Monday, November 23, 2015

Hounded out of business

The Wall Street Journal had a nice oped, "Hounded out of business by regulators" by Dan Epstein who was, well, hounded out of business by regulators. Excerpts:
Last Friday, the FTC’s chief administrative-law judge dismissed the agency’s complaint. But it was too late. The reputational damage and expense of a six-year federal investigation forced LabMD to close last year.

...the commission opened an investigation into LabMD in January 2010. ...the FTC refused to detail LabMD’s data-security deficiencies.... Eventually, the FTC demanded that LabMD sign an onerous consent order admitting wrongdoing and agreeing to 20 years of compliance reporting.

Unlike many other companies in similar situations, however, LabMD refused to cave and in 2012 went public with the ordeal. In what appeared to be retaliation, the FTC sued LabMD in 2013, alleging that the company engaged in “unreasonable” data-security practices that amounted to an “unfair” trade practice.... FTC officials publicly attacked LabMD and imposed arduous demands on the doctors who used the company’s diagnostic services. In just one example, the FTC subpoenaed a Florida oncology lab to produce documents and appear for depositions before government lawyers—all at the doctors’ expense.
Yet after years of investigation and enforcement action, the FTC never produced a single patient or doctor who suffered or who alleged identity theft or harm because of LabMD’s data-security practices. The FTC never claimed that LabMD violated HIPAA regulations, and until 2014—four years after its investigation began—never offered any data-security standards with which LabMD failed to comply.

...the case illustrates the injustice of the federal system that allows agencies to cow companies into submission rather than seek a day in court. During its three years of pre-suit investigation against LabMD, the FTC demanded thousands of documents, confidential employee depositions and several meetings with management. LabMD—which at its apex employed 30 people—spent hundreds of thousands of dollars meeting demands. No federal court would ever allow such abusive tactics. But this isn’t federal court—it’s a federal agency.

Furthermore, the FTC is likely to simply disregard the 92-page decision—which weighed witness credibility and the law—and side with commission staff. That’s the still greater injustice: The FTC is not bound by administrative-law judge rulings. In fact, the agency has disregarded every adverse ruling over the past two decades, according to a February analysis by former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright. Defendants’ only recourse is appealing in federal court, a fresh burden in legal fees.

That’s what happens when a federal agency serves as its own detective, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
The anecdote has two larger implications, in my view. First, many people including myself have a sense that this kind of regulatory persecution is harming economic growth. But there are no good estimates of the total number of companies put out of business, jobs destroyed, investment made worthless by regulatory persecution, or, even harder, projects not started from fear of such persecution. For the moment, we can only collect anecdotes, which is why I pass this one on.  But the measurement question is vital. Inequality is only a big policy issue because we have statistics on it.

Second, note the pretty clear charge that the FTC retaliated against LabMD for challenging the FTC. In "The rule of law in the regulatory state" (pdf, blog version here; excerpt at the insider here)  I started thinking about the political and free-speech implications of this kind of persecution.

With exceptions such as Lois Lerner at there IRS, the agencies are still first and foremost interested in protecting the agencies.

But it's easy enough these days to figure out who donates to what campaign, or who blogs about what.  To imagine that this kind of persecution will not be used for partisan political purposes -- or that fear of such persecution will not drive company owners to make political friends, make abundant contributions, pay for expensive speeches, and so forth -- is to imagine that a plate full of cookies at a children's birthday party will stay untouched when mom and dad say eat your vegetables first.  LabMD clearly needed a friend in high places to call and say "make this problem go away." Its successors will not make that mistake.


  1. HIPAA was passed in 1996, two years before there was a Google; it's a failed piece of legislation that has produced more costs than benefits. LabMD is just a visible fatality, there are allot more less visible.

    HIPAA is a bad solution to a non-problem. T.A.Coss, RN

  2. The FTC is an agency that has never had a clear mandate. Their statute commands them to forbid unfair trade practices. They should have been shut down for general uselessness years ago.

    1. Bad laws and useless bureaucracies never go away.

  3. "LabMD clearly needed a friend in high places to call and say "make this problem go away." Its successors will not make that mistake."

    No wonder politicians will never rein in the regulatory state. Much power obtains from their ability to hand out political favors such as "making things go away".

  4. Your last paragraph nails the perverse selection of unprincipled regulation. Iagos wouldn't be so bothersome without their Othellos. And naive viewers only see the political actors without appreciating the formative environment.

  5. I would like to see propertyy zoning, in general, outlawed.

  6. Interesting read from a philosophical perspective.

  7. Welcome to administrative state tyranny. It has been here a long time, getting worse and all politician wanting to correct the situation and not benefiting from it have been marginalized and silenced. Just like in corrupt crony capitalist hell holes like Mexico and the Philippines you now need a political friend with connections to function or even stay in business. Meanwhile the out of control money printing and spending continues while almost all economic statistics dealing with average non Washington D.C. citizens tanks. The counties surrounding D.C now have the highest in the world ratio of capital city average earnings to average citizen earnings. Essentially we in the provinces are living in the Hunger Games without the games.


Comments are welcome. Keep it short, polite, and on topic.

Thanks to a few abusers I am now moderating comments. I welcome thoughtful disagreement. I will block comments with insulting or abusive language. I'm also blocking totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. I am much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.