Comment by jordanb
6 days ago
From googling apparently the "presiding officer" is appointed by the FTC chair. So it sounds like the FTC spiked its own case.
6 days ago
From googling apparently the "presiding officer" is appointed by the FTC chair. So it sounds like the FTC spiked its own case.
It was Lina Khan. She just felt strongly about going out the way she came in — losing every single case.
Illumina, Tapestry, Kroger, Lockheed Martin would disagree.
Also, didn’t she „build“ the right to repair laws?
There is a new FTC administration.
I interpret this as being the incoming FTC wanted to kill this but not withdrawal (due to bad optics).
They wanted to lose the case and did so by changing a judgment they controlled so that the rule could fail a legal procedural challenge.
It better fits the facts that the incoming FTC wants this, but they want to do the job right. At least some of the incoming FTC was in place when they rule was passed in the first place and their statements then say they wanted the rule but they wanted the correct procedures done so that it would stand up in court.
3 replies →