Home The Role of the State Antitrust and Competition Big Tech Calls for Agency Heads To Recuse Are a Groundless and...

Big Tech Calls for Agency Heads To Recuse Are a Groundless and Cynical Strategy To Obstruct Enforcement

0
Stephanie Kim/ProMarket

Big Tech’s efforts to push Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter to recuse themselves from participating in lawsuits against the companies due to prior work have no legal basis and are naked efforts to weaken agency enforcement, writes Laurence Tribe.


Last month, a United States District Court dismissed Google’s efforts to disqualify Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter from investigating and suing the tech giant due to his previous private-sector work counseling against Google’s anticompetitive practices. The judge rightly saw through Google’s utterly baseless arguments.

As I previously explained in ProMarket when Google initially asked Kanter to recuse himself in 2021:

Recusal is ultimately meant to prevent an abuse of power. At the DOJ, such an abuse most often happens when an official declines to enforce the law or settles a case too easily. The recent history of the Department offers up many examples of such abuses. In this case, Google is not worried that Kanter will not enforce the law. Rather, Google is worried Kanter will enforce the law. Fair and full enforcement of the law is not improper for one of the nation’s top prosecutors; it is the job description.

The court’s recent rejection in the Google case reaffirmed, once again, that strongly supporting antitrust enforcement does not create a conflict of interest or provide grounds for recusal.

And yet, Amazon has trotted out the same groundless objections at the Federal Trade Commission. It asserts that FTC Chair Lina Khan’s past criticisms of the company are reason for recusal. This obviously unsupportable argument reflects not a merely disputable legal position but a blatantly cynical strategy to obstruct government actions aimed at regulating tech giants—which is why a judge in another recent case dismissed a similar demand by Meta to recuse Khan.

Khan’s extensive work on antitrust and her principled dedication to enforcing antitrust laws are well-documented. Her prior research on tech giants’ market power, conducted before her FTC appointment, established her as an influential voice in the field. Just as Kanter’s advocacy for antitrust enforcement aligns with his role, Khan’s expertise makes her a fitting leader in antitrust actions.

Amazon’s calls for Khan’s recusal rely on a misinterpretation of precedent and a misunderstanding of the role of FTC commissioners. Khan has not represented parties in the FTC’s current cases against Amazon, and her past work as a scholar and advocate cannot be deemed evidence of bias. The public’s interest lies in upholding equal justice under the law, not in silencing experienced antitrust advocates.

In the recent case of Facebook’s challenge to the FTC’s antitrust suit, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg denied Facebook’s motion to dismiss the case, emphasizing the FTC’s allegations that Facebook engaged in anticompetitive practices. But it was Judge Boasberg’s analysis of Khan’s involvement that warrants a closer look.

Facebook’s argument centered on Khan’s past statements and positions as a public policy analyst, law professor, and congressional investigator, suggesting that these should have led to her recusal from the FTC’s vote on the amended complaint. Judge Boasberg, however, rightly concluded that Khan’s role resembled that of a prosecutor, not a judge, in this federal case.

He referred to the 1979 D.C. Circuit decision in Association of National Advertisers v. FTC, which acknowledged that agency administrators may properly hold opinions bearing on issues they oversee before participating in a proceeding. The court’s message was clear: individuals holding strong policy views before their appointments don’t thereby demonstrate a closed mind or even an appearance of bias.

Amazon’s request for Khan’s recusal rests on premises incompatible with the broader goals of antitrust enforcement. Antitrust law aims to foster competition, consumer choice, and fair markets, not stifle successful companies or innovation. Khan’s approach to antitrust enforcement aligns with these objectives and should be viewed as an asset, not an obstacle.

The recent decision in Jonathan Kanter’s case sends a clear message that calls for recusal based on past antitrust advocacy should not and will not succeed.

The genuine challenge in antitrust enforcement lies in the revolving door between government agencies and tech giants, where insiders can potentially influence regulatory actions. Our focus should be on addressing that issue to safeguard the integrity of antitrust enforcement. It should not be on eliminating those with expertise and experience from enforcement roles on the bizarre basis that their experience aligns with the mission Congress assigned to the agencies fortunate enough to attract these rare individuals to public service.

Khan’s appointment to lead the FTC represents a significant step toward effective antitrust enforcement. Calls for her recusal undermine this crucial mission. Let’s uphold antitrust principles for the benefit of all Americans.

Articles represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty.

Previous articleHow the FTC Could Have Used Its Draft Merger Guidelines To Argue Against Microsoft-Activision and Meta-Within
Next articleThe Draft Merger Guidelines Risk Reducing Innovation
Laurence H. Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, has taught at its Law School since 1968 and was voted the best professor by the graduating class of 2000. The title “University Professor” is Harvard’s highest academic honor, awarded to just a handful of professors at any given time and to just 68 professors in all of Harvard University’s history. Born in China to Russian Jewish parents, Tribe entered Harvard in 1958 at 16; graduated summa cum laude in Mathematics (1962) and magna cum laude in Law (1966); clerked for the California and U.S. Supreme Courts(1966-68); received tenure at 30; was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences at 38 and to the American Philosophical Society in 2010; helped write the constitutions of South Africa, the Czech Republic, and the Marshall Islands; has received eleven honorary degrees, most recently a degree honoris causa from the Government of Mexico in March 2011 that was never before awarded to an American and an honorary D. Litt. From Columbia University; has prevailed in three-fifths of the many appellate cases he has argued (including 35 in the U.S. Supreme Court); was appointed in 2010 by President Obama and Attorney General Holder to serve as the first Senior Counselor for Access to Justice; and has written 115 books and articles, including his treatise, American Constitutional Law, cited more than any other legal text since 1950. Former Solicitor General Erwin Griswold wrote: “[N]o book, and no lawyer not on the [Supreme] Court, has ever had a greater influence on the development of American constitutional law,” and the Northwestern Law Review opined that no-one else “in American history has… simultaneously achieved Tribe’s preeminence… as a practitioner and… scholar of constitutional law." You can follow him on Twitter @tribelaw.

Exit mobile version