
Associate Prof @VU_Law • Faculty Affiliate @CodeXStanford • Founder Stanford #ComputationalAntitrust project | @NetworkLawRev | Scaling Theory podcast • 🎾 🏃
#Antitrust #FrenchUniversalist
Joined November 2012
- Tweets12.6K
- Following810
- Followers11.1K
- Likes26.9K
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
On @cornell_tech campus yesterday. Great cohort of students! law-tech-econ.github.io
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
The CCP's Bid-Rigging Detection System (BRDS) features in Computational Antitrust Worldwide: Fifth Cross-Agency Report, published by Stanford Computational Antitrust
#CCP #BidRigging #ArtificialIntelligence #PublicProcurement #CompetitionLaw #CartelDetection #Stanford
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
I coded every rule in EU digital law that fixes what a firm may charge for data, access, a service or a procedure: 244 rules in 34 laws.
161 set the price at zero. Cost-based, “reasonable”, FRAND and capped prices share the rest.
New empirical work: thecompetitionsystem.substac…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
NEW PAPER: Five years ago, #computationalantitrust was mostly an idea. Today, the agencies that carry it, many of them in fact are now ahead of the academic literature. I tried to take stock of what they built, in the new CPI Antitrust Chronicle: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
NEW PAPER: I share a few tentative thoughts on where #computationalantitrust may go, including one key question: how much of antitrust should we be willing to automate? I also make a bet: cognitive science will become the defining terrain of computational antitrust. Grateful to CPI for the space.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
“People of the same trade seldom meet together […] the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” Smith, 1776.
This summer the frontier AI labs met, then asked Washington for an antitrust waiver. Would their pact survive EU law? My analysis, grounded in all @EUCourtPress cases.
thecompetitionsystem.substac…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
My Open Letter to Scott Alexander, following his challenge to meet in a debating duel. quillette.substack.com/p/an-…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
Ursula von der Leyen announced this week that everyone in the EU must use the official EU age verification app to verify their age before they can log into or post on social media and other digital services.
As an expert in online child safety, I'm here to expose the disinformation in each von der Leyen's statements. See below.
🇪🇺 The EU Kids Act is a pretext designed to enforce mandatory digital identity verification on everyone in Europe. The proposed legislation applies to any digital service featuring feeds, user generated content, or messaging:
Social media networks, video platforms, online gaming services, AI tools, and media streaming apps like Spotify. (@TimSweeneyEpic)
Under the proposal, digital services must enforce age restrictions across strict tiers. Tech companies must mandate age verification across all accounts to enforce these tiers legally.
When Australia introduced its social media ban, the government conceded it failed because platform level age checks weren’t reliable. They now reject age estimation as inadequate and shifted to demanding "robust" age checking.
💡 If you eliminate every unproven estimation method, you’re left with exactly 1 functional mechanism: identity verification. There's not other way to ensure age checking is "robust".
No government wants to admit citizens must prove their real identity just to access apps and basic streaming services like Spotify, so they hide behind the ambiguous phrase "robust age checking". This language is now used across Australia, the US, and Ireland to mandate identity checks while avoiding the public backlash of calling it what it is. I will research to see where else it’s being used.
Below is what Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament in Strasbourg along with my analsyis:
🇪🇺 "Today, much of this power has been taken out of the hands of parents... What our children need is time... But when a child has a smartphone, all of this is taken away."
💡 This framing falsely presents smartphones as uncontrollable. Apple and Google built free OS controls into iOS and Android settings, covering virtually every smartphone on the market.
These controls achieve every legitimate safety objective without collecting personal data or processing state credentials.
💡 Millions of parents use these parental controls to enforce screen time curfews, block app installations, and restrict communication.
💡 These settings operate at the device level. Teens can't bypass them when protected with a passcode.
To bypass this technical reality, the European Commission uses public grief to shut down logical analysis:
🇪🇺 "Day and night, parents see the costs, loss of sleep, anxiety, even self-harm, and in a growing number of cases, even fatal tragedies… a 14-year-old girl living in Belgium who took her life exactly one month ago, victim of bullying online... Honourable members, enough is enough."
💡 Citing personal tragedies replaces software engineering facts with emotional rhetoric. State laws and age gates don’t alter human behaviour or prevent online harassment. Regulators exploit grief to pass surveillance legislation without explaining how the underlying software mechanisms operate.
The Commission outlines specific age tiers to restrict access:
🇪🇺 "In sum, no social media under the age of 13. No personal account under the age of 15. That means from 13 to under 15, only mini accounts set up and supervised by parents or guardians with limited features and time restriction to one hour a day. And between 15 and 18, safe design will be an obligation for the platforms."
💡 Enforcing age tiers forces tech companies and service providers to rebuild their architecture around total access control. The must disable self-service account creation, purge unverified accounts, build supervised parental workflows, strip algorithmic feeds, and enforce strict session cutoffs.
💡 Social networks operate on open interaction algorithms that inherently expose people to unvetted content. Because software can’t dynamically filter these risks for minors, tech companies must block access for everyone until a person proves their real identity.
💡 It’s not just about social networks. They want the same bans for almost everything, including games and stream services. Even Spotify because it’s possible for customers to message people.
The Commission claims its proposed zero knowledge proof app protects personal privacy:
🇪🇺 "Age will be verified using EU certified tools like our age verification app. This app is built on zero knowledge proof. That means that the platform only learns one single thing, and that's whether you're old enough to allow access or not."
💡 This framing describes what an app or service receives while hiding what everyone must give up. A zero knowledge proof provides a mathematical confirmation, but that confirmation requires an authoritative issuer. Before the app generates a proof, a state approved entity must verify the person's real identity.
The Commission frames this shift as a victory against tech corporations:
🇪🇺 "I am aware that many perceive the power of Big Tech as overwhelming and impossible to roll back. I disagree... So we do not accept this. We are reversing the burden of proof. Now platforms will have to prove to us that they are safe. Because this is not about our minors accessing social media. It is about when and how we allow social media to access our minors."
💡 Social networks don’t access children; parents hand smartphones to children. Reversing the burden of proof forces everyone to verify their identity.
The European Commission confirmed the broader scope of this mandate:
🇪🇺 "We also know that not only minors are at risk. Addictive design, for example, are harming everyone. This is why we need a wider framework too, the Digital Fairness Act that we will propose in autumn."
🚨 Child safety is merely the initial wedge. The Digital Fairness Act expands state mandated identity verification to adults across all online services. Binding real identities to online activity permanently eliminates pseudonymous access, private communication, and democratic accountability.
🚨 Senior state officials and regulators know their demands have nothing to do with child safety. They work closely with tech companies and understand that iOS and Android already provide complete authority to restrict devices locally without collecting personal data. State officials deliberately ignore well established parental controls because they keep internet access under family control. Child safety is a public pretext.
🚨 Governments and regulators use child safety to establish mandatory identity verification across every app and digital service, eliminating online anonymity. When tech companies and state agencies link every social media post, private message, search term, geographic location, and financial transaction to a verified identity, they create a permanent digital dossier on every citizen with a global social graph that makes Cambridge Analytica look like a 2nd grade school science project.
💡 Binding people’s identity to daily activity enables predictive behavioural modelling too. By feeding identity data into automated predictive AI, governments, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and tech companies move beyond surveillance past behaviour. They can map political affiliations, predict individual actions, flag dissent before it occurs, and control public opinion at scale. Eliminating online anonymity ends free speech, private communication, and democratic accountability.
As Larry Ellison stated at Oracle’s Financial Analyst Meeting in 2024:
"Citizens will be on their best behaviour, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on".
🙏🏻 Share this to expose how governments use child safety as a false pretext to force mandatory digital identity verification on everyone.
paulfwalsh.substack.com/p/th…
Every day our children are engaging with some of the most sophisticated technology ever created.
Technology that was not created with their wellbeing in mind.
We need to set clear boundaries in the digital world.
This is what our KIDS Act will do ↓ xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1RJZzBnnb…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
30 autorités de concurrence partagent leurs travaux dans le 5e rapport annuel du Stanford Computational Antitrust Project, dont la conférence de lancement a eu lieu aujourd’hui à l'Autorité papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
NOW OUT: The only report on the use of AI in antitrust written by the agencies themselves. 30 of them this year, in their own words: which models they run, what they let them do, what they refuse to do... Here is the fifth edition of the Stanford #ComputationalAntitrust report, out today, free. shorturl.at/wmEaW
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
The 5th Annual Report of the Stanford Computational Antitrust Project is out today, bringing together contributions from 30 antitrust agencies worldwide papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.… 👇️
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
Booking/eTraveli is the first EU judgment where leveraging runs from a market a firm does not dominate into one it does. The Court called the direction irrelevant, in three paragraphs, no authority. Reverse leveraging is law: thecompetitionsystem.substac…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
Last month I wrote about how we can build a positive and safe future for everyone: meta.com/thefutureisforevery…
Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens.
The reality is:
- People won't want to use agents that are misaligned with them and that don't do what they ask, so labs have a strong natural incentive to make their models more aligned.
There is a lot of debate about slowing progress on capabilities until alignment catches up. My view is that trust and alignment are quickly becoming the most important capabilities that will differentiate agents and models. Any lab that doesn't focus on alignment will fall behind.
- Labs face significant liability if their models cause harm, so they have a strong incentive to prevent this as well.
Meta delayed shipping Muse for several months to focus on safety and security. We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would. We just did it as part of our day-to-day work because it was clearly the right thing for people and for us. I'm proud of the security foundations we've built.
- Engaging independent evaluators and advisors is industry best practice. MSL already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work. Other labs can just do this too. In general, it would be helpful for there to be a larger and more diverse ecosystem of evaluators.
- Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely. Meta has made this commitment and other labs can do this as well.
I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do.
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
A merger can now be blocked for a share gain of a few tenths of a per cent. Not because competition falls, but because it stays where it is. Two paragraphs, no citation, no precedent in ECJ judgments. Booking v Commission, dissected: thecompetitionsystem.substac…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
What if firms design acquisitions less around what they want to kill and more around what they want to keep? In a new paper, Selcukhan Ünekbas studies "keeper acquisitions" and tracks what GAFAM retained across 364 acquisitions.
networklawreview.org/keeper-…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted

Yann LeCun@ylecunSep 13
🇺🇸
United StatesConnected via United States Android AppAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
Replying to @PessimistsArc
Right. Dario was already claiming that GPT2 was too dangerous to open source back in 2019.
I made fun of them then.
Everyone should make fun of them now.
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
For two years I ran an experiment in my law classes: one group banned from ChatGPT, one left alone with it, one trained to use it.
Structured training won year one. By year two, the edge had mostly gone.
The paper is now fully accessible in OA (thanks to the Dutch Taverne amendment, which lets researchers share the published version six months after publication): papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
CONFERENCE: Very pleased to announce that the Autorité de la concurrence (@Adlc_) is kindly hosting our annual conference in Paris on 17 September, where we will unveil the fifth #ComputationalAntitrust report.
Join us in person or on Zoom. Register: law.stanford.edu/2026/09/01/….
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
The Minerva Papers, a new series by Jorge Padilla, opens today.
Paper #1, “Dominance in Motion,” proposes a structured R&D-intensity test. A market share records who is ahead, not how hard that firm must work to stay ahead.
networklawreview.org/dominan…
Thibault Schrepel retweeted
New series in the Network Law Review: The Minerva Papers, by Jorge Padilla (@CompassLexecon).
Concept note is up. It is delightful, a must read.
networklawreview.org/minerva…
First essay tomorrow.



















