Thread by @profthomlambert

This is unbelievable. @FTC staffers are opposing a request by a group of professors (including me) to file an amicus brief in its administrative challenge to the Illumina/Grail merger.🧵 ftc.gov/system/files/d…

The staffers insinuate that we amici have been bought off by the merging parties and that our views should therefore be ignored. As an initial matter, it’s awfully rich for FTC to cry bias in an administrative proceeding in which it acts as both prosecutor and judge. Moreover,

I can assure you that I have never received a penny for expressing a view in this case. Nor, to my knowledge, has any entity with which I am affiliated. I oppose the FTC’s challenge for reasons I stated in this blog post: truthonthemarket.com/2021/06/09/bad…

The facts here are simple. The merger offers obvious efficiencies and eliminates double marginalization. The purported harms are utterly speculative, as the market for multi-cancer early detection tests doesn’t even exist. (Indeed, this merger would hasten its existence!) Plus,

The competitive concerns FTC identifies—foreclosure of rivals from a needed platform—are obviated by the parties’ binding commitment to provide platform access at reduced prices for 12 years! No wonder complaint counsel is scared.

But I really wish antitrust interventionists would stop accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being bought off. It’s annoying enough when public interest groups do it. When government enforcers discount opposing viewpoints as biased, it’s downright dangerous. END