Getting Competitive: Why Protecting Competition Makes Sense in a Digital Era: Summary & Key Insights

Competition law did not emerge from abstract theory; it was born from moral outrage against concentrated privilege. In its earliest incarnation in the United States—most notably through the Sherman Act of 1890—the purpose was not merely to increase efficiency, but to safeguard democracy itself from the tyranny of private monopolies. In Europe, similar ideals evolved through ordoliberal thought: markets should serve social order and the public interest, not just economic performance.

Throughout history, competition policy has oscillated between two paradigms: one rooted in fairness and liberty, the other in efficiency and consumer welfare. The Chicago School of economics reoriented antitrust in the mid-20th century toward the latter, emphasizing price and output effects while downplaying structural and power-based concerns. That shift narrowed the law’s scope right as globalization began to accelerate.

Yet the older vision of competition—as a social institution protecting opportunity and openness—never disappeared. In my view, it is this normative foundation we must recover. For the digital era, where market structures hinge on data access and algorithmic visibility, fairness and freedom to compete are not rhetorical ideals—they are essential conditions for innovation. Understanding where competition law came from reveals what it lost: the courage to challenge entrenched power when efficiency metrics alone claim the moral high ground.

Digital platforms accumulate extraordinary power through mechanisms that traditional antitrust analysis struggles to comprehend. Unlike industrial monopolies, digital dominance rarely manifests in high prices or restricted output. It arises instead from control of data, network effects, and ecosystems that intertwine user experience with market exclusion.

Think of a platform that connects billions of users, offers free services, and monetizes attention through targeted advertising. Each new user strengthens its dominance by contributing data, enriching machine learning models, and thereby enhancing engagement. The result is a self-reinforcing loop that creates near-impenetrable barriers to entry. When competitors emerge with innovative ideas, dominant platforms often acquire them before they mature or copy their features to neutralize threats.

As I stress throughout the book, traditional metrics—market share, pricing behavior, entry costs—do not fully capture the power that flows from information control. Data is both currency and infrastructure. To protect competition, law must evolve to recognize data access, interoperability, and algorithmic transparency as integral to market fairness.

This transformation demands not hostility toward technology but vigilance against exclusion. We must distinguish between scale achieved through merit and scale maintained through foreclosure. The challenge is nuanced: regulating without stagnating, empowering innovation while preserving contestability. That tension defines the essence of modern competition law.