Back to levers

Competition: Minimum Viable Rulebook

Lever | Market contestability

Tags: Levers | Competition | Rulebook | Enforcement

Competition: Minimum Viable Rulebook

Type: Lever

(Thin rules. Thick enforcement.)

One-sentence framing

We back hustle and innovation. We reject cheating and lock-in.

Why this exists

Competition keeps prices honest. When markets concentrate, people face take-it-or-leave-it terms and the monthly squeeze rises.

The objective is not maximal legal complexity. The objective is a short rulebook that makes cheating expensive and entry easier.

Design principle

Make rules simple for most actors, strict for powerful actors, and fast enough to matter.

Core prohibitions

  1. Sustained predatory pricing where recoupment is plausible
  2. Exclusionary contracts that foreclose meaningful entry
  3. Mergers/roll-ups that materially reduce contestability
  4. Platform self-preferencing in dominant markets

Pro-entry requirements

  1. Data portability and interoperability in dominant-platform contexts
  2. Transparent, standardized all-in pricing in essential markets
  3. Basic decision visibility where dominant actors use scoring, ranking, routing, or other high-impact systems to shape access

Housing makes rule 6 concrete: advertised rent should mean the full recurring price, not rent plus a pile of mandatory fees discovered after the application is paid. In essential markets, price clarity is a basic anti-rigging rule.

Transportation makes the same rule concrete from another angle: all-in vehicle pricing, explicit financing markups, and standardized fee labels are anti-captivity rules in a market people often need to keep a job.

In captive or semi-captive systems, rule 7 matters just as much: if a landlord-screening vendor, insurer, platform, or dominant intermediary can shape access through opaque scoring or routing, the affected person needs enough reason and record access to challenge the outcome.

Enforcement design

  1. Injunction-first action where credible exclusionary harm is ongoing
  2. Disgorgement and meaningful damages when violations are proven
  3. Proportional compliance obligations (higher duties for dominant firms)

In housing or similar essential markets, higher duties can include retaining pricing records, disclosing pricing-software vendors, and facing stricter review when local ownership concentration gets high enough to weaken practical choice.

Healthcare and education add the same lesson in different form: when intermediaries shape life-critical choices, record retention, outcome disclosure, and auditable contract structures are not overkill. They are the minimum conditions for meaningful oversight.

Simplicity guardrails

  • sunset and review major provisions periodically
  • publish competition dashboards (entry, concentration, pricing indicators)
  • prefer structural tests where possible
  • keep reporting burden minimal for small actors

What this is not

This is not blanket price control, anti-profit policy, incumbent protection, or bureaucracy for its own sake.

Why this lowers the squeeze

Contestable markets reduce extraction pressure, improve service quality, and lower trapped-household stress.

Back to levers