Chair of the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Lina Khan, has become infamous for her antitrust lawsuits and monopoly breaking attempts. The FTC is a federal agency made to ‘Protect America’s Consumers,’ and on countless occasions Khan has followed up on that promise, and exceeded expectations. As the election approaches, Khan is on the chopping block from both sides of the political aisle.
Khan, a Yale Law School graduate, has been widely accredited as the leader of a new school of antitrust thought. In 2017, during her time at Yale, she wrote a highly acclaimed paper in the Yale Law Journal, Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, arguing that even with Amazon’s low prices it still serves as a monopoly. That paper, and her precise leadership of the FTC since being nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021, has shown her bipartisan support in Congress for the better part of Biden’s stay in office. However, with the candidates’ fates being decided today, Khan faces opposition from the wealthiest combatants.
Billionaire political donors to both the Harris and Trump campaigns have called for the removal of Khan from her position as Chair of the FTC. This raises concerns about her future at the agency, and cites questions about the power donors have over political candidates. This influence raises troubling questions about accountability and whose interests our leaders truly serve. When corporate giants and wealthy donors can dictate the regulators who oversee them, it undermines the very purpose of agencies like the FTC, leaving consumers vulnerable to unchecked power.
Although it sounds like a scary subject, antitrust laws exist “to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers,” per the Department of Justice. The many antitrust lawsuits the FTC have levied against corporations during Khan’s tenure illustrate that she is doing very important work to protect consumers from increasing costs and unfair practices. It has heralded Khan as a leader of the antitrust and anti-monopoly fields, gaining her allies with GOP conservatives, skeptical of big business practices.
The FTC, under Khan’s leadership, has pushed for the Right to Repair movement. This movement has gained traction as more companies lock their products from being repaired by the end user. Apple locks down special features of their phone when certain parts are replaced (replacing a screen can take away Face ID for example). John Deere can make a tractor inoperable if it’s not repaired by an authorized mechanic. The alternatives these companies offer often cost thousands more than they should. Recently, the FTC aided in giving McDonald’s franchisees the right to repair their infamously broken ice cream machines, which were previously unrepairable without a licensed technician due to a decades-old copyright law. Soon, asking for ice cream at the drive thru won’t be the coin toss it has been since our childhood.
Khan has also aided in banning many of the frustratingly common experiences found on the modern web. In the digital age of on-demand streaming and subscription based services there’s the allure of free trials and fast access to all the content a person may desire –– but whenever users want to opt out, or cancel a subscription, they often find themselves going through the hoops and hurdles of many webpages to look for a cancel button in the smallest print. The FTC has recently adopted the ‘Click to Cancel’ ruling that makes it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to start one. Currently it’s being challenged by the streaming and cable industry, home security companies and advertisers. The FTC has also issued a federal rule that bans fake online reviews, protecting consumers from misleading or outright deceptive attempts at credibility.
Lina Khan has faced some losses. Most notably, she was unable to stop the Microsoft acquisition of Activision Blizzard, a game studio that’s developed hit games like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Diablo. Since the acquisition went through last year, it’s become more and more obvious that the acquisition should in fact have been blocked. Little of what was promised as compromise has come true from the ordeal: prices are increasing, thousands of Activision Blizzard employees have lost their jobs and Xbox console sales are lower than ever. Even if Activision Blizzard were to have failed independently of Microsoft, the intellectual property they’ve been crafting for decades could have been bought up by a company capable of actually utilizing it — now it will sit in Microsoft’s back catalogs forever.
Khan displays a turning point in decades of federal precedent. Since the time of Ronald Reagan, the federal government has been mostly hands-off towards mergers and acquisitions. Under Khan, they are taking a more objective and critical approach on such matters. Because of this, Khan has faced rampant criticism from some Republicans, accusing her of pushing the FTC past its norms, making it a political tool for Democrat ideals. While some may see Khan’s leadership as clear government overreach, it’s a necessary correction to decades of leniency that has allowed corporate power to grow unchecked.
“In the technology markets, we went through a couple of decades where we saw over 800 acquisitions by the five big players, not a single one of them being blocked, and some of those, we realize, ended up leading to significant harm,” Khan said in an interview with 60 Minutes.
As Americans’ economic focuses are on high prices, it’s important to note why the FTC has taken such a harsh stance on mergers and buy-outs. The only truly sustainable way to get large corporations to lower their prices, in a capitalist economy, is to have competitors that will have lower prices. Khan has aided in promoting competition by restricting the monopolistic consolidation and mergers of massive corporations. With large corporations and deep-pocketed Wall Street donors hating her, there is definitely something Khan is doing right.
Chair of the Federal Trade Commission doesn’t seem like a job that would affect high school students very much. However, Lina Khan has initiated many policies that will change our lives, in the present and future, for the better. As high school students, we consume a lot of products, and Khan has initiated many cases and policies against large corporations like Amazon, Microsoft, Google and more, that will change the ways we interact with and use their services.
It is worrying that neither candidate has shown strong support towards Khan or any replacement that may be able to continue protecting consumers. The problems we face in the world today are asking for progressive leaders. These sorts of leaders are hard to come by, and they are not showing their faces in this election — a progressive primary party candidate will be the one that wins in the years to come. Lina Khan, regardless of her position once the election is over, will leave a legacy of progress, honesty and the simple act of helping everyday consumers.
