What Lina Khan's FTC Meant to Me
0x41434f
When Lina Khan became chair of the Federal Trade Commission in 2021, I didn’t just see a change in leadership. I saw a powerful thesis unfold in real time, one that argued law isn’t just reactive but can actively shape markets, push back against concentrated power, and create room for fairer competition. Her scholarship had already challenged the orthodoxy on how we think about antitrust and dominance, and stepping into the FTC, she brought that same clarity and courage with her. Now that her term ends in January 2025 and a new chair is expected, I’ve found myself reflecting on the ripple effects of her time in office, especially how much it aligns with the values I hold as someone who believes in markets, innovation, and the role of good law.
The FTC is the U.S. agency that handles consumer protection and enforces antitrust laws. Under Khan, the agency’s focus expanded to target Big Tech, junk fees, predatory subscriptions, and restrictive non-compete clauses 1. Some folks saw these actions as heavy-handed, but to me, it felt like governance doing what it’s supposed to do. Acting as a counterweight to power, not a co-signer. Her work showed me that law isn’t static. It’s shaped and reshaped constantly through policies, interpretations, court decisions, and bold regulatory vision.
All of this made its way into a living document I’ve been drafting, something that connects law, markets, and sustainability as three anchors for building fairer, more resilient societies. But to get to that point, I had to take a few detours.
I grew up around entrepreneurs. My family ran small businesses. I’ve built and sold software, tinkered with projects, and tracked trends that could position my own ventures for acquisition. One of those projects involved building a tool to analyze SEC filings, especially in the cybersecurity space. That experience made M&A feel less abstract and more personal. I started understanding why exits matter, how deals are structured, and what employees stand to gain or lose in the process.
That’s why a conversation with someone at Figma caught me off guard. Adobe had just abandoned its plan to acquire Figma after the FTC stepped in, and he wasn’t thrilled. From his perspective, the merger could’ve meant financial upside and growth. And honestly, I got that. I really did. But I also couldn’t ignore what unchecked consolidation does in the long term. Fewer choices, less innovation, higher switching costs. We all pay for it eventually. That conversation stuck with me. It was one of those moments where I realized how easy it is to miss the forest for the trees. It also pushed me to finally start writing out my thoughts on freedom, responsibility, and the role of law in shaping incentives.
Looking back at what the FTC tackled under Khan, a few things stand out. They went after junk fees, saving Americans billions 8. They took on deceptive Prime subscription practices, making it easier to cancel 9. They moved to ban non-compete agreements, which could help boost wages and worker mobility 5. In the business world, they blocked major mergers like Adobe-Figma and Kroger-Albertsons. They also tightened the rules around merger filings so companies couldn’t quietly skirt scrutiny. Then there’s the antitrust suit against Amazon 7 and the clampdown on how Meta and TikTok handle privacy 6. These weren’t just moves on a policy board. They were moves that touched real people, whether it was a family booking a hotel or a warehouse worker trying to switch jobs.
Here’s a snapshot of those policies and what they actually meant in everyday life:
| Category | Policy/Action | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer Protection | Cracked down on junk fees, saving Americans over $10 billion 8. | Eliminated hidden costs in services like gyms, hotels, and concert tickets, making transactions fairer. |
| Finalized a near-complete ban on non-compete agreements (not yet law, pending) 5. | Aims to increase wages by $400 billion and expand worker mobility. | |
| Sued Amazon for Prime subscription traps 9. | Ordered refunds and required easier cancellation processes for millions of consumers. | |
| Market Competition | Blocked Adobe’s acquisition of Figma. | Preserved market diversity in the design software industry. |
| Filed suit to block Kroger-Albertsons merger. | Prevented consolidation that could harm consumers, workers, and small businesses. | |
| Investigated merger filing loopholes with the DOJ. | Strengthened reporting requirements to close regulatory gaps and ensure fair competition. | |
| Tech Accountability | Launched antitrust suit against Amazon for monopolistic practices 7. | Aimed to restore fairness in e-commerce and reduce barriers for small businesses. |
| Ordered Big Tech companies, including Meta and TikTok, to comply with stricter privacy laws 6. | Improved consumer data security and reduced misuse of sensitive information. | |
| Worker Protections | Finalized rules to combat wage-fixing and unfair labor practices. | Increased bargaining power for workers and reduced exploitation by employers. |
| Stopped illegal price-fixing schemes in agriculture. | Protected farmers from collusion by agribusiness giants. |
While this was all happening in the U.S., other regulators were taking similar steps abroad. Europe passed the Digital Markets Act to keep gatekeepers like Google and Apple in check 2. Canada started cracking down on mergers that hurt small businesses 4. There’s a growing global momentum that says concentrated power, left alone, doesn’t just distort markets. It distorts freedom.
What really makes Khan’s approach stick with me is her insistence that law is the foundation. And not just as a backdrop or safety net, but as the actual scaffolding of how opportunity flows, how rules get enforced, and how markets stay competitive. The FTC worked across legislative, executive, and judicial branches to propose new rules, enforce them, and stand their ground in court. That’s a full-circle approach that feels rare in government.
And I don’t think we talk enough about the smaller, relatable wins. Getting rid of junk fees might sound like a technicality, but it affects almost everyone. Simplifying subscription cancellations is a big deal if you’ve ever been stuck in a never-ending gym contract. And the proposed non-compete ban? That could change the game for fast food workers, engineers, and independent contractors alike. Sometimes, protecting freedom looks like reading the fine print so others don’t have to.
A new FTC chair is on the horizon now, and I don’t know what direction the agency will take next. But I do know that Khan’s tenure set a bold precedent. A proof of concept, if you will, that the law can be used to rein in abuse, not just react to it.
Writing this helped me flesh out something I’ve been working on in the background: a living document that tries to connect everything I’ve talked about here. It’s a personal attempt to make sense of how law, markets, and sustainability overlap, and how they can be shaped into tools that help people thrive.
In the end, this isn’t just a note of appreciation. It’s a reminder that governance, done right, can protect the little guy without smothering innovation. I see myself as a mix of libertarian and builder, and I genuinely believe in the power of rules to create better outcomes. That’s why this legacy is worth paying attention to.