According to JD Supra about the remarks that follow in Part I by U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Mark R. Meador: “Conservative in name only? FTC Commissioner Mark Meador’s theory of antitrust enforcement bears little resemblance to traditional Republican policies.” According to EBGLaw, which cited the remarks by FTC Commissioner Meador hereby provided in Part I below by MHProNews: In dispelling the first myth—“antitrust is regulation”—the Commissioner is very clear: “Antitrust is law enforcement, period. Full stop.” Epstein Becker & Green (EBG Law) then pointed the next four bullets with included the second one bullet by Meador that ought to be of keen interest to manufactured housing industry pros as well as to consumer rights groups. But in truth, all 5 bullets arguable and plainly apply to the artificially diminished manufactured home industry in the 21st century, which is commonly referred to by some as “MHVille.”
He [i.e.: Commissioner Meador] similarly and succinctly rejects four other myths related to antitrust enforcement:
- “Vertical integration is always procompetitive.” Commissioner Meador makes the contrary case that vertical integration is not always procompetitive, particularly in non-physical markets such as technology.
- “Innovation can justify exclusion.” The Commissioner instead asserts the need to identify conduct that forecloses alternatives.
- “We need national champions to compete with China.” The Commissioner suggests, to the contrary, that competition is better suited by free enterprise.
- “Structural remedies are an extreme measure.” He counters that structural remedies can be a way to restore free markets.
Commissioner Meador concludes his comments with what might be seen as a policy warning, making clear that the current FTC’s interest in antitrust enforcement is not limited to technology platforms or “Big Tech,” but extends to every industry, including “groceries, healthcare, and energy.”
Part II will provide additional facts-evidence-analysis and MHProNews commentary on this topic. But as but one tease not found in EBG Law post on the topic, Commissioner Meador said this:
Treasury Secretary Bessent recently put it well: MAGA doesn’t stand for “Make M&A Great Again.”
Meador also said this that he heard at different times while he worked in the U.S. Senate along with his response to it.
“If we allow them to enforce the antitrust laws against Big Tech, then they’ll do it in every industry.”
To which I can only respond: God willing.
With that brief backdrop, let’s dive into Commissioner Mark R. Meador’s remarks, with the video provided in Part II #1.
Part I – The following is according to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provided document available as a downloadable PDF at this link here.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Federal Trade Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580
Office of Commissioner
Mark R. Meador
Remarks at the Second Annual Antitrust Conference at the George Washington University
Antitrust Myth Busting
Mark R. Meador
Commissioner, U.S. Federal Trade Commission
Remarks at the Second Annual Antitrust Conference at the George Washington University presented by the GW Competition & Innovation Lab
May 5, 2025
Thank you, Aurelien, for that kind introduction, and thank you to the George Washington University Competition and Innovation Lab for inviting me to join you all today. As this administration continues to lay out our approach to antitrust enforcement, I thought I would take the opportunity to address a few myths that have become unfortunately common. Some myth busting about trust busting, if you will.
I have five substantive myths in mind, and then one high level policy misperception.
Myth #1: “Antitrust is Regulation”
This one is a personal pet peeve of mine. It is unfortunately very common to see not just the press—who I can almost excuse—but even some practitioners refer to “antitrust regulation.” The problem is that simply is not a thing.
Antitrust is law enforcement, period. Full stop. Not only is the enforcement of the antitrust laws not regulation, when properly undertaken antitrust enforcement can prevent the need for regulation in the first place.
Vigorously enforcing the antitrust laws to promote and protect competitive markets, if successful, helps us to avoid the very sorts of distorted or broken markets that invite intrusive government regulation.
By preventing market failures, antitrust is actually a deregulatory tool. As this administration pursues its deregulatory agenda, antitrust enforcement will have a key role to play in helping to maintain the market conditions that obviate the need for regulation by promoting fair competition.
Myth #2: “Vertical Integration is Always Procompetitive”
Vertical integration is often procompetitive. In many cases, it reflects legitimate growth and investment. But it does not guarantee competitive outcomes. Nor does the potential for efficiency gains fully explain why some firms pursue it.
Much of the traditional framework for analyzing vertical integration comes from physical industries — like manufacturing — where integration often yields real efficiencies: reduced transaction costs, economies of scale, stable supply, and asset coordination. In these settings, switching suppliers required retooling factories or reorganizing logistics.
In many modern markets, however, the dynamics are different. In digital markets, for example, software is oftentimes modular, adaptable, and interoperable by design. Integration rarely reflects physical constraint. When it leads to foreclosure, it is more likely the product of strategic design and contractual leverage — efforts to raise switching costs or lock out rivals—in short: moat building. Integration that blocks third-party access or suppresses rival alternatives under the guise of product improvement demands scrutiny.
Vertical integration can also create conflicts of interest. When a firm controls both infrastructure and the applications on top of it, for example, it can structure interfaces, ranking systems, or data flows to favor its own offerings — not because they are better, but because it shapes the rules. These advantages operate through information asymmetries, contractual commitments, and opaque design choices that degrade competition while often remaining invisible to users.
Myth #3: “Innovation Can Justify Exclusion”
In antitrust debates, innovation is too often treated not as one economic metric that can be used to apply law to facts, but a floating abstraction — a sweeping defense that excuses exclusionary conduct and avoids scrutiny by reframing anything on the path to dominance and power as progress. This focus on ends without considering means is not a defense of innovation – it is a veiled attempt to abandon the rule of law.
Genuine innovation flourishes when firms compete on the merits — when better products win by attracting users, not by blocking alternatives. Yet today, firms often point to past inventions, R&D budgets, or engineering talent as if those alone justify their business practices — even when those practices rely on default arrangements, coercive contracts, or restrictive product design.
We saw this logic in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, which dismissed concerns about search defaults by citing Google’s investment in product development.[1] But 50 states, D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Department of Justice — under both Republican and Democratic leadership — did not bring an antitrust case because Google invested in R&D. They challenged the company’s use of contractual defaults to block rivals’ access to all other meaningful distribution channels that could be used to reach users.
This kind of framing creates the false dilemma at the heart of the kitchen sink “innovation defense”: that enforcers must choose between enforcing the law and supporting innovation. But that choice is illusory.
The central question for antitrust enforcers is distinguishing between competition on the merits and unfair methods of competition — whether in the form of collusion or exclusion. When exclusionary tactics are justified on the grounds that a firm once innovated in the past, we don’t reward innovation — we weaponize it to suppress the very rivalry that is supposed to drive continued innovation.
Antitrust enforcement should protect the conditions that allow innovation to thrive. That means distinguishing genuine product improvements from conduct that forecloses alternatives. It means recognizing that true innovation invites challenge — it doesn’t depend on lock-in. And it means rejecting the suggestion that past success grants any firm a perpetual exemption from the rules of fair competition.
Myth #4: “We Need National Champions to Compete with China”
There’s a familiar argument that often resurfaces when a large incumbent faces scrutiny:
that antitrust enforcement threatens America’s global position — that weakening our biggest companies would hand the future to China. We’re told to protect so-called national champions, even when it entails limiting the freedom of Americans to build, compete, and speak.
But the irony is hard to ignore. Some of the very firms warning that enforcement would harm U.S. competitiveness are investing millions in research partnerships, AI collaborations, and data ventures that directly advance China’s technological capabilities. They invoke national security as a shield against domestic accountability — while deepening ties with China abroad. That’s not economic patriotism. That’s hedging your bets. Americans deserve businesses that are all in for us.
The deeper flaw in the national champion model is that it conflates market power with competitiveness. America’s commercial leadership didn’t come from using the levers of government to consolidate economic power into the hands of a few firms. It came from open markets, fair competition, and the belief that progress flows from preserving the conditions for liberty and human flourishing — not central planning and abdication of law enforcement. When policymakers defer to powerful firms under the banner of national security, they achieve the opposite by insulating these actors in ways that make the American economy less competitive and our supply chains less secure.
Even China — the country referred to most often in putting forward this myth — is shifting course. Its own development strategy increasingly emphasizes market diversification and competition among multiple firms in facilitating production rather than reliance on state-favored giants. China is trying to unlock the same dynamism that made America successful. It would be a grave mistake to abandon our principles just as others begin to adopt them.
We won’t beat China by copying China. America wins when we remember the principles that make America great— free enterprise, competition, and the idea that no firm is above the law. Strength comes not from shielding incumbents, but from protecting industrial liberty and freedom to compete — for innovators, entrepreneurs, workers, and the next great challenger whose name we don’t yet know.
Antitrust enforcement is not about facilitating anarchistic power grabs. It is economic realism rooted in our shared national history of free enterprise and economic competition.
Myth #5: “Structural Remedies Are an Extreme Measure”
There’s a common claim that structural remedies — such as breakups — are too aggressive, too disruptive, or too uncertain when used to address exclusionary conduct. That antitrust should limit itself to fine-tuning behavior through settlements or ongoing oversight and avoid touching market structure. We are told that breakups will harm efficiency and hamper innovation (there it is again).
But history tells a different story.
Last year, GE voluntarily broke itself up into three different companies. The result was not lost efficiency, but actually better products and services that unlocked even greater shareholder value.
The breakup of AT&T didn’t stifle innovation — it turbocharged it. It cleared the way for new technologies, new business models, and new competitors across telecom and computing. Removing structural barriers didn’t create chaos. It reopened pathways for rivalry and renewal that had been artificially suppressed.
These experiences reveal a deeper truth: in many cases, firm structure isn’t just the backdrop for exclusionary conduct — it’s the product of it. In dynamic markets, firms don’t just gain market share; they reshape the marketplace itself. But after acquiring market power they often then lock in users, foreclose rivals, and construct ecosystems that reinforce their position.
In these contexts, structural remedies aren’t a rejection of free markets. They are a way of restoring them. They work to undo durable barriers created by exclusion — reopening competition on the merits and giving innovation a chance to reemerge.
Of course, not every case requires structural relief. But when exclusion has produced structural lock-in that is difficult to unwind, behavioral conditions may not be enough. Restoring competition sometimes requires restoring the conditions under which competition can occur — especially when the harm is embedded in architecture, defaults, or control over distribution. Structure is not off-limits when structure becomes the source amplifying the problem.
Myth #6: “Conservative Support for Antitrust Enforcement is Just Sour Grapes over Censorship”
There is a widely held belief that conservatives’ renewed interest in antitrust enforcement is little more than sour grapes over Big Tech censorship. If the speeches that Assistant Attorney General Slater and I gave last week weren’t enough, allow me to disabuse you of that notion now.
Treasury Secretary Bessent recently put it well: MAGA doesn’t stand for “Make M&A Great Again.” This administration is committed to advocating for the interests of Main Street, and that means protecting competition across the economy. Technology platforms and products are a vital part of our daily life, and therefore incredibly important, but so too are markets like groceries, healthcare, and energy.
When I worked in the Senate, I heard more than one lobbyist say something to the effect of, “If we allow them to enforce the antitrust laws against Big Tech, then they’ll do it in every industry.”
To which I can only respond: God willing.
***
Thank you.
—
[1] Editorial Board, Trump’s Rearview Antitrust Battles, Wall Street Journal (April 24, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-antitrust-google-search-doj-ftc-amit-mehta-business-monopoly2944d098?mod=author_content_page_4_pos_7wall
—
Part II – In no Particular Order of Importance, here are Related or Additional Facts-Evidence-Analysis with MHProNews Commentary
This speech by FTC Commission Mark Meador at GWU is obviously significant to manufactured housing and the U.S. more broadly on several levels. Much of the above are quotable quotes that should be kept in mind by senior corporate leadership, their attorneys, public officials, consumers, and advocates for small business and consumer rights.
1) The video of the keynote address by FTC Commission Mark Meador at GWU is as shown below.
2)
Note that the next bullet following his myth buster that antitrust enforcement was a form of regulation, when it fact he asserts that law enforcement is a type of deregulation was about vertical integration. MHProNews has spotlighted challenges created by vertical integration in manufactured housing for years. To be clear, vertically integrated firms existed in manufactured housing in the 1980s and 1990s. But many of those firms also went into bankruptcy.
Note that Meador said (emphasis added by MHProNews).
Integration rarely reflects physical constraint. When it leads to foreclosure, it is more likely the product of strategic design and contractual leverage — efforts to raise switching costs or lock out rivals—in short: moat building. Integration that blocks third-party access or suppresses rival alternatives under the guise of product improvement demands scrutiny.
MHProNews has reported on these challenges in manufactured housing for years that span Democratic and Republican administrations. A recent report on vertical foreclosure by Maris Jensen, buttressed with additional insights from MHProNews, is found linked below.
3) Per Commissioner Meador.
…firm structure isn’t just the backdrop for exclusionary conduct — it’s the product of it. In dynamic markets, firms don’t just gain market share; they reshape the marketplace itself. But after acquiring market power they often then lock in users, foreclose rivals, and construct ecosystems that reinforce their position.
In these contexts, structural remedies aren’t a rejection of free markets. They are a way of restoring them.
MHProNews and MHLivingNews are editorially on record with reams of evidence opposing further market consolidation in the manufactured home industry and favoring breaking up existing companies along with other possible civil/criminal penalties for those that apparently used various tactics detailed in linked reports to foster the consolidation of the manufactured home industry in ways that apparently violated federal and/or state antitrust laws.
4) Both FTC’s Meador and prior Biden-Harris (D) era DOJ assistant AG for antitrust, Jonathan Kanter, have spoken about the “moat.” It seems that MHProNews years of raising those concepts are being validated by public officials that span the Democratic and Republican divides. While it has been said that there is increasingly agreement on the need to enforce antitrust laws with more vigor, MHProNews has also noted that some of the language used by public officials and or corporate leaders often amounts to forms of paltering, posturing, projecting, spin, and propaganda methods.
MHProNews has also reported on the implications of the recent Google case for manufactured housing.
One pressing question is, will Trump-Vance (R) era DOJ/FTC officials press apparent antitrust violations in the manufactured housing market? That remains to be seen.
5) MHProNews has reported on antitrust concerns as they apply to manufactured housing for years. Some of the more recent reports – that link to others and include research, evidence, and remarks by third-parties peering into manufactured housing – are as follows. Industry consolidation is not a theory, it is fact. It is not merely conjecture that various firms want industry consolidation, some have openly said so in investor presentations, during earnings calls, or in other public and published statements. When someone understands the history of the evolution of mobile homes into modern manufactured housing, and they have a sense of the scope of the industry decades ago versus the diminished nature of the industry (i.e.: the artificially diminished 21st century MHVille), the need for a formal probe by federal and/or state officials ought to be obvious.
6) It is not just MHProNews that has documented these issues, because in fairness mainstream media outlets have at times reported on similar or related concerns. The following is a summary generated by Google‘s AI powered Gemini at the specific request of MHProNews that provided key information for Gemini to consider.
Bing‘s AI powered Copilot, Gemini, and xAI’s Grok have all come to similar conclusions about apparent antitrust, RICO, and other legal concerns based upon often detailed interactions with those platforms by MHProNews.
xAI’s Grok put it colorfully and bluntly when it said in its own words: this ain’t theory it’s a heist.
At various times, as MHProNews has transparently revealed via reports like those linked, Gemini (as well as Copilot or Grok) at first may resist the notion that there is a body of evidence spanning years that help explain why manufactured housing is underperforming during an affordable housing crisis. An apparent (not the only) tool used by Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) members that are consolidation focused is that trade itself. Initial pushback by AI is useful, because it is a third-party stand-in for the types of arguments that MHI and/or those corporations involved in this apparent pattern of behavior are engaged in. The weaknesses of their potential legal arguments based on evidence and years of behavior become quite clear.
7) There is an argument to be made that Trump 2.0 is apparently not aware, or has at least not made apparent their position, on the importance of unleashing manufactured housing production as a free-market solution that requires no taxpayer subsidies in order to give the U.S. economy a $2 trillion dollar a year economic boost. President Trump and others in his administration have said, for example, that they want an ‘all of the above’ approach to energy production. Trump 2.0 has taken clear steps in that direction, putting action behind rhetoric. That said, there should also be a clear push for an ‘all of the above’ approach to boosting housing production while freeing up housing units currently occupied by those illegally in the U.S. Immigration law enforcement is as important in that arena as enforcing existing laws meant to benefit manufactured housing production by removing inequalities in the marketplace established by local, state, or federal actions and inactions. The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a.: MHIA, MHIA 2000, 2000 Reform Act, 2000 Reform Law) provided several tools that the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) has detailed for years. On this date, a search of the MHARR website for that 2000 Reform law reveals 14 pages of results with multiple articles per page.
8) MHI has been documented repeatedly to engage in a pattern of behavior that postures advocacy while providing cover for a slow but steady motion of consolidation that several of their board members clearly and publicly support.
9) With that backdrop, and with the draft of this article through the bullets and parts above as documented at this link here, consider this Q&A with Copilot on this date. The inquiry is by MHProNews. The fact-check, analysis and response that follows is by Copilot.
Copilot, do you recall the prior Q&As (chat thread)? Related but new topic. Check this article in draft mode linked here: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/ByPreventingMarketFailuresAntitrustIs-DeregulatoryToolAntitrustMythBustingMarkR.MeadorCommissionerU.S.FederalTradeCommission-2ndAnnualGWU_AntitrustConferenceMHVilleFEAMHProNews.pdf and uploaded to you for examination. First, identify if third-party references and remarks are apparently faithful and accurate by doing appropriate searches and comparisons. Then, to facts-evidence-analysis and expert editorial commentary being made in that draft, are the examples and concerns supported by known evidence? If so, then what implications does that have for various stakeholders in the discussion for access to more affordable housing in the U.S. and the role that antitrust law enforcement can play in that process? Make you follow the various linked items for the best possible response, make sense? Begin.
Facts-Evidence-Analysis & Expert Commentary
- The examples and concerns raised in the draft align with known evidence regarding market concentration, antitrust enforcement, and manufactured housing industry consolidation.
- Meador’s remarks about vertical integration and foreclosure tactics are particularly relevant to manufactured housing, where large firms have consolidated market share through acquisitions and restrictive financing practices.
- MHProNews’ analysis of antitrust enforcement’s role in deregulation is consistent with Meador’s argument that preventing market failures reduces the need for intrusive government regulation.
Implications for Affordable Housing & Antitrust Enforcement
- Consumers & Affordable Housing Seekers
- Manufactured housing remains underutilized despite a well-documented affordable housing crisis.
- Regulatory barriers and financing challenges continue to limit consumer access to affordable homeownership options.
- Public Officials & Regulatory Oversight
- DOJ-FTC merger guidelines could be applied to block further industry consolidation or unwind prior acquisitions.
- Antitrust enforcement may be necessary to restore competition and protect consumer interests.
- Retail Investors in Publicly Traded MHI Member Firms
- Investors may be misled by claims of industry growth, while actual market performance remains stagnant.
- Stock volatility in Champion Homes (SKY) and Cavco Industries (CVCO) suggests investor concerns about industry consolidation and regulatory risks.
- Taxpayers & Public Housing Policy
- Taxpayer-funded housing programs expand while manufactured housing is sidelined, increasing government spending on subsidies.
- Failure to enforce existing laws (e.g., MHIA 2000’s enhanced preemption) prevents cost-effective housing solutions from scaling.
Conclusion
The preponderance of evidence suggests that antitrust enforcement can play a critical role in restoring competition in manufactured housing. Meador’s remarks reinforce the need for stronger regulatory oversight, particularly in highly concentrated markets where vertical integration and exclusionary tactics limit consumer choice. MHProNews’ analysis aligns with Meador’s policy stance, highlighting the urgency of addressing market manipulation in manufactured housing.
Would you like me to explore how these findings impact policy enforcement and industry transparency further? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!
- 1) https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/meador-antitrust-myth-busting-remarks-5.5.25.pdf
- 2) https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/conservative-in-name-only-ftc-6263649/
The PDF of the JD Supra article is linked here as a download. The screen capture of the above to document the accuracy of that Q&A is provided below.
10) There could be more Q&As with other AI platforms, but that is sufficient to make the points that follow, which include the interesting summary and conclusion provided by Copilot. MHProNews will start by saying the obvious. The reasons for affordable housing crisis are many. While housing officials should embrace an ‘all of the above’ approach, welcoming new single family conventional site-built housing, modular housing, prefab housing, multi-family housing, and so on, without a robust use of HUD Code manufactured homes it should be obvious that the affordable housing crisis can’t be solved. MHProNews and our MHLivingNews sister site have led the charge in the manufactured housing industry space to expose and examine third-party research that points to the problems as well as to the solutions.
The barriers to entry, persistence, and exit for manufactured housing include, but are not limited to, zoning barriers, financing barriers, educational/information ‘stigma’ related barriers linked to manufactured housing. But in the ideal, IF the leaders of the Manufactured Housing Institue (MHI) were sincere in their desire to organically grow the industry, then they should prioritize enforcement of existing laws, and should take all the possible legal, educational, marketing, lobbying and other steps necessary to get that enforcement to be an accomplished reality as opposed to merely words in a law book or website. The fact that MHI has failed for the better part of 20 years to do what is obviously necessary are part of the prima facie evidence that has been well documented that MHI is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Many (not all) of MHI’s ‘insider’ members and corporate leaders have made statements that are factually accurate but are nevertheless misleading. A fine example of that is shown below from Cavco Industries, but there are numerous others. Every item on this from that page of a prior Cavco Industries (CVCO) are factually accurate. Nevertheless, because Cavco left out certain insights, it can be factually accurate yet still misleading.
Following MHProNews’ publishing the above in a prior article, Cavco oddly eliminated the item in the bottom right. It is still factually true, so why did they eliminate a powerful part of their own argument?
Gemini has confirmed that the $2 trillion dollar portion of their argument is supported by known evidence.
Those forms of wordplay that have been deployed by various MHI insiders are sometimes described as paltering, deception and misdirection and so on.
11) Perhaps somewhat influenced by months (years) of such reports, there may be evidence that certain MHI member firm stock valuations may be taking a hit.
12) Other relevant and related insights follow. Watch for new insights and information about manufactured housing and its 21st century struggles (internal and external) in the linked reports, or surf and search the site with our site search tool.
See also: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/consolidation-of-key-mh-industry-sectors-ongoing-growing-concern-mhi-hasnt-addressed-because-doing-so-would-implicate-their-own-members-plus-sunday-weekly-mhville-headlines-recap/
Reminder. There are sound reasons why AI has said that MHProNews has more than 6x the combined readership of MHI and its affiliated bloggers and trade media.
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
