Lakhani 1

Reformation of Antitrust Laws and

Regulation of Merger Reviews
Ilhaam Lakhani
Independent Research G/T I
10 May 2019

Advisor: Thomas Feeney

Instructor: E. Leila Chawkat

Ilhaam Lakhani
GT Independent Research pd 2
 Lakhani 2

10 May 2019
Reformation of Antitrust Laws and Regulation of Merger Reviews

I. Abstract

Despite the constant reforms passed, such as the Clayton Antitrust Act and Sherman

Antitrust Act, monopolies still occur. Not only does the dramatic increase in monopolies lead to

businesses shutting down and employees losing their source of income,t results in higher priced

products, unfair regulations for workers, and market failure. Why does this occur? It is due to the

failure of defining a monopoly, and restricting what it can do. The Antitrust Laws need to be

revised in order to include a ban on vertical integration, impose a prophylactic limit, public

utility regulation, and predatory pricing. Furthermore, any merger should be reviewed, and the

process needs to become less convoluted and expensive. With the new revisions, monopolies

undoubtedly will be reduced, leading to a free, productive market.

Table of Contents

Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------page 2

Literature Review--------------------------------------------------------------------page 4

Natural Monopolies vs Strategic Monopolies---------------------------page 4

Characteristics making Amazon a monopoly---------------------------page 5

Monopolies effect on consumers, market, and workforce-------------page 6

Flaws in the Sherman Antitrust Act--------------------------------------page 7

The Definition/Assessment of a Monopoly is Inadequate-------------page 8

Imposing predatory pricing & a Ban on Vertical Integration----------page 9

Imposing Prophylactic Limit and Public Utility Regulation---------page 10

Inefficacy of the Merger Review System-------------------------------page 11

Rationale-----------------------------------------------------------------------------page 12
 Lakhani 3

Data Collection----------------------------------------------------------------------page 13

Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------------------------page 19

References----------------------------------------------------------------------------page 20

II. Introduction

The act of monopolizing companies has been dormant in America’s history for

decades. Despite the constant attempts of trying to amend the laws imposed to prohibit

Monopolies, such as the Clayton Antitrust Act and Sherman Antitrust Act, all have failed

to regulate the companies. Furthermore, “Big companies are much more dominant than

they were even 15 years ago” (Leonhart). This occurs since the definition of monopoly,

enables major companies to find loopholes and continue to concentrate power. An

epitome of this occurrence is Amazon. In recent years, Amazon, a strategic monopoly,

has been increasing the number of products, to the point where they have items in every

department across their website. Additionally, they have lowered their prices in attempt

to eliminate competition with any opposing companies. Amazon has also started to

control all lines of production. The consequences of monopolizing is endless. Not

only can it shut down businesses, as monopolies eliminate competition, it can lead to,

increased consumer prices once all competition has been eliminated, elimination of

safety legislation, and ultimately cause market failure. If there was more competition, it

“may lead to greater product variety, higher product quality, and greater innovation, which

drives productivity growth and helps lift living standards.” (Khan). This is the epitome of

why the Antitrust laws need to be reformed. The Antitrust laws should include a

ban on vertical integration, predatory pricing, a prophylactic limit, and a public utility

regulation in order to prevent corporations like Amazon from utilizing loopholes.

 Lakhani 4

Furthermore, any merger that occurs should result in a merger review, and be less

convoluted and expensive.

III. Literature Review

Natural Monopolies vs Strategic Monopolies:

There are two types of monopolies, Natural Monopolies and Strategic

Monopolies. A natural

monopoly occurs due to the barriers in the market. When companies start to enter a field of

business, there are several costs that are associated with them making their presence in the

field, such as infrastructure costs (Johnson). That leads to companies who already had a

presence, and are much more dominant, to have advantages, as they do not have to face the

problems the lesser known companies deal with. This makes them more economically

productive. In natural monopolies the companies, “average costs continuously fall as the

firm gets larger” (Natural Monopolies). A common example of a natural monopoly is a

software company, like Microsoft. As one of the first software companies,

in comparison with other companies, entering such a huge market have to pay

infrastructure

costs, and other related costs. This enables Microsoft to keep its dominance and, “The

greater Microsoft's market share, the lower the average cost, and the lower the price of the

package for the software consumer” (Natural Monopolies). Natural monopolies are

different from the one Amazon has created which is a strategic monopoly. Natural

monopolies are unintentionally created by the size costs of a market. However, strategic

monopolies are different in which they purposefully participate in certain acts, creating a
 Lakhani 5

monopoly, and barring any type of competition. Amazon sells products from all types of

departments, such as many other stores do. However, the monopoly occurs when they start

to purposefully run other companies out of business, forcing them to merge with Amazon.

That is the main difference when comparing the monopoly Microsoft and Amazon have.

Characteristics Making Amazon a Monopoly:

Amazon has several characteristics that make it qualified to be defined as

a monopoly. First of all, it controls around 47% of the E-commerce market industry

(Sun), 69% of the US Smart Speaker Industry (Kinsella), and 43.6% in global Smart

Speaker Industry (Hollander). The data demonstrates the amount of power it has

concentrated. Moreover, not only Amazon “has largely avoided regulatory scrutiny,” it

has shut down businesses or forced the companies to merge by lowering their product

prices. For instance, “[Amazon dropped] diaper prices by as much as 30 percent and

matching Diaper’s.com pricing move for move until the smaller outfit agreed to be

acquired” (Verge). By lowering their own prices, companies like Diaper.com can not

compete and forcefully agreed to merge under Amazon. Furthermore, Amazon once

eliminating its competition, increased the prices of its products, resulting in a

disadvantage for consumers. Not only Diapers.com but, “smaller retailers say they’re

being targeted and priced out by generics from Amazonbasics” (Verge). Even bigger

companies are being targeted. Recently, “Amazon on Friday announced plans to acquire

Whole Foods, the high-end grocer. If approved by antitrust enforcers, the $13.7 billion

deal would give Amazon control of more than 400 stores, an extensive supply chain and a

new source of consumer data” (Khan). As amazon starts to involve itself in other lines of

business, it gets more power, since it offers products that a person can find anywhere at a
 Lakhani 6

lower price. All of these characteristics is what researchers claim is the definition of a

Monopoly, and demonstrates the need for change in the way America’s Antitrust laws

and Merger Reviews are constructed.

Monopolies effect on consumers, market, and workforce:

Once a monopoly has asserted its dominance, and eliminated all competition, they

can increase their prices (Thoma). “With higher prices, consumers will demand less

quantity, and thus the quantity produced and consumed will be lower than it would be

under a more competitive market Structure” (Thoma). As prices increase, less people will

want to buy the products as they are not cheap. Consequently, due to less products being

bought, less items will be produced., since the company has so much

Power, it can invoke “changes in institutions (unionization), rules, norms, and practices

had weakened workers’ bargaining power, making it more difficult for unions to check

pervasive abuses entailing corporate management taking advantage of deficiencies in

corporate governance” (Stiglitz). Not only are businesses being affected, but

workers working for the monopolies are being affected as well. The last major change

that monopolies have an effect on is market failure. Due to lack of competition,

“The monopoly prices [are] higher than a competitive market and restricts output, which

is not

maximising welfare for consumers...It also doesn't maximise welfare for potential

suppliers because they are unable to join the market as the barriers to entry are too

high…” (Mr Banks). Monopolies overall have decreased the amount of quantity

produces, as prices are increased. Since, “prices should be lower and output higher for us
 Lakhani 7

to be allocating resources efficiently...the free market has failed to do its job” (Mr

Banks).

Monopolies, have ruined the condition of the nation. Instead of being a competitive free

market, it had become uncompetitive and unproductive. In fact, “A New America

Foundation study shows that the number of job-creating businesses that Americans start

every year fell by 53 percent between 1977 and 2010, when measured as a proportion of

the U.S. working-age population” (Khan and Vaheesan). Therefore,t is crucial to revert

America’s market to its previous competitive, productive state by reforming the Antitrust

laws and merger reviews.

Flaws in the Sherman Antitrust Act:

The Sherman Antitrust Act was created in effort to prevent monopolies; however,

there are several flaws. These flaws, though having been reformed, can be seen in

different forms over the course of the newer reforms passed. The flaw is the loosely

worded phrasing allowing Monopolies to get away with the amount of power they hold in

the market. Though, “The Sherman Act was designed to restore competition but was

loosely worded and failed to define such critical terms as “trust,” ‘combination,’

‘conspiracy,’ and ‘monopoly.’ ” (Ourdocuments). Due to this flaw in the laws,

monopolies were never caught. For instance, “in United States v. E. C. Knight Company

(1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the other

defendants in the case, had not violated the law even though the company controlled

about 98 percent of all sugar refining in the United States.” (OurDocuments).

Inadequately defined terms in the Sherman Antitrust Act led to companies getting

away with eliminating competition in the market industry. It is important that all terms
 Lakhani 8

and definitions in the new laws enacted are correctly defined.

The Definition/Assessment of a Monopoly is Inadequate:

As time has passed, there has been several different theories of how a monopoly

should be defined and the flaws with the current economist's definition of an monopoly.

First of all, the government , “assumes market share is the only measure of market power,

and glosses over the significant structural advantages Amazon enjoys through its

involvement in numerous related lines of business” (khan). However, solely looking at

those two factors they fail to see other information demonstrating the threat Amazon

poses to the Economy. For example, “Amazon scoops troves of market insight from its

third-party marketplace, which accounts for over 30% of the goods sold through the site”

(Khan). Thus, the government needs to look at other factors instead of just market power.

Another flaw is that the government is only assessing the prices, preventing them from

realizing “the true shape of the company's dominance and the ways in which it is able to

leverage advantages gained in one sector to boost its business in another’ ”(Khan). If the

government is only looking at the prices of products that the company is selling,

it loses its focus from other components it needs to regulate. Amazon, by lowering its

prices, is able to shut down other companies. Even though it doesn't affect consumer

welfare, it affects other businesses. it is important to look at other factors. For

instance, the Chicago school doesn't look on the structure of the company but at other

factors such as concentration levels and firm size which better depicts the “standalone

market forces and the technical demands of production...the economic

structuralists...merely reflects such dynamics”(Khan). By looking at concentration levels

and firms size, it better fits companies such as Amazon under the term of a monopoly.
 Lakhani 9

Thus, making it easier to control monopolies like Amazon. Furthermore, consumer

welfare is another major problem that needs to be addressed with the definition of a

monopoly. The 1968 guidelines claimed that mergers

“should not be permitted to create or enhance ‘market power,’” defined as the “ability of

one or more firms profitably to maintain prices above competitive levels.” (Khan). In

contrast in 1968, the merger guideline, “established that the “primary role” of merger

enforcement was “to preserve and promote market structures conducive to

competition,”(Khan). As consumer welfare becomes the primary component when

assessing if a merger is a threat to competition, it lets monopolies occur. The purpose of

monopolies

is to lower prices so that they attract the other companies’ consumers. Once

those companies are eliminated or merged under them, they start to increase prices,

serving as a threat to consumer welfare. Thus, by the time the company then fits under

the guideline, addressing the need to change, the focus shifts off of

consumer welfare and onto other key traits, such as concentration levels.

Imposing Predatory Pricing and a ban on Vertical Integration:

One of the four main ways to help reform the Antitrust Laws is to impose

Predatory Pricing and ban the usa of Vertical Integration. Without Predatory

Pricing, “firms usually raise prices on goods or predation difficult to be analyzed in trials

and thought price discrimination or personalized pricing also which ‘in consumer welfare

terms’ could affect the consumer as the product quality and choice diversity could

decline since Amazons could try to get better term with its partners and bargain to “meet

demands” (Khan). However, if the current Predatory Pricing document was reformed, it
 Lakhani 10

would prevent companies from lowering their prices, eliminating any

competition. Furthermore, “given that platforms are uniquely positioned to fund

predation, a competition-based approach might also consider introducing a presumption

of predation for dominant platforms found to be pricing products below cost” (Khan).

Another issue is that since Amazon controls all processes of production, producing,

shipping, and delivering products, they are able to lower the costs of their products and

shut down other businesses. This occurrence is known as vertical integration. Thus, the

process needs to be banned so Amazon can not lower their products’ prices. By banning

vertical integration and revising the Predatory Pricing document, there would be less

competition, as prices of products cannot be lowered.

Imposing a Prophylactic Limit and Public Utility Regulation:

Two other ways to redefine a monopoly would be through the usage of

Prophylactic limit. A, “Prophylactic limit [limits the] “a platform’s involvement across

multiple related lines of business can give rise to conflicts of interest by creating

circumstances in which a platform has an incentive to privilege its own business and

disadvantage other companies.” (Khan). Controlling the number of

different departments Amazon’s company has limits its power, as it allows other

companies to sell products that Amazon can not. This evens the level of

concentration, and thus promotes competition in the market. The second method is

through “The public utility regulation in which allowed to manage network industries

and “secure capital at lower costs and to channel it into very large technological systems,

and thus a way to ‘socialize the costs of building a operating’ a centralized system while

protecting consumers from potential abuses associated with natural monopoly” and since
 Lakhani 11

Amazon “serves as an essential infrastructure across the internet economy” it fits right

into the category of public utility regulation” (Khan). The two new revisions

allow for better regulation of Amazon and limits its power.

Inefficacy of the Merger Review System:

Even though the number of mergers are increasing, the government has not taken

any

action. Even the government, “from the Clintonite wing of the Democratic Party — have

treated mergers and acquisitions as the product of some inexorable force of progress,

rather than as corporate decisions with profound public implications” (Khan). Why is this

occurring? It is because only, “Mergers over a certain size–currently about $85 million--

are required to pre-notify the antitrust agencies, after which the agencies decide which to

formally investigate”(Kwoka). If more mergers were to be reviewed by removing the

minimum price, then there is a possibility that the government could easily catch more

companies which are trying to become a monopoly or already are one. Another reason is

the process is too complicated. “One reason that the costs of the antitrust mission have

increased is full and expensive evaluation… [and] the economic methodology for

evaluating mergers is now more complex, laden with concepts such as upward pricing

pressure (and its variant, generalized upward pricing pressure), critical loss analysis,

diversion ratios, merger simulations and the like” (Kwoka). By making the merger review

process less complicated, and easier to evaluate for people in the government. There is a

chance of a dramatic increase in the number of mergers being reviewed.

Rationale:
 Lakhani 12

For my Data Collection, meta-analysis was the best option for me. Since I am studying

the antitrust reform and the way the market and merger review process is set up, it was not

attainable for me to do the other methods of research. For surveys and questionnaires, the general

population would not have done extensive research on such a convoluted topic. Furthermore, for

data collection, I would have had to conduct my own experiment. In order to test out an

experiment, I would have had to manipulate the laws passed so far and the way the market and

merger review process were set up in order to see what changes improve the reduction of

monopolies. Lastly, there are surveys which could have been possible option for me; however,

meta-analysis gave me the option to look at past research conducted by professionals in my

specific field, and see the failures and successes discussed.

III: Data Collection:

Citation Subject Data collected Analysis
Khan, Ways to Put data Antitrust laws solely look at short term interest and
Lina M. reform for #1 consumer welfare. This does not help in preventing
“Amazon' the way down monopolies, thus there are two major steps that can be
the below taken in order to prevent the monopolies. The first step is
s
economy *data/so through predatory pricing. Since companies are
Antitrust works in lution supposed to create competition beneficial for the market,
Paradox.” order to comes creating a “presumption of predation” for these
The Yale prevent in companies prevents them from producing any items
Law companie second below the cost. The second method is through vertical
Journal - s like page of integration in which the government needs to disclose
Home, Amazon data. It that companies can not buy out places where proccese
from is very happen to make, produce, and deliver a product. This is
2017,
becoming long as not even mentioned in the antitrust laws which needs to
w a the be changed. Furthermore, the merger review needs to be
ww.yalel monopoly article fixed as it only states how monetary mergers are
awjournal was 96 reviewed by agencies however, it should be any merger,
.org/note/ pages especially including data. The other approach would be a
amazons- with a prophylactic limit which limits the involvement of a
antitrust- lot of companies in similar lines of business since it give more
detailed power to the company such as amazon. The last two are
paradox.
research through regulation. Public utility which allows the
Accessed . government to control network industries which Amazon
 Lakhani 13

1 January falls under and prevents the monopoly from harming

2019. consumers. Another method is rate setting,
capitalization, investment requirements, discrimination
in price and service, and a non discrimination policy,
which prevent Amazon from abusing its powers to
consumers welfare. The last method is the essential
fallacy doctrine allows Amazon controls key
infrastructure for e-commerce, imposing a duty to allow
access to its infrastructure on a nondiscriminatory basis
make sense” (Antitrust Paradox).
 Lakhani 14

“Office It shows Put data There are many reviews that the antitrust process is
of Public the for #2 currently making, the most prominent ones are by the
Affairs.” different down Model Voluntary Request Letter which is about giving
types of below
The important information before a merger is review, which
changes and is
United to the after #1 can help in solving mergers and is easy to access
States merger information that could show if a deeper investigation is
Departme review needed. The other change would be the pull and refill
nt of process accountability in which the time to investigate the case is
Justice, allowing “maximized” and furthermore allows the assessor to
29 Jan. for know if more time is needed when the parties “pull-and-
maximum
2019, refile their HSRS”. The next claim is the model timing
time to
w review a agreement where the division sees if the second request
ww.justic case, should be locked or cleared and allows them to be a
e.gov/opa efficiency coordinated agreement on how much time is needed, and
. , and a good amount of time equates for a better assessment.
Accessed eliminatio Furthermore there are only 12 dispositions on a case, and
12 n of a 20 custodians similar to the HSR acts as they allow for
mislead
February more efficiency when assessing a case, and less people
verdict by
2019. eliminatin getting information about the case being discussed,
g preventing any information about the review from being
gamensip leaked out. Furthermore there will be no gamenship,
h. which is when companies hold back large documents
until the night before a decision, giving the assessee no
time to review the documents, which can lead to mislead
verdict about a company. Lastly, there is a rule that all
parties including first and third have to follow along civil
investigative demands.

Kwoka, The Source Merger retrospectives is an action that an agency should

John. article #3 is a do more often when revising merger cases. Furthermore
Reviving discusses list of the HSR filing requirement could make it mandatory to
that the quotes
Merger provide data about “post-merger data” which helps
major for data
Control. conflict and is prevent a mislead decision. Also by having the data it
ht with the after #2 helps suggest the decision that could be made. Another
tps://ww revision major component that should be addressed when
 Lakhani 15

w.antitrus of the changing mergers is that they evaluate the mergers they
tinstitute. merge assessed and how they solved it allowing them to use
org/wp- process is those as a source in tuure case deicing. Thus, not only in Commented [1]: kind of unclear
that the
content/u future cases will they know what happened to previous
judicial/g
ploads/20 overnmen cases with similar problems they can apply the
18/10/Kw t is not successful resolutions to further monopolies. However
oka- regulating the biggest problem that the government needs to fix is
Reviving- the cases the increasing the number of cases they acces. Right
Merger- at all, now, if a merger is 85 million dollars are over they are
C allowing supposed to assess the case. However, the data chart in
monopoli
ontrol- the data collected section for the article shows otherwise.
es to grow
October- which From 2010-2017 the number of cases have increased
2018.pdf needs to from 716 to 2052; however, the number investigated has
Antitrust be only been an increase of 42 to 51. Furthermore, the
Institute, remedied. percent investigates has dropped from 3.8% to 2.6%.
9 Oct. Furthermore, the funding that has gone to the antitrust
2018. has increased from 163.2 to 165 million dollars, but the
percent of cases investigated is decreasing. This shows
that the government is not doing their job. Furthermore,
judges dealing with antitrust cases are not as frequent
meaning they are not as specialize in that area. Thus,
they should remember the basics on how the merger
process works.
 Lakhani 16

Osborne, The Source For the first chart regarding the price ceiling is that when
Martin J. Article #4 is a the government is regulating the P(0) is the most output
“Policies discusses list of they cant have however “for smaller outputs MR
the Price graphs
to exceeds MC, and for larger outputs MR is less than
Ceiling, and
Control a Average data is MC”(Osborne). Furthermore, the only way that
Monopol Cost after #3 regulated price would make profit is if the price was
y.” Pricing, competitive, which does not occur in most cases. To
Policies and Rate even obtain the possible price the “regulator needs to
to of Return know the firm's marginal cost curve”(Osborne) which
Control a Regulatio needs to be withheld from them otherwise it can be used
n
Monopol to their own advantage. Thus if the pricing is more
regarding
y, 1997, monopoli regulated of company’s, than they will not be able to
w es and change the price so competitive that they are not affected
ww.econ how and limits competition. The graph on average cost
omics.uto governme pricing. The government's regulations regarding cost
ronto.ca/o nt pricing is “to set a price equal to average cost...to choose
sborne/2x regulation and (output, price) pair for which AC is equal to AR”.
affects
3/tutorial/ The way this reduce monopolies is that profit is
each one
MONCO of these eliminated and “no efficient outcome” (Osborne). The
N.HTM. factors. Third Chart regarding Rate of Return Regulation
Accessed suggests that allows monopoly uses more capital “than it
1 March would if it were unregulated, given its output”.
20 Furthermore in the graph we can see that input 2 is “if it
19. were unregulated: the output is not produced at minimal
cost and the input prices reflect their social costs...the
outcome is inefficient”(Osborne).

Price Ceiling & rate-of-return regulation:

 Lakhani 17

Average Cost P ricing

Analysis:
After researching extensively on antitrust laws, the results i found were insightful. There

are several flaws in the way the government operates in managing the merger processes.

Furthermore, there are several methods in which the government can improve regulation and

promote competition between businesses. One of the major flaws of the antitrust laws is that they

only look at short term interest and consumer welfare; however, that should not be the sole factor

when assessing a company. They should look at size of the firm and concentration levels.

Furthermore, a presumption of predation should be imposed so these companies are prevented

from producing any items at lower cost. The second method is through vertical integration in

which the government needs to disclose that companies can not buy out places where processes

happen to make, produce, and deliver a product. This is not even mentioned in the antitrust laws

which needs to be changed. Furthermore, the merger review needs to be fixed as it only states

how monetary mergers are reviewed by agencies however, it should be any merger, especially

including data. The other approach would be a prophylactic limit which limits the involvement

of an companies in similar lines of business since it give more power to the company such as

amazon. The last two are though regulation. Public Utility Regulation allows the government to

control network industries that Amazon falls under and prevents the monopoly from harming

consumers. Furthermore, the merger review process is implementing several new beneficial

ideas that can maximize the efficiency of reviewing cases of mergers. The Model Voluntary
 Lakhani 18

Request Letter helps in solving mergers, and is easy to access information that could show if a

deeper investigation is needed. Likewise, the pull and refill accountability in which the time to

investigate the case is “maximized” and furthermore allows the assess to know if more time is

needed when the parties “pull-and-refile their HSRS”. Also, the model timing agreement where

the division sees if the second request should be locked or cleared allows there to be a

coordinated agreement on how much time is needed, and a good amount of time equates for a

better assessment. Furthermore, there are only 12 dispositions, and 20 custodians in a case;

similar to the HSR acts as they allow for more efficiency when assessing a case and less people

getting information about the case being discussed, preventing any information about the review

from being leaked out. Furthermore, there will be no gamenship preventing a mislead verdict

about a company. A major problem is that the government is not accessing all the merging cases.

Right now, if a merger is 85 million dollars over, they are supposed to assess the case. However,

the data shows that though the number of cases have increased from 716 to 2052, the percent of

cases investigated has dropped from 3.8% to 2.6%. Furthermore, when the government is

regulating the P(0) is the most output they cant have however “for smaller outputs MR exceeds

MC, and for larger outputs MR is less than MC”(Osborne). Furthermore, the only way that

regulated price would make profit is if the price is competitive, which in most cases does not

occur. To even obtain the possible price the “regulator needs to know the firm's marginal cost

curve”(Osborne) which needs to be withheld, otherwise it can be used to their own advantage.

Thus if the company’s pricing is regulated, than they will not be able to change the price so

competitive that they are not affected and limits competition.

Data Conclusion:
 Lakhani 19

These results show a possibility that if the ideas mentioned here are combined and

implemented into existing laws, there will be a reduction of monopolies as they will be regulated

more efficiently. Moreover, if there are more constrictions on what companies can do, then

monopolies like Amazon under the newly revised antitrust laws would be caught. Thus, they

would not be able to find loopholes in the laws enacted, proving beneficial for the market,

businnses, and employees.

Conclusion:

The flaws of the antitrust laws can be seen as the economists solely focus on short term

interest and harm to consumer welfare. Though these two factors should be considered when

assessing a monopoly, there are numerous other factors, such as concentration levels and the size

of the company relative to the size of the market, which should be assessed. If these factors are

not assessed, in the long term it can affect the productivity of the market. Furthermore, in order

to constrain monopolies, such as Amazon, it is vital that antitrust laws and merger reviews are

revised in order to eliminate several loopholes. The changes include imposing a prophylactic

limit, a ban vertical integration, a less convoluted and expensive merger review system,

increased merger regulation, public utilities tool regulation, and predatory pricing. By imposing

the new revisions, undoubtedly with the research presented monopolies be eliminated and restore

the competitive free market that America once had.

References:
1. “Sherman Antitrust Act (1890).” Our Documents - Sherman Antitrust Act (1890),
www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false doc=51. Accessed January 10 2019.
 Lakhani 20

2.Thoma, Mark. “What's so Bad about Monopoly Power?” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 18 Sept.
2014, www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-so-bad-about-monopoly-power/. Accessed January
3 2019.

3. “Monopolies Market Failure.” Mr Banks Tuition | Tuition Services. Free Revision Materials.,
www.mrbanks.co.uk/monopolies/. Accessed January 5 2019.

4. Leonhardt, David. “The Monopolization of America.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 26 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/opinion/monopolies-in-the-us.html.

5. Khan, Lina M. “Amazon's Antitrust Paradox.” The Yale Law Journal - Home, 2017,
www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox. Accessed 1 January 2019.

6. Kwoka, John. Reviving Merger Control.

https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Kwoka-Reviving-Merger-
Control-October-2018.pdf Antitrust Institute, 9 Oct. 2018.Accessed 12 February 2019.

7. Brandom, Russell. “How to Break up Facebook, Google, and Other Tech Giants.” The Verge,
The Verge, 5 Sept. 2018,
www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17805162/monopoly-antitrust-regulation-google-amazon-
uber-facebook.

8. Leswing, Kif. “A Prominent UBS Analyst Explains Why He Thinks Apple Is a Monopoly.”
Business Insider, Business Insider, 9 Mar. 2017,
www.businessinsider.com/apple-monopoly-ubs-steven-milunovich-2017-3.

9. Stiglitz, Joseph E. “America Has a Monopoly Problem-and It's Huge.” The Nation, 26 Oct.
2017, www.thenation.com/article/america-has-a-monopoly-problem-and-its-huge/.

10. “Natural Monopolies.” Natural Monopolies, Stanford University,

cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/corporate-monopolies/benefits_natural.ht
ml.

11. Sun, Leo. “A Foolish Take: Amazon Will Control 47% of the E-Commerce Market This
Year.”
The Motley Fool, The Motley Fool, 25 Feb. 2019,
www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/25/a-foolish-take-amazon-will-control-47-of-the-e-com
.aspx.
 Lakhani 21

12. Johnson, Dr. Paul. “A Glossary of Political Economy Terms.” Natural Monopoly: A
Glossary
of
Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson, 2005,
webhome.auburn.edu/~johnson/gloss/natural_monopoly.

13. Kinsella, Bret. “U.S. Smart Speaker Market Share: Apple Debuts at 4.1%, Amazon Falls 10
Points and Google Rises.” Voicebot, 3 June 2018,
voicebot.ai/2018/06/03/u-s-smart-speaker-market-share-apple-debuts-at-4-1-amazon-
falls-10-points-and-google-rises/.

14. Hollander, Rayna. “Amazon Is Losing Its Grip on the Global Smart Speaker Market.”
Business Insider, Business Insider, 21 May 2018,
www.businessinsider.com/google-apple-gaining-on-amazon-in-smart-home-market-2018
-5.

15. Lina. Amazon Bites Off Even More Monopoly Power. The New York Times, 21 June 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/opinion/amazon-whole-foods-jeff-bezos.html.

16. Khan, Lina. “What Everyone's Getting Wrong about Amazon.” Quartz, Quartz, 17 Oct.
2014,
qz.com/282971/what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-amazon/.

17. Khan, Lina. “The next President Should Break up Some Big Companies.” The Washington
Post, WP Company, 28 Oct. 2015,
www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/28/the-next-president-should-brea
k-up-so
me-big-companies/?utm_term=.ce793d709a7b.

18. Meserve, Jack. “New Tools to Promote Competition.” Democracy Journal, 19 Sept. 2016,
democracyjournal.org/magazine/42/new-tools-to-promote-competition/.

19. Khan, Lina, and Sandeep Vaheesan. “How America Became Uncompetitive and Unequal.”
The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 June 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-america-became-uncompetitive-and-unequal/20
14/06/13/a690ad94-ec00-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html?utm_term=.499873554b5.