DOJ’s Facile Crusade Against ‘Competing’ Company Directors

We’ve learned this week just how flexible the government’s definitions of “monopolist” and “competition” are. On “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” Monday night, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan declared that a company can be judged monopolist if it mistreats its customers and gets away with it. By that definition, any bank or phone company could be judged a monopolist, regardless of the number of competitors it faces. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is on a tear about anyone who sits on the boards of two companies that could be regarded as competitors.

Last summer, for instance, the DOJ went after two women who served on the boards of both Pinterest and Nextdoor, prompting them to quit the Nextdoor board. While one could in very general terms consider both companies to be in social media, their focuses are so different as to undercut any notion that they compete. Then on Monday, two executives of the Newhouse family’s media firm, Advance, said they were resigning from the board of entertainment company Warner Bros. Discovery, also prompted by the DOJ, which cited Advance’s simultaneous representation on the board of Charter Communications, a cable TV and broadband firm. The government claimed these board departures were a “win for consumers.” But as WBD is primarily a programming supplier to Charter, rather than a competitor, it’s hard to see what benefit consumers get from this.