*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to New Westlaw.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Competition and Consumer Law<\/em> (Volume 31 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n Loosening the Handbrake: Competition Law and Sustainability Initiatives<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Haydn Flack and Paul Schoff<\/p>\n The world is facing a climate emergency and a rapid loss of biodiversity. Responding to the challenge presented by a changing climate requires a collective response from governments, business and individuals. While competition law is not the solution, businesses are increasingly seeking to understand the implications of competition law for sustainability agreements and collective action directed at achieving sustainability outcomes. This article explores the evolving response of policy makers and regulators to the interaction between competition law and sustainability and the growing dialogue in other countries that remains in its infancy in Australia. This article offers some suggestions as to what practitioners and regulators in Australia can do to ensure that competition law does not operate as a handbrake on collective action directed at achieving sustainability outcomes, particularly in response to a rapidly changing climate.<\/p>\n Amazon, Antitrust, and a First Amendment Paradox<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Michael Gvozdenovic<\/p>\n The intersection between digital platforms and the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution <\/em>is an area of law ripe for consideration. When Twitter removed then-President Donald Trump from its social media platform, Justice Thomas observed, \u201cthe right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions\u201d: Biden v Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, 141 S Ct 1220, 1221, 1227 (2021). This article seeks to answer one of these interesting and important questions: whether and how antitrust law can be used to regulate the monopoly power that digital platforms hold over \u201cfree speech\u201d in a manner consistent with the First Amendment.<\/p>\n AUTHORISATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Rosannah Healy<\/em><\/p>\n ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Bill Keane<\/em><\/p>\n RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Julie Clarke<\/em><\/p>\n CASE NOTES \u2013 Editor: Christopher C Hodgekiss SC<\/em><\/p>\n LANDMARKS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Christopher Hodgekiss SC<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM AFRICA<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Lesley Morphet<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM LATIN AMERICA<\/a> \u2013 Editors: Omar Guerrero Rodr\u00edguez and Mart\u00edn Michaus Fern\u00e1ndez<\/em><\/p>\n ODDS & ENDS<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia \u2013 AJCCL Vol 31 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n