On August 4, Axios reported that the highly anticipated update of the White House framework for voluntary testing of frontier AI models will not be released to the public. In other words, and as others have put it, the White House is essentially putting the AI testing regime in a black box. This approach contravenes the rule of law, risks becoming as prescriptive as a licensing regime, and, most importantly, fails to fulfill its most basic objective: to build trust in the population.

Read the rest of this post →

Automated pricing tools are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in the modern economy as many businesses automate their pricing strategies to ensure their prices reflect market realities. Media attention, regulatory proposals, and a timely congressional hearing have largely focused on “surveillance pricing” and what we discussed as individualized dynamic pricing (IDP) in a previous blog. Despite fears of price gouging, these pricing methods have real efficiency benefits and are particularly effective at reducing waste.

However, there are other forms of automated tools in our day-to-day lives that do not necessarily rely on individuals’ data, as IDP does. This piece will focus on algorithmic pricing, understood as the general practice of automating the price-setting process, and the allegations that it might enable collusion amongst competitors. In the context of general algorithm-powered pricing, this alleged “collusion” typically refers to the use of automated tools to analyze market data to coordinate competitors’ prices. With a few notable exceptions, this is typical competitive behavior. For firms to compete on price, they must be able to track their competitors. Algorithmic pricing reduces the costs associated with monitoring and responding to market conditions. Taken alone, it is just using new technology to make an old process more efficient.

Read the rest of this post →

“Open banking” is a system in which data providers (e.g., banks) allow third-party services (e.g., fintechs) to access a consumer’s data upon the consumer’s request. In 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau passed an open banking rule requiring data providers to share data with third parties for free. In 2025, the bureau backed off and is now considering alternatives. Early reports say that the new rule will allow data providers to charge third parties for data access over a certain threshold (i.e., third parties can access small amounts of data for free). 

Letting banks charge for data access is good policy because it gives data providers control over their own resources and (hopefully) negotiates market prices (“hopefully” because the bureau has not yet revealed if it will regulate the charges). Markets are founded on property rights and freedom of contract. An open banking rule that stops data providers from charging for data access does not respect either and will not bring market benefits.

Many cities have recently repealed or amended zoning laws that previously served to drive up housing prices. 

One recent study looks at 

how zoning regulations in the Boston metropolitan area of Massachusetts have affected the long-run supply, prices, and rents of single-family and multifamily homes (apartments).

For one, 

loose density restrictions paired with multifamily zoning in the same neighborhood increased the average number of housing units per lot. … Looser height restrictions did not affect housing supply or prices, even when paired with multifamily zoning. These findings suggest that density restrictions limit housing construction in the Boston metro area while height regulations do not.

[The] research also finds that differences in housing prices and rents across boundaries primarily stemmed from strict zoning regulations increasing the average size of housing units. … [Thus,] zoning regulations have increased the size of housing units and driven up housing prices and rents in large portions of the Boston metro area.

Eliminating these distortions would allow for better, market-driven outcomes.

Cross-posted from Substack.

The current outbreak of cyclosporiasis has Americans cutting back on salads and other raw vegetables. Such outbreaks have become routine in recent years, with leafy greens providing the most common pathway for nasty bugs like E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, and cyclospora. 

Seizing on the latest outbreak, the New York Times recently ran an op-ed by food safety expert Timothy Lytton explaining how such outbreaks occur and what can be done to reduce their occurrence. In Cato’s Regulation magazine last fall, Lytton argued that civil action and private incentives can be used to combat them. In “How Nuisance Law Can Improve Food Safety,” he points out that manure runoff from cattle feedlots and dairy operations sited near produce fields is often the contamination source. 

Read the rest of this post →

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is suffering a crisis of institutional trust. Its woes have included the adoption of questionable legal theories, shifts in policy without public comment, and sending out poorly justified subpoenas. Reformers wonder how to address this trust crisis, and one option that might help is more intensive scrutiny by an Inspector General (IG). 

Currently, the bureau shares an IG with the Fed. The draft CFPB Reform Act of 2026 would (among other reforms) give the bureau its own IG (as does H.R.2513). If lawmakers support rigorous IG evaluations of the bureau’s compliance with constitutional case law, with statute law, and with accepted standards for cost-benefit analysis, this type of measure could bolster the bureau’s accountability. 

IGs are government watchdogs, conducting independent audits, inspections, and evaluations to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Many audits are focused on financial or information technology issues. IG reports on the bureau usually cover topics such as purchase card management, payments to contractors, data security, or the management of the civil penalty fund. While valuable, such assessments do not get at the heart of the CFPB’s overreach. 

Read the rest of this post →

In July 2026, a group of 12 state attorneys general brought an antitrust challenge to Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Now, a judge has granted an order restraining the transaction for at least 14 days and preventing it from closing on July 22 as planned. It is possible that, regardless of the outcome of the case, the litigation could further delay the transaction.

The state case focuses on the potential impact of the transaction on movie theaters and basic cable distributors. But does this correctly understand the current entertainment market consumers experience?

Read the rest of this post →