Andrew I. Gavil
Overview
Clients rely on Andy Gavil due to his considerable experience as a practicing competition lawyer, academic, and former director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning. His interests and capabilities extend to all aspects of antitrust law and competition policy, including technology and digital markets, exclusionary conduct by dominant firms, analyses of theories of competitive harm, regulatory responses to new and disruptive firms and business models, and international and comparative aspects of competition policy.
Career & Education
- Federal Trade Commission
Director, Office of Policy Planning, 2012–2014
- Federal Trade Commission
- Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, J.D., 1981
- Queens College, City University of New York, B.A., magna cum laude, 1978
- District of Columbia
- Illinois (Inactive)
- Supreme Court of the United States
Andrew's Insights
Client Alert | 35 min read | 07.11.24
On Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”)[1] in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (No. 22-451) and Relentless v. Dep’t of Commerce (No. 22–1219)[2] (the two cases collectively referred to as “Loper Bright”), bringing an official end to the decades-old and eponymously named “Chevron deference” doctrine. Not content to stop there, the Court returned fresh to work Monday, July 1, to, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (No. 22-451)[3] (“Corner Post”), effectively extend the limitations period to challenge final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Speaking Engagement | 12.12.23
George Washington University Law School Jacob Burns Moot Courtroom
Andrew's Insights
Client Alert | 35 min read | 07.11.24
On Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”)[1] in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (No. 22-451) and Relentless v. Dep’t of Commerce (No. 22–1219)[2] (the two cases collectively referred to as “Loper Bright”), bringing an official end to the decades-old and eponymously named “Chevron deference” doctrine. Not content to stop there, the Court returned fresh to work Monday, July 1, to, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (No. 22-451)[3] (“Corner Post”), effectively extend the limitations period to challenge final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Speaking Engagement | 12.12.23
George Washington University Law School Jacob Burns Moot Courtroom