Ex-FTC Officials Question Duality of Enforcement With DOJ
Different antitrust interpretations of the FTC and Sherman Acts create a “dangerous” enforcement divide between the FTC and DOJ, ex-FTC Chairman Tim Muris told a NetChoice panel Wednesday. Companies can expect different sets of rules based on agency, he said.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Noting all chairs take over with their own agendas, ex-FTC acting Chief Technologist Neil Chilson, now a researcher at Stand Together, said Chair Lina Khan’s approach seems to be to “move fast and break things.” Khan has taken procedural measures, limited bipartisan potential and given herself more power, said Muris, noting Democrats made it easier for the agency to pursue rulemaking. It’s a move away from consensus antitrust enforcement, said ex-acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen, now at Baker Botts. This embracing of more rulemaking and regulation is a departure from the consumer welfare standard, said Ohlhausen: Some people feel antitrust has become too difficult to enforce, so this is a sidestep, creating questions about dual enforcement. The three panelists led the agency under Republican presidents. The agency didn't comment.