Podcasts about brandeisian

Mark Meador is the newest commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, which plays a dual role: enforcing both antitrust and consumer protection laws. It also serves as America's de facto technology regulator, including overseeing digital privacy and cybersecurity issues.Commissioner Meador embodies the political realignment reshaping conservative views on big business, capitalism, and free trade. The Trump Administration's antitrust cases against Big Tech represent arguably the clearest expression of this shift. While the Biden administration aggressively targeted mergers and acquisitions—Wall Street's bread and butter—many financial elites hoped Donald Trump's return would restore a laissez-faire approach to antitrust. They've been in for disappointment.A recent speech by Meador laid out a conservative vision for antitrust, challenging long-held Republican Party orthodoxies and sparking backlash from libertarians. He joins Evan to discuss the tensions at the heart of the this realignment: how free-market principles can coexist with robust antitrust enforcement; how skeptics of big government find common cause with critics of big business; and how conservatives are crafting their own distinctive approach to antitrust while embracing the bipartisan consensus that has emerged over the past eight years.

Antitrust policy often asks "When are companies too big for the good of society?" But is bigness the only factor we should be looking at? Diana Moss is the Vice President of Competition and Antitrust Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, and she joins the podcast to discuss how the Biden administration is handling antitrust policy. We talk about the neo-Brandeisian movement, why the consumer welfare standard still matters, and why regulators seem to be obsessed with the tech sector and not other large monopolies. Got questions for the New Liberal Podcast?  Send them to mailbag@cnliberalism.org Follow us at: https://twitter.com/ne0liberal https://cnliberalism.org/   Join a local chapter at https://cnliberalism.org/become-a-member/

The recent neo-Brandeisian tack in antitrust policy has kicked up a lot of dust, obscuring much of the evidence that pokes holes in a more aggressive Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Lina Khan. Is big really bad, though, when it comes to technology antitrust policy? Join us in this episode of Explain to Shane as we explore this pressing question and more with our guest, Daniel Francis.Daniel is a faculty member at NYU School of Law and a leading legal expert in antitrust policy given his experience as Deputy Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. In this thought-provoking conversation, he dives deep into the misconceptions surrounding the current policy landscape, specifically focusing on the AICOA and OAMA bills, and evaluates the recent development of the FTC sending advisors to the European Union.Daniel points out a natural experiment unfolding in Europe, while Shane reminds us of the danger of drawing arbitrary lines in tech legislation. Get ready to expand your understanding of technology antitrust and the challenges that lie ahead in this rapidly evolving landscape.

The Biden administration has made aggressive antitrust enforcement a priority, and appointed Jonathan Kanter to be the nation’s chief antitrust law enforcer as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Though Kanter’s background is in big law, he is a leading advocate of the neo-Brandeisian school […]

The Biden administration has made aggressive antitrust enforcement a priority, and appointed Jonathan Kanter to be the nation's chief antitrust law enforcer as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Though Kanter's background is in big law, he is a leading advocate of the neo-Brandeisian school of antitrust that seeks to expand the scope and importance of antitrust. His aggressive agenda has yet to be fully revealed; however, the courts do not appear sympathetic and have handed the Division a series of defeats in recently-litigated merger challenges.At this luncheon event, Rick Rule, the head of the Antitrust Division under President Reagan (and a former partner of Kanter), probed Kanter on what he is hoping to achieve during his tenure and how he is going to deal with the skepticism of the courts.Featuring:- Hon. Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice- Moderator: Hon. Charles "Rick" Rule, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western who writes on environmental law, federalism, and regulation. In 2020, Brookings Institution Press published Adler's edited Marijuana Federalism: Uncle Sam and Mary Jane. Livermore and Adler begin their discussion on the topic of federalism and environmental law. Generally, Adler highlights sees the federal government as best focused on transboundary issues while states focus on issues with more localized impacts (00:49 - 02:50). Adler lists several benefits of states as venues for environmental policymaking, including variation in geography, economics, and industry as well as differences in values (02:50 - 04:35). He also highlights the value of experimentation in this regard (04:35 - 05:30). Alder also notes the distinction between decentralization as a policy matter and decentralization as a legal matter (05:30 - 06:56). Livermore notes the large role played by the federal government under existing law for locally oriented pollution. Adler offers some thoughts on the origins of this situation, mentioning the lack of jurisdictional thought when statues were passed as well as the deserved skepticism towards state and local governments as a result of the Civil Rights Movement (06:56 - 10:37). Adler hopes that today's states are different from those in the 60s and 70s (10:37 - 10:52). Adler offers some suggestions for policy reform (12:50 - 16:35) and the two discuss potential political barriers (16:35 - 21:47). Livermore introduces a discussion about injustice and public choice failure at the state level. He mentions our renewed emphasis on environmental justice issues, and Adler argues that while states can fail, so can the federal government (21:47 - 32:40). Adler and Livermore turn to experimentation and state variation (32:40 - 42:01). Livermore notes his view that the Brandeisian idea of “laboratories of democracy” is inapt; that a better way to view this process is as innovation. Adler agrees with the concept of innovation and discovery, emphasizing the discovery side. It's not experimentation in the sense that it is controlled, it is rather a discovery and learning process as a result of variation and observation (42:01 - 48:06). Livermore requests Adler's thoughts on federalism versus localism and decentralization more broadly. Adler responds with the idea that different communities have different priorities; there is no one size fits all. He mentions that when local communities are given autonomy and control, they often discover and innovate in ways that have important environmental benefits. In terms of legality, the extent to which this is viable varies from state to state (48:06 - 53:36). Livermore and Adler return to the earlier, more legal discussion around litigation over climate damages. Livermore explains a recent Second Circuit decision which led to a preemption-like result, asking Adler to discuss the stakes of the difference between federal common law and state common law, displacement versus preemption, and his thoughts on the Second Circuit decision. Adler argues that, although from a policy perspective, climate change is better suited to national rather than state or local solutions, from a legal perspective, the Second Circuit's holding that these suits were preempted was unjustified (53:36 - 1:02:34). The final question the two discuss is the intersection between environmental federalism and political polarization. Adler argues that principled federalism can help depolarize because it can lessen the stakes. Unnecessary centralization magnifies polarization. Adler is careful not to generalize, recognizing that there is no one answer that will solve everything. However, he states that if we can allow centralization and decentralization where they are most fit, we might be a few steps closer to arriving at agreement on environmental policy (1:02:34 - 1:07:52).

Commissioner Noah Phillips joins the show for a wide-ranging discussion about the Federal Trade Commission. Topics include “unfair methods of competition” rulemaking, the history of the FTC, merger guidelines, the consumer-welfare standard and free-of-charge products, administrative tribunals, the history of the Sherman Act, and neo-Brandeisian antitrust in a time of inflation.

The Federal Trade Commission is making headlines lately, as its new chair, Lina Khan, seeks to impose a “neo-Brandeisian” antitrust agenda. Adam Cella, an attorney advisor to FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson, joins the show to discuss what's happening at the agency. For more, see Commissioner Wilson's speech, The Neo-Brandeisian Revolution: Unforced Errors and the Diminution of the FTC, given last month at the ABA Antitrust Law Section's Fall Forum.

We begin the episode with the Biden administration's options for responding to continued Russian ransomware outrages. Dmitri Alperovitch reprises his advice in the Washington Post that Putin will only respond to strength and U.S. pressure. I agree but raise the question whether the U.S. has the tools to enforce another set of alleged red lines, given Putin's enthusiasm and talent for crossing them. If jumping U.S. red lines were an Olympic sport, Russia would have retired the gold by now. Dmitri reminds us that Russian cooperation against cybercrime remains a mirage. He also urges that we keep the focus on ransomware and not the more recent attempt to hack the Republican National Committee. The Biden White House has been busy this week, or at least Tim Wu has. When Wu took a White House job as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy, some might have wondered why he did it. Now, Gus Hurwitz only after giving child abusers a six-month holiday from scrutiny tells us, it looks as though he was given carte blanche to turn his recent think tank paper into an executive order. Gus: Biden targets Big Tech in sweeping new executive order cracking down on anti-competitive practices. It's a kitchen sink full of proposals, Mark MacCarthy notes, most of them more focused on regulation than competition. That observation leads to a historical diversion to the way Brandeisian competition policy aimed at smaller competitors and ended by creating bigger regulatory agencies and bigger companies to match. We had to cover Donald Trump's class actions against Twitter, Facebook, and Google, but if the time we devoted to the lawsuits was proportionate to their prospects for success, we'd have stopped talking in the first five seconds.   Mark gives more time to a House Republican leadership plan to break up Big Tech and stop censorship. But the plan (or, to be fair, the sketch) is hardly a dramatic rebuke to Silicon Valley—and despite that isn't likely to get far. Divisions in both parties' House caucuses now seem likely to doom any legislative move against Big Tech in this Congress. The most interesting tech and policy story of the week is the Didi IPO in the U.S., and the harsh reaction to it in Beijing. Dmitri tells us that the government has banned new distributions of Didi's ride-sharing app and opened a variety of punitive regulatory investigations into the company. This has dropped Didi's stock price, punishing the U.S. investors who likely pressed Didi to launch the IPO despite negative signals from Beijing. Meanwhile, more trouble looms for the tech giant, as Senate conservatives object to Didi benefiting from U.S. investment and China makes clear that Didi will not be allowed to provide the data needed to comply with U.S. stock exchange rules. Mark and Gus explain why 37 U.S. states are taking Google to court over its Play Store rules and why, paradoxically, Google's light hand in the Play store could expose it more to antitrust liability than Apple's famously iron-fisted rule. Dmitri notes the hand-wringing over the rise of autonomous drone weapons but dismisses the notion that there's something uniquely new or bad about the weapons (we've had autonomous, or at least automatic, submarine weapons, he reminds us, since the invention of naval mines in the 14th century). In quick hits, Gus and Dmitri offer dueling perspectives on the Pentagon's proposal to cancel and subdivide the big DOD cloud contract. Gus tells us about the other Fortnite lawsuit against Apple over it app policy; this one is in Australia and was recently revived. As I suspected, Tucker Carlson has pretty much drained the drama from his tale of having his communications intercepted by NSA. Turns out he's been seeking an interview with Putin. And no one should be surprised that the NSA might want to listen to Putin. The Indian government is telling its courts that Twitter has lost its 230-style liability protection in that country. As a result, it looks as though Twitter is rushing to comply with Indian law requirements that it has blown off so far. Still, the best part of the story is Twitter's appointment of a “grievance officer.” Really, what could be more Silicon Valley Woke? I predict it's only a matter of months before the whole Valley fills with Chief Grievance Officers, after which the Biden administration will appoint one for the Executive Branch. And, finally, I give the EU Parliament credit for doing the right thing in passing legislation that lets companies look for child abuse on their platforms. Readers may remember that the problem was EU privacy rules that threatened to end monitoring for abuse all around the world. To make sure we remembered that this is still the same feckless EU Parliament as always, the new authority was grudgingly adopted only after giving child abusers a six-month holiday from scrutiny. It was also limited to three years, after which the Parliament seems to think that efforts to stop the sexual abuse of children will no longer be needed. And More!                                                                                                                                   Download the 370th Episode (mp3)   You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

In this episode, Joshua D. Wright, University Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, discusses his article "Requiem for a Paradox: The Dubious Rise and Inevitable Fall of Hipster Antitrust," which he co-authored with Elyse Dorsey, Jan Rybnicek, and Jonathan Klick, and which will be published in the Arizona State Law Journal. Wright begins by describing the prevailing position on the goals of antitrust policy that developed in the late 1970s, and its focus on the consumer welfare standard as the basis for determining when antitrust intervention is justified. He explains how and why this approach became the dominant approach to antitrust policy, and why he thinks it improved antitrust enforcement. He then describes recent criticisms of the prevailing approach, focusing on those presented by the "hipster antitrust" movement, a collection of antitrust scholars that also refer to themselves as "new Brandeisian" or "New Progressive Antitrust." He describes the different kinds of criticisms they offer, and argues that some are more compelling than others. Wright is on Twitter at @ProfWrightGMU.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.“ So the famous US Supreme Court Justice and ‘crusader for social justice’ and breaker-upper of Gilded Age monopolies, Louis D. Brandeis is said to have said, perhaps sometimes in the early 1930s. Today, perhaps the best-known neo-Brandeisian anti-trust advocate is Tim Wu, Columbia law professor, ‘father of net neutrality’ and author of a series of books likening today’s commercial excesses – in particular in the digital space – to the ‘Gilded Age’ of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In our latest discussion about Facebook, GDPR and general big tech regulation issues, Neville, Sam and I come down on different sides of the either-or debate of public vs business interest. Of course, it is not really an either-or debate. It’s a complex and convoluted, tangled web of interests and angles, and any claimant of simple solutions has likely got a degree from snake oil university. Neville discusses an article in The Conversation by De Montford University professor Eerke Boiten, who advocates GDPR-based impact assessments to hold tech firms accountable, rather than letting them continue to ‘move fast and break things’.  Jeff Jarvis, CUNY journalism professor, takes a very different stance in his recent EU regulation critique Europe Against the Net. Continue reading -> https://www.smalldataforum.com/

Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burlingMr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burlingMr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

As an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis observed that “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Concerns about market concentration – with particular focus on the tech sector and such issues as use of, and access to, consumer data – have generated renewed interest in a Brandeisian approach, which has also found its way into the Democratic Party's “Better Deal." Has the time come for this New Brandeis Movement or is it merely, as others would have it, “hipster antitrust"? Should antitrust enforcement encompass such concerns as jobs, wages, data privacy, and viewpoint diversity in media, or is the consumer welfare standard's narrower focus on prices and consumer choice still appropriate? Would broadening antitrust's mandate raise rule of law concerns? And is this a genuinely new debate or is it a return to the familiar concern that “antitrust dosesn't fit the tech sector," which drove the George W. Bush era Antitrust Modernization Commission?Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law SchoolHon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitMr. Jonathan S. Kanter, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPMr. Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets InstituteModerator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

As an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis observed that “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Concerns about market concentration – with particular focus on the tech sector and such issues as use of, and access to, consumer data – have generated renewed interest in a Brandeisian approach, which has also found its way into the Democratic Party's “Better Deal." Has the time come for this New Brandeis Movement or is it merely, as others would have it, “hipster antitrust"? Should antitrust enforcement encompass such concerns as jobs, wages, data privacy, and viewpoint diversity in media, or is the consumer welfare standard's narrower focus on prices and consumer choice still appropriate? Would broadening antitrust's mandate raise rule of law concerns? And is this a genuinely new debate or is it a return to the familiar concern that “antitrust dosesn't fit the tech sector," which drove the George W. Bush era Antitrust Modernization Commission?Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law SchoolHon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitMr. Jonathan S. Kanter, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPMr. Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets InstituteModerator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit