John Mark Newman

@lawprofblawg @neil_chilson "But I mixed my labor with the soil!" I cried, as the crowd of strangers continued to congregate in my living room.

@neil_chilson Before property law, I really had a hard time keeping people out of my house.

I wonder what creates property rights and structures markets. #Satire

@BalanceCrafting Thanks for the update; I was literally just thinking about this case today... It's my Roman Empire.

Doorskin monopolist JELD-WEN finally comes to its senses & GIVES UP on latest appeal attempt Right outcome, doctrinally useful decisions along way (supported by DOJ statement of interest) But An indictment of antitrust law/procedure that it took a DECADE to reverse 3->2 merger

@Sherman1890 That's right. But I'd think of the quasi-per-se rule for tying, with its various required proof elements (market power, coercion, size of effect, etc.), as something more like a PNB-style presumption, which we do have for horizontal mergers.

@johnmarknewman We can debate that; but we certainly don't have a per se rule against mergers, where fewer than 1% are challenged.

@johnmarknewman Nice piece. Isn't the per se tying rule an example of lawless antitrust? Congress spoke to tying only in §3 Clayton Act, which requires proof of anticompetitive effects and was written in response to Henry holding that Sherman Act did not reach tying at all.

@Sherman1890 ... that a lot of justification analysis actually happens under the surface in the "separate products" test.

@Sherman1890 It's pretty close! Section 1 tying cases are not easy to win these days. The two formal differences are (1) no need to prove likely/actual anticompetitive effects (in the sense of price/output effects), and (2) no procompetitive justifications analysis. Tho' I'm of the view

@Sherman1890 ... a restraint that "affect[s]" a substantial amount of commerce, and (after Jeff. Parish) that the tie was "coercive" in its effect. Given that, I don't see the quasi-per se rule as unlawful antitrust. It comports pretty well with both text and statutory purpose/policy.

@Sherman1890 Second, more broadly, even cases at the highwater mark of the "per se" rule on tying--I'd nominate N. Pac. R. Co. (1958)--begin with the statutory text, walk through applicable precedent, and in general engage in a law-like process. They require proof of market power, plus...

@darkstarsats Hi, hope all's well. That's Canva. I don't think ChatGPT is this capable yet when it comes to correctly integrating a bunch of text with an image. (Though I may be wrong about that.)

@johnmarknewman pretty hilarious to host a pro-worker event with a clearly chatgpt-generated flyer.

#Antitrust Event Alert: “Countervailing Power: Antimonopoly for Workers” in Memphis on May 15. Along with my co-organizer Eric Posner (UChicago), we've assembled a rockstar lineup of speakers. Free to attend. RSVP via QR code below. Short 🧵 on panel topics follows: ⏬ (1/3)

@HawAllensworth @HalSinger @Econ_Marshall @ShaoulSussman @MaxMMillerAT @UditThakur_ @SladeBond Oh, and here's a URL to RSVP for those of us who don't use a smartphone: forms.gle/jUf3HX2bNCgUgx…

@HawAllensworth @HalSinger @Econ_Marshall @ShaoulSussman @MaxMMillerAT @UditThakur_ @SladeBond

@Sherman1890 @PGunigantiAT Quite an interesting set of allegations, and interesting to see it move forward despite the D.D.C. decision in FTC v. Meta.

@PGunigantiAT thanks

In Phhhoto v. Meta, 2026 WL 872963 (EDNY, 3-30-2026) the court refused to dismiss a complaint that Facebook had a sufficiently large share for monopolization purposes during the period covered by the complaint, 2014-2017, the year the plaintiff went out of business.

Easily one of the best parts of my new role is the chance to invite amazing people to Memphis, including our inaugural Herff Distinguished Visitor! Prof. Douglas NeJaime (Yale) will be here this Thursday to give a public lecture on the changing role of biology in parenthood law.

YouTube's current "Terms of Service" cap damages for any lawsuits at the amount YouTube has paid the user over the past year ($0 for most users) or $500... So effectively $500. And YouTube's ToS prohibit punitive damages for any personal injuries caused by its product.

Instagram's current "Terms of Use" require users to waive their right to a jury trial. They also force most cases into arbitration.

Important note re: the landmark jury verdict against @Meta and @Google: the only reason these plaintiffs could get their case to a jury and get this verdict was that they happened to be minors, and could therefore avoid Meta's & Google's "terms and conditions." Short 🧵👇

About to join a lively panel conversation on course-of-conduct monopolization, a/k/a "monopoly broth". Free to the public here: americanbar.org/events-cle/mtg…