Research & Commentary

Issue

Type

46 results for:
US v. Google Amicus Brief: How Better Remedies Can Restore Competition

Brief /

US v. Google Amicus Brief: How Better Remedies Can Restore Competition

The appeals in the United States v. Google search case hinge on a fundamental question: do the District Court’s remedies address the anticompetitive conduct that maintained Google’s search monopoly, or do they leave the market largely unchanged? Eight leading economists, legal experts, and technologists argue in an amicus brief that better remedies exist to help restore meaningful competition.

Age Assurance Rules: An Implementation Guide

Brief /

Age Assurance Rules: An Implementation Guide

KGI’s Age Assurance Rules provides practical recommendations for designing age assurance rules that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, service availability, competition, and openness.

Amy Winecoff, Alissa Cooper

Assigning Responsibility for Age Assurance: Recommendations for Youth Online Safety

Brief /

Assigning Responsibility for Age Assurance: Recommendations for Youth Online Safety

KGI’s Assigning Responsibility for Age Assurance examines how policymakers can allocate responsibility for age assurance across the digital ecosystem. It provides practical recommendations for assigning age assurance obligations in ways that support youth online safety while appropriately accounting for tradeoffs involving privacy, competition, accessibility, and openness.

Amy Winecoff, Alissa Cooper

Measuring Risk II: What EU Risk Assessments and US Litigation Reveal About Snap and YouTube

Report /

Measuring Risk II: What EU Risk Assessments and US Litigation Reveal About Snap and YouTube

KGI’s Measuring Risk II report examines what EU risk assessments and US litigation reveal about Snap and YouTube’s approaches to risks on their platforms, with a particular focus on risks to minors. The report explores the gap between what these platforms publicly disclose about risk mitigation and what has emerged through discovery in US litigation, including their own internal research, product development, and risk evaluation.

Peter Chapman, Matt Steinberg

Pay for Half: A Better Remedy for Google Search

Commentary /

Pay for Half: A Better Remedy for Google Search

The appeals of the United States v. Google search antitrust case turn in part on whether the remedies ordered address Google’s illegal monopoly in search – or whether, by declining to ban the payments Google makes for search defaults, the District Court has left the conduct at the heart of the case largely intact. In Pay for Half, KGI’s Alissa Cooper joins leading economists and competition experts in showing how the court can reasonably cap those payments rather than ban them, opening at least half of the market to rivals, including emerging AI-powered entrants, while preserving revenue for distribution partners.

Close