The Yale Law Journal

Results for 'amazon antitrust paradox'

Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

Yale Law Journal - Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition

Banking and Antitrust

Lina M. Khan, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, 126 Yale L.J. 710, 794-96 (2017) (discussing the U.S. bank holding company regulation as a potential model for

Forum: The New Antitrust/Data Privacy Law Interface

antitrust enforcement against big tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. This Collection offers fresh perspectives on the history

Forum: The Twilight of the Technocrats’ Monopoly on Antitrust?

Antitrust Paradox 66 (1978)). See e.g., Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004); Brooke Grp. v. Brown

Forum: The Easterbrook Theorem: An Application to Digital Markets

recent years with the rise of large firms in the digital economy, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, among others. Antitrust scholars

Forum: Antitrust’s High-Tech Exceptionalism

that comes too close to Facebook, Google or Amazon.” Conclusion: “antitrust Is Greedy” The promise that we saw in high tech during its first boom—that

Forum: The Ideological Roots of America’s Market Power Problem

Khan, Note, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, 126 Yale L.J. 710 (2017); Shannon Bond, Google and Facebook Build Digital Ad Duopoly, Fin. Times (Mar. 14

Forum: Gig-Economy Myths and Missteps

antitrust law in recognition of their unique pro-employee function, Paul argues firms like Uber that set prices for independent contractors should be subject

Forum: Equality Metrics

questions about the corporation’s commitment to racial equity. For example, Amazon may have publicly supported #BlackLivesMatter, but it has often been

Forum: ARTificial: Why Copyright Is Not the Right Policy Tool to Deal with Generative AI

—sometimes to the point of thwarting its founding purpose. Paradoxically, while initially having the goal of promoting science and arts, copyright doctrine