CEI Paper Shows Antitrust Enthusiasts Misconstrue the Lessons from Past Cases
WASHINGTON, DC – Today’s advocates for a more expansive enforcement of antitrust laws – frequently referred to as devotees of “Hipster Antitrust” – often misleadingly cite or refer to famous antitrust cases of the past, according to a new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
“Fans of Hipster Antitrust – or greatly expanding government enforcement of antitrust laws – suggest cases against Microsoft, AT&T, IBM, and Standard Oil show enforcement can both enhance consumer welfare and competition. Those assertions are false,” said author and Director of CEI’s Center for Technology and Innovation Jessica Melugin. “In fact, these cases show regulators are poor substitutes for the creative destruction and price signals of the marketplace.”
The report examines famous antitrust cases, including:
- U.S. v. American Telegraph and Telephone Company (AT&T)
- U.S. v. Microsoft
- U.S v. International Business Machines (IBM)
Read “U.S. Antitrust’s Greatest Misses: Oft-Cited Cases Do Not Support Antitrust Advocates’ Claims”
For more information about CEI’s work on antitrust issues, please visit cei.org/antitrust.