Bill Overview
Title: Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits certain business mergers, modifies the procedures for reviewing mergers, and establishes procedures for reversing certain mergers. Specifically, the bill prohibits mergers that (1) are valued at more than $5 billion in total assets, (2) result in the acquiring entity having a market share of greater than 33% (or a share of a labor market as an employer of greater than 25%), or (3) result in market concentration levels that exceed specified thresholds. The bill also expands the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review pending mergers, including whether a merger is likely to harm the competitive process and the effect of a merger on relevant labor markets. Finally, the bill authorizes the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the DOJ to retroactively unwind mergers that are prohibited under the bill or that meet certain other anticompetitive criteria such as a merger that results in a greater than 50% share of a relevant market.
Sponsors: Rep. Jones, Mondaire [D-NY-17]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by business mergers globally
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill targets large business mergers, specifically those valued over $5 billion or those which create significant market concentration.
- Consumers are impacted by such mergers as they often lead to higher prices, less choice, and reduced innovation.
- Employees in companies involved in mergers can face job insecurity or changes in employment terms if mergers lead to monopolistic behavior in labor markets.
- Companies that might consider merging or have merged could be under scrutiny, potentially influencing their business strategies.
- The bill gives expanded oversight to the FTC and DOJ, affecting their operational focus and resources.
- Businesses across numerous sectors including technology, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications might be impacted due to common involvement in large mergers.
- The broader economy could be affected as market conditions may change due to restrictions on mergers.
Reasoning
- Consumers, employees, and businesses involved in or affected by large mergers are the primary focus of this policy.
- It is crucial to include voices from different economic sectors like technology, pharmaceuticals, and telecommunications, as mergers are common in these areas.
- The policy has significant budgetary allocations, targeting a large number of firms and associated employees across the country.
- The U.S. market's size and its substantial contribution to global mergers necessitate this policy, influencing both national and international business dynamics.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is good as it will ensure fair competition.
- I worry a bit about potential job restructuring if a merger is unwound.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Pharmaceutical Sales Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill could create more stability in our job market, preventing major layoffs.
- There’s concern over how difficult it will become to merge even when it might be necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m concerned about the additional bureaucracy this policy creates.
- It might make some mergers more challenging to push through legitimately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Entrepreneur (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help small businesses like mine by limiting big mergers.
- Worried about limited exit strategies due to mergers being tougher.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Economist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could help mitigate monopolistic pressures in the economy.
- It needs to be carefully implemented to avoid overregulation.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Boston, MA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retrospective unwinding of mergers seems risky if not handled properly.
- The protection it offers to consumers and employees is reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Consumer (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might finally bring down prices and improve consumer choice.
- I worry slightly about indirect economic impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Data Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports job security against market-dominating mergers.
- There’s a risk that it might deter beneficial merger-led growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a policy that curbs the power of large businesses in my industry.
- I am concerned about how this will affect my suppliers who rely on large companies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill makes advising mergers more complex but necessary for fair competition.
- There might be initial disruption in the financial markets as people adjust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $420000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $520000000)
Year 3: $445000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $470000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $580000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $380000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $900000000)
Key Considerations
- Increased administrative costs for enhanced merger review capabilities.
- Potential for legal challenges from corporations trying to merge under the new guidelines.
- Possible reduction in innovation and investment among major corporations due to increased regulatory scrutiny.