
handle: 10379/18489
Digital markets now fundamentally intertwine with our social and economic lives. International enforcement actions—the United States (U.S.) and European Union (E.U.) Google cases in particular—demonstrate from a behavioral economic perspective how digital platforms may be beginning to implicate antitrust’s two most fundamental doctrinal components—conduct and market power—in nuanced ways. In short, the regulatory and policy landscape showcases that we may be moving closer towards an antitrust world whereby firms can manipulate consumers’ psychological shortcomings to foreclose competition—a new form of nefarious conduct that might appropriately be termed “cognitive foreclosure.” Yet as a demand-side market failure, one should be cautious about categorizing behavioral market failures as antitrust issues. The behavioral deviation from perfect competition, then, would need to be “substantial” and “sustainable” if such market failures are to justifiably attract antitrust scrutiny.
Cognitive, Cognitive foreclosure, School of Law, Foreclosure, Antitrust and Trade Regulation, Law
Cognitive, Cognitive foreclosure, School of Law, Foreclosure, Antitrust and Trade Regulation, Law
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
