 |
|
|
|||||
Last week, President Donald Trump fired more people as part of his ongoing quest to prevent the government from doing the basic work of governing. This time, his targets were the two remaining Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whose continued service Trump declared to be inconsistent with his agenda. Their terminations, along with the resignation of FTC Chair Lina Khan earlier this year, mean that three of the Commissions five seats are, at least for the time being, vacant. They also mean that only remaining members of the federal agency charged with promoting fair competition and protecting consumers from the worst excesses of corporate greed are Andrew Ferguson, the newly-promoted chair, and Melissa Holyoak, two Republicans who now can do more or less whatever they want. Bedoya and Slaughter have promised to sue, and for good reason: Firing commissioners without cause is, to use a technical term, extremely illegal. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which established the agency, commissioners serve seven-year terms, and presidents may only remove them for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these for-cause protections in Humphreys Executor v. United States, a case in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire an FTC member with whom he had political differencesin other words, exactly what Trump is trying to do almost a century later. Humphreys Executor is basic, first-year-of-law-school stuff; if this fact pattern were to appear on a final exam, every law student would answer correctly. Conservative activists, who abhor even modest impositions on executive power, have been whittling away at Humphreys Executor for years. Trumps attempts to fire Bedoya and Slaughter, among the other independent agency heads hes tried to dismiss of late, could be the Republican Partys best chance yet to dispose of what remains of this annoying constraint on his authority. Already, Trumps Department of Justice has said it wont defend Humphreys Executor in court, which is roughly the equivalent of holding up a giant sign outside Brett Kavanaughs house that says PLEASE OVERTURN ASAP. But Trump wants to do more than generate yet another test case to get the Courts conservative supermajority to get rid of yet another legal precedent the Republican Party doesnt like. Since President Joe Biden appointed Khan, then a 32-year-old antitrust lawyer, as the FTCs youngest-ever chair in 2021, conservatives have portrayed the Commission as an anti-capitalism supervillain, bemoaning its insistence on burdening virtuous corporations with onerous regulations that snarl the beautiful, frictionless operation of the free market. Firing Bedoya and Slaughter is one of Trumps many gifts to his plutocrat backers. If upheld in court, their terminations will make it easier for corporations to rip you off, and less likely that the government will do anything about it. Congress formed the Federal Trade Commission in response to the explosion of corporate power in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and charged the agency with preventing unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC publishes rules defining what practices, exactly, qualify as unfair or deceptive, and can sue companies that violate those rules. The rationale is simple: A basic premise of the U.S. economic systemthe notion that competition is good for everyoneunravels quickly when deep-pocketed players are free to jack up prices, suppress wages, squeeze out small businesses, defraud their customers, and otherwise manipulate the market. The FTC hasnt always lived up to its lofty promises. But Khan was far more aggressive than her predecessors about prosecuting anticompetitive practices, especially with respect to Big Tech, which had remained several steps ahead of a dated regulatory infrastructure ill-equipped to tackle all the ways that modern Silicon Valley behemoths grind competitors into dust. Under her leadership, the FTC brought high-profile lawsuits against Amazon and Meta, and reached a $150 million settlement with Twitter over alleged targeted-advertising privacy violations. When announcing a lawsuit against Amazon, which the FTC accused of squeezing third-party sellers on the platform while promoting its own products, Khan declined to rule out trying to break up the company or holding executives personally accountable for the alleged misconduct. Other aspects of the FTCs work had a more direct impact on consumers day-to-day lives. The agency passed a rule requiring companies to make it as easy to cancel subscriptions as it is to sign up, thus ending the days of desperately scouring Reddit for the number to an unlisted phone line that no one ever answers. Another rule requires sellers to disclose all those previously hidden junk fees that had a funny way of inflating ticket prices and vacation rental rates well beyond the advertised price. Perhaps the FTCs most significant recent accomplishment is a ban on the enforcement of noncompete agreements, which would free millions of employees to leave their jobs without fear of retribution, and by one estimate would raise wages by $300 billion per year. Corporate interests quickly challenged the rule, which is temporarily on ice as the case winds its way through the federal court system. Khans tenure earned plaudits from some politicians you might expect (Elizabeth Warren, who thanked her for showing what it loos like for the government to work for working people) and some you might not (JD Vance, who opined that Khan was doing a pretty good job in February 2024). But she infuriated the donor class, including the usual suspects on the rightthe Wall Street Journal alone has published more than 100 editorials, op-eds, and letters criticizing herand even some well-heeled Democratic fundraisers whod grown accustomed to permissive antitrust enforcement. The FTC, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, its analog for the banking and financial services industries, became reviled in boardrooms for doing the work of protecting normal people in this country at the expense of its oligarchs. Things, to put it mildly, have changed since Trumps re-election. After Khan stepped down, Trump elevated Ferguson, whom the Senate confirmed as a commissioner in 2023, to replace her. A former Senate staffer who worked on both of Trumps first-term impeachment defenses, Ferguson lobbied for Khans job by pitching himself to the White House as a Trump loyalist who would stop Lina Khans war on mergers, end Lina Khans politically motivated investigations, and thwart the anti-business, anti-innovation agenda of the radical left. He also said he would fight back against the trans agenda, because a prerequisite for getting Trumps attention is promising to inflict pain and suffering on members of a marginalized group. People whose outsized wealth and power felt threatened under Khan seem determined not to face such a nightmarish future again. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, whose companies have tangled with the FTC in recent years, are prostrating themselves at Trumps feet, writing seven-figure checks for his inauguration or, in Musks case, nine-figure checks in support of Trumps 2024 re-election bid. It is not a coincidence they are doing so as the FTC seeks Zuckerbergs testimony next month in its antitrust lawsuit against Meta, and prepares to take Amazon to trial this year over allegations that the company trapped customers in Prime subscriptions that were especially difficult to cancel. In an interview in January, Khan said she hoped the incoming administration would not offer a sweetheart deal to the tech executives cozying up to the president, but recognized that the matters were out of her hands. I cant predict what future people in my position are going to do, she said. Bedoya and Slaughter, the fired commissioners, have what feels like a pretty airtight case: a near-century-old Supreme Court precedent that protects their jobs through the end of their respective terms. Khan is backing her former colleagues, framing their blatantly illegal firings as evidence of the White Houses enthusiasm for selling out consumers to the highest bidder. If what we care about is freedom, and making sure that Americans enjoy real liberties, allowing big corporations to abuse peopleto bully them, to coerce themis so antithetical to that idea of freedom, she told MSNBCs Ali Velshi earlier this week. But precedent is only as useful as long as five justices are willing to uphold it, and this Supreme Court has functioned mostly as a rubber stamp for exercises of executive power, as long as the executive is Donald Trump. An eventual Supreme Court decision that empowers presidents to fire independent agency heads would further empower corporations to consolidate power and exploit regular people. In the meantime, Bedoya and Slaughters absence from the Federal Trade Commission will allow the Trump administration to get a nice head start.
Category:
E-Commerce
Natural disasters and extreme weather events are hammering America’s aging infrastructure. A new report lays out what the U.S. needs to do now to fix it, and it’s building more, better, and smarter infrastructure, from bridges, broadband, and dams to roads, levees, and parks. The United States has made slight improvements to its infrastructure, according to the report from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), a professional organization, but it still has a long ways to go, and it better pick up the pace because there are growing risks to public safety and the economy. The ASCE gave infrastructure in the U.S. a C grade, citing forward momentum, but the U.S. faces a “substantial investment gap,” according to the report. Its authors recommended policymakers and lawmakers take three steps to close the gap: sustain their investments, prioritize resilience, and advance policy and innovation. Sustain investment The new rating is up from C- in the group’s most recent report, released in 2021, and the ASCE cited the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that former President Joe Biden signed into law for prompting the improved grade. More than 66,000 projects were funded by the law, including repairs and improvements to more than 196,000 miles of road and improvements to more than 1,500 airports. The group called Biden’s law “the most comprehensive federal investment in the nations infrastructure in U.S. history,” but said it will take time to fully come into effect. “Recent federal and state investments have had a positive impact, but the full force of increased funding will take years to realize,” the report’s authors wrote. “Sustained investment is key to providing certainty and ensuring planning goes to development, as well as making larger infrastructure projects attainable.” The group said after the bipartisan infrastructure law expires in 2026, Congress should maintain its investment levels. Prioritize resilience In addition to an overall score, the ASCE infrastructure report rated 18 individual categories, from aviation to wastewater. No category received an A rating. The highest-rated categories were ports and rail, which received a B and B-, respectively, and the lowest-rated categories were stormwater and transit, which both received Ds. The ASCE named extreme weather and disasters as pressing reasons for the U.S. to upgrade its infrastructure now. The report’s authors said natural disasters and extreme weather events are especially damaging for America’s aging infrastructure, “creating unexpected and often avoidable risks to public safety and the economy.” They made an economic argument for building and strengthening resilient infrastructure. “Climate-related challenges are widespread, affecting even regions previously resistant to these events: Floods become more intense and occur more often, hurricanes create higher wind loads, and wildfires encroach more unpredictably,” the authors wrote. “Investments in resilient infrastructure are consistently proven to be an effective use of limited public dollars, because they reduce costs in the long term, especially by minimizing rebuilding needs after a significant event.” Advance policy and innovation The ASCE said for the U.S. to raise each category to a state of good repair would cost an estimated $9.1 trillion, and improvements could save the average American family $700 a year. The report’s authors said to get there, all levels of government should work to identify “pain points” in their permitting processes, address an engineering and construction workforce shortage, look for chances for the public and private sectors to collaborate, and leverage “proven and emerging technologies to make the best use of limited financial and personnel resources.” The group’s next report is due in 2029, and to raise Americas infrastructure grades by then, the group “urges a comprehensive agenda that sustains investment, prioritizes resilience, and advances forward-thinking policies and innovations.” President Donald Trump signed an executive order shortly after he returned to office for a second term pausing funds from being disbursed from the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, but a judge ruled the following month that the Trump administration had to restore the funds as Congress had appropriated them. “Support research and development of innovative materials, technologies, and processes to modernize and extend the life of infrastructure, expedite repairs or replacements, and reduce costs into the future,” authors of the ASCE infrastructure report recommended.
Category:
E-Commerce
Apple Watch sales are enduring a years-long backslide. While Apple first launched its watch in 2015, sales didnt spike until the pandemic, when consumers were highly focused on their health. But competitors quickly caught up, with fitness-focused companies like Garmin integrating more smart technology. Meanwhile, Apple stumbled in adding compelling new featuresgetting into some legal spats along the way. For the past three years, Apple Watch sales have declined year-over-year, according to research firm IDC. In 2022, Apple sold 43 million units; by 2024, that number dropped to 34 million. The Apple Watch also lost market share, falling from 29.6% to 22.5%, while high-end competitor Garmin and budget alternatives like Huawei and Xiaomi gained ground. And although Apple doesnt break out revenue by individual product, its Wearables, Home and Accessories segment was the only one to decline year-over-year in the fourth quarter of 2024. Apple is in a weird spot, says Jitesh Ubrani, a research manager at IDC studying wearables. They make great stuff but, at least on the watch side, things are a little bit iterative. Where did the Apple Watch upgraders go? Apple Watch sales have fallen far from their 2022 peak. While some analysts remain optimisticUbrani expects Apple will regain modest growth in 2025the numbers are still well below pandemic highs. Part of the drop, experts say, comes down to durability. A lot of people bought a new smartwatch or replacement smartwatch during the pandemic, says Ben Hatton, analyst of connected devices for CCS. Those devices are yet to reach the point where they are beginning to be replaced. So there’s that longevity of device, especially for the top-end devices, that does hamper growth. Unlike the iPhone, which users often upgrade for new features, the Apple Watch hasnt changed dramatically in recent years. Ubrani notes that the devices health and fitness sensors have remained largely consistent across generations. Youre not getting a whole new experience, apart from maybe a shiny new case, he says. (Apple did not respond to a request for comment.) That could soon change. According to Bloomberg, Apple is currently testing watches with added cameras and Apple Intelligence. Ubrani says these updates could appeal to Apple loyalistsbut theyre already standard features among competitors. If were talking AI, I think Apple is behind, and visual intelligence would be a part of that, he says. In terms of adding cameras, they wouldnt be the first one. Who needs an Apple Watch these days? Apple isnt the only company facing headwinds; the entire smartwatch industry has seen declining sales over the past three years, per IDC. But Apples competitors have weathered the downturn more gracefully. In 2023, when Apple Watch sales fell 15.8%, Googles declined just 4.3%. And while both are expected to return to growth in 2025, Googles projected 9.4% gain far outpaces Apples 4.9%. Even in a shrinking market, Garmin is gaining ground. Though its share remains modest at about 5%, the company sold nearly two million more watches in 2024 than the previous year. You’ve got a group of consumers that are looking to buy the best, top of the range fitness trackers, Hatton says. They may have gone into them through the Apple Watch or the Samsung Watch, but increasingly, they’re realizing that what they want it for is the pure fitness element. Garmin is probably best positioned to serve that demand. The wearables category has also diversified. Watches once dominated the space, but now consumers can choose from smart rings that track sleep, headbands that boost focus, and AI-powered sunglasses. While these devices are still niche, Hatton says their rapid growth poses a longer-term threat. Apple sold an estimated 40 million watches last year; by contrast, only about 2 million smart rings were sold across all providers. If they continue to grow very quickly, then they may start to become a real challenger to watches, he contends. And some consumers are simply over it. Maybe they grew tired of the endless notifications. Maybe they were shamed for wearing an Apple Watch at their wedding. Maybe they just missed the feel of a classic timepiece. Theres been a resurgence of traditional watches, Ubrani says. People like the idea of having something thats a little less mass produced, something thats away from the mainstream.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||