Section 5 Guidelines (Finally), and a Commissioner's Departure
In their Antitrust Trade and Practice column, Shepard Goldfein and James Keyte write: August was a busy month for the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition as it released long-awaited guidance on a key provision of the FTC Act and, not long after, one of the bureau's few Republican commissioners announced his resignation.
September 18, 2015 at 04:18 PM
11 minute read
August was a busy month for the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition as it released long-awaited guidance on a key provision of the FTC Act and, not long after, one of the bureau's few Republican commissioners announced his resignation. First, on Aug. 13, the commission issued formal guidelines under which it will enforce and challenge practices on a “standalone” basis under Section 5's “unfair methods of competition” provision.1 Then, only a few days later, Commissioner Joshua D. Wright announced that he would resign his position at the Bureau of Competition, effective Aug. 24.
In many ways, the conclusion of Wright's tenure dovetails nicely with the announcement of formal Section 5 guidelines, as Wright spent a great deal of time and effort during his two-and-a-half years at the FTC championing the cause. The result of those efforts was a bipartisan 4-1 vote with only Republican Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen dissenting to the promulgation of Section 5 rules. To many, though, these new guidelines do not quite represent a victory for Wright as they are quite general and may prove to not be practical tools for those looking for clear guidance.
The commission's Section 5 rules state that (1) in their determinations, the commission will consider the public policy underscoring the antitrust laws; (2) the commission will consider whether the challenged practice might cause harm to competition, given applicable efficiency and business justification arguments (a “rule of reason”-type approach); and (3) the commission will be less likely to challenge a business practice if the competitive harm can be adequately addressed under either the Sherman or Clayton Acts.2
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250