ProMarket

This creates a massive challenge for the next generation of economists. If the law cannot distinguish between scrolling videos and keeping up with loved ones, how do we build new models for measuring cross-elasticity when the currency exchanged is human time, not dollars? Read the full argument on ProMarket: promarket.org/2026/03/19/met… #Antitrust #TechPolicy

While Meta competes fiercely with YouTube for video consumption, Mulock argues it remains uniquely insulated from competition when it comes to friends and family content. Because users lack viable alternatives for their personal networks, the authors suggest Meta can safely extract "monopoly rents" by quietly raising its price: forcing a massive ad load onto captive users.

If you adopt a puppy and suddenly spend less time at the gym, does that make puppies a direct competitor to fitness centers? A new article in our blog argues that a federal judge made a similar leap by confusing "time displacement" with "economic substitutability" in the FTC v. Meta case. Is the way we measure human attention breaking antitrust law?

Full podcast here: youtube.com/watch?v=JkzwZI…

We often worry that AI will pose existential threats. But @UniofOxford Prof. @carlbfrey argues the real danger might be that this technology fails to live up to expectations. In the latest episode of the Capitalisn't podcast, Frey lays out his argument for why progress isn’t a given and how our institutions could cause it to slow or even end. Watch the full episode below 👇

Will the AI race be won by the best tech, or simply the highest bidder? The battle for the internet's future may be about who controls the starting line on your phone. In a new ProMarket piece, Cristian Santesteban argues the recent Google monopoly ruling has a massive AI blind spot. AI needs constant human feedback to learn. Because Google pays billions to be the default search, it captures this vital feedback. Santesteban suggests rivals may never catch up. This raises a vital question for the future of antitrust: in an AI-first world, does buying distribution actually mean buying a monopoly on learning itself? promarket.org/2026/03/12/ai-…

Read the full article here: promarket.org/2026/03/09/why…

Worse, Bates finds retail investors face adverse selection. Funds sold to average earners perform significantly worse than those reserved for millionaires. What happens when the market dips and millions of retail investors desperately try to cash out of these illiquid assets at the exact same time? The latest article explores how regulators must urgently fix these valuations before an inevitable run-on-the-bank scenario. Could restricting these funds to employer-vetted 401(k)s solve the problem, or does that just shift the risk to corporate HR departments?

Wall Street is pitching everyday investors on access to the exclusive "private markets" where the ultra-wealthy make their fortunes. But are these new funds actually democratizing wealth, or just offloading unseen risks onto the middle class? According to Ben Bates, this recent wave of retail-focused private funds presents a serious hazard to everyday retirement accounts. In a new piece on ProMarket, Bates argues that these funds mask severe volatility behind artificially smooth numbers.

Congress once held the Supreme Court to account through its power over the purse and the Court's jurisdiction. Today, those levers of democratic control sit idle. On this week's Capitalisn't podcast, @GeorgetownLaw Prof. @steve_vladeck argues this has resulted in a completely unrestrained Court that runs in the direction of its ideological majority. If the referee starts wearing a team jersey, does the fundamental systems of democracy and capitalism begin to break down? Co-hosts @bethanymac12 & @Zingales examine whether lawmakers are simply afraid to take a stand and be held accountable by voters or whether politicians deliberately ceded this power to cater to special interests without facing the political fallout. Watch the full episode on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts.

When tech giants strike secret deals to kill potential competition, the open internet suffers, and all of us pay the price. Imagine you’re selling a car, but a single middleman forces you to use only his dealership and accept his prices. In a new piece on ProMarket, Joshua B. Gray argues that Google’s secret “Jedi Blue” deal with Facebook rigged the digital advertisement market in exactly this way. According to Gray, Google was alarmed by the rise of a new tech called "header bidding." Think of Google as the operator of a massive auction house for digital ads. The new technology opened the door for rivals to build their own competing auction houses. Facebook, as Google's biggest potential rival, was perfectly positioned to do just that. To neutralize the threat, Google offered Facebook VIP perks to keep them bidding inside Google's walls. Gray warns this is a textbook illegal monopoly tactic, echoing the historic Microsoft antitrust case. By locking Facebook's massive technological capabilities inside its own system, Google prevented a potential competitor from entering the market to keep it entirely under its thumb. promarket.org/2026/03/02/the…

"An administration that uses the government’s monopsony power to force companies to behave according to its wishes is not capitalist..." Economist Luigi Zingales argues in our blog this week that that designating Anthropic a “supply chain risk" amounts to an antitrust violation orchestrated by the state itself.

When you use AI to shop online, is it actually finding you the best deal? New research from @AmitZac1 and Michal Gal suggests AI chatbots function less like unbiased assistants and more like smooth-talking salespeople. If Google Search is like a map but you are still in the driver's seat, AI is like a tour guide telling you exactly where to go. And the research shows this specific tour guide has a bias for expensive tourist traps. As we move from "searching" to "asking," do we risk handing decision-making power to algorithms that prefer famous brands over the best deals? ms.spr.ly/6016Qb8cj

For decades, the referees of the economy (antitrust regulators) have used a specific rulebook called neoclassical competition policy that boiled down to one main question: does this make things more expensive for the consumer? If prices stayed low, the referees stayed on the sidelines. But many Big Tech products are "free" so, under the old rules, the referees don’t see any problems. But as the authors of our new article point out, this is like a doctor who only checks your temperature: just because you don't have a fever doesn't mean you aren't sick. @StavrosMakris2 and @filip_lubinski propose a major shift. We need to stop looking at people merely as Consumers who just want cheap stuff and start looking at them as Citizens who want freedom and a healthy democracy. They call for a "Consumer-Citizen Welfare Standard." Read the full article here: ms.spr.ly/6018QZjQK

Capital is often described as money, machinery, or raw materials. But @ColumbiaLaw Prof. Katharina Pistor argues that capital is actually a legal invention. An asset, whether it's a plot of land, our data, or an invention only becomes capital when it is given the right legal coding. In this week’s Capitalisn't podcast, Pistor debates about whether this legal system—originally designed for neighbors bargaining over cows and plows—can still function fairly in an era of massive corporate power. Watch the full podcast on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

The EU is framing the digital euro as financial independence from dominance by the American dollar and American payment firms like Visa and Mastercard. However, Jeff Alvares warns in our blog that Brussels is ignoring a massive legal hurdle: the WTO. The ECB’s plan for a mandatory, zero-fee scheme to buy and sell with the digital euro creates a "dual barrier" that effectively rigs the game. Alvares argues you can't claim an "open" market while building a state-subsidized monopoly that no private firm—foreign or domestic—can compete with. Alvares says this approach risks cannibalizing European innovations like Wero and inviting trade disputes. Real autonomy requires a rulebook for genuine competition, not using "sovereignty" as a shield for protectionism. promarket.org/2026/02/18/tra…

New research by @KateReinmuth and @EmmaJRockall challenges the claim that non-compete agreements protect innovation. Instead, they find that stronger enforcement has historically led to significant declines in U.S. patenting and productivity. The study in our blog shows these declines happen because non-competes severely restrict labor mobility, preventing inventors from carrying tacit knowledge between firms. When talent stays locked in one place, knowledge spillovers dry up and companies become more inward-looking. The impact is harshest in young, high-growth sectors and venture-backed firms, where experimentation is crucial. Ultimately, legal rules that fracture professional networks by restricting movement end up weakening the entire innovation economy. ms.spr.ly/6010QRNoo

Betting apps reportedly know if you are spending beyond your means based on the data they collect, but have no incentive to intervene. In this week’s Capitalisn’t podcast, @zingales proposes a possible fix inspired by @harari_yuval: what if companies holding your data had a "fiduciary duty" to use it only in your best interest? Full Capitalisn't podcast on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.