Introduction:
Lina Khan, Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the Administration of Joseph Biden until the inauguration of Donald Trump, has established herself as a transformative figure in the field of antitrust law and market regulation in the United States.
Appointed by President Joe Biden in 2021, Khan embodies the vanguard of the New Brandeis (or Neo-Brandeisian) movement, which advocates a structuralist approach to combating the concentration of economic power, particularly in the technology sector. This article examines her academic trajectory, theoretical contributions, management of the FTC, and the debate surrounding her regulatory vision. We have dedicated a separate article to the Brandeisian movement (inspired by Justice Louis Brandeis). We will develop another article on the ideas and enormous influence Justice Brandeis had on U.S. jurisprudence and how his ideas—despite his passing in 1941—still illuminate the path of antitrust struggles today, becoming a banner for something Brandeis could not have imagined: technocracy.

Academic Background and Theoretical Foundations:
Lina Khan was born in 1989 in London, United Kingdom, and emigrated to the United States during her childhood. After graduating with honors from Williams College in 2010, she earned her Juris Doctor from Yale Law School in 2017. Her academic formation was marked by an early critique of the neoliberal paradigm in antitrust law, which since the 1980s had been dominated by the Chicago School—prioritizing consumer welfare (measured by low prices) over considerations such as fair competition or the distribution of economic power.
Her seminal article, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” (Yale Law Journal, 2017), catapulted her career. In it, Khan argued that Amazon’s practices—such as subsidizing losses in certain sectors to dominate adjacent markets—escaped legal scrutiny under the traditional framework, which failed to capture the systemic risks of vertical concentration and network effects. This work became a manifesto of the New Brandeis movement, which seeks to revive early 20th-century antitrust principles focused on preventing the accumulation of power, not merely avoiding high prices.

Khan has defended three key theoretical pillars:
Critique of Consumer Welfare as the Sole Metric: She challenges the notion that consumer welfare, measured by prices, is sufficient to assess competition. In digital markets, companies like Facebook or Google offer “free” services while consolidating power through data control and competitor exclusion.
Market Power and Democracy: Following Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Khan links economic concentration with the erosion of democracy. Firms with systemic power can influence legislation, media, and public opinion.
Updating Legal Frameworks: She proposes reinterpreting existing laws, such as the Sherman Act (1890), to address modern practices like vertical integration, massive data usage, and anti-competitive algorithms.

Her Tenure at the FTC: Innovation and Controversy.
As FTC Chair since June 2021, Khan has pursued a bold agenda redefining the agency’s role:

1. Focus on Big Tech:
   Meta (Facebook): In 2021, the FTC backed a lawsuit to undo the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, alleging Meta suppressed competition through a “buy or bury” strategy.
   Amazon: Under her leadership, the FTC sued Amazon in 2023 for monopolistic practices, including using its platform to harm independent sellers.
   Microsoft–Activision Blizzard: Khan challenged this $69 billion merger, citing risks to competition in the gaming market.
2. Procedural Reforms:
   Review of Merger Guidelines: In 2023, the FTC proposed updating merger evaluation criteria to consider not only price impacts but also effects on workers, innovation, and long-term competitiveness.
   Ban on Noncompete Agreements: In 2023, the FTC proposed a rule to eliminate these agreements, which affect 30 million American workers.
3. Focus on Non-Tech Sectors:
   Khan has expanded the FTC’s reach to pharmaceuticals, energy, and agribusiness. For instance, she blocked the Lockheed Martin–Aerojet Rocketdyne merger (2022), citing defense competition risks.

Criticism and Debate over Chair Khan’s Actions:
Khan’s leadership has sparked both praise and criticism:
Innovation vs. Regulation: Critics such as economist Tyler Cowen argue her approach could stifle innovation by discouraging investment in high-risk sectors.
Legal Viability: Some jurists, like Richard Epstein, contend her theories exceed the FTC’s legal mandate, requiring legislative change rather than reinterpretation.
Political Resistance: Business groups and Republican politicians have accused Khan of “overstepping her authority,” pushing to limit the FTC’s powers.

Her Legacy and Future Prospects:
Lina Khan represents a turning point in global antitrust policy. Her influence transcends the U.S.: the European Union, India, and Australia have adopted similar approaches to regulating digital markets.
In the long term, her legacy will depend on:
Judicial Outcomes: If lawsuits against Meta, Amazon, and others succeed, they could set precedents for dismantling monopolies.
Legislative Change: Initiatives such as the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (2023), which prohibits large platforms from favoring their own services, could institutionalize her ideas.
Global Impact: Developing countries are observing her model to balance corporate power and economic sovereignty.

From a global perspective, Lina Khan embodies a renaissance of antitrust as a tool of economic justice and democracy. Her vision, though polarizing, has redefined the debate on corporate power in the 21st century. As she wrote in The Yale Law Journal: “Antitrust laws are not mere technical rules; they are guardians of a just economic order.” In a world where tech giants operate like parallel states, her push for regulated capitalism marks a bold path whose rewards—and risks—will define the coming decades.

International Influence: A Model for the World.
Lina Khan’s vision has transcended U.S. borders, inspiring regulatory reforms across multiple jurisdictions, for example:

In the European Union: The Digital Duo and Beyond:
Digital Markets Act (DMA, 2022): The EU adopted rules that prohibit “digital gatekeepers” (such as Google and Apple) from favoring their own services—an approach aligned with Khan’s actions against Amazon and Meta. Margrethe Vestager, EU Competition Commissioner, has acknowledged the New Brandeis movement’s influence on the DMA.
Big Tech Investigations: The European Commission has coordinated with the FTC on cases such as Microsoft–Activision, reflecting a transatlantic strategy against power concentration.

In Developing Countries: Technological Sovereignty and Antitrust:
India: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) fined Google in 2022 for abusing its dominant position in Android, citing arguments similar to Khan’s on anti-competitive network effects.
Brazil: Bill PL 2768/2022 aims to regulate digital platform practices, inspired by Khan’s structuralist approach.

In Multilateral Forums:
Khan has actively participated in the OECD and the G7 to promote global standards prioritizing fairness over efficiency, challenging the neoliberal consensus dominant since the 1980s.

Focus on Labor Rights and Economic Inequality:
Under her leadership, the FTC has expanded its scope to address not only competition but also inequality:
Ban on Noncompete Agreements: In January 2023, the FTC proposed a rule to eliminate these agreements affecting 30 million workers, arguing they suppress wages and labor mobility.
Combating Mergers Harmful to Workers: In 2022, the FTC blocked the Penguin Random House–Simon & Schuster merger, claiming it would reduce advances for authors—a precedent for considering supplier impacts, not just consumers.

Institutional Transformation of the FTC:
Khan has restructured the agency to face modern challenges:
Creation of the Office of Technology (2022): A team of engineers, data scientists, and AI experts to investigate discriminatory algorithms and anti-competitive practices on digital platforms.
Proactive Enforcement Focus: She increased the use of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition,” to pursue practices not covered by traditional antitrust laws.

Academic Reactions and Evolution of the Neo-Brandeisian Movement:
Khan’s rise and work have revitalized academic debate: she has received strong support from scholars such as Tim Wu (Biden adviser) and Zephyr Teachout, who celebrate her approach as a return to progressive antitrust roots. She has faced criticism from the Republican right, as seen, but also from the left—from figures like Matt Stoller and others—who argue the FTC should be more aggressive in dismantling existing monopolies, not just preventing mergers. She has also had a significant impact on legal education: universities like Yale and Harvard have incorporated courses on structuralist antitrust, training a new generation of lawyers under her principles.

Future Challenges and Risks:
Khan has faced major obstacles that could define her legacy: judicial resistance, as some judges shaped by the Chicago School—such as Neil Gorsuch—have questioned her expansive legal interpretations; political sustainability, as her agenda depends on continued Democratic Party support; and the need to balance innovation with oversight—particularly in AI and biotechnology, which are key fields that must be regulated without hindering progress.

An Expanded Conclusion: Lina Khan and the Rebirth of Economic Democracy:
Lina Khan has not merely been a regulator; she is the architect of a new paradigm where economic power is dispersed and democracy strengthened. Her battle against digital giants, her emphasis on labor rights, and her global vision have positioned the FTC as a regulatory beacon in an increasingly corporate world. Yet her success will depend on turning legal victories into lasting structural change. As she herself warned: “Antitrust is a marathon, not a sprint.” In that marathon, Khan has already altered the course—but the finish line—a fair and dynamic market—remains elusive. Her legacy, however, is already indelible: she has proven that even in the age of algorithms, laws can be tools of emancipation.