Corporations

Latest story

125 Shares99 Views

The Trustbuster Who Has Apple and Google in His Sights

by

Shortly after Jonathan Kanter took over the Justice Department’s antitrust division in November 2021, the agency secured an additional $50 million to investigate monopolies, bust criminal cartels and block mergers.To celebrate, Mr. Kanter bought a prop of a giant check, placed it outside his office and wrote on the check’s memo line: “Break ’Em Up.”Mr. Kanter, 50, has pushed that philosophy ever since, becoming a lead architect of the most significant effort in decades to fight the concentration of power in corporate America. On Thursday, he took his biggest swing when the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. In the 88-page lawsuit, the government argued that Apple had violated antitrust laws with practices intended to keep customers reliant on its iPhones and less likely to switch to competing devices.That lawsuit joins two Justice Department antitrust cases against Google that argue the company illegally shored up monopolies. Mr. Kanter’s staff has also challenged numerous corporate mergers, including suing to stop JetBlue Airways from buying Spirit Airlines.“We want to help real people by making sure that our antitrust laws work for workers, work for consumers, work for entrepreneurs and work to protect our democratic values,” Mr. Kanter said in a January interview. He declined to comment on the Google cases and other active litigation.At a news conference about the Apple lawsuit on Thursday, Mr. Kanter compared the action to past Justice Department challenges to Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft. The suit is aimed at protecting “the market for the innovations that we can’t yet perceive,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Hottest Job in Corporate America? The Executive in Charge of A.I.

    by

    Many feared that artificial intelligence would kill jobs. But hospitals, insurance companies and others are creating roles to navigate and harness the disruptive technology.In September, the Mayo Clinic in Arizona created a first-of-its-kind job at the hospital system: chief artificial intelligence officer.Doctors at the Arizona site, which has facilities in Phoenix and Scottsdale, had experimented with A.I. for years. But after ChatGPT’s release in 2022 and an ensuing frenzy over the technology, the hospital decided it needed to work more with A.I. and find someone to coordinate the efforts.So executives appointed Dr. Bhavik Patel, a radiologist who specializes in A.I., to the new job. Dr. Patel has since piloted a new A.I. model that could help speed up the diagnosis of a rare heart disease by looking for hidden data in ultrasounds.“We’re really trying to foster some of these data and A.I. capabilities throughout every department, every division, every work group,” said Dr. Richard Gray, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. The chief A.I. officer role was hatched because “it helps to have a coordinating function with the depth of expertise.”Many people have long feared that A.I. would kill jobs. But a boom in the technology has instead spurred law firms, hospitals, insurance companies, government agencies and universities to create what has become the hottest new role in corporate America and beyond: the senior executive in charge of A.I.The Equifax credit bureau, the manufacturer Ashley Furniture and law firms such as Eversheds Sutherland have appointed A.I. executives over the past year. In December, The New York Times named an editorial director of A.I. initiatives. And more than 400 federal departments and agencies looked for chief A.I. officers last year to comply with an executive order by President Biden that created safeguards for the technology.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Corporate America Has Dodged the Damage of High Rates. For Now.

    by

    Small businesses and risky borrowers face rising costs from the Federal Reserve’s moves, but the biggest companies have avoided taking a hit.The prediction was straightforward: A rapid rise in interest rates orchestrated by the Federal Reserve would confine consumer spending and corporate profits, sharply reducing hiring and cooling a red-hot economy.But it hasn’t worked out quite the way forecasters expected. Inflation has eased, but the biggest companies in the country have avoided the damage of higher interest rates. With earnings picking up again, companies continue to hire, giving the economy and the stock market a boost that few predicted when the Fed began raising interest rates nearly two years ago.There are two key reasons that big business has avoided the hammer of higher rates. In the same way that the average rate on existing household mortgages is still only 3.6 percent — reflecting the millions of owners who bought or refinanced homes at the low-cost terms that prevailed until early last year — leaders in corporate America locked in cheap funding in the bond market before rates began to rise.Also, as the Fed pushed rates above 5 percent, from near zero at the start of 2022, chief financial officers at those businesses began to shuffle surplus cash into investments that generated a higher level of interest income.The combination meant that net interest payments — the money owed on debt, less the income from interest-bearing investments — for American companies plunged to $136.8 billion by the end of September. It was a low not seen since the 1980s, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed.That could soon change.While many small businesses and some risky corporate borrowers have already seen interest costs rise, the biggest companies will face a sharp rise in borrowing costs in the years ahead if interest rates don’t start to decline. That’s because a wave of debt is coming due in the corporate bond and loan markets over the next two years, and firms are likely to have to refinance that borrowing at higher rates.Overall Corporate Debt Interest Payments Have PlummetedAlthough the Fed has rapidly raised interest rates, net interest payments paid by corporations are reaching 40-year lows.

    Note: Data consists of interest paid by private enterprises (minus interest income received) as well as rents and royalties paid by private enterprises.Source: Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy The New York TimesThe junk bond market faces a ‘refinancing wall.’Roughly a third of the $1.3 trillion of debt issued by companies in the so-called junk bond market, where the riskiest borrowers finance their operations, comes due in the next three years, according to research from Bank of America.The average “coupon,” or interest rate, on bonds sold by these borrowers is around 6 percent. But it would cost companies closer to 9 percent to borrow today, according to an index run by ICE Data Services.Credit analysts and investors acknowledge that they are uncertain whether the eventual damage will be containable or enough to exacerbate a downturn in the economy. The severity of the impact will largely depend on how long interest rates remain elevated.“I think the question that people who are really worrying about it are asking is: Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?” said Jim Caron, a portfolio manager at Morgan Stanley. “Does this create the collapse?”The good news is that debts coming due by the end of 2024 in the junk bond market constitute only about 8 percent of the outstanding market, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In essence, less than one-tenth of the collective debt pile needs to be refinanced imminently. But borrowers might feel higher borrowing costs sooner than that: Junk-rated companies typically try to refinance early so they aren’t reliant on investors for financing at the last minute. Either way, the longer rates remain elevated, the more companies will have to absorb higher interest costs.Among the firms most exposed to higher rates are “zombies” — those already unable to generate enough earnings to cover their interest payments. These companies were able to limp along when rates were low, but higher rates could push them into insolvency.Even if the challenge is managed, it can have tangible effects on growth and employment, said Atsi Sheth, managing director of credit strategy at Moody’s.“If we say that the cost of their borrowing to do those things is now a little bit higher than it was two years ago,” Ms. Sheth said, more corporate leaders could decide: “Maybe I’ll hire less people. Maybe I won’t set up that factory. Maybe I’ll cut production by 10 percent. I might close down a factory. I might fire people.”Small businesses have a different set of problems.Some of this potential effect is already evident elsewhere, among the vast majority of companies that do not fund themselves through the machinations of selling bonds or loans to investors in corporate credit markets. These companies — the small, private enterprises that are responsible for roughly half the private-sector employment in the country — are already having to pay much more for debt.They fund their operations using cash from sales, business credit cards and private loans — all of which are generally more expensive options for financing payrolls and operations. Small and medium-size companies with good credit ratings were paying 4 percent for a line of credit from their bankers a couple of years ago, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group. Now, they’re paying 10 percent interest on short-term loans.Hiring within these firms has slowed, and their credit card balances are higher than they were before the pandemic, even as spending has slowed.“This suggests to us that more small businesses are not paying the full balance and are using credit cards as a source of financing,” analysts at Bank of America said, adding that it points to “financial stress for certain firms,” though it is not yet a widespread problem.Corporate buyouts are also being tested.Carvana renegotiated its debt this year to defer mounting interest costs.Caroline Brehman/EPA, via ShutterstockIn addition to small businesses, some vulnerable privately held companies that do have access to corporate credit markets are already grappling with higher interest costs. Backed by private-equity investors, who typically buy out businesses and load them with debt to extract financial profits, these companies borrow in the leveraged loan market, where borrowing typically comes with a floating interest rate that rises and falls broadly in line with the Fed’s adjustments.Moody’s maintains a list of companies rated B3 negative and below, a very low credit rating reserved for companies in financial distress. Almost 80 percent of the companies on this list are private-equity-backed leveraged buyouts.Some of these borrowers have sought creative ways to extend the terms of their debt, or to avoid paying interest until the economic climate brightens.The used-car seller Carvana — backed by the private-equity giant Apollo Global Management — renegotiated its debt this year to do just that, allowing its management to cut losses in the third quarter, not including the mounting interest costs that it is deferring.Leaders of at-risk companies will be hoping that a serene mix of economic news is on the horizon — with inflation fading substantially as overall economic growth holds steady, allowing Fed officials to end the rate-increase cycle or even cut rates slightly.Some recent research provides a bit of that hope.In September, staff economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a model forecast indicating that “inflation will return to near the Fed’s target by mid-2024” without a major economic contraction. If that comes to pass, lower interest rates for companies in need of fresh funds could be coming to the rescue much sooner than previously expected.Few, at this point, see that as a guarantee, including Ms. Sheth at Moody’s.“Companies had a lot of things going for them that may be running out next year,” she said.Emily Flitter More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    The Upshot of Microsoft’s Activision Deal: Big Tech Can Get Even Bigger

    by

    President Biden’s top antitrust officials have used novel arguments over the past few years to stop tech giants and other large companies from making deals, a strategy that has had mixed success.But on Friday, when Microsoft closed its blockbuster $69 billion acquisition of the video game publisher Activision Blizzard after beating back a federal government challenge, the message sent by the merger’s completion was incontrovertible: Big Tech can still get bigger.“Big Tech companies will certainly be reading the tea leaves,” said Daniel Crane, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “Smart money says merge now while the merging is good.”Microsoft’s purchase of Activision was the latest deal to move forward after a string of failed challenges to mergers by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, which are also confronting the big tech companies through lawsuits arguing they broke antimonopoly laws. Leaders at the two agencies had tried to block at least 10 other deals over the past two years, promising to dislodge longstanding ideas from antitrust law that they said had protected behemoths like Microsoft, Google and Amazon.But their efforts ran headlong into skeptical courts, largely leaving those core assumptions untouched. In the case of Microsoft’s Activision deal, the idea that the F.T.C. questioned was a “vertical” transaction, which refers to mergers between firms that are not primarily direct competitors. Regulators have rarely sued to block such deals, figuring that they generally do not create monopolies.Yet “vertical” deals have been especially common in the tech industry, where companies like Meta, Apple and Amazon have sought to grow and protect their empires by spreading into new business lines.In 2017, for instance, Amazon bought the high-end grocery chain Whole Foods for $13.4 billion. In 2012, Meta acquired the photo-sharing app Instagram for $1 billion and then shelled out nearly $19 billion for the messaging service WhatsApp in 2014. Of the 24 deals worth more than $1 billion completed by the tech giants from 2013 to mid-August of this year, 20 were vertical transactions, according to data provided by Dealogic.The sealing of the Microsoft-Activision deal has buttressed the notion that vertical deals generally are not anticompetitive and can still go through relatively unscathed.“There continues to be the presumption that vertical integration can be a healthy phenomena,” said William Kovacic, a former chair of the F.T.C. The F.T.C. is proceeding with its challenge to the Microsoft-Activision deal even as it has closed, said Victoria Graham, a spokeswoman for the agency, who added that the acquisition was a “threat to competition.” The Justice Department declined to comment. The White House did not immediately have a comment.The idea that vertical transactions were less likely to harm competition than combinations of direct rivals has been ingrained since the late 1970s. In the ensuing decades, the Justice Department and F.T.C. took no challenges to vertical deals to court, instead reaching settlements that allowed companies to proceed with their deals if they changed practices or divested parts of their business.Then, in 2017, the Justice Department sued to block the $85.4 billion merger between the phone giant AT&T and the media company Time Warner, in the agency’s first attempt to stop a vertical deal in decades. A judge ruled against the challenge in 2018, saying he did not see enough evidence of anticompetitive harms from the union of companies in different industries.Mr. Biden’s top antitrust officials — Lina Khan, the F.T.C. chair, and Jonathan Kanter, the top antitrust official at the Justice Department — have been even more aggressive in challenging vertical mergers since they were appointed in 2021.That year, the F.T.C. sued to stop the chip maker Nvidia from buying Arm, which licenses chip technology, and the companies abandoned the deal. In January 2022, the F.T.C. announced it would block Lockheed Martin’s $4.4 billion acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, a missile propulsion systems maker. The companies dropped their merger.But judges rejected many of their efforts for lack of evidence and denied Ms. Khan and Mr. Kanter a courtroom win that would have set new precedent. In 2022, after the D.O.J. sued to block UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition of Change Healthcare, a judge ruled against the agency.Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, challenged Microsoft’s deal for Activision last year. Tom Brenner for The New York TimesThe F.T.C.’s move to block Microsoft’s purchase of Activision last year was a bold effort by Ms. Khan, given that the two companies do not primarily compete with one another. The agency argued that Microsoft, which makes the Xbox gaming console, could harm consumers and competition by withholding Activision’s games from rival consoles and would also use the deal to dominate the young market for game streaming.To show that would not be the case, Microsoft offered to make one of Activision’s major game franchises, Call of Duty, available to other consoles for 10 years. The company also reached a settlement with the European Union, promising to make Activision titles available to competitors in the nascent market for game streaming, which allowed the deal to go through.In July, a federal judge ultimately ruled that the F.T.C. didn’t provide enough evidence that Microsoft intended to forestall competition through the deal and that the software giant’s concession eliminated competition concerns.The agencies are “facing judges who have said 40 years of economics show that vertical mergers are good,” said Nancy Rose, a professor of applied economics at M.I.T. with an expertise in antitrust, who is among a group of scholars who say vertical deals can be harmful to competition. She said the agencies should not back down from challenging vertical mergers, but that regulators would need to be careful to choose cases they can prove with an abundance of evidence.Ms. Khan and Mr. Kanter have said they are willing to take risks and lose lawsuits to expand the boundaries of the law and spark action in Congress to change antitrust rules. Ms. Khan has noted that the F.T.C. has successfully stopped more than a dozen mergers.Mr. Kanter has said that challenges to mergers from the Justice Department and the F.T.C. have deterred problematic deals.“There are fewer problematic mergers that are coming to us in the first place,” he said in a speech at the American Economic Liberties Project, a left-leaning think tank, in August.Still, bigger companies that have the resources to fight back will probably feel more confident challenging regulators after the Microsoft-Activision deal, antitrust lawyers said. The aggressive posture by regulators has simply become the cost of doing business, said Ryan Shores, who led tech antitrust investigations at the D.O.J. during the Trump administration and is now a partner at the law firm Cleary Gottlieb.“A lot of companies have come to the realization that if they have a deal they want to get through, they have to be prepared to litigate,” he said. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Women Could Fill Truck Driver Jobs. Companies Won’t Let Them.

    by

    Three women filed a discrimination complaint against a trucking company over its same-sex training policy, which they say prevented them from being hired.The trucking industry has complained for years that there is a dire shortage of workers willing to drive big rigs. But some women say many trucking companies have made it effectively impossible for them to get those jobs.Trucking companies often refuse to hire women if the businesses do not have women available to train them. And because fewer than 5 percent of truck drivers in the United States are women, there are few female trainers to go around.The same-sex training policies are common across the industry, truckers and legal experts say, even though a federal judge ruled in 2014 that it was unlawful for a trucking company to require that female job candidates be paired only with female trainers.Ashli Streeter of Killeen, Texas, said she had borrowed $7,000 to attend a truck driving school and earn her commercial driving license in hopes of landing a job that would pay more than the warehouse work she had done. But she said Stevens Transport, a Dallas-based company, had told her that she couldn’t be hired because the business had no women to train her. Other trucking companies turned her down for the same reason.“I got licensed, and I clearly could drive,” Ms. Streeter said. “It was disheartening.”Ms. Streeter and two other women filed a complaint against Stevens Transport with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday, contending that the company’s same-sex training policy unfairly denied them driving jobs. The commission investigates allegations made against employers, and, if it determines a violation has occurred, it may bring its own lawsuit. The commission had brought the lawsuit that resulted in the 2014 federal court decision against similar policies at another trucking company, Prime.Critics of the industry said the persistence of same-sex training nearly a decade after that ruling, which did not set national legal precedent, was evidence that trucking companies had not done enough to hire women who could help solve their labor woes.“It’s frustrating to see that we have not evolved at all,” said Desiree Wood, a trucker who is the president and founder of Real Women in Trucking, a nonprofit.Ms. Wood’s group is joining the three women in their E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, which was filed by Peter Romer-Friedman, a labor lawyer in Washington, and the National Women’s Law Center.Companies that insist on using women to train female applicants generally do so because they want to avoid claims of sexual harassment. Trainers typically spend weeks alone with trainees on the road, where the two often have to sleep in the same cab.Critics of same-sex training acknowledge that sexual harassment is a problem, but they say trucking companies should address it with better vetting and anti-harassment programs. Employers could reduce the risk of harassment by paying for trainees to sleep in a hotel room, which some companies already do.Women made up 4.8 percent of the 1.37 million truck drivers in the United States in 2021, according to the most recent government statistics, up from 4 percent a decade earlier.Long-haul truck driving can be a demanding job. Drivers are away from home for days. Yet some women say they are attracted to it because it can pay around $50,000 a year, with experienced drivers making a lot more. Truck driving generally pays more than many other jobs that don’t require a college degree, including those in retail stores, warehouses or child care centers.Women made up 4.8 percent of truck drivers in 2021, according to the most recent government statistics.Mikayla Whitmore for The New York TimesThe infrastructure act of 2021 required the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to set up an advisory board to support women pursuing trucking careers and identify practices that keep women out of the profession.Robin Hutcheson, the administrator of the agency, said requiring same-sex training would appear to be a barrier to entry. “If that is happening, that would be something that we would want to take a look at,” she said in an interview.Ms. Streeter, a mother of three, said she had applied to Stevens because it hired people straight out of trucking school. She told Stevens representatives that she was willing to be trained by a man, but to no avail.Bruce Dean, general counsel at Stevens, denied the allegations in the suit. “The fundamental premise in the charge — that Stevens Transport Inc. only allows women trainers to train women trainees — is false,” he said in a statement, adding that the company “has had a cross-gender training program, where both men and women trainers train female trainees, for decades.”Some legal experts said that, although same-sex training was ruled unlawful in only one federal court, trucking companies would struggle to defend such policies before other judges. Under federal employment discrimination law, employers can seek special legal exemptions to treat women differently from men, but courts have granted them very rarely.“Basically, what the law says is that a company needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Deborah Brake, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in employment and gender law. “They need to be able to give women equal employment opportunities and prevent and remedy sexual harassment.”Ms. Streeter said she had made meager earnings from infrequent truck driving gigs while hoping to get a position at Stevens. Later this month, she will become a driver in the trucking fleet of a large retailer.Kim Howard, one of the other women who filed the E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, said she was attracted to truck driving by the prospect of a steady wage after working for decades as an actor in New York.“It was very much a blow,” she said of being rejected because of the training policy. “I honestly don’t know how I financially made it through.”Ms. Howard, who is now employed at another trucking company, said she had worked briefly at a company where she was trained by two men who treated her well. “It’s quite possible for a woman to be trained by a man, and a man to be a professional about what the job is,” she said.Other female drivers said they had been mistreated by male trainers who could be relentlessly dismissive and sometimes refused to teach them important skills, like reversing a truck with a large trailer attached.Rowan Kannard, a truck driver from Wisconsin who is not involved in the complaint against Stevens, said a male trainer had spent little time training her on a run to California in 2019.At a truck stop where she felt unsafe, Ms. Kannard said, the trainer demanded that she leave the cab — and then locked her out. She asked to stop the training and was flown back to Wisconsin. Yet she said she did not believe that same-sex training for women was necessary. “Some of these men that are training, they should probably go through a course.”Desiree Wood, the president of Real Women in Trucking, says the trucking industry has not evolved to hire and train more women.Mikayla Whitmore for The New York TimesMs. Wood, of Real Women in Trucking, said trucking companies’ training policies were misguided for another reason — there is no guarantee that a woman will treat another woman better than a male trainer. She said a female trainer had once hurled racist abuse at her and told her to drive dangerously.“I’m Mexican — she hated Mexicans and wanted to tell me all about it the whole time I was on the truck,” Ms. Wood said, “She screamed at me to speed in zones where it was not safe.”Still, some women support same-sex training policies.Ellen Voie, who founded the nonprofit Women in Trucking, said truck driving should be treated differently from other professions because trainers and trainees spent so much time together in close quarters.“I do not know of any other mode of transportation that confines men and women in an area that has sleeping quarters,” Ms. Voie said.Lawyers for Prime, the company that lost the E.E.O.C. suit in 2014 challenging its same-sex training policy, called Ms. Voie as an expert witness to defend the practice. In her testimony, she contended that women who were passed over by companies that didn’t have female trainers available could have found work at other trucking companies. She still believes that.But Ms. Voie added that trucking companies also needed to do more to improve training for women, including placing cameras in cabs to monitor bad behavior and paying for hotel rooms so trainers and trainees can sleep separately.Steve Rush, who recently sold his New Jersey trucking company, stopped using sleeper cabs over a decade ago, sending drivers to hotels. He said fewer of his drivers quit compared with the rest of the industry, as a result.“What woman in her right mind wants to go out and learn how to drive a truck and have to jump into the sleeper that some guy’s just crawled out of,” he said.Ben Casselman More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Blasts Google Over Paying $10 Billion a Year to Cut Out Search Rivals

    by

    The Justice Department and 38 states and territories on Tuesday laid out how Google had systematically wielded its power in online search to cow competitors, as the internet giant fiercely parried back, in the opening of the most consequential trial over tech power in the modern internet era.In a packed courtroom at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, the Justice Department and states painted a picture of how Google had used its deep pockets and dominant position, paying $10 billion a year to Apple and others to be the default search provider on smartphones. Google viewed those agreements as a “powerful strategic weapon” to cut out rivals and entrench its search engine, the government said.“This feedback loop, this wheel, has been turning for more than 12 years,” said Kenneth Dintzer, the Justice Department’s lead courtroom lawyer. “And it always turns to Google’s advantage.”Google denied that it had illegally used agreements to exclude its search competitors and said it had simply provided a superior product, adding that people can easily switch which search engine they use. The company also said that internet search extends more broadly than its general search engine and pointed to the many ways that people now find information online, such as Amazon for shopping, TikTok for entertainment and Expedia for travel.“Users today have more search options and more ways to access information online than ever before,” said John E. Schmidtlein, the lawyer who opened for Google.The back-and-forth came in the federal government’s first monopoly trial since it tried to break up Microsoft more than two decades ago. This case — U.S. et al. v. Google — is set to have profound implications not only for the internet behemoth but for a generation of other large tech companies that have come to influence how people shop, communicate, entertain themselves and work.Over the next 10 weeks, the government and Google will present arguments and question dozens of witnesses, digging into how the company came to power and whether it broke the law to maintain and magnify its dominance. The final ruling, by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, could shift the balance of power in the tech industry, which is embroiled in a race over artificial intelligence that could transform and disrupt people’s lives.A government victory could set limits on Google and change its business practices, sending a humbling message to the other tech giants. If Google wins, it could act as a referendum on increasingly aggressive government regulators, raise questions about the efficacy of century-old antitrust laws and further embolden Silicon Valley.“It is a test of whether our current antitrust laws — the Sherman Act, written in 1890 — can adapt to markets that are susceptible to monopolization in the 21st century,” said Bill Baer, a former top antitrust official at the Justice Department, adding that Google was “indisputably powerful.”The case is part of a sweeping effort by the Biden administration and states to rein in the biggest tech companies. The Justice Department has filed a second lawsuit against Google over its advertising technology, which could go to trial as early as next year. The Federal Trade Commission is separately moving toward a trial in an antitrust lawsuit against Meta. Investigations remain open in efforts that could lead to antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and Apple.The Justice Department filed the case accusing Google of illegally maintaining its dominance in search in October 2020. Months later, a group of attorneys general from 35 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the District of Columbia filed their own lawsuit arguing that Google had abused its monopoly over search. Judge Mehta is considering both lawsuits during the trial.The case centers on the agreements that Google reached with browser developers, smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers to use Google as the default search engine on their products. Since the lawsuit was filed, more than five million documents and depositions of more than 150 witnesses have been submitted to the court. Last month, Judge Mehta narrowed the scope of the trial, while allowing the core claims of monopoly abuse in search to remain.The trial unfolded on Tuesday in Courtroom 10 at Washington’s federal courthouse, a complex minutes from Capitol Hill. It drew a large crowd, with some people standing in line to enter as early as 4:30 a.m. Officials from the Google rivals Yelp and Microsoft also attended, as did dozens of attorneys and staff from the Justice Department, states and Google after years of work on the case.Judge Mehta began the proceedings punctually. In the government’s opening statement, Mr. Dintzer focused on the search agreements Google had struck with Apple and others. He referenced internal company documents that described how Google would not share revenue with Apple without “default placement” on its devices and how it worked to ensure that Apple couldn’t redirect searches to its Siri assistant.“Your honor, this is a monopolist flexing,” Mr. Dintzer said.In blunt language, Mr. Dintzer also argued that Google had tried to hide documents from antitrust enforcers by including lawyers on conversations and marking them as subject to attorney-client privilege. He showed a message from Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, asking for the chat history to be turned off in one conversation.“They turned history off, your honor, so they could rewrite it here in this courtroom,” Mr. Dintzer said.William Cavanaugh, a lawyer for the states, echoed Mr. Dintzer’s concerns about Google’s agreements to become the default search engines on smartphones. He added that Google had limited a product used to place ads on other search engines to hurt Microsoft, which makes the Bing search engine.In response, Mr. Schmidtlein, Google’s lawyer, argued that the company’s default agreements with browser makers don’t lock up the market the way that the Justice Department said. Browser makers such as Apple and Mozilla both promote other search engines, he said, and it was easy for users to switch their default search engine.Using a slide show, Mr. Schmidtlein demonstrated the number of taps or clicks required to change the default on popular smartphones. People who wished to switch their search engine but did not know how could search Google for instructions or watch a video tutorial on YouTube, which Google owns, he said.The government’s evidence was coming from “snippets and out-of-context” emails, he said.The lawyers also sparred over whether Google was as dominant as the government claimed. The Justice Department and the states said Google competes primarily with broad search engines that act as a single place to look for multiple types of information. But Mr. Schmidtlein said Google’s universe of competitors was wider, including online retailers like Amazon, food delivery apps like DoorDash and travel booking sites like Expedia.In the afternoon, the Justice Department called Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, as its first witness to establish that the company had long been aware of its power in search and deliberately tried to sidestep antitrust scrutiny.In more than three hours of testimony, Mr. Varian was asked about views that he shared with other Google employees on the power of defaults, the threat of Microsoft’s entry into search and his awareness of language that could invite the attention of antitrust regulators. The Justice Department drew from Mr. Varian’s emails and memos from as far back as the early 2000s.Mr. Varian is scheduled to return to the witness stand on Wednesday.Nico Grant More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon to Meet Regulators as U.S. Considers Possible Antitrust Suit

    by

    Amazon’s meetings with the Federal Trade Commission, known as “last rites” meetings, are typically a final step before the agency votes on filing a lawsuit.Amazon is scheduled to meet with members of the Federal Trade Commission next week to discuss an antitrust lawsuit that the agency may be preparing to file to challenge the power of the retailer’s sprawling business, according to a person with knowledge of the plans.The meetings are set to be held with Lina Khan, the F.T.C. chair, and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who are F.T.C. commissioners, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions are confidential.The meetings signal that the F.T.C. is nearing a decision on whether to move forward with a lawsuit alleging that Amazon has violated antimonopoly laws. Such discussions are sometimes known as “last rites” meetings, named after the prayers some Christians receive on their deathbed. The conversations, which are usually one of the final steps before the agency’s commissioners vote on a lawsuit, give the company a chance to make its case.If the F.T.C. files suit, it would be one of the most significant challenges to Amazon’s business in the company’s nearly 30-year history. Amazon, a $1.4 trillion behemoth, has become a major force in the economy. It now owns not just its trademark online store, but the movie studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the primary care practice One Medical and the high-end grocery chain Whole Foods. It is also one of the world’s largest provider of cloud computing services.The F.T.C. has investigated Amazon’s business for years. The company’s critics and competitors have argued that the once-upstart online bookstore has used its retailing clout to squeeze the merchants that use its platform to sell their wares. U.S. officials have grown increasingly concerned about the influence and reach of giant tech companies like Amazon, Google and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. The Justice Department has filed several antitrust lawsuits against Google, with two scheduled to go to trial next month. The F.T.C. has also sued Meta over accusations that it snuffed out young competitors by buying Instagram and WhatsApp.Some of those efforts have stumbled in the courts. Federal judges declined this year to stop Meta from acquiring a virtual reality start-up and Microsoft from buying the video game powerhouse Activision Blizzard, dooming F.T.C. challenges to both deals. In 2022, the Justice Department also lost its bid to challenge UnitedHealth Group’s plan to buy a health tech company.Stacy Mitchell, a co-executive director of the advocacy organization Institute for Local Self-Reliance and an Amazon critic, said she hoped the F.T.C. would pursue a sweeping case against the tech giant. She said the agency should focus on how Amazon’s control of the retail business — from its store to its logistics network that delivers packages — let it hurt competitors and merchants.“It’s a watershed moment,” she said. “What we need to see from the F.T.C. is a case that targets the core of Amazon’s monopolization strategy.”Amazon has said that it competes aggressively with other retailers and that efforts to regulate its business would only hurt consumers and the businesses that sell products through its site.Under the leadership of Andy Jassy, Amazon’s chief executive, the retailer has recently been in retrenchment mode. The company has cut costs, laying off thousands of workers as growth slumped after a soaring period fueled by the pandemic. Last week, Amazon announced that its revenue in the second quarter of the year had increased 11 percent, to $134.4 billion, beating analysts’ expectations.In June, the F.T.C. sued Amazon in a separate case that accused the company of tricking users into subscribing to its Prime fast-shipping membership program and then making it difficult for them to cancel.Amazon has also faced scrutiny from states and regulators in other countries. The District of Columbia’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against the company in 2021, arguing that it had used unfair pricing policies against merchants on its site. The lawsuit was thrown out by a judge, though the attorney general has tried to revive the case. California filed a similar lawsuit last year that is moving forward. In December, Amazon also reached a deal to end a European Union antitrust investigation by agreeing to change some of its practices.If the F.T.C. sues, it would formally pit Ms. Khan — who has been one of Amazon’s most prominent detractors — against the company.While a law student at Yale, Ms. Khan had argued that Amazon’s growth represented a failure of American antitrust laws, which she said had become myopically focused on consumer prices as a measure of whether businesses were violating the law. Amazon’s prices were often low, she wrote in a widely read 2017 paper, but that failed to account for other ways it could bully players across the economy.The paper’s success supercharged a debate in Washington about the power of the tech giants. In 2019, federal antitrust regulators decided to investigate some of the companies. In keeping with a longstanding practice of dividing responsibilities, the Justice Department agreed to look at Google and Apple while the F.T.C. examined Facebook and Amazon.President Biden named Ms. Khan chair to oversee the F.T.C. — giving her control of the Amazon investigation — roughly two years later. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Russia-Ukraine War Changed This Finland Company Forever

    by

    Even with sheets of rain falling, the sprawling construction site was buzzing. Yellow and orange excavators slowly danced around a maze of muddy pits, swinging giant fistfuls of dirt as a chorus line of trucks traipsed across the landscape.This 50-acre plot in Oradea, Romania, close to the border with Hungary, beat out scores of other sites in Europe to become the home of Nokian Tyres’ new 650 million-euro, or $706 million, factory. Like an industrial-minded Goldilocks, the Finnish tire company had searched for the just-right combination of real estate, transport links, labor supply and pro-business environment.Yet the make-or-break feature that every host country had to have would not have even appeared on the radar a few years ago: membership in both the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.Geopolitical risk “was the starting point,” said Jukka Moisio, the chief executive and president of Nokian. That was not the case before Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.Nokian Tyres’ altered business strategy highlights the transformed global economic playing field that governments and companies are confronting. As the war in Ukraine drags on and tensions rise between the United States and China, critical decisions about offices, supply chains, investments and sales are no longer primarily ruled by concerns about costs.As the world re-globalizes, assessments of political threats loom much larger than before.Oradea, Romania, became Nokian Tyres’ top choice for a new factory.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesThe new factory is going on a 50-acre site.Andreea Campeanu for The New York Times“This is a world that has fundamentally changed,” said Henry Farrell, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins. “We cannot just think in terms of innovation and efficiency. We have to think about security, too.”For Nokian Tyres, which first sold shares on the Helsinki stock exchange in 1995, the new reality struck like a hammer blow. Roughly 80 percent of Nokian’s passenger car tires were manufactured in Russia. And the country accounted for 20 percent of its sales.The perils of over-concentration hit home, Mr. Moisio said, “when your company loses billions.”Within six weeks of the war’s start, it became clear that the company had no choice but to exit Russia and ramp up production elsewhere. Rubber had been added to the European Union’s rapidly expanding package of sanctions. Public sentiment in Finland soured. The share price plunged. In January 2022, the share price was over €34; today it’s €8.25.“We were very exposed,” Mr. Moisio said, sipping coffee in a sunny conference room at the company’s low-key Helsinki office. The Russian operation had high returns, but it also had high risks, a fact that, over time, had faded from view.Diversifying may not be as efficient or cheap, he said, but “it’s far more secure.”With roughly 80 percent of its production located in Russia, “we were very exposed” when Russia attacked Ukraine, said Jukka Moisio, Nokian’s chief executive.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesC-suite executives are relearning that the market often fails to accurately measure risk. A January survey of 1,200 global chief executives by the consulting firm EY found that 97 percent had altered their strategic investment plans because of new geopolitical tensions. More than a third said they were relocating operations.China, which has become an increasingly fraught home for foreign businesses and investment, is among the places that firms are leaving. Roughly one in four companies planned to move operations out of the country, a survey conducted last year by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China found.Businesses are suddenly finding themselves “stranded in the no-man’s land of warring empires,” Mr. Farrell and his co-author, Abraham Newman, argue in a new book.Mr. Moisio’s tenure at Nokian has coincided with the triple crown of crises. He started in May 2020, a few months after the Covid-19 pandemic essentially shut down global commerce. Like other companies, Nokian hunkered down, cutting production and capital spending. Its lack of outstanding debt helped it ride out the storm.And when the economy bounced back, Nokian scrambled to restart production and restock raw materials amid a huge breakdown of the supply chain and transportation. The war posed an existential threat to Nokian’s operations.Adding production lines to existing facilities is often the fastest and cheapest way to increase output. Still, Nokian decided not to expand its operation in Russia.Production there was already concentrated, Mr. Moisio said, but more important, the persistent supply chain bottlenecks underscored the added risks and costs of transporting materials over long distances.The Nokian Tyres main office in Nokia, Finland.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesNewly completed tires on the production line. Nokian is moving manufacturing closer to specific markets.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesGoing forward, instead of locating 80 percent of production in one spot, often far from the market, 80 percent of production would be local or regional.“It turned upside down,” Mr. Moisio said.Tires for the Nordic market would be produced in Finland. Tires for American customers would be manufactured in the United States. And in the future, Europe would be serviced by a European factory.Diversification had, to some extent, already been incorporated into the company’s strategic plan. It opened a plant in Dayton, Tenn., in 2019, in addition to the original factory that operated in Nokia, the Finnish town that gave the tire maker its name.At the end of 2021, the company opened new production lines at both of those plants.When it came time to build the next factory, executives figured it would be in Eastern Europe, close to its largest European markets in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and France, as well as Poland and the Czech Republic.That moment came much sooner than anyone expected.In June 2022, less than four months after the invasion of Ukraine, Nokian executives asked the board to approve an exit from Russia and the construction of a new plant.Negotiations to leave Russia commenced, as did a high-speed search for a new location. Aided by the consulting firm Deloitte, the site assessment process, which included dozens of candidates across Europe, was completed in four months, said Adrian Kaczmarczyk, senior vice president of supply operations. By comparison, in 2015 Deloitte took nine months to recommend a site in a single country, the United States.Nokian expedited its search for a site, selecting Oradea in just four months, said Adrian Kaczmarczyk, senior vice president of supply operations.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesMr. Kaczmarczyk and engineers examining designs for the project.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesThe aim was to start commercial production by early 2025.Serbia had a flourishing automotive sector, but was eliminated from the get-go because it was in neither the European Union nor NATO. Turkey was a member of NATO but not the European Union. And Hungary was labeled high risk because of its illiberal prime minister, Viktor Orban, and close relationship with Russia.At each successive round, a long list of other considerations kicked in. Where were the closest highway, harbor and rail lines? Was there a sufficient pool of qualified employees? Was land available? Could permitting and construction time be fast-tracked? How pro-business were the authorities?Nokian would have looked to reduce a new factory’s carbon footprint in any event, Mr. Moisio, the chief executive, said. But the decision to commit to a 100 percent emissions-free plant probably would not have happened in the absence of war. After all, cheap gas from Russia was what helped lure Nokian there in the first place. Now, the disappearance of that supply accelerated the company’s thinking about ending dependence on fossil fuels.“Disruption allowed us to think differently,” Mr. Moisio said.As the winnowing progressed, a complex matrix of small and large considerations came into play. Was there good health care and an international school where foreign managers could send their children? What was the likelihood of natural disasters?Countries and cities fell out for various reasons. Slovenia and the Czech Republic were considered low-to-medium-risk countries, but Mr. Kaczmarczyk said they couldn’t find appropriate plots of land.A machine operator monitoring equipment on the production line inside the factory in Nokia.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesTires being made on the production line.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesSlovakia fell into the same bucket and already had a large automotive industry. Bratislava, though, made clear it had no interest in attracting more heavy industry, only information technology, Mr. Kaczmarczyk said.At the end, six candidates made Deloitte’s final cut: two sites in Romania, two in Poland, and one each in Portugal and Spain.The messy mix of new and old considerations that businesses have to contemplate were evident in the list of finalists. Geopolitics, as the Nokian Tyres chief executive said, had been a starting point, but it was not necessarily the end point.Spain has virtually no geopolitical risk. And the site in El Rebollar had a large talent pool, but Deloitte ruled it out because of high wage costs and heavy labor regulations. Portugal, another country with no security risk, was rejected because of worries about the power supply and the speed of the permitting process.Poland, along with Hungary and Serbia, had been labeled high risk despite its staunch anti-Russia stance. It has an antidemocratic government and has repeatedly clashed with the European Commission over the primacy of European legislation and the independence of Poland’s courts.Yet low labor costs, the presence of other multinational employers and a quick permitting process outweighed the worries enough to elevate the sites in Gorzow and Konin to second and third place.Oradea, the top recommendation, ultimately offered a better balance among the company’s competing priorities. The cost of labor in Romania, like Poland, was among the lowest in Europe. And its risk rating, though labeled relatively high, was lower than Poland’s.The factory in Nokia. The low cost of labor in Romania attracted the company.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesStretching the lining for tires. The main raw materials for tires are natural rubber, synthetic rubber, soot and oil.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesThere were other pluses as well in Oradea. Construction could start immediately; utilities were already in place; a new solar power plant was in the works. The amount of development grants from the European Union for companies investing in Romania was larger than in Poland. And local officials were enthusiastic.Mihai Jurca, Oradea’s city manager, detailed the area’s appeal during a tour of the turreted confection of Art Nouveau buildings in the renovated city center.“It was a flourishing cultural and commercial city, a junction point between East and West,” in the early 20th century, under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mr. Jurca said.Today the city, an affluent economic hub of 220,000 with a university, has solicited businesses and European Union funds, while constructing industrial parks that house domestic and international companies like Plexus, a British electronics manufacturer, and Eberspaecher, a German automotive supplier.Nokian is not looking to replicate the kind of megafactory in Romania that it ran in Russia — or anywhere else, for that matter. The idea of concentrating production is “old-fashioned,” Mr. Moisio said.For him, the company emerged from crisis mode on March 16, the day $258 million from sale of its Russian operation landed in Nokian’s bank account. Although only a fraction of the total value, the amount helped finance the construction and closed out the company’s involvement with Russia.Now uncertainty is the norm, Mr. Moisio said, and business leaders need to constantly be asking: “What can we do? What’s our Plan B?”Oradea “was a flourishing cultural and commercial city, a junction point between East and West,” in the early 20th century, said Mihai Jurca, the city manager.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesOradea is an affluent hub of 220,000 people with a university, and has solicited businesses and European Union funds.Andreea Campeanu for The New York Times More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Affirmative Action Ruling May Upend Diversity Hiring Policies, Too

    by

    The Supreme Court decision on college admissions could lead companies to alter recruitment and promotion practices to pre-empt legal challenges.As a legal matter, the Supreme Court’s rejection of race-conscious admissions in higher education does not in itself impede employers from pursuing diversity in the workplace.That, at least, is the conclusion of lawyers, diversity experts and political activists across the spectrum — from conservatives who say robust affirmative action programs are already illegal to liberals who argue that they are on firm legal ground.But many experts argue that as a practical matter, the ruling will discourage corporations from putting in place ambitious diversity policies in hiring and promotion — or prompt them to rein in existing policies — by encouraging lawsuits under the existing legal standard.After the decision on Thursday affecting college admissions, law firms encouraged companies to review their diversity policies.“I do worry about corporate counsels who see their main job as keeping organizations from getting sued — I do worry about hyper-compliance,” said Alvin B. Tillery Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy at Northwestern University, who advises employers on diversity policies.Programs to foster the hiring and promotion of African Americans and other minority workers have been prominent in corporate America in recent years, especially in the reckoning over race after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.Even before the ruling in the college cases, corporations were feeling legal pressure over their diversity efforts. Over the past two years, a lawyer representing a free-market group has sent letters to American Airlines, McDonald’s and many other corporations demanding that they undo hiring policies that the group says are illegal.The free-market group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, acknowledged that the outcome on Thursday did not bear directly on its fight against affirmative-action in corporate America. “Today’s decision is not relevant; it dealt with a special carve-out for education,” said Scott Shepard, a fellow at the center.Mr. Shepard claimed victory nonetheless, arguing that the ruling would help deter employers who might be tempted overstep the law. “It couldn’t be clearer after the decision that fudging it at the edges” is not allowed, he said.(American Airlines and McDonald’s did not respond to requests for comment about their hiring and promotion policies.)Charlotte A. Burrows, who was designated chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by President Biden, was also quick to declare that nothing had changed. She said the decision “does not address employer efforts to foster diverse and inclusive work forces or to engage the talents of all qualified workers, regardless of their background.”Some companies in the cross hairs of conservative groups underscored the point. “Novartis’s D.E.I. programs are narrowly tailored, fair, equitable and comply with existing law,” the drugmaker said in a statement, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion. Novartis, too, has received a letter from a lawyer representing Mr. Shepard’s group, demanding that it change its policy on hiring law firms.The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action was largely silent on employment-related questions.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesBeyond government contractors, affirmative action policies in the private sector are largely voluntary and governed by state and federal civil rights law. These laws prohibit employers from basing hiring or promotion decisions on a characteristic like race or gender, whether in favor of a candidate or against.The exception, said Jason Schwartz, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn, is that companies can take race into account if members of a racial minority were previously excluded from a job category — say, an investment bank recruiting Black bankers after it excluded Black people from such jobs for decades. In some cases, employers can also take into account the historical exclusion of a minority group from an industry — like Black and Latino people in the software industry.In principle, the logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling on college admissions could threaten some of these programs, like those intended to address industrywide discrimination. But even here, the legal case may be a stretch because the way employers typically make decisions about hiring and promotion differs from the way colleges make admissions decisions.“What seems to bother the court is that the admissions programs at issue treated race as a plus without regard to the individual student,” Pauline Kim, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in employment law, said in an email. But “employment decisions are more often individualized decisions,” focusing on the fit between a candidate and a job, she said.The more meaningful effect of the court’s decision is likely to be greater pressure on policies that were already on questionable legal ground. Those could include leadership acceleration programs or internship programs that are open only to members of underrepresented minority groups.Many companies may also find themselves vulnerable over policies that comply with civil rights law on paper but violate it in practice, said Mike Delikat, a partner at Orrick who specializes in employment law. For example, a company’s policy may encourage recruiters to seek a more diverse pool of candidates, from which hiring decisions are made without regard to race. But if recruiters carry out the policy in a way that effectively creates a racial quota, he said, that is illegal.“The devil is in the details,” Mr. Delikat said. “Were they interpreting that to mean, ‘Come back with 25 percent of the internship class that has to be from an underrepresented group, and if not you get dinged as a bad recruiter’?”The college admissions cases before the Supreme Court were largely silent on these employment-related questions. Nonetheless, Mr. Delikat said, his firm has been counseling clients ever since the court agreed to hear the cases that they should ensure that their policies are airtight because an increase in litigation is likely.That is partly because of the growing attack from the political right on corporate policies aimed at diversity in hiring and other social and environmental goals.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has signed legislation to limit diversity training in the workplace.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has deplored “the woke mind virus” and proclaimed Florida “the state where woke goes to die.” The state has enacted legislation to limit diversity training in the workplace and has restricted state pension funds from basing investments on “woke environmental, social and corporate governance” considerations.Conservative legal groups have also mobilized on this front. A group run by Stephen Miller, a White House adviser in the Trump administration, contended in letters to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the diversity and inclusion policies of several large companies were illegal and asked the commission to investigate. (Mr. Miller’s group did not respond to a request for comment about those cases.)The National Center for Public Policy Research, which is challenging corporate diversity policies, has sued Starbucks directors and officers after they refused to undo the company’s diversity and inclusion policies in response to a letter demanding that they do so. (Starbucks did not respond to a request for comment for this article, but its directors told the group that it was “not in the best interest of Starbucks to accept the demand and retract the policies.”)Mr. Shepard, the fellow at the center, said more lawsuits were “reasonably likely” if other companies did not accede to demands to rein in their diversity and inclusion policies.One modest way to do so, said David Lopez, a former general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is to design policies that are race neutral but nonetheless likely to promote diversity — such as giving weight to whether a candidate has overcome significant obstacles.Mr. Lopez noted that, in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued that a university could take into account the effect on a candidate of having overcome racial discrimination, as long as the school didn’t consider the candidate’s race per se.But Dr. Tillery of Northwestern said making such changes to business diversity programs could be an overreaction to the ruling. While the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally precludes basing individual hiring and promotion decisions explicitly on race, it allows employers to remove obstacles that prevent companies from having a more diverse work force. Examples include training managers and recruiters to ensure that they aren’t unconsciously discriminating against racial minorities, or advertising jobs on certain campuses to increase the universe of potential applicants.In the end, companies appear to face a greater threat of litigation over discrimination against members of minority groups than from litigation over discrimination against white people. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there were about 2,350 charges of that latter form of discrimination in employment in 2021, among about 21,000 race-based charges overall.“There’s an inherent interest in picking your poison,” Dr. Tillery said. “Is it a lawsuit from Stephen Miller’s right-wing group that doesn’t live in the real world? Or is it a lawsuit from someone who says you’re discriminating against your work force and can tweet about how sexist or racist you are?”He added, “I’ll take the Stephen Miller poison any day.”J. Edward Moreno More