Brother, May I?: The Challenge of Competitor Control over Market Entry

Maureen K. Ohlhausen1

Commissioner, U.S. Federal Trade Commission

The Global Antitrust Economics Conference

George Mason University School of Law

Arlington, VA

May 29, 2015

I. Introduction

Good morning. Thank you, Judge Ginsburg and the folks at Concurrences and the 

George Mason University School of Law, for inviting me to speak. As always, I am delighted to 

return to my alma mater.

Those concerned with restrictions on innovative technologies and business models often 

decry the stultifying effects of a “Mother, May I?” approach, where the innovator needs 

government permission to enter a market. These are worthy concerns and, in recognition of 

them, I have repeatedly counseled what I call regulatory humility, advising regulators to wait to 

see if consumer harm occurs before enacting new legal obligations.2

My remarks today will focus on a related issue, which I call the “Brother, May I?” 

problem or the challenge of competitor control over market entry. This problem arises when 

 1 The views expressed in these remarks are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Trade 

Commission or any other Commissioner. I would like to thank Gregory Luib for his invaluable contributions to this 

speech.

2 See, e.g., Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Regulatory Humility in Practice, Remarks before the American Enterprise 

Institute (Apr. 1, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/635811/150401aeihumilitypractice.pdf; Maureen K. 

Ohlhausen, The Procrustean Problem with Prescriptive Regulation, 23 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 1 (2014), available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/606381/141222commlaw.pdf. 

United States of America

Federal Trade Commission
2

would-be entrants are effectively required to obtain permission from incumbent competitors to 

enter or expand within a particular market. Whether it is due to a law or regulation, the decision 

of a financially-interested state board, or conduct by a monopolist looking to maintain its market 

power, new entrants to a market generally should not have to get their competitors’ permission to 

compete. That such permission is effectively required in an increasing number of situations is 

inconsistent with the free-market principles that ought to guide our economic policies. 

Public choice theory of course recognizes the problem of an industry capturing its 

regulators. The “Brother, May I?” scenario may be even more troubling as it is effectively 

“regulatory replacement” rather than capture, with competitors acting directly as a regulator. 

That such situations may arise likely would not have surprised James Buchanan and Gordon 

Tullock, the two co-founders of public choice theory, who spent significant parts of their careers 

on the George Mason faculty and who each, unfortunately, passed away during the past few 

years. No doubt their presence is missed here.

Before I get too far, let me provide some context for my remarks. I believe strongly in 

the concepts of a free-market economy and economic liberty for individuals. Those fundamental 

principles influenced my decision to attend law school at Mason, and they have since guided my 

views as a policy maker at the Commission. I also view sound antitrust enforcement—that is, 

enforcement efforts aimed at protecting consumer welfare, while minimizing burdens on 

otherwise efficient conduct—as a necessary part of a well-functioning free market. Competition 

is the first line of defense for consumers. Thus, targeted antitrust enforcement is good for the 

market because it makes other regulation less necessary.3

 3 See, e.g., Timothy J. Muris, Looking Forward: The Federal Trade Commission and the Future Development of 

U.S. Competition Policy, 2003 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 359, 364 (2003) (“Effective antitrust enforcement may 

preclude direct, command-and-control regulation of sectors of the economy, avoiding the significant inefficiencies 

such regulation entails.”).
3

In addition, given my time as Director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, I have 

been a strong voice in support of competition advocacy. Such advocacy is necessary in many 

instances to combat proposed regulatory barriers to entry supported by incumbent interests. 

Thus, my long history with competition advocacy also shapes my views on these issues.

Finally, I would like to clarify that I am not here to advocate for requiring firms to assist 

their competitors. The courts, in Trinko4 and other cases, have appropriately limited the general 

duty of firms to help their competitors compete. Similarly, I have argued against reliance on the 

essential facilities doctrine—particularly in the intellectual property area—by foreign antitrust 

agencies.5

 What I will argue here is that firms should not have to obtain their competitors’ 

permission to compete and that the FTC’s enforcement and advocacy efforts should seek to 

eliminate such anticompetitive market distortions. Interestingly, three recent victories by the 

FTC in the courts—North Carolina Dental, Phoebe Putney, and McWane—all in some way 

involved the need to seek the permission of competitors to enter a market, and I will address each 

case in turn.

II. North Carolina Dental and State Licensing Boards

One of the clearest examples of the “Brother, May I?” challenge arises in the state 

licensing of professionals. Here, my—and the Commission’s—concern has been the artificial 

and unjustified barriers to entry erected by some state licensing boards, including, in particular, 

those composed of active participants in the very markets they regulate. This issue came to a 

head in the Commission’s successful Sherman Act Section 1 case against the North Carolina 

Board of Dental Examiners (the Board).

 4 See Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004).

5 See, e.g., Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Comm’r, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Testimony on “The Foreign Investment Climate 

in China,” before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, at 5-6 (Jan. 28, 2015), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/621411/150128chinatestimony.pdf.
4

In that case, the FTC filed an administrative complaint, alleging that the Board—through 

its dentist-members—was “colluding to exclude non-dentists from competing with dentists in the 

provision of teeth whitening services.”6 After deciding that whitening teeth constitutes the 

practice of dentistry, the Board issued letters to non-dentist providers, stating they were illegally 

practicing dentistry without a license and ordering them to cease and desist.7 As everyone in this 

audience is aware, our case ended up at the Supreme Court, which ruled in the Commission’s 

favor earlier this year, holding that “a state board on which a controlling number of 

decisionmakers are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates must satisfy 

Midcal’s active supervision requirement in order to invoke state-action antitrust immunity.”8

A few key aspects of the Court’s opinion stand out. First, the Court reiterated the crucial 

role that antitrust plays in our economy, noting that “[f]ederal antitrust law is a central safeguard 

for the Nation’s free market structures.”9 Second, the Court focused on the important issue of 

political accountability, explaining that immunity for state agencies “requires more than a mere 

facade of state involvement, for it is necessary in light of Parker [v. Brown]’s rationale to ensure 

 6 In re N.C. Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 9343, Complaint, at 1 (June 17, 2010), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010/06/100617dentalexamcmpt.pdf. The Board consists of 

six licensed dentists, one licensed hygienist, and one “consumer member,” who is neither a dentist nor a hygienist. 

Id. ¶ 2.

7 Id. ¶ 20. The Board also issued letters to several third parties with interests in shopping malls, stating that teeth 

whitening services offered at mall kiosks are illegal. Id. ¶ 22.

8 N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1114 (2015). Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 

Court and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito, 

with Justices Scalia and Thomas joining, dissented. Among other things, the dissent argued that Parker immunizes 

state agencies, the Board is a state agency, “and that is the end of the matter.” Id. at 1117-18 (Alito, J., dissenting). 

The dissent further noted that the regulation of the practice of medicine and dentistry has fallen “squarely within the 

States’ sovereign police power” since before the Sherman Act was passed in 1890. Id. at 1119. Thus, the state 

statutes that created, and conferred regulatory authority on, the Board “represent precisely the kind of state 

regulation that the Parker exemption was meant to immunize.” Id.

9 N.C. State Bd., 135 S. Ct. at 1109.
5

the States accept political accountability for anticompetitive conduct they permit and control.”10 

Third, in addressing the states’ concern about their licensing boards incurring antitrust liability 

and damages, the Court observed that states can ensure Parker immunity is available to agencies 

by adopting clear policies to displace competition, and, if those agencies are controlled by 

market participants, by providing active supervision.11 Finally, the Court made clear that the 

critical inquiry is “whether the State’s review mechanisms provide ‘realistic assurance’ that a 

nonsovereign actor’s anticompetitive conduct ‘promotes state policy, rather than merely the 

party’s individual interests.’”12

The North Carolina Dental decision was a crucial victory for competition and 

consumers. Under our federal system, individual states can do a lot to meddle with the free 

market; that is their choice to make. However, states need to be politically accountable for 

whatever market distortions they impose on consumers.13 Of course, with a nod to George 

Stigler’s insights from the 1970s, the North Carolina Dental Board’s conduct can be easily 

explained as rent-seeking behavior by incumbents to fend off a new source of competition.14 

Where there is a benefit concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of incumbent 

providers, in this case dentists, and the competitive harm is dispersed across all consumers of 

health care services, public choice theory predicts such incumbent exploitation of state licensing 

 10 N.C. State Bd., 135 S. Ct. at 1111. See also id. (“Parker immunity requires that the anticompetitive conduct of 

nonsovereign actors, especially those authorized by the State to regulate their own profession, result from 

procedures that suffice to make it the State’s own.”).

11 See id. at 1115-16.

12 Id. (quoting Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 100-101 (1988)). 

13 See e.g., FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 504 U.S. 621, 636 (1992) (“Federalism serves to assign political 

responsibility, not to obscure it. Neither federalism nor political responsibility is well served by a rule that essential 

national policies are displaced by state regulations intended to achieve more limited ends.”).

14 See e.g., George J. Stigler, The Theory of Economic Regulation, 2 BELL J. ECON. MGMT. SCI. 3, 5 (1971) (“We 

propose the general hypothesis: every industry or occupation that has enough political power to utilize the state will 

seek to control entry.”).
6

laws and regulations.15 The adverse competitive results of such behavior are manifest.

16 Now, 

some have described this type of situation as an example of regulatory capture.17 But, it is more 

than regulatory capture; it is the regulated replacing and acting as the regulators.

Looking at North Carolina Dental and our other recent Supreme Court win in Phoebe 

Putney, which I will discuss shortly, the state action area is one of the best examples of the 

Commission using its unique institutional features to guide the courts and others in the 

development of competition law toward better outcomes for competition and consumers.

Looking ahead, the Commission should continue to focus both its enforcement and competition 

advocacy efforts on anticompetitive licensing activities within the states. 

Nonetheless, I believe we ought to give the states some breathing room to respond to the 

changed legal landscape that they now face. As I have discussed elsewhere,18 the states would 

appear to have several viable options for avoiding both antitrust liability for, and excessive 

oversight of, their conduct. These options should not be terribly onerous to implement and 

should help states retain individuals with sufficient relevant expertise on their regulatory boards. 

 15 See e.g., Steven Menashi & Douglas H. Ginsburg, Rational Basis with Economic Bite, 8 N.Y.U. J.L. & LIBERTY

1055, 1087-88 (2014) (“By now, ‘[a]ll reasonably sophisticated persons know that a well-knit special interest group 

is likely to prevail over an amorphous ‘public’ whose members are dispersed and, as individuals, are not in sharp 

conflict with the organized interest.’ The occupational licensing laws recently invalidated under rational basis 

review are just this type of special-interest legislation.”) (quoting Walter Gellhorn, The Abuse of Occupational 

Licensing, 44 U. CHI. L. REV. 6, 16 (1976)); Timothy Sandefur, A Public Convenience and Necessity and Other 

Conspiracies Against Trade: A Case Study from the Missouri Moving Industry, 24 GEO. MASON U. C.R. L.J. 159, 

176 (2014) (“Public choice theory predicts that where the government can redistribute wealth or opportunities 

between private groups, those groups will invest their resources in obtaining favorable legislation that will benefit 

them or handicap their rivals. Entry restrictions like occupational licenses or CON laws are made-to-order 

examples.”).

16 See e.g., Daniel J. Gilman & Julie Fairman, Antitrust and the Future of Nursing: Federal Competition Policy and 

the Scope of Practice, 24 HEALTH MATRIX 143, 165 (2014) (“[L]icensure may be used by incumbent professionals 

to insulate themselves from competition. By restricting the entry of competitors, licensure can restrict supply, which 

can increase the income of incumbents (at consumer expense) or decrease the pressure on incumbents to improve 

non-price aspects of their services, such as quality or convenience.”) (footnote omitted).

17 See, e.g., Herbert Hovenkamp, Rediscovering Capture: Antitrust Federalism and the North Carolina Dental Case, 

CPI ANTITRUST CHRONICLE (Apr. 2015).

18 See Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Reflections on the Supreme Court’s North Carolina Dental Decision and the FTC’s 

Campaign to Rein in State Action Immunity, Remarks before the Heritage Foundation, at 14-16 (Mar. 31, 2015), 

available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/634091/150403hertiagedental.pdf.
7

Nonetheless, it will take the states some time to evaluate and modify, if necessary, their licensing 

boards. In the meantime, as Chairwoman Ramirez mentioned at the ABA Spring Meeting, the 

Commission has begun an effort to provide guidance to states seeking to satisfy the active 

supervision prong of the state action doctrine. I have had discussions with representatives from 

state attorneys general offices, and I hope to continue that dialogue over the next several months.

Now, the economic libertarian in me is hopeful that the states, while assessing the 

sufficiency of their supervision over licensing decisions, will also reevaluate some of the

excessive occupational licensing requirements they have adopted over the years. As the states 

reconsider the composition and oversight of their regulatory boards, I would recommend that 

they also take a very hard look at their occupational licensing regimes to see if they are on 

balance helping or harming their citizens. Among the professions subject to state licensure 

requirements today are florists, interior designers, tour guides, barbers, hair braiders, and even 

“shampoo specialists.”19 In fact, roughly thirty percent of U.S. workers are now required to 

obtain a license to pursue their occupation.

20 Multiple studies have found that prices increase—

by as much as thirty-three percent—as a result of occupational licensing.21 That might be 

tolerable if those price increases reflected improved quality; however, “economic studies have 

 19 See Stephanie Simon, A License to Shampoo: Jobs Needing State Approval Rise, WALL ST. J. (Feb. 7, 2011), 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703445904576118030935929752; Melissa S. Kearney, et al., 

Nearly 30 Percent of Workers in the U.S. Need a License to Perform Their Job: It Is Time to Examine Occupational 

Licensing Practices, Brookings Institution Up-Front Blog (Jan. 27, 2015 11:00 AM), 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/01/26-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practiceskearney-hershbein-boddy. For a comprehensive review of state licensing requirements, see INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE,

LICENSE TO WORK: A NATIONAL STUDY OF BURDENS FROM OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING (May 2012), available at

https://www.ij.org/licensetowork.

20 See Morris M. Kleiner & Alan B. Krueger, Analyzing the Extent and Influence of Occupational Licensing on the 

Labor Market, 31 J. LAB. ECON. 175-76 (2013) (findings based on 2008 survey conducted as part of Princeton Data 

Improvement Initiative). 

21 See, e.g., Morris M. Kleiner, Reforming Occupational Licensing Policies 17-22 (The Hamilton Project,

Discussion Paper 2015-01, 2015) [hereinafter Kleiner, Reforming Occupational Licensing], available at

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/reforming_occupational_licensing_morris_kleiner_final.

pdf (collecting studies).
8

demonstrated far more cases where occupational licensing has reduced employment and 

increased prices and wages of licensed workers than where it has improved the quality and safety 

of services.”22 Overall, the drag on the economy of excessive occupational licensing is counted 

in hundreds of billions of dollars annually.23 Moreover, the increased costs of excessive 

occupational licensing falls most heavily on those least able to afford them.24 

A particular concern I have is that the “Brother, May I?” aspect of occupational licensing 

can create unnecessary barriers to entry for entrepreneurs seeking to take their first step on the 

economic ladder. This is particularly true for occupations that draw individuals who are just 

beginning a professional career. Licensing requirements, which often include educational 

components, can prevent lower-income workers, who may not be able to pay for additional 

education, from entering certain fields—even at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. 

Competition and competitive markets, supplemented by sound antitrust enforcement, where 

necessary—not excessive licensing—will promote entrepreneurship in this country and provide 

the best platform for the least advantaged in our economy to prosper.

III. Phoebe Putney and Certificate-of-Need Laws

Another example of needing to obtain permission from one’s competitors to enter the 

market is found in certificate-of-need, or CON, laws that remain on the books in over two-thirds 

 22 Id. at 6; see also id. at 12-13 (collecting studies); Aaron Edlin & Rebecca Haw, Cartels by Another Name: Should 

Licensed Occupations Face Antitrust Scrutiny?, 162 U. PA. L. REV. 1093, 1111-12 (2014) (“The work of Kleiner 

and his contemporaries reveals a consensus in the academy: a licensing restriction can only be justified where it 

leads to better quality professional services—and for many restrictions, proof of that enhanced quality is lacking.”).

23 See Kleiner, Reforming Occupational Licensing, supra note 21, at 6. 

24 See, e.g., id. at 16 (“The net effects [of licensing] can be regressive, as lower-income consumers—who now have 

to pay higher prices and may have less access to services ranging from haircuts to dental exams—pay more to the 

regulated practitioners, some of whom are well compensated.”). 
9

of the states.25 Under these laws, would-be suppliers of a host of health care services, from acute 

care hospitals to nursing homes to rehabilitation centers, must seek approval from a state entity 

to enter the market. The real issue in a typical certificate-of-need determination is not, however, 

one of ensuring patient safety or the proper qualifications of the applicant—there are other laws 

and regulations that typically address those issues more directly—but rather the “need” for a new 

entrant into the market at issue, as determined by the state entity.26 As I will discuss, CON laws 

have outlived their intended use and now effectively serve primarily, if not solely, to assist 

incumbents in fending off competition from new entrants. The Commission and the public were 

reminded of the anticompetitive effects of those laws most recently in the Phoebe Putney matter.

There, the FTC challenged a merger involving a local hospital authority in Albany, 

Georgia. The transaction was viewed by nearly everyone, including the Eleventh Circuit,27 as a 

virtual merger to monopoly. As is well known at this point, the Commission litigated this case

all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the agency in its unanimous 2013 

decision.28 To be immune from the antitrust laws under the state action doctrine, private and 

other non-sovereign entities must demonstrate that the state “clearly articulated and affirmatively 

 25 See National Conference of State Legislatures, Certificate of Need: State Health Laws and Programs, 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/con-certificate-of-need-state-laws.aspx (indicating that 36 states retain some 

type of CON program as of 2014).

26 See, e.g., Sandefur, supra note 15, at 160 (“Unlike occupational licensing laws, CON requirements do not purport 

to determine whether a person is educated, trained, or skilled before going into business. Instead, they are expressly 

aimed at preventing competition against established companies, regardless of quality or skill.”); see also Roy 

Cordato, Certificate-of-Need Laws: It’s Time for Repeal 27 (John Locke Found., Nathaniel Macon Research Paper 

No. 1, 2005) (“Economist Friedrich Hayek in his Nobel Laureate lecture, ‘The Pretense of Knowledge,’ argued that 

central planners, like those charged with determining who should and should not get to provide medical services, 

can only ‘pretend’ to have the information necessary to make the kinds of decisions they claim to be making. At 

best, any determination of ‘need’ by such planners will be arbitrary and will not reflect actual market conditions. At 

worst, these planners can become witting or unwitting tools of entrenched interests who wish to keep competition 

out of the market.”).

27 See FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 663 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that “on the facts 

alleged, the joint operation of [Phoebe] and Palmyra would substantially lessen competition or tend to create, if not 

create, a monopoly”).

28 See FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003, 1017 (2013).
10

expressed” a policy displacing competition and thus allowing the otherwise anticompetitive 

conduct at issue.

29 The Court held that a general grant of corporate powers to a sub-state entity, 

such as a hospital authority, is insufficient by itself to satisfy the clear articulation prong of 

Midcal.

30 The challenged transaction, thus, was not immune from antitrust scrutiny, and the case 

was remanded for further proceedings. 

So far, so good for patients in Albany. The FTC complaint counsel resumed the 

administrative litigation that had been stayed pending the federal court proceedings. It did not 

take very long, however, before the agency recognized a potentially insurmountable hurdle to a 

successful resolution of this case: the Georgia certificate-of-need laws. That is, even if the 

Commission could have established liability—and that seemed fairly likely, given the facts—the 

state CON laws would have prevented a divestiture of any hospital assets.

Now, the case took an admittedly circuitous route during its final eighteen months. 

Unfortunately for consumers of hospital services in the Albany area, a state hearing officer ruled 

that the CON laws would apply to any divestiture that might take place in this matter. The fact 

that the Albany region is deemed “over-bedded” made it unlikely that any divestiture buyer 

could obtain the necessary CON approval to operate an independent hospital. Thus, last March, 

the Commission reluctantly finalized its consent agreement with Phoebe Putney without a 

divestiture.

31

What, then, should we take away from the Phoebe matter? First, although it is of little 

solace to consumers in Albany, the Supreme Court decision narrowing the state action doctrine is 

 29 See id. at 1010 (citing Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980)).

30 See id. at 1012.

31 See In re Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., Dkt. No. 9348, Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, at 3 (Mar. 

31, 2015), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/634181/150331phoebeputneycommstmt.pdf.
11

a significant victory for competition principles and consumer welfare going forward. That 

decision, along with North Carolina Dental, represents the culmination of a decades-long effort 

by the Commission to narrow state action immunity from the antitrust laws—an effort in which I 

was proud to participate in several roles.

32 Second, Phoebe demonstrates the importance of 

obtaining preliminary relief when challenging hospital mergers in CON states. By maintaining 

the status quo, injunctive relief prevents the possibility of competitive harm—sometimes, as in 

Phoebe, irremediable harm—from occurring during the Commission’s administrative 

proceedings and any appeals. Similarly, the outcome in Phoebe should give the Commission 

pause in challenging consummated hospital acquisitions in states with CON laws. Finally, this 

case is a stark reminder of the anticompetitive nature of such laws.

The Commission—both on its own and jointly with the Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division (DOJ)—has long advocated that states consider the costs that CON laws may impose on 

health care consumers.

33 In our most recent advocacy, we argued that CON laws “impede the 

efficient performance of health care markets,” “create barriers to entry and expansion to the 

detriment of health care competition and consumers,” and “weaken markets’ ability to contain 

 32 I was a member of the State Action Task Force, which issued a report in 2003 recommending several means for 

the Commission to narrow the state action doctrine (see FED. TRADE COMM’N, OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING,

REPORT OF THE STATE ACTION TASK FORCE (Sept. 2003), available at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/09/stateactionreport.pdf), testified before the Antitrust Modernization Commission on 

the doctrine (see Prepared Statement of Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Dir., Office of Policy Planning, Fed. Trade 

Comm’n, before the Antitrust Modernization Commission on the State Action Doctrine (Sept. 29, 2005), available 

at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2005/09/ftc-staff-testimony-antitrust-modernization-commissionconcerning-state), and participated in several advocacy efforts at narrowing the scope of the doctrine. 

33 See, e.g., Joint Statement of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission 

before the Illinois Task Force on Health Planning Reform (Sept. 15, 2008) [hereinafter DOJ-FTC Illinois 

Testimony], available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/2008/09/ftc-and-departmentjustice-written-testimony-illinois; Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission before the Standing 

Committee on Health, Education & Social Services of the Alaska House of Representatives regarding House Bill 

337 (Feb. 15, 2008), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/2008/02/ftc-writtentestimony-alaska-house-representatives; Letter from Janet M. Grady, Regional Director, Federal Trade Commission, 

to the Honorable Mary George, Hawaii State Senate (Mar. 13, 1987), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/1987/03/ftc-staff-comment-governor-mary-georgeconcerning.
12

health care costs.”34 As a result, we expressed support for the repeal or narrowing of such 

laws.35

These advocacies have been grounded in large part on empirical studies of the impact of 

CON laws conducted by Commission economists.36 Those studies have found that, rather than 

keeping health care costs down, CON laws and regulations lead to higher prices and 

expenditures.37 For example, one study showed that if states substantially relaxed their CON 

programs to subject fewer hospitals to review, annual hospital expenditures would decrease by 

1.4 percent, or approximately $1.3 billion.38 Studies conducted by several independent 

commissions appointed by state legislatures to evaluate the impact of CON laws have reached 

similar conclusions.39 These results, of course, are rather easily predicted by economic theory. 

Like any barrier to entry, CON laws prevent or limit the entry of firms that could otherwise 

provide higher-quality or lower-priced services than those offered by incumbents. In other 

words, output restrictions lead to higher, not lower, costs; they also result in higher profits for 

incumbent firms.

 34 DOJ-FTC Illinois Testimony, supra note 33, at 1-2.

35 See id. at 2; see also FED. TRADE COMM’N & U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, IMPROVING HEALTH CARE: A DOSE OF 

COMPETITION ch. 8, at 6 (July 2004), available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/improving-health-care-dosecompetition-report-federal-trade-commission-department-justice (“[T]he Agencies urge states with CON programs 

to reconsider whether they are best serving their citizens’ health care needs by allowing these programs to 

continue.”).

36 The CON area is just one example of empirical work conducted by FTC economists lending support to, and thus 

increasing the effectiveness of, the Commission’s competition advocacy efforts.

37 See, e.g., DOJ-FTC Illinois Testimony, supra note 33, at 5 n.16 (collecting studies).

38 See DANIEL SHERMAN, BUR. OF ECONOMICS, FED. TRADE COMM’N, THE EFFECT OF STATE CERTIFICATE-OF-NEED 

LAWS ON HOSPITAL COSTS: AN ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS vi (Jan. 1988), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/reports/effect-state-certificate-need-laws-hospital-costs-economic-policy-analysis; see also id.

at iv (“The study thus finds no evidence that CON programs have led to the resource savings they were designed to 

promote, but rather indicates that reliance on CON review may raise hospital costs.”).

39 See, e.g., THE LEWIN GROUP, AN EVALUATION OF ILLINOIS’ CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM: PREPARED FOR 

STATE OF ILLINOIS COMMISSION ON GOVERNMENT FORECASTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY 16 (Feb. 2007) (“A review 

of the evidence indicates that CONs rarely reduce health care costs, and on occasion, increase cost in some states.”); 

WILLIAM S. CUSTER, ET AL., REPORT OF DATA ANALYSES TO THE GEORGIA COMMISSION ON THE EFFICACY OF THE 

CON PROGRAM 8 (Nov. 2006) (“CON regulation is associated with higher private inpatient costs. The effect is 

robust with respect to model specification, measures of CON rigor, and diagnoses.”).
13

Another fairly predictable result of CON regimes is the rent-seeking behavior pursued by 

incumbents who are able to exploit the regulatory system to their advantage. Using the “Brother, 

May I?” aspects of the CON process, incumbent hospitals and other health care providers can

impose substantial delays on, or thwart altogether, potential entrants into their markets, thus 

protecting their own supra-competitive revenues.40 Returning to public choice theory, it readily

predicts such incumbent exploitation of CON laws,41 as well as incumbent efforts to keep such 

laws on the books.42

Let me also address what appears to be the primary argument that states make in support 

of retaining CON laws: the ability to cross-subsidize care provided to uninsured or underinsured 

patients.43 The argument is that, without CON laws, new entrants will engage in creamskimming by taking the most profitable patients, thus depriving incumbent providers of revenue 

that is used to provide care to otherwise under-served or unserved patients—particularly at 

community or safety-net hospitals. Now, the public-policy goal of ensuring access to adequate 

health care services for patients who cannot afford them is certainly a laudable one. Using the 

 40 See, e.g., DOJ-FTC Illinois Testimony, supra note 33, at 7; A DOSE OF COMPETITION, supra note 35, at Exec. 

Summ. at 22 (“Market participants can too easily use CON procedures to forestall competitors from entering an 

incumbent’s market.”). Incumbent providers have also entered into anticompetitive agreements that were outside of, 

but nonetheless facilitated by, the CON laws. See, e.g., DOJ-FTC Illinois Testimony, supra note 33, at 7-8.

41 See e.g., Sandefur, supra note 15, at 176 (“Public choice theory predicts that where the government can 

redistribute wealth or opportunities between private groups, those groups will invest their resources in obtaining 

favorable legislation that will benefit them or handicap their rivals. Entry restrictions like occupational licenses or 

CON laws are made-to-order examples.”).

42 See e.g., id. at 173 (“Public choice theory would also predict that as economic and technological circumstances 

change, CON laws would nevertheless remain on the books—vigorously defended by incumbent firms—long after 

the economic rationales on which they were based were rendered obsolete, even on their own terms.”).

43 See, e.g., COMMISSION ON THE EFFICACY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED PROGRAM, AN ANALYSIS AND 

EVALUATION OF CERTIFICATE OF NEED REGULATIONS IN GEORGIA: FINAL REPORT TO THE GEORGIA GENERAL 

ASSEMBLY AND GOVERNOR PERDUE xii-xiii (Dec. 2006) [hereinafter GEORGIA COMMISSION REPORT] (“Hospital 

leaders are concerned that if they lose their ability to cross-subsidize from [the highest-margin] services, they will no 

longer be able to cover the fixed losses associated with inpatient Medicaid services and care of the uninsured. For 

this reason, hospitals, whether nonprofit or proprietary, urban or rural, have wanted to see CON rules maintained or 

tightened in order to maintain regulatory control over the provision of these services in non-hospital-based 

settings.”).
14

blunt and anticompetitive tool of CON laws, however, is not the answer. Such a use of CON 

laws flies in the face of any notion of free-market competition.

44

Clearly, there are a host of difficult issues relating to the payment and provision of health 

care in this country that go far beyond CON laws and that may not have easy answers. The 

commission established to study the efficacy of the Georgia CON program in the mid-2000s, for 

example, was unable to reach consensus with regard to the best policy to address the difficult 

issue of cross-subsidization of indigent care.45 As the commission recognized, “When viewed in 

a vacuum, analysis has shown a relatively weak effect of CON, but the CON program is being 

used as a regulatory device in an environment involving much stronger forces.”46 Nonetheless, 

using CON laws as an indirect tax for funding indigent care imposes costs—in terms of price, 

quality, and innovation—across all consumers of health care services.47 There are less 

competitively-restrictive and more politically-transparent means for pursuing the goal of indigent 

care. In fact, there is some evidence that CON laws do not actually advance the goal of indigent 

care at general community hospitals.48 Finally, as the antitrust agencies have noted in their 

advocacies in this area, CON laws were not adopted as a means of cross-subsidizing health 

 44 See e.g., Sandefur, supra note 15, at 170 (“Whatever the merits of the ‘cream-skimming’ and incentives 

rationales, they apply only to public utilities, or perhaps to markets that feature some kind of monopoly 

characteristics. They do not apply to private markets with healthy competition. In these markets, ‘cream-skimming’ 

is simply the ordinary competitive process on which the economy depends for innovation and growth, and 

encouraging investment where market demand is lacking is rightly seen as foolhardy.”).

45 See GEORGIA COMMISSION REPORT, supra note 43, at xiii.

46 Id.

47 See, e.g., Cordato, supra note 26, at 18 (“If CON laws are being used to hide this tax from the electorate, then not 

only are they inconsistent with sound economics, they are also inconsistent with an open and democratic political 

process.”).

48 See, e.g., DOJ-FTC Illinois Testimony, supra note 33, at 9-10; THE LEWIN GROUP, supra note 39, at ii, 26-28 

(“Through our research and analysis we could find no evidence that safety-net hospitals are financially stronger in 

CON states than other states.”) (finding margins for safety-net hospitals in CON states “considerably lower” than 

margins for safety-net hospitals in non-CON states).
15

care.49 That is an ex post rationale identified by CON proponents that is simply inconsistent 

with free-market principles. More, not less, competition is needed in the health care space.50

My recommendation, then, is for the Commission to re-engage with state legislatures on 

the issue of CON laws. With the Noerr-Pennington51 doctrine rightly protecting incumbents’ 

petitioning activity related to CON applications, there is little, if any, room for law enforcement 

action in this area. We have not, however, addressed this issue in our competition advocacy 

since 2008. Of course, the Commission typically issues advocacy comments only in response to 

invitations from policy makers or requests for public comments. I would urge the agency to 

continue that practice. Still, we ought to seek out opportunities to weigh in on the adverse 

impact of CON laws on consumer welfare. The Commission has been on a bit of a winning 

streak in challenging anticompetitive hospital mergers.52 It would be unfortunate if any more of 

those victories for health care consumers were jeopardized by CON laws that preclude any 

meaningful remedy in those cases.

IV. McWane and Exclusionary Conduct by Monopolists

During the remainder of my remarks, I will address a third “Brother, May I?” situation in 

which a would-be entrant must effectively rely on its competitor’s permission before entering or 

expanding its business. This one involves not state regulation but private conduct by a 

monopolist that is exclusionary and thus maintains its monopoly and is not justified by a 

 49 See DOJ-FTC Illinois Testimony, supra note 33, at 4.

50 See A DOSE OF COMPETITION, supra note 35, at Exec. Summ. at 4 (“Vigorous competition, both price and nonprice, can have important benefits in health care as well. Price competition generally results in lower prices and, 

thus, broader access to health care products and services. Non-price competition can promote higher quality and 

encourage innovation.”).

51 See E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers of 

Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965).

52 See, e.g., St. Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa Inc. v. St. Luke’s Health Sys., Ltd., 778 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2015); 

ProMedica Health Sys., Inc. v. FTC, 749 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2014); FTC v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 852 F. Supp. 2d 

1069 (N.D. Ill. 2012).
16

cognizable efficiency. The end result is that a firm looking to enter the market or expand its 

sales is at the whims of its monopolist-competitor to succeed in such entry or expansion. The 

Commission recently encountered this in its Sherman Act Section 2 action against McWane, 

Inc.53 

In that case, the Commission issued a seven-count administrative complaint against 

McWane in January 201254—prior to my arrival as a Commissioner. Ultimately, the 

Commission dismissed six of the seven counts, finding liability solely on the Section 2 exclusive 

dealing count.55 In particular, the Commission found that McWane had used an exclusive 

dealing policy to prevent its sole rival, Star Pipe Products, Ltd. (Star), from meaningfully 

competing and thus maintained the monopoly that McWane enjoyed in the market for 

domestically-manufactured ductile iron pipe fittings.56 (Although perhaps not the sexiest of 

markets the Commission has pursued of late, pipe fittings are used by municipal and regional 

water authorities in crucial waterworks projects.) 

The thrust of the case was that McWane, with over 90 percent market share, had imposed 

a policy on distributors that required them to purchase all of their domestic fittings from 

McWane; otherwise, they would lose their rebates and be cut off altogether.

57 There were two 

exceptions to this so-called Full Support Program permitting the purchase of competing domestic 

fittings: where McWane products were not readily available, and where the customer bought 

 53 See In re McWane, Inc., Dkt. No. 9351, Opinion of the Commission (Feb. 6, 2014) [hereinafter McWane

Commission Opinion], available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/140206mcwaneopinion_0.pdf.

54 See In re McWane, Inc., Dkt. No. 9351, Administrative Complaint (Jan. 4, 2012), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/01/120104ccwanestaradmincmpt.pdf (alleging 

conspiracy, information exchange, invitation to collude, restraint of trade based on distribution agreement, 

conspiracy to monopolize, monopolization, and attempted monopolization).

55 See McWane Commission Opinion, supra note 53, at 2 & n.1.

56 See id. at 20.

57 See id. at 9, 16.
17

domestic fittings and accessories along with another manufacturer’s ductile iron pipe.58 The 

Commission found that, to the extent that Star was able to gain sales, it did so primarily under 

these limited exceptions, and those sales were insufficient to have a competitive impact.

59

In finding liability on the exclusive dealing count, the Commission determined that 

McWane had monopoly power in the domestic fittings market,60 that the Full Support Program 

constituted an exclusive dealing arrangement that substantially foreclosed its rivals’ access to the 

most efficient sales channel,61 and that this resulted in harm to competition and consumers in the 

domestic fittings market.62 As the Commission opinion concluded, “[T]he evidence that 

McWane’s exclusive dealing policy significantly impaired the access of McWane’s only rival, 

Star, to the main channel of distribution, thereby increasing its costs and keeping it below the 

critical level necessary to pose a real competitive threat, is plainly sufficient to meet the standard 

of harm to competition set forth in the prevailing case law.”63

At the same time, the Commission rejected the two efficiency justifications proffered by 

McWane. First, McWane argued that it engaged in exclusive dealing to generate sufficient sales 

to operate its last domestic foundry. The Commission did not view this to be “a cognizable 

 58 See id. at 9.

59 See id. at 28-29.

60 See id. at 16-18.

61 See id. at 20-25.

62 See id. at 25-29.

63 See id. at 26. Commissioner Wright dissented from the Commission’s opinion in McWane. See In re McWane, 

Inc., Dkt. No. 9351, Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Joshua D. Wright (Feb. 6, 2014), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/202211/140206mcwanestatement.pdf. The scope of 

the disagreement between the majority and the dissent was largely limited to the narrow, but obviously crucial issue 

of whether harm to competition from McWane’s exclusive dealing had been demonstrated. See, e.g., id. at 7 n.14 

(assuming monopoly power); id. at 27-28 & n.38 (agreeing that Full Support Program amounted to exclusive 

dealing); id. at 33 n.40 (agreeing that “distributors are a key distribution channel”); id. at 4 (noting the “ample record 

evidence demonstrating that the Full Support Program harmed McWane’s rival Star”). See also Leon B. Greenfield, 

Afterword: Lorain Journal and the Antitrust Legacy of Robert Bork, 79 ANTITRUST L.J. 1047, 1062 (2014) (“The 

division among the FTC commissioners in the recent McWane matter illustrates the narrowed scope of today’s 

debates surrounding unilateral exclusion enforcement.”).
18

procompetitive justification for antitrust purposes.”64 More specifically, McWane’s increased 

sales volume did not result from actions, such as a price reduction, that typically promote 

consumer welfare by increasing overall market output or lowering prices; rather, the increased 

sales would have come from anticompetitive reductions in Star’s output. 

The second justification offered by McWane was that the Full Support Program 

prevented customers from cherry-picking the highest-selling items from Star and forced them to 

purchase McWane’s full line of domestic fittings. That is, if distributors were able to source 

from multiple suppliers, they would buy the common fittings from the limited supplier (at lower 

prices) and turn to the full-line supplier for less common products only, which supposedly could 

lead to the collapse of the full-line seller. The Commission was not convinced that this is a 

cognizable efficiency under the antitrust laws. To begin with, McWane never explained why it 

could not compete to sell the more common products by lowering its prices for them and raising 

its prices for the less common products, thereby reducing an implicit cross-subsidy. In any 

event, the Commission noted that “[e]ven if selective entry by the full-line supplier’s rivals led to 

the collapse of the full-line seller, that itself would not constitute a harm to the market (as 

opposed to a single firm).”65

Last month, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Commission’s decision, affirming our 

determinations regarding market definition, McWane’s monopoly power, and harm to 

competition.66 The court endorsed the approach taken by the D.C. Circuit and several other

courts in determining whether a monopolist’s conduct has harmed competition, noting, among 

other things, that substantial foreclosure is just one of several factors in the analysis and that 

 64 McWane Commission Opinion, supra note 53, at 30.

65 Id. at 32.

66 See McWane, Inc. v. FTC, No. 14-11363, 2015 WL 1652200, at *9-12, *19-21 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2015).
19

harm to one or more competitors is insufficient for purposes of Section 2.67 The court identified 

the pricing evidence in the record as the “most powerful evidence of anticompetitive harm.”68 

More specifically, the court observed that by keeping Star from becoming a more efficient 

competitor, McWane’s exclusivity policy preserved its ability to charge supracompetitive prices;

in fact, McWane was able to raise prices and increase its gross profits, notwithstanding Star’s 

(limited) entry.69 Finally, much like the Commission, the Eleventh Circuit was not persuaded by 

McWane’s efficiency arguments.70 I understand that McWane has announced its intention to 

seek further review of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. I will end my discussion of the McWane

case here. 

Let me make a few general points. First, there is no question in my mind that vertical 

business arrangements, including exclusive dealing, are much more likely to be procompetitive 

than anticompetitive. Exclusive dealing can enhance competition in a number of welldocumented ways, including by eliminating inter-brand free-riding, reducing the costs associated 

with demand and supply uncertainty, and intensifying competition for distribution.

71 Exclusive 

distribution arrangements can be particularly procompetitive where a manufacturer provides 

dealer support, discounts, or other consideration for the exclusivity, or where there is competition 

to be the exclusive distributor of a particular product. 

 67 Id. at *16 (citing United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc)). The Eleventh 

Circuit also endorsed the D.C. Circuit’s causation standard for assessing exclusive dealing claims. See id. at *18

(“We agree with the Commission and our sister circuits that in these circumstances the government must show that 

the defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct that reasonably appears to significantly contribute to maintaining 

monopoly power.”).

68 Id. at *19.

69 See id.

70 See id. at *21-22.

71 See, e.g., Benjamin Klein & Kevin M. Murphy, Exclusive Dealing Intensifies Competition for Distribution, 75 

ANTITRUST L.J. 433 (2008) (explaining how exclusivity restrictions intensify competition by manufacturers for retail 

distribution); Jonathan M. Jacobson, Exclusive Dealing, “Foreclosure,” and Consumer Harm, 70 ANTITRUST L.J. 

311, 357-60 (2002) (identifying various procompetitive justifications for exclusive dealing arrangements).
20

In short, the economic literature clearly supports the proposition that exclusive dealing is 

likely to be procompetitive.

72 Exclusive dealing thus should not be a significant focus of the 

Commission’s competition enforcement program. Nonetheless, there are some situations—

particularly in monopolized markets—in which exclusive dealing can be anticompetitive and 

serve to maintain a firm’s monopoly power.73 Where the Commission is able to identify 

substantial harm to competition that is not outweighed by cognizable efficiencies, we ought to 

pursue such conduct. 

Finally, I would like to return to the cross-subsidization point. Whether one refers to it as 

cream-skimming or cherry-picking, this rationale is unconvincing to me as a justification for 

either certificate-of-need laws or exclusive dealing by a monopolist. While cream-skimming 

may be a legitimate concern in very limited circumstances, such as a rate-regulated market with 

high fixed costs,74 I have not seen any evidence that would justify either a CON regime or 

exclusive dealing by a monopolist as a procompetitive response to cream-skimming by 

competitors. At a more general level, it is antithetical to free-market principles to cordon off 

significant portions of the market from would-be competitors that may provide lower-priced, 

higher-quality, and more innovative products and services. Rather, we should be doing 

everything we can to oppose such market restrictions and to facilitate entry by new and 

innovative competitors.

 72 See, e.g., Alden F. Abbott & Joshua D. Wright, Antitrust Analysis of Tying Arrangements and Exclusive Dealing, 

in ANTITRUST LAW AND ECONOMICS 183, 200-01 (Keith N. Hylton ed., 2d ed. 2010) (“[T]he potential efficiencies 

associated with both tying and exclusive dealing . . . lead most commentators to believe that they are generally 

procompetitive and should be analyzed under some form of rule of reason analysis.”); James C. Cooper et al., 

Vertical Antitrust Policy as a Problem of Inference, 23 INT’L J. INDUS. ORG. 639, 658 (2005) (“Most studies find 

evidence that vertical restraints/vertical integration are procompetitive[.]”).

73 See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 488 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Where a 

defendant maintains substantial market power, his activities are examined through a special lens: Behavior that 

might otherwise not be of concern to the antitrust laws—or that might even be viewed as procompetitive—can take 

on exclusionary connotations when practiced by a monopolist.”).

74 See, e.g., supra note 44.
21

We see this issue in the transportation area, where innovators like Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, 

and others are disrupting an age-old way of doing business and in the process providing 

consumers with expanded options, greater convenience, and often lower prices. In short, they 

are injecting much-needed competition into the market. For that reason, FTC staff has filed 

several advocacy comments to local authorities recommending that any restrictions on 

competition from these new transportation providers be no broader than necessary to address 

legitimate subjects of regulation, such as safety and consumer protection, and narrowly crafted to 

minimize any potential anticompetitive impact.75 Implicit in our advocacies is a rejection of the 

cream-skimming argument made by some taxi competitors76 and regulators77 in justifying 

opposition to Uber and others seeking to enter transportation markets throughout the country. 

These new firms ought to be treated the same as incumbents, in terms of applying existing 

regulations; however, they should not be locked out of the market because they are skimming 

cream or picking cherries. What they are really doing is competing.

 75 See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission Staff Letter to Alderman Brendan Reilly, Chicago City Council regarding 

Proposed Ordinance O2014-1367 (Apr. 15, 2014), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacyfilings/2014/04/ftc-staff-comment-honorable-brendan-reilly-concerning; Federal Trade Commission Staff Letter to 

Jacques P. Lerner, General Counsel, District of Columbia Taxicab Commission regarding Second Proposed 

Rulemakings regarding Chapters 12, 14, and 16 of Title 31 (June 7, 2013), available at

https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/2013/06/ftc-staff-comments-district-columbia-taxicab; 

Federal Trade Commission Staff Letter to Colorado Public Utilities Commission regarding Docket No. 13R-0009TR 

(Mar. 6, 2013), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/policy-actions/advocacy-filings/2013/03/ftc-staff-commentcolorado-public-utilities.

76 See, e.g., Andrew Zaleski, Welcome to the Uber Wars, POLITICO MAGAZINE (Sept. 2, 2014), 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/welcome-to-the-uber-wars-110498.html#.VWcQHrHD83E

(“‘Skimming the cream’ is the way [a taxi company executive] describes what Uber does to taxi competitors.”).

77 See, e.g., Community-wide Taxi Service Endangered by “Ridesharing,” WHO’S DRIVING YOU? (June 30, 2014), 

available at http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/uploads/2/5/1/4/25145532/community-wide-access-fact-sheet.pdf

(“‘Uber, Lyft and Sidecar simply do not serve all areas of a community at all hours of the day. By stealing more 

lucrative fares, they will ultimately leave transportation deserts in underprivileged neighborhoods where people rely 

on taxicabs for daily errands.’—Robert Werth, President of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association.”)
22

V. Conclusion

Thank you for your attention this morning. I hope my remarks have shed some light on 

the problems that these “Brother, May I?” approaches create for free-market competition and 

how targeted antitrust enforcement and advocacy, supported by sound economic analysis, can 

help limit the damage. I also hope that my call to reduce these barriers, which particularly harm 

those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, will encourage others to take up the challenge. 

I would be happy to entertain any questions you may have.