What's Wrong with Algorithmic Pricing? Part I: Antitrust

What happens when AI starts fixing prices without any instruction to do so or any need to communicate? As companies increasingly turn to AI-powered pricing algorithms, a new challenge is emerging for antitrust law: how do you prove collusion when competitors never actually communicate? In Part I of our algorithmic pricing series, we welcome Giovanna Massarotto, Lecturer in Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, to explore the intersection of AI and antitrust regulation. Giovanna shares how her interest in technology and antitrust developed before unpacking how pricing algorithms work, who uses them, and why traditional antitrust standards for identifying collusion may no longer be enough. She explores how AI can learn cartel-like strategies and introduces her proposed three-prong framework for identifying algorithmic collusion, from persistent supracompetitive pricing to coordinated behaviour and the opportunity for companies to rebut allegations. Finally, she explores the challenges of crafting effective remedies, the emerging circuit split over algorithmic pricing, and the evolving regulatory landscape. Tune in to discover whether existing antitrust laws can keep pace with AI and what it will take to ensure this powerful technology works in consumers' favor.Key Points From This Episode:Today’s conundrum: how AI can enable price-fixing without communication and challenge traditional antitrust laws.How Giovanna found interest as a scholar in the intersection between tech and antitrust.Discover what pricing algorithms are, how they work, and the different types of businesses that use them.Learn how Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act defines collusion.Uncover how courts identify agreements between competing businesses.Understand why none of the previously established plus factors apply to AI pricing algorithms. How AI learns to coordinate pricing and how these insights could reshape the way we approach collusion.Giovanna breaks down her three-prong evidentiary framework for identifying AI-driven collusion.Why she believes her proposal is a solid solution to AI-driven collusion.Examining the importance of finding remedies for harmful pricing algorithms. She sheds light on the current circuit split that has arisen in AI algorithmic pricing. Giovanna shares her thoughts on recent rent-related AI algorithmic pricing in the Southern District of New York.Exploring the Trump administration’s approach to regulating AI-driven pricing and curbing potential collusion.What listeners can look forward to in Part II of our Antitrust Series. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Giovanna MassarottoArticles by Giovanna MassarottoGiovanna Massarotto at PennGiovanna Massarotta on LinkedInGiovanna Massarotta on XSherman Antitrust Act (1980)Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

California’s proposed billionaire tax is sparking fierce debate over wealth, taxation, and economic fairness. But what would it actually mean for the state? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, host Amy Martella welcomes Brian Galle, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, to unpack Proposition 40, a proposed one-time 5% tax on California billionaires that he helped draft. Brian explains how the measure aims to address a shortfall in healthcare funding due to federal funding cuts, how the tax would work, and why it’s designed to prevent wealthy taxpayers from exploiting loopholes. He also responds to major criticisms, including concerns about billionaires leaving California, the potential impact on innovation and entrepreneurship, and questions about the measure’s constitutionality. With the vote fast approaching, they examine political opposition and controversial competing ballot measures that could block the tax. Tune in for a closer look at Proposition 40 and what the debate reveals about the future of wealth taxation in America.Key Points From This Episode:Introducing Brian Galle and his involvement in drafting California’s Proposition 40.What Prop 40 proposes and how federal funding cuts inspired the measure.The challenges of designing a wealth tax that prevents billionaires from exploiting loopholes.Why California billionaires could remain wealthier even after paying the proposed tax.How the proposed tax would assess billionaire wealth, including dual-class shares.Why Proposition 40 is designed as a one-time tax rather than a permanent measure.Examining whether California billionaires pay their fair share of taxes.What the evidence reveals about wealth taxes, capital flight, and the risk of billionaires leaving California.How a billionaire tax could affect entrepreneurship, startups, and innovation.Ways that tax policy can address wealth inequality while supporting economic growth.Addressing constitutional concerns about the tax’s retroactive application.How competing ballot measures and political opposition could undermine Proposition 40.The prospects for wealth taxes in other states and at the federal level.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Brian GalleBrian Galle on LinkedInCalifornia Proposition 40 — Official Voter Information GuideProposition 40 — Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis'Proposition 40: The 2026 Billionaire Tax Act — Section-by-Section Summary'How to Tax the Ultrarich — Brian Galle, Roosevelt InstituteHow to Tax the Ultrarich — Fact SheetHow to Tax the Ultrarich — Full Report (PDF)'Taxing Dynasties'Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Who decides what a college athlete’s talent is worth? In this episode, we welcome legendary litigator Jim Quinn, former head of litigation at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and founder of JW Quinn ADR, about the legal battles that have shaped athletes’ rights. Jim explains the changes his practice brought to sports, including professional free agency and revenue-linked salary caps. Jim then discusses the NCAA’s amateurism rules, the cases that challenged them, and how NIL collectives and direct school payments work. Jim challenges the position of universities regarding paying athletes for their name, image, and likeness, and explores how money is reshaping recruiting and transfers. Jim also opines on the Protect College Sports Act, whether collective bargaining offers a better way forward, and the challenges ahead for professional sports. Finally, Jim shares career lessons from decades of representing players and advice for young lawyers hoping to enter the field of sports law. Tune in to hear about the fight over who gets paid, who sets the rules, and whose interests those rules protect.Key Points From This Episode:Meet Jim Quinn and hear how he started his career in sports law.Discover why free agency increased franchise values and drove fan interest. Learn why the NBA salary cap on revenues mattered so much for players. Explore what the NCAA’s amateurism rules were and why they became a problem.Find out what NIL collectives do and how they get money to athletes.Understand the difference between money from schools and third-party NIL deals.Uncover why schools don’t want to classify their athletes as employees.See how schools put a fair market value on athletes and decide who gets paid. Hear why the transfer portal has fans worried and whether those fears are valid. What the Protect College Sports Act would limit and who it actually protects. Whether NIL money could become part of high school sports. The next big legal issues in pro sports and where AI might fit in. Jim shares advice on breaking into sports law and his early career lessons. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Jim Quinn on LinkedInJW Quinn ADR LLCDon’t Be Afraid to WinProtect College Sports ActThe National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)NCAA Name, Image and LikenessFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

When corporations face social questions faster than lawmakers can answer them, who makes the rules guiding those decisions? On this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, Stavros Gadinis, the George R. Johnson Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Business, discusses his new book, Corporate Ordering: How Corporations Navigate Social Conflict. Stavros provides fascinating examples from household private sector companies who were forced to shape the rules of their industries way before the government moved. What are the benefits and pitfalls of letting corporations figure out what standards should govern them, and then having the governments simply adopt their frameworks? Can companies really exercise this influence responsibly before public oversight catches up? Tune in to hear Stavros’s opinion on these questions, why these decisions matter far beyond the boardroom, and how lawyers can help companies make the best decisions available.Key Points From This Episode:Discover why social conflicts expose a gap in the business judgment rule.Unpack what corporate ordering means when business choices become rules for everyone.Uncover how corporate business practices have influenced public law.Hear examples of how innovation outpaced regulation and how it affected the law from Uber, Lyft, Microsoft, and more.Explore what Stavros’s conversations with AI companies reveal about regulation.Consider what it takes to create meaningful and effective deliberation.Learn why Stavros wants boards’ decision-making process reflected in fiduciary duties.Understand how his proposal would fit within the business judgment rule.Why corporate rulemaking matters even if you never serve on a board.Advice on what lawyers can do to help companies navigate tough decisions.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Stavros GadinisStavros Gadinis on LinkedInCorporate Ordering: How Corporations Navigate Social ConflictStavros Gadinis on his Corporate Ordering BookBerkeley Center for Law and BusinessFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Ethical lines are not always crossed in one dramatic leap. Sometimes pressure, culture, and ambition make each small compromise easier to justify. In today’s episode Tom Hardin, author of Wired on Wall Street and the former FBI informant known as Tipper X, discusses his journey from young hedge fund analyst to cooperating witness in a major insider trading investigation. Tom explains how, during his time in the hedge fund world, information advantages were rewarded, why the line between mosaic research and material nonpublic information could feel blurry, and how one phone call led to tipping, four illicit trades, and only $46,000 in personal gain that cost him his career. He recounts being approached by the FBI, deciding to cooperate, and living with the consequences. Amy and Tom also discuss the fraud triangle, the warning signs of cultures that create conditions for misconduct, why lawyers handling confidential deal information must understand their role as gatekeepers, and how prediction markets may create new risks for informed trading. Hear Tom’s candid reflections on pressure, accountability, and what it takes to rebuild after crossing the line.Key Points From This Episode:How Tom Hardin entered the hedge fund world as a young analyst.Why the line between research and material nonpublic information can feel blurry.The phone call that led to tipping, four illicit trades, and lasting consequences.What happened when the FBI approached Tom and asked him to cooperate.Why Tom wishes he had called a lawyer as soon as the FBI approached him.How the fraud triangle (pressure, opportunity, and rationalization) shapes ethical compromise.Warning signs that an organization is creating conditions for misconduct.Why lawyers handling confidential deal information are important gatekeepers.The need for law firms and law schools to strengthen training on insider trading risks.How prediction markets may create new risks for informed trading.Tom’s reflections on accountability, redemption, and the “integrity gap.”Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Tom Hardin on LinkedInTipper XWired on Wall StreetRaj Rajaratnam Convicted Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

As climate change increasingly reshapes the way we live and do business, companies are facing a new reality: adapting to environmental risk is no longer optional. But alongside the challenges are significant opportunities. In this episode, Adam Orford, associate professor of environmental law and policy at Fordham Law School, explores the growing intersection of business law and climate change, and what it means for the future of business. We examine whether businesses may have more power than governments to drive meaningful environmental change and the growing international demand for clean energy. Adam also considers the potential role of nuclear energy in addressing climate change, and why climate concerns extend far beyond traditional environmental policy. From the environmental costs of war to the rapid expansion of AI and data centers, Adam explores the unexpected ways business, technology, and geopolitics intersect with the climate crisis. Ultimately, we consider how climate change concerns all of us, and why collective action remains one of the biggest obstacles to meaningful solutions. Tune in for this fascinating discussion.Key Points From This Episode:The moment in environmental law and business that we are currently living through.How Adam Orford honed his expertise in environmental law and policy.Who he represented while practicing corporate law: energy developers, non-profits, and governments.Do businesses have more power to protect the environment than the government? The growing international demand for clean energy.Considering the actual impact of environmentally friendly business practices. How nuclear energy development is beneficial to climate change.Why war is linked with climate change — the short- and long-term environmental cost.What we really have to be concerned about with AI.How data centres affect the environment.Considering the most optimal response to the threat posed by data centers.The democratic discourse that has emerged in response to the AI conversation.Why climate change concerns every state and nation.How collective action challenges prevent climate change solutions.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Adam OrfordAdam Orford Fordham LawAdam Orford LinkedInArticle on COP29 UN ConventionFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

When every mass-tort claimant has the same voting power, can bankruptcy still deliver a fair settlement? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we welcome Wake Forest Law Professor Samir Parikh and Fordham Law Professor Richard Squire to examine how claimant farming can distort mass tort bankruptcies. Samir is a nationally recognized expert in mass tort restructurings and editor-in-chief of the Bloomberg Law Bankruptcy Treatise, and Richard is an expert in bankruptcy and corporate restructuring. Together, they explain why the vote is meant to restore agency to victims and how the current system can undermine that promise. They discuss traditional voting rules and the nominal one-dollar valuation approach used when courts face tens of thousands of uncertain claims. Samir and Richard unpack how low-value or nonmeritorious claims, weak powers of attorney, and third-party litigation finance can combine to outweigh stronger claims. They also explore why bankruptcy remains attractive for mass tort resolution, where its safeguards are breaking down, and what courts and lawmakers can do before the next wave of claims arrives. Tune in to discover who benefits from the current system, who risks being left behind, and how mass tort bankruptcy voting can better protect the claimants who have suffered the most.Key Points From This Episode:Discover why voting is vital to claimant agency in mass tort settlements.Learn how Chapter 11 voting balances the number and value of claims.Explore why courts give mass tort claims a nominal one-dollar value.Uncover how courts determine whether claims are meritorious.Examine why claimants owed no recovery should be treated as rejecting a plan.Consider when attorneys have the authority to vote for their clients.Understand how third-party litigation finance can increase the number of weak claims.Hear about Samir’s proposed solutions for filtering claims and improving voting.See how claimants could challenge a decision under his proposed AI review process.Find out how bellwether trials could help courts value representative claims.Compare bankruptcy with multidistrict litigation and individual trials for resolving mass torts.Whether proposed legislation addresses the problems in mass tort bankruptcies.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Samir ParikhSamir Parikh on LinkedInRichard SquireRichard Squire on LinkedIn'Mass-Tort Voting Takes Center Stage'Brook Gotberg on The Price of “Global Peace” in Purdue PharmaBrook Gotberg and Richard Squire on Purdue Pharma IIFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Welcome to the 100th episode of the Bite-Sized Business Law podcast! In celebration of this milestone, the president of Fordham University, Tania Tetlow, joins us to discuss the business of running a university. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about President Tetlow’s life, her professional background, how running a university is similar to running a business, her mission-driven role, and more! She goes on to discuss the importance of pulling leadership from within faculty ranks before talking about how educational institutions can stay agile in an unpredictable world while maintaining their core principles. We even touch on the Pope’s insightful letter about artificial intelligence. Finally, President Tetlow shares the biggest challenge she has faced in her role so far and leaves law students interested in business with some important advice about the potential impact they can make in the world. Key Points From This Episode:Welcoming President Tania Tetlow to the show and an overview of her journey.How her career and upbringing prepared her to run a university. The similarities between running a business and running a university. Mission-driven educational leadership versus business management. How she trains faculty to run the university smoothly.What higher education needs to do to stay agile in the face of political pressure, social media, and a shifting workplace due to AI. President Tetlow’s thoughts on the Pope’s letter about artificial intelligence. The biggest challenge President Tetlow has faced at Fordham University.Advice for business law students about their ability to make an impact.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Tania TetlowOffice of the PresidentTania Tetlow on LinkedInPope Leo's Encyclical on AIFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

South Dakota has turned itself into the ‘trust fund capital’ of America, and the system is thriving financially. Some proponents say the South Dakota trust fund regime is absolutely necessary for those with mega-wealth, but others argue that it’s eroding the American tax base, enabling the hollowing out of the middle class, and defying the trust Teddy Roosevelt knew Americans had in each other. Author and investigative journalist Leah McGrath Goodman unpacks her report, ‘Inside America’s Race to Hide the World’s Money.’ Tuning in, you’ll hear all about Leah’s life and career, where the estate tax originated in the US, what a trust is, why South Dakota started trying to attract wealthy individuals to direct their money there, and more. We delve into how people who don’t actually live in the state can take advantage of its tax system before discussing the benefits of South Dakota’s privacy laws. Leah goes on to touch on the biggest concerns she uncovered when reporting about the South Dakota trust machine, and she shares some potential solutions to these issues. Finally, our guest tells us what other states are trying to ‘copy’ South Dakota’s structure. Tune in now for this fascinating discussion! Key Points From This Episode:Introducing Leah McGrath Goodman and an overview of her background. The history of the estate tax in the US and what a trust actually is. What motivated South Dakota to attract wealthy people to direct their money there. How people who don’t live in South Dakota can take advantage of this system. A breakdown of some of South Dakota’s privacy laws and how they’re beneficial. What South Dakota, as a state, gains from utilizing a system like this. The main concerns that arose in Leah’s reporting about the SD trust system.A few of the benefits of the South Dakota trust empire on the economy as a whole.Leah breaks down some potential solutions to some of these issues.  Who originally came up with this structure and which states are trying to emulate it too.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Leah McGrath GoodmanLeah McGrath Goodman on LinkedIn'Inside America’s Race to Hide the World’s Money'Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

How do you put a price on companies that could reshape entire industries? Today on Bite-Sized Business Law, we welcome ‘the Dean of Valuation,’ Professor Aswath Damodaran, to explain the methods behind the valuations of large companies. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about how price and value differ, the importance of taking ownership of your decisions as an investor, how Professor Damodaran has valued SpaceX and why it has been valued so high. We delve into the wild valuations of AI and the effects of the technology on society, before discussing how to invest in an industry that might have no good outcome. Professor Damodaran even touches on the future of AI in law and shares his thoughts on how AI can be compared to the dot-com bubble. Finally, our guest shares his hopes and concerns for the future of technology and challenges listeners to rediscover their capacity to think outside the box. You don’t want to miss this one, so be sure to press play now! Key Points From This Episode:Welcoming Professor Aswath Damodaran to the show. The difference between value and price, and his valuation of SpaceX. An explanation of how and why SpaceX has been valued so high. The potential problems SpaceX may face and the advantages it has. Why AI has as much value as it does, and the cost of use and production. Some detrimental effects AI may have, and how to invest considering that. The future role of AI in law and lawmaking, in our guest’s opinion. Professor Damodaran shares his thoughts on comparing AI to the dot-com bubble. Why he’s hopeful about the future, and what technological factors concern him.  How Professor Damodaran’s teaching has had to change because of these issues. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Aswath Damodaran Aswath Damodaran at NYUAswath Damodaran on LinkedInAswath Damodaran on YouTubeThe Aswath Damodaran BotAnother Aswath Damodaran BotProfessor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: Beat Your BotProfessor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: The Imitation GameProfessor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: AI Scenarios  Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center