Thread

1. Cipater · 1790861369 · focus · HN ↗

   They just need to hire the right lobbyists, get a meeting at the White House, agree on the terms and call it a settlement.

   And if the FTC chair is not agreeable, they will be threatened by said lobbyists and eventually be fired.

   If this sounds far-fetched, it is exactly what happened to Gail Slater, then-head of the DOJ's antitrust division and her deputies in 2025 over HPE’s bid to acquire Juniper.

   Wall Street Journal archive link: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;IMer9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;IMer9

   1. palmotea · 1790871791 · focus · HN ↗

      &gt; They just need to hire the right lobbyists, get a meeting at the White House, agree on the terms and call it a settlement.

      I wonder if this is just self-consciously a self-dealing thing explicitly designed to block off further investigations. Clear them, then they can&#x27;t be properly investigated for that activity in the future.

      1. SpicyLemonZest · 1790872957 · focus · HN ↗

         It doesn&#x27;t really work that way, although I wouldn&#x27;t rule out someone in the administration thinking it does. There&#x27;s nothing an FTC investigator can do to &quot;clear them&quot; in a way that would prevent a future investigation for future instances of the same activity. An FTC decision not to bring a complaint or to request only trivial damages doesn&#x27;t create a binding precedent for similar investigations later.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.