Identifying, Challenging, and Assigning Political Responsibility for State Regulation Restricting Competition
Maureen Ohlhausen, Nov 01, 2006
This paper examines the role of competition advocacy in combating anticompetitive state regulation. Looking at the constraints facing competition officials such as the state action doctrine, the analysis suggests potential avenues for surmounting these constraints. Relying on experience as the Director of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning, the author uses real-world examples—real estate brokerage and interstate direct shipment of wine—to demonstrate the ability of a competition agency to use a variety of techniques to improve consumer welfare when enforcement is circumscribed due to state activity.
Featured News
Indiana Reaches $6.25 Million Settlement in EpiPen Price-Fixing Case
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
Takeda Signs Up to $1.7B Deal to Use Iambic’s AI Technology for Drug Discovery
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
New York Becomes Sixth State to Propose Moratorium on Data Center Construction
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
California’s New DELETE Platform Could Upend How Payment Companies Access Consumer Data
Feb 9, 2026 by
CPI
Ohio Attorney General Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Major Cannabis Operators
Feb 8, 2026 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Hub-&-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
CPI
A Data Analytics Company as the Hub in a Hub-and-Spoke Cartel
Jan 26, 2026 by
Joseph Harrington
Hub and Spoke Cartels
Jan 26, 2026 by
Patrick Van Cayseele
Hub-and-Spoke Collusion or Vertical Exclusion? Identifying the Rim in Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies
Jan 26, 2026 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz, Pedro Gonzaga, Laura Ildefonso & Albert Metz
The Algorithmic Middleman in a Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracy: Divergent Court Decisions and the Expanding Patchwork of State and Local Regulations
Jan 26, 2026 by
Bradley C. Weber