collapse of the old society

from the article:

The challenge is this: Under existing antitrust law, showing that companies A and B used algorithm C to raise prices isn’t enough; you need to show that there was some kind of agreement between companies A and B, and you need to allege some specific factual basis that the agreement existed before you can formally request evidence of it.

What normally happens with pricing shenanigans is there is no agreement. The companies develop a code to signal to each other through advertisements. E.g. company X runs a 10% sale on product A, and company Y sees a pattern and reacts in a way that signals back to company X. X and Y learn each other’s language and have a coded conversation through published ads. AFAIK, that’s anti-competitive but legal because no agreement is in place. The AI seems like a new legal loophole that’s much more convenient and efficient than the coded conversation. Prosecutors might find an agreement that makes their job trivial. But what if they don’t? I don’t see how agreements are needed given that the coded ad conversation does not involve an explicit agreement as it’s just a pattern that both “competitors” (collaborators) benefit from. These cheaters operate with an understanding among each other, not an “agreement”. Hence:

None of the situations Stucke and Ezrachi describe involve an explicit agreement, making them almost impossible to prosecute under existing antitrust laws.

As long as republicans have a significant piece of Congress, the AI price fixing will prevail. Dems would oppose it across the board, but republicans would be divided. Trump and his faction would favor price fixing while the truer conservatives among the republicans would oppose it. But there are probably too many Trumpers.