Antitrust scholar Lina Khan is confirmed as new FTC chair

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 18
The Federal Trade Commission's new chair has been confirmed as legal scholar Lina Khan, who has previously maintained that current laws do not sufficiently counter Big Tech anti-competition concerns.

Lina Khan. Credit: An Rong Xu/Getty
Lina Khan. Credit: An Rong Xu/Getty


As previously expected, Lina Khan has now been sworn in as chair of the US Federal Trade Commission. President Biden's appointment received bipartisan support.

Khan thanked the Senate on Twitter, saying that she plans to continue the FTC's mission to protect consumers.

I'm so grateful to the Senate for my confirmation. Congress created the FTC to safeguard fair competition and protect consumers, workers, and honest businesses from unfair & deceptive practices. I look forward to upholding this mission with vigor and serving the American public.

-- Lina Khan (@linamkhan)


Khan has previously researched technology markets, and served as counsel to the US House Judiciary subcommittee. A Columbia Law School professor, Khan has also been an aide to FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra.

According to Reuters, US Senator Elizabeth Warren -- previously greatly critical of Big Tech companies -- described the appointment as "tremendous news."

"With Chair Khan at the helm," she said in a statement, " we have a huge opportunity to make big, structural change by reviving antitrust enforcement and fighting monopolies that threaten our economy, our society, and our democracy."

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.AppleInsider is also bringing you the best Apple-related deals for Amazon Prime Day 2021. There are bargains before, during, and even after Prime Day on June 21 and 22 -- with every deal at your fingertips throughout the event.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,856member
    Greeeeaaaatt.
    kurai_kage
  • Reply 2 of 17
    cornchip said:
    Greeeeaaaatt.
    Elaborate 
    avon b7
  • Reply 3 of 17
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,647member
    Serve the American public—— wonder which public she'll serve. I like what Apple has done for its customers. Break them up and there will be a big mess. Who do we blame for that? Apple didn’t get where it is today by locking out competition like Microsoft. Consumers made Apple huge because WE like their products better than others. Isn’t that fair competition? There are alternatives to Apple’s products and focusing on the App Store is stupid. Other companies are simply jealous of Apple’s success and politicians want brides to get a piece of the pie. 
  • Reply 4 of 17
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 802member
    cornchip said:
    Greeeeaaaatt.
    Elaborate 
    I can't speak for Fruitstandninja so I will answer as if I had made that post.  If they concur or not, they can weigh in.

    If this newly appointed FTC Chair is thinking along the lines of Warren, she will be attacking honest and wonderful businesses using deceptive and dishonest practices in a way that will "threaten our economy, our society, and our democracy."
  • Reply 5 of 17
    williamh said:
    cornchip said:
    Greeeeaaaatt.
    Elaborate 
    I can't speak for Fruitstandninja so I will answer as if I had made that post.  If they concur or not, they can weigh in.

    If this newly appointed FTC Chair is thinking along the lines of Warren, she will be attacking honest and wonderful businesses using deceptive and dishonest practices in a way that will "threaten our economy, our society, and our democracy."
    So your comment would be based on nothing tangible or any actually knowledge of Khan but just stuff you are pulling out of thin air..... Sounds totally reasonable.

    But as long as we are going with uninformed speculation, I'll answer as if I made cornchip's comment too:

    If the newly appointed FTC Chair is from an alien race hell bent on subjecting the human race because we taste good she will be attacking honest and wonderful people using deceptive and dishonest practices in a way that will "thread our existence"
    edited June 16
  • Reply 6 of 17
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,268member
    rob53 said:
    Serve the American public—— wonder which public she'll serve. I like what Apple has done for its customers. Break them up and there will be a big mess. Who do we blame for that? Apple didn’t get where it is today by locking out competition like Microsoft. Consumers made Apple huge because WE like their products better than others. Isn’t that fair competition? There are alternatives to Apple’s products and focusing on the App Store is stupid. Other companies are simply jealous of Apple’s success and politicians want brides to get a piece of the pie. 
    Right. How can consumers start a class action law suit against everyone attempting to invalidate the purchases of Nearly a billion customers to accommodate non customers desire to have access to Apple’s work when they chose to pay someone else for their product? 
  • Reply 7 of 17
    JonGJonG Posts: 15unconfirmed, member
    While I don't necessarily agree with "Breaking Up Apple."  I will say that there are some of their practices that bear scrutiny:
    • Buying up companies that make products that Apple wants, hiring their execs and terminating most of the employees and then incorporating the product so that they can make maximum profit from it:  not great.
    • Sherlocking companies development without buying them up because you have Billion-Dollar lawyers that can squash any complaint from a small business that made an app that they charge $10 for and they make a reasonable profit.
    • While NPEs need to be totally shut down, and Patent Law needs to be revamped, Apple does its own skirting of the law in this area as well.
    • EULAs are a joke and need to be terminated. Why should Apple be able to tell me how many copies of their OS I can virtualize on a machine (they don't charge for their OS, and it is based on an Open Source/Open License OS), or if I can manage to make it work on a similar machine that wasn't built by them.  If it has a EULA, then I am NOT purchasing it, I'm renting it.
    • Apple is making BUCKETS of money on the App Store, else they would have put up a big graphic in the Fortnite trial about how the 30% cut barely covers cost.  Instead they dodged with "we don't quantify the cost against the profits".  That is total crap.  I'm not saying they don't have the right to make a buck, and Epic's reasoning is totally bonkers, but maybe aligning it against cost would make it understood why they have to charge what they charge, or allow some public pressure to make them tier their charges even more than the two tier system they currently use (I would also note that their own apps cost them, but the basis for that should only be the 30% of the price that they charge everyone else).
    There are more.  I don't think the aggressive step of breaking up Apple is a reasonable thing to do, or in the public interest. However, a little oversight of a company that is sitting on a cash pile that could pay the debt for a number of U.S. States is not out of line.  Especially since their products rely on the services that those states pay for (Roads, Electricity, etc.).

    edited June 16 zimmermanngatorguykurai_kageOferFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 8 of 17
    JonG said:
    While I don't necessarily agree with "Breaking Up Apple."  I will say that there are some of their practices that bear scrutiny:
    • Sherlocking companies development without buying them up because you have Billion-Dollar lawyers that can squash any complaint from a small business that made an app that they charge $10 for and they make a reasonable profit.
    Only going to point out, "Have you seen Apple's legal track record?"  Just saying that they don't always or even usually get their way.  Maybe I'll also mention that companies buy other companies all of the time, sometimes it is for the talent, other times it is for the IP, and occasionally it is for both.  Quite often Apple integrates a large chunk of the original companies employees, and sometimes they don't, but that is also no different from how it is done across every other industry.  Apple's success garners a lot of scrutiny for better or worse.  What I don't want to see is someone that is going to make an example out of Big Tech.  Going after the biggest fish (Apple/Google), just because they have a lot of money, which is the EU approach.)  Instead, sensible laws applicable to a swatch of the industry will be less destructive.  Also, try working with the companies to find a middle ground and elicit change.  
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 17
    JonGJonG Posts: 15unconfirmed, member
    Only going to point out, "Have you seen Apple's legal track record?"  Just saying that they don't always or even usually get their way.  Maybe I'll also mention that companies buy other companies all of the time, sometimes it is for the talent, other times it is for the IP, and occasionally it is for both.  Quite often Apple integrates a large chunk of the original companies employees, and sometimes they don't, but that is also no different from how it is done across every other industry.  Apple's success garners a lot of scrutiny for better or worse.  What I don't want to see is someone that is going to make an example out of Big Tech.  Going after the biggest fish (Apple/Google), just because they have a lot of money, which is the EU approach.)  Instead, sensible laws applicable to a swatch of the industry will be less destructive.  Also, try working with the companies to find a middle ground and elicit change.  
    Note that I didn't say "break up" or even "sue".  My point is that the practices we see, we have to decide if going forward those are best for the marketplace or not.
    kurai_kage
  • Reply 10 of 17
    OferOfer Posts: 101unconfirmed, member
    JonG said:
    While I don't necessarily agree with "Breaking Up Apple."  I will say that there are some of their practices that bear scrutiny:
    • Buying up companies that make products that Apple wants, hiring their execs and terminating most of the employees and then incorporating the product so that they can make maximum profit from it:  not great.
    • Sherlocking companies development without buying them up because you have Billion-Dollar lawyers that can squash any complaint from a small business that made an app that they charge $10 for and they make a reasonable profit.
    • While NPEs need to be totally shut down, and Patent Law needs to be revamped, Apple does its own skirting of the law in this area as well.
    • EULAs are a joke and need to be terminated. Why should Apple be able to tell me how many copies of their OS I can virtualize on a machine (they don't charge for their OS, and it is based on an Open Source/Open License OS), or if I can manage to make it work on a similar machine that wasn't built by them.  If it has a EULA, then I am NOT purchasing it, I'm renting it.
    • Apple is making BUCKETS of money on the App Store, else they would have put up a big graphic in the Fortnite trial about how the 30% cut barely covers cost.  Instead they dodged with "we don't quantify the cost against the profits".  That is total crap.  I'm not saying they don't have the right to make a buck, and Epic's reasoning is totally bonkers, but maybe aligning it against cost would make it understood why they have to charge what they charge, or allow some public pressure to make them tier their charges even more than the two tier system they currently use (I would also note that their own apps cost them, but the basis for that should only be the 30% of the price that they charge everyone else).
    There are more.  I don't think the aggressive step of breaking up Apple is a reasonable thing to do, or in the public interest. However, a little oversight of a company that is sitting on a cash pile that could pay the debt for a number of U.S. States is not out of line.  Especially since their products rely on the services that those states pay for (Roads, Electricity, etc.).

    All excellent points. I totally agree!
  • Reply 11 of 17
    OferOfer Posts: 101unconfirmed, member
    williamh said:
    cornchip said:
    Greeeeaaaatt.
    Elaborate 
    I can't speak for Fruitstandninja so I will answer as if I had made that post.  If they concur or not, they can weigh in.

    If this newly appointed FTC Chair is thinking along the lines of Warren, she will be attacking honest and wonderful businesses using deceptive and dishonest practices in a way that will "threaten our economy, our society, and our democracy."
    So your comment would be based on nothing tangible or any actually knowledge of Khan but just stuff you are pulling out of thin air..... Sounds totally reasonable.

    But as long as we are going with uninformed speculation, I'll answer as if I made cornchip's comment too:

    If the newly appointed FTC Chair is from an alien race hell bent on subjecting the human race because we taste good she will be attacking honest and wonderful people using deceptive and dishonest practices in a way that will "thread our existence"
    LOL, hilarious! Funny way to make a good point.
  • Reply 12 of 17
    ralphieralphie Posts: 68member
    Great, "antitrust scholar".  Sounds they've already made their decision.  Why not a "free market" scholar?!
    jony0
  • Reply 13 of 17
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,329member
    JonG said:
    While I don't necessarily agree with "Breaking Up Apple."  I will say that there are some of their practices that bear scrutiny:
    • Sherlocking companies development without buying them up because you have Billion-Dollar lawyers that can squash any complaint from a small business that made an app that they charge $10 for and they make a reasonable profit.
    . . .
    Kinda like what Google did with Java, H.264, fonts, and other technologies in Android they decided they didn't want to pay licensing fees for?

    I agree that this practice should definitely be scrutinized, but I'd argue that it's been done on a far larger scale by others.
    FileMakerFellerrob53jony0
  • Reply 14 of 17
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 355member
    JonG said:
    While I don't necessarily agree with "Breaking Up Apple."  I will say that there are some of their practices that bear scrutiny:
    • Buying up companies that make products that Apple wants, hiring their execs and terminating most of the employees and then incorporating the product so that they can make maximum profit from it:  not great.
    • Sherlocking companies development without buying them up because you have Billion-Dollar lawyers that can squash any complaint from a small business that made an app that they charge $10 for and they make a reasonable profit.
    • While NPEs need to be totally shut down, and Patent Law needs to be revamped, Apple does its own skirting of the law in this area as well.
    • EULAs are a joke and need to be terminated. Why should Apple be able to tell me how many copies of their OS I can virtualize on a machine (they don't charge for their OS, and it is based on an Open Source/Open License OS), or if I can manage to make it work on a similar machine that wasn't built by them.  If it has a EULA, then I am NOT purchasing it, I'm renting it.
    • Apple is making BUCKETS of money on the App Store, else they would have put up a big graphic in the Fortnite trial about how the 30% cut barely covers cost.  Instead they dodged with "we don't quantify the cost against the profits".  That is total crap.  I'm not saying they don't have the right to make a buck, and Epic's reasoning is totally bonkers, but maybe aligning it against cost would make it understood why they have to charge what they charge, or allow some public pressure to make them tier their charges even more than the two tier system they currently use (I would also note that their own apps cost them, but the basis for that should only be the 30% of the price that they charge everyone else).
    There are more.  I don't think the aggressive step of breaking up Apple is a reasonable thing to do, or in the public interest. However, a little oversight of a company that is sitting on a cash pile that could pay the debt for a number of U.S. States is not out of line.  Especially since their products rely on the services that those states pay for (Roads, Electricity, etc.).

    OS X is a product that Apple happens to include with a computer purchase. You have right to use it as you see fit. It is their product and therefore their rules. Just because something is free does not mean you can do as you please. Take a look of some of the free software licenses and you’ll find they are restrictive in many different ways.  
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 15 of 17
    I feel like Delores Umbridge was just appointed as the FTC chair…
  • Reply 16 of 17
    ralphie said:
    Great, "antitrust scholar".  Sounds they've already made their decision.  Why not a "free market" scholar?!
    Antitrust is critical to a healthy free market. Without antitrust there would be no Apple as Microsoft would have absolutely steamrolled them in the early 90s. 
    edited June 17
  • Reply 17 of 17
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,647member
    jimh2 said:
    JonG said:
    While I don't necessarily agree with "Breaking Up Apple."  I will say that there are some of their practices that bear scrutiny:
    ….
    • EULAs are a joke and need to be terminated. Why should Apple be able to tell me how many copies of their OS I can virtualize on a machine (they don't charge for their OS, and it is based on an Open Source/Open License OS), or if I can manage to make it work on a similar machine that wasn't built by them.  If it has a EULA, then I am NOT purchasing it, I'm renting it
    OS X is a product that Apple happens to include with a computer purchase. You have right to use it as you see fit. It is their product and therefore their rules. Just because something is free does not mean you can do as you please. Take a look of some of the free software licenses and you’ll find they are restrictive in many different ways.  
    Actually, you have a right to use it while following the EULA. I disagree with JonG about EULAs being a joke. They are used to protect the company’s product from people wanting to steal it, copy it illegally and run it on unauthorized hardware. We’re not renting it either, we’re given the ability to use it on Apple-authorized hardware.
Sign In or Register to comment.