Algorithms and 'Twombly': An Inevitable Collision Course
Antitrust Trade and Practice columnists Shepard Goldfein and James Keyte write that pricing algorithms present a number of unique opportunities to businesses to improve their processes and efficiency. Sellers can automatically adjust their conduct with the demands of the market, increasing efficiency and saving resources and money. However, critics worry that because algorithms have become so advanced, they may enable new forms of anticompetitive coordination that were not possible before.
June 12, 2017 at 02:04 PM
8 minute read
Over the past decade, computers have increasingly become more powerful and able to handle larger amounts of data at higher speeds. As Moore's Law postulates, the ability of computers to handle data will roughly double every two years. This continuing advancement has allowed sophisticated algorithms to analyze the world and predict how people will behave. An algorithm is a set of rules written to be executed in a specific order, designed to solve a problem or carry out a task. As computer systems have become more sophisticated, algorithms are increasingly being used by companies to automate complex and repetitive tasks that were previously much more costly when done by humans.
As noted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the background paper to its June 2017 panel on algorithms, computational algorithms can be used by businesses for predictive analysis—where the algorithms measure the likelihood of future outcomes based on analysis of historical data—and also can optimize business processes, reduce transaction and production costs, segment consumers or set optimal prices in response to market circumstances. Indeed, the growing usefulness of algorithms has led many companies around the world to employ them in order to improve business decisions and automate processes.
Benefits, Risks of Algorithms
In the competitive arena, pricing algorithms present a number of unique opportunities to businesses to improve their processes and efficiency. Algorithms make the facilitation of business processes much easier and faster. This means that sellers can automatically adjust their conduct with the demands of the market, increasing efficiency and saving resources and money. Moreover, they allow businesses partially or fully to automate some of their key systems. This further reduces costs, improves efficiency and decreases the time and monetary or personnel resources that need to be spent on these processes. This automation of tasks can lead to more and better competition in markets, as businesses quickly respond to each other and to customers, which can increase efficiency and profitability at the same time.
However, this ease of coordination is not necessarily a universal boon. Critics of algorithms worry that because algorithms have become so advanced, they may enable new forms of anticompetitive coordination that were not possible before. For example, in situations where collusion previously could only be implemented using explicit communication, algorithms, in theory, could create new mechanisms that allow businesses to implement a common policy and to observe the behavior of other firms without any human interaction at all. As the OECD postulates, “algorithms may enable firms to replace explicit collusion with tacit co-ordination.”1 The notion is that algorithms, properly programmed, can automatically detect when a cartel member is “cheating,” and thus can more effectively punish the deviant cartel member.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readKing & Spalding Adds Veteran Antitrust Litigator From White & Case in New York
3 minute readNY Antitrust Investigators Seek Subpoena in Probe of Potential Capital One-Discover Merger
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250