5 Questions is a periodic feature produced by Cornerstone Research, which asks our affiliated experts and senior professionals to answer five questions related to their work.
We interview Celeste Saravia, cohead of Cornerstone Research’s antitrust and competition practice, to gain her insights on antitrust in the digital era.
Dr. Saravia discusses the evolution of antitrust as new digital markets emerge, the role of objective economic analysis in competition enforcement, and the importance of maintaining consumer welfare standards amid conflicting enforcement approaches.
How has antitrust as a practice area changed since you started your career? Has it changed for women—and if so, how?
The antitrust field has evolved substantially since the beginning of my career, driven, in part, by technology advances, the increased availability of data, and the adoption of more sophisticated economic analyses in litigation. When I started, much of antitrust law was focused on traditional industries such as manufacturing and agriculture. With the rise of the digital economy, antitrust has since expanded to encompass areas like digital competition and ecommerce, and to address the circumstances under which data can be a barrier to entry. This shift has introduced new complexities and challenges, requiring experts to develop new analytical approaches.
I’m proud to be part of a growing community that supports and empowers female professionals.
Regarding women in antitrust, the need for greater representation persists, but it’s heartening to see more women taking on leadership roles and making significant contributions to antitrust scholarship and practice. I’ve been fortunate to have opportunities to work on high-profile cases, provide expert testimony, and publish research. On these cases, I have worked with wonderful lead female economists and attorneys, demonstrating that women can and do excel in antitrust. I’m proud to be part of a growing community that supports and empowers female professionals.
Do you anticipate competition authorities ever applying a gender lens to antitrust enforcement? How might that work and what would be the benefits?
Economic analysis strives to be neutral, evaluating market dynamics and competition based on objective metrics, rather than through the lens of gender or other demographic characteristics. As competition authorities continue to refine their approaches, they could certainly elect to incorporate analyses of how antitrust policies affect particular segments of a given market.
To do this effectively, authorities could conduct rigorous data analyses to evaluate the impact of, say, mergers and acquisitions on different demographic groups. For instance, they might analyze how consolidation in a particular industry affects women, or employment opportunities available to women, or the market share of companies that cater primarily to women consumers.
Competition enforcement is becoming increasingly politicized, with the consumer welfare standard potentially under threat. Should antitrust law be used to address issues like climate change, censorship, workers’ rights, and even the functioning of democracy?
While I understand the desire to leverage antitrust law to tackle pressing social concerns, I’m cautious about expanding its scope to encompass issues that may not be directly related to competition policy. Antitrust law is intended to promote fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices, not advance specific political agendas nor regulate purely social or environmental problems.
I do believe, however, that antitrust law can help to address such issues as upholding equitable labor practices, promoting fair competition, or curbing abusive market conduct. In these and other antitrust enforcement matters, the consumer welfare standard should remain the guiding principle. It may be tempting to use antitrust law as a tool to address a broader set of societal issues, but we must not apply it to circumstances for which it is either unrelated or inappropriate.
Does the increasing politicization of antitrust enforcement present an opportunity or is it cause for concern?
I’d say it is cause for concern. When antitrust enforcement strays from its economic foundations and becomes driven by political objectives, it compromises antitrust law’s integrity and effectiveness. Politicization can also lead to arbitrary, unpredictable enforcement, eroding the broader rule of law and creating uncertainty for businesses.
Moreover, politicization can distort antitrust law’s purpose, transforming it into a tool for partisan objectives rather than a guardian of fair competition intended to serve the greater public interest.
Antitrust law is intended to promote fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices, not advance specific political agendas nor regulate purely social or environmental problems.
Do you expect to see more divergence or harmonization between antitrust enforcers in the coming years?
The global antitrust landscape is poised for a shake-up. Interconnected markets and digital platforms have created a perfect storm of conflicting approaches to enforcement, with the European Union’s consumer-centric stance likely to clash with more laissez-faire jurisdictions.
This divergence will be further complicated by the rising politicization noted above, leading to potentially inconsistent decisions and a fragmented regulatory environment. Global businesses, and especially tech giants, may face a bewildering array of regulatory regimes as a result, each with its own rules and expectations. I’ll be monitoring this trend closely, continuing to support our clients as they navigate an increasingly complex web of regulations and enforcement approaches.
San Francisco 
