[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-321040-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-321040-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","advocacy-filing-comment-to-ohio-supreme-court-7-13-2026","Advocacy Filing Comment to Ohio Supreme Court - 7-13-2026","","Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning and Bureau of Competition submits a formal comment to the Supreme Court of Ohio supporting amendments to the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. The letter addresses proposed changes to how law-school accreditors are identified, arguing against exclusive reliance on American Bar Association accreditation and emphasizing competition and consumer choice. It describes FTC experience in assessing licensing-related antitrust risks and applauds removing regulatory barriers that may entrench gatekeeping roles.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/advocacy-filing-comment-to-ohio-supreme-court-7-13-2026/321040/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/advocacy-filing-comment-to-ohio-supreme-court-7-13-2026/321040.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Ophelia","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",18,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What rule change does the FTC address in its comment to the Ohio Supreme Court?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The FTC comments on an amendment to the Supreme Court rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio that removes Rule I’s express reliance on American Bar Association accreditation and provides alternate ways to identify accreditors.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why does the FTC support eliminating ABA reliance for bar eligibility determinations?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The FTC argues that allowing the ABA to monopolize education requirements for bar examination and practicing law in Ohio conflicts with competition-law principles and can entrench gatekeeping.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What is the FTC’s basis for the advocacy position?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The letter cites the FTC’s experience evaluating competitive effects of professional licensing and enforcement actions recognizing limits on market incumbents suppressing competition through state professional boards.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},321040,1790143667,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":145,"read_time":109,"preview_page_count":4},7971461741311,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/74000253aff267980c6?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779345379180704826","UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Federal Trade Commission  \nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580  \nOffice of Policy Planning Bureau of Competition  \nJuly 10, 2026  \nSupreme Court of Ohio 65 S. Front Street Columbus, OH 43215-3431  \n(614) 387-9000  \nBy email  \nRe: Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio  \nTo the Honorable Chief Justice and Justices ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio:  \nWe are the Directors ofthe Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC or Commission) Office of Policy Planning and Bureau of Competition. 1 The FTC’s Office of Policy Planning engages with state legislatures, regulatory boards, and other government officials on competition and consumer protection issues to champion the interests of the American people. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition enforces America’s antitrust laws. Competition is the lifeblood of the American economy, spurring innovation, expanding output and employment, lowering prices, improving quality, and increasing access to goods and services. Promoting competition and enhancing consumer choice are central goals for the Commission. Eliminating regulatory barriers that raise prices, prop up entrenched monopolies, or otherwise restrain the competitive economy is key to achieving these goals.  \nWe write this letter to advance those objectives and respond to the Ohio Supreme Court’s (Court) request for comment on its proposed amendment to its Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio (Proposed Amendment) .2 The Proposed Amendment eliminates Rule I’s express reliance on accreditation by the American Bar Association (ABA) and, instead, provides two alternate means of identifying accreditors who may determine whether a law school’s graduates are eligible for admission to the Ohio bar.3 The Commission has substantial experience evaluating  \n1 The views expressed in this statement represent the views of the Commission.  \n2 SUP. CT. OF OHIO, AMENDMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BAR OF OHIO (2026)[hereinafter Proposed Amendment], [https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/RuleAmendments/documents/LSAAC-](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/RuleAmendments/documents/LSAAC-)[%20Proposed%20Rule%20Amendments%20](%20Proposed%20Rule%20Amendments%20)([Public%20Comments](Public%20Comments))[.pdf](.pdf) (proposing amendments for public comment) .  \n3 See id. R. I, § 1(C) . The Court based this action on recommendations made by the Law School Accreditation Advisory Committee it appointed last year. See Staff Report, Supreme Court Forges New Pathway for Legal Education in Ohio, CT. NEWS OHIO (May 28, 2026), [https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/LegalEducation_052826.asp. The](https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/LegalEducation_052826.asp. The)[ ](https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/LegalEducation_052826.asp. The)[Proposed Amendment is discussed in more detail in Part I](Proposed Amendment is discussed in more detail in Part I infra.)[ infra](Proposed Amendment is discussed in more detail in Part I infra.)[.](Proposed Amendment is discussed in more detail in Part I infra.)  \nthe competitive effects of professional licensing and related restrictions across the U. S. economy.4 Through its advocacy program, the Commission regularly advises states and localities regarding the competitive effects of various professional and occupational licensing requirements.5 The Commission’s prior advocacies highlight the risks of entrusting market participants to act as gatekeepers for their profession or to set the terms on which they and their fellow competitors may compete.6 Two recent advocacy letters supported actions by the Texas Supreme Court and Florida Supreme Court to end their dependence on ABA law school accreditation.7 A third advocacy letter encouraged the Tennessee Supreme Court to reduce its reliance on ABA accreditation.8 The Commission has also brought enforcement actions in this realm, including one in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the antitrust laws limit ","cbCaifhEG7JxLJjy","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifhEG7JxLJjy","pdf",285348,16,"English","# Introduction\n## Overview of the Proposed Amendment\n## FTC Experience and Policy Rationale\n## Support for Eliminating ABA Reliance","[{\"question\":\"What rule change does the FTC address in its comment to the Ohio Supreme Court?\",\"answer\":\"The FTC comments on an amendment to the Supreme Court rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio that removes Rule I’s express reliance on American Bar Association accreditation and provides alternate ways to identify accreditors.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the FTC support eliminating ABA reliance for bar eligibility determinations?\",\"answer\":\"The FTC argues that allowing the ABA to monopolize education requirements for bar examination and practicing law in Ohio conflicts with competition-law principles and can entrench gatekeeping.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the FTC’s basis for the advocacy position?\",\"answer\":\"The letter cites the FTC’s experience evaluating competitive effects of professional licensing and enforcement actions recognizing limits on market incumbents suppressing competition through state professional boards.\"}]","Advocacy Filing Comment to Ohio Supreme Court - 7-13-2026 | PDF",1789958127]