PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 304.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Nov 15, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Clayton Act with respect to notice to a state by the Department of Justice (DOJ) about federal actions brought for violations of antitrust laws. Currently DOJ must:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
notify a state attorney general about an antitrust action regarding which DOJ has reason to believe that the state attorney general would also be entitled to bring an action based substantially on the same alleged violation of the antitrust laws; and
upon request make available to the state attorney general, to the extent permitted by law, any investigative files or other materials which are or may be relevant or material to the actual or potential cause of action.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shall exercise the same authority and procedures as DOJ under the Clayton Act if the FTC has brought an action under the same Act with respect to the prohibition against acquisition by one corporation of the stock of another (merger) that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.
Also in cases brought by the FTC that result in final judgments against a defendant, those judgments shall be prima facie evidence of antitrust violations under substantially similar facts in actions brought by other parties.
The statute of limitations shall be tolled during a proceeding brought by the FTC under such Act, and for one year thereafter, for any private and state rights of action based on the conduct in question during the proceeding.
The FTC shall enforce compliance with the Act in the same manner as DOJ in acting to prevent or restrain antitrust violations. The FTC shall enforce a consent order, however, in the same manner it does already. (Sec. 3) The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) is amended to exclude proposed mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, or similar transactions from ordinary FTC proceedings, except in cases where the FTC approves an agreement with the parties to the transaction that contains a consent order.
U.S. district courts shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus commanding compliance with the FTCA or any FTC order, if the FTC applies to such courts with respect to any activity related to consummation of a merger, acquisition, joint venture, or similar transaction that may result in an unfair method of competition.
People & committees
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX-27] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 304.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-412.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-412.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 10.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.659 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.659 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.659 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.659 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.