Overview
Title
To transfer antitrust enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission to the Attorney General, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to give all the job of checking if companies are being fair from one group, called the FTC, to another group, called the Attorney General. The idea is to have only one group do this work, so there isn't any mix-up or extra work.
Summary AI
The bill, titled the "One Agency Act," proposes to transfer the enforcement of antitrust laws from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Attorney General. It argues that this would make antitrust enforcement more efficient by eliminating duplication and reducing confusion for businesses and consumers. The bill outlines the process for transferring investigations, employees, and resources related to antitrust enforcement from the FTC to the Department of Justice, aiming to consolidate these responsibilities within one federal entity. The transition is to be completed within a specified period to ensure effective enforcement and continuity of ongoing matters.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The legislation, titled the "One Agency Act," proposes transferring antitrust enforcement functions from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically under the stewardship of the Attorney General. The bill aims to consolidate antitrust enforcement authority to foster more efficient and effective regulatory oversight by centralizing antitrust actions, resources, and personnel within the DOJ. It outlines a transition period during which these responsibilities will be transferred, and it establishes the various powers and structures that the Attorney General will utilize to manage ongoing and new investigations under antitrust laws like the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
Summary of Significant Issues
One primary concern with the bill is the potential reduction in checks and balances by centralizing antitrust enforcement power in a single federal entity. This move could lead to an overconcentration of authority within the DOJ, raising accountability issues. Additionally, the bill provides broad discretionary power to the Attorney General, including the ability to restructure the Antitrust Division and obtain sensitive business information. This could be seen as intrusive and lacking oversight, given the absence of detailed limitations or justification.
The bill also allows for an extended transition period determined solely by the Attorney General, which might lead to concerns over unfettered discretion and a potentially protracted transfer process. Furthermore, the legislation does not include a clear mechanism for reviewing or appealing decisions made by the Attorney General, potentially compromising checks and balances.
Another issue is related to confidentiality, specifically concerning which types of information the Attorney General is permitted to make public. Although the bill includes prohibitions against disclosing privileged or confidential business information, stakeholders might still worry about the possible unintended release of sensitive data. Finally, the effective date of the bill is defined in broad terms, leading to possible confusion regarding implementation timelines.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, the bill could lead to more streamlined and possibly more vigorous antitrust enforcement. By consolidating power within the DOJ, the intention is to reduce overlap and confusion between federal agencies, potentially improving the clarity and effectiveness of antitrust actions. However, this centralization might also result in less transparency in the workings of antitrust enforcement, raising concerns about how decisions are made and the criteria used in investigations.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For businesses, especially large corporations, the bill might create apprehensions over the broader investigatory powers granted to the Attorney General. Companies may feel increased pressure under the lens of a centralized enforcement body perceived as having less oversight. Conversely, consumer advocacy groups may view the bill positively, hoping for more robust and consistent enforcement of antitrust laws to prevent anti-competitive practices that can harm consumers.
Legal professionals and advisory firms working in competition law might also experience changes. With a single entity overseeing antitrust enforcement, the ambiguity of dealing with two agencies is removed, potentially simplifying compliance strategies but also necessitating adjustments to new procedures enacted by the DOJ.
In conclusion, while the proposed bill strives for efficiency and clarity in antitrust enforcement, it raises significant concerns regarding the concentration of power and the potential lack of accountability mechanisms. Stakeholders from various sectors may feel its effects differently, depending on how the DOJ implements its enhanced responsibilities.
Issues
The consolidation of antitrust enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) may raise significant concerns about reduced checks and balances, potentially leading to an overconcentration of power in a single federal entity (Section 2, Section 4).
The bill grants broad authority to the Attorney General, including the power to restructure the Antitrust Division and require reports from businesses without specified limits. This could be perceived as intrusive and lacking oversight (Section 4).
The lack of detailed justification in the bill for why the DOJ is better suited than the FTC to handle antitrust enforcement might raise concerns about transparency and accountability (Section 2).
The Bill's provision allowing the Attorney General to extend the transition period unilaterally could be seen as providing too much discretion without oversight, possibly leading to a protracted transfer process (Section 3, Section 4).
The transition process outlined in the bill does not specify a clear review or appeal mechanism for decisions made by the Attorney General concerning antitrust actions, which might limit checks and balances (Section 4).
The exclusion of office space or leased facilities from the 'FTC antitrust assets' definition may lead to ambiguity regarding temporary or shared resources used in antitrust actions (Section 3).
Provisions within the bill allowing the Attorney General to make public information obtained during investigations, with limited prohibitions on publishing privileged or confidential information, could concern businesses about the potential for unintended disclosure of sensitive data (Section 4).
The effective date of the bill is vague, relying on contingent timelines that could lead to confusion and uncertainty about the implementation schedule (Section 6).
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 Act states that it will be officially known as the "One Agency Act".
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that the United States aims to enforce antitrust laws effectively and efficiently. There is a preference for a single entity, namely the Department of Justice, to handle antitrust law enforcement because sharing this responsibility with the Federal Trade Commission has led to wasted resources and confusion for businesses and consumers.
3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section explains the key terms used in the Act, such as what is meant by "antitrust laws," the "FTC," and various FTC-related definitions like "FTC antitrust action," "FTC antitrust assets," "FTC antitrust employee," "FTC antitrust funding," and "FTC antitrust unit." It also defines the "effective date" and "transition period," outlining the timelines related to the implementation of the Act.
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 responsibilities related to antitrust enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Attorney General. It explains how FTC actions, employees, assets, and funding will be transitioned, and describes the Attorney General's authority to restructure the Antitrust Division, manage ongoing investigations, and handle confidential information while ensuring ongoing cooperation between agencies during the transition period.
5. Technical and conforming amendments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines changes to several legal requirements associated with antitrust laws, including transferring the responsibility for consulting and concurring from the FTC to the Attorney General, and states that any notifications previously needed for the FTC regarding premergers are no longer required. It emphasizes that the Attorney General maintains enforcement powers for antitrust laws, but the FTC is restricted from opening new investigations or enforcement actions related to these laws unless approved by the Attorney General for ongoing matters.
6. Effective date Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section states that the Act will begin on the first fiscal year that is at least 90 days after the Act is officially enacted, unless stated otherwise.