“Congress established the FTC in 1914 to prevent unfair competition and deceptive business practices. This has primarily meant “protecting Americans in their role as consumers,” according to Ferguson. The FTC enforces the Clayton Antitrust Act, which outlawed price discrimination between customers, exclusive dealing, interlocking directorates, and mergers or acquisitions that “substantially reduce competition.”
But Khan was more interested in Americans’ role as producers than consumers. In 2022 she signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the National Labor Relations Board to “protect workers against unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and unfair labor practices,” such as restrictive contract provisions. In August 2023, Khan signed a similar MOU with the Department of Labor recognizing both agencies’ shared commitment to protecting workers from deceptive earnings claims, restrictive noncompete and nondisclosure contracts, and the “impact of labor market concentration.”
…
Ferguson’s endorsement of the 2023 joint merger guidelines, along with his hostility to the tech industry and support for enforcing the anti–price discrimination Robinson-Patman Act, all suggest a continuation of Khan’s activist antitrust ideology. The Joint Labor Task Force is yet more evidence.”
“When the Justice Department successfully blocked a proposed merger between JetBlue and Spirit Airlines last year, the head of the antitrust division under President Joe Biden announced that it was “yet another victory” for American consumers.
The declaration may have been premature. After the deal fell apart, Spirit’s stock price cratered, and the company declared bankruptcy, fired hundreds of people and raised ticket prices. The company recently received court approval for a reorganization plan that will wipe out the company’s stockholders and hand control over to large bondholders led by hedge funds and asset managers.”
…
“For decades, antitrust enforcement was guided by the notion that the effect on consumers should be regulators’ top priority. Biden’s antitrust enforcers rejected that approach — instead working from a relatively new, controversial and amorphous theory that, as Khan once described it, argues that antitrust law should instead focus on “workers, suppliers, innovators, and independent entrepreneurs” and try to dilute the economic and political power of large corporations. The unstated implication is that higher consumer prices may in fact be necessary and desirable to pursue these goals.”
…
“What the last four years show is that despite the best efforts of Khan, Kanter and their ideological allies, antitrust enforcement does not deliver broad, effective and durable economic policymaking.
Litigation is inherently fraught, and courts are not reliable or predictable enough for it to work. There can also be radical regulatory swings between administrations — like the one we are witnessing now — that can slow or even wipe out your work.
A conceptually simpler way to improve things for working-class Americans from a liberal economic perspective is one of the oldest around — redistributive taxing and spending. The Democratic Party has for years avoided anything that might look like a tax hike for the middle class, but one of the most reliably well-polling ideas in American politics is raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy.”
“Right-wing populism is a strange bird, an ideology that’s not grounded in any enduring economic or philosophical principles. It mainly entails using the government to address a variety of ill-formed social, nationalistic, and cultural grievances. Former British politician David Gauke was spot on when he says that populism amounts to little more than “a willingness by politicians to say what they think the public wants to hear.”
That’s why President-elect Donald Trump’s recent appointments reflect a mish-mash of conflicting opinions. Many conservatives were, for instance, shocked by his selection of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R–Ore.) as Labor Secretary given that her pro-union positions aren’t different from those advocated by President Joe Biden.”
“a software company called RealPage is being sued by the Department of Justice for using an algorithm that suggests rent prices to corporate landlords. The DOJ argues that its algorithm has driven rents higher, and constitutes an illegal information sharing scheme. That is, competitors (the landlords) who would otherwise be acting independently, have exchanged “nonpublic, competitively sensitive data” to the detriment of renters who don’t have access to such knowledge.”
“Much of the lawsuit centers around how Amazon essentially forces third-party sellers who use its Marketplace platform — which accounts for about 60 percent of Amazon’s sales — to purchase additional services from Amazon. Amazon’s critics say the company has gotten greedier over the years, resulting in sellers having to cut their profit margins or raise prices to consumers to account for Amazon’s ever-increasing charges and fees. The FTC says that many sellers pay nearly 50 percent of their revenue to Amazon when all of the fees are combined, and those costs can be passed on to the consumer.
One way it does this, the suit says, is through search ads, which allow sellers to have their products placed prominently in customer searches, above products that organically earned a top spot. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon has increased the number of ads in search results over the years, making sellers feel that the only way potential customers will see their products at all is if they pay Amazon for ads. This makes the shopping experience worse for consumers who have to wade through them to find organic results.
“These ads have been enormously lucrative for Amazon, but shoppers face less relevant results and are steered toward more expensive products, while sellers face an additional set of fees,” Khan said.
The lawsuit also addresses Amazon’s “buy box.” When several sellers offer the same product, Amazon picks which one gets the sale when a customer clicks to make a purchase — whether “add to cart” or “buy now.” That’s the buy box. Everyone else is relegated to an “other sellers” section, which is farther down the page. Most customers don’t bother or even know to check it, which makes that buy box placement crucial for sellers.
But Amazon has certain conditions that make it more likely that the seller will get that buy box — or, if they don’t comply with them, make it impossible to get it at all. Those conditions often mean giving Amazon more money.
Qualifying for Prime is one of them, but sellers pretty much have to use Amazon’s “Fulfilled by Amazon” logistics and shipping service in order to be eligible for it. Amazon has technically allowed sellers to use other fulfillment services, but it’s exceedingly difficult for any third-party fulfillment service to meet Amazon’s requirements, and Amazon closed off enrollment to the Seller Fulfilled Prime option years ago.
A few months ago, however, Amazon announced it would re-open enrollment “later this year.” Notably, it has also changed some of these practices in the European Union recently as part of a settlement to end an antitrust case there, including adding a second buy box and allowing seller-fulfilled Prime.”