Jump to content

Talk:Lina Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lina Khan's Bar License

[edit]

@Superb Owl: Is there a source for the claim, recently added, that Lina Khan's active bar license was not in good standing with the New York Bar Association since 2020?

I removed it since it was added without a source or context and it was not clear why it belongs in the lead. Something like this should be worked out in the body first Superb Owl (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop -- I misinterpreted the diff check and I thought you had added it. So sorry and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeleinesinging (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/* Amazon's Antitrust Paradox */ Predatory Pricing

[edit]

I am leaving this link here. It is the classic criticism of her work, but unfortunately in blog post form, so apparently not appropriate as a reference here, but if it was ever referenced in a third party source it would be good to include.

Here is the text I wrote to accompany it:

  • In a 2019 article Kristian Stout and Alec Stapp argued that Khan made a number of mistakes; contrary to her suggestion that Amazon relied on raising financing from investors to support predatory pricing, the firm had actually been cashflow-positive since 2002, and not issued any equity or debt.[5]
[edit]

Hey Sandstein, I don't understand your comments about broken links. Both these links work just fine for me:

It's not just me - I notice this was previously pointed out on your talk page also, and I can verify the links on downforeveryoneorjustme

Is it possible you have an out of date browser, or an add-on or VPN that blocks some websites? Or maybe your geography restricts access?

If it helps, here are some alternative links to the same content:

Larklight (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on one part of the edit in question--linking to two academics responses to the paper and then saying "Many academics have criticised this work" is original synthesis. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alyo, agreed. Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Larklight, thanks, the links do work, I was clicking on them in the diff, where they did not because of treiling ref tags. But you should format such references properly, see Template:Journal. Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Open Markets Institute

[edit]

New America CEO Slaughter disputed the reason for booting the [[Open Markets Institute]] (OMI) ( Sheelah Kohatkar, "The Enforcer,"The New Yorker, September 6, 2021, pp. 48-57, p. 54). Khan and others re-established OMI outside of New America (ibid.). Kdammers (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR

[edit]

@Freshbone1789 You keep removing extensively sourced content to replace with original research. Please review the wikipedia content policies to understand why your original interpretation of M&A track records and morale cannot replace what reliably sourced secondary reporting has stated on the topic. Example from the M&A track record section: you attempt to edit "Under Khan, the FTC has a winning record in federal court", which you seemingly decided for yourself based on you finding sources for dropped M&A's that do not make anything remotely similar to that claim in their own words. The immediate citation you provide from law.com's reporting on a single dropped merger makes no such claim, for instance. If I look at what law.com actually has to say and analyze on the topic, they talk about her track record of losing cases in court and even go as far to suggest it may be part of a strategy: Losses actually could help Khan build support in Congress, McGinnis said, sending a message that she needs stronger antitrust tools to rein in anti-competitive behavior.

The problem compounds when you keep replacing secondary reliable sources that state in their own words that Khan has a losing/mixed record, ranging from Politico to the Wall Street Journal. These are reliable secondary sources, and per Wikipedia's policy on secondary sources: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. There are several such sources directly supporting the content you keep removing. As I noted from the law.com article earlier, it's not hard to find even more. Replacing these with your own interpretations of dropped deals goes against WP policy.

Moving on to another example in the other problem area in morale, you keep trying to add content from a primary FTC source to talk about employee morale improving ie. "An additional improvement in morale and satisfaction scores was reported in November 2024, continuing an upward trend." / "An additional improvement in morale and satisfaction scores was made public by the FTC in November 2024." You cite this to a FTC doc. Again, same problem with failing to follow sourcing rules mentioned above. Pushing a primary source document from an organization run by an article subject, which does not even make the same statements you are adding, obviously is not sufficient. Given that we have no problems getting reliable secondary source reporting on morale issues, like NY Mag and Bloomberg, this also clearly fails other policies like being due for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTC Document is federal data promulgated by Office of Management and Budget.
Federal court record is clear: 3 wins, 2 losses (one on appeal). This is fact.
Quotes from biased speakers in secondary sources not good/relaible content e.g. antitrust defense lawyers says Khan loses "all the time"
@KiharaNoukanlacks understanding of antitrust law? overly reliant on biased information but dismisses federal government primary source documents. Freshbone1789 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Freshbone1789 Wikipedia relies on secondary sources for the content you are trying to add. The secondary sources, in their own words, contradict what you are trying to add. Your original interpretation of synthesis of some primary sources you found is literally the textbook example of the problem identified in the policy guideline I linked above and in my edit comments days earlier. I'll link it here as well: WP:PRIMARY. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This is basic wikipedia policy. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, secondary sources provided. Freshbone1789 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They need to actually directly support your claim. A grand total of zero sources support "winning record". Again, read the op. Also, deleting RS you disagree with to insert other sources and rewrite claims is an obvious failure to uphold WP:NPOV, another content policy to look at. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The FTC has brought 5 cases to federal court that have been resolved by a judge. Two have been losses (one under appeal) and three have been victories. All of the citations are accurate and up to date, using reliable secondary sources. Freshbone1789 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim of "winning record" in court cases is, like I mentioned multiple times, original research. As the policy says, do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. We have multiple reliable sources, including from a source you yourself use for synthesis, law.com, that state in their own words a conclusion contradicting the claim you have repeatedly inserted into the article.
Multiple secondary sources have written about and focused on a pattern of lost cases, you removing them and replacing them with your own synthesis goes against basic policy guidelines. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a claim, it's a fact. In federal cases the FTC under Khan has won three and lost two with two still pending and one on appeal. The links I provided describe substantial successes and attack critics who claim she does not have a winning record. Freshbone1789 (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it, do you think that makes it fine to synthesize your own research to replace reliable secondary sourcing stating the exact opposite of what you're claiming...? KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no feelings, only facts. The FTC has brought 5 cases to federal court where a judge issued an opinion, lost two, and won three.
You have Jeff Sonnenberg in Fortune magazine saying she has a zero win record from 18 months ago. These are not things of equal value. Freshbone1789 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/matt-yglesias-is-wrong-about-lina-khans-record/
https://www.economicliberties.us/our-work/factsheet-the-ftc-is-holding-corporate-actors-accountable-protecting-small-businesses-workers-and-consumers-2/ Freshbone1789 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ, Politico, NYT, and others are biased sources, but advocacy groups aren't for you? Even then, they're not bold enough to claim a "winning record", only claiming some cases were won to dispute the extreme end statement of "Khan can't win cases" from Matt Yglesias, which isn't in this article. You still have 0 sources directly supporting your claim. Seems like an obvious path to change to the text before describing a mixed record then. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cubs hadn't one the world series for 108 years before they did.
Your secondary sources from WSJ and Politico are from 16 months ago, prior to three litigated wins in court by the FTC and one of your sources references a partisan committee hearing run by Jim Jordan. Things have happened since the summer of 2023 and readers on Wikipedia should know about them. Freshbone1789 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another item that hopefully you won't ignore: WP:RECENTISM. The most recent wording you reverted described a mixed record and described the loss record up to December 2023 (most of her time as chair), which already resolves the issues you're raising here. But beyond that, nothing you have mentioned here excuses you deleting reliable sourcing to insert your own synthesis and original research. This isn't helpful to building an encyclopedia. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Hi, please stop going back and forth with mass rewrites. I tried to draft a version that was somewhere in the middle, as I agree that both versions have problems. @KiharaNoukan, the previous version is a little out of date and needs tp be updated. It didn't take me long to find things that contradict the previous statements about how many cases had been lost. On the other hand, @Freshbone1789, the original version you wrote did have a lot of original research. If either of you have issues with current text, can you propose rewrites here so we can hash it out? It's not productive to just continually have whole paragraphs going back and forth. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Khan, the FTC had a mixed record in its attempts to block mergers and acquisitions. Through December 2023, the FTC lost two merger challenges resolved in federal court against Meta [1] and Microsoft. The Microsoft ruling has been appealed by the FTC. [2] Since December 2023, the FTC has won federal court challenges to mergers by IQVIA,[3] Novant Health,[4] and Tapestry, Inc.[5] Freshbone1789 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I further propose a rewrite to the following paragraph:
FTC investigations into proposed mergers and acquisitions have also led to some businesses dropping attempted deals, such as Nvidia's attempted acquisition of Arm Holdings, Lockheed's attempted acquisition of Aerojet,[6] and Sanofi's attempted acquisition of Maze Therapeutics.[7] Khan and her supporters have pointed to these abandoned deals as enforcement victories outside of judicial decisions.[8][9] The lawfirm Dechert, which tracks merger enforcement, said that antitrust agencies in the US reported more mergers abandoned in 2024 than at any time in the past 14 years.[10] Other attempted mergers have also been paused for FTC merger review, such as Kroger's attempt to merge with Albertsons, which the FTC argues would raise grocery prices for millions of American consumers.[9][11][12] In a 2023 Congressional hearing, Khan denied accusations that she brought cases that she expected to lose, but acknowledged risks in her aggressive approach in opposing mergers.[13] Freshbone1789 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, I modified the sourcing on this paragraph in the morale section to comply with secondary reliable sourcing per requirements. Please review and advise.
Khan said it was a priority to improve staff morale following the initial Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results during congressional testimony in July 2023.[14] Bloomberg found improvement in employee satisfaction were measured from 2022 to 2023. 54% of employees reported a "high level of respect" for leaders, up 9% from 2022. 58% said leaders had "high standards of honesty and integrity", up 9% from 2022. 60% reported holding "positive feelings for leadership, up 8% from 2022. The measures continued to lag 2020 levels, which hovered over 80% in these categories. Bloomberg also noted "significant churn" in the FTC workforce, reporting that senior attorneys were leaving the FTC at a rate not seen in at least two decades while the FTC hired 150 staff in 2023.[15] According to former Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein, the FTC reclaimed over half of its decline in morale since 2021.[16] Former Wall Street antitrust and securities defense lawyer Ediberto Roman said that morale at the FTC continued to be a problem for agency operations, citing the resignation of over 100 staff members and the decline in respect for leadership from 2020.[17] In November 2024 MLex Market Intelligence reported that morale improved over 2023 levels and that FTC employees coninued to express satisfaction with the agency. [18] Freshbone1789 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

References

  1. ^ https://www.paulweiss.com/practices/litigation/antitrust/publications/ftc-loses-challenge-to-meta-within-deal-but-court-accepts-viability-of-potential-competition-theories?id=45986
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/tech/ftc-urges-reject-microsoft-activision-merger/index.html
  3. ^ "FTC wins injunction against IQVIA/Propel Media". Global Competition Review.
  4. ^ Muoio, Dave. "Novant Health gives up $320M hospital deal after FTC secures appeals court injunction". Fierce Healthcare. Retrieved 25 November 2024.
  5. ^ "Tapestry and Capri merger blocked in win for FTC". Fashion Dive.
  6. ^ "Lockheed scraps $4.4 billion deal to buy Aerojet amid regulatory roadblocks". Reuters. February 14, 2022.
  7. ^ "Sanofi ends deal for a rare disease drug after FTC voices monopoly concerns". Stat. December 11, 2023.
  8. ^ Jones, Callum (2024-03-09). "'She's going to prevail': FTC head Lina Khan is fighting for an anti-monopoly America". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference yaleinsights was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ https://globalcompetitionreview.com/gcr-usa/article/dechert-merger-abandonments-soar-in-2024
  11. ^ "Kroger-Albertsons merger will increase costs for shoppers, says FTC chair". The Guardian. September 23, 2024.
  12. ^ https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-challenges-krogers-acquisition-albertsons
  13. ^ "F.T.C. Chair Faces Criticism in Congressional Hearing". The New York Times. July 13, 2023.
  14. ^ "Watch live: House Judiciary hearing on oversight of FTC". July 13, 2023.
  15. ^ Birnbaum, Emily; Nylen, Leah "FTC Staff Morale, Satisfaction Rise Under Khan, Survey Shows" Bloomberg, November 13, 2023. Retrieved November 8, 2024.
  16. ^ "Opinion: The education of Lina Khan, whose superpower is busting monopolies". The Washington Post. March 14, 2024.
  17. ^ "Is the FTC Inadvertently Weakening Its Enforcement Powers?, by Ediberto Roman". Yale Journal of Regulation. August 15, 2024.
  18. ^ "US FTC Employee Satisfaction up According to Government Survey". MLex Market insights.
Hearing no objections, may I make these edits? Any concerns @Alyo? Freshbone1789 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait lol. Even apart from objections, your version has a number of issues that would need to be cleaned up. Lets get some consensus here first. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alyo, I'm largely fine with the version you wrote/revised changing the losing record to mixed record given further cases, although I would prefer if we had a direct source say as much for the update to mixed record. To get out of the weeds on the disputed content and the massive OR problems, I would suggest removing the case-counting/naming on "wins" v "losses" and settle for a high level overview of track records based on time and circumstance to provide clarity, since that is a legitimate content issue brought up. Case-counting has problems related on how to count trial outcomes, settlements, preliminary injunctions, dismissals, etc. Example from Illumina/Grail, the court found it would lessen competition, yet it also vacated the FTC's order blocking the merger. Illumina ended up opting against further appeals and dropped the deal after the decision from the circuit and other challenges from European regulators. However, there is a consensus among what RS say in their own words that up to December 2023, the FTC was on a loss streak in court, with Illumina as a sort of turning point. I'm not sure about the paragraph split, since it seems to imply the dropped deals occurred starting Dec 2023.
rewrite M&A:

Under Khan, the FTC had a mixed record in its attempts to block mergers and acquisitions. Through December 2023, the FTC lost a number of major merger challenges resolved in court.[1][2][3][4][5] In December 2023, the FTC successfully blocked Illumina's acquisition of Grail with the help of a Fifth Circuit ruling, after a 3-year legal battle.[6] Khan's litigation has also led to some businesses dropping attempted mergers and acquisitions. Khan and her supporters have pointed to these abandoned deals as enforcement victories, outside of judicial decisions.[7][1] Other attempted mergers have also been held up by the FTC's regulatory delays, such as Kroger's attempt to merge with Albertsons, which the FTC later sought to block outright.[1][8] In a 2023 Congressional hearing, Khan denied accusations that she brought cases that she expected to lose, but acknowledged risks in her aggressive approach in opposing mergers.[9]

I'm also mostly fine with the stable version you have for morale, but there are fixes needed for paragraph 3 "reclaiming over half" missing its WaPo Opinion cite and attribution. To get out of opinion-dumping, a by-the-numbers accounting from the bloomberg article used by both sides here should suffice:
morale P3 rewrite:

Khan said it was a priority to improve staff morale following the initial Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results during congressional testimony in July, 2023.[10] Bloomberg found that some improvements in employee satisfaction were measured from 2022 to 2023. 54% of employees reported a "high level of respect" for leaders, up 9% from 2022. 58% said leaders had "high standards of honesty and integrity", up 9% from 2022. 60% reported holding "positive feelings for leadership, up 8% from 2022. The measures continued to lag 2020 levels, which hovered over 80% in these categories.[11]

KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

References

  1. ^ a b c Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A.; Tian, Steven (13 December 2023). "The FTC's Antitrust Overreach Is Hurting U.S. Competitiveness and Destroying Value". Yale Insights.
  2. ^ "Losing record in hand, FTC chief faces Jim Jordan". Politico. 13 July 2023.
  3. ^ "Assessing the state of affairs in FTC/DOJ merger enforcement". Reuters. 10 July 2023.
  4. ^ Michaels, Dave (12 July 2023). "Lina Khan Is Taking on the World's Biggest Tech Companies—and Losing". The Wall Street Journal.
  5. ^ "F.T.C.'s Court Loss Raises Fresh Questions About Its Chair's Strategy". The New York Times. July 11, 2023.
  6. ^ "After a storm of criticism, Lina Khan's FTC has a $7 billion victory related to a cancer-test acquisition". Fortune. 18 December 2023.
  7. ^ Jones, Callum (2024-03-09). "'She's going to prevail': FTC head Lina Khan is fighting for an anti-monopoly America". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  8. ^ "Kroger-Albertsons merger will increase costs for shoppers, says FTC chair". The Guardian. September 23, 2024.
  9. ^ "F.T.C. Chair Faces Criticism in Congressional Hearing". The New York Times. July 13, 2023.
  10. ^ "Watch live: House Judiciary hearing on oversight of FTC". July 13, 2023.
  11. ^ Birnbaum, Emily; Nylen, Leah "FTC Staff Morale, Satisfaction Rise Under Khan, Survey Shows" Bloomberg, November 13, 2023. Retrieved November 8, 2024.
For M&A
1.
Why not cite other court victories? We have Illumina, but why not Tapestry for instance? There is a ton of content from reliable sources about that merger, which was valued at $8 billion.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ftc-blocks-tapestry-capri-affordable-5647256/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-court-blocks-tapestrys-85-billion-acquisition-rival-capri-2024-10-24/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/business/tapestry-capri-merger-coach-versace.html
Similarly on IQVIA there is good source reporting
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/ftc-prevails-in-bid-to-halt-iqvias-merger-with-digital-ad-firm
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-judge-allows-ftc-temporarily-block-iqvia-acquisition-deepintent-2023-12-30/
2.
For the opening sentence, we should prioritize WSJ as a reliable source over Jeff Sonnenfeld opinion piece (sticking with our conditions with respect to the morale section, Dave Michaels is a beat reporter at the WSJ and he cites two big merger challenges lost, sonnenfeld is nicknamed "the ceo whisperer" and is an opinion columnist of somewhat ill repute).
I propose
--
Under Khan, the FTC had a mixed record in its attempts to block mergers and acquisitions. Through December 2023, the FTC lost two major merger challenges resolved in federal court. [1] In December 2023, the FTC successfully blocked Illumina's acquisition of Grail after a 3-year legal battle.[2] In January 2024 the FTC successfully blocked a merger between IQVIA and Propel Media [3] In October 2024, the FTC successfully blocked a merger between Tapestry, Inc and Capri Holdings.[4]
----
For Morale we need to include this sentence in my view:
In November 2024 MLex Market Intelligence reported that morale improved over 2023 levels and that FTC employees coninued to express satisfaction with the agency. [5] Freshbone1789 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated earlier, repeatedly, WP:OR problems. Every article I cited related to track records actually mentions something about a pattern of losing cases. By contrast, singular articles about this court decision, that preliminary injunction etc. are tangentially relevant and require WP:SYNTH to combine together. For better or for worse, Illumina is marked by RS as a significant point after a long string of losses, another example from NYT: After a year with some notable defeats, an appeals court has given a big boost to Lina Khan’s aggressive enforcement strategy at the F.T.C.. Inserting random court cases because a source exists to affirm that it exists flunks not only the original research test but the WP:DUE test on significance. With such a low standard, the article could be filled to the brim with various court decisions of all kinds, on mergers, competitive rulings, proposed regulations, etc. The morale item is fine with the actual numbers being given about before and afters. There isn't much reason to add on top. On a general note, I would advise reading up on wikipedia policies when proposing or making edits so that time isn't consumed about items like using primary sources and using any secondary sources one can find. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ source says FTC under Khan lost two cases. Additional sources are opinion content by Jeff Sonnenfeld, and should not constitute a good citation for losing more than the two cases cited by WSJ. There have only been five federal cases that have been decided by a judge. That is a high standard, and a low number of decisions. Other cases that haven't been decided (Kroger Albertson's) are mentioned.
Tapestry case was a major case for the agency. Ignoring it because opinion content doesn't refer to it seems unwarranted.
https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/hedge-funds-hit-by-arbageddon-sense-brighter-future-after-trump-win-61c40ca0
In recent months, numerous high-profile acquisitions have either struggled to close or failed, including a plan to unite Tapestry and Capri Holdings, the companies behind Coach and Michael Kors. The pileup has ripped through the hedge-fund world, leading to unexpected losses and several top traders losing their jobs.
Now however, the new president’s pro-business, lighter-regulation agenda “means a pro-merger environment that will embolden companies to get bigger through acquisitions; it is as simple as that,” said Orkun Kilic, a London-based arbitrager. “I am very excited for the next four years.”
A hostile deal environment has largely kept Kilic on the sidelines since December, he said, and he now expects to become more active with Trump’s election. Freshbone1789 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piece above refers to a pattern of winning merger challenges, for example. I added this at one point and it was struck in a revision. Freshbone1789 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ piece is suitable to add, but it just seems to support the content that exists now. It can be added to further support existing text of Khan's litigation has also led to some businesses dropping attempted mergers and acquisitions.
I can't help but notice a very isolated demand for rigor. You had no problems bringing up advocacy groups to advance the notion of a winning streak, when they did not even state as much in their own words. But you're intending to toss out statements from every one of the multiple sources currently cited on track record except for one, with only an explanation of disliking one of the sources because of something you see wrong with one of the two authors? I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this, are you trying to push away the bevy of sources stating that there are a pattern of losses and claim there are only two? It's not difficult to find sourcing for more cases that also directly link to discussing the FTC's losses at large (ex: WSJ article on Amgen-Horizon), but like I said, I don't think jotting down cases left and right is particularly productive or helpful. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Let me go through this all and pull what I think is helpful from both sides, and make some suggestions. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a little bit of rationale above. Jeff Sonnenfeld is an opinion columnist, not a journalist. Freshbone1789 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alyo, do you have a proposal that synthesizes this? Freshbone1789 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, yes, I'm still working on this. Obviously haven't had as much time during the Thanksgiving holiday here in the US. Appreciate the continued discussion, as it gives me more perspectives to work through. Alyo (chat·edits) 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if replies broke below or something, so I'll reply here. Your new paragraph largely fits with what RS are saying and match tenor and content over time. I would also say they are also an improvement in coherence and readability over what is there now. Overall a good step up from status quo content. On expecting to lose, there are sources, ranging from approvingly, descriptively, to disapprovingly, that theorize the strategy is to lose and say that broader antitrust statutes are needed, based in part on her own statements about pursuing cases. But Khan's official position is that she does not deliberately seek out losses, at least in her testimony before Congress. Maybe to broadly incorporate the more favorable or descriptive strategy theories, "accusations" can just be removed. On the other point, outside of better sourcing linking this to broader strategy, the lockheed, sanofi examples can go for SYNTH, fwiw the Illumina example is a dropped deal after litigation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rewrite is good as it is. Thanks for doing this. I have seen reports the Kroger case will be ruled on soon so at least one change to come. The ninth circuit has also been sitting on an appeal in the Microsoft case for months. And Khan likely to end her tenure as Alyo noted so tense works. Freshbone1789 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the comments. Re: "expected to lose", I do think it's a little odd to include the word "accusations" without explaining where exactly those accusations are coming from. It's also a little funny that the strongest source arguing this comes from Bork Jr. But that article does accurately summarize the House Judiciary report, so I'm inclined to include something like "The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee released a report accusing Khan of bringing weak cases, in order to push Congress to expand antitrust enforcement authority." while citing to that. Given that he's directly quoting from the report, I don't feel that WP:RSOPINION requires us to say "Bork says that the Committee says that..." I'll add that for now, but totally open to wording changes. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bork citation is pretty dicey given the long history there. He is extremely partisan on an emi intellectual and personal nature. Better to cite to him by name in the sentence levelling the accusation imo. Real ones will know and it’s also just straightforwardly accurate. Freshbone1789 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you feel the same way if it said "House Republicans accused...", instead of "Some conservatives"? If the former, then it's not actually in reference to Bork. Also, Bork Jr doesn't have his own Wikipedia article. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bork Jrs the particular relevance here. I think your write up is fine and I am eager to have the page updated… Freshbone1789 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I take your comment to agree that it carries more weight for a Congressional committee to release an official report saying [anything], versus a random editorial from one guy? Edit made accordingly. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. Freshbone1789 (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khan’s FTC just won their lawsuit against Kroger
https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/kroger-albertsons-merger-blocked-by-court-handing-victory-to-biden-antitrust-enforcers-9707307b?st=AJiC8a&reflink=article_copyURL_share Freshbone1789 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting wrinkle. Perhaps we should consider another rewrite that reflects the new consensus. Shall I take a stab?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/blocked-grocery-mega-merger-tips-rolling-ma-cart-2024-12-11/
—
The general criticism of Khan and her Justice Department counterpart, Jonathan Kanter, is that their aggressive approach leads to losing lawsuits or complicates otherwise winnable ones. Judges bound to decades of legal precedent are an obstacle; indeed, by filing cases and losing them, competition cops risk inscribing failures into case law.
This argument hasn’t held up. The FTC’s sweeping victory against handbag makers Tapestry (TPR.N), opens new taband Capri (CPRI.N), opens new tab in October saw the court even cite cases that Khan’s litigators lost as offering succor and hewed to a controversial 2023 rewrite of the U.S. merger rulebook. The Kroger opinion, opens new tab similarly affirms the new guidelines, pushes aside previous decisions and only narrowly stops short of endorsing the idea that merging employers harming the labor market is enough to kill a deal. Freshbone1789 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, TBH I don't think this drastically changes my thoughts, especially since it's a very short "breaking news" style piece from a wire agency, compared to the in-depth profiles done on Khan specifically. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But it seems like we can make your proposed update? The current write up is in need of refreshment. Freshbone1789 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I'm not following, which proposed update do you mean? Alyo (chat·edits) 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

Ok, some thoughts on the M&A paragraphs. Big picture, I would stick with @KiharaNoukan's framing, as I believe the sourcing strongly supports this broad narrative that the FTC had a lot of losses at the beginning, figured it out to some extent, and also claims a lot of wins through deterrence. @Freshbone1789, I think saying "Through December 2023, the FTC lost two merger challenges..." and then even walking that back by saying "and one is on appeal" doesn't accurately represent what the sources were generally saying. I think there's room to mention the big cases, both wins and losses, that come up in all the sources. We also may want to attribute some arguments that aren't meant to be neutral coverage, like those by Sonnenfeld. However, it's evident to me that through the first part of her tenure, coverage wasn't exactly glowing. I agree that case-counting is not particularly helpful, and sources are going to be all over the place with how they count them. The "lost every case" seems to be an 0-5 record at worst (0-4 as of Oct 2023), but then this has the gov't record at 3-7 in mid-2023 (although those wins may be on the DoJ side?). Regardless, I don't think it's our place to determine what her "official W-L record" is. I've added sourcing on the "mixed record", and it's also interesting how more recent coverage is arguably more positive. I think the paragraph should roughly reflect that in its framing: negative to...at least less negative. It's also worth pointing out that this is (potentially) the end of her tenure, and so we can write this with a bit of an eye towards summarizing the entire term + using past tense. And lets keep an eye out for anything else that comes out from sources framing her entire term in the next few months. I'm going to discuss the morale part in the new section below, but what do you two think about this following text? The first place I think could use more work is the final sentence, as I've definitely seen sources that expound upon the "expected to lose" part and explain that it's a strategic thing to gain congressional sympathy etc etc. It also might be a bit SYNTH to bring up Lockheed Martin and Sanofi--maybe the Kroger example is sufficient?

Under Khan, the FTC had a mixed record in its attempts to block mergers and acquisitions.[6][7] Through the first half of her tenure, the FTC lost a number of high-profile merger challenges resolved in court, including the Microsoft-Activision Blizzard merger and Meta's acquisition of Within.[1][8] In December 2023, the FTC won its first major challenge in court by blocking Illumina's acquisition of Grail after a 3-year legal battle.[9] Khan was noted—by both critics and supporters—for her aggressive approach to regulation as FTC chair, invoking novel arguments and pursuing non-traditional cases, but also risking more losses in court.[7][10][11] Khan and the FTC argued that the increase in agency action resulted in an additional deterrence effect, leading to some businesses dropping attempted mergers and acquisitions.[12] Among others, Lockheed Martin's attempted acquisition of Aerojet[13] and Sanofi's attempted acquisition of Maze Therapeutics[14] were both withdrawn following FTC scrutiny. Khan and her supporters have pointed to these abandoned deals as enforcement victories outside of a judicial environment.[7][10] Other attempted mergers have also been held up by the FTC's regulatory delays, such as Kroger's attempt to merge with Albertsons, which the FTC later sought to block outright.[10][15] In a 2023 Congressional hearing, Khan denied accusations that she brought cases that she expected to lose, but acknowledged risks in her aggressive approach in opposing mergers.[16]

Extended content

References

  1. ^ a b Michaels, Dave (12 July 2023). "Lina Khan Is Taking on the World's Biggest Tech Companies—and Losing". The Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ "After a storm of criticism, Lina Khan's FTC has a $7 billion victory related to a cancer-test acquisition". Fortune. 18 December 2023.
  3. ^ {{cite web |date= 2 January 2024 |title= US judge allows FTC to temporarily block IQVIA acquisition of DeepIntent|url=https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-judge-allows-ftc-temporarily-block-iqvia-acquisition-deepintent-2023-12-30/
  4. ^ "Tapestry and Capri merger blocked in win for FTC". Fashion Dive.
  5. ^ "US FTC Employee Satisfaction up According to Government Survey". MLex Market insights.
  6. ^ Ball, Molly; Mullins, Brody (25 March 2024). "Biden's Trustbuster Draws Unlikely Fans: 'Khanservative' Republicans". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 4 December 2024.
  7. ^ a b c Thorbecke, Catherine; Fung, Brian (16 October 2023). "Lina Khan's rise was heralded as an antitrust revolution. Now she has to pull it off | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 4 December 2024.
  8. ^ "Losing record in hand, FTC chief faces Jim Jordan". Politico. 13 July 2023.
  9. ^ "After a storm of criticism, Lina Khan's FTC has a $7 billion victory related to a cancer-test acquisition". Fortune. 18 December 2023.
  10. ^ a b c Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A.; Tian, Steven (13 December 2023). "The FTC's Antitrust Overreach Is Hurting U.S. Competitiveness and Destroying Value". Yale Insights.
  11. ^ "Assessing the state of affairs in FTC/DOJ merger enforcement". Reuters. 10 July 2023.
  12. ^ Jones, Callum (2024-03-09). "'She's going to prevail': FTC head Lina Khan is fighting for an anti-monopoly America". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  13. ^ "Lockheed scraps $4.4 billion deal to buy Aerojet amid regulatory roadblocks". Reuters. February 14, 2022.
  14. ^ "Sanofi ends deal for a rare disease drug after FTC voices monopoly concerns". Stat. December 11, 2023.
  15. ^ "Kroger-Albertsons merger will increase costs for shoppers, says FTC chair". The Guardian. September 23, 2024.
  16. ^ "F.T.C. Chair Faces Criticism in Congressional Hearing". The New York Times. July 13, 2023.

Undue weight to "agency morale"

[edit]

This appears to be the only article on all of (English) Wikipedia that includes an "Agency morale" subsection. There is no way that Lina Khan is an outlier in all the history of US officials as far as publicly-voiced concerns over morale, and singling her out for such treatment suggests that undue weight is being given to the morale issue with reference to her biography article. Note that as a WP:BLP, this article must strictly follow WP:NPOV, which includes WP:UNDUE. It seems that discussion of FTC morale under Khan is indeed represented significantly in reliable sources, so I'm not saying it should be left out - but IMO it should be summarized more briefly without the subheading, and perhaps further elaborated in the Federal Trade Commission article or a relevant related one.

I'm going to hold off on editing for the moment, as I see others are in the process of hashing things out regarding that general part of the article. But I'm putting this talk section here because I think addressing this issue needs to be a priority. GeoEvan (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree generally that this section receives undue attention. It has become a popular fixation among those opposed to Khan. Not dissimilar from misrepresenting her record in court. Cc: @Alyo Freshbone1789 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that RS's tie agency morale directly to Khan's actions/leadership, there may still be a place for some of this material. Otherwise, agree that it may be better in Federal Trade Commission. We're almost definitely going to get to a place where I won't have access to all of the sources referenced, so I'll link to some of those where I need help. Alyo (chat·edits) 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read over a bunch of the sources, I actually think this section should be rewritten to be more about the specific claims that involve Khan--her management style, the burnout, etc. Those are the things that are directly attributed to her, particularly in the Khardori piece. The morale numbers are just symptomatic, and probably belong on the FTC page, if anywhere. To be honest, having any numbers at all beyond the big headline ones might be beyond the scope of this article. That way this section can also be rewritten as a criticism section of some kind. I'll draft a rewrite tomorrow. Alyo (chat·edits) 06:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khadori is not a great source in my view. He’s a former Paul Weiss antitrust defense bar lawyer and his piece was roundly criticized by journalists like David Dayen and more partisan public intellectuals like Matt Stoller.
Assume the value of social media posts as sources is low but wanted to flag: https://x.com/ddayen/status/1734579055356432802?s=46&t=X3gJDbC27d1sT9I7oUqobA
if the FEVs numbers have improved and hiring has been strong (150 staff to replace 100 departures according to Bloomberg) I think that bears at least a sentence at the end, imo. Freshbone1789 (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Dayen article directly taking on the Khadori piece
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-12-12-jury-finds-google-monopolist/ Freshbone1789 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really get to pick and choose when to use reliable sources like that, just because we don't like the perspective of the person writing them. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, and clearly I doubt Khadori motives but there is some opposition out there from other reliable sources in case useful. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Freshbone1789 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we are required to stick to reliable sources, there is no obligation to use a particular "reliable" source and I see good reasons for Khadori's motives being dubious and his "reliability" as well. The potential issue here is not liking or disliking Khadori's take or opinion, but that Khadori seems to misrepresent issues and facts (which is exactly what his critics complain about him). That could be grounds to drop Khadori as a source (at least it is often a red flag for sources). At the end of the day we're supposed to give a somewhat representative summary of reliable sources on Khan and pick exemplary sources for that, but that doesn't necessarily include Khadori.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if there is any history of Khadori misrepresenting facts, I haven't seen that. The response to Khadori hasn't been "he's making it up"--those linked above disagree with his framing, but not the stories in the piece, afaik? It's a pretty bold step to completely exclude an otherwise reliable piece, especially when it, well, aligns pretty closely to the other pieces that were coming out at the time (see current cites in Lina_Khan#Agency_morale_under_Khan). Alyo (chat·edits) 05:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lina_Khan&oldid=1262596293"