Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—NDCal: Promotion of Facebook Credits Sales to Minors as “Final” Could Be Unfair Practice Under California Law
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Canadian Firm Receives U.S. Approval to Acquire Commercial Satellite Maker
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC Commissioner Discusses Antitrust Regulation and the Internet
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Justice Department Argues That Appeal over “Mistake” in Sentencing Calculation Was Waived
    • ANTITRUST—NDOkla: Hospital Awarded Attorney Fees as Substantially Prevailing Party in Peer Review Dispute
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—DAriz: Sales Representative Asserted Claim for Discriminatory Pricing, Not Antitrust Price Discrimination
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—5thCir: Class of Governmental Customers of Cell Phone Service Providers Was Improper “Opt In” Class
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC Commissioner Discusses Antitrust Regulation and the Internet, (Oct 29, 2012)

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    FTC Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen offered her thoughts on how best to regulate the Internet at the MaCCI Law and Economics Conference on The Future of the Internet on October 26, 2012. In remarks—entitled “The Open Internet: Regulat ...

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    FTC Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen offered her thoughts on how best to regulate the Internet at the MaCCI Law and Economics Conference on The Future of the Internet on October 26, 2012. In remarks—entitled “The Open Internet: Regulating to Save the Unregulated Internet?”—Ohlhausen said that her position was that “less regulation is arguably better than more and the nature of that regulation should come in the form of cautious and informed enforcement of existing antitrust and competition norms as well as consumer protection requirements.”

    Ohlhausen expressed skepticism over the scope of proposed net neutrality rules and stated a preference for applying antitrust rules. The official suggested that there was no need for additional regulations that might ultimately do more harm than good, particularly given the dynamism in most technology markets and their sensitivity to burdensome regulation. “The antitrust and competition laws offer the right lens through which to view most network neutrality issues,” she explained. Ohlhausen also noted that technology markets are notoriously susceptible to regulatory failures. “[W]e should first look to our existing (well-stocked) inventory of antitrust, competition, and consumer protection laws before creating new, and perhaps counterproductive, regulations.”

    Also discussed were “the theoretical fears raised by advocates of additional network neutrality regulation relate[d] to vertical conduct.” Ohlhausen noted that vertically-integrated “walled gardens” of “non-neutral” content pervade the history of the Internet. She suggested that, because vertical relationships offer many potential procompetitive efficiencies, inquiries into alleged blocking or discrimination must be a fact-intensive enterprise faithfully applying antitrust principles.

    “While I have no doubt about the good intentions of all parties in this debate, I believe cautious and informed action will allow free markets to serve the greatest good,” Ohlhausen concluded.

    News: Antitrust FederalTradeCommissionNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use