As part of a chronicle of articles in Competition Policy International, Daniel Crane of University of Michigan wrote an article that looked at the FTC’s use of its Section 5 powers in the case against Intel. The article argues that:
The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) unprecedented enforcement action against Intel raises profound issues concerning the scope of the FTC’s powers to give a construction to Section 5 of the FTC Act that goes beyond the substantive reach of the Sherman Act. While I have urged the FTC to assert such independence from the Sherman Act,this is the wrong case to make a break. Indeed, if anything,Intelposes a risk of seriously setting back the development of an independent Section 5 power by provoking a hostile appellate court to rebuke the FTC’s effort and cabin the FTC’s powers in future matters better suited to an independent Section 5.
The essential flaw in the Commission’s assertion of an independent Section 5 inIntelis that there is little or no connection between the Commission’s comparative institutional advantages over Article III courts and this case. The Commission should not make a break for Section 5 independence until it finds a case in which it can explain what facts about that particular case—and not about antitrust cases in general—justify judicial deference. Otherwise, the Commission runs the risk that courts will interpret its plea for deference as a request to be excused from the rule of law. There is a very real risk that courts will viewIntelas an effort to achieve carte blanche permission for the Commission to run an antitrust program divorced from the strictures of the Sherman Act. Courts are unlikely to react sympathetically to such a perceived request.
The full article is available at Competition Policy International [subscription required].