I guess it comes as little surprise that Christine Varney has withdrawn the Section 2 Report. The comments made in the statement withdrawing the Report indicate . . . well, that Varney isn’t convinced by reading this blog, among other things. Coming on the heels of our Section 2 Symposium, the news is jarring, although not unexpected. Moreover, as predicted in Howard Marvel’s first post here, Varney is using “recent events” in the economy as a lever:
Varney said that while there is no question that Section 2 cases present unique challenges, the report advocated hesitancy in the face of potential abuses by monopoly firms. She said that implicit in this overly cautious approach is the notion that most unilateral conduct is driven by efficiency and that monopoly markets are generally self-correcting. “The recent developments in the marketplace should make it clear that we can no longer rely upon the marketplace alone to ensure that competition and consumers will be protected,” Varney added.
She doesn’t say it in this statement (and I haven’t seen the text of her speech yet where she announced this policy), but implicit in this is her ongoing rejection of error-cost analysis and the cost of false positives. As she has said elsewhere:
“My view and, you stole my thunder, I was prepared to say there is no such thing as a false positive, you know, let’s get real. I have counseled numerous incumbents who are dominant as well as numerous new entrants. I can tell you, at least in my own experience, there is not a dominant incumbent who hasn’t done something that is lawful because they were afraid that it might be reviewed by the DOJ or a state attorney general or an FTC. I just don’t see it. Ten years back in the private sector I have never once seen it, so I think that this ruse of, you know, we have to be restrained in our enforcement because false positives will chill innovation, take an economic toll on society and overall result in negative economic consequence, slowing output, increasing cost, I just think is false. I think the more people in the bars start rejecting this idea of false positives the better off we’re going to be.”
It is a stark reminder that we may, indeed, be living under a new antitrust regime. I can’t say I’m optimistic about it.
Here’s the full text of the DOJ’s statement:
Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division, today announced that the Department is withdrawing, effective immediately, a report relating to monopolization offenses under the antitrust laws that was issued in September 2008. As of today, the Section 2 report will no longer be Department of Justice policy. Consumers, businesses, courts and antitrust practitioners should not rely on it as Department of Justice antitrust enforcement policy.
The report, “Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution and the development of safe harbors for certain conduct within reach of Section 2, Varney said. Varney announced the withdrawal of the report today at a speech at the Center for American Progress.
“Withdrawing the Section 2 report is a shift in philosophy and the clearest way to let everyone know that the Antitrust Division will be aggressively pursuing cases where monopolists try to use their dominance in the marketplace to stifle competition and harm consumers,” said Varney. “The Division will return to tried and true case law and Supreme Court precedent in enforcing the antitrust laws.”
The report was issued after a series of joint hearings, involving more than 100 participants, that the Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held from June 2006 to May 2007 to explore the antitrust treatment of single-firm conduct. The FTC did not join with the Department in its report.
Varney said that while there is no question that Section 2 cases present unique challenges, the report advocated hesitancy in the face of potential abuses by monopoly firms. She said that implicit in this overly cautious approach is the notion that most unilateral conduct is driven by efficiency and that monopoly markets are generally self-correcting. “The recent developments in the marketplace should make it clear that we can no longer rely upon the marketplace alone to ensure that competition and consumers will be protected,” Varney added.
“I want to commend the efforts of those who participated in the Section 2 hearings,” said Varney. “While I do not agree with the conclusions of the Section 2 report, I do believe that the hearings and the report provided a valuable discussion of the enforcement issues involving single-firm conduct.”