Nipping in the Bud Any Reassessment of Merger Guidelines

             The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have released for public comment proposed new guidelines designed to address "the many ways mergers can weaken competition, harming consumers, workers, and businesses." See https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/07/ftc-doj-seek-comment-draft-merger-guidelines. Rather than participate in a thorough debate on the merits of the new government guidelines, a variety of stakeholders have launched a preemptive strike to discredit the inquiry and individuals like FTC chairwoman Lina M. Khan. 

             Sponsored researchers, Chicago School antitrust doctrine advocates, and maybe some true believers in the virtues of maintaining the status quo have become apoplectic in their disapproval, some preemptively oppositional even before release of the proposal. See e.g., https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/a-shift-in-merger-enforcement-risks-damaging-our-economy; https://cei.org/studies/turning-back-the-clock-structural-presumptions-in-merger-analyses-and-revised-merger-guidelines/.

             Using a commonsense standard, I smell a rat.  Advocates for maintaining the status quo have much to lose if DOJ, FTC, and eventually, reviewing courts, respond to changing marketplace conditions such as the proliferation of "winner take all" platform intermediaries, like Facebook and Google.  Information Age markets do not always match the manner in which bricks and mortar markets operate.  See Rob Frieden, The Internet of Platforms and Two-Sided Markets: Implications for Competition and Consumers, 63 Vill. L. Rev. 269 (2018); https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol63/iss2/3/; Two-Sided Internet Markets and the Need to Assess Both Upstream and Downstream Impacts, 68 Am. U. L. Rev. 713 (2019); https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2085&context=aulr. Nevertheless, stakeholders tenaciously adhere to doctrine, rules, laws, and assumptions that surely need reassessment in light of changed circumstances.

             Here are a few significant new challenges to the status quo.

1) Chicago School emphasis on consumer welfare and price ignores harmful secondary and tertiary impacts.

             It does not take a Ph. D in economics to see financial and reputational harms resulting from mergers and acquisitions that further concentrate markets. Even using monetary impact as the sole evaluative criterion, market dominance makes it possible for firms to extract monopoly rents.  Chicago School advocates note how firms like Facebook and Goggle and offer a valuable service "for free." Using their narrow focus, free represents a remarkable value proposition. However, a broader focus on economic impact readily identifies offsetting harms: identity theft, insufficient data protection resulting in stolen email addresses and passwords, disinformation leading to distrust in government, media, organized religion, and other bedrock institutions, threats to elections, national security, and individuals' overall sense of wellbeing, etc.

             Free does not mean without cost, particularly in an ecosystem where "surveillance capitalism" offers a "free" service as an inducement for the opportunity to mine, collate, market, and generate revenues from data.

2) Vertical and horizontal mergers are not necessarily separate transactions.

             Conventional antitrust theory, subsequently baked into case precedent and current DOJ-FTC merger guidelines, considers as gospel truth the mutual exclusivity of vertical and horizontal mergers.  The former qualifies for relaxed scrutiny based on the assumption that the acquiring firm did not compete in the markets served by the acquired firm.  The rationale concludes that no harm will beset consumers in a merger of firms that did not compete with each other in the first place.  Because horizontal mergers involve the elimination of a competitor and expanded market share for the acquiring firm, closer scrutiny should apply.

             There are several grave problems with this convenient and simplistic doctrinal model.  Many markets, especially information, communications, and entertainment ("ICE") ones, have dominant firms that operate throughout vertical and horizontal "food chains."  For example, Comcast creates content (NBC Universal), syndicates and licenses content for distribution by unaffiliated firms, and also delivers content to consumers (cable, broadcasting, streaming).  The company is vertically integrated and horizontally integrated.  It competes with companies that also have to pay it for access to "must see" content, e.g., NBC as a broadcast network still offering mass market programming such as network news and live sporting events.

             If courts did not assume vertical acquisitions lack any adverse impact on markets and consumers, a vertical acquisition might get the kind of close scrutiny it warrants.  Consider Comcast's acquisition of NBC.  The conventional wisdom framed the deal as vertical integration, because Comcast mostly distributes content as a cable television operator, with seemingly limited investment in content creation.  Even accepting the obvious that Comcast does create content, reviewing courts assumed the company would never withhold access, because it would reduce licensing and syndication revenues.

             News flash: Comcast might want to withhold content, or extract higher payments from competitors.  So-called retransmission consent requires Comcast, as the owner of NBC to negotiate in good faith with unaffiliated cable television companies.  Frequently, the parties cannot reach a renewal agreement on time and valuable content is blocked.  These "black outs" have become more numerous and last longer.  See, Rob Frieden, Krishna Jayakar, & Eun-A Park, There’s Probably a Blackout in Your Television Future: Tracking New Carriage Negotiation Strategies Between Video Content Programmers and Distributors, 43 Colum. J.L. & Arts 487 (2020);  https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/d8-aq85-2z51/download.

3) Mergers rarely enhance competition.

             Has anyone empirically proven that a merger or acquisition enhances consumer welfare rather than just the acquiring company's profitability?  Does reducing the number of competitors somehow make the survivors more vigorous competitors, keen on innovating, reducing prices, improving customer service, and otherwise making the marketplace more robust?

             Consider TMobile's acquisition of Sprint.  The conventional wisdom, dutifully articulated in the court's approval of the transaction (see https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv05434/517350/409/) assumed New TMobile would continue the tradition of being an innovator, lower cost competitor, and provocative pro-consumer warrior.  I see the wireless marketplace as an oligopoly of three offering roughly the same prices, happy to differentiate themselves on what "free" content like Netflix they will provide subscribers. Has New TMobile offered anything innovative and disruptive since acquiring Sprint?

             I readily acknowledge that Sprint had become a failing venture, perhaps on the brink of bankruptcy.  If an incumbent had not acquired the firm, I believe a new investor gladly would have paid pennies on the dollar for the opportunity to operate in a market with one of the highest average revenue per user in the world.  Yes, wireless rates have declined, but they are lower with better terms throughout most of the world.

4) Platform intermediaries, operating in two-sided markets, can adversely impact horizontal, vertical, secondary, and tertiary markets.

             Chicago School antirust doctrine provides simplistic, but easily understood and implemented rules. Judges and their law clerks, have become indoctrinated in "rules" that started as theory, but over time got baked into the jurisprudence.  I believe the Chicago School doctrine became unimpeachable gospel largely because stakeholders that would benefit from relaxed antitrust enforcement, invested heavily in making it a fundamental part of law and economics.

             How did this happen?  Millions of dollars spent over decades have made the doctrine appear legitimate and unimpeachable, despite regularly failing a simple smell test.  The combination of sponsored researchers, well-funded institutes, foundations, think tanks, and advocacy groups, all-expense paid seminars, endowed professorships, and the like have paid off.  Sponsored researchers create a plethora of work, framed as academic contributions, but designed to achieve support for a predetermined outcome. The process continues and builds on itself as sponsored researchers cite the prior work of sponsored researchers.  Over time, clearly results driven advocacy documents acquire the legitimacy and credibility of unsponsored work aiming to seek the truth.  In fact, sponsored research can crowd out work that does not have the public outreach and cheerleading provided by stakeholders.

             The whole process "stinks to high heaven."  Just now, sponsored researchers are noting that the proposed merger guidelines would harm the credibility of both DoJ and FTC, apparently before the court of public opinion and judges.  Of course, these very same pundits have the financial incentive to impeach the credibility of these government agencies and deem the proposed guidelines harmful, ill conceived, and bullying.

             It's a racket as my wife would say.  I am certain that so-called consumer stakeholders also have financial underwriters singing the praises of the proposed guidelines. However, these groups have substantially less funding available, because few stakeholders can see the direct monetary harm that would result from implementation of the guidelines.

             I understand that sponsored researchers often have the ongoing financial burden of having to generate annually enough "soft money" to keep graduate students employed. Sadly, that necessity has become yet another reason for the rats to proliferate.  

 

Challenging a NYT Column Singing the Praises of Platforms and Dismissing Their Network Effects

The September 4, 2021 edition of the New York Times contains an article written by Professor Jonathan A. Knee entitled Network Effects are Overrated.  The author generally dismisses as benign, or ineffectual just about anything platform intermediaries have undertaken, despite the prevailing view that these ventures impose significant costs and benefits on consumers and society.

Professor Knee appears to dismiss the ability of platform operators to lock in subscribers and create incentives for more consumers to “get on the bandwagon.”  He also dismisses any sense that high market shares reflect a “winner take all” sweepstakes in play. Apparently, the ability to accrue scale efficiencies is not the same thing as exploiting network effects, the ability to expand the subscriber base at low incremental costs.

Professor Knee has great optimism in the ability of market entrants to capture market share and for consumers to vote with their eyes, ears, and pocketbooks and churn out of dominant platforms such as Netflix, Google, Facebook, EBay, PayPal, Uber and others.

The column curiously ignores one of the fundamental characteristics of platform intermediaries: the ability to profit from operating in a two-sided market serving both downstream consumers and upstream advertisers, data analytics firms, election meddlers, purveyors of disinformation, government surveillance agencies, and vendors.

Broadband platform intermediaries have unprecedented opportunities to get multiple bites of the apple as exemplified by Google’s ability to sell advertising, but also generate fees as the auctioneer of ad placements.  Put another way, platform intermediaries can spread fixed costs and accrue positive network effects while also generating multiple profit centers up and down a complete market “food chain.” 

Previous platform intermediaries had limited opportunities to exploit both sides of a market without jeopardizing profits.  Fior example, cable television operators and newspaper owners had to calibrate both advertising and subscription rates to maximize profits.  Attempts at gouging typically would reduce overall profits as consumers and advertisers pursued better value propositions.

Lastly, some readers of this blog may remember with fondness how Word Perfect software offered a better user experience than Microsoft Word. That notwithstanding, network effects over time forced people like me to get on the Word bandwagon, because sticking with Word Perfect guaranteed conversion and compatibility hassles.

Never underestimate the power of firms able to exploit network effects, economics of scale, and access to both sides of an integrated platform marketplace.

How Smart are Algorithms?

            The algorithmic verdict arrived in less than sixty seconds: credit card application denied.

            My application resulted from a clerk’s scripted suggestion at checkout that I could get a 10% reduction on my 4k HDTV purchase at Best Buy simply by applying for their branded Citibank credit card. Sure, why not?

            Imagine my embarrassment when, at point of purchase, with other buyers in line behind me, “Deadbeat Rob” was holding up the line insisting on his creditworthiness.  After a full minute of “careful consideration,” (language contained in the scripted letter from Citibank explaining its verdict), three coordinating players reached a conclusion that I lacked “sufficient credit experience.”

            A pox of all their bourses: Experian for failing to generate a complete record of my credit “experience” and its policy of preventing interaction with a live person, EVER; Citibank for relying on Experian’s lazy, defective and incomplete credit recording; and Best Buy for allowing Citibank and Experian to ruin my interest in ever setting foot in their stores.

            I base my grievances on the common-sense view that I AM credit worthy: nearing 64, I have managed to make timely payments on six figure mortgages and hefty credit card balances.  I have an 800+ credit rating and five figure credit allowances.  I would reach the important 15-20 year experience with the same credit card, but the number drops to zero almost every time I receive an unsolicited, new card, with a different account number, because of a security breach.

            I have plenty of evidence to prove credit worthiness, if Experian and the other credit rating and reporting companies had algorithms making decisions based on the likelihood of not defaulting.  I have concluded that Experian has a mandate to predict likely use of credit, particularly likely need/inclination to pay on time.  Creditworthiness appears to be a secondary consideration.

            It may be that Experian deemed my credit history “inadequate,” because I have this measurable and reportable history of paying debts on time and a predisposition not to incur debt in the first place.  I apparently lack credit experience, because I have not joined the more common ranks of people willing, or obligated to pay 24% or more on credit card debt.

            I did get the opportunity to discuss this matter with a live, breathing human at Citibank.  She started with a scripted response mentioning that I while I did not “qualify” for a platinum colored card, I could receive a gold one upon paying a $59 annual fee.  With some prodding, she suggested that I could become more experienced with credit if I took out a mortgage, paid interest on credit card debt, used my cards more frequently, generated balances closer to my allowance and used more cards—like most red-blooded Americans.

            This experience and my ongoing research of two-sided markets confirm that people who pay in cash subsidize credit card users and encourage debt, perhaps even unsustainable debt. 

            Perhaps the Experian algorithm detected me as someone unlikely to incur debt, or even to use the credit card regularly.  Guilty as charged.

The Sun Will Rise on Monday Even With the Sunset of Network Neutrality

By all accounts, the prior Network Neutrality regime will evaporate on Monday June 11, 2018.  The earth will spin on its axis and  it will not be curtins for the free world.  On the other hand, the absence of a referee does mean that at some future date, certain unscrupulous Internet Service Providers may test  the reach and scope of their freedom to discriminate and operate biased networks.

In the short run, ISPs are too smart to reduce the value proposition of their services, even though they probably could get away with it like the airlines.  In the longer term, I expect ISPs to create more service tiers, to offer "better than best efforts" routing opportunities and to come up with more zero rating/sponsored data upselling propositions.  This outcome will have a mixed impact on consumers.

On one hand, comsumers might want  prioritization of "mission critical," "must see" video.  On the other hand, the potential exists for ISPs to extort surcharges from small ventures, with content volumes nowhere near Netflix.  In kinder, gentler times, these ventures could expect ISPs to route their traffic without objection and demand for surcharge payments.  ISPs used to be content with the subscription payment of their downstream subscribers.  Now these ventures, operating in a two-sided market want payment from both upstream content providers and downstream broadband subscribers.

This reminds me of the adage that bulls make money in the stockmarket as do bears, but pigs get slaughtered.