Please enable JavaScript, then refresh this page. JavaScript is required on this site.

Publications

Antitrust Alert: FTC Merger Settlement Exposes Rift Over Antitrust Merger Enforcement

February 2019

The Federal Trade Commission, by a 3-2 party-line vote, has settled a vertical merger challenge in exchange for the merging companies' behavioral commitments. The decision and Commissioner statements signal tension for FTC decisionmaking in the near future.

The case involved Staples' acquisition of office supply wholesaler Essendant. The five-member Commission issued four statements, including two dissents urging more aggressive antitrust enforcement, revealing a fracture in the bipartisan consensus that generally has characterized the FTC over many years. This public disagreement reflects a debate over enforcement aggressiveness against vertical transactions, veracity of claimed deal efficiencies, motives of private equity buyers, and sufficiency of behavioral remedies.

The three-Republican majority concluded that the likely harm was limited to potential misuse of competitively sensitive information and that the firewall remedy addressed that concern. Although the Republicans, voting to allow the merger with conditions, were following the FTC staff's recommendation, the two Democrats issued critical dissents. As characterized by the majority, the dissenting statements claimed a "a decades-long, bipartisan pattern of faulty analysis, improper assumptions, unreliable predictions, underweighting evidence of anticompetitive effect, and overweighting evidence of efficiencies." According to the majority, the dissents' concerns either were "ruled out by staff or speak to potential injuries that fall outside the scope of antitrust law." Although the five Commissioners agreed on the need for more retrospective merger reviews, they differed over how to proceed given limited agency resources.

Conclusion

  1. The current debate about the role of antitrust likely will be reflected in future FTC decisions on appropriate merger enforcement. Merging parties can expect these dissenting Commissioners to urge court challenges or stronger settlements, especially in vertical transactions.
  2. This schism will result in incrementally longer investigations, but probably no change in outcome for the majority of cases. The dissents will assume a stronger voice if a member of the majority is recused, generating potential 2-2 splits. Nevertheless, the FTC is unable to challenge a transaction without the vote of a majority of Commissioners.
  3. Behavioral remedies, including firewalls, remain a source of controversy, but are a viable option to address competitive issues in vertical transactions. Outside of these few cases, the FTC is likely to require divestitures to resolve competitive concerns.

Lawyer Contacts

For more information, please contact your principal Jones Day representative or any of the lawyers listed below.

Kathryn M. Fenton
Washington
+1.202.879.3746
kmfenton@jonesday.com

J. Bruce McDonald
Houston/Washington
+1.832.239.3822 / +1.202.879.5570
bmcdonald@jonesday.com

Ryan C. Thomas
Washington
+1.202.879.3807
rcthomas@jonesday.com

Lauren Miller Forbes
Washington
+1.202.879.3798
lmillerforbes@jonesday.com

Michael A. Gleason
Washington
+1.202.879.4648
magleason@jonesday.com

Jones Day prepares summaries of significant antitrust enforcement, litigation, and policy events as a service to clients and interested readers, to provide timely insight on antitrust and competition law developments relevant to business, but not as legal advice on any specific matter. Please visit our Publication Request form to add your name to our distribution list.