Jonathan Cantor has resigned as one of Joe Biden’s top antitrust enforcement officials, but he hopes the incoming administration will maintain the crackdown on corporate power he helped unleash.
“If we go back to a lax antitrust enforcement system, that’s…” . It’s the prerogative of those in charge,” Jonathan Canter, who resigned as head of the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust division on Friday, said in an interview with the Financial Times.
“But the impact on the public is undeniable. So my expectation is that if there is a complete reversal of antitrust law, I don’t expect it, but the public It will be temporary at the request of.
Since taking office in 2021, Kanter has made a name for himself as a private attorney in high-profile tech cases, arguing that corporate growth is tolerated as long as it doesn’t harm consumers, a shift away from “consumer welfare.” He rejected this idea and shocked the establishment. ” Standards that have underpinned U.S. antitrust policy since the 1970s.
During his tenure, he was successful in blocking several large deals, but his aggressive enforcement stance led to a series of abandoned deals. (“In our line of work, deterrence is the ultimate mark of success,” Kanter said in a speech last week.) Large-scale monopoly lawsuits, once rare, now include Google, Apple, and Visa. Cases have also been brought against other large corporations. And Ticketmaster.
“We focused on the biggest issues involving the biggest companies and took… This is the foundation of antitrust law, and we put it at the heart of our work. ,” Kanter said.
Along with Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan, he is working to improve the century-old competition law to address new market trends, such as harm to workers and private equity groups engulfing parts of the U.S. economy. We explored new applications.
But it remains to be seen whether he and Mr. Kahn have sparked a lasting shake-up in corporate America, or whether their signature achievements will be annulled in court or rolled back by their successors. do not have.
Citing antitrust challenges ranging from airfare and health care costs to chicken prices, Canter said, “I’m optimistic that these cases will continue to be a strong case for the Department of Justice, regardless of who is in charge.” “There is,” he said.
Kanter and Khan focus particularly on Big Tech, which they argue is consolidating its dominance by buying up competitors and consolidating its power with its sprawling platforms. Kanter argued that these trends need to be addressed now to avoid distorting new technologies, including artificial intelligence.
“In markets where data is at the core, where large scale effects and feedback loops are likely to occur, there is a high risk that the market will tilt towards a small number of established players,” Kanter said.
There is a risk that “the incumbents of the current generation of technology will determine who can and cannot compete with the next generation of technology,” he added.
Mr. Kanter’s biggest victory involved a years-long lawsuit launched under President Donald Trump’s first administration that accused Google of monopolizing the online search market. This is the Justice Department’s second major victory in monopoly litigation in nearly 50 years. The judge is now deciding what relief to impose. Mr. Cantor’s Justice Department called for stiff penalties, including forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser and, if necessary, its Android mobile operating system.
Big tech companies are fighting back fiercely, and if the case continues, it’s likely the case will someday end up in an appeals court, which will scrutinize the underlying theory. Michael Carrier, a law professor at Rutgers University, said it was also an “open question” whether the conservative-majority Supreme Court would shed light on Cantor’s work. “The ambitious theories underlying some cases may not be received very favorably.”
It is up to the next administration to decide whether to pursue or resolve the biggest case. However, early signs suggest that the Trump administration may continue to pursue a tougher approach towards some sectors, particularly Big Tech.
Charles Ruhl, a partner at Ruhl Garza Howley who served as head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division under President Ronald Reagan and traditionally supports conservative competition policy, believes that “Jonathan will either get credit for changing the antitrust law, or he will get blamed.” “It is not clear whether this direction will be abandoned in the future.”
John Donenberg, deputy director of the National Economic Council, told the FT that Cantor “has revitalized a long-neglected aspect of competition law, with fewer lawyers than during the Reagan administration, and is making history in many major industries.” “We have filed a lawsuit,” he said, adding: “Transformation…will have a lasting impact for decades.”
Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, told the FT that Cantor “has been fearless in challenging the biggest monopolies and price gougers.”
Even people who don’t share Canter’s philosophy admire his leadership. “He had a good relationship on the Hill, and he had a good relationship with the states (which participated in many of the Justice Department cases),” Ruhl said.
Along with Khan, Kanter also strengthened ties with international enforcement officials, including former EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager, ushering in a rare period of synchronicity across the Atlantic.
Vestager, who is known for imposing billions of euros in fines on major US technology companies during his 10 years as EU commissioner, told the FT: “The approach to technology and technology companies has changed significantly over the past few years. “I believe their efforts will outlast the change in leadership.” In the last 10 years. ”
“Many people within and outside the competition community recognize that we cannot sustain a dynamic economy without technology competition and open market access,” she added.
Few sectors have been more vocally opposed to Kanter’s approach than Big Tech.
Zach Lilly, deputy director of state and federal affairs at the technology group NetChoice, said Kanter is a broader “failed attempt” to dismantle and replace the Biden administration’s “bipartisan history of protecting consumer welfare.” It was said that it was part of “. The Europeanization of American Antitrust Law.”
Indeed, Cantor’s critics argue that his aggressive approach to antitrust stretches the law. The monopoly case provided “a widespread excuse for the government to intervene in the market and replace the unilateral views of businessmen with the government’s views,” Ruhl said.
Mr. Cantor’s legacy is already sealed by bringing antitrust law into the mainstream, which strengthens bipartisan support for tough enforcement focused on chipping away at powerful companies, making Mr. Cantor’s policies more secure. Some argue that it may persist.
“He blew up the antitrust silos,” said Bill Baer, who headed the Justice Department’s antitrust division under President Barack Obama. “He made the importance of competition law enforcement meaningful to the average consumer.”
Recommended
Another possible sign of continuity is that President Trump plans to nominate Gayle Slater, chief of staff to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, to replace Cantor. Mr. Vance has expressed support for breaking up Google, and Mr. Trump has urged Mr. Slater to continue targeting Big Tech.
For Kanter, the Justice Department has “proved that it can successfully implement effective and broad-based antitrust enforcement.”
“What we did has gone down in history, and it will outlast us,” he said. “That makes me proud.”
Additional reporting by Javier Espinoza in Brussels
