| Kathleen W. Bradish
Technology, Monopolies
During the first two decades of the twenty-first century, the federal government brought few monopolization cases, and only a tiny fraction resulted in litigated, court-ordered remedies. However, the last five years has seen an uptick in monopolization cases, including against major digital platforms. Several cases have resulted in early enforcement victories, including during the liability phase at trial, and they have now entered the remedy phase, where the trial court will be tasked with ordering equitable relief.
In this context, applying the correct standard for evaluating monopolization remedies has lasting and broad importance. An overly demanding standard will not just frustrate justice in any particular case but will have a significant impact on antitrust law’s ability to rein in monopolistic conduct in much of the modern economy. In a new White Paper, AAI’s Vice President and Director Legal Advocacy, Kathleen Bradish, addresses a key, recurring issue in legal battles over monopolization remedies: causation standards. The White Paper, entitled Unrealistic Causation Standards Put Effective Monopolization Remedies at Risk, explains why certain problematic causation standards suggested by defendants and their supporting amici threaten a core principle of monopolization remedies—the need to put “effectiveness first.”
Read the full white paper: Unrealistic Causation Standards Put Effective Monopolization Remedies at Risk
