Why? The FTC has shown time and again it has no interest in enforcing the rules, whether that's under Pai, Khan, or going back every administration since the Microsoft anti-competition days.

In general historically I'd agree with you but the FTC under Khan has been prolific, not to mention there was recently news that they specifically are going to target Amazon for a large antitrust case and Khan wrote what is considered her most important paper specifically on Amazon.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-29/amazon-ma...

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.p...

Prolific in what, though? Actual fines instead of peanuts? Preventing mergers of companies that at the federal level don't lead to monopolies, but at every local level do? It speaks volumes to how little power the FTC has in the modern day if it still doesn't have enough on Amazon to have forced them into reform on Khan's first day in office. Their business practice isn't exactly a secret.

It's not that they haven't gotten better, but "better" and "what they should be" are very different things. One only hopefully leads to the other.

To be fair to Pai, he was Chair of the FCC not the FTC. He didn't have much say in FTC rule enforcement.

If you're being fair to Pai, you have no business being on the internet.

You mean in retrospect? Is that a thing? If so, how do you folks (assuming here) trigger it - some petition? Or FTC picks its own bespoke fights if at all?

Verb tense. Should have said "would have."