There's been a lot of antitrust news today. Sen. Mike Lee and Chuck Grassley also dropped their own antitrust overhaul. Here's the one-pager: lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/…
There's stuff in here that's DOA for Dems -- like eliminating the FTC's antitrust jurisdiction and giving it to @JusticeATR. But there are other things that could gain some consensus.
@JusticeATR Civil fines for knowing violations of the antitrust laws of up to 15% of a company's annual revenues for each year in which the violation occurred. That's in line with EU fines, which can be big $ (see Google's $10B or so)
Illinois Brick repealer! Antitrust plaintiffs have wanted this forever! (Ok, actually just since 1970 something, but still a long time)
A rebuttable presumption (meaning the court assumes but the company can offer evidence to try to overcome) that any merger that leads to a share greater than 33% substantially lessens competitions. A complete ban on mergers that lead to greater than 66% market share
This one I really like: DOJ would have to prepare a written explanation of any decisions not to sue after issuing a subpoena. Explanations for public investigations are made public; others are available to Congress, subject to FOIA. (Do you know how much easier my job would be!)
No federal contracts to companies that have violated the antitrust laws in the last 5 years. (Sorry many pharma companies and Apple)
Lee/Grassley also propose codifying the consumer welfare standard. That's something Dems are really likely to oppose. But the proposal on efficiencies could be really helpful: only in-market! only achieved through the challenged conduct or transaction!
Quantifiable! will primarily accrue to the consumer! and have a high likelihood of being achieved. (Having this kind of definition of efficiencies could have changed the outcome in Sprint-T-Mobile)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This story started it's life as this chart. I wanted to look at how the House bills zoomed in on the companies (ALSO special thanks to @wordsbykam for listening to me ramble on a Friday afternoon and then making it into something understandable)
The Justice Department and the FTC designate “covered online platforms” for enhanced enforcement only if the companies meet certain thresholds: The business’ parent company must have a market value of at least $600 billion -- something only 10 corporations worldwide meet
The FTC improperly held that 1-800 Contacts trademark agreements violated the antitrust law, the 2nd Circuit held this AM. They reversed the FTC decision and ordered the complaint be dismissed. Big loss for FTC. More TK.
. @energycommerce voted 30-22 to advance a bill to restore the @FTC ability to seek restitution and disgorgement from companies that break the law in the wake of the Supreme Court's AMG decision that the agency didn't have that authority
Before moving the bill, Democrats defeated, 25-28, an amendment offered by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) that would have reduced to 5 years from 10 years the period of time for which they could seek monetary remedies.
The amendment would also have changed the bill so it would only apply to FTC cases going forward, not any of its pending ones.
Five bills: each covering a slightly different aspect of antitrust/tech platforms.
1) Line of business restrictions. This is the "Glass-Steagall of the Internet" idea that Cicilline has talked up. The legislation takes aim at companies (like Amazon) that operate a dominant platform and promote their own goods or services on it.