Ian Adams

Executive Director @LawEconCenter. Yes, I want to look at your watch.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

Manifest Destiny. Ranch shall cover the globe.

[Polymarket @Polymarket]

NEW: TSA warns World Cup visitors not to pack oversized bottles of ranch dressing in their carry-ons, as ranch mania spreads among foreign fans.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

@ProfSchrepel @mmblaszczyk Liberalizing the attendant structures of business creation and operation may help, too...

[Mario Zúñiga @MZunigaP]

#Competition #DigitalMarkets

Apparently, some US politicians don't want Europe to have a monopoly on bad regulation... so "AICOA" is back from the grave.

Sens. Grassley and Klobuchar have introduced a new American Innovation and Choice Online Act (link in the first comments). It is narrower than the original version in whom it targets—but, in important respects, more aggressive in how it regulates them.

As @geoffmanne has said, “AICOA has always been a solution in search of a problem”.

Why regulate digital markets? Digital markets have always been very competitive. So-called "big tech" firms have expanded output and invested heavily in R+D. Consumers have benefited from constant innovation. Even firms with clear leadership in some markets face competition from disruptors or other big tech firms entering adjacent markets. Tech firms explain, at least in part, the productivity gap between the US and Europe... so why imitate European regulation?

Why *now*? Regulation makes even less sense in the midst of the generative-AI boom. GenAI is already reshaping—and could fundamentally disrupt—search, social media, e-commerce, and other digital markets.

The revised AICOA targets a small group of “systemically important platforms” based largely on size and reach, not proof of market power or consumer harm. It would treat practices such as self-preferencing, integration, defaults, ranking, data use, and interoperability restrictions as presumptively suspect, even though these practices can improve convenience, security, and product quality. Its low “material harm” threshold and demanding defenses would make ordinary design and engineering decisions far riskier.

The likely result is more litigation, slower product improvements, and less integration—not necessarily more competition. Large penalties and expedited enforcement would further encourage overcompliance. Governments should address exclusionary conduct when there is evidence of actual competitive harm (and we have Antitrust Law for that), rather than adopting a DMA-style shortcut that risks protecting competitors at the expense of consumers and innovation.

While I enjoy zombie movies, zombie bills are a waste of valuable resources that we should not entertain.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

Ahhh! It gets even better.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

Oh, cool. 1939 Clement Greenberg’s a bit on the nose here, eh?

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

The speech is worth a read, but a central premise requires further explanation: "We should prevent AI from taking over jobs that only humans ought to do..."

The word "ought" is doing all of the work here, work that should be explored further so the notion can be universalized and discussed for what it likely is - a rent seeker's dream.

[Oren Cass @oren_cass]

From @AmerCompass gala, @HawleyMO @commonplc on Reclaiming Citizenship from the Cloud:

"Behind every one of these fronts—labor, data centers, children—there is a deeper question. Who decides? Who will set the terms of the artificial intelligence era?" https://t.co/8g6JXpQwnG

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

A pleasant reminder that objecting to efforts to unilaterally rename an institution in contravention of its organic statute isn't "liberal cope" when such efforts are plainly illegal.

[Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney]

COOPER also bars the center from being redesignated as the "Trump-Kennedy Center" saying it violates clear terms of the statute that created it. Claims that it's a nickname or unofficial name don't fly, he says. https://t.co/OVqOXxd0gT

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

@AjitPai Literally @GusHurwitz

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

Adopting standards that will not enhance safety, on the basis of an accident that would not have been prevented by those proposed standards, while increasing the cost of goods in the midst of a cost of living crisis is aggressively foolish.

[kristian stout @kristianstout]

The NTSB report on East Palestine pointed at a single overheated wheel bearing as the cause of the accident. The Railway Safety Act, up for a vote this week, puts obligations in place unrelated to that cause. This matters because it has massive downstream economy-wide effects. I released a paper looking at the economics of the RSA (link in comments)

[Ashkhen Kazaryan @Ashkhen]

Two months ago I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. I want to share few things in hopes it can help someone. For starters… I didn’t have a single symptom.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

@BrianCAlbrecht Read this as "watch prices." But, yea. Your thing too.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

Maybe Europe should simply not allow this to happen? #CompetitionLaw #CompetitionInnovation #RegulatorySuperpower

[Robert Vis @RobertDVis]

This is a note I sent earlier today to all employees at Bird on why we are decreasing our European headcount by 20% as we shift our employee base closer to our customers in the US.

Hi Team,

Today I've made the difficult decision to reduce Bird's headcount by approximately 20%. The majority of the reduction is in Europe, with smaller adjustments across the rest of the business.

I want to be direct with you about why.

When I founded Bird 15 years ago in Amsterdam, we had no choice but to go global from Day 1. The Netherlands and Europe were simply too small a market for the company I wanted to build. Fifteen years later, the centre of gravity of the business has shifted: 75% of our revenue now comes from US-headquartered companies, including most of the Fortune 500, all of big tech, and many AI-native companies. As per my recent shareholders note, Bird is profitable and growing, with roughly $250m in net revenue for 2025 and based on valuation roughly the 30th largest company of The Netherlands. However comparing to the US we would not even make the top 1000. This decision is not about whether the business is healthy. It is about where the business has moved and its future to grow and win which is simply shifting away from Europe.

Two things are driving the change. The first is geography. Our engineering and operations teams were built for a company headquartered in Amsterdam, and our customers in 2026 are increasingly not. We need to be closer to them. The second is AI. It has changed how we work, and tasks that required dedicated headcount even a few years ago no longer do.

Building a global tech company from a European base has also gotten harder over the past decade. That is a longer conversation, one I have made publicly, and it is part of the picture here. We are continuing to hire in the US, recently across GTM, with more to come in engineering and other functions. This is not a reflection of your performance. It is about where Bird needs to be, and how we need to operate from here.

To those of you leaving: thank you. You poured yourselves into Bird and helped build something extraordinary. I'm grateful for everything you've contributed, and I'm sorry.

Within the next 15 minutes you'll receive an email to your personal inbox with details on next steps and the support we're providing. In line with our security policy, your system access will be removed at the same time.

To the team staying: I know today is hard. We're saying goodbye to colleagues and friends. What we've built together is rare, and protecting it - and growing from here - is what this decision is about. We'll hold an All Hands later today; you'll receive an invite shortly, and I'll answer your questions there directly.

Thank you to everyone affected for what you built here.

Robert

[Dirk Auer @AuerDirk]

Spirit Airlines is gone.

So who's responsible—antitrust enforcers or the market?

@IAtheTeapot and I argue the answer may be neither, as merger doctrine can't handle fragile firms whose real alternative to a deal isn't competition, but slow attrition.

https://t.co/fJcJdd5JKl

[Lazar Radic @laz_radic]

Just got the new EU merger guidelines. Still working through them. Sharing some first reactions. Tl;dr: this is a more complex document than headlines are likely to suggest. Some things I didn't expect. Some things I feared are in there. Thread 🧵 1/ https://t.co/6BajuCYTGE

[Brian Albrecht @BrianCAlbrecht]

Stacy and the CA AG say this is "blatant price fixing." It's not. The framing is doing work the evidence doesn't. It's argument by winks and nods.

Most of what's quoted is Amazon enforcing a de facto MFN. "Don't let us be undercut" is not the same as "Amazon, Walmart, and Chewy agreed on a price." Even under California law.

Yes, CA's Cartwright Acy is friendlier to plaintiffs than federal antitrust. But the brief is selling a hub-and-spoke story (even with some pure vertical parts) with Amazon as hub, vendors as intermediaries, Walmart and Chewy and Target as the rim.

Hub-and-spoke still needs a rim (even tacit) under Cartwright. A rival raising price after seeing Amazon's move may be unilateral, even if Amazon hoped it would happen.

So as usual, we have a complex antitrust case that people will sell as some simple story.

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

@TimSweeneyEpic @LawEconCenter @AuerDirk Tip of the cap to our @raylehmann, Tim!

[Ian Adams @IAtheTeapot]

Surprised to see @BrianCAlbrecht on the local news watching rugby sevens in Hong Kong.