Bill Overview
Title: State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2022
Description: This bill limits the transfer and consolidation of antitrust cases that are brought by states in federal court. Current law generally permits federal civil cases that are related to be transferred to a single district court and consolidated for pretrial proceedings. However, under current law, antitrust cases brought by the federal government are exempt from transfer and consolidation. This bill adds to that exemption antitrust cases brought by states.
Sponsors: Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO-4]
Target Audience
Population: People globally who are affected by antitrust laws and their enforcement
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill focuses on the legal procedures related to antitrust cases brought by states in federal courts.
- Changes in legal procedures for antitrust cases can affect businesses that are subject to these laws.
- The bill aims to limit the transfer and consolidation of antitrust cases, which could impact how cases are prosecuted.
- State governments initiating antitrust actions are directly affected as the bill changes their legal strategy options.
- Consumers could potentially be impacted due to changes in how state antitrust cases are prosecuted, affecting market competition.
Reasoning
- The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act impacts state-level legal procedures without direct financial cost implications for individuals; the effects are legal and procedural, influencing case outcomes.
- Businesses subject to antitrust laws may see a direct impact on their operations, legal strategies, and compliance costs.
- State governments bringing antitrust cases have altered legal pathways, potentially impacting their operational budgets and litigation strategies.
- Consumers could benefit or suffer from the policy depending on how it affects market competition and consumer choice.
- Individuals such as judges, lawyers, and legal clerks in state jurisdictions might see changes in their workloads and job stress levels depending on case management changes.
Simulated Interviews
Attorney specializing in antitrust law (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new policy is likely to decentralize some of the legal workflows at the federal level.
- It may increase the caseload at state levels, requiring more resources and strategic planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small business owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might support fairer competition, preventing big players from using legal advantages against smaller businesses.
- I hope this encourages more fair pricing and markets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected by the policy, but healthier market competition could lead more tech companies to thrive.
- It would be good if antitrust laws help level the playing field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired judge (Charleston, WV)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This Act honors state autonomy by respecting our courts to manage cases.
- It might complicate coordination with federal judges, but that's manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Corporate legal advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase the scrutiny on larger corporations like ours.
- We'll need to allocate more resources to state-specific legal strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Public policy analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could enhance the power of states to address monopolistic practices locally.
- Monitoring how states adapt and respond will be important for future assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
State government employee (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Limiting case transfers allows us to manage antitrust actions more effectively at the state level.
- Coordination between states might require additional effort but is possible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
E-commerce entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a small business owner, any chance for fairer competition is welcome.
- I hope this policy helps prevent unfair practices by larger competitors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Academic researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might open new avenues for research on state versus federal impacts on antitrust case outcomes.
- It encourages decentralized approaches to legal challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Consumer rights activist (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy strengthens states' hands in fighting monopolistic practices, hopefully benefiting consumers.
- More competition could mean better prices and services for the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $76500000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $78030000)
Year 5: $54080800 (Low: $32448480, High: $81121200)
Year 10: $59384888 (Low: $35630928, High: $89182128)
Year 100: $98639888 (Low: $59183928, High: $148959328)
Key Considerations
- The administrative burden on federal courts may increase due to handling more individual cases instead of consolidated ones.
- State governments may require additional legal resources to handle antitrust cases independently.
- Potential improvement in antitrust case outcomes due to more localized management by states, possibly leading to better market competition.