Building on the Muris and Pitofsky Years: Evolving Remedies from "Time-Outs" to Civil Penalties (Not the Third Rail of Antitrust)

Speech by Jon Leibowitz

Thank you, Bert, for that warm introduction. It is a pleasure to be here today. Before I get started, I'd like to make the usual disclaimer: the views expressed here today do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission or of any other Commissioner.

The AAI wants me to talk about the Muris and Pitofsky years, but let me begin by offering my own tribute to today's honoree, Tom Leary.

Though I have been at the Commission a relatively short time, it has been both a privilege and an honor to be able to work with Tom—one of antitrust's most insightful thinkers. He is truly the center of gravity on the Commission, and the tremendous respect he enjoys is well-deserved.

I have been asked to speak today about evolving antitrust remedies. It is always a pleasure to tout the past accomplishments—and even to discuss the occasional missteps—of the Commission and staff in enforcing the nation's antitrust laws, and to anticipate where the agency's wealth of experience, intellect, and creativity might take us. I'd like to do this by outlining briefly some of the remedies employed by the Commission, then making some observations about how the Commission has employed them, and finally, speculating about the evolution of future relief.


About the Author

Jon Leibowitz. Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission.

Citation

80 Tul. L. Rev. 595 (2005)