Just finished reading the U.S. v. Visa/Plaid complaint. It's very well-drafted, the facts are compelling, the narrative is clear.

One big q.: why not bring it as a more comprehensive monopolization case? This is an area where a Biden DOJ could act... (1/x)

The (alleged) harm from the Plaid acquisition itself is pleaded in a straightforward way: it would eliminate a nascent rival, stifle innovation, increase costs to businesses & (all) consumers, and the like.

But what about this (alleged) threat to PayPal? It echoes the case against MSFT in the '90s, wherein MSFT coerced Intel to stop developing an innovative new product.

What about this (alleged) harm to innovation, arising out of Visa's conduct toward yet another company?

What about this (alleged) harm to innovation, from Visa's conduct involving *another* company? For those keeping score, we're up to four at this point...

And then there's this, which sounds a lot like the exclusive-dealing theories of harm in MSFT and (more recently) Google...

Yet the complaint winds up only asking the judge to condemn the proposed Plaid acquisition.

As a matter of litigation strategy, I get the appeal of a narrow complaint.

But if there are other harms out there, will this remedy them? Back to the initial tweet, it seems like this could be an opportunity for a Biden-Era DOJ. How so?

Get in there, ask Staff whether they believe there's enough to support a broader monopolization case against Visa. If so, give them full rein to bring it.

Side benefit: that attitude from the top could go a long way toward restoring Agency morale, which is currently not great.