Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
On June 15, 2021, the Senate confirmed Lina M. Khan as a Federal Trade Commission commissioner by a 69–28 vote. President Joe Biden designated her chair that same day, signaling a more aggressive approach to competition policy—not an automatic decision to break up Amazon or any other technology company. Khan is now a former chair; the FTC lists her chair tenure as ending January 20, 2025, though another field on the agency page gives January 31, 2025.
What happened on June 15, 2021?
The Senate confirmed Khan to fill an FTC commissioner seat, and Biden then designated her to lead the agency. Those were two distinct steps: the Senate made her a commissioner, while the president selected her as chair. Khan succeeded Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who had been serving as acting chair. Her appointment also restored a Democratic majority on the five-member commission.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Antitrust Law, Second Edition | $38.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Competition and Antitrust Law: A Very Short Introduction | $12.11 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Antitrust Law, Policy, and Procedure: Cases, Materials, Problems | $239.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Antitrust Paradox | $39.32 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age | $9.60 | Buy on Amazon |
The 69–28 vote was not unanimous or strictly partisan. It showed substantial support across party lines for her confirmation, even as her approach to antitrust enforcement made her a prominent figure in a broader debate about how the government should address powerful digital platforms. See the Senate nomination record and the FTC commissioners archive.
Who is Lina Khan?
Before joining the FTC, Khan was an associate professor at Columbia Law School. Her earlier roles included counsel to the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee, legal adviser to FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, and legal director at the Open Markets Institute. She graduated from Williams College and Yale Law School, according to her FTC biography.
#1 Best Overall
Her profile grew after the 2017 Columbia Law Review article “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” Khan argued that antitrust analysis focused heavily on consumer prices can miss ways a platform may accumulate power: control over access to customers, data advantages, network effects, and the ability to compete in markets where it also sets the rules. That argument was not simply a call to break up Amazon. It challenged how regulators identify competitive harm, especially when a service is inexpensive or free but a platform’s position may still affect sellers, rivals, workers, or future innovation.
Why the appointment mattered
Biden put a prominent critic of Big Tech and advocate for stronger competition enforcement in charge of the FTC. The personnel choice was a clear policy signal: the administration was prepared to examine acquisitions, platform conduct, market concentration, labor restrictions, and data practices more closely. It fit with a wider competition agenda that later included appointments and initiatives at the Justice Department and the White House; contemporaneous coverage of the broader personnel picture is available from TechCrunch.
The signal did not itself change antitrust law or establish that any named company had broken it. A dominant company does not violate competition law simply because it is large. A case requires evidence, a legally recognized theory of harm, and a process capable of surviving challenge.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What an FTC chair can—and cannot—do
The chair sets administrative priorities, oversees staff and agency operations, chairs commission meetings, helps shape the agency’s agenda, and represents the FTC publicly. That influence can determine which issues receive attention and how the agency uses its resources. But the FTC is a five-member commission, not a one-person regulator. Major enforcement and rulemaking actions generally involve commission decisions, statutory authority, evidence, and procedural requirements.
The agency can investigate, bring administrative complaints, sue in federal court, challenge mergers, pursue consumer-protection matters, and conduct rulemaking within its authority. These are different tools with different standards and consequences. An investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing; a complaint is an allegation to be proven; a proposed rule is not necessarily a final, durable rule. Courts can narrow or reject agency theories, and settlements may resolve a dispute without a breakup or admission of liability.
The FTC also shares federal antitrust enforcement with the Department of Justice. State attorneys general, foreign regulators, and private plaintiffs may pursue related matters. Congress, not the FTC alone, decides whether to make major changes to federal statutes.
Which companies and conduct drew attention?
Khan’s scholarship and the agency’s remit put several kinds of platform conduct under the microscope. That did not predetermine the outcome of any investigation or lawsuit.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
- Amazon: potential conflicts in operating a marketplace while selling on it, treatment of third-party sellers, self-preferencing, acquisitions, and control over routes to customers.
- Google: search, digital advertising, distribution arrangements, and the position of services that connect users, publishers, and advertisers.
- Meta: acquisitions, social-network competition, and data advantages.
- Apple: App Store rules, payment restrictions, and control over mobile distribution.
- Other digital intermediaries: cloud services, app stores, digital payments, and online advertising markets.
Whether a company has monopoly power, whether a particular market is defined correctly, and whether conduct unlawfully harms competition are legal and factual questions—not conclusions supplied by the appointment. Nor are privacy and antitrust interchangeable: data practices can raise consumer-protection concerns, competition concerns, or both, but each claim needs its own legal basis.
The arguments for and against Khan’s approach
Supporters said traditional price-focused analysis can overlook harms in markets where services are free to users or where power is exercised through access, data, labor conditions, or a platform’s role as both marketplace and competitor. They favored scrutiny of mergers that might remove future rivals and stronger attention to workers, suppliers, and small businesses. They also saw the FTC’s consumer-protection and rulemaking powers as tools for addressing concerns such as surveillance and sensitive-data practices when the law permits.
Rank #4
Critics questioned whether broader theories of harm could be applied consistently and predictably. They warned that aggressive merger review might chill investment, acquisitions, and innovation, and argued that the FTC could lack adequate resources or statutory authority for an expansive agenda. Some also said Khan’s public scholarship could create an appearance that she had prejudged matters involving Amazon. That political objection is not, by itself, a formal legal finding that she was required to recuse herself.
The underlying trade-offs are real. Blocking an acquisition may preserve a potential competitor, but acquisitions can also be an important exit path and source of funding for startups. Considering non-price harms may capture effects that price measures miss, yet it can make cases harder to administer. Novel legal theories may address changing markets but face greater risk in court. More forceful enforcement can deter conduct, while legal uncertainty may influence business and investment decisions.
What happened during her tenure?
Khan’s chairmanship ran from June 2021 into January 2025. The FTC describes priorities during her tenure that included antitrust and consumer-protection enforcement, noncompete clauses, sensitive data, commercial surveillance, and access to affordable healthcare. The agency’s merger-review archive provides agency material on that work.
Best Value
Her record is better understood as a set of investigations, lawsuits, rules, settlements, and contested initiatives than as one verdict about whether she “transformed” Big Tech. Some efforts faced legal setbacks; others continued through litigation or agency processes. A courtroom loss does not necessarily prove the concern behind a case was frivolous, just as a courtroom win does not create a universal rule for every technology market. Individual outcomes and the status of rules can change, so claims about what remains in force should be checked matter by matter.
The FTC biography contains a date discrepancy: its chair-tenure listing ends January 20, 2025, while its “Time in Office” field runs through January 31, 2025. It is safest to describe Khan as a former chair and acknowledge that the agency page gives both dates rather than silently choosing one.
What it meant for consumers and businesses
For consumers, a tougher competition posture could mean more scrutiny of how platforms use their control over access, data, and distribution. But an appointment alone did not promise lower prices, better privacy, or more choice. Those results depend on the facts of particular markets, the legal tools available, and whether agency actions withstand review.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFor sellers, app developers, advertisers, workers, and startups, the practical stakes included the rules imposed by dominant platforms, the possibility of new constraints on mergers, and the risk that disputed agency actions could take years to resolve. Companies under investigation were not automatically liable, and a merger could be reviewed without ultimately being blocked. Consumers and businesses therefore had reason to watch the agency’s actual cases and final rules, rather than infer an outcome from the chair’s appointment alone.
Signal versus power
Biden’s choice was consequential because it elevated a scholar who wanted antitrust analysis to reckon more fully with platform power. It made a more assertive competition agenda credible and placed that agenda inside a major federal regulator. But the chair could not unilaterally rewrite law, order a company broken up, or guarantee a win. Commission votes, evidence, statutes, resources, courts, and the Justice Department’s parallel role all constrained what the FTC could accomplish.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
