Showing results for: “sirius xm merger”
The premium natural and organic men’s apparel market
Last month the Wall Street Journal raised the specter of an antitrust challenge to the proposed Jos. A. Bank/Men’s Warehouse merger. Whether a challenge is forthcoming appears to turn, of course, on market definition: An important question in the FTC’s review will be whether it believes the two companies compete in a market that is ... The premium natural and organic men’s apparel market
Wireless Spectrum: Free Market or Rigged Market?
The debates over mobile spectrum aggregation and the auction rules for the FCC’s upcoming incentive auction — like all regulatory rent-seeking — can be farcical. One aspect of the debate in particular is worth highlighting, as it puts into stark relief the tendentiousness of self-interested companies making claims about the public interestedness of their preferred ... Wireless Spectrum: Free Market or Rigged Market?
Commissioner Wright takes the FTC to task for its dangerous technocratic mindset in his Nielsen merger dissent
Commissioner Wright makes a powerful and important case in dissenting from the FTC’s 2-1 (Commissioner Ohlhausen was recused from the matter) decision imposing conditions on Nielsen’s acquisition of Arbitron. Essential to Josh’s dissent is the absence of any actual existing market supporting the Commission’s challenge: Nielsen and Arbitron do not currently compete in the sale ... Commissioner Wright takes the FTC to task for its dangerous technocratic mindset in his Nielsen merger dissent
Welcome new TOTM bloggers Gus Hurwitz and Ben Sperry
We’re delighted to welcome two new bloggers to Truth on the Market: Gus Hurwitz and Ben Sperry. Gus is an assistant professor of law at the University of Nebraska. His work looks at the interface between law and technology and the role of regulation in high-tech industries. He has a particular expertise in telecommunications law and ... Welcome new TOTM bloggers Gus Hurwitz and Ben Sperry
Commissioner Wright Responds to Section 5 Symposium
I’d like to thank Geoff and Thom for organizing this symposium and creating a forum for an open and frank exchange of ideas about the FTC’s unfair methods of competition authority under Section 5. In offering my own views in a concrete proposed Policy Statement and speech earlier this summer, I hoped to encourage just ... Commissioner Wright Responds to Section 5 Symposium
Tad Lipsky on Lessons From the Section 2 Context
The FTC’s struggle to provide guidance for its enforcement of Section 5’s Unfair Methods of Competition (UMC) clause (or not – some oppose the provision of forward guidance by the agency, much as one occasionally heard opposition to the concept of merger guidelines in 1968 and again in 1982) could evoke a much broader long-run ... Tad Lipsky on Lessons From the Section 2 Context
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
David Balto on Some Quick Observations on the Drive for UMC Policy Guidelines
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the current Section 5 discussion and add a few modest thoughts about the very thoughtful speeches of Commissioners Wright and Ohlhausen. I must admit, that as a former FTC Policy dude my mouth salivates at the thought of any new Guidelines. After all what could be more ... David Balto on Some Quick Observations on the Drive for UMC Policy Guidelines
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
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
Commissioner Wright goes down swinging over amendments to the FTC’s HSR rules
Last week, over Commissioner Wright’s dissent, the FTC approved amendments to its HSR rules (final text here) that, as Josh summarizes in his dissent, establish, among other things, a procedure for the automatic withdrawal of an HSR filing upon the submission of a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announcing that the notified transaction has been terminated. I discussed the proposed amendments ... Commissioner Wright goes down swinging over amendments to the FTC’s HSR rules
Wright is Right and Price-Cost Safe Harbors are Wrong: The Raising Rivals’ Cost Paradigm, Loyalty Discounts and Exclusive Dealing
Guest post by Steve Salop, responding to Dan’s post and Thom’s post on the appropriate liability rule for loyalty discounts. I want to clarify some of the key issues in Commissioner Wright’s analysis of Exclusive Dealing and Loyalty Discounts as part of the raising rivals’ costs (“RRC”) paradigm. I never thought that I would have to defend Wright against ... Wright is Right and Price-Cost Safe Harbors are Wrong: The Raising Rivals’ Cost Paradigm, Loyalty Discounts and Exclusive Dealing
