Collaborations Guidelines RFI Notice

The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) supports the issuance of revised guidelines for business collaborations, urging the agencies to preserve key themes of the 2000 Guidelines while updating them with modern economic and legal scholarship. They recommend specific drafting principles, such as using plain language, eliminating "safety zones," and clarifying the application of the rule of reason and the ancillary restraints doctrine.

Ericsson, a global information and communication technology company, opposes the creation of an antitrust safe harbor or guidance that would shield Licensing Negotiation Groups (LNGs) from scrutiny. The company argues that LNGs are likely anticompetitive, facilitate collective holdouts, and lack proven procompetitive justifications compared to existing models like patent pools.

The American Economic Liberties Project argues that the agencies should issue new business collaboration guidelines that specifically scrutinize "equity tying" and conflicted investments in the AI sector. They warn against creating new "safe harbors" and urge the agencies to focus on how dominant firms use capital and infrastructure relationships to entrench market power and foreclose competition.

The Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) argues that the Agencies should refrain from issuing guidance on licensing negotiation groups (LNGs) because the legal landscape is unsettled and international positions diverge. They also advocate for including specific guidance on the antitrust risks of standards development organizations that lack FRAND commitments, citing concerns over innovation incentives and market distortions.

The Independent Coalition of Advanced Risk Entities (ICARE), representing independent physician-led organizations, supports the joint inquiry into collaborations among competitors. They urge the FTC and DOJ to distinguish between pro-competitive clinical integration and anti-competitive consolidation that threatens the viability of independent providers.

The Center for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement (CRAE), a project of the Main Street Foundation, supports updating the Collaboration Guidelines but argues for a disciplined, evidence-based approach that distinguishes between procompetitive collaborations and those that impair market contestability. They emphasize that many modern collaborations, particularly in high-tech sectors like AI, are necessary for innovation and market entry, and warn against speculative enforcement theories that could discourage investment.

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), representing pharmacy benefit managers, supports the DOJ and FTC's efforts to provide regulatory predictability and guidance on business collaborations. They specifically advocate for the reinstatement of the 2000 Business Collaboration Guidelines and request that the agencies examine how wholesaler-owned pharmacy services administrative organizations (PSAOs) and conditional discounting practices might impact competition and drug pricing.

Joey Martin, a consumer in the equine industry, supports the creation of clear antitrust guidelines and requests improved reporting and investigation procedures for the DOJ and FTC. He argues that Equine Network, LLC and Global Handicaps have engaged in anti-competitive, monopolistic practices that harm consumers and stifle competition in the equine sports market.

Hera Hyeonseo Lee, a doctoral candidate at Binghamton University, argues that the Agencies should update collaboration guidelines to address the "cloud credit circuit"—a circular financial mechanism where cloud providers invest in AI startups using their own infrastructure credits. The commenter recommends creating a distinct analytical framework to account for the systemic risks, unreliable demand signals, and competitive foreclosure created by these specific types of interdependent partnerships.

A fan of the "Mermicorno: Starfall" franchise is organizing a boycott against the Paramount-Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery merger. The commenter argues that the merger threatens the survival of independent animation and demands specific divestitures of various intellectual properties to competitors like Disney, Sony, and Comcast.