Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has championed a new approach to antitrust enforcement, focusing on the potential harms of concentrated market power, not just the traditional metrics of consumer harm. This shift, often characterized by the phrase "consumer welfare," has been met with both praise and criticism. Khan's critics argue that her focus on market structure and potential harms overlooks established legal precedents and could stifle innovation.

However, supporters, including many within the tech industry, contend that Khan's approach is essential for addressing the unique challenges posed by Big Tech. They argue that the traditional consumer welfare standard, which primarily looks at lower prices and increased output, is insufficient to capture the full range of harms that can arise from monopolies, such as reduced choice, suppressed innovation, and the erosion of privacy. The phrase "potential harms" encapsulates this broader view of antitrust.

The debate centers on how to best regulate powerful tech companies. Khan's supporters believe she is laying the groundwork for a more robust and forward-thinking antitrust policy that can adapt to the evolving digital economy. The emphasis on "potential harms" signals a proactive stance, aiming to prevent monopolistic practices before they become entrenched and difficult to undo. This approach has resonated with those concerned about the market dominance of companies like Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google.