The New Brandeis Movement (also called “neo-Brandeisian” or “hipster antitrust”) represents a radical shift in modern antitrust policy, prioritizing the fight against the concentration of economic power and its effects on democracy.

Inspired by the thought and action of Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice who warned of the dangers of the “curse of bigness,” this approach rejects the dominant paradigm of the Chicago School, which prioritizes consumer welfare and economic efficiency.

Below are its pillars, impact, and controversies.

The Fundamental Principles of the Movement

A focus on economic power: the movement maintains that corporate concentration not only distorts markets but also threatens democracy by allowing companies to influence public policy and erode social equity.

Beyond prices: it criticizes the Chicago School’s obsession with prices and efficiency, arguing that antitrust laws should also address inequality, stagnant wages, and the loss of autonomy of small businesses.

Confronting structuralism vs. behavioralism: it proposes analyzing the structure of markets (not only specific behaviors), using the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) model inherited from the Harvard School.

For example, platforms like Amazon or Google, due to their size, create insurmountable barriers for competitors.

Pursuing economic democratization: it seeks to redistribute economic power to prevent “a few from controlling the destiny of many,” linking antitrust policy to social justice.

Key Figures and Relevant Actions

One of the main figures is Lina Khan (whose work we will analyze carefully in a separate analysis): as chair of the FTC, she led lawsuits against Amazon and Meta, arguing that their market dominance stifles competition and innovation.

Her article “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” (2017) is considered the movement’s manifesto.

Another figure to consider is Tim Wu: advisor to former President Joseph Biden, he promoted policies to curb mergers in critical sectors such as technology and pharmaceuticals.

His book “The Curse of Bigness” revitalized Brandeis’s legacy.

Finally, without exhausting the list of important figures, we have Jonathan Kanter: head of the DOJ Antitrust Division, he led historic cases against Google for exclusionary practices in digital advertising.

Notable Achievements

The blocking of the JetBlue/Spirit Airlines merger (2023) to protect competition in aviation.

The rule against non-compete clauses (2024), benefiting 30 million workers.

The investigation of dark patterns in digital subscriptions (for example, the Adobe case).

Criticisms and Debates

Simplification of the market: the movement is accused of ignoring the benefits of economies of scale and innovation in large firms.

Critics point out that concentrated industries (such as semiconductors) require massive investments that only giants can make.

A certain regulatory populism: some scholars argue that its “anti-bigness” rhetoric is merely a rebranding of the Harvard School, without offering new solutions for globalized markets.

The existence of a risk of arbitrariness: the focus on “democratic values” could politicize antitrust agencies, prioritizing ideological agendas over technical analysis.

Possible effects in Latin America: experts such as William Kovacic warn that its adoption in regions with populist governments could justify excessive state interventions, harming investment.

Global Impact and Future of the Movement

The movement has inspired reforms in the EU, such as the Digital Markets Act, which can be consulted in our Legal Regulation Lab, limiting the power of Big Tech.

In the U.S., although it faces judicial resistance (for example: the overturning of the non-compete ban in 2024), its legacy endures in several ways.

The change of narrative: corporate concentration is no longer seen as inevitable, but as a problem to be corrected.

A set of cross-partisan alliances: where conservative figures like Josh Hawley support parts of its agenda, recognizing the risks monopolies pose to individual freedoms.

In academic research: universities and think tanks prioritize studies on economic power and democracy, reviving debates from the early 20th century.

Conclusion

The New Brandeis is not just an antitrust theory, but a call to reimagine capitalism.

As Zephyr Teachout noted, its critique of “consumer welfare” as the sole standard has exposed systemic flaws—from post-COVID inflation to wage stagnation.

Although its future depends on legal victories and political support, its greatest contribution is reminding us that antitrust laws are, at their core, tools to preserve democracy.