By Brent Kendall and Ryan Tracy
WASHINGTON -- Lina Khan, a progressive champion nominated by
President Biden for a key enforcement post, wants to transform
antitrust policy into a bulwark against corporate power by blocking
more mergers, attacking monopolistic practices and potentially
breaking up some of America's largest companies.
Ms. Khan, 32 years old, is awaiting Senate confirmation for a
Democratic seat on the five-member Federal Trade Commission after
she was cleared by the Senate Commerce Committee. She has risen to
prominence -- and gained bipartisan support -- as Democrats and
Republicans alike have said lax antitrust enforcement, especially
in the tech sector, has allowed dominant firms to hobble rivals and
stifle competition.
Her targets have included not just Big Tech but also Big
Chocolate and others. She has argued for hawkish positions that
would overhaul legal doctrine and go well beyond the approach of
recent antitrust enforcers. While her most ardent supporters
believe such changes are long overdue, her views have prompted a
debate on whether her approach is realistic and potentially so
sweeping that it could prove jarring to the economy.
"Stepped-up antitrust enforcement is one thing," said Howard
University law professor Andrew Gavil, who was a top FTC staffer
the last time Democrats controlled the commission. "Changing the
standards is a different matter," he said.
Mr. Gavil, who favors more enforcement, said Ms. Khan will have
to consider how to translate her views into something that can be
applied in practice. "That's more challenging than simply being a
critic on the outside," he said.
If confirmed, Ms. Khan, a professor at Columbia Law School,
would join an agency that enforces antitrust and
consumer-protection laws across the economy. She would further
cement the rise of a progressive camp that believes the U.S. faces
what she has described as "a sweeping market power problem" in
which large firms have been allowed to become too dominant.
"Lina has been very clear-eyed in recognizing that the core
questions have to do with power, with the ability of private
entities to coerce and to bully," said Stacy Mitchell, co-director
of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a research and advocacy
group.
A London-born immigrant who came to the U.S. at age 11, Ms. Khan
is soft-spoken and a prolific writer. During her teenage years in
the New York City area, she worked on the student newspaper at
Mamaroneck High School. She gained prominence through her criticism
of Amazon.com Inc., writing a widely read law-review article while
a student at Yale Law School that argued that antitrust law has
failed to restrain the online retailer.
Ms. Khan has rocketed through the progressive ranks, sounding
the alarm on corporate concentration in industries ranging from
airlines to agriculture. "Big chocolate is about to get even
bigger," she wrote in a 2013 article criticizing consolidation in
the world market for cocoa processing.
People close to Ms. Khan said she sees herself as an
intellectual leader in an antimonopoly movement, one that views
unchecked corporate power as a threat to democracy.
She was a House staffer on a congressional antitrust panel that
conducted a 16-month investigation of large online platforms and
last year recommended that lawmakers take steps to rein them in.
She served as legal director of the Open Markets Institute, a group
that favors aggressive trustbusting.
Ms. Khan, who declined to comment, would join an FTC that
scrutinizes mergers and business practices to determine whether
they illegally suppress competition in the marketplace. She has
argued that the current framework for enforcing U.S. antitrust laws
is misguided because it favors corporate efficiency and short-term
consumer welfare interests -- a preference for Amazon's prices and
convenience, for example -- over maintaining a competitive
structure in which a healthy number of rival firms keep one another
in check.
The current system, she has said, essentially gives a green
light to most corporate mergers and all except the most
questionable business practices.
Restoring vigorous enforcement "first requires recognizing that
the source of the problem is not just a lack of enforcement, but
also the current philosophy of antitrust," Ms. Khan wrote for the
Yale Law Journal in 2018.
Democrats have embraced Ms. Khan's arguments that enforcement
has been inadequate, supporting tougher action by the FTC and the
Justice Department, as well as legislation to strengthen antitrust
laws. Some, however, have said the FTC can change its approach
without embracing Ms. Khan's philosophical shift away from how
enforcers have thought about the law for decades.
Republicans are more reserved on potential legislative changes
and have been critical of Ms. Khan's central argument that
antitrust policy should focus on more than just consumer welfare.
Some have worried that her views would lead to burdensome
government interference across industries, even as they support her
positions against Big Tech.
Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah), the top Republican on a Senate
antitrust panel, voted against Ms. Khan in the Senate Commerce
Committee and said liberal changes aren't needed. "Our laws could
meet the need if only enforcers brought the appropriate facts and
the appropriate evidence," he said during her April confirmation
hearing.
He asked if Ms. Khan would have to recuse herself from Big Tech
cases because of her work on the House online-platform
investigation. The FTC is currently investigating Amazon.
Ms. Khan said she would consult with FTC ethics officials if
recusal questions arose.
Concern about tech dominance has allowed Ms. Khan to forge
common ground with some Republicans by arguing that concentrated
corporate power is a threat to liberty. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas),
himself a former FTC staffer, said at the hearing that the FTC
"should be doing much more" on Big Tech and that he looked forward
to working with her.
The House antitrust report concluded that Amazon, Apple Inc.,
Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Facebook Inc. wield monopoly power --
and criticized U.S. antitrust enforcement agencies as failing to
curb their dominance.
All four companies disputed the committee report's findings and
declined to comment on Ms. Khan's nomination.
Carl Szabo, general counsel at NetChoice, an industry group
whose members include Amazon, Google and Facebook, said Ms. Khan's
views "could throw into question American innovation, economic
exceptionalism, and consumer happiness for decades to come."
Ms. Khan has acknowledged that some markets, particularly in the
digital space, might naturally be dominated by a handful of online
firms because of their size and scale. In those circumstances, she
has argued, the government should consider placing structural
limits on the lines of business in which a firm can engage, or
perhaps regulate online platforms directly as "common carriers" as
it does with public utilities.
While Ms. Khan has extensively criticized the status quo, she
has been less specific on what, realistically, can be done
differently, especially as conservative court rulings have narrowed
antitrust laws in a direction favorable to business for
decades.
She could find herself with allies at the FTC to test the
waters.
Democrat Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the agency's acting
chairwoman, has staked out aggressive enforcement positions during
her three years on the commission, urging a tougher stance on
mergers and recently creating an internal group that could help
implement first-ever regulations that prohibit certain kinds of
business practices as unfair methods of competition.
"Lina's work has substantially advanced the public debate on
competition, and I am not aware of any places she and I disagree,"
Ms. Slaughter said.
The FTC's makeup is still taking shape. Mr. Biden has yet to
designate a permanent chair, and he will have another opening if
Commissioner Rohit Chopra, a progressive, is confirmed to run the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
An aggressive FTC could face several legal battles in the near
term. A fight could ensue if Democrats assert the power to issue
competition regulations, an authority that is in dispute. Early
targets could include noncompete clauses in employment contracts
and pharmaceutical settlements that potentially delay the entry of
generic drugs.
The commission might face tough decisions on whether to bring
lawsuits on mergers or monopolization because losses in court can
set precedent for future cases. In recent years courts rejected
government antitrust claims against the chip maker Qualcomm Inc.
and American Express Co.
Ms. Khan's supporters have said it is worth the risk. If the FTC
runs into skeptical judges, "the cases can help clarify where
Congress needs to step in," said Fordham University law professor
Zephyr Teachout. "If you don't bring the cases, you are not going
to win them."
Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and Ryan Tracy
at ryan.tracy@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
May 23, 2021 12:14 ET (16:14 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META)
Historical Stock Chart
From Oct 2024 to Nov 2024
Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META)
Historical Stock Chart
From Nov 2023 to Nov 2024