almost never will they say some tv star. they will almost always say someone who has impacted them in an important way. very often those people are not famous, rich, they don't have daddy's money, they don't have their name on the side of a building, and there are thousands of americans who have shaped history and changed the u.s. through their actions but for a variety of reasons their stories have not been recorded in those bold spots in the textbooks. >> sharon mcmahon, sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to all our podcasts on c-span now. >> the outgoing chair lena con

discussed her accomplishments during the biden administration and its future under the trump administration. topics included antitrust merger enforcement, challenges to the ftc rulemaking authority and how they prioritize consumer protections. the brookings institution hosted the discussion. >> happy new year. brookings is devoted on the question of how to sustain an inclusive democracy. we have a fantastic event today. the chair will provide remarks and will sit with the most recent recipient of the doj top antitrust award, the sherman

award. it's a tremendous pleasure to introduce lina khan. she got her start in antitrust as a business reporter and researcher examining consolidation across markets from airlines to chicken farming. she has focused on exercising the full swing other statutory authorities regularly engaging with and hearing from the public and ensuring the agency is updating its tools and skill sets to tackle new market realities and next-generation challenges. priority initiatives have included a proposed rule to ban noncompete clauses, scrutinizing dominant middlemen across sectors, protecting sensitive data from unchecked surveillance

and fighting for americans rights to access affordable high-quality health care. she served as counsel to the judiciary committee subcommittee on antitrust commercial and administrative law. she was an associate proffer at columbia law school. she is a graduate of williams college and yale law school. join me it giving her a very warm welcome. [applause] >> thank you so much for the kind introduction. thanks to brookings and government studies program for hosting us. thanks to you for being here. brookings is sharpening u.s. policy over a century and i appreciate your inviting me for a conversation about the federal trade commission. i'm especially grateful to bill baer who is a pillar of

antitrust and former director of the bureau of competition and former assistant attorney general for antitrust at the justice department, he is in a league of his own with depth of experience and institutional knowledge and it is a pleasure to get the benefit from his wise counsel. it is an extraordinary honor to serve as chair of f.t.c. an agency whose mission is tied to principles of fairness, opportunity and freedom. i'm grateful to fellow commissioners for the partnership and i know i speak for the senior team when i say the f.t.c. is lucky to have a brilliant and hard working staff carrying out our mission. i would like to begin by taking a few minutes to reflect on the last four years, both the values that guided our work, approach we took to carrying out our

mandate and tangible results we have delivered for the american people. congress created the f.t.c. in 1914 with a mandate to present -- prevent unfair methods of competition. it was given tools to halt illegal business practices and scrutinize how markets functioned. over the years lawmakers expanded the purview charging it with stopping unfair or deceptive practices and enforcing dozens of additional statutes from those ensuring the accuracy of made in u.s.a. labels to protecting kids privacy online. the f.t.c. fits in a broader tradition of antimonopoly. the recognition that real liberty means freedom from economic coercion and arbitrary exercise of unaccountable power. the f.t.c. has worked securing fair, honest and competitive markets means americans can

enjoy basic protection in the marketplace. they can be assured fraud will be held to account. this work means that america's economy is the envy of the world where entrepreneurs can get ahead by delivering breakthrough ideas rather than be held back by giants and gate keepers. recent decades have shown there are serious costs to stream from -- to straying from this commitment to economic fairness, opportunity and freedom and to pursuing policies that favor consolidated and central iced -- centralized markets over competitive ones. it can main people pay more for less and that people earn less while working more. it can mean a single disaster leads to a major shortage or a single glitch trigger as major meltdown. local businesses can get muscled out and communities suffer or

start ups get choked and innovation stifled. it often means americans feel more coerced and less free and people question what institutions that are supposed to protect them even work for them at all. we have seen how firms can be too big to care or rely on bait and switch tactics. this can create a better administrative sense of anxiety that you need to be on guard to make sure you are not about to be tricked or ripped off even when going about the most ordinary transactions. clear eyed by the challenges people face, we set about to faithfully do the job congress set out for the ftc. a few key principles governed our approach. first, we closely reviewed every statute that congress has entrusted us with enforcing. some of these authorities sat dormant for decades while some had never been used at all. in some cases it meant certain

mandates from congress were not put into effect, other times businesses were not abiding by the law because enforcers had stopped enforcing it. the last few years the f.t.c. has focused on deploying the full set of tools congress has given us from the military lending act to the robinson patton act it has activated or reinvigorated well over a dozen provisions making clear that the legal protection on the books are real, not hypothetical. we have brought our enforcement of the laws more in line with the statutory text and precedent ensuring greater fidelity to what congress laid out. second, we focused on clear rules and remedies over complex burdensome ones. experience has taught us rube goldberg remedies can be difficult to enforce and more likely to fail. complex regulations can favor

big companies with expensive legal teams while clear rules can help create a level playing field. when faced with illegal mergers we chose to block them rather than elaborate remedies and when bans and protections rather than extensive process requirements that created lots of paperwork but didn't fix the underlying problem. third, we reduced regulatory burden to promote efficiency. we streamlined internal processes to allow our teams to move more quickly and arrived at a -- revised the process for issuing consumer protection rules eliminating self-imposed redtape with no basis in law. we completed eight new rules from start to finish in the fraction of the time skeptics predicted. these rules are already now allowing us to issue lefty fines

and get money back to defrauded consumers. fourth, we crafted an enforcement strategy to address major harms in major sectors of the economy. because law breaking by the biggest companies can lead to the biggest harm we didn't shy from taking on those major players or from holding individual executives accountable. we looked upstream it identify root culprits and by taking action against dominant middle men our lawsuits could fix major market distortions that have ripple effects. fifth, we focused on market reality, revisiting old assumptions that no longer reflect how the economy works. we broadened in-house expertise launching a new staff with data engineers, design experts and other specialists that let us analyze digital markets.

we opened our doors to the public regularly engaging with and learn interesting people -- and learning with people across our economy from farmers in aisles, iowa and technique to people in kansas city and new york. we regularly solicited public input through open commission meetings and frequent dockets. public engagement with the f.t.c. has reached record highs. comments to the f.t.c. have soared increasing from 13,000 five years ago, to over 100,000 this past year alone. people who shared their expertise and experience have informed or priorities, sharpened our thinking and deepened our understanding of how today's economy works. in antitrust and economic policy there can be a resistance to this type of engagement, a belief that only certain types

of experts really understand how markets work. but throughout my conversations with members of the public across the country it is clear that people are keenly aware of how issues of corporate power effect their lives. they may not all say this market could use a sherman act lawsuit but they are saying there is a company screwing me over and i wish somebody would do something about it. we did something about it. there are different ways to measure the success of a government agency. you can count the number of shots it has taken or how high it aimed. you can look at the record in court and material impact the agency has had, the tangible benefits that people have seen and concrete ways life is better. what is truly humbling and astonishing is by all of these standards it has been off the charts. by sheer volume of output the

f.t.c. has issued a record number of rules and litigated a record number of cases, looked at infant formula shortages to the practices of pharmacy managers to investments in ai and we have used all of our advocacy tools with amicus pleas and comment letters and offering expertise to state legislatures. we won big victories in court. we have seen 43 mergers abandoned in light of our work with eight blocked after the filing of a complaint and five blocked after hard fought litigation. in major lawsuits targeting microsoft and amazon we defeated key motions. our lawsuits have blocked illegal deals from across markets from mergers between pharmaceutical companies that would have kept prices high and

technology companies that would have undermined innovation. courts have ruled in the f.t.c. favor helping protect communities across the country from unlawful consolidation. not only have we won our cases but advanced the law and set new precedent. courts have affirmed mergers getting a market share greater 30% are presumed unlawful. rejecting arguments that the supreme court precedent is no longer valid. the sixth circuit affirmed the f.t.c. block of a vertical merger making clear they are not presumed to be benign and a texas court agreed that the f.t.c. was right to assess the cumulative impact of private equity roll-up. creating a roadmap for taking on serial acquisitions. most recently the court affirmed the deals can be illegal if they undermine competition in later mark -- in labor markets -- not just if they are bad for consumers. remarkably our 2023 merger

guidelines have been cited favorably by over a dozen courts in a single year. nor have these wins limited to merger law. against big pesticide firms we used our authority prohibiting unfair methods of competition and court vindicated this more faithful approach. a court similarly upheld the section five claim rejecting amazon's motion to dismiss affirming the ftc argument that the authority can reach a broader range of conduct. we have gotten key wins in how we use the unfairness authority with a court recognizing for the first time ever even a privacy violation -- the privacy violations can injure americans even without having to show further harm. a court recently vindicated the ftc approach to taking on dark patterns, agreeing manipulative design partners can violate the law. these wins have made life better for americans. the f.t.c. challengedle legal

-- illegal patenting tricks by pharmaceutical slashing the out of pocket price to $35. thousands of tenants were compensated after the biggest landlord was sued. those hidden fees that pile up when you are trying to buy concert tickets or rent a hotel room we banned. soon our rule will go into effect making it just as easy to cancel a subscription as to soon -- as it is to sign up for one. last month we sent millions of dollars back to fortnight players who were tricked into making unwanted purchases with an average refund of $114 and this is a small fraction of the hundreds of millions we returned to people the past three years. people have told us the f.t.c. work makes them feel like the government is finally fighting for them. as one professed lifelong republican told us told us our noncompete band was the best

thing the government has ever done. it is humbling to realize what we have achieved and this extraordinary level of impact from this small a team is virtually unheard of in government. this work though is far from over and the f.t.c. must remain vigilant, agile and committed to enforcing the law without fear or favor. i hope that whoever takes the helm of the ftc in the coming years will keep the doors open and continue to engage from people from all parts of the country and walks of life. after all congress created the f.t.c. to protect them and create a fair and more process competitive and prosperous economy that works for everyone. for four years that is what we have done and it has been an extraordinary honor to serve as chair along with the dedicated career civil servants at the ftc. now i look forward to continuing the conversation with bill and all of you. thanks so much.

[applause] judge merchan: that was the easy part -- bill: that was the easy part. thank you for those thoughtful remarks and emphasis on economic liberty, which is really bottom line what the f.t.c. is and should be all about. i want to make sure i welcome you back to brookings. you did a wonderful overview of what you accomplished in a

little less than four years but why don't we start at the beginning, a very good place to start. in early 2021, president biden nominated you to the commission, you were confirmed in june, a few months later. by comparison it took me 13 months to get confirmed. in june on the day you were confirmed by the senate, the the president designated you as chair. a surprise to some, applauded by many and a seismic shock to the business community and chamber of commerce. what i would like to do is take you back to those, that first year. you obviously have thought about what you would do. you had come to the office, you enter the chair's wonderful

office and what did -- how did your advance thinking of what you were going to do and how change as you confronted the reality of being the f.t.c. chair? what challenges did you confront internally and externally, how did you address them and in looking back as you're winding down, the things that you would have done differently. that in a court of law would be a compound objectionable question but we are not in a court of law. chair khan: it feels like a long time ago but just under four years ago. my process was swift. i was nominated in march, had the confirmation hearing in april and confirmed in june. to a lot of people's surprise i took the helm as the chair and it was no secret my anti and it

-- antitrust writings and research had been skeptical of the approach that antitrust agencies had taken in recent years, pointedly critical of certain decisions. so to come in having functioned more as critic in identifying things that should be done differently to suddenly be in the driver's seat to help do that is a big change. this is in the middle of the pandemic, 2021 as was true for a lot of people coming into these positions, there was still maximum telework. introductory meetings on zoom. dozens of zoom boxes as you you tried to meet teams and contributed as somebody unlike many other chairs who had not

spent time of the commission really getting to know people and explain the priorities and how i wanted to go about doing them. the other thing is with agencies like the f.t.c. you come in and it is not like there's a blank canvas. you actually inherit a lot of active litigation and active investigations, active market studies, so coming in midstream with a whole bunch of matters and figuring out what are we going to do with these, i was not sure when we started them, doesn't make sense to fully see them through, and how do we start creating capacities for the agenda items we want to prioritize. all of that just takes time, so it was at least 12 months in that some of the core general items that i wanted to advance really got to even seeing the light of day. the other important task was building the right team and who was the right fit for what type of role. and of course i was so grateful to have warm colleagues at the

f.t.c. and my colleague -- co-commissioners, had been there were longer and i had to figure out how did this execution work. the f.t.c. is a unique institution in a full set of ways and it has been interesting as i engage with enforcers around the world to realize a lot of agencies across the world are thinking through now how do we create an agency combining competition, consumer protection, and privacy. those three are deeply integrated in one building and something that is important to me as well as some of my co-commissioners is figuring out how you make sure the whole is greater than the sum of the parts at the agency. what does it look like it make sure we are not just firing on all cylinders, but fully using the integrated expertise across these places? the other big shock when you sit down and start to figure out how do you allocate resources is how small the agency is relative to

the job that congress has given us. we enforce the f.t.c. act, which itself covers swaths of conduct across the economy, and then something to the order of 80-something-odd additional statutes. so making decisions about resource allocation, prioritization, and what is the best way to start getting the matters you most care about up and running were all key decisions that i had to make early. bill: thank you for that. the size of the agency when you first started was probably just a little more than half of what it was as you unkindly reminded the audience when i started there 50 years ago. let me turn to your discussion about mergers. i think you came in, based on

some of your writings and observations come off the hill with a real commitment to reinvigorating merger enforcement, addressing labor market issues, something largely addressed in prior administrations. you mentioned administrations of nascent competitors, rollups by private equity and others. you promised to pay as you said were closer attention to remedies and what works and what doesn't, and to avoid having the agency be the regulator after a merger is consummated. and i think you delivered on that. but you also said you were going to work hard to update the merger guidelines, and hart scott rodino, which is the merger reporting requirement, a form that had not been updated since about 1979. early on you had a couple of losses in merger challenges, but

-- and the critics pounced on that. but lately the storyline seems much more favorable. with respect to merger enforcement, what has the f.t.c. accomplished, and what have you done jointly with jonathan cantor at the justice department in terms of advancing antitrust merger enforcement? chair khan: i was very fortunate to get to serve in this role while jonathan was head of the antitrust division. i think we deeply shared values and commitments that resulted in as strong a relationship between our two agencies as we have had in decades. we within a few months of joining sat down and had a discussion what are the areas of the law that we think are ripe for making sure we are having the courts engage with new facts and ensuring the law is keeping

pace with those market realities. let's collectively figure this out, because especially with mergers we are in a reactive posture. we can't really go out -- there's a limited degree we can go out and find the perfect test candidate created in a lab. we are looking at what is coming in the door and having to make prospective risk assessments about what's going to happen. you are dealing with a situation where there are an endless number of unknowns and a short time relatively speaking to decide do i do an in-depth investigation. we were particularly aware of a lot of learning over the last few decades under the digital markets. under my predecessor the ftc had done a report looking at 800 and -something acquisitions by the big five technology companies that had gone under the radar. there were a lot of lessons being learned five or six years

ago about the realities of digital markets, feedback loops, network externalities, data, what does that mean for the importance of actually intervening early rather than later when it can be more difficult to rectify these harms. there had been a robust conversation at the commission about pharmaceutical mergers before i joined, and does it make sense to look at what is the overlap in the pipeline or should we try to figure out how are the pharma companies thinking of their portfolio. it was really gratifying we had the opportunity to actually bring merger challenges to pharma deals, including the challenge where we alleged that sanofi's acquisition of this therapeutic would deprive patients of this alternative drug even though it was not on

the market today. so we were having to look into the future. the companies ended up abandoning and mays partnered with a different company, which was a important development. that was as equally good terms and would bring the drug to market more quickly, which goes to show the f.t.c. approach is as the statute says presenting mergers or acquisitions that may lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. that doesn't mean the that intrinsically the partnerships are going to be categorically impermissible. so i think sometimes it is interesting what companies tell us this is the best deal we could get and you end up blocking it and actually they got something better. those are some things top of mind, nascent competitors, potential competitors, vertical mergers. i remember in 2017 when the

justice department filed the challenge to at&t-time warner merger, that was seismic. that was one of the first vertical merger challenges from justice department department in a long time. they ended up not winning that one, but after i joined we had a steady drum beat of vertical mergers from lockheed arrow jets to where we ultimately prevailed. bill: prevailed in district court and ninth circuit. chair khan: microsoft-activision is still before the ninth circuit. bill: merger guidelines. 2010 guidelines had been around, but you and jonathan decided to take a fresh look. tell us what evolved from that process and to what degree there's been court acceptance and embrace of the merger guidelines. chair khan: this is a process we started quite early. i think we sent out the first

rfi, request for information, december of 2021 posing a list of open-ended questions to the public. that informed our drafting around what should this next version look like. i think one of the most significant steps was even figuring out conceptually what should the scaffolding of the document even look like. when you open the 2023 merger guidelines, they look different than the 2010 guidelines, and figuring out what is the right way to put out what are ultimately analytical tools to aid enforcers during their investigations. so it took a bit to get that initial framing right. what we ultimately landed on, and jonathan was a fantastic thought partner in this, was how competition manifests the dimensions on which firms are competing vary depending on the market.

and similarly, the analytical tools and evidence that will give you insight into what competition looks like will vary. so figuring out what the concentration is in a market could be probative, but it might not be. so making sure we are giving enforcers the flexibility based on the market to figure out is there a problem here was one of the animating goals. we wanted to make sure we were updating for what seems to be gaps we needed to address, including labor markets and serial acquisitions. we have a guideline that talks about platforms as a whole because there is the kind of platform playbook for how acquisitions can undermine competition in terms of impeding interoperability or data. so we included that in a draft. we published the draft summer of 2023.

so it took close to 18 months from that initial request for information to put together that draft. our team has worked extraordinarily hard. our team has read through every litigated decision on merger law trying to figure out what does the precedent actually say. and there would be team meetings that would last three hours to talk about a single clause and what is the exact right freezing your -- right freezing. -- right phrasing. so it was a tremendous team effort. bill: and you had more than a little public feedback to digest. chair khan: yes, active listening sessions with different market participants, farmers, healthcare workers, those in creative professions. and we got i want to say between 3000 and 6000 comments on the initial draft. our team read and cataloged them

and made some adjustments before finalizing last december. it happened to be that we had a very active set of merger enforcements ready to go, so we were citing the guidelines, drawing on the guidelines. and it has been thrilling to see courts engage with guidelines, cite them with pervasive authority, and in some say the guidelines tell me this and not this and that would be helpful , and so that institutional dialogue is happening. it has been enormously gratifying to see courts accept , for example, a showing of the elimination of head-to-head competition between rivals can be an independent basis for showing liability. you don't not necessarily also have to show what the four corners of the market are, that it is presumptively unlawful. in our kroger-albertsons case we had the judge agree a merger may lessen competition in labor

markets andlegal, and she did lay out areas where she taught additional guidance from economic experts could be helpful. the structural presumption is still intact. serial acquisitions, we have gotten useful rulings. and in non-merger cases involving the agency they are citing guidelines for principles of how you do competition analysis. that is all been tremendously gratifying. bill: i think i saw a footnote in a speech at least eight or nine courts have already cited the guidelines as the revised 2023 final version has as persuasive authority. chair khan: our teams are monitoring and we are up to 12. bill: ok, you're ahead of me. one thing that the biden administration did that was

designed to have an executive branch, an independent agencywide impact is his july 2021 executive order on competition establishing a competition council. as you look back in terms of that order, what impact did it have? it seemed to me from afar that it was empowering the f.t.c. and antitrust division to work more closely, directed them to be involved in decisions that could impact competition, consumers. what is your overall assessment of that executive order? chair khan: it was an immensely significant executive order, and huge credit to the president and his team for crafting that for prioritizing it. there is so much going on the

first six months of an administration, and to say i will prioritize an order on competition takes people recognizing the importance of it. i think it did a few things. first, it told a story of why competition matters and what happens when competition declines, and the e.o. notes that it can mean higher prices and lower wages, but also affects business dynamism and if people feel real opportunity in their day-to-day lives. it also sharply put the spotlight on agencies other than the f.t.c. and d.o.j. and said we have these enforcers of the antitrust laws, but that's not the beginning and end of competition policy. it covers all of these additional tools and authorities spanning all of these federal regulators and agencies that are in the business of shaping markets in one way or another. and the decisions these agencies

make, be it the agriculture department, transportation, are impacting whether markets are more consolidated or competitive. so we want to headache sure they are conscious of that and recognizing that we want everybody to be rowing in the same direction. that was incredibly important. this was not an e.o. that went out, there was a week of discussion, and that was the end of it. the president and his team prioritized bringing together the cabinet and heads of federal agencies at least twice a year to sit down with the president and tell him what we had done. i think that was incredibly important and helped further focus agencies on the fact that this was a priority. and those gatherings, there would be a formal element to it, but it forced all of us in the same room in a way that helped organically create relationships in ways that made it easier to pick up the phone and say, "hey, i know you are looking at this, have you thought about this." one area where it really benefitted us was in our investigation and ultimate challenge of the lockheed-aerojet merger.

as you know, how the defense department comes out on a major merger in the defense industrial space really matters. it would be very difficult for antitrust agency to say, hey, this is going to be harmful to competition, an dd.o.d. says no, it is great. so making sure we had that relationship to have that analysis and benefit from that was one of the many ways that the eo was constructive. we also filed comments in various regulatory dockets during the f.t.c. experience when usda was thinking about their rules addressing fairness or d.o.t. was thinking of their efforts taking on fees. so all of that i see as having been quite successful. bill: i have heard over the years from agency and cabinet secretaries and deputies counsel there's nothing like being responded to the white house two or three times a year to report

what you have done tp achieve the objectives of that executive order, and that accountability really made it easier for your views to be heard and be invited into the process. sticking with issues outside of your agency, one noteworthy accomplishment i think in the last four years has been the degree to which state attorneys general have upped their game in terms of working with or side by side with the f.t.c. and the antitrust division. what do you think about what and how that happened? chair khan: to my mind, state attorneys general have a paramount role to play in antitrust enforcement for the ftc. they have importance on the

consumer protection side. they can enforce the sherman act and clayton act and most have state antitrust laws. some of those laws are parallel to the ftc's unfair methods of competition authority with jurisprudence saying the ftc interpretation can influence how courts look at that. so we have a productive relationship. we had state a.g.'s join our lawsuit taking on illegal schemes by these pesticide manufacturers, we had a bipartisan coalition investigating amazon monopolization. and even as we go about our investigations, we make sure we engage to say this is happening very locally for you all, should we have some type of information-sharing agreement. yesterday we announced an enforcement action against handy in partnership with the new york a.g. and you are right, especially the last few years we have seen

a lot of bipartisan focus, major lawsuits, bipartisan lawsuits taking on practices by google and ears. i think it has been very productive as we get more court rulings explain how these century-old statutes apply. bill: this was not just a blue state cooperation process. a lot of red state attorneys general were involved. how do you account for that? chair khan: i think this is a striking moment where there's been this bipartisan concern about what happens when we allow markets to being dominated by fewer companies. i think there's a very vibrant conversation happening among republicans and conservatives about, yes, we recognize unchecked state power can undermine liberties, but

unchecked private power can also undermine liberties. and there is a deeper recognition of that and greater appreciation for how antitrust enforcement in particular can make sure people are not being subjected to unchecked coercion. so it is great to develop partnerships with states on both sides of the aisle. bill: i assume there is potential to that to endure going forward, with the states will remain actively involved in antitrust. chair khan: states were joining cases before i arrived and hope they will keep doing it after i depart. especially on the consumer protection front we had close relationships. bill: i want to talk about antitrust rulemaking. there's a big rule out there that was adopted in your recent tenure banning noncompete agreements that restrict the abilities of workers to leave an employer and go somewhere else

in their field, maybe with a geographic limitation. the rule was adopted by i think a 3-2 vote, is being challenged in the courts with a preliminary injunction in texas. the opposition has argued that congress did not explicitly intend for the federal trade collision to have the authority to issue substantive antitrust rules. a week ago you wrote a strong defense of why congress actually did explicitly anticipate there would be substantive rules, and cited court authority embracing that view. at the same time, critics are saying things have evolved, the supreme court is more leery of granting deference to agencies

in deciding what their authorities are and are not. challenging whether major questions can be broadly delegated to an agency to implement. so what is your response to those criticisms? and then i would also like you to talk about the issue to take on -- this important issue as a rulemaking as opposed to simply pursuing case-by-case challenges to noncompete agreements. compound question again. chair khan: this has been a big focus, has been harm to workers from unfair methods of competition and deceptive

practices. we got over 25,000 comments from people across the country and i had known that noncompetes outside the boardroom, but i was struck by the volume of engagement. people live busy lives, and to sit down and submit a comment to some obscure agency, you have to feel that there's some purpose there. it was devastating to read some of the ways that unanimous competes have affect people's lives. we are talking about security guards, janitors, hair dressers, healthcare workers, people that had to commute many more hours in a day and miss spending time with their families. people who were stuck in jobs related to harassment facing financial ruin if they left and were hit with a multi-thousand dollar lawsuit. so this is real harm to real people happening on a big scale. we did bring some enforcement actions, including against a security guard company where

they were making close to minimum wage, extraordinary onerous noncompetes, and a set of glass manufacture companies who where the theory is less unlike the security guard case it was coercive and directly undermining the workers. but this was more about it was harming competition in the product and service market because we heard from entities that wanted to enter the market but realized the relevant talent pool was locked up through noncompetes. so there were harms to labor market competition, but also harm to product and service market competition that directly affect us as consumers. we brought those lawsuits, thousands of noncompetes were dropped, and promulgated this rule. this is not the first time the f.t.c. promulgated a competition rule. specially in the 1960's and 1970's there were a lot of joint competition and consumer

protection rules. at least one was challenged ultimately reached the d.c. circuit. the same question was posed to them, does section 6 of the f.t.c. act grant rulemaking authority, and the d.c. circuit said unambiguously yes. there was a seventh circuit case that confirmed that and that was the landscape we were operating against. you are right, there were some pretty significant rulings from the supreme court rethinking how much deference should agencies get, rethinking in some instances refining doctrines like the major questions doctrine, and we had a team closely look at that and figure out how much of that would impact the f.t.c. after we have finalized the rule we got challenged in three

different courts, the eastern district of pennsylvania, middle district of florida, and district court in texas. what has been interesting, each of those preliminary injunction rulings has been different, different on the analysis. the eastern district of pennsylvania said across the board the f.t.c. has this authority, rejected the arbitrary and capricious, rejected major questions. the middle district of florida interestingly did find for us on the substantive rulemaking question, saying, yes, i do think that it gives you this authority, but there's this major question in the background and this does seem major. texas found against us on the statutory rulemaking question. so two of the three courts just purely on the question of does the statute allow us to promulgate competition rules said yes. they are now two appeals

pending, one in the 11th circuit, one in the fifth circuit. we will ultimately see what happens there. but i think especially after we saw the magnitude of harm thinking through what would it look like for us to tackle this purely through adjudication, it seems if we have precedent on our side and authority we have an obligation to see if we can get this done. bill: thank you. one thing i have noticed that seems to have changed -- evolving change as you perhaps accelerate it is what the talent pool is that you recruited into the agency. in my day, it was talented lawyers, economists, paralegals just out of college, but the team looks different now. can you talk about that? chair khan: we still have a lot of lawyers, economists, and very lucky to have a very talented pool of people, especially given that these are career civil servants who could be making multiples of their salary in the private sector.

you are right, we have expanded teams, brought in different types of specialties within the economics bureau, including thinking more about labor economists, accountants, financial specialists. we also created this new office of technology, bringing on data engineers, user interface experts, a.i. experts. and it has been thrilling to se. -- it has been great to see this office take root and have these technologists in bed with these teams comprised of lawyers and economists. numerous cases now where the counts were alleging look different because we had a technologist on the team was part of the investigation and helped us understand what was happening. it is already making a material difference. we will also have things like -- seeing certain representations made about well, i understand this looks anticompetitive, but

it is for security reasons. within a day we can have her top security person sit down and come and tell us this is the part of the argument that makes sense and it is pretextual. it has been a phenomenal expansion of expertise. within any agency, it can always be -- take some growing pains to figure out how to make sure these teams integrate and figure out how this entirely new group fits. it has been exciting to see that work. >> thank you. let me turn to generative ai. we've talked about trying to get ahead of the curve on that. where does the agency stand in terms of understanding, appreciating, and positioning itself to sort out the good from the bad? >> understanding is the most important part, make sure how we understand these markets are working. our teams have been going layer

by layer across the ai stack. looking at the chips layer, cloud complete layer, looking at the economic properties, what the budget looks like to the extent that the market seems dominated by a few players, to what extent that is being driven by extreme high fixed costs. network effects, if we think there might be some leveraging happening. we've already brought a set of enforcement actions, especially taking on these baseless claims about what ai can do. there has been a tremendous amount of ai hype, exaggerating what some of these tools can offer. in harming people. ng there are these business opportunities this tool could do so when brought consumer protection kisses. we launched around a year ago a market study trying to understand what is happening

with these partnerships and invest many, with some of the large cloud compute providers and newer model companies so that has been and i will eliminating exercise to see what extent is this pure arm's lent investment versus to what extent is the investor informing or influencing some of the competitive decision making here and what does that mean preliminarily for competition. it is a fast moving space. we are always eager to hear from market participants and engage with them. been to silicon valley twice in the last year appear sat down with founders and investors and tried to understand what they see as some of challenges or market opportunities and how do we make sure we are incorporating that in our analysis. mr. baer: great.

from the "washington post" an opinion piece was written that talked generally about how little of what biden has done is going to survive. she took on antitrust. i will read you a short summary but she said and of the courts largely forwarded the battles against big tech and its commendable band on worker unanimous compete. as for the broader agenda of making antitrust enforcement less focused on low consumer prices and more on goals and administration officials have little to show to-wit the fate of any ongoing tech cases will soon be in the hands of the trump administration boss top advisors include technique billionaires. i believe you addressed some of there yesterday on cnbc. but give us your reaction. comm'r khan: look, it is

important to have your analysis correspond to the facts and what has happened in the courts and i rattled off dozens of instances where the courts full my vindicated what the agencies have been doing. the d.o.j. won a major monopolization case against google that has proceeded to the remedy stage so i think we have racked up pretty significant wins with the courts embracing a lot of what we have put forward. i think the facts contradict that entirely. i do think that there will be an open question what do the next few years look like. i think it has been striking that probably in antitrust more than many other areas we do see some bipartisan agreements about the importance of strong antimonopoly enforcement making sure we have checks on monopolization and corporate power, what that commitment like

as translated into enforcement choices and policy decisions will have it wait and see. mr. baer: fair enough. the -- since about general you had two republican colleagues join you and based on listening it them and reading they are smart, opinionated. they eastern disagree with the majority of the commission. but it also struck me as noteworthy that on a number of things it has been a 5-0 vote, on a lot of others 4-1. what do you take away from that? where are areas where you think there's been agreement, which might carry over into a trump f.t.c.? comm'r khan: i really enjoyed getting to engage with all my colleagues including the two

most recent arrivals and you are right there are areas strong agreement, some areas of differences of opinion. all of the merger lawsuits we voted out since they joined were unanimous including the tapestry capri. we have a vertical challenge involving mattress companies. there we have seen unanimous agreement. there have been i think the dissent have mostly come with respect it the rulemaking, unanimous compete rule you mentioned, click to cancel was a 3-2. junk fees rule we had a 4-1 vote on that one. so i think it varies matter by matter. it has been interesting to see particular concerns around large technology platforms and how they may be using their power. we have seen more recently a

recognition that antitrust should be protecting workers from illegal conduct, not just consumers and we have seen a whole set of cases involving companies voted out that got some bipartisan agreement. so i think there's plenty of opportunity for areas of the work we have built out for continuation. mr. baer: great. are we about ready to go it questions? two minutes or so? so, we have some questions in writing. a lot of them were asking what is going to happen next and with that i adhere to yogi berra's view it is tough to make predictions particularly about the future. so i'm not going to get to those. here is one that was submitted online in advance. somebody said it is disheartening to see the lack of public an political support for the work of the f.t.c. to avowed

monopolies. has the f.t.c. this person asked done enough to educate the public and politicians why such an effort is necessary for the ever system. i expect you don't agree with comm'r khan: i appreciate the observation. it's an important component of what they do. it's important to have to continue to explain what an agency is doing, why it's doing it, and not just in d.c. but with people across the country. i have tried to prioritize that. i'm sure there are additional ways we could be doing it. but we made an effort to not just explain to people but also to listen from people. and you know, welcome suggestions for additional ways the commission should be doing that in coming years. mr. baer: one of the things that was obvious to me is, the way you framed up your opening marks

is, you speak plain english yowch don't do any consumer protection jargon. that make what is the agency does and how you talk about it much more accessible to the average american consumer. you should be commended for that. we've got time for a few questions. and why don't we start, the guy in the middle. please identify yourself. questioner: hello, in the banking space a lot of observers are speculating there'll be a wave of consolidation in the industry under the next administration. so assuming that plays out over the next four year, how do you think -- what are some things you think the f.t.c. should be looking at or thinking about in terms of banking other the next

administration? comm'r khan: the f.t.c. statute does not give us jurisdiction over banks. so it's the justice department along with other banking regulators that will have to be the key decisionmakers on that. there has been, you know, renewed, revised guidance on how to be thinking about banking mergers and analysis of mergers from the d.o.j., others have put outage sis on this. i would defer to those agencies. mr. baer: over here. questioner: michael nelson, carnegie endowment for international peace just next door. i focus a lot on international digital policies. some of the the biggest channels in dijal policy involve coordinating with other country, particularly brussels. do you have any lessons you have learned about how to deal with a place like the european commission where you have so many different agendas and so

many different languages, so that often they think they have a consensus that you can challenge and negotiate with about but they don't. we've seen over and over where they require companies to do three different things which are mutually incompatible. for instance, protect personal privacy but make sure our police have all the data they need if something happens. so any wisdom on dealing with the european union? comm'r khan: i've really enjoyed getting to engage with international counterparts across the world. i think especially when it comes to digital markets this is an opportunity -- this has been a moment of kind of shared learning. different jurisdictions are all grappling with some analogous channels. some are further along in thinking about privacy, be it national or continent-wide policy regulations. some don't have those. especially as we've thought

about mernlers and acquisitions there's been shared learning. i've really gotten to enjoy my engagement with count parts across the board. it's been interesting, especially on the consumer protection side, to see that some of the initiatives that the f.t.c. has been focused on like subscription traps have actually inspired interest and activity elsewhere. so we've been happy to share our expertise in that direction too. mr. baer: we're going to need to wrap this up, i think. we're going to have a little reception, stage left, you're welcome to come in and enjoy a little bit of refreshments. a couple of closing notes. first i want to thank the events and securities staff here at bookings. they make these events friendly. catalina has been a wonderful event coordinator here at brookings. we thank you, as we said at the

outset, all of you coming here today. those online, those on c-span. but important point is not just to thank you for being here, but to express our appreciation for 3 1/2, almost four years of dedicated public service and the significant personal sacrifices you made to be down here on the job pretty much 24/7. you framed this up at the beginning in terms of talking about economic liberty. i think regardless of political persuasion there's no doubt that your focus was ensuring that the american public benefited from competitive markets, free from unfair and deceptive practices, and for that, we're in your debt. thank you. comm'r khan: thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025]

[c >> earlier today, the u.s. supremcot heard argen on tiktok v garland and fireball the garland a case regarding tiktok's first amendment chaen to a law requiring thapto divest from tence will face a nationwide ban. you can watch it tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. book tv. every sunday on c-span, sea breeze leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what is coming up this weekend. 4:30 p.m. eastern, mark clifford with his book the troublemaker talks about the life and activism of hong kong media mobile and dissident jim ely, who is being tried by the chinese government. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on

afterwards, adam chandler with his book 99% perspiration, a new working history of the american way of life, argues hard work is not enough to obtain the american dream. he said a view by author by alyssa court. watch every day on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online apple .org. witness democracy unfiltered with c-span. experience history as it unfolds with c-span's live coverage this month as republicans take control of both chambers of congress and a new chapter begins with the swearing in of the 47th president of the united states on january 20. two in for our live coverage of the presidential inauguration as donald trump takes oath of office, becoming president of the united states. stay with c-span this month for comprehensive live unfiltered coverage of the 119 congress and the presidential inauguration