Using the votes of Commissioners who have departed from their roles at the FTC and concealing it from the public raises serious concerns regarding transparency and accountability. We therefore seek an investigation to determine the following: 1.) the legal basis for this practice, beyond compliance with internal voting rules; 2.) whether the practice has previously been used, when it was used, and, specifically, if it has been used to break ties; and 3.) information relating to each of the underlying proposals, votes, and relevant motions as well as the FTC's rationale for concealing these specific matters from public disclosure.

Ultimately, we worry that both reports support proposals that place government bureaucrats at the heart of decisions regarding the way products are designed, how firms compete, and other questions that have been traditionally left to consumers. And through the adoption of these proposals, conservatives risk playing into the regulation-happy hands of progressives.

The Alliance on Antitrust strongly disagrees with the recommendations released by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law in its report, Investigation of Competition in the Digital Marketplace: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations. The report is a radical attempt to undo centuries of legal and economic learning and progress. If the recommendations become law, they would harm American consumers, stifle innovation, and penalize businesses for their successes.

Using antitrust to achieve policy or political goals would upend more than a century of legal and economic learning and progress. The need to bring coherency to antitrust law through a neutral underlying principle that cannot be weaponized is what led to the adoption of the modern consumer welfare standard. It is broad enough to incorporate a wide variety of evidence and shifting economic circumstances but also clear and objective enough to prevent being subjected to the beliefs of courts and enforcers.