Collusion Illusion


Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the Antitrust Division, DOJ Antitrust Division: Popular ends should not justify anti-competitive collusion

I have posted on the Antitrust Division’s odd investigation of four auto companies that reached a deal with the state of California. My attention has been called to the above irrelevant, platitudinous essay by the head of the Antitrust Division, and to a September 13 letter by Senator Kamala Harris. I reproduce the letter, after which I’ll have a little commentary.

trump doj - antitrust investigation of car mfrs - 9.19_Page_1

trump doj - antitrust investigation of car mfrs - 9.19_Page_2

trump doj - antitrust investigation of car mfrs - 9.19_Page_3


Mr. Delrahim’s piece begins by assuming that the conduct he’s investigating is illegal, and draws the unsurprising conclusion that it’s just fine and dandy to investigate illegal conduct. He is a poster child for petitio principii, begging the question.

Four auto manufacturers—Ford, Honda, VW, and BMW—entered into an agreement with the state of California, as described in Senator Harris’s letter. Not participating were General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, or Volvo.

Insofar as the four companies merely agreed with the state of California on a course of action, their conduct fits squarely within the constitutional protections for lobbying and political participation recognized in the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In his piece, Mr. Delrahim elected entirely to ignore this constitutional issue.

A Hypothetical Case

The widget industry, which has more than a dozen members, has been under attack for allegedly making products that are harmful to public health or safety. Industry leaders are motivated to address these concerns by some mixture of (1) corporate good citizenship and (2) desire to mitigate the business downsides that will ensue from government regulation—which is inevitable, unless they do something to head it off at the pass.

So motivated, all (or at least almost all) of the industry agree that they will all up their game—in other words, that they will set some minimum health and safety standards, and will cease to offer products that don’t meet those standards, even if some of their customer base would like to keep on buying them.

Note this key point: such a revision to their business practices probably wouldn’t make sense to any individual seller, unless they had assurance that all or almost all of their competitors would go along too. Otherwise, each company would risk losing market share to competitors that did not abide by the new standards.

Legal analysis: the hypothetical agreement would not be per se illegal, but it would be subject to antitrust scrutiny, and it might well pass muster—particularly if the health and safety concerns are well established by objective evidence and address a serious public risk.

Applying the Hypothetical

Mr. Delrahim could legitimately direct the Antitrust Division to investigate an agreement like the above hypothetical case. That’s because the agreement would be subject to antitrust scrutiny under the “rule of reason.”

But that is not what seems to be going on in the real world. In the real world, only four auto makers are in. GM is out. Toyota is out. Etc. Etc. Moreover, one of the companies that’s in the agreement is BMW, which makes luxury cars and only competes somewhat indirectly with Ford, Honda, and VW.

That suggests that each of the four participants viewed the California agreement as in its individual business interests regardless of what its competitors did or did not do.

It suggests that, unlike the hypothetical above, there is no collective action to suppress output of dirty cars, only a constitutionally protected collective agreement with California to limit the more stringent regulatory action it was attempting to take.

Confucius Updated, the Volfefe Index, and the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine


Confucius Updated

In chapter 1, verse 1, of the Analects, Confucius is quoted as making this observation:  “有朋自遠方來、不亦樂乎.” “Having friends who come from afar, isn’t it a pleasure.”

In the new translation—The Confucian Analects Updated and Retranslated for Today’s Reader—the Master will be quoted as saying, “To exchange emails with friends from afar, what a pleasure that is!”

The Volfefe Index

I am indebted to old friend Vasari for this news:

CNBC, JP Morgan has created an index to track the effect of Trump’s tweets on financial markets: ‘Volfefe index’:

Donald Trump is tweeting more and it’s affecting the bond market.

In fact, the president’s market-moving tweets ballooned in August as he hammered China on trade and went after the Federal Reserve on interest rates.

In an attempt to quantify the impact of Trump’s tweets on the bond market, J.P. Morgan devised a “Volfefe Index” to analyze how the president’s tweets are influencing volatility in U.S. interest rates.

J.P. Morgan found that the index, named after Trump’s infamous and still mysterious “covfefe” tweet, explains a measurable fraction of the moves in implied rate volatility for 2-year and 5-year Treasurys.

“This makes rough sense as much of the president’s tweets have been focused on the Federal Reserve, and as trade tensions are broadly seen as, first and foremost, impactful on near-term economic performance and, likewise, the Fed’s reaction to such developments,” wrote the authors of the J.P. Morgan report.

The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine

I had a meaty email discussion with old friend Lobo Loup—who’s still practicing antitrust law—about my post on the bogus Antitrust Division investigation of several auto manufacturers. In the post, I called attention to this important legal principle:

Business firms, acting separately or together, have a constitutional right to free speech, to freedom of association, and to petition for redress of grievances. These constitutional rights imply that business firms, individually or jointly, may lobby any branch of government, and any level of government, to adopt laws or regulations or rules to the firms’ liking, or otherwise to do as the lobbyists request. These constitutional rights override anything to the contrary in the antitrust laws.

As long as the firms are lobbying, it does not matter if the outcome they seek could be called “anticompetitive” or “unwise” or “harmful” or “contrary to the public interest.” Nor is there an exception if the lobbying pricks the thin skin of Dear Leader.

Antitrust lawyers call this the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and it’s a very robust and important principle of antitrust law.

The takeaway from the email discussion—my words, not Lobo’s—is that the Antitrust Division pretty clearly appears to be doing one of two things, or maybe both at the same time:

  • undertaking a legally doomed exercise, in bad faith, for the purpose of harassing some large corporations which have dared to take a position contrary to Trump, and/or
  • attempting to cut back drastically on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Either possibility should cause the folks on the Business Roundtable to shit in their pants. Bigly.


And, speaking of friends from afar, greetings to today’s readers, who come from Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Kenya, Myanmar, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.