Alerts

FTC Announces "Enforcement Principles" Governing Section 5 Competition Authority

Alerts / August 17, 2015

This week, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez announced that the FTC had voted to issue a formal statement setting forth three “Enforcement Principles” governing its authority over “unfair methods of competition.” As Ramirez explained them, the principles that guide the FTC, when determining what conduct constitutes a “standalone” Section 5 violation, are as follows:

  1. The FTC will act with the goal of promoting consumer welfare, as that term is understood in established antitrust jurisprudence;
  2. The FTC will consider whether conduct harms competition or the competitive process, factoring in any pro-competitive efficiencies or legitimate business justifications; and
  3. The FTC will be less likely to invoke its standalone Section 5 authority when its powers to enforce the Sherman Act and/or Clayton Act would be sufficient.

The statement issued by the FTC offers only “principles” but lists no examples of conduct that would – or would not – be considered a standalone Section 5 violation. During her speech, however, Ramirez mentioned three types of conduct that she claimed illustrated the application of these principles: (1) invitations to collude; (2) the exchange, by competitors, of competitively sensitive information not related to pricing; and (3) patent holders’ breaches of their commitments to license certain patents on fair and reasonable terms. In each of these cases, Ramirez said, the conduct at issue diminished consumer welfare and lacked pro-competitive justifications, but would not have violated the Sherman or Clayton Act.

Ramirez made clear that she continued to believe that the FTC’s Section 5 authority should develop according to a common law, case-by-case approach rather than through rules proscribing particular acts or conduct. She explained that Congress intended Section 5 to be flexible to give the agency the ability to adapt to changing markets and new, unforeseen types of anticompetitive conduct.

The chairwoman acknowledged that some might find the statement “too general” to provide any concrete guidance for the business community, but explained that it was “concise” because it uses well-understood antitrust terms that derive their content from 125 years of interpretation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. She acknowledged that the statement did not include a detailed list of proscribed conduct, but stated that this was consistent with the common law approach generally taken in antitrust law, an approach she believed was also appropriate in the Section 5 context.

Chairwoman Ramirez emphasized repeatedly her belief that the statement signaled no change in the agency’s priorities or its approach to its standalone Section 5 authority, but merely made explicit the principles that have long guided the agency in this area. These principles, she believes, were already apparent from the FTC’s standalone Section 5 enforcement activity in recent years.

Authorship Credit: Carl W. Hittinger


Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience.

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Federal Trade Commission's Historic Attempt to Drive a Mack Truck Through the Sherman Act
By Jeffry W. Duffy, Tyson Y. Herrold, Carl W. Hittinger, Justin M. Kadoura
November 21, 2022
Key Takeaways The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a historic statement, setting out a new framework for assessing “standalone” claims of “unfair methods of competition” that can be brought by the FTC alone under Section 5 of the FTC...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Yer out (for now): MLB dismissed from antitrust lawsuit because of historic antitrust exemption
By Julian D. Perlman
November 8, 2022
In a decision that stunned no one (yet will garner plenty of headlines), a federal district court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Major League Baseball (MLB) on the basis of its storied antitrust immunity. Coming almost on the eve of...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
DOJ Antitrust Brings First Criminal Monopolization Case in More Than 40 Years
By Lindsey Olson Collins, Carl W. Hittinger, Ann M. O'Brien
November 4, 2022
Key Takeaways U.S. v. Nathan Nephi Zito is the first criminal monopolization case in more than 40 years, reversing the Antitrust Division’s practice of pursuing monopolization cases only civilly. The elements enumerated in the Zito plea...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Hospital Mergers: The Future of COPA Immunity
By Tyson Y. Herrold, Carl W. Hittinger, Marc G. Schildkraut
October 26, 2022
In October 2022, the Federal Trade Commission issued a Public Comment opposing a Certificate of Public Advantage (COPA) for the merger of State University of New York Upstate Medical University (SUNY Upstate) and Crouse Health System, Inc...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
DOJ Antitrust Division Not Backing Down on Labor
By Ann M. O'Brien, Kayley B. Sullivan
September 27, 2022
Despite back-to-back losses in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) first-ever criminal no-poach and wage-fixing cases, the Antitrust Division (the Division) is not backing down from its enforcement focus on labor. In fact, the Division and...
Read More ->