Overview
Title
To transfer antitrust enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission to the Attorney General, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill H. R. 384 wants to give one group of people, called the Attorney General, the job of making sure big companies play fair, instead of sharing this job with another group called the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This is like having one person in charge instead of two, so it's easier to decide what to do when companies aren't being fair.
Summary AI
The bill, H. R. 384, called the "One Agency Act," proposes to move the responsibility for enforcing antitrust laws from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Attorney General, aiming to streamline and enhance enforcement effectiveness. It addresses current inefficiencies arising from the overlapping jurisdictions of the Department of Justice and the FTC by recommending the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice as the sole enforcer. The bill outlines a transition period during which assets, employees, and ongoing cases from the FTC are to be transferred to the Attorney General, with provisions for handling existing legal actions and maintaining confidentiality. The bill is designed to take effect at the start of the fiscal year, at least 90 days post-enactment.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 384, known as the "One Agency Act," proposes the transfer of antitrust enforcement responsibilities from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically under the Attorney General. The bill outlines the processes for transitioning the enforcement functions and resources, detailing how ongoing cases and investigations will be managed during a defined "transition period." The primary objective is to consolidate federal antitrust enforcement into a single entity to enhance efficiency, reduce resource wastage, and decrease uncertainty for businesses.
Summary of Significant Issues
A central issue with the bill is the elimination of the dual enforcement mechanism that currently exists between the FTC and the DOJ. Proponents argue this overlapping jurisdiction wastes resources and causes confusion, while detractors worry about the reduction in checks and balances and potential concentration of power within a single agency.
Another significant concern is the practical challenges associated with transferring cases, personnel, and resources from the FTC to the DOJ. The transition might lead to inefficiencies or disruptions, particularly if not carefully managed. Moreover, the broad authority granted to the Attorney General to restructure the DOJ’s Antitrust Division could lead to significant policy or procedural changes without sufficient oversight.
A point of concern is the management of confidential information during the transition. Improper data handling could lead to privacy breaches, impacting individuals and corporations.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Impact on the Public:
For the general public, the bill aims to streamline antitrust enforcement, potentially leading to more effective handling of monopolistic practices which can impact prices and market competition. An efficient enforcement system could lead to better outcomes for consumers who rely on fair competition for good prices and services.
However, the bill might also create temporary confusion and delays in enforcement actions and decisions, particularly during the transition period. This may affect consumer protection until the DOJ fully assumes its new role.
Impact on Stakeholders:
Businesses: The consolidation of antitrust enforcement might provide more uniform guidance and reduce legal uncertainties as businesses will deal with a single federal entity. However, companies currently under investigation or involved in ongoing cases might face uncertainty about how these cases will proceed.
Legal Community: Attorneys and legal professionals specializing in antitrust law would need to adjust to the new enforcement structure. This transition could lead to a temporary spike in case evaluations and advisory requests as firms adjust to new protocols.
Former FTC Employees: Personnel transferring from the FTC to the DOJ will undergo significant changes in their work environment and roles, which might impact job security and satisfaction. Moreover, the deputization of former FTC employees could create overlapping roles and responsibilities, leading to potential conflicts of authority.
In summary, while H.R. 384 seeks to create a more efficient antitrust enforcement environment, it also raises concerns about the centralization of power, potential disruptions, and the manner in which sensitive information is managed during the transition. Careful planning and oversight will be essential to mitigate these issues and capitalize on the benefits the bill proposes to achieve.
Issues
The proposal to consolidate antitrust enforcement to the Department of Justice (DOJ) from the FTC, as mentioned in Section 2, raises concerns about the reduction of checks and balances in enforcement, which might impact the distinct roles these entities have traditionally played.
Section 4's transfer of antitrust functions from the FTC to the Attorney General may lead to potential inefficiencies or disruptions in ongoing enforcement matters if not carefully managed, leading to operational uncertainties and challenges in maintaining continuity.
The ability for the Attorney General to restructure the Antitrust Division of the DOJ before the expiration of the transition period (Section 4) is a broad power that could potentially lead to significant changes lacking accountability or oversight.
Privacy and confidentiality concerns are raised in Section 4 due to the possibility of mismanagement or improper disclosure of information shared with federal, state, or foreign law enforcement agencies, which could have legal and ethical implications.
The lack of clearly defined terms, such as 'transition period' and 'effective date' in Section 4, might result in different interpretations and challenges in implementation, causing potential legal and operational ambiguities.
The determination of the 'effective date' in Section 6 is tied to a vague timeline that could lead to confusion about the specific starting date for the bill's provisions, impacting legal and operational planning.
Potential conflicts and lack of clarity around the continuation and enforceability of existing FTC consent decrees as outlined in Section 4 raise concerns about how current agreements might be upheld following the transfer.
The proposal in Section 5 to shift consultation and concurrence requirements from the FTC to the Attorney General may lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays, as existing frameworks adjust to new oversight structures.
Section 4's provision allowing the Attorney General to deputize former FTC antitrust employees without clear guidelines might complicate authority and accountability structures, especially in ongoing investigations.
Consultation processes with entities like the Office of Personnel Management and the General Services Administration in Section 4 could delay implementation, leading to bureaucratic challenges and potential inefficiencies.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be officially referred to as the "One Agency Act."
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that the United States has a goal of strong enforcement of antitrust laws, but having both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in charge has led to wasted resources and confusion. It suggests that the Department of Justice should be the main authority for enforcing these laws.
3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines several terms related to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and antitrust laws, including what constitutes antitrust laws, the FTC itself, and various aspects of FTC antitrust actions, assets, employees, funding, and units. It also explains when these definitions become effective and outlines the “transition period” during which these terms are applicable.
4. Transfer of antitrust enforcement functions from the FTC to the Attorney General Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the transfer of antitrust enforcement duties from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Attorney General. It describes the transfer process, including moving FTC antitrust cases, employees, and resources to the Department of Justice, and lays out how open investigations and consent decrees should be managed during the transition period.
5. Technical and conforming amendments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines changes to how antitrust law consultations, notifications, and enforcement are handled. It transfers certain responsibilities from the FTC to the Attorney General, waives some notification requirements, ensures ongoing FTC cases are supported, maintains the Attorney General's authority, and restricts the FTC from starting new antitrust investigations without approval.
6. Effective date Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The act will become effective at the beginning of the first fiscal year that is at least 90 days following its enactment, unless stated otherwise.