←back to thread

1737 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Spoom ◴[] No.41859299[source]
Does the FTC actually have the power to set rules like this effectively now that Chevron deference isn't a thing? I'd imagine e.g. the New York Times, among others, will quickly sue to stop this, no?
replies(10): >>41859333 #>>41859374 #>>41859467 #>>41859485 #>>41859700 #>>41859742 #>>41860115 #>>41861055 #>>41862301 #>>41863207 #
advisedwang ◴[] No.41863207[source]
The FTC has the power to make rules about "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." All the lack of Chevron deference means is the courts are more willing to step in to decide whether or not a rule falls under that. So in this case it makes it harder for FTC to fight a hypothetical NYT lawsuit, but far from impossible.

In practice abolishing Chevron deference mostly means rules will follow the politics of judges rather than the current administration. TBH I think this rule is far enough from the culture war that it will probably stand anyway. Unless the NYT happens to buy the judges a lot of vacations...

replies(1): >>41866218 #
1. heyoni ◴[] No.41866218[source]
> In practice abolishing Chevron deference mostly means rules will follow the politics of judges rather than the current administration. TBH I think this rule is far enough from the culture war that it will probably stand anyway. Unless the NYT happens to buy the judges a lot of vacations...

I want to agree with you but the vote was split down party lines completely with 2 dissenters being republican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Federal...