UNDER OUR FIRST collusion scenario, Messenger, humans are the masters who agree to collude and map out the cartel. The computer algorithms are the messenger, which the cartel members program to help effectuate the cartel and monitor and punish any deviation from the cartel agreement.

From an enforcement perspective, this is a no-brainer. Competition law’s concept of agreement can be applied straightforwardly. Prosecutors, with sufficient evidence of the humans’ agreement or concerted practice, will have little difficulty in condemning the use of computers to facilitate the cartel.

=== Ниже по тексту ===

The Empty Enforcement Tool Kit

Not only is the harm greater under Digital Eye, but the illegality is murkier. We are far removed from the first two scenarios, Messenger and Hub and Spoke, where algorithms helped humans collude. We are even beyond Predictable Agent, where humans did not expressly collude, but knew that tacit collusion was the likely outcome if each adopted profit-maximizing pricing algorithms. Although our third scenario presented greater legal uncertainty, at least the prosecutors had evidence of anticompetitive intent. In our last scenario, humans are further detached from the algorithms’ tactical and strategic decisions. They don’t know whether, when, or for how long the algorithms have been tacitly colluding. There is no evidence of anticompetitive intent. We can no longer assume that humans intended to create the conditions for tacit collusion.

=== Еще ниже по тексту ===

Nor is there express collusion among the computers to limit competition through “agreement” or concerted practice; instead, computer algorithms reduce or remove the degree of strategic uncertainty in the marketplace, evolve toward a common set of predictable strategies, and promote even greater transparency.

Lacking evidence of either an anticompetitive agreement or intent, prosecutors now have few, if any, tools to challenge the tacit collusion. Recall that the phenomenon of tacit collusion reflects a rational unilateral reaction to market characteristics and in itself is not illegal. When we discussed the Predictable Agent scenario, we considered whether the intentional creation of a market environment that supports interdependence between sellers could be condemned. We noted that the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act was contingent on anticompetitive motive or intent.

см. http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authority

"... The Commission may “prosecute any inquiry necessary to its duties..."

Не совсем понятно, правда, зачем авторы, так сказать, "разнообразят речь", ну да ладно...

К тому же в оригинале, помимо prosecutor'ов, водятся еще и enforcer'ы.

см. http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/06/ftc-aids-criminal-prosecutions

" The FTC is a civil law enforcement agency. That means that, while we can’t put people in jail, many of our partners can and do, including the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, and other federal, state, and local criminal law enforcers. When FTC cases include behavior that also violates criminal laws, we let criminal prosecutors know"

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/361413

"....FTC and state prosecutors will ask a U.S. district court to rectify the situation, which could include forcing Facebook to divest both properties...."

The mission of the Antitrust Division is the promotion and maintenance of competition in the American economy. Private anticompetitive conduct is subject to criminal and civil actions under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, statutes that prohibit conspiracies in restraint of trade, monopolization, and anticompetitive mergers. Through participation in Executive Branch activities and in regulatory and legislative processes, the Division seeks to ensure that Government action is procompetitive or not unnecessarily anticompetitive. Through its own litigation, amicus filings, and in a variety of other public forums, the Division also seeks to guide the advancement of antitrust jurisprudence.

The primary functions and goals of the Division include:

• General criminal and civil enforcement of the Federal antitrust laws and other laws relating to the protection of competition and the prohibition of restraints of trade and monopolization, including investigation of possible violations of antitrust laws, conduct of grand jury proceedings, issuance and enforcement of civil investigative demands, and prosecution of all litigation that arises out of such civil and criminal investigations.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

“PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHEN THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND RESTORE COMPETITION ONLINE”

October 1, 2020

STATEMENT OF

ABBOTT B. LIPSKY, JR.

/.../

In general, I believe that our current federal antitrust statutes and enforcement institutions are adequate to address competition issues arising in the digital economy. The principal antitrust statutes – the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act – are comprehensive in scope, prohibiting agreements “in restraint of trade”, “monopolization” and conspiracies and attempts to monopolize, as well as structural transactions (mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures) whose effect “may be substantially to lessen competition” or “to tend to create 2 a monopoly” in any line of commerce. The enforcement methods available to challenge antitrust violations include criminal and/or civil prosecution by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, civil and administrative proceedings by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as civil suits by any person injured (or threatened with injury) by an antitrust violation. States also have standing to enforce provisions of federal antitrust law (as well as their own antitrust statutes), and there is frequent coordination between state and federal antitrust enforcers.

В этом отрывке для описания деятельности Antitrust Division и FTC, определенно, используется разная лексика...

1. Administrative Adjudication If the respondent elects to contest the charges, the complaint is adjudicated before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in a trial-type proceeding conducted under the Commission’s Rules of Practice. The prosecution of a matter is conducted by FTC “complaint counsel,” who are staff from the relevant bureau or a regional office. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ issues an “initial decision” setting forth his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommending either entry of an order to cease and desist or dismissal of the complaint. Either complaint counsel or respondent, or both, may appeal the initial decision to the full Commission. In limited cases, including certain merger cases, the Commission’s rules provide that the appeal is automatic.

Да и подчеркивается здесь не расследование (антимонопольных дел), а судебное преследование (нарушителей антимонопольного законодательства).

И какие тут могут быть варианты?

1. Борцы с монополиями (довольно неконкретно).

2. Организаторы судебного преследования.

3. Лица и органы, занимающиеся судебным преследованием по антимонопольным делам (очень длинно).

"Борцы с монополиями" - просто газетный фельетон)))

Правда, в России выражение "сторона обвинения", насколько я понимаю, предполагает уголовное судопроизводство...

FTC занимается антимонопольными делами только если они создают помехи для свободной торговли между штатами. Причем обычно это делается путем административных разбирательств.

DOJ (более конкретно, Antitrust Division) с монополистами судится на основании законов Шермана, Клейтона и Робинсона-Пэтмана. Причем в зависимости от деталей, судилки могут быть как гражданскими, так и уголовными.

Насчет prosecute, у этого слова есть и "несудебные" значения ("continue with (a course of action) with a view to its completion"). Например, деятельность патентного поверенного называется "patent prosecution". Если даже выражение "to prosecute a war"...

Вы уверены, что здесь "несудебный" случай?

Пардон, почему Вы так решили? Авторы (их двое), хотя и занимаются антимонопольным правом, не имеют непосредственного отношения ни к FTC, ни к Antitrust Division of DoJ.

просто такой собирательный образ