Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 666 Results in FTC
TOTM Repeating claims he made in his statement in Intel, Chairman Leibowitz in a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal has this to say about . . .
Repeating claims he made in his statement in Intel, Chairman Leibowitz in a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal has this to say about stepped-up Section 5 enforcement at the FTC…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Geoff recently highlighted AAG Christine Varney’s closing remarks at the Horizontal Merger Guidelines workshop and was fairly critical. Thom intervened to suggest that we at . . .
Geoff recently highlighted AAG Christine Varney’s closing remarks at the Horizontal Merger Guidelines workshop and was fairly critical. Thom intervened to suggest that we at TOTM, while fairly critical of the agencies from time to time, also give credit where it is due — highlighting AAG Varney’s RPM article. OK, that’s enough credit for now.
TOTM Tomorrow I will be presenting my paper, A Decision-Theoretic Rule of Reason for Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, at the Next Generation of Antitrust Scholarship Conference . . .
Tomorrow I will be presenting my paper, A Decision-Theoretic Rule of Reason for Minimum Resale Price Maintenance, at the Next Generation of Antitrust Scholarship Conference at NYU Law School. (Kudos to Danny Sokol for co-organizing what promises to be a terrific event!) My paper criticizes four proposed approaches to evaluating RPM post-Leegin, and it sets forth an alternative approach that embodies the sort of error cost analysis Geoff and Josh have embraced in connection with monopolization doctrine. The paper largely builds on my recent William & Mary Law Review article on RPM, expanding the analysis to address recent developments in the caselaw and antitrust scholarship (e.g., I address the pending Babies-R-Us case).
TOTM Yesterday the final Horizontal Merger Guidelines Review workshop was held and, among other antitrust luminaries, our own Josh Wright participated. We look forward to a . . .
Yesterday the final Horizontal Merger Guidelines Review workshop was held and, among other antitrust luminaries, our own Josh Wright participated. We look forward to a report from the front lines.
TOTM Gretchen Morgenson doesn’t want poor people to have access to consumer credit. At least, that’s what I think she’s saying in her rambling NYT column . . .
Gretchen Morgenson doesn’t want poor people to have access to consumer credit. At least, that’s what I think she’s saying in her rambling NYT column this week.
TOTM 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 . . .
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.
Popular Media 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 . . .
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.
Popular Media 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, . . .
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.
TOTM 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 . . .
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…
