The atmosphere at the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at New York University is typically one of academic inquiry, but when Omeed A. Assefi, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, takes the podium, the conversation shifts from theory to enforcement. Speaking at the heart of Manhattan, Assefi laid out a vision for the future of American competition policy that seeks to dismantle decades of legal orthodoxy.
In a prepared address titled “Shirley Temple Antitrust,” Assefi used a vivid, if unconventional, metaphor to describe the prevailing legal philosophy of the last forty years. He argued that the “Consumer Welfare Standard”—the long-standing benchmark that prioritized low prices above all other market indicators—had become a “Shirley Temple” version of antitrust: a sugary, simplified, and fundamentally innocent interpretation of the law that ignored the bitter realities of market concentration and systemic power.
For the financial markets and the titans of Large Tech, Assefi’s remarks are more than a rhetorical exercise. They serve as a roadmap for a Department of Justice that is increasingly skeptical of “efficiency” arguments used by dominant firms to justify acquisitions or exclusionary tactics. By signaling a move toward a more holistic view of competition, the DOJ is telegraphing that the era of “price-only” scrutiny is over.
Beyond the Price Tag: The Death of the Consumer Welfare Monopoly
For decades, the guiding light of antitrust enforcement was the belief that as long as the consumer didn’t see a price hike, there was no harm. This approach allowed companies to grow into behemoths, provided they kept their services free or cheap. Assefi argues that this narrow lens created a blind spot, allowing firms to consolidate power in ways that stifled innovation and crushed smaller competitors long before the consumer ever felt a price increase.
The shift Assefi is championing moves the goalposts from “price” to “process.” The DOJ is now looking at the structural health of the market. This includes examining whether a dominant player is using its position to gatekeep entry for new rivals or whether it is leveraging data advantages to maintain an unfair moat. In the digital economy, where many services are “free,” the traditional Consumer Welfare Standard is effectively useless; Assefi’s new framework fills that void by focusing on quality, privacy, and the ability of a newcomer to compete on merit.
This evolution in thinking aligns the DOJ with a broader “Neo-Brandeisian” movement, which views antitrust not just as a tool for economic efficiency, but as a safeguard for democratic institutions and a check on the disproportionate political power that comes with extreme economic concentration.
The Labor Dimension: Addressing Monopsony Power
One of the most critical expansions in Assefi’s approach is the integration of labor markets into antitrust analysis. While traditional antitrust focused on the “monopoly” (the single seller), Assefi emphasized the danger of the “monopsony” (the single buyer)—specifically, the employer.
When a few large firms dominate a regional or sectoral labor market, workers lose their bargaining power. Assefi noted that this concentration leads to suppressed wages, diminished benefits, and a lack of mobility for professionals. The DOJ is increasingly viewing “no-poach” agreements and overly restrictive non-compete clauses not merely as employment disputes, but as antitrust violations that restrict the “market” for human capital.
By framing labor as a competitive market, the DOJ is expanding its jurisdiction into the daily lives of millions of workers. The goal is to ensure that competition doesn’t just benefit the person buying the product, but also the person building it.
Comparing Antitrust Frameworks: Then vs. Now
| Feature | Consumer Welfare Standard (Traditional) | Holistic Competition Policy (Current) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Metric | Short-term consumer prices | Market structure and long-term health |
| View of Big Tech | Permissive if services are “free” | Skeptical of “gatekeeper” power |
| Labor Focus | Secondary or ignored | Central (fighting monopsony power) |
| Innovation Goal | Efficiency-driven growth | Lowering barriers to entry for rivals |
The Digital Frontier and the ‘Gatekeeper’ Problem
The most immediate application of Assefi’s philosophy is found in the DOJ’s ongoing battles with the world’s largest technology firms. The “Shirley Temple” approach would suggest that if a search engine or a social network is free to use, there is no antitrust harm. Assefi’s framework suggests the opposite: that the “free” nature of these services is often the mechanism used to extract data and starve competitors of the oxygen they need to survive.
The DOJ is currently focusing on several key “gatekeeper” behaviors:
- Self-Preferencing: When a platform prioritizes its own products over those of third-party sellers.
- Tying Arrangements: Forcing users or developers to use a specific payment system or app store to access a hardware ecosystem.
- Killer Acquisitions: Buying up nascent competitors before they can grow large enough to challenge the incumbent.
Assefi’s remarks suggest that the DOJ will no longer accept the argument that these practices are simply “better for the user experience.” Instead, they will be scrutinized for how they affect the overall competitive landscape of the American economy.
What Remains Uncertain
While Assefi’s vision is clear, the path to implementation is fraught with legal hurdles. The U.S. Court system has been steeped in the Consumer Welfare Standard for nearly half a century. Many judges still view the “Neo-Brandeisian” approach as an overreach of executive power or a departure from established precedent.
The tension between the DOJ’s aggressive new posture and a conservative judiciary creates a period of significant regulatory uncertainty. Companies are now operating in a “grey zone” where behavior that was considered standard industry practice five years ago may now trigger a federal investigation.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice.
The next major checkpoint for this policy shift will be the upcoming series of rulings in the DOJ’s landmark cases against major tech platforms, which will test whether Assefi’s holistic approach can hold up under the scrutiny of the federal courts. These decisions will determine if “Shirley Temple Antitrust” is truly a relic of the past or if the pendulum will swing back toward a more permissive regime.
Do you think a broader approach to antitrust will help startups or simply create more regulatory red tape? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Worth a look
