Bill Kovacic Antitrust Salon #2 The Future of Antitrust Case Law: What the Courts Could Say About the New Trends?

2nd Webinar of the 9th edition “Bill Kovacic Antitrust” salon organised by Concurrences, in partnership with White Case and Secretariat Economics. Opening keynote speech by David Cicilline (Representative of Rhode Island’s First Congressional District, U.S. House of Representatives). Panel with Katherine Forrest (Partner, Cravath), Lona Fowdur (Managing Director, Secretariat Economists), Douglas Ginsburg (Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit), Randal C. PIcker (James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago) and Jack Pace (Partner, White & Case).

- Video: Available for Concurrences+ subscribers (see below)

- Audio: Available for Concurrences+ subscribers (see below)

- Synthesis: Available for Concurrences+ subscribers (see above)

- Transcript: Available for Concurrences+ subscribers (to be published above soon)

- Concurrences Related Articles (Click Read More below and see page’s bottom)

Check the Upcoming Conferences section for the next webinars.


David Cicilline mentioned the work he is doing to update antitrust laws but also to be sure that the antitrust agencies have the resources they need to aggressively enforce the law. There is broad agreement that decades of flawed jurisprudence and an undue emphasis on market definition litigation have made it nearly impossible for antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs to stop anticompetitive mergers and conduct in digital markets. This is a critical point because the outcome of antitrust enforcement often hinges on the courts’ finding of the relevant market. This problem has manifested itself in the antitrust litigation brought by the FTC and forty-eight State Attorneys General against Facebook. The allegations are supported by significant evidence of Facebook’s pattern of anticompetitive conduct. For example, there is evidence to show that Facebook had monopolised the market for social networking services. However, the court found that FTC had failed to plead enough facts to plausibly establish that Facebook has monopoly power. Although the court provided the FTC with an opportunity to amend part of its complaint, it concluded that Facebook’s refusal to share data or permit interoperability with rivals cannot form the basis for liability regardless of the relevant market.

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.



  • Secretariat Economists (Washington DC)
  • U.S. House of Representatives
  • Cravath Swaine & Moore (New York)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington DC)
  • University of Chicago - Law School
  • White & Case (New York)