FTC Chair Lina Khan testifies during a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 2021.
(Photo: Graeme Jennings/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Jun 30, 2021
Amazon filed a petition Wednesday seeking the recusal of newly confirmed Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan from any antitrust probes involving the tech behemoth, arguing that Khan's past work criticizing the company means she cannot oversee such investigations in an impartial manner.
"Amazon is going to pursue every single angle they can invent to try to dodge scrutiny."
--Stacy Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Experts and commentators were quick to reject Amazon's case for Khan's recusal as absurd. Lindsey Barrett, a Fritz Family Fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law, called Amazon's filing "an embarrassingly transparent ploy with zero substantive basis."
"I'm sure no one involved with filing this is ashamed of it, but they absolutely should be," added Barrett, who said Amazon's petition follows a "playbook" that powerful companies have used in the past to slime government regulators as overly biased and thus unqualified to perform their duties.
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, described Amazon's 25-page petition (pdf) to the FTC as "predictable" and "ridiculous, obviously."
"Amazon is going to pursue every single angle they can invent to try to dodge scrutiny," Mitchell wrote on Twitter.
\u201cAmazon\u2019s bogus motion is\u2014at least in part\u2014meant to deter people who might enter public service from making public statements criticizing unrepentant monopolists.\n\nDo not be deterred.\u201d— Jake Snow (@Jake Snow) 1625075596
Amazon's filing comes two weeks after the U.S. Senate confirmed Khan, an expert in antitrust law, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 69-28. President Joe Biden promptly named Khan chair of the FTC.
Khan rose to prominence as an incisive critic of corporate concentration after the 2017 publication of her scholarly paper titled "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," which examined how current antitrust law has failed to restrain the tech giant's monopolistic practices. The paper, published while Khan was still a student at Yale University, argues that "Amazon's business strategies and current market dominance pose anti-competitive concerns."
Amazon, which is currently the subject of an FTC investigation, points to the 2017 paper as well as Khan's work at the Open Markets Institute--an advocacy group that has called for the break-up of Amazon--as evidence of her supposed inability to run an unbiased probe.
"Khan has built her academic and professional career in large measure by pronouncing Amazon liable for violating the antitrust laws," Amazon's petition states. "Although Amazon profoundly disagrees with Chair Khan's conclusions about the company, it does not dispute her right to have spoken provocatively and at great length about it in her prior roles. But given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws, a reasonable observer would conclude that she no longer can consider the company's antitrust defenses with an open mind."
Khan has yet to comment on Amazon's filing, which was submitted as the FTC is scrutinizing Amazon's proposed $8.5 billion purchase of MGM.
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, argued in response to the recusal petition that "having views on antitrust law is not a conflict of interest."
"And contrary to Amazon's claims, Khan's work has not been oriented towards criticizing Amazon or alleging guilt, it has been oriented towards understanding why the current interpretation of antitrust laws facilitates the growth of firms like Amazon. It's about the law," Stoller added. "Every FTC commissioner should absolutely have views about how we enforce and structure antitrust law. That's a job qualification, not an argument for recusals."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Amazon filed a petition Wednesday seeking the recusal of newly confirmed Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan from any antitrust probes involving the tech behemoth, arguing that Khan's past work criticizing the company means she cannot oversee such investigations in an impartial manner.
"Amazon is going to pursue every single angle they can invent to try to dodge scrutiny."
--Stacy Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Experts and commentators were quick to reject Amazon's case for Khan's recusal as absurd. Lindsey Barrett, a Fritz Family Fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law, called Amazon's filing "an embarrassingly transparent ploy with zero substantive basis."
"I'm sure no one involved with filing this is ashamed of it, but they absolutely should be," added Barrett, who said Amazon's petition follows a "playbook" that powerful companies have used in the past to slime government regulators as overly biased and thus unqualified to perform their duties.
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, described Amazon's 25-page petition (pdf) to the FTC as "predictable" and "ridiculous, obviously."
"Amazon is going to pursue every single angle they can invent to try to dodge scrutiny," Mitchell wrote on Twitter.
\u201cAmazon\u2019s bogus motion is\u2014at least in part\u2014meant to deter people who might enter public service from making public statements criticizing unrepentant monopolists.\n\nDo not be deterred.\u201d— Jake Snow (@Jake Snow) 1625075596
Amazon's filing comes two weeks after the U.S. Senate confirmed Khan, an expert in antitrust law, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 69-28. President Joe Biden promptly named Khan chair of the FTC.
Khan rose to prominence as an incisive critic of corporate concentration after the 2017 publication of her scholarly paper titled "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," which examined how current antitrust law has failed to restrain the tech giant's monopolistic practices. The paper, published while Khan was still a student at Yale University, argues that "Amazon's business strategies and current market dominance pose anti-competitive concerns."
Amazon, which is currently the subject of an FTC investigation, points to the 2017 paper as well as Khan's work at the Open Markets Institute--an advocacy group that has called for the break-up of Amazon--as evidence of her supposed inability to run an unbiased probe.
"Khan has built her academic and professional career in large measure by pronouncing Amazon liable for violating the antitrust laws," Amazon's petition states. "Although Amazon profoundly disagrees with Chair Khan's conclusions about the company, it does not dispute her right to have spoken provocatively and at great length about it in her prior roles. But given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws, a reasonable observer would conclude that she no longer can consider the company's antitrust defenses with an open mind."
Khan has yet to comment on Amazon's filing, which was submitted as the FTC is scrutinizing Amazon's proposed $8.5 billion purchase of MGM.
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, argued in response to the recusal petition that "having views on antitrust law is not a conflict of interest."
"And contrary to Amazon's claims, Khan's work has not been oriented towards criticizing Amazon or alleging guilt, it has been oriented towards understanding why the current interpretation of antitrust laws facilitates the growth of firms like Amazon. It's about the law," Stoller added. "Every FTC commissioner should absolutely have views about how we enforce and structure antitrust law. That's a job qualification, not an argument for recusals."
Amazon filed a petition Wednesday seeking the recusal of newly confirmed Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan from any antitrust probes involving the tech behemoth, arguing that Khan's past work criticizing the company means she cannot oversee such investigations in an impartial manner.
"Amazon is going to pursue every single angle they can invent to try to dodge scrutiny."
--Stacy Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Experts and commentators were quick to reject Amazon's case for Khan's recusal as absurd. Lindsey Barrett, a Fritz Family Fellow at the Institute for Technology Law and Policy at Georgetown Law, called Amazon's filing "an embarrassingly transparent ploy with zero substantive basis."
"I'm sure no one involved with filing this is ashamed of it, but they absolutely should be," added Barrett, who said Amazon's petition follows a "playbook" that powerful companies have used in the past to slime government regulators as overly biased and thus unqualified to perform their duties.
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, described Amazon's 25-page petition (pdf) to the FTC as "predictable" and "ridiculous, obviously."
"Amazon is going to pursue every single angle they can invent to try to dodge scrutiny," Mitchell wrote on Twitter.
\u201cAmazon\u2019s bogus motion is\u2014at least in part\u2014meant to deter people who might enter public service from making public statements criticizing unrepentant monopolists.\n\nDo not be deterred.\u201d— Jake Snow (@Jake Snow) 1625075596
Amazon's filing comes two weeks after the U.S. Senate confirmed Khan, an expert in antitrust law, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 69-28. President Joe Biden promptly named Khan chair of the FTC.
Khan rose to prominence as an incisive critic of corporate concentration after the 2017 publication of her scholarly paper titled "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," which examined how current antitrust law has failed to restrain the tech giant's monopolistic practices. The paper, published while Khan was still a student at Yale University, argues that "Amazon's business strategies and current market dominance pose anti-competitive concerns."
Amazon, which is currently the subject of an FTC investigation, points to the 2017 paper as well as Khan's work at the Open Markets Institute--an advocacy group that has called for the break-up of Amazon--as evidence of her supposed inability to run an unbiased probe.
"Khan has built her academic and professional career in large measure by pronouncing Amazon liable for violating the antitrust laws," Amazon's petition states. "Although Amazon profoundly disagrees with Chair Khan's conclusions about the company, it does not dispute her right to have spoken provocatively and at great length about it in her prior roles. But given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon, and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws, a reasonable observer would conclude that she no longer can consider the company's antitrust defenses with an open mind."
Khan has yet to comment on Amazon's filing, which was submitted as the FTC is scrutinizing Amazon's proposed $8.5 billion purchase of MGM.
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, argued in response to the recusal petition that "having views on antitrust law is not a conflict of interest."
"And contrary to Amazon's claims, Khan's work has not been oriented towards criticizing Amazon or alleging guilt, it has been oriented towards understanding why the current interpretation of antitrust laws facilitates the growth of firms like Amazon. It's about the law," Stoller added. "Every FTC commissioner should absolutely have views about how we enforce and structure antitrust law. That's a job qualification, not an argument for recusals."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.