Facebook wants FTC chair Lina Khan to recuse herself from antitrust case

AppleInsider

Facebook lawyers have filed a petition for recusal to the FTC, asking for chair Lina Khan to not be involved in discussions about pursuing an antitrust case against the social media giant.

Lina Khan. Credit: An Rong Xu/Getty

New Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan has already faced a recusal petition following the reported start of an antitrust investigation into Amazon's buying MGM. Now Facebook's lawyers have done the same as Amazon's, arguing that Khan's previous criticisms of the company mean its case cannot receive fair consideration.

According to the Financial Times, in almost 8,000 words, Facebook cites multiple instances of Khan's comments or actions which it maintains mean she should not be involved in a case.

"Chair Khan has consistently made public statements not only accusing Facebook of conduct that merits disapproval but specifically expressing her belief that the conduct meets the elements of an antitrust offense under Section 2 of the Sherman Act," says Facebook in a filing.

"Indeed, she has led an organization lobbying the Commission to impose particular remedies against Facebook and, more recently, commented publicly as to her personal beliefs on the merits of the very complaint filed by the Commission last December," continues the petition. "[The] dismissal of which must be addressed in some fashion by the Commission in the coming weeks."

Facebook says that it "vigorously disputes as unsupported and contrary to law" Khan's statements. It also says they "convey to any disinterested observer" that Khan has already "reached legal conclusions that Facebook was liable under the antitrust laws."

In June 2021, a federal court dismissed the FTC's antitrust complaint against Facebook. However, the commission was granted a month to file an amended lawsuit.

The FTC complaint is part of a general intention from the Biden Administration to curb what it describes as the anti-competitive nature of big technology firms. President Biden has most recently signed an Executive Order aimed at precisely this.

Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.

Doval

Makes sense , I am no fan of Facebook but just Google what this woman has said about Amazon and Facebook In past, this would be equivalent to having a murderer be his own judge in court 

9secondkox2

Having noticed something wrong in the past does not make one unfit to judge right and wrong. 

No need for recusal. Facebook simply needs to have good answers. Alternatively, they can have a new business plan that does not run afoul. 

If anyone needed to recuse themselves from something, it was Lucy koh during the iBooks case. She pronounced Apple guilty before there was ever a trial. In the end, when all evidence pointed to an innocent Apple, she came down with Bromwich and had Apple Pay exorbitant fees to have him monitor.  Was excessive and did not follow the tone of the trial. But the fix was in prior to the trial. 

Of Apple can have to deal with that, Facebook can de wity someone who simply points out where they have been wrong on matters. 

JWSC

9secondkox2 said:

Having noticed something wrong in the past does not make one unfit to judge right and wrong. 

No need for recusal. Facebook simply needs to have good answers. Alternatively, they can have a new business plan that does not run afoul. 

If anyone needed to recuse themselves from something, it was Lucy koh during the iBooks case. She pronounced Apple guilty before there was ever a trial. In the end, when all evidence pointed to an innocent Apple, she came down with Bromwich and had Apple Pay exorbitant fees to have him monitor.  Was excessive and did not follow the tone of the trial. But the fix was in prior to the trial. 

Of Apple can have to deal with that, Facebook can de wity someone who simply points out where they have been wrong on matters.

If Lina Khan was in the running to be selected as a juror and had previously made unfavorable comments about the defendant, she would be dismissed by the defense without a second thought.  The perception would be, justifiably, that she is tainted.

Japhey

9secondkox2 said:

Having noticed something wrong in the past does not make one unfit to judge right and wrong. 

No need for recusal. Facebook simply needs to have good answers. Alternatively, they can have a new business plan that does not run afoul. 

If anyone needed to recuse themselves from something, it was Lucy koh during the iBooks case. She pronounced Apple guilty before there was ever a trial. In the end, when all evidence pointed to an innocent Apple, she came down with Bromwich and had Apple Pay exorbitant fees to have him monitor.  Was excessive and did not follow the tone of the trial. But the fix was in prior to the trial. 

Of Apple can have to deal with that, Facebook can de wity someone who simply points out where they have been wrong on matters. 

Please tell me you’re not an attorney, or worse, a judge. Because, actively lobbying against something in the past is definitely not the same as merely noticing “something wrong in the past” and pointing out where “they have been wrong on matters”. She has already publicly passed judgement, and this pre-existing bias would be reason for any defendant to fear a fair opportunity to plead their case. I hate Facebook as much as anyone, but they’re not wrong here. 

cpenzone

After 4 years of willfully ignoring conflicts of interest in the previous administration you suddenly want someone to recuse themselves. Spare me your hypocrisy.

jdw

9secondkox2 said:

Having noticed something wrong in the past does not make one unfit to judge right and wrong. 

Actually, it does "potentially" make someone VERY UNFIT.  The fact I and others even need to say that is shocking in the extreme.  That is precisely why Brett M. Kavanaugh was put through intense questioning before the powers that be ultimately decided to confirm him to the Supreme Court.  So long as the past actions where not done when one was an infant or youth incapable of discerning right from wrong, they do matter when one is assigned great authority and make-or-break power.