Top 47 Antitrust Quotes & Sayings

You can take this as a gentle word of warning, if you like. We are just at the beginning of a period of more intensive antitrust enforcement.

From search and books to online TV and operating systems, antitrust affects our daily digital lives in more ways than we think.

I'm just saying the producers and people who work on music are getting left out - that's when it starts getting criminal. It's like you're working hard, and you're not receiving. In any other business, people would be standing before Congress. They have antitrust laws against this kind of behavior.

Most Americans don’t think about antitrust law when they look at their cable bill, flip channels on TV, or worry about what their favorite website knows about them. But they should.

There's no doubt we need stronger antitrust enforcement. We shouldn't allow Amazon to privilege its own products on its platform, and we should make sure they're not using sellers' data, but the E.U. is not a model for America to copy.

Beware of that profound enemy of the free enterprise system who pays lip-service to free competition, but also labels every antitrust prosecution as a persecution.

I have the most profound respect for the Department of Justice and the FTC. We in Europe are a younger and I would say junior institution to the historical antitrust experience of the US.

Antitrust law isn't about protecting competing businesses from each other, it's about protecting competition itself on behalf of the public.

In reality, that was going to be very messy from an antitrust standpoint and meet a lot of resistance from the top management at Hasbro. That was a whole different story.

It's not in my mission to work against Euroskepticism; it's my mission to work for fair markets. In antitrust, what is at stake is, in some ways, as old as Adam and Eve because it is about greed, to get more.

In Europe, we have three tools when it comes to fair competition. One is antitrust, one is merger control, and the third is state aid control. And the third you don't have in the States.

Under the Constitution, federal law trumps both state and city law. But antitrust law allows states some exceptional leeway to adopt anticompetitive business regulations, out of respect for states' rights to regulate business. This federal respect for states' rights does not extend to cities.

Existing antitrust law in the United States addresses mainly the harm from price gouging, not the other kinds of harm caused by these platforms, such as stifling innovation and undermining the institutions of democracy.

Maybe the discipline in North America is just consolidation, right? I mean, it may be that if there were more vigorous pursuit of antitrust in America, there would have more competitors competing on price, and then airlines wouldn't be making any money again.

A competitive threat is not the same thing as an antitrust violation… It is difficult to make out FairSearch’s precise antitrust arguments. There are alternatives to ITA’s software: both the GDSs but also upstarts such as the U.K.’s Everbread Ltd., which has relationships with 60 low-cost carriers, and Vayant Travel Technologies LLC of New York. It isn’t clear, therefore, that competition would be reduced even if Googled didn’t honor ITA’s contracts with other travel companies.

The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice should take a long, hard look at the standard publishing contract.

When I applied to law school, I wrote on my application that I wanted to do two things. One was to solve antitrust law's irregularities and problems, and the second was to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Regardless of the industry, antitrust law is meant to benefit consumers - not competitors.

As freak legislation, the antitrust laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid.

Vigilant and effective antitrust enforcement today is preferable to the heavy hand of government regulation of the Internet tomorrow.

The federal government has shown little willingness to stand up to corporate monopolies, and use its powers under the existing antitrust statutes, including the powerful Clayton Act and Sherman Act.

The testimony and the documentary evidence produced by the Government demonstrate that the Bell System had violated the antitrust laws in a number of ways over a lengthy period of time.

Why should antitrust laws be used to block mergers that the market, by the existence of willing buyers and sellers, shows to be desirable?

The antitrust litigation currently in the federal courts in the U.S. against Monsanto will be the test case in the life sciences, just as the Microsoft case was the test case in the information sciences.

The history of antitrust law enforcement shows that successful antitrust prosecutions have often strengthened and brought vitality to extremely large companies and businesses.

I think we need to have stronger antitrust enforcement.

Like IBM, the company [Microsoft] seems to have been spooked by the federal antitrust action against it and became increasingly sclerotic and less inventive.

The standard formulation on remedy is that it ought to cure past violations and prevent their recurrence. That's what antitrust is all about.

Most Americans don't think about antitrust law when they look at their cable bill, flip channels on TV, or worry about what their favorite website knows about them. But they should.

Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.

Antitrust is the way that the government promotes markets when there are market failures. It has nothing to do with the idea of free information.

We need to use antitrust laws. You know, we need to create real media again.

My current goal is to change the way we think about antitrust and anti-monopoly.

Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. If he complies with one of these laws, he faces criminal prosecution under several others. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful 'intent to monopolize'; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for 'unfair competition' or 'restraint of trade'; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for 'collusion' or 'conspiracy.'

Like other antitrust agencies we make our assessment of a merger or antitrust case based on its impact on our jurisdiction, and not on the nationality of the companies. This is exactly what the U.S. antitrust agencies, the Justice Department and the FTC, do.

A significant piece of the wealth that the NFL owners garner is a result of the enormous TV revenues they get - and those revenues are supported by a legislatively granted exemption from the antitrust laws that has been made applicable to sports leagues, primarily the NFL.

Changing technologies, changing marketplaces, and even changing trends in anti-competitive practices have all presented challenges to antitrust enforcement.

As attorney general, I would work with my colleagues in other states to launch a major antitrust investigation to look into the ways in which Facebook and Google are wielding and may be abusing their duopoly powers.

Who can complain about the price that Google is charging you? Or who can complain about Amazon's prices; they are simply lower than the competition's. And that's why I think we need to shift back to a more Brandeisian conception of antitrust, where we consider values other than simply efficiency and low prices.

I'm for strong antitrust enforcement.

We had planned to integrate a Web browser with our operating system as far back as 1993( filing its first court responses to federal antitrust)

This antitrust thing will blow over.

It's time to use the antitrust laws and to break up this conglomerate corporate media that has now poisoned our democracy to the point that our very survival is at risk for the kinds of monstrosities that are flourishing in our corporate media dominated discussion.

The 10 largest antitrust law firms in the United States have gone into the federal courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.

With less regulation, I think you would see growth come back. Of course, there are situations where you need regulation. Antitrust regulation, for example, is a good idea because you want competition. But beyond that, it gets very difficult.

We can speculate on what's likely, but what's needed is an investigation. And speculation is no substitute for facts. As a former prosecutor, I prosecuted antitrust cases civilly. And I can say that antitrust investigations merit searching, penetrating scrutiny and investigation. That's what we need here.

The fruits of the economy and all the advantages of technology and globalization have gone far more to the investor class and the professional class and not as much to the working class. Partly because of the loss of labor unions, partly because of things like a lack of antitrust enforcement, policies that have privileged shareholder returns.