The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held confirmation hearings yesterday for the four nominees to the Federal Trade Commission: Joseph Simons (nominated as Chair), Rohit Chopra, Noah Phillips, and Christine Wilson. We previously discussed the nominations of Simons, Chopra, and Phillips here. Wilson, currently a Senior Vice President at Delta Airlines and previously Chief of Staff to former FTC Chair Timothy J. Muris, was subsequently nominated to the fourth Commissioner seat.

The hearing touched on a range of consumer protection and antitrust issues from big data and interconnected devices to prescription drug pricing and the application of antitrust laws to big technology companies like Google and Facebook. As anticipated, the nominees generally affirmed their commitment to vigorously enforce consumer protection and antitrust laws but refrained from committing to particular policy positions or advocating specific legal interpretations on hot button issues.

One notable exchange occurred when Senator Cruz spoke about his time at the FTC under former Chair Muris in the early 2000s, when both Simons and Wilson also worked at the Commission as Director of the Bureau of Competition and Chief of Staff to Chair Muris, respectively. Cruz, Simons, and Wilson each spoke glowingly of Muris and his legacy at the Commission. Simons noted that the biggest lesson he learned from Muris was the importance of clearly articulating priorities to agency staff, calling it “an absolutely critical thing in terms of leading the FTC” and emphasizing that that he intended to do the same upon confirmation. Wilson praised Muris for enlisting other commissioners to help advance his agenda and noted that the multi-member composition of the Commission allows it to leverage the unique experiences and expertise of each commissioner.

While the multiple references to Muris’s tenure were framed primarily in terms of leadership philosophies, they may also signal a return to certain policy and enforcement positions taken by Muris. For example, under Muris’s leadership, the Commission continued to apply the longstanding “reasonable basis” standard when evaluating whether an advertiser had sufficient substantiation to support a claim. In more recent years, particularly in the area of health claims, the Commission advocated for more stringent substantiation standards that have typically only been required to approve new drugs, such as requiring two well-controlled clinical studies to support certain claims. Muris has been an outspoken critic of this development, characterizing it as “a significant ossification of a formerly flexible standard” in a paper co-authored with Dr. Howard Beales and Robert Pitofsky. The piece further argues that such “an arbitrary, inflexible standard would deny important information to consumers” and raise First Amendment concerns.

To be clear, the hearings didn’t touch on the approach to substantiation applied during Muris’s tenure directly, but the positive references could signal a return to a more flexible substantiation standard. It is also encouraging for advertisers that Simons indicated his intent to make clear agency priorities and standards, presumably signaling that the Commission’s position will be well communicated to industry.