James C. Cooper

Vertical Antitrust Policy as a Problem of Inference

The legality of nonprice vertical practices in the U.S. is determined by their likely competitive effects. An optimal enforcement rule combines evidence with theory to update prior beliefs, and specifies a decision that minimizes the expected loss. Because the welfare effects of vertical practices are theoretically ambiguous, optimal decisions depend heavily on prior beliefs, which should be guided by empirical evidence. Empirically, vertical restraints appear to reduce price and/or increase output. Thus, absent a good natural experiment to evaluate a particular restraint’s effect, an optimal policy places a heavy burden on plaintiffs to show that a restraint is anticompetitive.

Alcohol, Antitrust, and the 21st Amendment: An Empirical Examination of Post and Hold Laws

The 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, but granted the states broad power to regulate the distribution and sale of alcohol to consumers within their borders. Pursuant to this authority, states have established a complex web of regulations that limit the ability of beer, wine, and liquor producers to control the distribution of their product. From a consumer welfare perspective, one of the most potentially harmful state alcohol distribution regulations are “post and hold” laws (“PH laws”). PH laws require that alcohol distributors share future prices with rivals by “posting” them in advance, and then “hold” these prices for a specified period of time. Economic theory would suggest that PH laws reduce unilateral incentives for distributors to reduce prices and may facilitate tacit or explicit collusion, both to the detriment of consumers. Consistent with economic theory, we show that the PH laws reduce consumption by 2–8%. We also test whether, by reducing consumption, PH laws provide offsetting societal benefits in the form of reducing drunk driving accidents and underage drinking. We find no measurable relationship between PH laws and these social harms. These results suggest a socially beneficial role for antitrust challenges to PH laws and similar anticompetitive state regulation. If states wish to reduce the social ills associated with drinking, our results also suggest that directly targeting social harms with zero tolerance laws and lower drunk driving thresholds are superior policy instruments to PH laws.

A Chip Off the Old Block or a New Direction for Payment Card Security? Chips, Pins, and the Law and Economics of Payment Card Fraud

The issue of consumer payments and data security has reached a high level of public and regulatory interest as a result of a number of recent high-profile data breaches that compromised consumer payment cards. In addition, the ecosystem of consumer payment security has changed dramatically in recent years as a result of the introduction and rapid spread of contactless payment technologies. In response to growing concerns about payment fraud, payment card networks in the United States have moved toward the rapid replacement of traditional magnetic-stripe payment card technology to new EMV (Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) computer chip–based technology. Notably, however, US card issuers and networks have chosen not to adopt the personal identification number (PIN) method of customer verification that has been standard in the United Kingdom and much of Europe for the past decade or so but instead have chosen signature verification as the preferred method. This article conducts an economic analysis of the regulation of consumer payment cards and payment card fraud. We examine the marginal benefits and costs from heightened levels of payment card security. We examine the dynamic evolution of payment card anti-fraud technology over time and suggest that there is little evidence of market failure in the provision of payment security by card networks and issuers and little reason to believe that mandating one exclusive, decades-old, static verification technology (namely, chip and PIN) would be likely to improve overall consumer welfare and economic efficiency today. We conclude that rather than blindly adopting the particular verification technology that Europe put into place many years ago, US regulators should be alert to the evolving and contemporary nature of consumer payments and the fluid nature of threats to data privacy and thus should not freeze or hamper the adaptability of the payment system.

Anonymity, Autonomy, and the Collection of Personal Data: Measuring the Privacy Impact of Google's 2012 Privacy Policy Change

One of the most vexing problems in privacy policy is identifying consumer harm from unwanted observation; because it is highly subjective and is likely to vary greatly throughout the population, it doesn’t lend itself to easy measurement. Yet, these types of situations increasingly are the focal point of privacy policy discussions. The primary approach to attempt to quantify subjective harms has been to measure consumers’ willingness to exchange personal data for money in an experimental setting. This study takes a different tack, using field data to measure actual consumer response to a real-world reduction in the anonymity of online search. In March 2012, Google began to combine user information across platforms. To the extent that Google’s policy change reduced the anonymity associated with Google search, it may have reduced incentives to search sensitive or topics. Using a difference-in-difference estimator with top non-sensitive search terms as the control group, the results suggest that there was a small and short-term reduction in the Google Trends scores for sensitive search. There is no measured difference in reaction between high- and low-privacy demand states. Overall, the results indicate that any consumer welfare loss from Google’s policy change was small, and likely swamped by the demand-increasing impact of customization made possible from the cross-platform data sharing. That there is no measurable long-term substitution out of sensitive search may reflect the privacy advantages of searching for sensitive information on Google versus seeking the same information in an interpersonal setting. These findings suggest that privacy policy changes that are publicized should be treated like ordinary price changes — causing marginal consumers to exit and reducing consumer surplus for those who remain — not opportunities for regulatory intervention.

Conflicts of Interest on Expert Committees: The Case of FDA Drug Advisory Committees

Governments and firms often use committees of experts to help them make complex decisions, but conflicts of interest could bias experts’ recommendations. We focus on whether financial ties to drug companies bias FDA drug advisory committee (AC) members’ voting on drug approval recommendations. We find little significant evidence that AC members vote in their financial interests. We find stronger evidence that experts’ characteristics such as expertise level or associations with advocacy groups drives voting tendencies (biases) either for or against approval. We show that a Congressional Act that effectively excluded financially-conflicted AC members resulted in a sharp drop in average AC member expertise, and an unintended increase in approval voting. Our results have implications for the popular goal of eliminating financial conflicts from all medical decisions. Eliminating conflicts could sharply reduce the level of expertise of the decision makers and lead to unexpected voting tendencies.

Separation, Pooling, and Big Data

Privacy is about being “let alone,�? so in one sense, privacy means to separate yourself from the world. Paradoxically, by concealing facts about yourself, observers view you as less separated from everyone else. They can no longer make out the features that distinguish you from those to whom you bear a superficial resemblance. In this manner, privacy promotes what economists call “pooling.�? Markets, however, tend to benefit from “separation�? — the ability to distinguish between different types. This tension between privacy and market efficiency — between pooling and separation — is on full display in the burgeoning privacy law scholarship surrounding big data, which has centered on so-called “predictive privacy harms.�? This scholarship has begun to seep into policy discussions, leading to proposals to limit the ability of firms to use big data. Privacy without a doubt is valuable. It’s woven into the fabric of our society. But we must be careful to discern between privacy’s intrinsic and strategic values before prescribing drastic ex ante restrictions to address predictive privacy harms. The major contribution of this paper is to develop a positive framework based on the economics of contracts and torts to identify when limiting big data predictions may be justified. This framework suggests that when strategic privacy is at issue, the mechanisms should be rooted in antidiscrimination law — which embody the choices that society has made about which traits are fair game for classification — rather than privacy law. Alternatively, privacy law should be used when intrinsic privacy is implicated. The analysis suggests that ex ante restrictions on use make sense only in the narrow circumstances in which there is likely to be agreement that the big data predictions implicate highly sensitive information. Alternatively, when there is little agreement on how privacy harms are likely to be suffered, the default regulatory posture should be one of notice of collection and use, with the Federal Trade Commission enforcing a firm’s promises.

Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the European Commission’s Public Consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms

This comment is submitted in response to the European Commission’s (EC’s) public consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries, Data, Cloud Computing, and the Collaborative Economy.The comment addresses: (1) concerns that the EC’s survey methodology and design is not conducive to generating reliable and policy-relevant data; (2) the economic analysis of platforms and multi-sided markets; (3) the dangers to competition and consumers of new ex ante regulation designed to regulate platforms, as opposed to relying upon existing European competition and consumer protection laws to address any potential anticompetitive effects or consumer harm arising from conduct by platform owners; and (4) the economic analysis of privacy and data security and its implications for new regulation.