Partners Nathan Wilson and Jeremy Sandford, alongside Jones Day’s Koren Wong-Ervin, contributed to Network Law Review’s quarterly publication, the Antitrust Antidote, analyzing significant U.S. antitrust decisions from legal and economic perspectives.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Econic Partners or its clients.
Introduction
Welcome to the Antitrust Antidote—a quarterly publication analyzing significant U.S. antitrust decisions from legal and economic perspectives. Authored by former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcer Koren W. Wong-Ervin with former FTC economist co-authors Jeremy Sandford and Nathan Wilson. The title of this series, “Antitrust Antidote,” while mostly meant to be humorous (perhaps limited to those who have heard Koren’s “let’s talk economics” as a cure for a bad day), also refers to the practical guidance we aim to provide throughout the series.
There were a number of decisions from October through December 2025, including: (1) FTC v. Meta, in which the court relied heavily on experimental field study research in concluding that Meta is not a monopolist; (2) Bakay et al. v. Apple, in which the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative consumer class action against Apple for lack of Article III standing as to the injunctive relief sought and for lack of antitrust standing; (3) a Sixth Circuit decision on antitrust injury and proximate cause; (4) a Seventh Circuit decision on tying and the separate products requirement; and (5) a monopsony case in which a lower court accepted essentially a single-player relevant market.
Read the full Antitrust Antidote here.
This article was first published in the Network Law Review www.networklawreview.org
