With skyrocketing drug prices and ongoing anticompetitive conduct in the pharma industry, we need to revamp our approach to pharma mergers. Today the @FTC announced a joint project with our counterparts across the country and the globe to do just that. ftc.gov/news-events/pr…
The @FTC's longstanding practice in pharma mergers tends to address one important competitive angle: overlaps in products and pipeline products between the merging parties. But I have long been concerned that this approach does not capture all the effects of these deals.
A concern that we need to broaden our analysis and approach motivated my dissent in BMS-Celgene... ftc.gov/public-stateme…
The goal of the initiative announced today is to identify concrete and actionable steps to update the analysis of pharma mergers. Working hand in hand with international and domestic enforcement partners, we intend to take an aggressive approach to tackling these deals.
ICYMI, the @FTC proposed a settlement addressing allegations that @zoom_us undermined the #security and #privacy of its users. I dissented because the settlement failed to recognize and solve for the privacy implications of the security failures at issue. ftc.gov/public-stateme…
Too often we treat data security and privacy as distinct concerns that can be separately
preserved. In reality, protecting a consumer’s privacy and providing strong data security are
closely intertwined, and when we solve only for one we fail to secure either.
This case provides a perfect example of how things that might seem superficially to be security failures (here, encryption levels and overriding 3rd-party security features) are really about privacy as well.
America's workers are under siege on many fronts; they need the protection of our labor laws more than ever, but the Trump admin is pushing through an 11th hour rule that will make things worse not better. I urged them to stop. ftc.gov/public-stateme…
My objections to the Rule and the deficiencies of the record are in my comment, but the tl;dr version is that the rule is not only bad for labor, it's also bad for competition; it's built on a record that doesn't adequately consider those issue; and it should go. Specifically:
Today the @FTC announced its settlement with @facebook. I voted no, as did @chopraftc. The majority explained its decision in a statement, and we both wrote dissents - all long, but worth reading (as is the order itself). Links below. First, a more concise version of my views.
I voted no b/c I do not believe either the money or the injunctive relief will ensure accountability or that @facebook changes how it treats user data. And the release of liability is not justified.
We shouldn't analyze the settlement terms against prior settlements; we should analyze them against the specific facts in this case. On that metric, the settlement falls short.
It was a good day for consumers and for antitrust law in the Supreme Court (a sentence I can say all too rarely). Below is a brief thread of some of my favorite lines from the decision in Apple v. Pepper. supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf…
(but first, a reminder that I wrote about how this outcome was the correct and logical way to resolve this case back in December.) nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opi…
"The broad text of §4 [of the Clayton Act]—“any person” who has been “injured” by an antitrust violator may sue—readily covers consumers who purchase goods or services at higher-than-competitive prices from an allegedly monopolistic retailer."
First - our enforcement does not happen in a vacuum, nor do we have a universe of perfect choices. There was no dispute that Speedway screwed up its compliance with the original order, and that was unacceptable. 2/
I certainly don’t think, and the majority opinion does not suggest, that Speedway’s behavior was “fine.” The question was how bad was it and what do we do about it. 3/