The American Antitrust Institute's Ruled by Reason podcast explores current topics in progressive antitrust with experts from enforcement, business, and academia. Ruled by Reason guests discuss and debate the benefits of competition for markets, consumers, and workers. We delve into the importance of antitrust enforcement for promoting competition in our markets and democratic values in civil society.
Ruled by Reason
Claim This Podcastby American Antitrust Institute
4.9(11 reviews)
47 episodes
Updated Weekly
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
Podcast Overview
The American Antitrust Institute's Ruled by Reason podcast explores current topics in progressive antitrust with experts from enforcement, business, and academia. Ruled by Reason guests discuss and debate the benefits of competition for markets, consumers, and workers. We delve into the importance of antitrust enforcement for promoting competition in our markets and democratic values in civil society.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
6/8/2020
1 verified contact email on file for Ruled by Reason
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
April 7, 2026
Making Big Tech Antitrust Remedies Stick Beyond the Courtroom: A Conversation with Ron Schnell
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">In this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy Kathleen Bradish talks with Ron Schnell, a computer scientist, startup entrepreneur, and former general manager of the Technical Committee created to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the U.S. v. Microsoft consent decrees. Their conversation explores what the antitrust bar still hasn't fully absorbed from one of the most consequential post-remedy enforcement undertakings in U.S. antitrust history. Three themes run through the conversation: the need for early and deep technical engagement in remedy implementation; the informational asymmetry between enforcer and defendant that monitors must work to overcome; and the predictable incentive problems that shape how companies respond to conduct obligations.</p>
December 18, 2025
Taking an "Extra" Look at Addressing Monopolization: A Conversation with Jennifer Sturiale
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style= "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">In this episode of</span><span style= "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">Ruled by Reason</span><span style= "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">, AAI VP and Director of Legal Advocacy Kathleen Bradish speaks with Professor Jennifer Sturiale about how her recent work attempts to address the persistent gap between public concern over monopolies and the limits of current Section 2 enforcement. Sturiale notes at the outset that her work originates in a fundament, ongoing issue: while antitrust law is, by its nature, deliberately narrow—designed not to punish firms that acquire monopoly power through "superior business acumen" or historic accident—this leaves significant harms unaddressed. In her view, monopoly power is harmful regardless of how it is acquired, not only because of price, output, or quality effects, but also because monopolists amass outsized resources that can distort politics, media, litigation, and democratic processes more broadly. (2:37)<span style= "mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style= "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">Sturiale then describes how her recent scholarship explores an unconventional alternative: using federal or state eminent domain powers—what she calls an "extra-antitrust" approach—to address market concentration. (5:49) Drawing on Supreme Court takings jurisprudence, particularly</span><span style= "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff</span><span style= "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">, she explains that the Court has interpreted "public use" broadly to include correcting economic distortions such as oligopoly. (9:12) She argues that this precedent suggests governments could, in principle, condemn property to break up monopolized or highly concentrated markets, provided just compensation is paid. Her illustrative example involves the highly concentrated dialysis market, where states could use eminent domain to enable new entry and competition without proving exclusionary conduct under traditional antitrust standards. (13:45)</span></span></p> <p><span style= "font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">A central advantage of this approach, Sturiale argues, is that it bypasses many of the evidentiary burdens that make Section 2 cases slow, costly, and uncertain—such as market definition and proof of anticompetitive conduct. (29:35) Legislatures, rather than courts alone, could determine that a market is excessively concentrated based on hearings, expert testimony, and consumer experience. Compensation requirements would serve as an important limiting principle, both restraining overuse of eminent domain and preserving incentives to innovate, since firms could be compensated for lost profits rather than punished through treble damages. (23:55)</span></p> <p><span style= "font-size: 14pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: black;">At the same time, Sturiale is clear that her proposal is both a serious thought experiment and a critique. Political will, lobbying by powerful firms, valuation difficulties, and constitutional constraints—especially in national or IP-driven markets—pose real obstacles. (32:66) Still, she suggests that state-level experimentation in local markets could demonstrate feasibility and help democratize responses to market power. (46:35) Ultimately, the discussion reframes monopolization remedies not as solely an antitrust problem, but as part of a broader set of tools available to democratic governments confronting durable concentration in modern markets.</span></p>
November 24, 2025
The Three-Legged Stool of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement: A Conversation with Michael Kades
<p dir="ltr">In this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI President Randy Stutz talks with antitrust thought leader Michael Kades about the latest developments at the intersection of federal, state and private antitrust enforcement.</p> <p dir="ltr">The conversation begins with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of federal, state and private enforcers in the current enforcement climate (5:11). It then moves to the promise of "public entity litigation," in which private counsel represent federal, state or local government entities in bringing enforcement actions they lack the resources to bring on their own (8:45).</p> <p dir="ltr">Stutz and Kades then discuss strategic complexities and possible "force multipliers" when private counsel represent a governmental agency (11:31), including with respect to bringing cases where the agency's main priority is to develop antitrust doctrine or to shift risk when high-reward cases require large upfront resource commitments (13:33). They also discuss federal claims under Section 4A of the Clayton Act, which allows the government to recover treble damages in its capacity as an injured purchaser, and why such claims may be under-utilized (16:10). </p> <p dir="ltr">The conversation then shifts to merger enforcement, with a focus on the role of states and private plaintiffs (20:22). Among other things, Kades identifies categories of mergers where states may have an added advantage in merger enforcement (25:14). He also discusses how policy preferences and subject-matter emphases at the federal level can spur state and private enforcers to fill gaps in federal attention, though he cautions against trying to deduce policy preferences and attention levels solely from counting statistics (29:48).</p> <p dir="ltr">The conversation concludes with a discussion of allegations that federal enforcement has become "politicized" during the Biden and Trump administrations, and the role of the states in diffusing certain criticisms (33:13).</p>
47 total episodes available with 1 transcripts
Similar Podcasts
Discover related shows you might enjoy
Deep-dive analytics for Ruled by Reason
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Ruled by Reason?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates weekly.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 9 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Information about guest appearances is not available.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.