Looking Back on Lina Khan, 21st Century Trustbuster

Throughout the halls of Washington D.C., the floor of the Wall Street Stock Exchange, and every corporate office in America, one woman’s name sends shivers down the spine of anybody who hears it: Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing “antitrust and consumer protection laws.” In simpler terms, they make sure companies follow the laws that have been put in place to protect consumers, and the FTC often does this through legal action. Khan was appointed by former President Biden on June 21, 2021 and immediately kicked the FTC—which had been generally hands-off when it came to regulating monopolistic practices and predatory merger and acquisitions (M&A)—into high gear. Khan sent a memo to FTC employees saying that the commission would more strictly “address rampant consolidation and the dominance that it has enabled across markets.” Her dedication to this promise has won countless victories for the average American.

While Khan didn’t break up any monopolies or trusts like the aptly called trustbusters of the Gilded Age did, she moved to block any merger or acquisition that would be harmful to consumers. In a massive victory, the FTC blocked the $24.6 billion Kroger-Albertsons Merger that would have led to increases in grocery prices and lower wages from a lack of competition due to the grip the monopoly would’ve had on the industry. In the healthcare industry, the FTC reined in a $27.8 billion Amgen-Horizon Therapeutics Acquisition, preventing the pharmaceutical giant from leveraging their newfound medicines for non-competitive practices. This case is the first time the commission has challenged a pharmaceutical merger in a decade, reflecting the FTC’s change in attitude under Khan’s leadership. Big technology companies such as Amazon and Meta are responsible for some of the most egregious violations of antitrust and consumer privacy law. A current lawsuit against Meta alleges they knowingly allowed minors younger than 13 to use their platforms and collected their data without parental consent. Although previous Commissions would have thought it unthinkable to openly challenge major tech companies, Khan’s FTC has swung above its weight class time and time again, going after Amazon,  AI  companies like OpenAI, Anthropic et al.,, and Nvidia’s proposed acquisition of Arm, a chip designer. Even when the FTC was not able to fully stop a merger, the sheer aggressiveness and unabashed prosecution of antitrust law sent a chilling warning to every company looking to violate antitrust regulations. This led to possible mergers being abandoned in fear of being trapped in litigation, which would’ve cost a fortune.

However, antitrust regulation is only one purview of the FTC, and Khan has not neglected the FTC’s other responsibility of consumer protection enforcement, either. A common experience among online consumers is how difficult it is to cancel digital subscriptions. “Cancel” buttons are often hidden behind layers of bureaucracy and intentional inefficiency, contributing to the $397 million Americans spend on unused gym memberships. Seeing this, the commission passed a one-click-cancel rule, mandating not only one-click cancellation, but also outlawing the intentional obfuscation of terms and services in order to mislead consumers. In yet another victory, the FTC also cracked down on fake “Made in USA” labels, guaranteeing that products promising an American origin were truly made in America. 

Unfortunately, not every single swing that the FTC takes is a hit. The planned abolition of non-compete agreements heralded as one of the Commission’s greatest prospective accomplishments ended up becoming unenforceable. This ruling would have freed millions of Americans from non-compete agreements—clauses in employee contracts that restrict their ability to work for competitors once leaving employment—that trap 1 in 5 American workers. The ban was supported by over 26,000 calls and comments from workers who are unable to find better jobs because of these predatory clauses. If it had gone into effect, the abolishment plan was expected to net the average worker $524 dollars more in wages and lead to the formation of more than 8,500 new businesses in the coming years, along with a myriad of other benefits. The FTC did appeal the rulings blocking their enforcement, but with Lina Khan’s departure and President Trump’s appointment of Andrew Ferguson, who has said that the FTC’s sweeping antitrust is an “assault on the American way of life,” a prolonged battle is looking increasingly unlikely. 

Interestingly, Ferguson has made clear that his FTC will go after one industry in particular: Big Tech companies, fighting their “vendetta against competition.” However, where he and Khan differ is their reasoning for doing so. While Khan’s goal with antitrust was to protect consumer privacy, Ferguson’s is focused on apparent censorship of users on public platforms, mainly the censorship of conservative voices. This goal is not necessarily negative, but once viewed in the context of current politics, it becomes less about consumers’ right to free speech and more about furthering political goals. Ferguson’s plans for the agency include promises to revert many of Khan’s decisions, fight to “implement President Trump’s agenda,” and a bizarre part about fighting the “woke” and “trans agenda.” With a leader who plans to use the FTC to further the political aspirations of the president, the commission is poised to become far less aggressive and effective in fighting for consumers’ rights in the coming years. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has also begun to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—an agency that has worked hand-in-hand with the FTC—especially in regulating Big Tech. The FTC was not meant to be used to further a president's agenda nor was it intended to fight for any specific political group. The Trump administration has shown no regard for consumer protection, and the ramifications for the average person in the coming years will be immediately clear. 

The ruthless, wide-reaching enforcement of Khan’s FTC has proven that listening to citizens and making decisions to help them is the best approach for the commission. Despite the misses and missteps that came with such drastic enforcement, Khan’s wins have not only created immediate benefits but have amplified public awareness of antitrust and consumer rights. They received some of the highest amounts of public support for their actions, such as the aforementioned 26,000 comments in favor of ending non-competes. There is also historical precedence suggesting that this support will help the FTC in their litigation. When the commission went after electric companies in the 1920s, they lost their case due to a lack of public support. It is no surprise then that the recently popular FTC has managed to block numerous mergers and challenge so many large companies. There is also vigorous, bipartisan support for antitrust, with strong endorsement for the FTC’s recent actions coming from officials as contrasting as Bernie Sanders and JD Vance. Even Ferguson, who has already been shown to be an unreliable enforcer of consumer rights, is keeping the strong merger guidelines created by Khan’s FTC. 

Although Khan is no longer chair of the FTC, its role has not changed, and it must not change in the future. Listening to the plight of American workers and consumers—then acting to protect them—is an important responsibility. The FTC and the agencies it works with should be expanded instead of destroyed. However, as we have seen, the FTC is not all-powerful nor is it immune to being used for political gain. The FTC’s litigation should work in tandem with labor strikes to put pressure on companies in order to discourage non-competitive mergers and anti-consumer behavior. Even when the FTC itself slows, progress must still continue. What can you do? Support workers’ movements, monetarily or by getting involved with demonstrations. Write to the FTC when they request public comment on issues. Ferguson’s FTC should continue the fight against M&A with the same fervor as Khan’s. The FTC pushing presidential agendas should not be normalized, regardless of if the president is Democratic or Republican. As Khan explains in her Wall Street Journal exit interview, “it’s not the job we’ve [the FTC] been given.” Khan’s work as chair of the FTC has left its mark on the United States and improved lives for people all over the country. It is important that Ferguson and future chairs continue to do so.