Yesterday, in my contribution to the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog’s Section 5 symposium, I discussed the FTC’s use of Section 5 to evade the tough standards facing plaintiffs bringing Section 2 claims and how that evasion was likely to cost consumers by stripping out the error-cost protections embedded in modern monopolization law.  I also argued that the Commission’s various justifications for bringing the case under Section 5 were both unpersuasive and unprincipled.  Some of the justifications are to do with the general trend towards favoring Section 5 as a stand alone authority, others rely on the institutional expertise of the Commission relative to judges in federal district court, and still others on the nature of competition in the microprocessor market, e.g. Commissioner Rosch’s claim that the difficulty in distinguishing harm to competitors from harm to competition in this setting supports a Section 5 case.

Read the full piece here.

The FTC should be ashamed

Seriously.  What interpretation of events is there other than that the FTC knew it could not prevail in a Section 2 case and decided to go in search of a back-up?  Commissioners Rosch and Leibowitz have been making noise about Section 5 for some time, and this seemed like the perfect opportunity to put it to the test—to make some new law that would favor the Commission in cases like this one where it “knows” there is injury but the Section 2 case law makes prevailing difficult nonetheless.  They have “found” their case, and Intel, its shareholders, consumers and competition generally will suffer mightily for their hubris.

Read the full piece here.

Employing Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to evade Section 2 monopolization law is not a legitimate use of Section 5.  This is, unfortunately, the only reasonable interpretation of the Commission’s choice to make Section 5 the primary hook of its Intel complaint.  While there is no doubt that Section 5 of the FTC Act was intended to allow the Commission to fill “gaps” in antitrust enforcement under the Sherman Act, the FTC’s attempts to pigeonhole its Section 5 complaint into this “gap” filling rationale is not persuasive.

Read the full piece here.

There is no annual fee for shopping at Wal-Mart, but there is an annual fee for shopping at Sam’s Club. Is there a consumer protection problem here?

Read the full piece here. 

Economist, co-author, and sometimes TOTM guest David Evans (UCL, University of Chicago School of Law) has an excellent note on “Why Now is Not the Right Time To Revamp Consumer Protection,” based on remarks made at the New York Federal Reserve Board-New York University Conference on Regulating Consumer Financial Products yesterday in New York.  Evans makes some of the points we discuss in our joint work criticizing the intellectual basis for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, but also offers a concise and powerful case against “revamping” consumer protection too hastily, or without attention to the institutional details or the economic evidence.  Geoff’s post the other day on credit card regulation, for example, points out precisely the types of harmful errors that can be made on “behalf” of consumers when invoking the behavioral economics literature without analyzing it (or the related empirical evidence) closely. Evans makes six essential points — and I’m excerpting here — but I suggest readers check out the whole thing…

Read the full piece here. 

Adam Levitin has a blog post up responding to Todd Zywicki’s recent WSJ editorial on credit card interchange fees.  As most readers know, this is a topic of significant interest around here, and Josh blogged about Todd’s op-ed just yesterday.  I’m on vacation so I’ll be brief, but I thought Adam’s post was so wrong it necessitated my getting off the beach for a reply.  Adam writes…

Read the full piece here. 

A couple weeks ago, Geoff wrote concerning the DOJ’s misguided antitrust interest in Monsanto. With that in mind, I was very interested to see today’s announcement that Monsanto’s earnings and gross margins are significantly off for its fiscal first quarter.  According to the Wall Street Journal report, Monsanto posted a loss for the quarter due to a 36% drop in sales and lower margins resulting from price decreases.  Leading the drop, sales of the company’s Roundup and other herbicide products tumbled 63%!

Read the full piece here.

Fresh off of its enactment this summer of new regulations on consumer credit card terms, some in Congress want to go further—to impose a national usury ceiling on credit card interest rates and limits on interchange fees (the price that credit card issuers charge to merchants that accept their cards). That caps on interest rates harm consumers is well understood. But price controls on interchange fees would also result in consumers paying more and getting less.

Read the full piece here.

Summary

Frank Easterbrook’s seminal analysis of error-cost minimization in The Limits of Antitrust has special relevance to antitrust intervention in markets where innovation is a critical dimension of competition. Both product and business innovations involve novel practices. Historically, the economics profession has tended initially to rely upon monopoly explanations for such practices. Courts have reacted with similar hostility.

But almost always there has followed a more nuanced economic understanding of the business practice that recognized its procompetitive virtues. Antitrust standards have adjusted occasionally to reflect that new economic learning. This sequence has produced a fundamental link between innovation and antitrust error that transcends the uncontroversial point that the probability of false positives and their social costs are both higher in the case of innovation and innovative business practices.

We discuss some principles for applying Easterbrook’s error-cost framework to innovation. We then discuss the historical relationship between antitrust error and innovation. We conclude by challenging the conventional wisdom that the error-cost approach implies that the rule of reason, rather than per se rules, should apply to most forms of business conduct. We instead identify simple filters to harness existing economic knowledge to design simple rules that minimize error costs. We make five such proposals.