Showing archive for: “DOJ”
Much Ado About Removal: The Supreme Court, the FTC, and the End of Independent-ish Agencies
For roughly 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor had been the constitutional law equivalent of a load-bearing antique: an awkward, if still functioning, architectural kludge, much admired in certain circles, but increasingly hard to rationalize. Earlier this week, finally, the U.S. Supreme Court replaced it. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court overruled that 1935 opinion. The president ... Much Ado About Removal: The Supreme Court, the FTC, and the End of Independent-ish Agencies
Antitrust at the Agencies: National Nanny Hangover Edition
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rulemaking machinery is humming again. Is it being tuned for optimal performance—or revved for another trip into the ditch? Most of the current action has to do with consumer protection. That’s par for the course, really. Apart from issuing the ill-fated noncompete rule, since vacated—comments here if anyone wants a ... Antitrust at the Agencies: National Nanny Hangover Edition
No-Fly Zone: Why AI Doesn’t Need Helicopter Regulation
When a new product or service appears, some public officials default to helicopter regulation. The instinct to “do something, anything” rarely pays off—just ask helicopter parents and their kids. An overbearing approach drains the finite resources of lawmakers, enforcement agencies, and innovators. The public bears the cost: officials fixate on a single issue instead of ... No-Fly Zone: Why AI Doesn’t Need Helicopter Regulation
When Antitrust Meets National Security and Gets It Right
For months, the antitrust bar has focused on Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s proposed merger with Juniper Networks. Critics—including several state attorneys general—argue that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) approved a modified deal for political reasons, rather than on the merits of the antitrust and national security analysis. Ongoing Tunney Act proceedings tell a different story. ... When Antitrust Meets National Security and Gets It Right
Keeping Titans in Quarantine
Antitrust law once imposed a simple rule on dominant firms: stay in your lane. That idea fell out of favor. Unfortunately, its logic did not. The clearest example comes from midcentury enforcement. In 1956, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) imposed a sweeping antitrust remedy on AT&T. The DOJ consent decree required AT&T’s research arm, ... Keeping Titans in Quarantine
Antitrust Encore: When a Settlement Isn’t the End of the Show
The Live Nation/Ticketmaster antitrust trial now presents a paradox. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly has settled its claims, yet the litigation continues—with a skeptical judge and 32 state plaintiffs still pressing for a breakup. That unusual posture raises deeper concerns about economics, separation of powers, and the limits of antitrust federalism. U.S. District ... Antitrust Encore: When a Settlement Isn’t the End of the Show
Antitrust at the Agencies: Vacaturs and Vacancies Edition
Gail Slater has left the building. And that’s a shame, I think. On Feb. 12, Slater posted the following on X: It is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as AAG for Antitrust today. It was indeed the honor of a lifetime to serve in this role. Huge thanks to ... Antitrust at the Agencies: Vacaturs and Vacancies Edition
The Right Approach to Reviewing Netflix-Warner Bros
Ahead of tomorrow’s Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee hearing, a group of former federal antitrust enforcers sent an open letter to the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and the full Judiciary Committee urging a consumer-welfare-focused review of the proposed Netflix–Warner Bros. Discovery merger. The letter rejects the progressive analytical framework advanced during the prior administration and calls ... The Right Approach to Reviewing Netflix-Warner Bros
Brightline Rules and Case-by-Case Courts: The DMA and Epic v Apple
Brightline rules promise clarity. The early enforcement record suggests something closer to friction. Part I of this two-part series examined how mobile app-store anti-steering policies—rules that restrict developers from directing users to alternative offers or payment portals outside the app store—affect competition, consumers, and innovation. It also compared those policies with the restrictions upheld in ... Brightline Rules and Case-by-Case Courts: The DMA and Epic v Apple
The Blind Spots of Brightline Rules: The DMA and Anti-Steering
Two years ago, the European Union’s flagship Digital Markets Act (DMA) took effect. The DMA promised to make platform markets “fairer and more contestable” for the businesses that rely on them to reach consumers by imposing a set of brightline mandates on designated gatekeepers. In the United States, advocates of DMA-style competition rulemaking include former ... The Blind Spots of Brightline Rules: The DMA and Anti-Steering
How a Bad Presumption Became Too Useful to Kill
The Philadelphia National Bank (PNB) presumption refuses to die. Long criticized and widely viewed as bad policy, it survives today in slightly attenuated form, and there is no sign that Trump-appointed antitrust enforcers plan to bury it. If anything, the 2023 Merger Guidelines, still in force, double down on the presumption more than their predecessors. ... How a Bad Presumption Became Too Useful to Kill
Antitrust at the Agencies: The Business We Have Chosen Edition
These are interesting times and competition policy—let alone Federal Trade Commission (FTC) style consumer protection—may not top most people’s list of urgent concerns. But as a certain film character put it, this is the business we have chosen. So with that: Happy New Year! A Good Day at the Bureau of Competition The FTC’s Bureau ... Antitrust at the Agencies: The Business We Have Chosen Edition
