Engage in our events to examine the business and regulatory implications of the growing presence of digital markets.

Past Events

America has spent billions of dollars to close the gap between the broadband haves and have-nots. What do we have to show for it? Very little: According to Pew Research, 20% of US households do not have broadband. Minorities are 15% less likely to have broadband in their homes than are whites, and are 75% more likely to be dependent on smartphones for internet access. COVID-19 has magnified the effects of this gap on children’s education and minorities’ abilities to make a living. What will America do?

Mignon Clyburn, a former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, has made closing this gap a priority throughout her career. During her nine years with the FCC, Ms. Clyburn advocated for marginalized people by working to close the digital divide, modernizing programs for making broadband affordable, championing diversity in media ownership, and pressing for a free and open internet. As Congress and the Joe Biden Administration consider spending $100 billion to address digital disparities, Ms. Clyburn will explain what it will take for the US to see real results. UF’s Digital Markets Initiative and the Graham Center for Public Service welcomed Ms. Clyburn to campus to discuss these important issues and to challenge students and faculty to provide the leadership that is needed for true progress.

We partnered with the Florida Chapter of the Federal Communications Bar Association to discuss the broadband provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Topics included mapping, challenges of adoption, and what to expect from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

  • Mark Jamison, Director – UF Public Utility Research Center Digital Markets Initiative
  • Sarah Oh, Senior Fellow – The Technology Policy Institute
  • Kathryn de Wit, Project Director – Broadband Access Initiative, The Pew Charitable Trusts
  • Moderator: Ron Brisé, Government Affairs Consultant – Gunster

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to promote a competitive online ecosystem that maximizes user control while guarding against illegal activities. The law is credited with empowering unprecedented innovation, but it is also blamed for allowing Big Tech to suppress speech and avoid liability for seemingly unchecked misinformation.

Proposals to reform Section 230 — and views about its impact — vary. Some believe the law is a key protector of online expression, while others believe it provides cover for suppression of free speech. And some seek to expand Big Tech’s responsibility to limit what can be said on social media.

PURC and DMI Director Mark Jamison hosted this American Enterprise Institute (AEI) panel discussion on proposals to reform Section 230 — and on whether the law has fulfilled its original promise.

Daniel Lyons, Visiting Fellow – AEI
Matt Perault, Director, Center on Science & Technology Policy – Duke University
Kate Tummarello, Executive Director – Engine

Does free speech apply to all corners of society, including the internet? The Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and, since the 1960s, courts have interpreted this as an expansive right of individuals and institutions with few exceptions.

However, public support for free speech seems to be decreasing, especially as it pertains to social media platforms. Free speech critics support more government controls and are pressing social media platforms to censor certain ideas, opinions, and people. And sometimes, social media platforms seem happy to comply.

Mark Jamison hosted for AEI a panel discussion on laws and civil rights, commercial control of speech, and the effects of speech controls on human development and social vigor.

This event was hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

A panel of antitrust experts discussed the implications of a House Judiciary Committee staff report and what’s at stake for the U.S. economy.

  • Thomas W. Hazlett, Macaulay Endowed Professor of Economics, Clemson University and Director, Information Economy Project, Clemson University
  • Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Chair, Global Antitrust and Competition practice, Baker Botts and former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
  • D. Daniel Sokol, Professor of Law, Levin College of Law, University of Florida
  • Moderator: Mark A. Jamison, Visiting Scholar, AEI and Director, Digital Markets Initiative, University of Florida

This event was hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

Panelists discussed the use of Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position (ASBP) in Japanese competition law and particularly for online markets. The panel included insights from law and economics from both academics and practitioners.

  • Reiko Aoki, Commissioner, Japan Fair Trade Commission
  • Tsuyoshi (Yoshi) Ikeda, Partner, Ikeda & Someya
  • Tadashi Shiraishi, Professor, University of Tokyo Law
  • Yasutora Watanabe, Professor, University of Tokyo Economics
  • Moderator: D. Daniel Sokol, Professor, University of Florida Levin College of Law

This event was co-sponsored by the Digital Markets Initiative (DMI) at the University of Florida and the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

Event Agenda

We invited academics and PhD students in business schools studying platforms for a panel discussion on hot topics regarding platform competition followed by virtual small table discussions with leading platform academics and former government agency senior leadership from antitrust agencies to discuss research gaps and their application to platform policy debates on competition and privacy.

We were honored to have Commissioner Christine S. Wilson of the Federal Trade Commission join us. You can read her full remarks online at the FTC website.

The event was co-sponsored by the University of Florida Digital Markets Initiative, University of Florida Competition Policy Initiative, University of Florida Department of Information Systems and Operations Management (Warrington College of Business), and University of Florida Levin College of Law.

  • May 7, 2020: Nascent Competitors
    Scott Hemphill, Moses H. Grossman Professor of Law – NYU Law
    Timothy Wu, Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology – Columbia Law School
  • May 14, 2020: Debt, Control, and Collusion
    D. Daniel Soko, Professor of Law – UF Levin College of Law
  • May 21, 2020: Efficiencies in Merger Analysis
    Louis Kaplow, Finn M.W. Caspersen and Household International Professor of Law and Economics – Harvard Law School
  • May 28, 2020: State Medical Boards and the Providers They Protect: A Self-Regulation Story in Two Parts
    Rebecca Allensworth, Tarkington Chair in Teaching Excellence Professor of Law – Vanderbilt Law School
  • June 4, 2020: Reverse Breakup Fees and Antitrust Approval
    Albert H. Choi, Professor of Law – University of Michigan Law School
    Abraham Lee Wickelgren, The Bernard J. Ward Centennial Professor in Law – University of Texas Law School
  • June 11, 2020: Antitrust and the Public Interests of Equality and the Demands of Crises – Insights from Developing Countries
    Eleanor M. Fox, Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Trade Regulation – New York University School of Law
  • June 18, 2020: The Competitive Process
    Barak Orbach, Professor of Law – University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
  • June 25, 2020: False Analogies to Predatory Pricing
    Christopher Leslie, Chancellor’s Professor of Law – UC Irvine School of Law
  • July 2, 2020: Asymmetric Stakes in Antitrust Litigation
    Erik Hovenkamp, Assistant Professor of Law – USC Gould School of Law
    Steven C. Salop, Professor of Economics & Law – Georgetown Law
  • July 9, 2020: Antitrust Antitextualism
    Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law – Michigan Law
  • July 16, 2020: Keeping Score: Improving the Reporting of Data on Public Antitrust Enforcement
    William E. Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy – George Washington University Law School
  • July 23, 2020: The Per Se Rule That Wasn’t: How the Reasonable Price Defense Survived Antitrust’s Formative Era
    Alan J. Meese, Co-Director, Center for the Study of Law and Markets – William & Mary Law School
  • July 30, 2020: Vertical Joint Employers
    Hiba Hafiz, Assistant Professor – Boston College Law School
  • August 6, 2020: The Political Face of Antitrust
    Spencer Waller, Professor in Law; Justice John Paul Stevens Chair in Competition Law – Loyola University Chicago School of Law

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr will present at the University of Florida on March 19 about the national impact of 5G technologies as part of a new speaker series from the Warrington College of Business Digital Market Initiative.

The free event will be held in the Reitz Union Rion Ballroom from 11:30 am – 2 pm. Complimentary lunch will be served starting at 11:45 am, followed by a welcome from UF President Kent Fuchs. Commissioner Carr will speak at noon about what the FCC is doing to accelerate 5G buildout and the importance of U.S. leadership. A response panel of experts will follow Commissioner Carr’s presentation from 1-2 pm.

“Commissioner Carr has been at the forefront in developing regulatory policies that promise to make the U.S. a world leader in 5G networks,” said Mark A. Jamison, director of DMI. “5G is an important technology for Florida, so we are excited for our students and faculty to hear from Commissioner Carr.”

While the event is free, registration is required by noon on March 16 and is limited to a first come, first serve basis.

Commissioner Carr is the first presenter invited as part of a new speaker series from DMI. Housed in the university’s Public Utility Research Center, DMI examines the business and regulatory implications of the growth of digital markets. The speaker series will play a role in accomplishing the initiative’s goal of transforming how researchers, policy makers and practitioners consider the business, regulatory and antitrust implications of the new economy.

In his role as an FCC Commissioner, Carr focuses on regulatory reforms that help create jobs and grow the economy for the benefit of all Americans. He is leading the FCC’s work to modernize the infrastructure rules governing the buildout of 5G and other next-gen networks, with his reforms predicted to cut billions of dollars in red tape and having already accelerated 5G builds, helping to bring more broadband to more Americans.

Carr also works to expand America’s skilled workforce, including the tower climbers and construction crews needed to build next-gen networks, by promoting community colleges, technical schools and apprenticeships as a pipeline for good-paying 5G jobs. In addition, Carr is leading an FCC telehealth initiative, which is designed to drive down healthcare costs while improving outcomes for veterans, low-income and rural Americans.

Carr was first appointed to the FCC in 2017. And in 2019, he was nominated and confirmed to serve a new five-year term.

The Fall 2019 workshop addressed major challenges for creating relevant research in digital markets and regulation: Businesses and markets are interdisciplinary, but academia is not.

Researchers examined how to overcome this problem in a daylong session co-hosted by DMI with the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. Representing disciplines as wide ranging as law, engineering, strategy, economics, management, information systems, and finance, the faculty explored ways to increase the quantity and quality of interdisciplinary research on topics such as privacy, the political drivers of antitrust and regulation, the challenges from China, enabling and financing innovation, mergers and acquisitions, and policy spillovers from Europe and China. Insights included the importance of cross-disciplinary meetings for innovative work, organized discussions of work in progress, cross-disciplinary symposia, and publishing interdisciplinary research in law journals and in engineering journals as these are the least resistant to cross-disciplinary work.