#delrahim

[usnewsper-business]

U.S. banks face uphill battle against Justice Department over capital rules #banks #barr #capital #rules #US

[politiciandirect]

DOJ Fighting to Stop AT&T-Time Warner Merger

DOJ Fighting to Stop AT&T-Time Warner Merger

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division filed notice Thursday that it will appeal federal District Judge Richard Leon’s ruling allowing telecom giant AT&T and content creator Time Warner’s merger to go through.

The government will now seek a reversal of that ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the court which handles most of the leading antitrust…

[outsidetheknow]

Top Antitrust Official Is Said to Recuse Himself From Google Inquiry via /r/technology Top Antitrust Official Is Said to Recuse Himself From Google Inquiry Submitted February 04, 2020 at 06:08PM by khayrirrw via reddit

[presseonline]

US-Regierung kündigt Untersuchung von Tech-Konzernen an Amazon, Facebook, Google und Apple geraten einem Medienbericht zufolge erneut ins Visier der US-Justiz Die US-Regierung hat eine Untersuchung zur Marktmacht führender Internetkonzerne angekündigt. Die Prüfung richte sich gegen Suchmaschinenanbieter, soziale Netzwerke und Onlinehändler #Nachrichten,#Google, #Facebook,#Amazon,#Netzwelt,#Presse,Medien,News,Aktuelle,#MakanDelrahim,#Apple, #Online,#Netzwerke

[jjustwantobehere]

Netflix and Amazon are driving what I call “Concentration Creep” across the industry. Concentration creep means that consolidation in one part of an industry causes consolidation in other parts. Disney, for instance, is trying to mimic the company by launching what may be a below-cost streaming service. It also bought Fox’s media assets, so it can bulk up and gain market power. And Trump’s Antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, is considering getting rid of the Paramount Consent Decrees, which might prompt Amazon or Netflix to simply buy a movie theater chain. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the only goal now in Hollywood is to become gain market power in distribution or must-have content production, and then use that monopoly power to reduce the quality of output and reduce the bargaining leverage of artists. Even the agents, who are supposed to represent artists, are getting into the vertical integration game. The net effect is higher prices, less paid to artists, a less creative industry, and ultimately, the death of the Hollywood ecosystem of storytelling. Such a dynamic isn’t just a problem in terms of a more arid artistic world, but is in fact a political and national security problem. We learn a lot from our movies and TV shows, including about politics and geo-politics. The U.S. military tends to subsidize movies that make them look good; with fewer producers of movies, such subsidies will have more impact, and perhaps make it less likely artists criticize the state or powerful corporations. But the free expression problem imports overt government censorship into America and the entire West.

The Slow Death of Hollywood

[robpegoraro]

Weekly output: Data Privacy Day, PBS digital strategy, trust in traditional media, Huawei charges, Trump’s DoJ on Facebook, VPN reality check This week featured a personal record of sorts: three stories published in a day, each at a different outlet and one at a first-time client.

[feelingbluepolitics]

"For those who thought Barr might be an institutionalist, protecting the department from the predations of a *resident with little respect for it, consider: He backed installing a prosecutor in the flagship office with no — zero — prosecutorial experience.

..."For those who thought Barr would be competent, consider: He ousted Berman, a registered Republican and Trump donor, and wound up with Audrey Strauss, a registered Democrat who has contributed to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the job. Well played.

..."The underlying question is why Barr felt compelled to remove Berman — and, here, there is every reason, given past performance, to suspect foul motives. After all, the Southern District is an office that has prosecuted and investigated any number of [t]rump allies and [trump’s] own inaugural committee.

..."It’s now past time for the lawmakers to hear from Timothy Shea, the former interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who oversaw the about-face in the Stone sentencing and the guilty plea of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

"Let’s hear from Berman and Jessie Liu, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who, among other things, declined to bring charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. (Liu left her post for a position at the Treasury Department, only to have that nomination summarily yanked by [t]rump.) Let’s hear from Makan Delrahim, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division.

..."And let’s hear, most important, from the attorney general himself. Barr had been scheduled to appear before the committee for the first time as attorney general on March 31, an appearance that was canceled because of the pandemic. Since then, the White House has decreed that no Cabinet officials are permitted to testify without approval from the White House chief of staff, asserting that 'the administration must continue to maintain its highest operational status to stop the spread and to reopen our economy.'

..."Justice cited that guidance in asserting Barr’s unavailability until, with the threat of subpoenas in the air, spokeswoman Kerri Kupec tweeted that Barr 'has accepted an invitation to appear' before the committee — but not until July 28, weeks later than the committee had requested."

Bad faith. Barr will cite some spurious cause not to appear, and fight a subpoena. Or he'll show up and lie. He should be subpoenaed now. In fact, he can be formally investigated for impeachment now, and show up to defend himself if he wants.

[thepachanga]

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department is preparing to take legal action against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. on allegations the company has sought to strong-arm concert venues into using its Ticketmaster subsidiary, according to people familiar with the matter.

The department believes the concert-promotion giant’s conduct has violated the merger settlement Live Nation and the dominant ticket seller reached with the government in 2010, the people said. Under that agreement, the department’s antitrust division allowed the companies to combine, but required them to abide by conditions designed to keep consumer prices in check by preserving competition in the music and ticketing industries.

As ticket prices have risen, critics have questioned whether the settlement has worked as intended. It is due to expire next year, but the Justice Department now plans to ask a judge to extend the restrictions by several years and prevent the alleged coercive conduct by Live Nation, the people said.

Live Nation’s chief executive has publicly denied that the company has violated its agreement. The company and the Justice Department have engaged in talks but haven’t settled their differences, people familiar with the matter said.

Details about the department’s specific concerns couldn’t immediately be learned.

The Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger consolidated two of the most powerful forces in the music industry. Ticketmaster holds an estimated 80% of its market, according to people in the concert industry. As the world’s largest concert promoter, Live Nation organizes live music events by booking talent, securing venues, setting ticket prices and marketing shows. It has also built a robust artist-management business.

The merger faced opposition at the time it was announced in 2009, and the decision by the Obama-era Justice Department to allow the deal with a settlement wasn’t well-received in some industry and consumer circles. Critics who say U.S. antitrust enforcement has been too lax often point to the merger as one where the government should have taken a harder line to protect consumers.

In the past decade, and particularly over the past few years, ticket prices have soared—increasing by nearly 50% since 2009 to $92.42 on average for the top 100 tours world-wide, according to Pollstar.

The settlement, known as a consent decree, forbid Live Nation from forcing venues that want to book the concert promoter’s tours to use Ticketmaster for those shows, and from retaliating when venues choose to use a ticketing competitor instead.

The deal also required Ticketmaster to license its technology to Anschutz Entertainment Group, the distant No. 2 concert promoter, to build a competitive ticketing platform. That ticketing service, AXS, has had limited success outside of AEG’s own venues.

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, confirmed during a September Senate hearing that the department was investigating allegations that Live Nation had been violating the decree.

Typically, venues ranging from nightclubs and theaters to arenas and stadiums enter long-term contracts giving a ticketing provider the exclusive right to sell tickets to any event they host. Over the years, Live Nation’s competitors have accused it of using its market power as a concert promoter and artist manager to coerce venues into using Ticketmaster or risk losing out on lucrative bookings.

While in theory advances in new technology have made it easier for other ticketing companies to challenge Ticketmaster, in practice few venues have defected from their longstanding contracts with the giant, according to people in the industry. Almost 10 years since the decree was put in place, Ticketmaster has no serious competitor.

Live Nation previously dismissed the calls for investigation as based on a misunderstanding of the decree and ticketing-industry dynamics. Speaking at a conference in September, Live Nation Chief Executive Michael Rapino said the decree allows the company to make decisions that are “right for our business,” and that booking a Live Nation tour date at a venue that uses a ticketing provider other than Ticketmaster may not make economic sense for the company. He acknowledged that competitors have raised flags to the Justice Department, but said the company had never been found to engage in wrongdoing.

“We have no fear that we have any systematic issues. We’re very compliant,” he said.

The company has been facing fire from Congress as well as the Justice Department.

In August, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) and Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) asked the Justice Department to investigate the state of competition in ticketing, focusing on the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger.

“Live Nation’s dominance in the sector raises serious antitrust concerns. I’m glad that the Department of Justice is preparing to take action,” Ms. Klobuchar said Friday.

Earlier this month, four House lawmakers sent a letter to the department that expressed concerns about the merger, saying, “Our constituents are facing significantly increased live event prices and a lack of meaningful alternatives to purchase tickets to live events.”

The signatories were Reps. Ken Buck (R., Colo.), Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), Lucy McBath (D., Ga.) and James Sensenbrenner (R., Wis.).

The Justice Department rarely has sued companies for alleged violations of antitrust consent decrees, but Mr. Delrahim has publicly voiced the need for companies to abide by their commitments. He has called for changes in decree language that would make it easier for the department to establish violations in court, and to force merged companies to pay the government’s costs in enforcing merger settlements.

The Live Nation decree has arisen recently in a second context with the Justice Department. The company has asked the department for permission to explore a transaction involving Rival, a ticketing company launched last year by former Ticketmaster CEO Nathan Hubbard, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decree requires Live Nation to give notice of any potential transactions with a ticketing company so the department can investigate the competitive effects of such a deal.

Mr. Hubbard led Ticketmaster for four years after the merger.

Mr. Hubbard, whose efforts attracted high-profile backers including top Silicon Valley venture-capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Santa Monica, Calif.-based Upfront Ventures, envisioned that fully digitizing tickets could address inefficiencies in how live events operate and make them safer by connecting identity, payment and location data.

He built the aptly named Rival to be what he hoped would be a serious competitor in ticketing.

[mickaelmosse]

Now that Visa has abandoned its anticompetitive merger, Plaid and other future fintech innovators are free to develop potential alternatives to Visa's online debit services," Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a statement. "With more competition, consumers can expect lower prices and better services.

[videogamesincolor]

On Monday, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim announced an unexpected policy change for the Justice Department’s antitrust division: a reversal of the Paramount Decree of 1948. This decision comes on the heels of broader public concerns surrounding monopolies, after the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, and of Disney and 21st Century Fox. It also follows the now-constant beating of the drums for the government to break up massive companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Delrahim’s decision on the Paramount Decree reflects part of a larger department policy to review hundreds of legal orders that some refer to as “horse and buggy” policies — ones so old that they no longer actually apply to the businesses they regulate.

[...] The decision, which the DOJ will bring to federal courts for a review, would allow companies in the movie business to not just buy movie theaters, but to use them in unexpected ways that could compound current concerns surrounding competition and market share in the industry. Your theatrical viewing options may already seem dominated by too few companies making the same type of movie. And this could make the problem worse.

[politiciandirect]

Exclusive--Jeff Landry: State Attorneys General 'Have Had Enough' of Big Tech

Exclusive–Jeff Landry: State Attorneys General ‘Have Had Enough’ of Big Tech

Louisiana Attorney General (AG) Jeff Landry told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview Wednesday that many state attorneys general have “had enough” of big tech, and they will “take action” after significant investigations.

AG Landry spoke with Breitbart News as a Wall Street Journal report revealedthat many state attorneys general could launch an antitrust investigation into America’s…

[amostexcellentblog]

The Justice Department said on Monday that it planned to overturn antitrust-related movie distribution rules from the early days of Hollywood, citing an entertainment landscape that has been radically reshaped by technology.

“We cannot pretend that the business of film distribution and exhibition remains the same,” Makan Delrahim, the antitrust chief at the Justice Department, said at an American Bar Association conference in Washington. “Changes over the course of more than half a century also have made it unlikely that the remaining defendants can reinstate their cartel.”

The film distribution rules, known as the Paramount consent decrees, were enacted in 1949, a year after the United States Supreme Court ruled that Hollywood’s eight largest studios could not own theaters, and thus control the film business. The regulations made it illegal for studios to unreasonably limit the number of theaters in one geographical area that could play a movie. They also banned “block booking,” a bundling practice where studios forced theaters to play their bad movies along with their good ones or not play any.

Been thinking about this old court case a lot recently, because you know I’m cool like that. Specifically in relation to Disney+ and how it could be OK for a studio to own one type of distribution method (a streaming service) and not for it to own another kind (movie theaters). 

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the DOJ is suddenly moving to strike these rules from the record right as the studios ramp up their streaming services. And yet...

[dmitridiakov]

Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s head of antitrust, removed himself from examining the search giant over a conflict of interest, people with knowledge of the situation said.