Bill Overview
Title: State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021
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: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals and businesses involved in state-initiated antitrust cases
Estimated Size: 200000
- The legislation relates to the consolidation of antitrust cases in federal courts.
- Currently, individuals and firms involved in federal antitrust cases initiated by the government do not face case transfer and consolidation.
- The bill extends this provision to cases initiated by states, potentially reducing such transfers and consolidations for those cases.
- Individuals, businesses, and lawyers involved in state-initiated antitrust actions may see changes in where and how cases are conducted.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts individuals and businesses involved in state-initiated antitrust cases.
- Most Americans will not directly interact with or even be aware of these cases, leading to a low commonness score for direct impacts.
- Wellbeing change is likely more noticeable among smaller businesses and legal professionals directly engaged in such litigation.
- The policy reduces the administrative burden for states, which might streamline the legal proceedings for involved parties.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could make certain cases faster, reducing client frustration and legal fees.
- It levels the playing field between state and federal cases to some extent.
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 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could help avoid being dragged into lengthy federal cases if state is involved.
- Less legal costs and time means more focus on business growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure about immediate impacts, but simplification in legal processes is welcomed.
- I hope this means less bureaucracy to deal with if issues would arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Judge (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this aligns with justice efficiency.
- It ensures state's cases get fair proceedings.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Corporate Executive (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's uncertain how this will affect larger cases involving multiple states.
- We prefer unified federal handling for consistency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Antitrust Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy may lead to more diverse case law due to state-level handling.
- It's an interesting area of study for future impacts on competitive landscapes.
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 | 6 |
Paralegal (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The change means potentially less travel for court appearances.
- Could simplify case research depending on state guidelines.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Economist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act reflects states' increasing roles in economic regulation—which is fascinating.
- Impacts on economic efficiency and market competition are worth observing.
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 |
State Attorney General Staff (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act aids in pursuing state laws without the delay of federal consolidation.
- It empowers state legal systems.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Researcher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This development should be a target for longitudinal studies.
- The future impacts on businesses could alter existing litigation strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy primarily impacts legal procedure rather than direct economic activity.
- Managing multiple, non-consolidated cases could strain state resources minimally.
- Broader economic impacts are limited by the specialized nature of the cases affected.