Don't Give the Federal Trade Commission a Big Budget Just To Punish Big Firms
FTC Chair Lina Khan has an agenda that's against big companies, not for consumer well-being.

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requested over a 37 percent increase to its 2024 budget. If approved, this would mark one of the highest budget increases in the history of the FTC. Given FTC Chair Lina Khan's "big is bad" ideology, many observers expect this enlarged budget will lead to more investigations, lawsuits, and rule making from the agency that will target firms based on size without considering consumer welfare.
The proposal would bring the FTC's total budget for FY 2024 up to $590 million and allow for the hiring of 1,690 full-time staff. Many new staffers will focus on the FTC's stated interest in expanding its investigation and litigation capacities. This hiring boost means more lawsuits aimed at companies the FTC perceives as having anti-competitive conduct. In that litigious spirit, the FTC is willing to go after firms simply for being too big, threatening the four decades of consensus around the consumer welfare standard.
Khan has never hidden her belief that bigness is inherently anti-competitive. Before being sworn into office, she wrote vehemently against large business institutions, particularly Big Tech. In her Yale Law Journal essay "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," she made the case that the size of a company is a determining factor in whether anti-competitive litigation is necessary. This antitrust philosophy, sometimes called "the Harvard school" or "Neo-Brandeisian," boils down to an intrinsic belief that the size of a company is a basis for pursuing legal action.
If a merger increases the welfare of consumers but also increases market concentration, how do FTC enforcers know whether to pursue action? The consumer welfare standard provides a clear guiding star: Pursue action if the consumer is harmed.
These conflicting standards are precisely why the FTC has seen multiple failures in targeting large companies, from its attempt to block Meta's acquisition of the virtual reality fitness app Supernatural to its complaint against Altria Group and Juul Labs, Inc. These failures have not deterred the FTC, however. Khan acknowledges that winning cases is not how she marks success for her agency. Instead, by pursuing anti-competitive complaints, she hopes to whittle away at existing precedents until the courts or Congress make official changes.
This acknowledgment makes what some Republican congressional critics of Khan's FTC had said crystal clear: The FTC has become an activist organization first and foremost. In her effort to eliminate the consumer welfare standard, Khan is willing to file as many complaints as she thinks necessary, substituting her sense of what the law ought to be for what it is. An increase in the FTC's budget will only give the agency more firepower for its current course. This means more investigations, more rule making, and more lawsuits, all pursued with little regard for what helps the consumer.
Lawsuits, complaints, and fear of entering mergers and acquisitions will all lead to unnecessary inefficiencies for some of the most important businesses enmeshed in American life. Consumers who simply want to use the cheapest product with the highest level of satisfaction will ultimately pay the bill for the FTC's overreach. Not only as taxpayers will Americans be called upon to provide for the FTC's $160 million budget increase, but as consumers, too. Companies will need to pay for more frequent and expensive litigation, potentially passing on those costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
Not only that, but fear related to the FTC's interference with merging with or acquiring another company may cause some firms to reconsider. Many mergers have a positive impact on innovation. With size being the determining factor for antitrust complaints, a decline in innovation could occur, meaning fewer new products, higher costs, and lower consumer satisfaction. Consumers and taxpayers thus ultimately pay for Khan's crusade against "bigness."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Look, it’s simple … see? All your big corporation has to do to avoid unpleasantness from the FTC is donate large amounts of filthy lucre to the Democratic National Committee. Not only will donating money to Citizens United and the Republican National Committee bring down the Wrath of Khan on your miserable corporations, it will avail you nothing since the RNC is but a shadow of its former self. Just hope that the Republicans don’t take over the government regulatory apparatus any time soon because then the shoe will be on the other foot and THEY will be in complete control of punishing you!
Online, Google paid $45 per hour. Nine months have passed since my close relative last had a job, but in the previous month she earned $10500 by working 8 hours a day from home. Now is the time for everyone to try this job by using this website…
Click the link—↠ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
When you understand that it isn't "Punishment" but instead "Partner Management" the high price tag makes more sense.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> GOOGLE WORK
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
“‘…”the Harvard school” or “Neo-Brandeisian,” boils down to an intrinsic belief that the size of a company is a basis for pursuing legal action.”‘
Common Sense…boils down to an intrinsic belief that the size of GOVERNMENT is a basis for pursuing legal action…
Fixed.
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1644346660875632645?t=22NcGy_YMj_0N92OhuFqmQ&s=19
Drag Company ‘Drag Syndrome’ features vulnerable people with Down Syndrome dressed in drag, paraded around on stages and made to perform at LGBT bars across the world- making huge profits for the company exploiting these vulnerable people. #DragShows
[Link]
Yeah...That's fucked up.
Sarait, do you think this qualifies for arepas? I'm not sure.
This is an interesting form of machine learning in mass. They are using posts like this to see if their stupid neural network can get a response with whatever stuff it shits out. I would recommend responding like this, and not flagging these types of messages in order to better pollute the data set of whatever asshole is trying to use this shit.
"Don't Give the Federal Trade Commission a Big Budget"
All the headline that is needed.
Working Online from home and earns more than $15k every month. I have received $17365 last month by doing online work from home. Its an easy and simple job to do from home and even a little child can do this online and makes money.Everybody can get this job.
Now and earns more dollars online by just………………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Another government idiot who doesn't think hindering US corporations through government intervention will affect their ability to compete on the world stage, make them attractive to foreign takeover and move jobs overseas.