we'd recorded an episode with aviation editor Robert Silk and antitrust lawyer Scott Wagner to talk about antitrust law and the past, present and -- what we thought -- might be the future of the deal. We talk about why the approach of the judge who struck down the merger deal may have some additional ramifications for the industry. Do presidential administrations impact antitrust decisions? And is the era of major airline mergers at an end? Take a listen, and then check our links below for the latest coverage of the merger, including the official breakup. This episode was recorded March 1 and has been edited for length and clarity. Episode sponsor: This episode is sponsored by Travel Insured https://www.travelinsured.com Related reports: JetBlue and Spirit end their merger plans https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/JetBlue-spirit-end-merger Future airline mergers face turbulence https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/JetBlue-spirit-end-merger Spirit and JetBlue face a cloudy future after blocked merger https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Spirit-and-JetBlue-cloudy-future-after-blocked-merger Judge rules that benefits of JetBlue-Spirit merger don't measure up https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/JetBlue-and-Spirit-appealing-merger-rejection  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On episode 206, we welcome Mark White to discuss the drawbacks of antitrust laws, what rights consumers actually have, if trusts are unfair and unjust, the utilitarian argument against those laws, the flawed healthcare insurance system in the US and how its consumers struggle, whether it's feasible to constantly have new entrepreneurs challenging trusts, the trading system in the NFL and how it prevents unfair competition, and what the economy could look like if antitrust laws are relaxed Mark D. White is Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the College of Staten Island/CUNY, where he teaches courses in philosophy, economics, and law, and is also a member of the economics doctoral faculty at the Graduate Center of CUNY. His books include A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Thor, A Philosopher Reads Marvel Comics' Civil War, The Virtues of Captain America, Batman and Ethics, The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics and A Philosopher Reads...Marvel Comics' Daredevil: From the Beginning to Born Again. His newest book is called Rights versus Antitrust: Challenging the Ethics of Competition Law. | Mark D. White | ► Website | https://www.profmdwhite.com ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/profmdwhite ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/profmdwhite ► Rights versus Antitrust | https://amzn.to/49HNVa7 Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast ► Patreon | https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32208666  

In this episode of Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers, join us as we chat with Summer Eberhard, a Principal in our California and Seattle offices. Summer shares her journey from attorney to legal recruiter and delves into the recruiting scene across California and Seattle, highlighting the changing landscape of the legal industry over the last decade and current market trends. She also discusses her approach providing invaluable advice for legal professionals navigating their career paths and the role of diversity and inclusion in modern recruitment. In our 'Move of the Week' segment, host Zach Sandberg spotlights a significant development: DLA Piper's Antitrust Team expanding with three former Norton Rose Litigators. Tune in for an insightful exploration of the legal recruiting landscape and expert career guidance. Don't forget to rate, review, subscribe, and share with your network!  

Report after report has shown that sexual harassment and assault are pervasive throughout the U.S. armed forces: at least 15.7 percent of military personnel and veterans reported military sexual trauma, a number that is likely smaller than the actual total due to shame and fear around reporting. What's more, perpetrators are rarely if ever held accountable: according to a recent ProPublica investigation, more than half of the 900 soldiers who were allowed to leave the Army in the past decade rather than go to trial were accused of violent crimes.But in the face of a culture that silences and disenfranchises women and survivors, some women are speaking out—and demanding change. One of them is our very special guest, Melissa McCafferty: Melissa McCafferty is a former Lieutenant with the United States Coast Guard, where she served for 12 years. After being sexually assaulted while in the Coast Guard Academy, she has since become an advocate for military sexual assault victims, including testifying in front of Congress earlier this year. She recently received her JD from Georgetown University Law Center, and serves as a Young Lawyer Representative at the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law. Check out this episode's landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at ontheissues@msmagazine.com. Support the show

In the early 1980s, a group of Vietnamese fisherman on the gulf coast of Texas teamed up with the Southern Poverty Law Center to mount a heroic legal challenge to the Ku Klux Klan. How did antitrust law play a role in this important civil rights case? Charles Moore joins co-hosts Derek Jackson and Alicia Downey to talk about the Section's Diversity.Advanced Committee's upcoming reenactment of the court proceedings, the historical use of antitrust law in cases of violence or threats against competitors, and the potential for new cases in this area. Listen to this episode to learn about the antitrust issues that arose in a milestone case in American legal history. With special guest: Charles Moore, White & Case LLP Related Links: Preliminary injunction decision Permanent injunction decision Houston Public Media, I See U Podcast, Episode 9: Vietnamese Fishermen v. the KKK Andrew Chin, University of North Carolina, The KKK and the Vietnamese Fishermen Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Derek Jackson, Cohen & Gresser LLP

A federal jury in the US has found that Google's app store is in violation of antitrust law. It comes two years after Epic Games sued the tech giant, accusing it of a monopoly over the distribution of apps. Also, tourism has plummeted in the Israeli-occupied West Bank town of Bethlehem this Christmas season, with local businesses struggling. Plus, the value of India's stock market overtakes that of Hong Kong's. Finally, Google releases its top search trends for 2023.

Although a creature of statute, American antitrust law functions in practice as a field of common law. Courts have had the preeminent role in shaping the contours of its application, imposing the “rule of reason” and defining concepts like competition and the use of economic evidence. While antitrust precedents are closely examined by practitioners and academics alike, less attention is paid to whether the developments in antitrust law over the last century are consistent with the text of the antitrust laws. This panel will discuss the meaning of the antitrust texts, how or whether current law is consistent with the plain meaning of the statutes, and what that means for antitrust policy going forward.Featuring:Prof. Daniel A. Crane, Richard W. Pogue Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolMr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller PostmanMs. Doha Mekki, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of JusticeMr. Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedomModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitOverflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

On this day in legal history the first televised trial in New York hit the airwaves, paving the way to what would become Court TV and all the other reality-TV-meets-judicial-system abominations currently on air. On October 25, 1988, New York witnessed its first-ever televised murder trial, involving Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum. The couple lived in a tumultuous relationship marked by drug abuse and violence, in a squalid Greenwich Village apartment. Steinberg, a criminal lawyer, used legal loopholes to informally "adopt" two children without proper paperwork, setting the stage for a tragedy that would captivate the nation. The public was shocked when paramedics discovered their six-year-old adopted daughter, Lisa, emaciated and bruised, eventually dying from abuse-induced brain hemorrhage.Steinberg and Nussbaum were initially charged with attempted murder, which turned into a murder charge after Lisa's life-support was removed. The prosecution relied heavily on Nussbaum's testimony, offering her a plea deal to drop all charges against her in exchange for her cooperation. Judge Harold Rothwax, known for his unflappable demeanor, presided over this emotionally charged trial that scrutinized not just the couple's actions but also their toxic relationship.Assistant District Attorney Peter Casolaro aimed to dissect this relationship to convince the jury of Steinberg's guilt. Expert witnesses and medical evidence pointed towards Steinberg as the perpetrator of the fatal blows that caused Lisa's brain hemorrhage. Nussbaum's testimony portrayed her as another victim of Steinberg's abuse, although the defense tried to paint her as a complicit actor rather than just a victim.The trial concluded with Steinberg being convicted of first-degree manslaughter, receiving a prison term of 8½ to 25 years. The case had a long-lasting impact, leading to the passage of New York's "Lisa Law" in 1988 to address loopholes in private adoption laws. This landmark case not only showcased the dark underbelly of abuse behind closed doors but also shattered the myth that child abuse is confined to any particular socio-economic status.Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his one-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, faced each other in a Manhattan courtroom for a civil fraud trial concerning the Trump Organization's real estate business practices. Cohen, who severed ties with Trump five years prior, testified that Trump inflated the value of his real estate assets to secure more favorable insurance premiums. His testimony could support New York Attorney General Letitia James' case alleging that Trump and several executives inflated property values, potentially leading to the dissolution of Trump's business empire.Trump, a frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has consistently denied any wrongdoing. He and his legal team have labeled the case as a "political witch hunt" and have referred to Cohen as a "liar," aiming to undermine his credibility during cross-examination. Trump's lawyers specifically brought up Cohen's 2018 guilty plea for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress about Trump's business activities in Russia, attempting to portray him as an unreliable witness.Justice Arthur Engoron had previously ruled before the trial started that Trump fraudulently inflated his net worth and ordered the dissolution of key companies within his real estate portfolio. However, this ruling is currently on hold pending an appeal by Trump. The focus of the trial is largely on damages, with Attorney General James seeking at least $250 million in fines and various bans against Trump and his sons from doing business in New York. Last week, Engoron fined Trump $5,000 for violating a gag order related to the case.Donald Trump, Michael Cohen to face off again at New York fraud trial | ReutersJohn Eastman, a conservative law professor and one of Donald Trump's post-election attorneys, is defending himself against disciplinary charges brought by the California State Bar that could result in the loss of his law license. Eastman argues that the charges are based on inaccurate allegations. Specifically, he refutes the claim that Vice President Mike Pence "publicly rejected" his memos advising on how Pence could act if two sets of presidential electors were presented to Congress on January 6, 2021.According to Eastman, the State Bar misinterprets Pence's 'Dear Colleague' letter and wrongly associates its content with his advice. Eastman also challenges the Bar's claim that he was "grossly negligent" for not knowing that historical records did not support his argument that the vice president could delay the counting of electoral votes. He argues that the drafters of the Constitution explicitly excluded Congress from any decision-making role in presidential elections, leaving the role of the vice president in this context open to interpretation.Eastman is facing 11 counts related to violating ethics rules, state law, and charges of moral turpitude. These counts are connected to memos he sent to Trump campaign officials, his media appearances, and statements made ahead of the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. Separately, Eastman also faces charges in Fulton County, Georgia, for plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, to which he has pleaded not guilty.In his defense, Eastman claims he is being penalized for representing unpopular viewpoints and maintains that election irregularities cost Trump the presidency. The State Bar has completed its case against him, and the hearing will resume on October 30 for further examination and cross-examination. Closing arguments are scheduled for November 3, and post-trial briefs are due by November 22.The final decision on Eastman's law license will ultimately be made by the California Supreme Court. A federal judge in California had previously stated that it was "more likely than not" that Eastman and Trump had engaged in criminal conduct, and Eastman has also been referred to the Department of Justice by the January 6 congressional committee.Eastman Disputes Facts Underpinning Charges in State Bar TrialA bipartisan coalition of 18 state attorneys general, led by Connecticut, is supporting two minor league baseball teams in their challenge against Major League Baseball's (MLB) long-standing antitrust exemption. The Tri-City ValleyCats in New York and the Connecticut-based Norwich Sea Unicorns filed the case, arguing that MLB's 2020 decision to reduce the number of minor league teams that can affiliate with major league clubs was anticompetitive. This move led to the elimination of dozens of minor league teams and capped the number of affiliations at four per major league club.Historically, a series of rulings since 1922 have exempted baseball from federal antitrust laws, claiming the sport involved "purely state affairs." The state attorneys general, however, contend that this premise was factually incorrect even in 1922, as baseball was already a national business at that time. Their legal brief argues that states have "regularly enforced their antitrust laws against corporations and cartels whose business crosses state lines," and thus, MLB should not enjoy such an exemption.The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit earlier, citing MLB's antitrust exemption. Lawyers for MLB have previously called the antitrust claims "patently frivolous," stating that the lawsuit aims to "impose liability on MLB for not renewing plaintiffs' contracts."The state coalition's filing is among several amicus briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, including support from the professional baseball players union. MLB has yet to file a response to the petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.Bipartisan state coalition backs challenge to MLB's antitrust immunity | ReutersBaseball's Antitrust Exemption: A Brief PrimerA pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case is set to determine if NCAA student athletes should be classified as employees under federal labor law. The case focuses on football and basketball players from the University of Southern California and the Pac-12 Conference and questions whether they were wrongly classified as "non-employee student-athletes." Legal experts warn that recognizing student athletes as employees would open a "Pandora's box" of legal complications, particularly for smaller colleges that may struggle with the financial implications.The move to classify student athletes as employees is part of a broader effort by labor advocates. It comes after a 2021 US Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA violated federal antitrust laws by preventing athletes from profiting from their name, image, and likeness. If athletes are classified as employees, they would likely seek to unionize, adding further complexities as to who must bargain with them.The issue also has implications for Title IX, as it could raise questions about equal educational opportunities if male athletes start getting paid as employees. The case could redefine the bargaining units as well, potentially designating entire athletic conferences as employers. Financially smaller schools may find it difficult to compete if they have to start paying athletes, possibly leading to greater consolidation in college sports. The NLRB's decision in this case could fundamentally change the landscape of college sports and has wider implications for labor laws and educational policies.NCAA Student Athletes as Employees Case to Open ‘Pandora's Box'In my column this week, I argue that tax law is often seen as inaccessible or daunting, a perception that is largely due to how and when most people first encounter the subject. I teach an introductory course on tax theory and policy at Drexel Kline School of Law that aims to dismantle these misconceptions. The course focuses on real-world implications of tax policies and is structured to introduce foundational policy and theoretical knowledge first, followed by classes that tackle specific issues such as tax filing and wealth inequality.Drexel Kline is unique because it offers an undergraduate degree in law, providing an entry point for talent in the legal profession right out of high school. This contrasts with traditional paths that require a four-year degree and the LSAT for entry. The approach aims to break down the barriers that make fields like tax law appear unapproachable or reserved for those with specialized backgrounds.Early exposure to tax law can significantly impact students' career trajectories. An undergraduate course demystifies the field, giving students a clearer understanding of what a career in tax could offer. This can diversify the talent pool in the tax profession or, at the very least, create a more tax-savvy public.The tax profession is currently experiencing a brain drain, which poses a long-term sustainability problem for both the legal and tax fields. Courses like the one I teach at Drexel can serve as blueprints for making education in these areas more inclusive. By lowering entry barriers and challenging preconceived notions held by gatekeepers in the field, we can create a more robust, diverse, and dynamic applicant pool.I conclude that educational institutions and professional bodies need to proactively adopt early-intervention programs like Drexel's to ensure a more equitable and informed future in the fields of law and taxation.Introduce Tax to Students Early to Boost Tax Talent Pipeline Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Federal Trade commission sued Amazon this past week, accusing it of monopolistic practices. This episode from our archive explores the history of federal antitrust regulation and how FTC chair Lina Khan has championed new thinking about monopolistic power in the U.S.

Fiona Schaeffer, a prominent antitrust lawyer, has taken on the big job of leading the ABA Antitrust Law Section in 2023-24. In this episode, co-hosts Alicia Downey and Anora Wang interview Fiona about her goals for the year and the initiatives she is leading to explore the relationship between antitrust and consumer protection law and sustainability, as well as the impact of artificial intelligence on the law and the legal profession. Listen to this episode to get to know Fiona and, as a bonus, meet Anne Catherine Faye, the first economist appointed to serve in the important role of Counsel to the Chair. With special guests: Fiona Schaeffer, Milbank LLP and Anne Catherine Faye, Analysis Group Related Links: Upcoming ABA Antitrust Law Section events  Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

When’s the last time you used Microsoft Bing or Duck Duck Go to search the internet? Yeah, that’s no accident, say the U.S. government and several states. Next week, an antitrust case they filed against Google goes to trial. The original complaint notes Google accounted for almost 90% of all search queries in the U.S. And Googling only got us so far on this one, so Marketplace’s Lily Jamali called on Rebecca Allensworth, an antitrust lawyer and law professor at Vanderbilt.

When’s the last time you used Microsoft Bing or Duck Duck Go to search the internet? Yeah, that’s no accident, say the U.S. government and several states. Next week, an antitrust case they filed against Google goes to trial. The original complaint notes Google accounted for almost 90% of all search queries in the U.S. And Googling only got us so far on this one, so Marketplace’s Lily Jamali called on Rebecca Allensworth, an antitrust lawyer and law professor at Vanderbilt.

In the latest episode of Faithful Politics, hosts Will Wright and Pastor Josh Bertram are joined by the Honorable Judge Mark Boonstra of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The episode offers a comprehensive exploration of Judge Boonstra's distinguished career, his involvement in significant legal matters such as the Flint water crisis, and his notable literary contributions.The conversation commences with an overview of Judge Boonstra's service since 2012 on the Michigan Court of Appeals, followed by his concurrent service on the Michigan Court of Claims from 2015 to 2017. The discussion provides valuable insights into his judicial philosophy and the critical legal challenges he has faced.The episode further delves into Judge Boonstra's three-volume book series "In Their Own Words," which explores the thoughts and principles of America's Founding Fathers. The hosts and the guest engage in a thoughtful dialogue on the relevance of these historical perspectives to contemporary society.Beyond his professional accomplishments, the conversation also touches on Judge Boonstra's personal life, inspirations, and experiences that have influenced his work in the legal field. The episode concludes with gratitude expressed by the hosts for Judge Boonstra's time and insights.Buy his book: https://a.co/d/7xz7oSNIn Their Own Words, Volume 1, The New England Colonies: Today's God-less America... What Would Our Founding Fathers Think?Guest Bio:Judge Boonstra was appointed to the Court of Appeals in March, 2012, and he was subsequently elected in 2012, 2014, and 2020. In addition to his appellate duties, Judge Boonstra served a two-year term on the Michigan Court of Claims, by appointment of the Michigan Supreme Court, from May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2017, where his docket included cases arising out of the Flint Water Crisis. Prior to serving on the Court, Judge Boonstra was a senior principal in the law firm of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C., where he practiced law for 27 years, including serving as a Deputy Chair of the firm's Litigation practice group and as Co-Chair of its Appellate Practice section. At the time he joined the Court, he was recognized in Best Lawyers in America in the areas of: Antitrust Law; Appellate Practice; Bet-the-Company Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Litigation - Antitrust; Litigation - First Amendment; and Litigation - Securities. He previously also served as a Law Clerk to Hon. Ralph B. Guy, Jr. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan from 1983 to 1985. Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

Challenged by the pandemic, war, trade conflicts, natural disasters, consumer demand, and inflationary pressures, the global supply chain has drawn heightened scrutiny for its impact on the economy, the labor market, the delivery of goods and services, and national security. What have the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission had to say? Have they sufficiently addressed the issue? Any further measures in the works?  Are we seeing disputes in the courts? How can supply chain and manufacturing companies limit their risk of being subject to government investigation?  Listen to my interview with Jennifer M. Driscoll, Counsel at Robinson + Cole, LLP, as we explore recent developments related to the manufacturing industry and supply chains and their impact on marketplace competition. Jennifer  focuses her practice on investigations, litigation, arbitration, mergers, and counseling. She has extensive experience in the medical devices, pharmaceutical, electronic components and automotive industries, with a particular knowledge of industries in Japan. An experienced commercial litigator, Jen defends corporations and individuals against alleged antitrust and anti-corruption claims, both civil and criminal. She is active in the American Bar Association's Section of Antitrust Law, where she serves as Vice Chair of the Section's Corporate Counseling Committee and Vice Chair to the Section's U.S. Comments and Policy Committee during the 2022-2023 Section year. Jennifer received her J.D. from University of Pennsylvania School of Law.This episode is based on Jennifer's article -- "Supplier Beware: DOJ and FTC Investigating Manufacturing and Supply Chains" for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.  Give it a read!  I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the vLex Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm.If you have comments, ideas, or wish to participate, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

Legal textbooks have always been expensive but these days, the cost of a new commercially-published antitrust law casebook can range from $300 to $500. What if a high-quality casebook were available at little or no cost? With the support of the ABA Antitrust Law Section, NYU Law School Professors Christopher Sprigman and Daniel Francis recently completed the world's first openly-licensed antitrust law casebook. Listen to this episode as they talk with co-hosts Alicia Downey and Sarah Zhang about this important project and whether eliminating the expense of traditional casebooks might lead to an increase in law students taking antitrust and potentially pursuing careers in the field. With special guests: Daniel Francis, Assistant Professor of Law, New York University School of Law Christopher Jon Sprigman, Murray and Kathleen Bring Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, and Co-Director, Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy Related Links: Daniel Francis & Christopher Jon Sprigman, Antitrust Principles, Cases and Materials Hosted by: Alicia Downey, Downey Law LLC and Sarah Zhang, Baker Botts L.L.P.

This episode features Holden Brooks, Partner at McGuireWoods LLP; Co-Chair, Marketing Committee, ABA Antitrust Law Section. Here, she discusses important antitrust compliance issues & trends in healthcare she is watching from an antitrust practice perspective.

Rebroadcast: From Robert Bork's "consumer harm" to Lina Khan's "democratic harm," we discuss the ideas that drive the government's approach to antitrust regulation. Daniel Crane, Barry Lynn and Jack Beatty join Meghna Chakrabarti.

This episode is from the first panel of the Gray Center’s October 14 conference, “The Administration of Antitrust: The FTC and the Rule of Law.” It features the following experts: Andrew I. Gavil, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law Thomas Hazlett, H.H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics, Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of […]