1. The state of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement, and their development, since the Pitofsky hearings

Of particular interest to the Commission:

the continued viability of the consumer welfare standard for antitrust law enforcement and policy; economic analysis and evidence on market competitiveness, enforcement policy, and the effects of past FTC enforcement decisions; the identification of new developments in markets and in business-to-business or business-to-consumer relationships; the benefits and costs associated with the growth of international competition and consumer protection enforcement regimes; and the advisory and advocacy role of the FTC regarding enforcement efforts by competition and consumer protection agencies outside the United States, when such efforts have a direct effect on important U.S. interests.

Back to top

2. Competition and consumer protection issues in communication, information, and media technology networks

FTC staff’s 1996 Competition Policy in the New High-Tech Global Marketplace report discussed the competitive analysis of both unilateral and joint conduct in industries subject to network effects; and FTC staff’s 2007 Broadband Connectivity and Competition Policy report addressed similar issues in the broadband internet access service market.

Of particular interest to the Commission:

whether contemporary industry practices in networked industries continue to present competition and consumer protection concerns like those discussed in the prior reports; the welfare effects of regulatory intervention to promote standardization and interoperability; the application of the FTC’s Section 5 authority to the broadband internet access service business; and unique competition and consumer protection issues associated with internet and online commerce.

Back to top

3. The identification and measurement of market power and entry barriers, and the evaluation of collusive, exclusionary, or predatory conduct or conduct that violates the consumer protection statutes enforced by the FTC, in markets featuring “platform” businesses

Of particular interest to the Commission:

whether the platform business model has unique implications for antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement and policy; and whether and how the presence of “network effects” should affect the Commission’s analysis of competition and consumer protection issues in these markets.

Back to top

4. The intersection between privacy, big data, and competition

Of particular interest to the Commission:

data as a dimension of competition, and/or as an impediment to entry into or expansion within a relevant market; competition on privacy and data security attributes (between, for example, social media companies or app developers), and the importance of this competition to consumers and users; whether consumers prefer free/ad-supported products to products offering similar services or capabilities but that are neither free nor ad-supported; the benefits and costs of privacy laws and regulations, including the effect of such regulations on innovation, product offerings, and other dimensions of competition and consumer protection; the benefits and costs of varying state, federal and international privacy laws and regulations, including the conflicts associated with those standards; and competition and consumer protection implications of use and location tracking mechanisms.

Back to top

5. The Commission’s remedial authority to deter unfair and deceptive conduct in privacy and data security matters

Of particular interest to the Commission:

the efficacy of the Commission’s use of its current remedial authority; and the identification of any additional tools or authorities the Commission may need to adequately deter unfair and deceptive conduct related to privacy and data security.

Back to top

6. Evaluating the competitive effects of corporate acquisitions and mergers

Of particular interest to the Commission:

the economic and legal analysis of vertical and conglomerate mergers; whether the doctrine of potential competition is sufficient to identify and analyze the competitive effects (if any) associated with the acquisition of a firm that may be a nascent competitive threat; the analysis of acquisitions and holding of a non-controlling ownership interest in competing companies; the identification and evaluation of the exercise of monopsony power and buyer-power as arising from consolidation; the identification and evaluation of differentiated but potentially competing technologies, and of disruptive or generational changes in technology, and how such technologies affect competitive effects analysis; and empirical validation of the analytical tools used to evaluate acquisitions and mergers (e.g., models of upward pricing pressure, gross upward pricing pressure, net innovation pressure, critical loss analysis, compensating marginal cost reduction, merger simulation, natural experiments, and empirical estimation of demand systems).

Back to top

7. Evidence and analysis of monopsony power, including but not limited to, in labor markets

Of particular interest to the Commission:

the analytic framework applied to conduct and transactions that negatively or positively affect competition between employers as buyers in labor markets; evidence regarding the existence and exercise of buyer monopsony or market power in properly defined markets, including by employers in labor markets; the exercise of monopsony power through collusion, including in labor markets through employer collusion; and the use of non-competition agreements and the conditions under which their use may be inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

Back to top

8. The role of intellectual property and competition policy in promoting innovation

The Commission has taken a dual-pronged approach to issues arising at the intersection of intellectual property and antitrust law:

antitrust enforcement against harmful business conduct involving intellectual property; and competition advocacy regarding the development of intellectual property law.

The Commission has articulated its enforcement positions in a number of public documents, including the joint Commission and Department of Justice 2017 Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property and 2007 Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights report. The Commission has engaged in substantial competition advocacy with respect to the legal and policy regime related to intellectual property rights, including its three “IP” reports: the 2003 To Promote Innovation report, the 2011 Evolving IP Marketplace report, and the 2016 Patent Assertion Entity Activity report. Of particular interest to the Commission:

the adoption and utilization of novel business practices (beyond those addressed in the Commission’s prior guidance and actions) with respect to obtaining or enforcing intellectual property rights, where such practices may be inconsistent with the antitrust laws; identification of contemporary patent doctrine that substantially affects innovation and raises the greatest challenges for competition policy; evaluation of intellectual property litigation in competitive effects analysis; and evaluation of efficiencies and entry considerations in technology markets in merger analysis.

Back to top

9. The consumer welfare implications associated with the use of algorithmic decision tools, artificial intelligence, and predictive analytics

Of particular interest to the Commission:

the welfare effects and privacy implications associated with the application of these technologies to consumer advertising and marketing campaigns; the welfare implications associated with use of these technologies in the determination of a firm’s pricing and output decisions; and whether restrictions on the use of computer and machine learning and data analytics affect innovation or consumer rights and opportunities in existing or future markets, or in the development of new business models.

Back to top

10. The interpretation and harmonization of state and federal statutes and regulations that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices

Of particular interest to the Commission:

whether and to what extent other enforcement entities authorized to prosecute unfair or deceptive acts and practices apply FTC precedent in their enforcement efforts; and whether the Commission can, and to what extent it should, take steps to promote harmonization between the FTC Act and similar statutes.

Back to top

11. The agency’s investigation, enforcement and remedial processes

Of particular interest to the Commission:

whether the agency’s investigative process can be improved without diminishing the ability of the Commission to identify and prosecute prohibited conduct; the extent to which the Commission’s Part 3 process facilitates timely and efficient administrative litigation; the efficacy of the Commission’s current use of its remedial authority; and willingness of affected parties to cooperate with the Commission in conducting post-investigation and enforcement retrospectives.

Back to top

How to Submit Public Comments

Interested parties may submit written comments on the topics listed above to the FTC. Electronic submission is preferred; comments in paper form are also accepted. FTC staff may use these comments in any subsequent reports or policy papers. Comments should refer to “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings, Project Number P181201.” If an interested party wishes to comment on multiple topics, we encourage filing a separate comment for each topic. If an interested party wishes to make general comments about the hearings, we encourage filing a comment in response to Topic 1, using this link. For this stage of the public comment process, comments will be accepted until August 20, 2018.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings, Project Number P181201” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street, SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment may be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Website, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else’s Social Security number; date of birth; driver’s license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential” – as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2) – including, in particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Website – as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b) – we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

If any entity has provided funding for research, analysis, or commentary that is included in a submitted public comment, such funding and its source should be identified on the first page of any submitted comment.

Visit the FTC Website to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. For this stage of the comment process, the Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 20, 2018. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy.