Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC Commissioner Meador delivers remarks highlighting myths in antitrust enforcement, (May 7, 2025)

By Seth Abrams, J.D., M.A.

Speech was made at the Second Annual Antitrust Conference at George Washington University presented by the GW Competition & Innovation Lab.

FTC Commissioner Mark R. Meador spoke at George Washington University about myths in antitrust enforcement. He pointed out “five substantive myths” to debunk: (1) antitrust is regulation; (2) vertical integration is always procompetitive; (3) innovation can justify exclusion; (4) the need for “national champions” to compete with China; and (5) structural remedies are an extreme measure—and one “high level policy misconception,” that the renewed conservative interest in antitrust enforcement does not come from a commitment to “advocating for the interests of Main Street.”

Antitrust is not regulation, but law enforcement. Meador began by criticizing the notion of antitrust regulation and by pointing out that antitrust is law enforcement. “Not only is the enforcement of the antitrust laws not regulation,” Meador stated, “when properly undertaken antitrust enforcement can prevent the need for regulation in the first place.” By enforcing the antitrust laws to “promote and protect” competitive markets, antitrust is a deregulatory tool. He noted that “as this administration pursues its deregulatory agenda, antitrust enforcement will have a key role to play in helping to maintain the market conditions that obviate the need for regulation by promoting fair competition.”

Vertical integration is not always procompetitive. Meador next criticized the myth that “vertical integration is always procompetitive.” While conceding that vertical integration is often procompetitive, Meador stressed that vertical integration does not guarantee competitive outcomes. As a contrast, Meador looked to digital markets where software is “oftentimes modular, adaptable, and interoperable by design.” He also pointed out that vertical integration can often create a conflict of interest, particularly when a firm controls both the infrastructure and the applications on top of it.

Innovation does not justify exclusion. Meador next attacked the myth that exclusionary conduct can be justified by innovation. Antitrust enforcement must protect “the conditions that allow innovation to thrive.” According to Meador, this means “distinguishing genuine product improvements from conduct that forecloses alternatives.” Meador added that it means “rejecting the suggestion that past success grants any firm a perpetual exemption from the rule of fair competition.”

Focus on open markets, not “national champions.” Meador next turned to the myth that “we need national champions to compete with China.” To Meador, the national champion model conflates “market power with competitiveness.” Meador stated that “America’s commercial leadership... came from open markets, fair competition, and the belief that progress flows from preserving the conditions for liberty and human flourishing—not central planning and abdication of law enforcement.” He continued, “When policymakers defer to powerful firms under the banner of national security, they achieve the opposite.” Meador also argued that antitrust enforcement is about “economic realism rooted in our shared national history of free enterprise and economic competition.”

Structural remedies are not extreme measures. Meador argued that it is a myth that structural remedies are an extreme measure. While we “are told that breakups will harm efficiency and hamper innovation... history tells a different story.” Meador pointed to the voluntary breakup of GE into three different companies and how the breakup of AT&T cleared the way for innovation. He stressed that “structure is not off-limits when structure becomes the source amplifying the problem.”

Conservative support for antitrust enforcement is not sour grapes over censorship. Meador also sought to disabuse his audience of the notion that “sour grapes over censorship” was a motivating factor for the administration. Instead, Meador pointed out that “this administration is committed to advocating for the interests of Main Street, and that means protecting competition across the economy.” He stressed that “technology platforms and products are a vital part of our daily life and therefore incredibly important.” He added that “markets like groceries, healthcare, and energy” also share the same level of importance.

News: Antitrust FederalTradeCommissionNews