December 13, 2010
Why More Antitrust Immunity for the Media is a Bad Idea
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Maurice E. Stucke, University of Tennessee College of Law and Allen P. Grunes, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP explain Why More Antitrust Immunity for the Media is a Bad Idea.
ABSTRACT: With their financial difficulties, some traditional media firms have called for greater leniency under the federal antitrust laws. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, in recent hearings inquired as to whether antitrust immunity is necessary for newspapers’ collaboration and under what circumstances, if any, antitrust immunity for certain joint conduct could be justified.
Our essay explores why relaxing the federal antitrust laws for traditional media will not help consumers or the marketplace of ideas. We discuss the past problems with antitrust immunity generally and for the media industries specifically. We address the failures of the Newspaper Preservation Act, how deregulation that followed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 failed to promote competition in the radio industry, and why further liberalizing the FCC’s cross-ownership rules to permit greater media consolidation will not promote competition in the marketplace of ideas.
We conclude that, because our democracy’s health depends on competition among traditional media, the cost of allowing already dominant firms to acquire the assets of their remaining competitors outweighs the benefits of looser antitrust laws.
December 13, 2010 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why More Antitrust Immunity for the Media is a Bad Idea: