SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
american economic liberties project
'Drop in the Bucket': Lina Khan Rips Trump FTC for Giving Amazon a Wrist-Slap Settlement
The Federal Trade Commission's decision to settle with Amazon would be "a big relief for the executives who knowingly harmed their customers," added Khan.
Sep 25, 2025
The Federal Trade Commission announced on Thursday it had reached a settlement with Amazon over allegations that the online retailer had tricked consumers into subscribing to its Prime service—but the woman who led the FTC under former President Joe Biden was not impressed.
According to the FTC, Amazon has agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle claims that it deceived customers into subscribing to Prime and then deliberately made it difficult for them to cancel. In all, Amazon will pay a $1 billion civil penalty, as well as $1.5 billion in refunds to consumers who unwittingly subscribed to Prime.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson framed the settlement as a victory for the Trump administration and touted the deal as "a record-breaking, monumental win for the millions of Americans who are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to cancel." Ferguson also said the settlement would ensure "Amazon never does this again."
Amazon, for its part, said in a statement that it didn't break any laws despite agreeing to pay out billions.
"Amazon and our executives have always followed the law and this settlement allows us to move forward and focus on innovating for customers," the company said. "We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership, and to offer substantial value for our many millions of loyal Prime members around the world."
However, former FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan accused the agency of letting Amazon off easy, while describing the $2.5 billion settlement as a "drop in the bucket" for the tech giant.
"In 2023, we sued Amazon and several top executives for tricking people into Prime subscriptions and then making it absurdly difficult to cancel," she explained in a post on X. "This week marked the start of a historic jury trial, where American citizens would hear details of Amazon’s business practices and determine if it had broken the law. A couple of days into trial, FTC announces it has settled all charges, rescuing Amazon from likely being found liable for having violated the law and allowing it to pay its way out."
Khan added that the settlement was "no doubt, a big relief for the executives who knowingly harmed their customers."
Amazon currently has a market cap of over $2.3 trillion, meaning the $2.5 billion settlement represents a little more than one-tenth of 1% of its total worth. Its billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, is among the richest people on Earth, with an estimated net worth of nearly $240 billion.
Matthew Stoller, an antitrust advocate and researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, faulted the FTC for letting Amazon settle without any admission of wrongdoing.
"A judge already ruled in summary judgment they violated the law," Stoller observed.
Amazon may not be completely out of the woods legally, however.
As NPR noted on Thursday, Amazon "still faces another, bigger federal lawsuit, in which the FTC has accused the company of functioning as a monopoly." That trial is currently projected to begin in early 2027, NPR added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge's Ruling on Google Search Monopoly Decried as 'Slap on the Wrist' for Tech Giant
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said one critic.
Sep 03, 2025
A federal judge's Tuesday ruling on tech giant Google has drawn criticism from anti-monopoly advocates who say that it let the company walk away without having to give up its economic stranglehold over online searches and advertising.
As reported by The New York Times, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had to share some of its data with competing search platforms, while also placing restrictions on the company's ability to pay to ensure its search engine receives preferential treatment on web browsers and phones.
However, these remedies fell far short of measures requested by the US Department of Justice, which had asked that Google be forced to share more of its data with competitors and to sell off its Chrome web browser.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a scathing assessment of Mehta's ruling, and she urged the government to appeal and push for harsher penalties against Google.
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," she said. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."
She went on to describe Mehta's decision as "bizarre" given that he had "found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era."
Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, accused Mehta of letting Google get away with a "slap on the wrist" given the scale of the damage it has caused.
"Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation, and rob Americans of their right to read, watch, and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history," he said. "Judge Mehta's order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs."
Like Hegde, Lynn also urged the government to appeal the ruling.
Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the freedom of expression advocacy group Public Knowledge, took aim at Mehta for letting Google maintain control of both Chrome and the Android mobile operating system, even though he concluded that Google had abused its market power to stifle competition.
Phillips also suggested that elected officials needed to pick up the slack when it comes to holding giant corporations accountable for their actions.
"Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," she said. "Google's anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice."
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of human rights organization Amnesty International, also weighed in to express disappointment with Mehta's decision.
"This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google's power," said Callamard. "Google's toxic business model is built on pervasive surveillance. By tracking people across the web and monetizing their personal data through targeted advertising, the company has severely undermined our right to privacy."
Google was first sued for antitrust violations by the DOJ in 2020 under the first Trump administration, and then again in 2023 under the Biden administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ousted DOJ Lawyer Says Bondi Appointees Let Corporate Lobbyists 'Rule' Over Antitrust Enforcement
Roger Alford, who was fired over his objections to a corrupt tech merger last month, said MAGA lobbyists and DOJ officials are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves."
Aug 19, 2025
An antitrust lawyer fired from the US Department of Justice last month accused Attorney General Pam Bondi's underlings on Monday of giving MAGA-aligned corporate lobbyists the ability to "rule" over antitrust enforcement.
Roger Alford, formerly the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's antitrust division, was ousted in July, reportedly for "insubordination" after he objected to the involvement of politically connected lobbyists in the $14 billion merger between Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued in January to block the merger, arguing that HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation, since the two entities control over 70% of the wi-fi relied on by large companies, hospitals, universities, and other entities.
But that suit was resolved in June in what the Capitol Forum described as a "highly unusual settlement" in which Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, overruled the DOJ's antitrust chief, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, to allow the deal to settle.
At the time, left-wing consumer advocates, like Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argued that the deal was "a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," which came after political operatives tied to Trump lobbied on behalf of the company.
Despite still describing himself as a staunch MAGA loyalist, Alford likewise feels that the settlement was a "scandal."
In a speech delivered Monday at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, he said senior DOJ officials "perverted justice and acted inconsistently with the rule of law" by allowing "corrupt lobbyists" to hijack the process.
According to disclosures from HPE, it hired multiple top Trump allies as lobbyists to advocate for the merger. These included MAGA influencer Mike Davis—a right-wing critic of Big Tech and a notorious legal operative responsible for many of Trump's judicial nominations—and Arthur Schwartz, a close adviser and confidante to Donald Trump, Jr. and JD Vance.
According to reporting from the conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in UnHerd last month, which cites one unnamed senior official, the DOJ's merger settlement was the product of "boozy backroom meetings between company lawyers and lobbyists, on one hand, and officials from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, on the other."
As Ahmari explained:
"Boozy backroom deal" here isn't a figure of speech, by the way. It captures what literally took place, according to the former official, who described a meeting between government officials and lobbyists that took place at one of Washington's "private city clubs" over cocktails.
In an essay for UnHerd adapted from his speech, Alford berated these "MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and the DOJ officials enabling them," who he said are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends are in power."
The current DOJ, Alford continued, has allowed for the "rule of lobbyists" to supplant the "rule of law." While he says this was not true of those idealists serving with him in the antitrust division—including his embattled former boss, Slater—he says that others in the DOJ showed "special solicitude" to lobbyists they perceived to be on the "same MAGA team."
"Too often in the current DOJ," he said, "meetings are accepted and decisions are made depending upon whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence-peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement."
Alford makes a distinction between these corrupt officials and those he calls "genuine MAGA reformers" who "strive to remain true to President Trump's populist message that resonated with working-class Americans."
While he does not group Bondi in with the officials he deems corrupt, he does blame her for having "delegated authority to figures—such as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General-Designee Stanley Woodward—who don't share her commitment to a single tier of justice for all."
"Some progressives may blanche at Alford's praise for [US President Donald] Trump's populist messaging, and insistence that it has been subverted by top DOJ officials selling out to lobbyists," writes David Dayen in the American Prospect.
But Dayen notes that Alford's audience is not progressives and that he is instead "attempting to reach the president and his inner circle by playing on Trump's demand for total loyalty."
The merger between HPE and Juniper can still be stopped under the Tunney Act, which requires it to be reviewed by a federal judge to determine whether settlements brought in federal "antitrust" cases are in the "public interest."
While the Capital Forum says this process is typically a "rubber stamp," they wrote that "given the settlement's atypical substance and process, plus third parties who may be motivated to intervene and a judge who may be inclined to approach the review skeptically, what's normally a quick judicial signoff could turn into a fraught process with wide-reaching implications."
"Indeed, the court should block the HPE-Juniper merger," Alford said. "If you knew what I know, you would hope so, too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular