20 June 2019
The US antitrust agencies should consider adopting merger guidelines that presume certain vertical deals to be anticompetitive unless the merging companies can rebut the claims, a former Federal Trade Commission economist has argued.
8:30: Welcome coffee and registration
9.00: Opening remarks
9.10: Proposal 1: Regulating dominant digital platforms just as vertically-integrated cable companies are regulated would effectively protect consumers, competition and the economy.
While policymakers and regulators in the US must take steps to ensure dominant tech platforms do not abuse their platform power by preferencing their own products, policing the platforms in the same way that vertically integrated cable operators are regulated - rather than breaking them up - will produce the best results for consumers and the economy. Singer will present this argument from an upcoming paper in the George Mason Law Review.
Hal Singer, The George Washington University, Washington, DC
9.30: Response panel
Bill Baer, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC
Andrew Gavil, Howard University, Washington, DC
John Harkrider, Axinn, New York
10.00: Room discussion
10.40: Coffee break
11.00: Proposal 2: Five principles to improve vertical merger review and enforcement in the US
Last month, Salop, along with fellow scholars Fiona Scott-Morton, Nancy Rose and Jonathan Baker, published a paper laying out five principles for effective vertical merger enforcement. With deeply out-of-date vertical merger guidance and new case law to interpret, the paper puts forward five core principles of enforcement analysis and process that the agencies must address.
Steven Salop, Georgetown Law, Washington, DC
11.20: Response panel
Jonathan Sallet, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC
Michael Whinston, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts and Bates White, Washington, DC
Geoffrey Manne, The International Center for Law and Economics, Oregon
11.40: Room discussion
12.10: Networking Lunch