Hacker News Reader

Comment by atlasunshrugged | Hacker News Reader

Merits of this specific case aside, I find it really interesting that the FTC is going after Amazon now. They have pretty limited resources (especially relative to a massive tech co which can pour money into litigation) and have to pick and choose their battles carefully... I have to admit I'm a little frustrated that they're choosing to go after Amazon, which yes, imo the case definitely has merits and they do shady stuff like with dark patterns for trying to cancel accounts and the like, but there are so many other things more important to my life that seem broken that I wish the FTC would prioritize. How about more of a focus on insurers who refuse claims, drug companies flouting the law, PE firms jacking up the cost of housing or contractors gouging the government (and therefore all of us)?

View on HN

The FTC is bringing a lot of cases, not just the few big ones like this that make headlines. The DOJ also brings antitrust cases.

See:

* FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings

* DOJ: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings

I know, and I applaud the one they recently filed against Anesthesia Partners which is directly at the intersection of PE and healthcare, but they do have limited resources and have to make tough choices about cases they bring and ones they don't, and I wish they would focus on ones that are more impactful for my life (e.g., healthcare, education, housing) than marginal ones like Amazon or the one against Meta acquiring a VR company. I understand their rationale and am generally supportive, I just disagree with the prioritization.

> How about more of a focus on insurers who refuse claims, drug companies flouting the law, PE firms jacking up the cost of housing or contractors gouging the government (and therefore all of us)?

Those aren't FTC issues regardless of merits, so they don't factor into FTC priorities. The first is mostly state insurance regulators, the second doesn't seem to be a violation of existing law (though it might be a legislative issue, mostly at the state or local level like most land use issues), the third is for the inspector-general or similar authority of the agency employing the contractor.

I'm not sure I agree but IANAL. Doesn't the fact that the FTC recently filed a case against a PE firm buying up anesthesia clinics and using that to jack up prices run counter to the example of the cost of housing? Or for contractors gouging the gov, my understanding is that PE firms have rolled up small defense contractors and then used monopoly power to gouge the government. That seems pretty firmly in their jurisdiction.

https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2...

> Doesn’t the fact that the FTC recently filed a case against a PE firm buying up anesthesia clinics and using that to jack up prices run counter to the example of the cost of housing?

If you can find a single private equity firm doing that to a functionally bounded market to secure a monopoly on, say, rental housing, sure.

But that isn’t the complaint I’ve heard about PE effects on housing markets.

Ah, that makes sense, thanks!

There are many insurers, so this would mean many cases.

There is only one Amazon and I am sure the FTC is receiving a ton of complaints against them.

I'm not sure I track. Sure there's only one Amazon, but there are a few major e-commerce providers (Shopify has been mentioned often, but also Walmart and other major) and more traditional retailers that compete with them.

> PE firms jacking up the cost of housing

They're just profiting off of a supply shortage. Fix the shortage and they won't be able to make money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com