DOCSLIB.ORG

Concurrences REVUE DES DROITS DE LA CONCURRENCE | COMPETITION LAW REVIEW

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Concurrences REVUE DES DROITS DE LA CONCURRENCE | COMPETITION LAW REVIEW Concurrences REVUE DES DROITS DE LA CONCURRENCE | COMPETITION LAW REVIEW The new US antitrust administration On-Topic l Concurrences N° 1-2021 www.concurrences.com Alden F. Abbott Jacqueline Grise Noah Pinegar General Counsel Partner Associate Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cooley, Washington, DC Litigation Department, Paul Washington, DC Hastings, Washington, DC Ryan M. Kantor Robin Adelstein Antitrust Partner Christopher L. Sagers Global Head of Antitrust Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, James A. Thomas Professor and Competition Washington, DC of Law Norton Rose Fulbright, New York Former Assistant Chief Cleveland State University and Washington, DC Healthcare and Consumer Products Section Richard S. Taffet Megan Browdie Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Partner Partner Antitrust Division, Washington, DC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Cooley, Washington, DC New York Donald C. Klawiter Michael A. Carrier Principal Willard K. Tom Distinguished Professor Klawiter PLLC, Washington, DC Antitrust Partner Rutgers Law School, Camden Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, John Kwoka Washington, DC Peter C. Carstensen Neal F. Finnegan Distinguished Former General Counsel Fred W. & Vi Miller Chair Professor of Economics Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in Law Emeritus Northeastern University, Boston Washington, DC University of Wisconsin Law School Abbott B. Lipsky, Jr Eliot Turner Harry First Adjunct Professor Partner Charles L. Denison Antonin Scalia Law School, George Norton Rose Fulbright, Professor of Law Mason University, Arlington Houston and Washington, DC New York University School of Law Howard Morse Douglas Tween Bert Foer Partner Partner and Head of U.S. Founder and Former President Cooley, Washington, DC Government Enforcement American Antitrust Institute (AAI), and Cartel practice Washington, DC Bo Pearl Linklaters, New York and Partner Washington, DC Eleanor M. Fox Litigation Department, Paul Walter J. Derenberg Professor Hastings, Century City Tommaso Valletti of Trade Regulation Professor of Economics New York University School of Law Imperial College London Michael L. Weiner Partner Steptoe & Johnson, New York On-Topic The new US antitrust administration This special set of articles focuses on antitrust law and enforcement Ce dossier se concentre sur l’antitrust et ses possibles développements in the aftermath of the American Presidential Elections. It questions the changes à la suite des élections présidentielles américaines. Il s’interroge and challenges expected in 2021 under the new Biden administration, sur les changements et défis attendus pour 2021 sous la nouvelle and its impacts with respect to antitrust legislation and competition policy administration Biden, et leurs impacts sur la législation et la politique in the USA. de la concurrence aux États-Unis. Competition policy challenges for Competition policy under the new Biden administration antitrust a new U.S. administration: Is the administration Abbott B. Lipsky, Jr past prologue? Bert Foer Adjunct Professor Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Arlington Abbott Founder and Former President General Counsel Federal Trade Commission (FTC), American Antitrust Institute (AAI), Washington, DC Washington, DC Will the Biden presidency forge Antitrust enforcement a digital transatlantic alliance What’s old is new again in a Biden administration on antitrust? Robin Adelstein Ryan M. Kantor Gabriella Muscolo Global Head of Antitrust and Competition Norton Antitrust Partner Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Commissioner Italian Competition Authority, Rome Rose Fulbright, New York and Washington, DC Washington, DC Alessandro Massolo Former Assistant Chief Healthcare and Consumer Eliot Turner Economic Adviser Italian Competition Authority, Products Section Partner Norton Rose Fulbright, Houston and Rome Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, Washington, DC Washington, DC How the antitrust landscape may Biden/Harris expected to double Richard S. Taffet Art. Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits Art. Intellectuelle and DRM protection. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Antitrust Partner Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, New change in 2021: Compliance risks down on antitrust enforcement: York in a Democratic Washington No “Trump card” in the deck Willard K. Tom Bo Pearl Megan Browdie Antitrust Partner Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Partner Litigation Department, Paul Hastings, Partner Cooley, Washington, DC Washington, DC Century City Former General Counsel Federal Trade Commission Jacqueline Grise (FTC), Washington, DC Noah Pinegar Partner Cooley, Washington, DC Associate Litigation Department, Paul Hastings, Washington, DC Howard Morse Biden antitrust: “Building” antitrust Partner Cooley, Washington, DC enforcement “back better” American antitrust and the near Pharmaceutical antitrust: Donald C. Klawiter term: Consistency, one imagines, and What the Biden administration can do Principal Klawiter PLLC, Washington, DC some reasons why Michael A. Carrier Unscrambling the eggs: Merger Christopher L. Sagers Distinguished Professor Rutgers Law School, Camden James A. Thomas Professor of Law control in the new administration Cleveland State University The “ought” and “is likely” John Kwoka of Biden antitrust Neal F. Finnegan Distinguished Professor of Back to normal? Cartel enforcement Economics Northeastern University, Boston under the Biden administration Peter C. Carstensen Tommaso Valletti University Douglas Tween Fred W. & Vi Miller Chair in Law Emeritus Professor of Economics Imperial College London of Wisconsin Law School Partner and Head of U.S. Government Enforcement and Cartel practice Regulating digital platforms: Linklaters, New York and Washington, DC The next four years: antitrust Interoperability and data portability enforcement on an upward trajectory James Langenfeld Biden antitrust: At a crossroads Lisl Dunlop Senior Managing Director Ankura Consulting Group, Partner Axinn, New York Michael L. Weiner Washington, DC Partner Chris Ring Steptoe & Johnson, New York Biden antitrust: The middle way Senior Director Ankura Consulting Group, Harry First Washington, DC Charles L. Denison Professor of Law New York Samuel Clark University Associate Ankura Consulting Group, Washington, Eleanor M. Fox DC délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, d'auteur par les conventions internationales intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute du droit en vigueur et le Code de la propriété au titre Ce document est protégé by copyright laws and internationalNon-authorised use of this document pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected copyright treaties. personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article techniques de protection L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment € 300 000 fine ( Walter J. Derenberg Professor of Trade Regulation New York University Concurrences N° 1-2021 I On-Topic I The new US antitrust administration 1 Competition policy challenges for a new U.S. administration: Is the past prologue? Alden F. Abbott* [email protected] General Counsel Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Washington, DC I. Background: enforcement effectiveness—numbered 46 under Bush, 29 under Obama, and 28 under Trump. Aggregating across measures, one finds 154 merger enforcement The recent past actions under Bush (about 19 a year), 166 under 1. The new Joseph Biden administration (JBA) will have Obama (just over 20 a year), and 85 under Trump the opportunity, if it so chooses, to apply American anti- (just over 21 a year). In short, FTC merger enforce- trust and competition policy in a manner that promotes ment rates were quite consistent across the last three economic efficiency, consumer welfare, and economic administrations, with the FTC having its best aggre- growth. Antitrust policy formulation, of course, is not gate numbers under President Trump. made in a vacuum—the past is prologue. The JBA will find in the pipeline a large number of investigations, 4. Second, non-merger antitrust enforcement. During ongoing enforcement actions, and policy initiatives that the second term of the Obama administration (2013– will have to be considered as new antitrust priorities are 2016), the FTC took 24 non-merger enforcement actions devised. (including 18 consents accepted for comment, 3 injunc- tions authorized, 2 administrative complaints, and 1 Art. Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits Art. Intellectuelle and DRM protection. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété L 122-5 Code de la Propriété 2. Consistent with the “past is prologue” theme, let action for an order violation), whereas the Trump admi- us examine U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) nistration (2017–2020) took 17 (including 6 consents enforcement statistics in recent administrations.1 accepted for comment, 8 injunctions authorized, and 3 administrative complaints). Those numbers are not 3. First, consider merger challenges. FTC merger widely dissimilar, particularly when one considers that consent decrees accepted for comment included the Trump administration litigated administratively and 84 under G. W. Bush (hereinafter “Bush”) (2001– in federal court multiple resource-intensive cases. 2009), 113 under Obama (2009–2017), and 41 under Trump (2017–2021). FTC merger-specific Part III 5. Apart from its vigorous merger and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting
    An Acuris Company 26-29 March 2019, Washington DC ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting parr-global.com PaRR ABA Antitrust Spring Contents 2 Meeting Contents Introduction 03 Europe, the Middle East and Africa 04 Americas 29 Asia-Pacific 71 parr-global.com PaRR ABA Antitrust Spring Introduction 3 Meeting Introduction Further information As regulators and lawyers gathered in Merger control policies were on the minds of Get in touch for a trial Washington last week for the American Asian enforcers with Singapore and Philippines Bar Association’s 67th Antitrust Law Spring representatives flagging planned changes Meeting, the lingering tensions surrounding to policies and thresholds, while Hong Kong Contact Sean Lanzner the US-China trade war were overshadowed and Malaysia spoke of the need to introduce by talk of convergence and outreach. PaRR’s merger control provisions. Cross navigation content global team worked the panels and fireside We hope you enjoy reading this compendium requires an internet connection. chats to bring our readers the essential news of conference coverage and – as ever – from this mainstay of the global antitrust welcome your feedback. agenda. This year’s event saw the US Department of Justice’s assistant attorney general, Roger P. The PaRR team Alford, announce that the agency’s cherished multilateral framework on procedures (MFP) is set to see buy-in from several competition authorities under the existing International Competition Network (ICN), with a second path planned for non-members. The director general of the Antimonopoly Bureau of China’s newly formed State Administration for Market Supervision, Wu Zhenguo, told PaRR on the sidelines of the conference that the country is mulling joining the MFP, and the EU’s competition head Margrethe Vestager, welcomed the move to streamline the proposal through the ICN.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 115 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 164 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 No. 75 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was housing. Now, in my district, in the ownership is out of the question. Even called to order by the Speaker pro tem- East Bay in northern California, the as a dedicated public servant, I can’t pore (Mr. COMER). average renter in Oakland would be afford to work in urban schools in the f forced to spend a staggering—mind Bay area. you, staggering—70 percent of their in- A former student wrote me: I had to DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO come on housing if they were to move withdraw from classes at UC Berkeley TEMPORE today. That is 70 percent. Clearly, the so I could find stable housing and The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- affordable housing crisis is off the scale enough income to afford my monthly fore the House the following commu- in my district. rent. nication from the Speaker: In April, I sent an email to my con- Mr. Speaker, our community, our WASHINGTON, DC, stituents asking for their stories and country, cannot function without May 9, 2018. suggestions on how to address this very nurses, teachers, or young people living I hereby appoint the Honorable JAMES important issue. Today I would like to in decent affordable housing. We need COMER to act as Speaker pro tempore on this share just a few of those stories which to solve this crisis before it is too late.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 a N T I T R U S T M O D E R N I Z a T I O N C
    Sherman Act, Section 1 (15 U.S.C. § 1) Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a cor- poration, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sherman Act, Section 2 (15 U.S.C. § 2) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceed- ing three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Clayton Act, Section 7 (15 U.S.C. § 18) No person engaged in commerce or in any activ- ity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington, DC Antitrust Bar
    Americas The Washington, DC antitrust bar As Washington, DC is roiled by political turmoil, its antitrust bar remains deeply rooted and largely stable – as well as the biggest and arguably most important in the world. Pallavi Guniganti and Charles McConnell review the merits of more than 40 competition practices in the US capitol Washington, DC is unquestionably a different place – Walgreen Boots Alliance’s acquisition of rival retail than it was two years ago, when GCR last surveyed pharmacy chain Rite Aid – has been cut down to a the city’s antitrust bar. Most obviously, the election of purchase of fewer than half of the shops after a lengthy Donald Trump has changed the leadership of the US FTC investigation. The presumption of laxer treatment Federal Trade Commission and US Department of of business under a conservative president has been Justice’s antitrust division, as well as other government complicated by Trump’s emphasis on retaining jobs departments that can affect competition through and campaign rhetoric against NBCUniversal, Time regulation. At the time of writing, the nomination Warner and Amazon. While the Committee for of Makan Delrahim as assistant attorney general Foreign Investment in the US vets deals for their effect for antitrust awaits a vote by the full Senate, and the on national security and not competition, an increas- president has yet to name a permanent head of the ing number of antitrust lawyers in Washington, DC FTC; the commission’s sole Republican, Maureen say they are hearing anxiety from Asian clients about Ohlhausen, has been acting chairman. the president’s “America First” slogan, interpreted as Many observers have said they expect the change potential hostility toward acquisitions of US compa- in political party to affect antitrust enforcement only nies by foreigners.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Modernization Commission: Report and Recommendations
    Sherman Act, Section 1 (15 U.S.C. § 1) Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a cor- poration, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sherman Act, Section 2 (15 U.S.C. § 2) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceed- ing three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Clayton Act, Section 7 (15 U.S.C. § 18) No person engaged in commerce or in any activ- ity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronicle Vol
    Antitrust Health Care April 2018 Chronicle Vol. 32 / No. 3 In This Issue Editor’s Report E ective Advocacy Before FTC on Welcome to the third issue of the Chronicle for the ABA 2017-18 term. Health Care Deals In this issue, we are pleased to present an interview with Alexis Gilman, Interview with Alexis Gilman, former Assistant Director for Mergers IV at the Federal Trade Commission former Assistant Director for and current Partner at Crowell & Moring LLP. Chronicle editor Amanda Mergers IV at the Federal Trade Hamilton interviewed Gilman about best practices for advocating Commission and current Partner before the FTC on health care deals. Our second article discusses the at Crowell & Moring, by Chronicle implications of increased government focus on branded drug companies’ editor Amanda Hamilton, Associate refusals to sell samples of drugs subject to REMS programs to generic at Haug Partners fi rms and other forms of alleged REMS abuse. The third article provides a summary of recent congressional hearing activity related to antitrust issues in the health care sector. The FDA’s and FTC’s Increased Focus If there is a topic that you would like to see covered in a Committee program or if you have any other suggestions, please contact the on Generic Drug Committee Co-Chairs, Seth Silber ([email protected]) or Leigh Oliver Competition Signals ([email protected]). Enhanced Attention If you would like to submit an article for the Chronicle, please contact to REMS Issues Amanda Lewis ([email protected]) or Anthony Swisher (Anthony.Swisher@ Heather Choi, William Lavery and squirepb.com).
    [Show full text]
  • EPIC Statement 1 FTC Oversight House Energy & Commerce May 6
    May 6, 2019 The Honorable Janice D. Schakowsky, Chair The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection & Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers: We write to you regarding the hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission: Strengthening Protections for Americans’ Privacy and Data Security.”1 For more than two decades, EPIC has worked to establish the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to safeguard the privacy of American consumers.2 But it is our view today that the FTC does not function as an effective privacy agency, and that the Committee should support the establishment of a Data Protection Agency in the United States.3 The Federal Trade Commission helps to safeguard consumers and to promote competition, but the FTC is not an effective data protection agency. Even when the FTC reaches a consent agreement with a privacy-violating company, the Commission rarely enforces the Consent Order terms.4 Over a year has passed since the FTC reopened its investigation into Facebook following the unlawful transfer of 50 million Facebook user records to Cambridge Analytica.5 The Commission has done nothing. EPIC, through a FOIA request, recently learned that the FTC has over 26,000 1 Oversight of the Federal Trade Commission: Strengthening Protections for Americans’ Privacy and Data Security, 116th Cong. (2019), H. Comm. on Energy & Commerce, SuBcomm. on Consumer Protection & Commerce (May 8, 2019), https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on- oversight-of-the-federal-trade-commission-strengthening.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion of Respondent Axon Enterprises to Stay The
    PUBLIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 01 10 2020 COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 597242 Noah Joshua Phillips Rohit Chopra Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Christine S. Wilson In the Matter of Axon Enterprise, Inc., Docket No. D9389 a corporation, and PUBLIC DOCUMENT Safariland, LLC, a corporation. MOTION OF RESPONDENT AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., TO STAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING In accordance with Commission Rules 3.22 and 3.41(f), Respondent Axon Enterprise, Inc. (“Axon”) respectfully requests a stay of this administrative proceeding until entry of a final judgment on Axon’s complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Axon Enter. Inc. v. FTC, No. 2:20-cv-14-DMF (Jan. 3, 2020) (the “District Court Action”). Good cause exists for a stay because the District Court Action will determine whether the Commission’s structure and its administrative proceedings are constitutionally valid. A stay will ensure that resources are not wasted and that Axon is not forced to participate in a proceeding while the District Court is deciding its constitutionality. A stay also will not cause any prejudice because the antitrust claims at issue here are also presented in the District Court Action. In the alternative, Axon requests a stay of this proceeding at least until entry of an order in the District Court Action on Axon’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed January 9, 2020. BACKGROUND On May 3, 2018, Axon announced its acquisition of Vievu LLC—a failing company— from Safariland LLC. More than a year and a half later, the Commission took the position that PUBLIC the acquisition violated federal antitrust law, and it demanded that Axon agree to a “blank check” divestiture.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments of R Street Institute
    1212 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Free Markets. Real Solutions. 202.525.5717 www.rstreet.org ________________________________________________ ) ) In the Matter of ) ) Docket No. 180821780-8780-01 Developing the Administration’s ) Approach to Consumer Privacy ) ) ________________________________________________ ) Comments of R Street Institute Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Duan Tech Policy Director Joe Kane Tech Policy Fellow Tom Struble Tech Policy Manager Caleb Watney Tech Policy Fellow Jeff Westling Tech Policy Associate November 9, 2018 2 | R Street Institute Table of Contents Comments of R Street Institute ………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………................................................ 4 Summary of RSI Works on Various Privacy Issues ...…………………………………………………….......... 4 Conclusion ...……………………………………………………......................................................................................... 9 Appendix A: Tom Struble & Joe Kane, “New Internet Privacy Bill Would Bring European-Style Regulations,” The Daily Caller (May 31, 2017)……………………………….................................. 10 Appendix B: Tom Struble & Joe Kane, “A Three-Step Plan to Promote Consumer Privacy,” Morning Consult (June 26, 2017) ……………………………………………………................................ 12 Appendix C: Tom Struble, “For Internet Gatekeepers, Consumer Protection Laws are Better than Utility-Style Regulation,” Brookings TechTank (Sept. 26, 2017).…………………….
    [Show full text]
  • FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21St
    1 1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 2 3 4 COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 5 IN THE 21ST CENTURY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Friday, September 21, 2018 13 9:00 a.m. 14 15 16 17 Federal Trade Commission 18 400 7th Street, S.W. 19 Washington, D.C. 20 21 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 2 1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 2 I N D E X 3 4 5 ORAL ARGUMENT PAGE 6 Welcome and Introductory Remarks 7 By Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter 6 8 9 Opening Address by Joseph E. Stiglitz 13 10 11 Remarks by William C. Kovacic 36 12 13 Panel 1: The State of U.S. Antitrust Law 53 14 15 Panel 2: The State of Antitrust Law 126 16 17 Panel 3: Monopsony & Buyer Power 204 18 19 Closing Remarks by 20 Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen 272 21 22 23 24 25 For The Record, Inc. (301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 - - - - - 3 MS. MUNCK: All right. Good morning, and 4 welcome to the FTC's second session of our hearings on 5 Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st 6 Century. My name is Suzanne Munck, and I am the Deputy 7 Director of the Office of Policy Planning, and on 8 behalf of the FTC and all of my colleagues, I'd like to 9 welcome everyone who is joining our session in person 10 and via webcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominations to the Federal Trade Commission Hearing
    S. HRG. 115–761 NOMINATIONS TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2018 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 39–877 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:54 Mar 02, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\39877.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana NICK ROSSI, Staff Director ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:54 Mar 02, 2020 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\39877.TXT JACKIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on February 14, 2018 ....................................................................... 1 Statement of Senator Thune ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21St Century: Opening Session September 14, 2018
    CLIENT NEWSFLASH Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century: Opening Session September 14, 2018 The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection kicked off yesterday. FTC Chairman Joseph Simons opened the hearings, noting two major challenges in competition law: First, the U.S. economy appears to be growing more consolidated and less competitive, even as economics-driven enforcement may be leading to less vigorous enforcement by antitrust agencies. Second, some are challenging the nature of antitrust law itself and are urging the enforcement agencies to consider other policy goals besides competition, such as job protection or equality. In addressing these challenges, Simons stressed the importance of bipartisan, fact-based policymaking. He hearkened back to similar hearings held in 1995 under then-Chairman Robert Pitofsky, and he expressed the hope that by engaging a broad range of stakeholders, the current hearings would help develop a consensus on how new enforcement challenges should be addressed and on what initiatives the Commission should prioritize. The day’s first panel addressed the current landscape of competition and consumer protection law and policy. Panelists included Timothy Muris, FTC Chairman under George W. Bush; Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Obama; and Jim Rill, Assistant Attorney General of Antitrust at DOJ under President George H.W. Bush. The panelists united over appreciation for the bipartisanship that the FTC has displayed in recent years and expressed general agreement with Chairman Simons’ call for rigorous, non-ideological enforcement. But the panelists diverged on whether increasing concentration across industries meant a new approach to antitrust enforcement is needed.
    [Show full text]