WASHINGTON — Nearly a yr into her job as chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan hasn’t quite made the splash that many expected.
She was appointed by President Biden to shake up an agency that has long quivered at the facility of the tech giants, but her record has lacked a signature motion against the industry. Most notably, Ms. Khan, who has contended that there may be an antitrust argument against Amazon, has not brought such a monopolization case against the e-commerce giant.
Republican lawmakers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have also fought her at every turn, describing her as anti-business and overbearing. On the F.T.C., staff morale has plummeted, in response to a recent survey, and senior officials have left.
But a 3rd Democratic commissioner was recently confirmed to the five-member agency, giving Ms. Khan, 33, a majority. In a 20-minute interview this week over Zoom, she said she was preparing to unleash an aggressive agenda and “one of the best is yet to come back.”
This interview has been evenly edited and condensed.
Now that you’ve got a majority, what are your top two or three priorities out of the gate?
There are key signature actions which are already underway that I feel will further come to fruition over the following yr.
We initiated a review of the merger guidelines (internal rules that the F.T.C. follows in its reviews of mergers) with the Justice Department and expect to update these guidelines to be certain that they’re fully adhering to existing law and likewise accurately reflecting existing market realities of how corporations are engaging in mergers to construct and illegally acquire market power.
We’re contemplating rule makings, including as regards to business surveillance practices, in addition to as regards to unfair methods of competition. We’re going to proceed enforcing the law vigorously, prohibiting illegal mergers, prohibiting illegal business practices.
Is your focus more on transforming the agency versus bringing big enforcement actions forward?
I don’t see any of those as mutually exclusive. We already filed major lawsuits. We’ve sued to dam the Nvidia-Arm transaction. We sued to block Lockheed’s acquisition of Aerojet, which was the primary time in a long time the federal government has sued to dam a merger in the brand new defense industrial space. We’ll proceed to construct on that.
You possibly can expect to see big lawsuits. We’re definitely focusing our resources on litigating. With limited resources, we’re having to concentrate on what we see as among the biggest problems. I’ve made clear that specializing in dominant actors in markets goes to be a spotlight.
Along those lines, how necessary is it to you to bring a lawsuit against Amazon?
We will’t comment on any specific corporations or specific enforcement actions, but inasmuch as we’re specializing in dominant actors available in the market, it’s no secret that a few of these digital incumbents have really only expanded and develop into more prevalent and more powerful throughout the pandemic.
I feel we’ve seen time and time again that when you’ve got an organization that has captured control over a key artery of commerce, that control may be used unlawfully. That was partly what animated the passage of the antitrust laws where Congress recognized that the dominance of the railroads and their control over key arteries of commerce was really allowing these small variety of corporations to select winners and losers in our economy to shape the trajectory of innovation.
Those are the identical sorts of principles that we’re considering, and that’s animating our work now.
As an alternative of blocking or approving deals, you’ve sent some letters to corporations saying in the event that they close their deals, they’re doing so at the chance of your agency coming back to dam them later. Should we expect you to revisit deals which have closed?
We’ve got 30 days after parties make a filing with us to find out if we’re going to do a deep-dive investigation. Thirty days is a particularly short period of time when you’ve got deals which are so large and which are so complicated. And so there are going to be instances, especially when you’ve got the form of surge in merger filings that we did last yr, that by the top of the 30 days our staff has not faithfully been capable of come to a transparent determination.
And so in those instances, we signaled the parties were needed, that our investigation is ongoing, they usually shouldn’t take the lapse of that expiration period as an indication of by some means the F.T.C. approving the deal.
We retain the authority and the flexibility to challenge consummations after the actual fact. Our inaction is rarely signaling that we approve a deal.
Can your work really rein in tech, which regularly outpaces rule-making and policy?Quite a lot of the work that we’ve done has really broadened the aperture for a way we’re understanding and recognizing and diagnosing harm. We’re really attempting to be forward looking, anticipating problems and taking swift motion, moderately than simply, you recognize, 10 years down the road realizing, oh, there was a giant problem and a giant moment that we missed.
I feel this goes back to paying attention to these next-generation technologies and next-generation innovations in nascent industries across sectors. Those can really help us tackle problems on the inception.
What do you make of a recent survey of agency employees that shows lower morale?
That’s something that I take incredibly seriously. I’ll say as a general matter, you recognize, it is a moment of incredible change on the agency, and we all know that moments of change may be difficult.