Comments on: Bizarre politics of the Google-DoubleClick deal

Federal antitrust law for mergers worries about things like anticompetitive effects, market power, and harm to consumers--not privacy.

[coryschulz]

My Perspective

If Google is relying on our personal information (which we willfully give up to them) to generate ad based revenue, then it is in the best interest of Google to protect the stream of information (our private data) from outside sources to prevent other companies from accessing it and using it to their advantage, as well as to retain the loyalty and trust of the users who are providing the information and ensure the security of Google's proposed system.

To put it simply, if Google exposes our data or shares it with other companies, Google is only hurting itself and it would be like shooting itself in the foot (or the face). Google is not dumb. They would not do this. Their reputation is also favorable in that we've been able to trust them so far. I say, let them have their DoubleClick deal. What's good for Google is probably good for all of us.

[samNYC]

Actually, not such a legal stretch

Good points....except that the FTC does not enforce the Sherman or Clayton Act, but rather Sec 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices. Section 5 has been used as as basis for challenging mergers (and other antitrust violations) by the FTC's Bureau of Competition AND for the basis of consumer protection actions -- INCLUDING PRIVACY MATTERS, by the the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection...

See
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/promises.html

Thus, although odd, I think the FTC has a much better legal argument than the Justice Dept. could make that it can block the merger on privacy consideration..As for POLICY, that's a different story

[declan00]

Section 5

Two thoughts:

* The Supreme Court has ruled that Sec 5 of the FTC Act encompasses the Sherman Act (it may be more extensive but it is no less extensive). And you're wrong to say the the FTC does not enforce the Clayton Act -- hell, the FTC is even mentioned by name in it!

* You're right to point out that the right analysis includes Sec 5's unfair or deceptive practices (UADP) language. But if Company A is not engaging in any UADP, and Company B is not engaging in any UADP, it strikes me as odd to think that the combination entails UADP.