Showing results for: “price gouging”
Paul Denis on Implementing a Policy Statement on UMC
Deterrence ought to be an important objective of enforcement policy. Some might argue it should be THE objective. But it is difficult to know what is being deterred by a law if the agency enforcing the law cannot or will not explain its boundaries. Commissioner Wright’s call for a policy statement on the scope of ... Paul Denis on Implementing a Policy Statement on UMC
Geoffrey Manne on the Importance of Sensible Guidance for UMC Enforcement
Josh and Maureen are to be commended for their important contributions to the discussion over the proper scope of the FTC’s Section 5 enforcement authority. I have commented extensively on UMC and Section 5, Josh’s statement, and particularly the problems if UMC enforcement against the use of injunctions to enforce FRAND-encumbered SEPs before (see, for ... Geoffrey Manne on the Importance of Sensible Guidance for UMC Enforcement
David Balto on Economic Evidence and Section 5
One must applaud the efforts of Commissioners Ohlhausen and Wright to begin the dialogue about the proper use of Section 5 as a tool of antitrust enforcement. It was 99 years ago that Congress was debating the creation of the Federal Trade Commission and increased guidance on the Commission’s thinking on Section 5 is in ... David Balto on Economic Evidence and Section 5
James Cooper on a Sensible Limit to the FTC’s Section 5 Authority
In this posting, I sketch out a sensible limitation to the FTC’s Section 5 authority. This domain should be narrow, focusing only on harmful conduct that but for the application of Section 5 would remain un-remedied. As a threshold matter, the FTC explicitly should renounce its reliance on early Section 5 case law like S&H ... James Cooper on a Sensible Limit to the FTC’s Section 5 Authority
James Cooper on the Limits of Section 5’s Scope Beyond the Sherman Act
The FTC has long been on a quest to find the elusive species of conduct that Section 5 alone can tackle. A series of early Supreme Court cases interpreting the FTC Act – the most recent and widely cited of which is more than forty years old (FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. ... James Cooper on the Limits of Section 5’s Scope Beyond the Sherman Act
Marina Lao on the FTC’s Section 5 Unfair Methods of Competition Authority
FTC Commissioner Josh Wright’s recent issuance of a proposed policy statement on Section 5 of the FTC Act has reignited the debate on the appropriate scope of the agency’s authority to prosecute “unfair methods of competition” as standalone Section 5 violations. While the Supreme Court has held, consistent with clear congressional intent, that the FTC’s ... Marina Lao on the FTC’s Section 5 Unfair Methods of Competition Authority
Thom Lambert on Guidelines for the FTC’s UMC Authority: What’s Clear and What’s Not?
In the last few weeks, two members of the FTC—Commissioners Josh Wright and Maureen Ohlhausen—have staked largely consistent positions on guidelines for implementation of the Commission’s “unfair methods of competition” (UMC) authority. Their statements make two points that are, in my opinion, no-brainers. Where the statements conflict, they raise an issue worthy of significant contemplation. ... Thom Lambert on Guidelines for the FTC’s UMC Authority: What’s Clear and What’s Not?
Dan Crane on Section 5 and Principles of Self-Restraint
I’m delighted that Josh and Maureen have launched a concerted effort to have the FTC articulate clear principles for Section 5 enforcement. My own views on the proper scope of Section 5 are articulated in my book The Institutional Structure of Antitrust Enforcement. I won’t attempt a comprehensive regurgitation here, but just offer three quick ... Dan Crane on Section 5 and Principles of Self-Restraint
The Value of Injunctions — Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products Co. (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013)
Over at the blog for the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, I posted a short essay discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013). Here’s a small taste: The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Douglas Dynamics, LLC, v. Buyers Products Co. (Fed. Cir. May ... The Value of Injunctions — Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products Co. (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2013)
Why I think the Apple e-books antitrust decision will (or at least should) be overturned
On July 10 a federal judge ruled that Apple violated antitrust law by conspiring to raise prices of e-books when it negotiated deals with five major publishers. I’ve written on the case and the issues involved in it several times, including here, here, here and here. The most recent of these was titled, “Why I ... Why I think the Apple e-books antitrust decision will (or at least should) be overturned
How the Employer Mandate Delay Thwarts the ACA’s Insurance Exchanges and Ignores the Main Problem With the Act’s Mandate/Subsidy Scheme
Has a piece of legislation ever been subject to as much cynicism-inspiring manipulation as the Affordable Care Act? It was rammed through Congress, on a totally partisan basis, via an unprecedented use of the reconciliation process. Its passage required blatant vote-buying with such unjust goodies as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. Its proponents ... How the Employer Mandate Delay Thwarts the ACA’s Insurance Exchanges and Ignores the Main Problem With the Act’s Mandate/Subsidy Scheme
Tesla and the Auto Dealers Lobby
In Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania (1977), Justice Powell observed that antitrust law should go easy on manufacturer restraints on dealer resale because manufacturers could always decide to integrate forward into distribution and bypass dealers altogether. As anyone who has followed electric car manufacturer Tesla’s recent travails will know, Justice Powell’s observation is not true ... Tesla and the Auto Dealers Lobby
