In this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI President Randy Stutz sits down with Professor Darren Bush of the University of Houston Law Center to discuss the Antitrust Penalties and Procedures Act of 1974, better known as the Tunney Act, and its role in promoting transparency and judicial scrutiny of DOJ antitrust settlements. Federal antitrust enforcement today relies heavily on negotiated settlements rather than litigation. While settlements can conserve public resources, shorten the duration of anticompetitive conduct, and provide relief without the costs and delay of trial, they also raise important transparency concerns because negotiations occur behind closed doors and affected members of the public are not at the table. The Tunney Act was designed in part to address those concerns by requiring public disclosure, an opportunity for public comment, and judicial review of DOJ consent decrees under a public-interest standard. Stutz and Bush discuss the origins of the Tunney Act and the political controversy surrounding the ITT settlement that helped spur its enactment (5:50); the Act's disclosure and public-comment requirements (7:40); and the important distinction between pre-complaint consent decrees governed by the Tunney Act and settlements reached after litigation has begun and testimony has been taken (11:32). They then trace the evolution of judicial review under the Act, including the AT&T and Microsoft cases, the emergence of highly deferential review in the D.C. Circuit, and Congress's 2004 amendments aimed at strengthening meaningful judicial scrutiny (19:21). Bush explains why, in his view, courts have continued to treat many Tunney Act proceedings too deferentially notwithstanding those amendments. The conversation also turns to recent settlements that have renewed attention on the Tunney Act. Stutz and Bush examine the DOJ settlement of the HPE–Juniper merger challenge, the discovery ordered by the district court into the settlement process, concerns about political influence and remedies unrelated to competitive harm, and the court's ultimate decision to enter the decree (25:47). They also discuss the developing Tunney Act proceeding involving DOJ's settlement with Live Nation and the broader question whether courts should scrutinize not only the substance of antitrust settlements but also the integrity of the process by which they were reached. Finally, Stutz and Bush consider possible reforms, including proposals to extend Tunney Act-style review to Federal Trade Commission settlements and to clarify the respective roles of prosecutorial discretion and judicial review in evaluating government antitrust settlements (37:34).

In this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI President Randy Stutz sits down with Professor Darren Bush of the University of Houston Law Center to discuss the Antitrust Penalties and Procedures Act of 1974, better known as the Tunney Act, and its role in promoting transparency and judicial scrutiny of DOJ antitrust settlements. Federal antitrust enforcement today relies heavily on negotiated settlements rather than litigation. While settlements can conserve public resources, shorten the duration of anticompetitive conduct, and provide relief without the costs and delay of trial, they also raise important transparency concerns because negotiations occur behind closed doors and affected members of the public are not at the table. The Tunney Act was designed in part to address those concerns by requiring public disclosure, an opportunity for public comment, and judicial review of DOJ consent decrees under a public-interest standard. Stutz and Bush discuss the origins of the Tunney Act and the political controversy surrounding the ITT settlement that helped spur its enactment (5:50); the Act's disclosure and public-comment requirements (7:40); and the important distinction between pre-complaint consent decrees governed by the Tunney Act and settlements reached after litigation has begun and testimony has been taken (11:32). They then trace the evolution of judicial review under the Act, including the AT&T and Microsoft cases, the emergence of highly deferential review in the D.C. Circuit, and Congress's 2004 amendments aimed at strengthening meaningful judicial scrutiny (19:21). Bush explains why, in his view, courts have continued to treat many Tunney Act proceedings too deferentially notwithstanding those amendments. The conversation also turns to recent settlements that have renewed attention on the Tunney Act. Stutz and Bush examine the DOJ settlement of the HPE–Juniper merger challenge, the discovery ordered by the district court into the settlement process, concerns about political influence and remedies unrelated to competitive harm, and the court's ultimate decision to enter the decree (25:47). They also discuss the developing Tunney Act proceeding involving DOJ's settlement with Live Nation and the broader question whether courts should scrutinize not only the substance of antitrust settlements but also the integrity of the process by which they were reached. Finally, Stutz and Bush consider possible reforms, including proposals to extend Tunney Act-style review to Federal Trade Commission settlements and to clarify the respective roles of prosecutorial discretion and judicial review in evaluating government antitrust settlements (37:34).

In this episode of Ruled by Reason, AAI President Randy Stutz sits down with Professor Darren Bush of the University of Houston Law Center to discuss the Antitrust Penalties and Procedures Act of 1974, better known as the Tunney Act, and its role in promoting transparency and judicial scrutiny of DOJ antitrust settlements. Federal antitrust enforcement today relies heavily on negotiated settlements rather than litigation. While settlements can conserve public resources, shorten the duration of anticompetitive conduct, and provide relief without the costs and delay of trial, they also raise important transparency concerns because negotiations occur behind closed doors and affected members of the public are not at the table. The Tunney Act was designed in part to address those concerns by requiring public disclosure, an opportunity for public comment, and judicial review of DOJ consent decrees under a public-interest standard. Stutz and Bush discuss the origins of the Tunney Act and the political controversy surrounding the ITT settlement that helped spur its enactment (5:50); the Act's disclosure and public-comment requirements (7:40); and the important distinction between pre-complaint consent decrees governed by the Tunney Act and settlements reached after litigation has begun and testimony has been taken (11:32). They then trace the evolution of judicial review under the Act, including the AT&amp;T and Microsoft cases, the emergence of highly deferential review in the D.C. Circuit, and Congress's 2004 amendments aimed at strengthening meaningful judicial scrutiny (19:21). Bush explains why, in his view, courts have continued to treat many Tunney Act proceedings too deferentially notwithstanding those amendments. The conversation also turns to recent settlements that have renewed attention on the Tunney Act. Stutz and Bush examine the DOJ settlement of the HPE–Juniper merger challenge, the discovery ordered by the district court into the settlement process, concerns about political influence and remedies unrelated to competitive harm, and the court's ultimate decision to enter the decree (25:47). They also discuss the developing Tunney Act proceeding involving DOJ's settlement with Live Nation and the broader question whether courts should scrutinize not only the substance of antitrust settlements but also the integrity of the process by which they were reached. Finally, Stutz and Bush consider possible reforms, including proposals to extend Tunney Act-style review to Federal Trade Commission settlements and to clarify the respective roles of prosecutorial discretion and judicial review in evaluating government antitrust settlements (37:34).

Antitrust Settlements, Transparency, and the Tunney Act: A Conversation with Darren Bush

Competition enforcement in the U.S. and abroad are in the spotlight, as concerns over rising concentration and declining competition move onto the radar screens of consumers and workers. These issues are at the center of legislative reform proposals, a rise in state enforcement activity, and will undoubtedly make their way into the November 2020 presidential campaign. AAI President Diana Moss sat down with William Baer, former Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (2013-2016), to talk about the path of antitrust enforcement. In their conversation, Baer provides valuable perspective on the uptick in DOJ enforcement under his leadership during the Obama administration, troubling developments in the courts, cooperation with other enforcers, and the importance of the career staffs of the federal agencies. MODERATOR: DIANA MOSS, PRESIDENT AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE GUEST: WILLIAM BAER, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION (2013-2016); VISITING FELLOW - GOVERNANCE STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION This podcast is part of a three-part series that unpacks the state of federal antitrust enforcement in view of growing concerns over declining competition and associated developments in state and private enforcement. The podcast series follows AAI's recently released report "The State of Antitrust Enforcement and Competition Policy in the U.S" and is the alternative platform for AAI's 2020 Annual Conference.

Competition enforcement in the U.S. and abroad are in the spotlight, as concerns over rising concentration and declining competition move onto the radar screens of consumers and workers. These issues are at the center of legislative reform proposals, a rise in state enforcement activity, and will undoubtedly make their way into the November 2020 presidential campaign. AAI President Diana Moss sat down with William Baer, former Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (2013-2016), to talk about the path of antitrust enforcement. In their conversation, Baer provides valuable perspective on the uptick in DOJ enforcement under his leadership during the Obama administration, troubling developments in the courts, cooperation with other enforcers, and the importance of the career staffs of the federal agencies. MODERATOR: DIANA MOSS, PRESIDENT AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE GUEST: WILLIAM BAER, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION (2013-2016); VISITING FELLOW - GOVERNANCE STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION This podcast is part of a three-part series that unpacks the state of federal antitrust enforcement in view of growing concerns over declining competition and associated developments in state and private enforcement. The podcast series follows AAI's recently released report "The State of Antitrust Enforcement and Competition Policy in the U.S" and is the alternative platform for AAI's 2020 Annual Conference.

The State of Federal Antitrust Enforcement: Facing a Crossroads in the Courts, Agencies, and Congress

The American Antitrust Institute's Ruled by Reason podcast explores current topics in progressive antitrust with experts from enforcement, business, and academia. Ruled by Reason guests discuss and debate the benefits of competition for markets, consumers, and workers. We delve into the importance of antitrust enforcement for promoting competition in our markets and democratic values in civil society.

Share Ruled by Reason

Sign up to save your podcasts

Ruled by Reason

Ruled by Reason episodes

About Ruled by Reason

More shows like Ruled by Reason

The New Yorker Radio Hour

Political Gabfest

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Bloomberg Law

Pivot

Decoder with Nilay Patel

Capitalisn't

Interesting Times

The Bulwark Daily

Know Your Enemy

Hacks On Tap

Our Curious Amalgam

The Ezra Klein Show

The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

Organized Money