The Shifting Sands of Antitrust Enforcement: What Slater’s Departure Signals
The recent resignation of Gail Slater as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division marks a pivotal moment in U.S. Antitrust enforcement. Her departure, coupled with the earlier exits of other key officials, raises serious questions about the future direction of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) approach to tackling monopolies and promoting competition. The timing, just weeks before a major trial against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, adds another layer of complexity.
A Tumultuous Tenure and Growing Tensions
Slater’s time at the DOJ was marked by internal friction. Reports indicated disagreements between Slater and Attorney General Pam Bondi, as well as concerns raised by figures like JD Vance. The dismissal of two deputies over alleged “insubordination” – stemming from pushback against a Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks merger – further fueled speculation about a clash of ideologies within the department. This suggests a potential shift away from aggressive enforcement, particularly when it challenges the interests of politically connected corporations.
The Live Nation-Ticketmaster Case: A Bellwether for Future Action
The DOJ’s lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, alleging anticompetitive practices that drive up ticket prices, is a crucial test case. With jury selection slated to begin in March, Slater’s departure casts a shadow over the proceedings. Whereas interim AAG Omeed Assefi has pledged to continue the agenda, the underlying tensions suggest a potential for settlement or a weakening of the DOJ’s position. Should the DOJ settle, the 40 state attorneys general involved could potentially continue the litigation independently.
The Role of States in Antitrust Enforcement
The Live Nation-Ticketmaster case highlights the growing importance of state attorneys general in antitrust enforcement. States are often prepared to continue pursuing cases even when federal priorities shift. The T-Mobile-Sprint merger provides a precedent, where some states continued to fight the merger even after the DOJ approved it. This demonstrates a willingness to act as a check on federal decisions and protect consumer interests within their jurisdictions.
The Influence of Lobbying and “Fantasy Deals”
A concerning aspect of Slater’s departure is the suggestion that powerful corporations are gaining influence over antitrust decisions. The alleged connection between lobbyist Mike Davis – who worked on the HPE-Juniper deal and also has ties to Live Nation – raises questions about the potential for undue influence. As one former DOJ official noted, companies may now believe they can “push through fantasy deals” by leveraging political connections and financial resources.
What’s Next for Antitrust Enforcement?
Several potential scenarios could unfold. Assefi’s commitment to aggressive enforcement offers a degree of continuity, but the underlying political dynamics remain uncertain. States may take a more prominent role in challenging mergers and anticompetitive practices. The outcome of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case will likely serve as a signal of the DOJ’s future direction. A settlement could embolden corporations to pursue similar “fantasy deals,” while a successful prosecution could reaffirm the DOJ’s commitment to protecting competition.
Pro Tip
Stay informed about antitrust developments by following the news releases from the DOJ and state attorneys general offices. Organizations like the Tech Policy Institute and the National Association of Attorneys General also provide valuable insights.
FAQ
Q: What does Gail Slater’s resignation mean for the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case?
A: It introduces uncertainty. While the DOJ may continue the case, Slater’s departure could lead to a settlement or a less aggressive approach.
Q: Can state attorneys general continue a case if the DOJ withdraws?
A: Yes, states can and often do pursue antitrust cases independently of the federal government.
Q: What is the role of lobbying in antitrust enforcement?
A: Lobbying can influence decisions, potentially leading to outcomes that favor powerful corporations over consumer interests.
Q: Is antitrust enforcement likely to develop into more or less aggressive in the future?
A: It’s currently uncertain. The outcome of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case and the overall political climate will be key factors.
Did you know? The T-Mobile-Sprint merger, approved by the Trump administration, illustrates the potential for states to challenge federal decisions on antitrust grounds.
Want to learn more about antitrust law and its impact on your daily life? Explore our other articles on competition and regulation and consumer protection.
