Cost–Benefit of AI Regulation in the United States:Innovation, Competition, and Consumer Harm Under Alternative Legal Regimes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18644951Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, Regulation, Cost–benefit analysis, Innovation, Competition, Consumer protectionAbstract
The rapid diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has generated unprecedented economic opportunities alongside significant risks to consumers, competition, and social welfare. Policymakers in the United States face increasing pressure to regulate AI systems to mitigate potential harms, including algorithmic discrimination, market concentration, privacy violations, and safety failures. At the same time, concerns persist that overly restrictive regulation may stifle innovation, reduce competitive entry, and slow productivity growth.This paper conducts a comprehensive cost–benefit analysis of alternative AI regulatory regimes in the United States. It examines how different legal approaches—ranging from light-touch governance and sector-specific rules to comprehensive ex ante regulation—affect innovation incentives, market structure, and consumer harm. Drawing on economic theory, legal analysis, and emerging empirical evidence, the study evaluates the trade-offs inherent in AI regulation and identifies conditions under which regulatory intervention enhances social welfare.The analysis highlights that the welfare effects of AI regulation depend critically on design features, enforcement capacity, and market context. While targeted regulation can reduce consumer harm and promote fair competition, poorly calibrated rules risk entrenching incumbent firms and discouraging entry. The findings underscore the importance of adaptive, evidence-based regulatory frameworks that balance innovation with accountability in the evolving AI economy.
References
Rexhepi, B. R., Smajli, R., Morina, V., Kida, N., & Miftari, F. (2025). Socioeconomic and emotional dimensions of retiree welfare in Kosovo: The basic pension and implications for sustainable social policy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 20(9), 3647–3672. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.200903
Rexhepi, B. R., Murtezaj, I. M., Dauti, B., & Xhafa, H. (2024). Mitigating economic losses and prospects for the development of the energy sector in the Republic of Kosovo. Economics of Development, 23(3), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.57111/econ/3.2024.82
Rexhepi, B. R., Murtezaj, I. M., Dauti, B., & Xhaferi, B. S. (2025). Energy efficiency in the Western Balkans: The case of Kosovo. Grassroots Journal of Natural Resources, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.33002/nr2581.6853.080124
Rexhepi, B. R., Haziri, A., Kida, N., Rama, H. H., & Daci, E. (2025). The impact of human capital on the development of startup enterprises in Kosovo. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(5), 2277–2290. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7462
Rexhepi, B. R., & Daci, E. (2024). The role of management in microfinance institutions in Kosovo: A case study of the Dukagjini region. Quality – Access to Success, 25(202), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/25.202.22
Murtezaj, I. M., & Rexhepi, B. R. (2023). Accelerating values in shaping ethical leadership and its effect on organisational performance. Quality – Access to Success, 24(196), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/24.196.36
Mustafa, L., & Rexhepi, B. R. (2023). Taxes as a source of public monetary income in the Republic of Kosovo. Quality – Access to Success, 24(195). https://doi.org/10.47750/QAS/24.195.09
Rexhepi, B. R., & Murtezaj, I. M. (2024). Visa liberalisation and labour migration: Legal and economic implications for Kosovo. Social and Legal Studios, 7(2), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals2.2024.19
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). The wrong kind of artificial intelligence? The economics of automation and inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(1), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.34.1.125
Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/120.2.701
Arrow, K. J., Cropper, M. L., Eads, G. C., Hahn, R. W., Lave, L. B., Noll, R. G., Portney, P. R., Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V. K., & Stavins, R. N. (1996). Is there a role for benefit–cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science, 272(5259), 221–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.272.5259.221
Baker, J. B. (2019). The antitrust paradigm: Restoring a competitive economy. Harvard Law Review, 132(2), 215–293.
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and machine learning. MIT Press.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost–benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2021). The productivity J-curve: How intangibles complement general-purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1), 333–372. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20180345
Calo, R. (2017). Artificial intelligence policy: A primer and roadmap. UC Davis Law Review, 51(2), 399–435.
Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/466560
Donohue, J. J. (2019). Law, economics, and public policy. Stanford Law Review, 71(3), 555–612.
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). https://eur-lex.europa.eu
Glaeser, E. L., & Shleifer, A. (2003). The rise of the regulatory state. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003765888430
Goldfarb, A., Gans, J., & Agrawal, A. (2019). Prediction machines: The simple economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2002). Fairness versus welfare. Harvard University Press.
Khan, L. M. (2017). Amazon’s antitrust paradox. Yale Law Journal, 126(3), 710–805.
OECD. (2019). Artificial intelligence and public policy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/38d0fdb1-en
OECD. (2023). AI risk management and regulatory approaches. OECD Publishing.
Posner, R. A. (1974). Theories of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 5(2), 335–358.
Shapiro, C. (2019). Protecting competition in the American economy. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 66, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2019.04.009
Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Valuing life: Humanizing the regulatory state. University of Chicago Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2020). Too much information. MIT Press.
Tirole, J. (2017). Economics for the common good. Princeton University Press.
U.S. White House. (2022). Blueprint for an AI bill of rights. https://www.whitehouse.gov
Varian, H. R. (2019). Artificial intelligence, economics, and industrial organization. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109, 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20191002
Viscusi, W. K. (2018). Pricing lives: Guideposts for a safer society. Princeton University Press.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (6th ed.). Routledge.
World Economic Forum. (2023). Global AI governance report 2023. WEF.
Zerbe, R. O. (2008). Benefit–cost analysis. Edward Elgar.
Autor, D., Mindell, D., & Reynolds, E. (2020). The work of the future. MIT Press.
Stigler Committee on Digital Platforms. (2019). Final report. University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
FTC. (2023). Commercial surveillance and data security advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Trade Commission.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 John Donohue
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in Ege Scholar Journal (ESJ) are open access and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This licence permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided that appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the source, a link to the licence is provided, and any changes made are indicated.
The author(s) retain copyright for their work. As long as they meet the conditions of CC BY 4.0, users are free to download, read, copy, print, and redistribute the content without prior permission.
Third-party material included in an article (e.g., figures, tables, images) is covered by the same licence unless otherwise stated in the credit line. If material is not included under the article’s licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation, permission must be obtained from the copyright holder.
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
