Does AI need an antitrust exemption so it doesn’t kill everyone????
Former antitrust chief says AI companies asking for regulatory exemptions don't need them — and shouldn't get them. Here's his framework for what actually matters.
Why it matters
A detailed policy discussion on how antitrust law, product liability, and competition should govern AI development. Kanter argues that safety is a company responsibility, not a coordination excuse, and that the real risk is allowing monopolies domestically under the guise of competing with China.
The key facts
9 to knowJonathan Kanter (former DOJ Antitrust Division chief) argues AI companies do not need antitrust exemptions to build safe products
Kanter's framework: companies should be held liable for AI agent behavior just as they are for employee misconduct
Political realignment: David Sacks (Trump AI czar) retweeting Lina Khan (FTC) agreeing no exemption is needed
Kanter rejects 'beating China' as justification for tolerating domestic monopolies; argues competition drives innovation
Discusses product liability precedent: Meta case on child safety/mental health took a decade to show results
Warns against 'national champions' approach; argues it contradicts American economic freedom principles
Notes Trump administration allowing oligopoly/monopoly consolidation under geopolitical cover
Distinguishes between coordination on security (allowed) and coordination to slow competition (antitrust violation)
Criticizes lack of Congressional action due to gerrymandering and Citizens United; executive branch now regulating by whim
Go to the source
The Verge AItheverge.com
Publisher excerpt: Today on Decoder, we’ve got the first of a two-part series on the future of business, and I’m talking with Jonathan Kanter, the former antitrust chief for the US Department of Justice in the Biden administration. These days, he’s both a professor of law at WashU and professor of technology policy…