On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, a case that could drastically alter the securities fraud landscape.  Here are a few thoughts on the issues at stake in the case and a cautious prediction about how the Court will rule.

First, some quick background for the uninitiated.  The broadest anti-fraud provision of the securities laws, Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, forbids the use of “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [Securities and Exchange] Commission may prescribe….”  The Commission’s Rule 10b-5, then, makes it illegal “to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”

Although Section 10(b) doesn’t expressly entitle victims of securities fraud to sue for damages, the Supreme Court long ago inferred a private right of action to enforce the provision.  The elements of that judicially created private right of action are: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant, (2) scienter (i.e., mental culpability worse than mere negligence) on the part of the defendant, (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security, (4) the plaintiff’s reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission, (5) economic loss by the plaintiff, and (6) loss causation (i.e., the fraud, followed by revelation of the truth, was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s investment loss).

For most individual investors, the economic loss resulting from any instance of securities fraud (and, thus, the potential recovery) is not enough to justify the costs of bringing a lawsuit.  Accordingly, 10b-5 suits seem like an appropriate context for class actions.  The elements of the judicially created cause of action, however, make class certification difficult.  That is because most securities fraud class actions would proceed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that common issues of law or fact in all the plaintiffs’ cases predominate over plaintiff-specific issues.  Because the degree to which any individual investor relied upon a misrepresentation (element 4) requires proof of lots of investor-specific facts (How did you learn of the misrepresentation?, How did it influence your investment decision?, etc.), the reliance element would seem to preclude Rule 10b-5 class actions.

In Basic v. Levinson, a 1988 Supreme Court decision from which three justices were recused, a four-justice majority endorsed a doctrine that has permitted Rule 10b-5 class actions to proceed, despite the reliance element.  The so-called “fraud on the market” doctrine creates a rebuttable presumption that an investor who traded in an efficient stock market following a fraudulent disclosure (but before the truth was revealed) “relied” on that disclosure, even if she didn’t see or hear about it.  The theoretical basis for the fraud on the market doctrine is the semi-strong version of the Efficient Capital Markets Hypothesis (ECMH), which posits that securities prices almost instantly incorporate all publicly available information about the underlying company, making it impossible to earn above-normal returns by engaging in “fundamental analysis” (i.e., study of publicly available information about a listed company).  The logic of the fraud on the market doctrine is that publicly available misinformation affects a security’s price, upon which an investor normally relies when she makes her investment decision.  Thus, any investor who makes her investment decision on the basis of the stock’s price “relies” on the “ingredients” of that price, including the misinformation at issue.

In light of this logic, the Basic Court reasoned that a defendant could rebut the presumption of reliance by severing either the link between the misinformation and the stock’s price or the link between the stock’s price and the investor’s decision.  To sever the former link, the defendant would need to show that key market makers were privy to the truth, so that the complained of lie could not have affected the market price of the stock (in other words, there was “truth on the market”…great name for a blog, no?).  To sever the latter link, the defendant would need to show that the plaintiff investor made her investment decision for some reason unrelated to the stock’s price—say, because she needed to divest herself of the stock for political reasons.

Basic thus set up a scheme in which the class plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the stock at issue traded in an efficient market.  If she does so, her (and similarly situated class members’) reliance on the misinformation at issue is presumed.  The defendant then bears the burden of rebutting the presumption by showing either that the misrepresentation did not give rise to a price distortion (probably because the truth was on the market) or that the individual investor would have traded even if she knew the statement was false (i.e., her decision was not based on the stock’s price).

The Halliburton appeal presents two questions.  First, should the Court overrule Basic and jettison the rebuttable presumption of reliance when the stock at issue is traded in an efficient market.  Second, at the class certification stage, should the defendant be permitted to prevent the reliance presumption from arising by presenting evidence that the alleged misrepresentation failed to distort the market price of the stock at issue.

With respect to the first question, the Court could go three ways.  First, it could maintain the status quo rule that 10b-5 plaintiffs, in order to obtain the reliance presumption, must establish only that the stock at issue was traded in an efficient market.  Second, it could overrule Basic wholesale and hold that a 10b-5 plaintiff must establish actual, individualized reliance (i.e., show that she knew of the misrepresentation and that it influenced her investment decision).  Third, the Court could tweak Basic by holding that plaintiffs may avail themselves of the presumption of reliance only if they establish, at the class certification stage, that the complained of
misrepresentation actually distorted the market price of the stock at issue.

My guess, which I held before oral argument and seems consistent with the justices’ questioning on Wednesday, is that the Court will take the third route.  There are serious problems with the status quo.  First, it rests squarely upon the semi-strong version of the ECMH, which has come under fire in recent years.  While no one doubts that securities prices generally incorporate publicly available information, and very quickly, a number of studies purporting to document the existence of arbitrage opportunities have challenged the empirical claim that every bit of publicly available information is immediately incorporated into the price of every security traded in an efficient market.  Indeed, the winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics split on this very question.   I doubt this Supreme Court will want to be perceived as endorsing a controversial economic theory, especially when doing so isn’t necessary to maintain some sort of reliance presumption (given the third possible holding discussed above).

A second problem with the status quo is that it places an unreasonable burden on courts deciding whether to certify a class.  The threshold question for the fraud on the market presumption—is the security traded in an efficient market?—is just too difficult for non-specialist courts.  How does one identify an “efficient market”?  One court said the relevant factors are:  “(1) the stock’s average weekly trading volume; (2) the number of securities analysts that followed and reported on the stock; (3) the presence of market makers and arbitrageurs; (4) the company’s eligibility to file a Form S-3 Registration Statement; and (5) a cause-and-effect relationship, over time, between unexpected corporate events or financial releases and an immediate response in stock price.”  Others have supplemented these so-called “Cammer factors” with a few others: market capitalization, the bid/ask spread, float, and analyses of autocorrelation.  No one can say, though, how each factor should be assessed (e.g., How many securities analysts must follow the stock? How much autocorrelation is permissible?  How large may the bid-ask spread be?).  Nor is there guidance on how to balance factors when some weigh in favor of efficiency and others don’t.  It’s a crapshoot.

The status quo approach of presuming investor reliance if the plaintiff establishes an efficient market for the company’s stock is also troubling because the notion of a “market” for any single company’s stock is theoretically unsound.  An economic market consist of all products that are, from a buyer’s perspective, reasonably interchangeable.  For example, Evian bottled water (spring water from the Alps) is a very close substitute for Fiji water (spring water from the Fiji Islands) and is probably in the same product market.  From an investor’s perspective, there are scores of close substitutes for the stock of any particular company.  Such substitutes would include all other stocks that offer the same package of financial attributes (risk, expected return, etc.).  It makes little sense, then, to speak of a “market” consisting of a single company’s stock, and basing the presumption of reliance on establishment of an “efficient market” in one company’s stock is somewhat nonsensical.

With respect to the second possible route for the Halliburton Court—overturning Basic in its entirety and requiring individualized proof of actual reliance—proponents emphasize that the private right of action to enforce Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 is judicially created.  The Supreme Court now disfavors implied rights of action and, to avoid stepping on Congress’s turf, requires that they stick close to the statute at issue.  In particular, the Court has said that determining the elements of a private right of action requires “historical reconstruction.”  With respect to the Rule 10b-5 action, the Court tries “to infer how the 1934 Congress would have addressed the issue had the 10b-5 action been included as an express provision of the 1934 Act,” and to do that, it consults “the express causes of action” in the Act and borrows from the “most analogous” one.  In this case, that provision is Section 18(a), which is the only provision in the Exchange Act authorizing damages actions for misrepresentations affecting secondary, aftermarket trading (i.e., trading after a public offering of the stock at issue).  Section 18(a) requires a plaintiff to establish actual “eyeball” reliance—i.e., that she bought the security with knowledge of the false statement and relied upon it in making her investment decision.  There is thus a powerful legal argument in favor of a full-scale overturning of Basic.

As much as I’d like for the Court to take that route (because I believe Rule 10b-5 class actions create far greater social cost than benefit), I don’t think the Court will go there.  Overruling Basic to require eyeball reliance in Rule 10b-5 actions would be perceived as an activist, “pro-business” decision:  activist because Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing Rule 10b-5 actions and has left the fraud on the market doctrine untouched, and pro-business because it would insulate corporate managers from 10b-5 class actions.

Now, both of those characterizations are wrong.  The chief post-Basic legislation involving Rule 10b-5, the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, specifically stated (in Section 203) that “[n]othing in this Act shall be deemed to … ratify any implied private right of action.”  As Justices Alito and Scalia emphasized at oral argument, the PSLRA expressly declined to put a congressional imprimatur on the judicially created Rule 10b-5 cause of action, so a Court decision modifying Rule 10b-5’s elements would hardly be “activist.” Nor would the decision be “pro-business” and “anti-investor.”  The fact is, the vast majority of Rule 10b-5 class actions are settled on terms where the corporation pays the bulk of the settlement, which largely goes to class counsel.  The corporation, of course, is spending investors’ money.  All told, then, investors as a class pay a lot for, and get very little from, Rule 10b-5 class actions.  A ruling eviscerating such actions would better be characterized as pro-investor.

Sadly, our financially illiterate news media cannot be expected to understand all this and would, if Basic were overturned, fill the newsstands and airwaves with familiar stories of how the Roberts Court continues on its activist, pro-business rampage.  And even more sadly, at least one key justice whose vote would be needed for a Basic overruling, has proven himself to be exceedingly concerned with avoiding the appearance of “activism.”  A wholesale overruling of Basic, then, is unlikely.

That leaves the third route, modifying Basic to require that class plaintiffs first establish a price distortion resulting from the complained of misrepresentation.  I have long suspected that this is where the Court will go, and the justices’ questioning on Wednesday suggests this is how many (especially Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy) are leaning.  From the Court’s perspective, there are several benefits to this approach.

First, it would allow the Court to avoid passing judgment on the semi-strong ECMH.  The status quo approach—prove an efficient market and we’ll presume reliance because of an inevitable price effect—really seems to endorse the semi-strong ECMH.  An approach requiring proof of price distortion, by contrast, doesn’t.  It may implicitly assume that most pieces of public information are instantly incorporated into securities prices, but no one really doubts that.

Second, the third route would substitute a fairly manageable inquiry (Did the misrepresentation occasion a price effect?) for one that is both difficult and theoretically problematic (Is the market for the company’s stock efficient?).

Third, the approach would allow the Court to eliminate a number of the most meritless securities fraud class actions without appearing overly “activist” and “pro-business.”  If class plaintiffs can’t show a price effect from a complained of misrepresentation or omission, then their claim is really frivolous and ought to go away immediately.  The status quo would permit certification of the class, despite the absence of a price effect, as long as class counsel could demonstrate an efficient market using the amorphous and unreliable factors set forth above.  And once the class is certified, the plaintiffs have tons of settlement leverage, even when they don’t have much of a claim.  In short, the price distortion criterion is a far better screen than the market efficiency screen courts currently utilize.  For all these reasons, I suspect the Court will decide not to overrule Basic but to tweak it to require a threshold showing of price distortion.

If it does so, then the second question at issue in Halliburton—may the defendant, at the class certification stage, present evidence of an absence of price distortion?—goes away.  If the plaintiff must establish price distortion to attain class certification, then due process would require that the defendant be allowed to poke holes in the plaintiff’s certification case.

So that’s my prediction on Halliburton.  We shall see.  Whatever the outcome, we’ll have lots to discuss in June.

Commissioner Josh Wright’s dissenting statement in the Federal Trade Commission’s recent McWane proceeding is a must-read for anyone interested in the law and economics of exclusive dealing. Wright dissented from the Commission’s holding that McWane Inc.’s “full support” policy constituted unlawful monopolization of the market for domestic pipe fittings.

Under the challenged policy, McWane, the dominant producer with a 45-50% share of the market for domestic pipe fittings, would sell its products only to distributors that “fully supported” its fittings by carrying them exclusively.  There were two exceptions: where McWane products were not readily available, and where the distributor purchased a McWane rival’s pipe along with its fittings.  A majority of the Commission ruled that McWane’s policy constituted illegal exclusive dealing.  Commissioner Wright agreed that the policy amounted to exclusive dealing, but he concluded that the complainant had failed to prove that the exclusive dealing constituted unreasonably exclusionary conduct in violation of Sherman Act Section 2.

The first half of Wright’s 52-page dissent is an explanatory tour de force.  Wright first explains how and why the Supreme Court rethought its originally inhospitable rules on “vertical restraints” (i.e., trade-limiting agreements between sellers at different levels of the distribution system, such as manufacturers and distributors).  Recognizing that most such restraints enhance overall market output even if they incidentally injure some market participants, courts now condition liability on harm to competition—that is, to overall market output.  Mere harm to an individual competitor is not enough.

Wright then explains how this “harm to competition” requirement manifests itself in actions challenging exclusive dealing.  Several of the antitrust laws—Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act—could condemn arrangements in which a seller will deal only with those who purchase its brand exclusively.  Regardless of the particular statute invoked, though, there can be no antitrust liability absent either direct or indirect evidence of anticompetitive (not just anti-competitor) effect.  Direct evidence entails some showing that the exclusive dealing at issue led to lower market output and/or higher prices than would otherwise have prevailed.  Indirect evidence usually involves showings that (1) the exclusive dealing at issue foreclosed the defendant’s rivals from a substantial share of available marketing opportunities; (2) those rivals were therefore driven (or held) below minimum efficient scale (MES), so that their per-unit production costs were held artificially high; and (3) the defendant thereby obtained the ability to price higher than it would have absent the exclusive dealing.

The McWane complainant, Star Pipe Products, Ltd., sought to discharge its proof burden using indirect evidence. It asserted that its per-unit costs would have been lower if it owned a domestic foundry, but it maintained that its 20% market share did not entail sales sufficient to justify foundry construction.  Thus, Star concluded, McWane’s usurping of rivals’ potential sales opportunities through its exclusive dealing policy held Star below MES, raised Star’s per-unit costs, and enhanced McWane’s ability to raise prices.  Voila!  Anticompetitive harm.

Commissioner Wright was not convinced that Star had properly equated MES with sales sufficient to justify foundry construction.  The only record evidence to that effect—evidence the Commission deemed sufficient—was Star’s self-serving testimony that it couldn’t justify building a foundry at its low level of sales and would be a more formidable competitor if it could do so.  Countering that testimony were a couple of critical bits of actual market evidence.

First, the second-largest domestic seller of pipe fittings, Sigma Corp., somehow managed to enter the domestic fittings market and capture a 30% market share (as opposed to Star’s 20%), without owning any of its own production facilities.  Sigma’s entire business model was built on outsourcing, yet it managed to grow sales more than Star.  This suggests that foundry ownership – and, thus, a level of sales sufficient to support foundry construction – may not be necessary for efficient scale in this industry.

Moreover, Star’s own success in the domestic pipe fittings market undermined its suggestion that MES can be achieved only upon reaching a sales level sufficient to support a domestic foundry.  Star entered the domestic pipe fittings market in 2009, quickly grew to a 20% market share, and was on pace to continue growth when the McWane action commenced.  As Commissioner Wright observed, “for Complaint Counsel’s view of MES to make sense on the facts that exist in the record, Star would have to be operating below MES, becoming less efficient over time as McWane’s Full Support Program further raised the costs of distribution, and yet remaining in the market and growing its business.  Such a position strains credulity.”

Besides failing to establish what constitutes MES in the domestic pipe fittings industry, Commissioner Wright asserted, complainant Star also failed to prove the degree of foreclosure occasioned by McWane’s full support program.

First, both Star and the Commission reasoned that all McWane sales to distributors subject to its full support program had been “foreclosed,” via exclusive dealing, to McWane’s competitors.  That is incorrect.  The sales opportunities foreclosed by McWane’s full support policy were those that would have been made to other sellers but for the policy.  In other words, if a distributor, absent the full support policy, would have purchased 70 units from McWane and five from Star but, because of the full support program, purchased all 75 from McWane, the full support program effectively foreclosed Star from five sales opportunities, not 75.  By failing to focus on “contestable” sales—i.e., sales other than those that would have been made to McWane even absent the full support program—Star and the Commission exaggerated the degree of foreclosure resulting from McWane’s exclusive dealing.

Second, neither Star nor the Commission made any effort to quantify the sales made to McWane’s rivals under the two exceptions to McWane’s full support policy.  Such sales were obviously not foreclosed to McWane’s rivals, but both Star and the Commission essentially ignored them.  So, for example, if a distributor that carried McWane’s products (and was thus subject to the full support policy) purchased 70 domestic fittings from McWane and 30 from other producers pursuant to one of the full support program’s exceptions, Star and the Commission counted 100 foreclosed sales opportunities.  Absent information about the number of distributor purchases under exceptions to the full support program, it is simply impossible to assess the degree of foreclosure occasioned by the policy.

In sum, complainant Star – who bore the burden of establishing an anticompetitive (i.e., market output-reducing) effect of the exclusive dealing at issue – failed to show how much foreclosure McWane’s full support program actually created and to produce credible evidence (other than its own self-serving testimony) that the program raised its costs by holding it below MES.  The most Star showed was harm to a competitor – not harm to competition, a prerequisite to liability based on exclusive dealing.      

In addition, several other pieces of evidence suggested that McWane’s exclusive dealing was not anticompetitive.  First, the full support program did not require a commitment of exclusivity for any period of time. Distributors purchasing from McWane could begin carrying rival brands at any point (though doing so might cause McWane to refuse to sell to them in the future).  Courts have often held that short-duration exclusive dealing arrangements are less troubling than longer-term agreements; indeed, a number of courts presume the legality of exclusive dealing contracts of a year or less.  McWane’s policy was of no, not just short, duration.

Second, entry considerations suggested an absence of anticompetitive harm here.  If entry into a market is easy, there is little need to worry that exclusionary conduct will produce market power.  Once the monopolist begins to exercise its power by reducing output and raising price, new entrants will appear on the scene, driving price and output back to competitive levels.  The recent and successful entry of both Star and Sigma, who collectively gained about half the total market share within a short period of time, suggested that entry into the domestic pipe fittings market is easy.

Finally, evidence of actual market performance indicated that McWane’s exclusive dealing policies did not generate anticompetitive effect.  McWane enforced its full support program for the first year of Star’s participation in the domestic fittings market, but not thereafter.  Star’s growth rate, however, was identical before and after McWane stopped enforcing the program.  According to Commissioner Wright, “Neither Complaint Counsel nor the Commission attempt[ed] to explain how growth that is equal with and without the Full Support Program is consistent with Complaint Counsel’s theory of harm that the Program raised Star’s costs of distribution and impaired competition.  The most plausible inference to draw from these particular facts is that the Full Support Program had almost no impact on Star’s ability to enter and grow its business, which, under the case law, strongly counsels against holding that McWane’s conduct was exclusionary.”

***

Because antitrust exists to protect competition, not competitors, an antitrust complainant cannot base a claim of monopolization on the mere fact that its business was injured by the defendant’s conduct.  By the same token, a party complaining of unreasonably exclusionary conduct also ought not to prevail simply because it made self-serving assertions that it would have had more business but for the defendant’s action and would have had lower per-unit costs if it had more business.  If the antitrust is to remain a consumer-focused body of law, claims like Star’s should fail.  Hopefully, Commissioner Wright’s FTC colleagues will eventually see that point.

The following is the third in a series of guest posts by David Balto about the FTC’s McWane case.

A particularly unsettling aspect of the FTC’s case against McWane is the complaint counsel’s heavy (and seemingly exclusive) reliance on structural factors to prove its case. The FTC has little or no direct evidence of price communications and no econometric evidence suggesting collusion, and has instead spent a good deal of time trying to show that the market is susceptible to collusion. What makes the FTC’s administrative case so unsettling is that the structural factors they rely on are true of any oligopoly and, in federal courts across the country, are insufficient as a matter of law to raise an inference of conspiracy.

When there are a small number of actors in a market they naturally act and react differently than markets with many competitors. As an example, imagine it’s the final chess tournament between two capable opponents. At one point of the game one player makes a move knowing that it will likely force her opponent to make a move that will later work to her advantage. The opponent makes this move and the referees stop the match. The referees say the opponent moved in a way that was advantageous to the player who proves this game is rigged. The referees further explain that because there are only the two of them playing and because they know each other that this game of chess is susceptible to cheating. Because the game is susceptible to cheating, the referees declare, the evidence that the opponent made a move advantageous to player is all the evidence the referees need to stop the game.

Obviously the situation described in the chess example would never occur. It is common in two party games for one player to force another player into taking a particular move. No referee would stop a match with such flimsy evidence. However, the FTC seeks to find McWane liable of collusion under similar circumstances.

Ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF) are commodities and the DIPF market is an oligopoly with only three major players:  McWane, Sigma and Star. Each DIPF supplier constantly tries to monitor its rivals’ prices because if a competitor undercuts it, its sales volume will fall. Each DIPF supplier is also susceptible to rising costs caused by market conditions and has similar motivations to raise prices to account for rising costs. Complaint counsel argues that these characteristics make the fittings market “susceptible” or “conducive” to collusion, which shows a motive to conspire.  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not find complaint counsel’s argument persuasive.

The collusion case against McWane came down to whether there was an agreement among competitors to curtail project pricing. As such, the ALJ sought to determine whether or not the evidence shows:  (1) a prior understanding among the Suppliers, including McWane, that each Supplier would curtail Project Pricing; (2) a commitment to one another to curtail Project Pricing; (3) a restricted freedom of action and sense of obligation to one another to curtail Project Pricing, and (4) an actual reduction in the amount or level of Project Pricing. Consistent with prevailing federal court caselaw, the ALJ demanded evidence indicating an “actual, manifest agreement” and found that evidence lacking.

Unfortunately for complaint counsel, the evidence it put on is also suggestive of interdependence and conscious parallelism among oligopolists, which are not violations of the law. It was in McWane’s interests to get its competitors to curtail project pricing so it could better determine the real prices it needed to “further its own legitimate business interests of increasing volume . . . in order to beat prices being offered by its competitors, which is a procompetitive purpose.”. McWane used its position as a price leader to make a move that it hoped would force McWane’s competitors to reduce project pricing. Despite large raw material cost increases, McWane refused to raise published list prices to the high levels Sigma and Star had announced, and it set its regional multipliers in such a way that would pressure those competitors to match its lower multipliers and, it hoped, to reduce their project pricing.

McWane’s strategy did not require or lead to an “actual, manifest agreement” on multipliers or project pricing, as complaint counsel alleges. The ALJ found that “If Sigma and Star declined to adopt McWane’s new multipliers, the new multipliers could be easily withdrawn or revised.” The ALJ determined that McWane’s move was not irrational because McWane could still easily react based on the behavior of its competitors. Indeed, the ALJ found that it was “undisputed that Project Pricing did not stop,” and found no evidence that Project Pricing declined at all.

On the collusion issue, the ALJ rightly found that price maneuvering in an oligopoly is not a violation without sufficient evidence to show there was an actual, manifest agreement. If the FTC were to do so it would open many markets up to additional risk. It would also be impossible to craft a remedy without grossly interfering with the normal operation of the market. In this, the ALJ reiterated the sentiment of the First Circuit – “How does one order a firm to set its prices without regard to the likely reactions of its competitors?”

The FTC Commissioners should not hold a company guilty of collusion simply for being a part of an oligopoly. As the ALJ stated – “accepting Complaint Counsel’s position that oligopolistic interdependence is a ‘plus’ factor would, in effect, foist a nefarious motive upon the Suppliers merely because they conduct their business within an oligopoly market. This is not the law.” The ALJ was right, and it would be inconsistent with well-established federal court caselaw to rule otherwise.  The FTC should not be subject to one rule in federal court, but another for its own internal administrative court.

The following is the second in a series of guest posts by David Balto about the FTC’s McWane case.

Two modest offices on the first floor of the FTC building are occupied by the FTC Administrative Law Judge and his staff.  Of all of the agencies with an ALJ, the FTC’s operation must be the smallest.  The ALJ handles only a handful of trials each year.  In the past, the FTC ALJ operation has gathered little to no attention.  But in recent years, with renewed focus on administrative litigation and tight litigation deadlines, FTC administrative litigation has become a rocket docket of sorts.

But there is renewed attention for another reason.  As I have written elsewhere the FTC is on a 19-year streak of always finding violations in its administrative litigation.  In many instances that has required it to reverse an ALJ.  When the Commission reverses on the law, that is not exceptional.  But in those cases where the Commission has taken a different view of the facts, there is far greater controversy.  Although the Commission does analyze the facts de novo, the ALJ has conducted the trial, listened to the testimony, watched the witnesses and is in the best position to assess credibility and determine the facts.  The Commission’s differing view of the facts in cases such as Rambus and Schering led appellate courts to treat the FTC decision with extreme skepticism.  If the FTC is going to second guess the ALJ’s factual findings, which are based on his first-hand observation of the witnesses and review of the documents, why do we have ALJs?

This post addresses that issue by looking at the factual findings of the ALJ in the McWane case (for an introduction of the McWane case please see my previous post). The ALJ in the McWane case wrote an extensive 235 pages of factual findings. In the interest of brevity, I will only be discussing the collusion findings.  My goal is to illustrate how difficult it will be to reverse some of these findings, and if reversed, the problems it will likely present on appeal.

To understand the FTC’s collusion claims it is important to first understand how fittings are priced. Fitting prices start with published list prices. No one buys off published prices.  The suppliers publish regional multipliers that provide discounts off the published list price. The ALJ found that “[d]istributors prefer that [f]ittings suppliers like McWane, Sigma, and Star have identical list prices because it is easier for [d]istributors to compare the suppliers’ multipliers and discounts to determine net prices.” Suppliers also have a variety of mechanisms to discount prices below the multiplier price in order to compete for bids. Chief among these is the project price, which is a discounted price for an entire project or job or for a single order. It is easy for competitors to find out each other’s list prices and multipliers from their customers which are often large and aggressive buyers who bargain down prices. However, discounts beyond the multipliers are often hidden and hard to discover by competitors.

The ALJ found the fittings market to be an oligopoly. McWane, Sigma, and Star are constantly looking for, and reacting to, changes in each other’s pricing. Much of this competitive information was received through customers and it was known that any letter sent to a customer would end up in the hands of a competitor. The ALJ found that while “[c]ustomer letters served to communicate to competitors, as well as customers[,]”the “substantial evidence” showed that the parties priced independently at all times and McWane routinely priced below its competitors.

Beginning in 2007, “the [f]ittings industry experienced a period of declining demand, increased price competition resulting in price erosion, and increased costs.” The ALJ found that during this period McWane’s main concern was to increase sales volume in order to reduce excess inventory and keep its foundries open. The ALJ also found that McWane’s net pricing was not keeping up with cost inflation. The cost of doing business overseas, primarily in China, was also increasing, which impacted all fittings suppliers equally. Every supplier was looking to increase pricing but the suppliers were also aware that any increase would have to be followed to stick.

McWane used these conditions to allegedly come up with a strategy, which later became the basis for the FTC’s complaint, to “narrow the range between the published price and actual prices and thereby give his competitors less ‘headroom,’ within which Star and Sigma could maneuver to undercut McWane on price.” Instead of following Star and Sigma on their very large list price increases, McWane kept its list prices steady and raised some its multipliers, but to a much lower amount than Sigma and Star’s list price increases. McWane also announced an intention to stop project pricing through customer letters, according to the FTC. Project pricing hides the real prices of fittings. McWane’s goal was to make prices more transparent so that it could better compete on price but “McWane knew internally that in order to meet its objectives of increasing volume and share, it would have to Project Price.”

The FTC also had a problem with the beginning of a fittings trade group called DIFRA. The FTC’s claim was that DIFRA allowed the fittings companies to share sensitive competitive data. McWane, Star and Sigma would report “tons-shipped data” to DIFRA for their fittings sales. The ALJ found that the data gathered by DIFRA’s accountants “did not distinguish between Domestic Fittings and non-domestic Fittings” and “did not include or reveal any sales Prices.” The ALJ also found that “no DIFRA member was permitted to review the tons-shipped data of any other member; the reports revealed only the aggregate total tons-shipped during the relevant reporting period.” This DIFRA data was used by each supplier to determine their market share in order to plan future business strategies.

The FTC believed that McWane’s strategy, DIFRA, and other activities were collusive actions to stabilize and raise prices. The FTC saw the alleged elimination of project pricing and sharing of aggregated volume data as mechanisms to enforce a cartel and prevent cheating. However, the ALJ did not find these activities to amount to anticompetitive behavior – there was no smoking gun that turned these activities with procompetitive justifications into an antitrust violation. The data DIFRA provided had procompetitive uses including an instance where it “helped McWane decide, in June 2008, to choose the low end of the 8% to 12% range of multiplier increases” because the report showed McWane was “continuing to lose market share.” The ALJ also found that the data did not suggest a reduction in job pricing. The expert in the trial, which the ALJ found “offered credible and persuasive expert opinion, based on actual prices,” found “no economic evidence that the price changes in January or June of 2008 were coordinated, or that there was an agreement to reduce job pricing as would be reflected in a decrease in price variance; that there was economic evidence that contradicted a conclusion that prices were raised anticompetitively in the Fittings market; and that the pattern of sales and inventory contradicts the notion of quantity withholding, as would be needed to effect a price increase.” The ALJ also found that McWane’s witness “credibly testified that McWane’s goal going into 2008 was primarily to increase volume, rather than price,” and that “[t]he decline in McWane’s pricing (F. 940), given the rise in input costs (F. 951), is inconsistent with a conspiracy and consistent with independent pricing behavior.”

The ALJ ultimately found that the government’s collusion claims amounted to nothing more than “weak” “unsupported speculation” and that its “daisy chain of assumptions fails to support or justify an evidentiary inference of any unlawful agreement involving McWane.” The FTC will have trouble overcoming these findings if it chooses to overturn the ALJ’s dismissal of the collusion claims. For the Commissioners to do so would essentially be making different credibility assessments than the ALJ, even though they weren’t present for the trial. If these ALJ findings are so easily overturned it would bring into question why an ALJ is needed in the first place.

Today the D.C. Circuit struck down most of the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order, rejecting rules that required broadband providers to carry all traffic for edge providers (“anti-blocking”) and prevented providers from negotiating deals for prioritized carriage. However, the appeals court did conclude that the FCC has statutory authority to issue “Net Neutrality” rules under Section 706(a) and let stand the FCC’s requirement that broadband providers clearly disclose their network management practices.

The following statement may be attributed to Geoffrey Manne and Berin Szoka:

The FCC may have lost today’s battle, but it just won the war over regulating the Internet. By recognizing Section 706 as an independent grant of statutory authority, the court has given the FCC near limitless power to regulate not just broadband, but the Internet itself, as Judge Silberman recognized in his dissent.

The court left the door open for the FCC to write new Net Neutrality rules, provided the Commission doesn’t treat broadband providers as common carriers. This means that, even without reclassifying broadband as a Title II service, the FCC could require that any deals between broadband and content providers be reasonable and non-discriminatory, just as it has required wireless carriers to provide data roaming services to their competitors’ customers on that basis. In principle, this might be a sound approach, if the rule resembles antitrust standards. But even that limitation could easily be evaded if the FCC regulates through case-by-case enforcement actions, as it tried to do before issuing the Open Internet Order. Either way, the FCC need only make a colorable argument under Section 706 that its actions are designed to “encourage the deployment… of advanced telecommunications services.” If the FCC’s tenuous “triple cushion shot” argument could satisfy that test, there is little limit to the deference the FCC will receive.

But that’s just for Net Neutrality. Section 706 covers “advanced telecommunications,” which seems to include any information service, from broadband to the interconnectivity of smart appliances like washing machines and home thermostats. If the court’s ruling on Section 706 is really as broad as it sounds, and as the dissent fears, the FCC just acquired wide authority over these, as well — in short, the entire Internet, including the “Internet of Things.” While the court’s “no common carrier rules” limitation is a real one, the FCC clearly just gained enormous power that it didn’t have before today’s ruling.

Today’s decision essentially rewrites the Communications Act in a way that will, ironically, do the opposite of what the FCC claims: hurt, not help, deployment of new Internet services. Whatever the FCC’s role ought to be, such decisions should be up to our elected representatives, not three unelected FCC Commissioners. So if there’s a silver lining in any of this, it may be that the true implications of today’s decision are so radical that Congress finally writes a new Communications Act — a long-overdue process Congressmen Fred Upton and Greg Walden have recently begun.

Szoka and Manne are available for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Find/share this release on Facebook or Twitter.

The following is the first in a series of guests posts by David Balto about the FTC’s McWane case.

Anyone familiar with the antitrust newstream realizes there is a tremendous amount of controversy about the Federal Trade Commission’s administrative litigation process. Unlike the Antitrust Division which fights its litigation battles in Federal Court, the FTC has a distinct home court advantage. FTC antitrust cases are typically litigated administratively with a trial conducted before an FTC administrative law judge, who issues an initial decision, followed with an appeal to the full Commission for a final decision. I have authored a couple of recent articles as have others that question the fairness of the FTC acting as both prosecutor and judge. These concerns have only been amplified since for the last 19 years the FTC has always found a violation of law. As one Congressman noted the FTC has “an unbeaten streak that Perry Mason would envy.”

All of this will come to a head later this month in an FTC case against McWane, Inc., a modest firm that makes ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF). In this case the FTC brought a complaint against McWane alleging collusion with competitors to stabilize and raise prices and exclusion of competitors in the domestically manufactured DIPF market. The case was tried like greased lightning – it went from complaint to trial in 9 months. The trial before the administrative law judge (ALJ) involved over 2,000 exhibits, 16 live witnesses and 53 total witnesses, 25 trial days, 6,045 pages of trial transcript, and culminated in a 464-page decision – possibly the longest FTC decision in history. Ultimately, the ALJ split his decision and found for McWane on the collusion counts and for the FTC on the exclusion counts. Both parties have appealed and the case is currently under consideration by the Commission. The case was argued before the Commission on August 22, 2013, and a decision by the Commission is expected by January 25.

The McWane case provides an excellent lens to examine where the FTC may be headed in administrative litigation and the policing of dominant firm conduct. For this reason I will be writing a series of posts explaining the case and why a finding of a violation may be a risky path for the development of the law on collusion and exclusion, and what proof is needed to show such violations. This first article will explain the state of the market that led to the filing of a complaint.

McWane is a producer of domestically manufactured DIPF, which are used to join pipe in pressurized water transportation systems. DIPF can join pipe in straight lines or change, divide or direct the flow of water. DIPF are usually sold to municipal and regional water authorities through independent wholesale distributors. DIPF are commodity products that are produced to American Water Works Association standards. This makes all DIPF that meet the standards, whether foreign or domestically produced, completely interchangeable.

The DIPF market used to be dominated by domestic producers; however that has changed over the past 20 years. Project managers and municipalities can stipulate on their specifications whether the fittings for a particular project are to be domestically produced, imported, or open to all bids. Since the mid-1980s cheap foreign fittings and dumping has caused most of these specifications to be flipped from domestic-only to open. The period of 2003-2008 saw the biggest decline in domestic DIPF – from about 70% to 15-20%. This led many domestic fittings producers to either dramatically reduce their production or exit the market entirely. The International Trade Commission unanimously determined in 2003 that a flood of cheap fittings from China was causing “market disruption” and “material injury” to domestic fittings producers. McWane became the last domestic DIPF producer with a full-line foundry dedicated to DIPF in the United States and that foundry is only operating at 30% capacity, which puts it in danger of being closed. McWane was previously forced to shut down its other U.S. foundry and open a foundry in China, measures taken to compete with the low cost of foreign production.

There are still some specifications that require domestically produced fittings. This may be due to preference (ex. patriotism) or legal rules, but both of these can (and did) change with frequency to permit the purchase of imported fittings. In addition, the “Buy American” provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) did create a brief increase in the demand of domestically produced fittings. However, the numerous waivers and temporary nature meant that the sale of domestic fittings only rose to about a third of all sales before falling back to their pre-ARRA levels when ARRA expired in 2010. Domestic-only specifications and the ARRA period encouraged foreign fittings companies to consider producing DIPF products domestically. Star entered shortly after the passage of ARRA and Sigma entered into a Master Distribution Agreement (MDA) with McWane to supply domestic fittings during the ARRA period. It was these conditions that produced the FTC complaint.

McWane’s actions to keep its domestic foundry open led to the FTC complaint. McWane’s rebate program, designed to help it increase production at its foundry, became the basis of the FTC’s claim that McWane was excluding Star from the market. McWane’s MDA agreement with Sigma, which also helped expand its reach to Sigma’s customer base and to increase its domestic foundry production, was seen by the FTC as excluding Sigma from the market. McWane was also charged with colluding with Star, who successfully entered the market, to raise and stabilize prices.

The FTC’s complaint is divided into two parts with counts 1-3 alleging collusion and counts 4-7 alleging exclusionary actions by McWane. The collusion counts charge conspiracy to restrain price competition in the relevant Fittings market (Count One); conspiracy to exchange competitively sensitive sales information (Count Two); and invitation to collude (Count Three). The exclusionary counts charge that the MDA was an agreement in restraint of trade (Count Four); a conspiracy between McWane and Sigma to monopolize the Domestic Fittings market (Count Five); exclusionary acts constituting willful practices to acquire, enhance, or maintain monopoly power in the relevant Domestic Fittings market (Count Six); and specific intent to monopolize the Domestic Fittings market (Count Seven). The ALJ dismissed counts 1-3, finding that the FTC’s conspiracy allegations were “weak,” “unverified,” “unpersuasive,” “strained,” and “unsupported,” amounting to a “daisy chain of assumptions.” The ALJ went on to find that Star, who was a “a less efficient supplier” than McWane, “clearly” entered the Domestic Fittings market in 2009, and that its market share went “from zero to almost 10% in 2011.” He also found that “Sigma was in a precarious position overall in financial terms” and “regardless of whether Sigma had the financial capability to produce Domestic Fittings . . . it did not have the time required to do so” before the end of the ARRA period, but nonetheless found that counts 4-7 were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

The McWane case is unusual for several reasons as I will describe in my future posts. The FTC alleges collusion to raise and stabilize prices and exclusionary conduct but the time period of any alleged wrongful conduct seems incredibly short. The FTC alleges that the victim of McWane’s supposed exclusionary tactics, Star, also conspired with McWane to raise prices – a contradiction that FTC Commissioner Rosch had trouble with. The FTC relies heavily on a domestic market definition even though there is strong evidence that foreign competition had driven all domestic suppliers out of the market except for McWane and that any domestic only market, if it exists, does not appear to be large enough or stable enough to support an industry. Finally, The FTC relies on structural and plus factors to prove collusion rather than direct evidence of price agreements or communications or economic evidence and analyses showing any supra-competitive price effects.

In my next article I will explain the ALJ’s factual findings in relation to the alleged violations and pose some of the challenges the Commission faces.

This was previously posted to the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Blog on October 4, and given that Congress is rushing headlong into enacting legislation to respond to an alleged crisis over “patent trolls,” it bears reposting if only to show that Congress is ignoring its own experts in the Government Accountability Office who officially reported this past August that there’s no basis for this legislative stampede.

As previously reported, there are serious concerns with the studies asserting that a “patent litigation explosion” has been caused by patent licensing companies (so-called non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or “patent trolls”). These seemingly alarming studies (see here and here) have drawn scholarly criticism for their use of proprietary, secret data collected from companies like RPX and Patent Freedom – companies whose business models are predicated on defending against patent licensing companies. In addition to raising serious questions about self-selection and other biases in the data underlying these studies, the RPX and Patent Freedom data sets to this day remain secret and are unknown and unverifiable.  Thus, it is impossible to apply the standard scientific and academic norm that all studies make available data for confirmation of the results via independently produced studies.  We have long suggested that it was time to step back from such self-selecting “statistics” based on secret data and nonobjective rhetoric in the patent policy debates.

At long last, an important and positive step has been taken in this regard. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report on patent litigation, entitled “Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors that Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality,” (“the GAO Report”), which was mandated by § 34 of the America Invents Act (AIA). The GAO Report offers an important step in the right direction in beginning a more constructive, fact-based discussion about litigation over patented innovation.

The GAO is an independent, non-partisan agency under Congress.  As stated in its report, it was tasked by the AIA to undertake this study in response to “concerns that patent infringement litigation by NPEs is increasing and that this litigation, in some cases, has imposed high costs on firms that are actually developing and manufacturing products, especially in the software and technology sectors.”  Far from affirming such concerns, the GAO Report concludes that no such NPE litigation problem exists.

In its study of patent litigation in the United States, the GAO primarily utilized data obtained from Lex Machina, a firm specialized in collecting and analyzing IP litigation data.  To describe what is known about the volume and characteristics of recent patent litigation activity, the GAO utilized data provided by Lex Machina for all patent infringement lawsuits between 2000 and 2011.  Additionally, Lex Machina also selected a sample of 500 lawsuits – 100 per year from 2007 to 2011 – to allow estimated percentages with a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 5% points over all these years and no more than plus or minus 10% points for any particular year.  From this data set, the GAO extrapolated its conclusion that current concerns expressed about patent licensing companies were misplaced. 

Interestingly, the methodology employed by the GAO stands in stark contrast to the prior studies based on secret, proprietary data from RPX and Patent Freedom. The GAO Report explicitly recognized that these prior studies were fundamentally flawed given that they relied on “nonrandom, nongeneralizable” data sets from private companies (GAO Report, p. 26).  In other words, even setting aside the previously reported concerns of self-selection bias and nonobjective rhetoric, it is inappropriate to draw statistical inferences from such sample data sets to the state of patent litigation in the United States as a whole.  In contrast, the sample of 500 lawsuits selected by Lex Machina for the GAO study is truly random and generalizable (and its data is publicly available and testable by independent scholars).

Indeed, the most interesting results in the GAO Report concern its conclusions from the publicly accessible Lex Machina data about the volume and characteristics of patent litigation today.  The GAO Report finds that between 1991 and 2011, applications for all types of patents increased, with the total number of applications doubling across the same period (GAO Report, p.12, Fig. 1).  Yet, the GAO Report finds that over the same period of time, the rate of patent infringement lawsuits did not similarly increase.  Instead, the GAO reports that “[f]rom 2000 to 2011, about 29,000 patent infringement lawsuits were filed in the U.S. district courts” and that the number of these lawsuits filed per year fluctuated only slightly until 2011 (GAO Report, p. 14).  The GAO Report also finds that in 2011 about 900 more lawsuits were filed than the average number of lawsuits in each of the four previous years, which an increase of about 31%, but it attributes this to the AIA’s prohibition on joinder of multiple defendants in a single patent infringement lawsuit that went into effect in 2011 (GAO Report, p. 14).  We also discussed the causal effect of the AIA joinder rules on the recent increase in patent litigation here and here.

The GAO Report next explores the correlation between the volume of patent infringement lawsuits filed and the litigants who brought those suits.  Utilizing the data obtained from Lex Machina, the GAO observed that from 2007 to 2011 manufacturing companies and related entities brought approximately 68% of all patent infringement lawsuits, while patent aggregating and licensing companies brought only 19% of such lawsuits. (The remaining 13% of lawsuits were brought by individual inventors, universities, and a number of entities the GAO was unable to verify.) The GAO Report acknowledged that lawsuits brought by patent licensing companies increased in 2011 (24%), but it found that this increase is not statistically significant. (GAO Report, pp. 17-18)

The GAO also found that the lawsuits filed by manufacturers and patent licensing companies settled or likely settled at similar rates (GAO Report, p. 25).  Again, this contradicts widely asserted claims today that patent licensing companies bring patent infringement lawsuits solely for purposes of only nuisance settlements (implying that manufacturers litigate patents to trial at a higher rate than patent licensing companies).

In sum, the GAO Report reveals that the conventional wisdom today about a so-called “patent troll litigation explosion” is unsupported by the facts (see also here and here).  Manufacturers – i.e., producers of products based upon patented innovation – bring the vast majority of patent infringement lawsuits, and that these lawsuits have similar characteristics as those brought by patent licensing companies.

The GAO Report shines an important spotlight on a fundamental flaw in the current policy debates about patent licensing companies (the so-called “NPEs” or “patent trolls”).  Commentators, scholars and congresspersons pushing for legislative revisions to patent litigation to address a so-called “patent troll problem” have relied on overheated rhetoric and purported “studies” that simply do not hold up to empirical scrutiny.  While mere repetition of unsupported and untenable claims makes such claims conventional wisdom (and thus “truth” in the minds of policymakers and the public), it is still no substitute for a sensible policy discussion based on empirically sound data. 

This is particularly important given that the outcry against patent licensing companies continues to sweep the popular media and is spurring Congress and the President to propose substantial legislative and regulatory revisions to the patent system.  With the future of innovation at stake, it is not crazy to ask that before we make radical, systemic changes to the patent system that we have validly established empirical evidence that such revisions are in fact necessary or at least would do more good than harm. The GAO Report reminds us all that we have not yet reached this minimum requirement for sound, sensible policymaking.

For those in the DC area interested in telecom regulation, there is another great event opportunity coming up next week.

Join TechFreedom on Thursday, December 19, the 100th anniversary of the Kingsbury Commitment, AT&T’s negotiated settlement of antitrust charges brought by the Department of Justice that gave AT&T a legal monopoly in most of the U.S. in exchange for a commitment to provide universal service.

The Commitment is hailed by many not just as a milestone in the public interest but as the bedrock of U.S. communications policy. Others see the settlement as the cynical exploitation of lofty rhetoric to establish a tightly regulated monopoly — and the beginning of decades of cozy regulatory capture that stifled competition and strangled innovation.

So which was it? More importantly, what can we learn from the seventy year period before the 1984 break-up of AT&T, and the last three decades of efforts to unleash competition? With fewer than a third of Americans relying on traditional telephony and Internet-based competitors increasingly driving competition, what does universal service mean in the digital era? As Congress contemplates overhauling the Communications Act, how can policymakers promote universal service through competition, by promoting innovation and investment? What should a new Kingsbury Commitment look like?

Following a luncheon keynote address by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a diverse panel of experts moderated by TechFreedom President Berin Szoka will explore these issues and more. The panel includes:

  • Harold Feld, Public Knowledge
  • Rob Atkinson, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation
  • Hance Haney, Discovery Institute
  • Jeff Eisenach, American Enterprise Institute
  • Fred Campbell, Former FCC Commissioner

Space is limited so RSVP now if you plan to attend in person. A live stream of the event will be available on this page. You can follow the conversation on Twitter on the #Kingsbury100 hashtag.

When:
Thursday, December 19, 2013
11:30 – 12:00 Registration & lunch
12:00 – 1:45 Event & live stream

The live stream will begin on this page at noon Eastern.

Where:
The Methodist Building
100 Maryland Ave NE
Washington D.C. 20002

Questions?
Email contact@techfreedom.org.

As it begins its hundredth year, the FTC is increasingly becoming the Federal Technology Commission. The agency’s role in regulating data security, privacy, the Internet of Things, high-tech antitrust and patents, among other things, has once again brought to the forefront the question of the agency’s discretion and the sources of the limits on its power.Please join us this Monday, December 16th, for a half-day conference launching the year-long “FTC: Technology & Reform Project,” which will assess both process and substance at the FTC and recommend concrete reforms to help ensure that the FTC continues to make consumers better off.

FTC Commissioner Josh Wright will give a keynote luncheon address titled, “The Need for Limits on Agency Discretion and the Case for Section 5 UMC Guidelines.” Project members will discuss the themes raised in our inaugural report and how they might inform some of the most pressing issues of FTC process and substance confronting the FTC, Congress and the courts. The afternoon will conclude with a Fireside Chat with former FTC Chairmen Tim Muris and Bill Kovacic, followed by a cocktail reception.

Full Agenda:

  • Lunch and Keynote Address (12:00-1:00)
    • FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright
  • Introduction to the Project and the “Questions & Frameworks” Report (1:00-1:15)
    • Gus Hurwitz, Geoffrey Manne and Berin Szoka
  • Panel 1: Limits on FTC Discretion: Institutional Structure & Economics (1:15-2:30)
    • Jeffrey Eisenach (AEI | Former Economist, BE)
    • Todd Zywicki (GMU Law | Former Director, OPP)
    • Tad Lipsky (Latham & Watkins)
    • Geoffrey Manne (ICLE) (moderator)
  • Panel 2: Section 5 and the Future of the FTC (2:45-4:00)
    • Paul Rubin (Emory University Law and Economics | Former Director of Advertising Economics, BE)
    • James Cooper (GMU Law | Former Acting Director, OPP)
    • Gus Hurwitz (University of Nebraska Law)
    • Berin Szoka (TechFreedom) (moderator)
  • A Fireside Chat with Former FTC Chairmen (4:15-5:30)
    • Tim Muris (Former FTC Chairman | George Mason University) & Bill Kovacic (Former FTC Chairman | George Washington University)
  • Reception (5:30-6:30)
Our conference is a “widely-attended event.” Registration is $75 but free for nonprofit, media and government attendees. Space is limited, so RSVP today!

Working Group Members:
Howard Beales
Terry Calvani
James Cooper
Jeffrey Eisenach
Gus Hurwitz
Thom Lambert
Tad Lipsky
Geoffrey Manne
Timothy Muris
Paul Rubin
Joanna Shepherd-Bailey
Joe Sims
Berin Szoka
Sasha Volokh
Todd Zywicki

image

Please join us at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC on December 16th for a conference launching the year-long project, “FTC: Technology and Reform.” With complex technological issues increasingly on the FTC’s docket, we will consider what it means that the FTC is fast becoming the Federal Technology Commission.

The FTC: Technology & Reform Project brings together a unique collection of experts on the law, economics, and technology of competition and consumer protection to consider challenges facing the FTC in general, and especially regarding its regulation of technology.

For many, new technologies represent “challenges” to the agency, a continuous stream of complex threats to consumers that can be mitigated only by ongoing regulatory vigilance. We view technology differently, as an overwhelmingly positive force for consumers. To us, the FTC’s role is to promote the consumer benefits of new technology — not to “tame the beast” but to intervene only with caution, when the likely consumer benefits of regulation outweigh the risk of regulatory error. This conference is the start of a year-long project that will recommend concrete reforms to ensure that the FTC’s treatment of technology works to make consumers better off. Continue Reading…