In the sprawling, often arcane world of antitrust law, a quiet revolution is underway. Its architect is not a grizzled veteran of corporate courtrooms but a remarkably young legal scholar named Lina Khan. Appointed as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Khan has become the most prominent and polarizing figure in a global movement to rethink the very foundations of competition policy. Her rise signals a fundamental shift away from a half-century of established doctrine, challenging the power of the world’s largest technology firms and other corporate giants with a vigor not seen in decades. This is not merely a change in enforcement; it is a philosophical battle for the soul of the American economy, and Lina Khan is its most potent symbol. Lina Khan

Her journey from a law student publishing a seminal academic paper to one of the most powerful regulators in the United States is a story of intellectual conviction meeting political opportunity. It is a narrative that has ignited hope among those who believe economic concentration stifles innovation, exploits workers, and undermines democracy. Simultaneously, it has sparked fierce criticism from those who view her approach as a dangerous and regressive departure from consumer welfare. To understand the seismic shifts occurring in boardrooms and courtrooms today, one must understand Lina Khan—her ideas, her mission, and the profound implications of her work. Lina Khan

Lina Khan has brought a new intensity and philosophical approach to antitrust enforcement as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission.

The Making of a Modern Trustbuster

Lina Khan’s path to the pinnacle of American regulatory power is unconventional. Born in London to Pakistani parents in 1989, she moved to the United States with her family as a child. Her interest in the structures of power and market dynamics was sparked not in law school, but earlier, while studying at Williams College. It was during this time that she witnessed the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, an event that laid bare the consequences of concentrated economic power and inadequate regulation. This experience planted the seeds of skepticism towards the prevailing wisdom that unfettered markets always self-correct for the greater good. Lina Khan

She carried these questions to Yale Law School, where she found a community of scholars and thinkers who were also challenging the neoliberal consensus. The environment at Yale was fertile ground for her burgeoning ideas. It was here that she fully immersed herself in the history of antitrust law, tracing its roots back to the Sherman Act of 1890 and the trustbusting era of President Theodore Roosevelt. She saw that American antitrust was originally conceived not just to protect consumers from high prices, but to safeguard the entire economic ecosystem from the corrosive effects of monopoly power—including its impact on competitors, suppliers, and the political process itself. This historical understanding would become the bedrock of her entire legal framework. Lina Khan

Her time at Yale was also spent in practical application. She worked with the Open Markets Institute, an organization dedicated to studying and combating monopolization, where she further honed her arguments. This combination of deep historical scholarship, real-world policy advocacy, and a formative understanding of systemic economic failure coalesced to create the unique perspective she would soon unleash upon the world of competition law. She was not just learning the rules of the game; she was preparing to rewrite them entirely. Lina Khan

The Academic Earthquake: “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox”

In 2017, while still a law student, Lina Khan published a paper in the Yale Law Journal that would instantly become a landmark in legal scholarship. Titled “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” the article was a direct and devastating critique of the modern consumer welfare standard that had dominated antitrust enforcement since the 1970s. This standard, championed by legal scholars like Robert Bork, held that the primary, and often sole, goal of antitrust law should be to promote consumer welfare, typically measured through short-term effects on price. Under this framework, if prices were low, a company was considered benign, even if it held a dominant market position. Lina Khan

Khan’s paper argued that this framework was utterly inadequate for the modern economy, particularly for digital platforms like Amazon. She demonstrated that Amazon could maintain low prices for consumers while engaging in deeply predatory and anti-competitive behavior. The company could cross-subsidize its operations, using profits from one part of its empire to fund below-cost pricing in another, thereby strangling competitors. It could exploit its dual role as a marketplace and a retailer, using data from third-party sellers to launch its own competing products and give them preferential placement. The consumer welfare standard was blind to these harms because the immediate price to the buyer remained low.

The paper proposed a return to the structuralist approach of the mid-20th century, which focused on the danger of concentrated market power per se. Khan argued that the structure of a market matters profoundly. A platform that controls essential infrastructure, like Amazon does with e-commerce or Google with search, can act as a gatekeeper, extracting rents from every participant in the ecosystem and stifling innovation in the long run. This control, she contended, leads to a transfer of wealth from producers to the platform, erodes entrepreneurial opportunity, and creates a deeply unbalanced economy. Her paper was a clarion call, providing the intellectual ammunition for a new generation of activists, politicians, and regulators who had long felt that the tech giants had become too powerful but lacked the legal vocabulary to confront them. Lina Khan

“The ‘Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox’ was not just another law review article; it was the manifesto for a new movement. It gave a name and a legal theory to the unease many felt about the power of Big Tech.”

The Rise of the Neo-Brandeis Movement

Lina Khan quickly became the public face of a burgeoning school of thought that journalists and scholars dubbed the “Neo-Brandeis Movement.” This name is a direct reference to Louis Brandeis, the early 20th-century Supreme Court Justice and fierce critic of monopoly power, who famously declared that Americans could have “democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” The Neo-Brandeis movement, also sometimes called “Hipster Antitrust,” seeks to revive this Brandeisian vision, arguing that antitrust law should serve a broader set of goals than just consumer prices. Lina Khan

The movement’s core belief is that economic concentration is a fundamental threat to a healthy republic. Its proponents argue that monopolies and oligopolies distort politics through outsized lobbying power, crush small businesses and entrepreneurship, suppress workers’ wages, and ultimately undermine individual liberty. For them, the consumer welfare standard is a dangerously narrow lens that has allowed for an unprecedented consolidation of power across numerous industries, from airlines and pharmaceuticals to agriculture and, most visibly, technology. They advocate for a return to an era where regulators actively policed market structures to ensure a competitive and decentralized economy.

Khan’s work, along with that of other key figures like Tim Wu and Barry Lynn, provided the intellectual foundation for this movement. It moved the debate out of academic journals and into the mainstream political discourse. The movement found a receptive audience among both progressive Democrats and some populist Republicans who shared a skepticism of Big Tech’s influence. This growing political momentum created the conditions for Khan’s eventual appointment to the FTC, first as a commissioner in 2021 and then, within months, as its Chair by President Joe Biden. Her ascent was a clear signal that the Biden administration was embracing the Neo-Brandeis agenda and was prepared to wield antitrust law as a tool for broader economic and social reform. Lina Khan

*The Neo-Brandeis movement draws direct inspiration from the trustbusters of the early 20th century, applying their principles to modern digital monopolies.*

The Legal Arsenal: Key Theories and Arguments

The battle Lina Khan is waging is not just one of enforcement intensity but of legal philosophy. Her approach relies on a toolkit of revived and reinterpreted legal theories that had fallen out of favor. Understanding these theories is key to understanding the cases her FTC is bringing and the long-term strategy she is pursuing. It is a conscious effort to move the law backward in order to move the economy forward. Lina Khan

One of the most important tools in this arsenal is the focus on “structural presumptions.” This theory suggests that certain market structures are inherently suspicious. If a company achieves a dominant market share or acts as an essential gateway for commerce, it should be presumed to be anti-competitive, shifting the burden onto the company to prove otherwise. This is a direct challenge to the current practice, where regulators must prove specific consumer harm in each individual case, a high bar that has allowed many mergers and monopolistic practices to proceed unchallenged. Lina Khan

Another critical concept is the revival of “conglomerate effects” and the “incipiency” doctrine from the Clayton Act. This involves looking at the potential for future harm, rather than waiting for a monopoly to be fully formed and consumers to be directly hurt. For example, a merger might not immediately raise prices, but if it allows a tech giant to acquire a nascent competitor or a vast trove of data that could be used to entrench its dominance, it could be illegal under this doctrine. This forward-looking perspective is essential for regulating fast-moving digital markets where competitive threats can be neutralized before they ever truly emerge. Lina Khan

Furthermore, Khan’s FTC is aggressively using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition.” This statute is broader than the Sherman Act and does not require proving all the elements of a traditional antitrust violation like monopolization. The agency is arguing that practices like restrictive contracting, data hoarding, and self-preferencing on platforms can be “unfair” even if their anti-competitive effects are complex and multifaceted. This expansive interpretation gives the FTC more flexibility to target novel business practices that the older antitrust statutes were not designed to address. This is the legal bedrock upon which her entire campaign rests, and so on, representing a fundamental reimagining of the regulator’s role. Lina Khan

Landmark Cases and Regulatory Actions

Under Lina Khan’s leadership, the FTC has embarked on an ambitious and aggressive litigation agenda, taking on some of the most powerful corporations in the world. These cases are the practical application of her academic theories, and their outcomes will likely define the boundaries of antitrust law for a generation. They are high-stakes, high-profile battles that test the legal limits of the Neo-Brandeis movement. Lina Khan

The most significant of these is the FTC’s lawsuit against Facebook (now Meta). The agency, along with a coalition of state attorneys general, alleges that the company illegally maintained its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anti-competitive conduct, primarily its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The suit argues that Facebook recognized these companies as competitive threats and neutralized them by buying them, a classic case of using mergers to kill potential rivals before they can grow. The FTC is seeking a monumental remedy: the forced divestiture of Instagram and WhatsApp, effectively breaking up the company. This case is a direct test of the “incipiency” doctrine and the government’s ability to unwind consummated mergers years after the fact. Lina Khan

Similarly, the FTC has moved to block several major mergers, signaling a much lower tolerance for consolidation. The attempt to prevent Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard was a clear message that even mergers between companies that are not direct competitors will face intense scrutiny if they threaten to overly consolidate an important industry, in this case, gaming. While the FTC ultimately lost its bid for a preliminary injunction, the very act of challenging this deal demonstrated a new level of regulatory assertiveness. The agency has also sued to block Nvidia’s acquisition of Arm Ltd., a crucial chip designer, citing profound concerns about the future of competition in the semiconductor industry.

Beyond mergers, the FTC is also targeting specific business practices. It has a pending case against Amazon, alleging that the company illegally maintains its monopoly power by punishing sellers who offer lower prices elsewhere, effectively forcing them to use Amazon’s fulfillment services and locking them into its ecosystem. This case aims directly at the core of Amazon’s business model, challenging the very practices Khan outlined in her seminal paper. These actions, collectively, represent a comprehensive assault on the status quo, using every available legal tool to reshape the competitive landscape. Lina Khan

Company	Nature of FTC Action	Core Allegation
Meta (Facebook)	Lawsuit seeking divestiture	Illegal monopoly maintenance via acquisition of Instagram & WhatsApp
Amazon	Lawsuit	Anti-competitive practices that lock in sellers and inflate prices
Microsoft	Attempted to block merger	Acquisition of Activision Blizzard would harm competition in gaming
Nvidia	Attempted to block merger	Acquisition of Arm Ltd. would stifle innovation in key chip markets

The Tech Titan Pushback and Legal Challenges

Unsurprisingly, Lina Khan’s aggressive agenda has provoked a fierce and well-funded counteroffensive from the corporations she is targeting and their allies. This pushback takes many forms, from legal challenges and public relations campaigns to more subtle political lobbying. The companies argue that Khan’s approach is misguided, anti-innovation, and ultimately harmful to the very consumers and workers she claims to protect. Lina Khan

A central line of attack has been to question the very legal foundation of the FTC’s actions. Companies like Meta and Amazon have filed motions arguing that Khan has a “prejudged” their cases due to her extensive prior criticism of their business models, creating a conflict of interest that should disqualify her from voting on or overseeing these matters. The courts have so far been largely unreceptive to these arguments, but they highlight the personal nature of the battle. The tech giants are attempting to frame Khan not as a neutral regulator but as an ideologue with a pre-ordained conclusion, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the FTC’s actions. Lina Khan

Beyond the courtroom, a massive lobbying and public relations effort is underway to shape the narrative. Tech industry groups and their supporters argue that the Neo-Brandeis movement is a “Luddite” reaction to successful American companies. They contend that breaking up large tech firms or heavily regulating them will stifle the innovation that has driven economic growth, hamstring American companies in competition with China, and ultimately deprive consumers of popular, convenient, and often free services. They warn of a return to a slower, less dynamic economy. Lina Khan

Furthermore, these companies are leveraging their immense resources to mount formidable legal defenses. They hire the most expensive and skilled lawyers, engage armies of economic experts to counter the FTC’s arguments, and exploit every procedural avenue to delay and complicate the litigation. Antitrust cases are famously slow and complex, and the defendants are betting that they can outlast the political will for this new regulatory era. They are fighting a war of attrition, hoping that a change in administration or a series of court losses will force the FTC to retreat. The outcome of this struggle is far from certain. Lina Khan

The courtroom has become the primary battleground where Lina Khan’s theories are being tested against the legal firepower of the world’s most valuable companies.

Global Ripples: Khan’s Influence on International Regulation

The impact of Lina Khan’s work is not confined to the borders of the United States. Her ideas have resonated with regulators and policymakers across the globe, many of whom were already grappling with the same challenges posed by American tech giants. Her tenure at the FTC has provided intellectual credibility and political cover for a more aggressive international regulatory posture, helping to catalyze a worldwide movement. Federal Trade Commission: About the FTC

In Europe, where regulators have been somewhat more proactive than their U.S. counterparts for years, Khan’s influence is still palpable. The European Union’s landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA) embody many of the principles she advocates. These new laws proactively designate the largest tech platforms as “gatekeepers” and impose a list of dos and don’ts on them, including prohibitions on self-preferencing and requirements for interoperability. This is a classic structural and ex-ante (before the fact) approach, moving away from the slow, case-by-case litigation that has characterized U.S. enforcement. European officials have openly cited Khan’s work as an inspiration for this more systemic regulatory framework.

The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also become notably more assertive, often acting in concert with the FTC. The parallel investigations and joint lawsuits, such as the one against Facebook, demonstrate a new era of transatlantic regulatory cooperation. This coordination is crucial because it prevents tech companies from playing one jurisdiction off against another. When the U.S. and EU act together, it creates a global standard that is much harder for any single corporation to circumvent. Other countries, from Japan and Australia to India and South Korea, are also drafting new competition laws inspired by this new wave of thinking, creating a patchwork of global regulations that will fundamentally alter how tech giants operate worldwide. Khan’s leadership has helped create a cohesive international front.

Criticisms and the Road Ahead

For all her influence and the enthusiasm of her supporters, Lina Khan faces a formidable array of criticisms and obstacles. Her project is ambitious, and its success is far from guaranteed. The road ahead is paved with legal, political, and practical challenges that could ultimately limit her impact or even lead to a reversal of her policies.

A primary criticism, often voiced by more centrist economists and legal scholars, is that Khan’s approach is “anti-innovation.” They argue that the threat of breakups and constant regulatory scrutiny will deter investment in new technologies and startups, as the potential for a lucrative acquisition by a larger company is a key driver of venture capital funding. They contend that the consumer welfare standard, for all its flaws, provided a clear and predictable legal environment, whereas the Neo-Brandeis framework is vague, unpredictable, and prone to political manipulation.

Politically, Khan’s position is inherently precarious. Her authority derives from the presidency, and a change in administration in 2024 could lead to her immediate removal as Chair. Even if she remains a commissioner, a new Republican-led FTC could quickly reverse her policies and drop the major lawsuits she has initiated. Furthermore, the courts, which have been dominated by conservative judges for a generation, may be philosophically opposed to her reinterpretation of antitrust law. A series of adverse court rulings could create binding legal precedents that would cripple the Neo-Brandeis movement for decades, cementing the consumer welfare standard even more firmly than before.

Finally, there is the sheer practical difficulty of her task. Dismantling or constraining behemoths that are deeply embedded in the global economy is an incredibly complex undertaking. Even if she wins her lawsuit against Meta, unwinding the integration of Instagram and WhatsApp after more than a decade would be a logistical and technical nightmare. The potential for unintended consequences is high. Despite these challenges, Lina Khan has already succeeded in one paramount objective: she has irrevocably changed the conversation around corporate power and competition, forcing a long-overdue debate about the kind of economy we want for the future.

The Enduring Legacy of Lina Khan

Whether her specific lawsuits ultimately succeed or fail in court, Lina Khan’s legacy is already secure. She has accomplished what few legal scholars ever do: she has moved her ideas from the pages of an academic journal to the center of national and global policy. She has galvanized a movement, empowered a regulatory agency that had grown cautious, and forced the world’s most powerful companies onto the defensive. Her tenure marks the end of a forty-year consensus and the beginning of a new, more contentious chapter in the relationship between government and big business.

Her most significant achievement may be the intellectual shift she has engineered. The question is no longer if giant corporations should be regulated, but how. The debate now actively considers the effects of monopoly on workers, suppliers, democracy, and innovation, not just on consumer prices. She has given a voice to a widespread, inchoate sense that the economy has become unbalanced and that the rules of the game are rigged in favor of a few. By providing a coherent and historically-grounded framework, she has turned that sentiment into a viable political and legal project.

The final chapter of this story has yet to be written. The legal battles will take years to resolve, and the political winds will inevitably shift. But Lina Khan has demonstrated that determined intellectual force, coupled with official power, can challenge even the most entrenched status quo. She has redefined the role of a regulator for the 21st century, acting not as a passive referee but as an active architect of market structure. In doing so, she has become the defining trustbuster for a new Gilded Age, a symbol of a renewed willingness to ask the most fundamental question of all: Who controls the American economy?

The ultimate impact of Lina Khan’s work will be determined by courts, future administrations, and the ongoing public debate over corporate power.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

https://searchoncemore.com/michael-beckenbauer/