Today, the Committee for Justice provided a statement for inclusion in the record of the Subcommittee’s September 15th hearing, “Stacking the Tech: Has Google Harmed Competition in Online Advertising?” The letter was submitted by a group of legal experts, economists, and consumer and taxpayer advocates who believe in the importance of promoting competitive markets and defending the rule of law.
As businesses and schools open after months of state-imposed lockdowns, the COVID-19 relief bill in Congress contains a proposal to provide a liability shield to institutions who follow federal guidelines but still find themselves the target of lawsuits. Meanwhile, state legislatures are considering separate proposals. Our panel of experts discuss the post-COVID-19 litigation landscape, the feasibility of liability shields, and what they could mean for businesses, entrepreneurs, school administrators, and consumers who are easing back into life as the nation recovers from the economic slow-down.
Judicial appointments promise to be a key issue in this fall's presidential and Senate elections. Our panel of legal experts will examine the likely impact of a Trump or Biden victory, as well as control of the Senate, on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. They will look at hsow the judges isue will impact the election. They'll discuss what President Trump's record of judicial appointments tells us about a second term. Similarly, what do Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris's records tell us about the kind of judicial nominees we'd see in a Biden Administration? And will Democrats attempt to pack the Supreme Court if they control Congress and the presidency?
On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Federal Trade Commission's win in the agency's case accusing Qualcomm of violating antitrust law through its licensing practices for standard-essential patents covering cellular technology. Our speakers will weigh in on this ruling and explore the history, arguments, and implications for the current debate over antitrust enforcement and the competitive process in high-tech markets.
The Trump Resistance claims the President is guilty of many crimes, regularly abuses his power, and is a threat to democracy. To bolster their case and support their resistance, the President's critics have invented a new body of "Trump Law," rewriting legal norms, standards and definitions across the legal landscape – spanning impeachment, obstruction of justice, "collusion," executive privilege, management of the executive branch, national injunctions, foreign relations, and more. The Committee for Justice and National Review Institute co-host a panel of legal experts to analyze the many areas of law affected by this effort, discuss the threat it poses to the rule of law, and speculate on the long-term impact.
As families increasingly rely on delivery and ride-sharing platforms to access supplies, groceries, take-out meals, and prescriptions, app and internet-based businesses have proven critical throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. These platforms have also provided flexible earnings opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Americans during these challenging economic times.
We would like to emphasize the need to distinguish between the proper and improper uses of antitrust in approaching discussions of market power, and are concerned that today’s hearing could lead to the use of antitrust to address concerns surrounding online content moderation, data privacy, equality, or other socio-political issues that are unrelated to the competitive process.
America’s technology companies have created huge gains for consumers, developing networks and products that connect the world in ways that were inconceivable just 20 years ago. Yet this progress has not been without its critics. The dominance of large platforms has led to concerns about the harmful effects of lock-in and path dependency, with many arguing the technology sector is unique and requires new approaches to antitrust policy. In particular, it is argued that the consumer welfare standard that guides American antitrust policy is ineffective for regulating Big Tech. Yet with the lack of demonstrable consumer harm, would increased government interventions improve the market?
Please join the Committee for Justice and Innovation Defense Foundation for a discussion of this important issue in advance of the House Judiciary Committee's hearing, "Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google," with industry CEOs.