The costs of regulation

Two small bits from yesterday's WSJ editorial page.

The first ("Australia vs. eBay") is described as follows:

At issue is eBay's proposal to require its Australian customers to use its proprietary payment system, PayPal, for transactions. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission thinks the move is anticompetitive because eBay's position as Australia's "leading online marketplace" means that shutting out other payment methods would hobble them unfairly...

Little wonder that the main objectors are the sellers, who pay PayPal's fees. Most, like Phil Leahy of the Professional eBay Sellers Alliance, say they're defending consumer choice. But given their own financial stake in the outcome, they're not exactly disinterested consumer champions. They object to the price eBay wants to charge. No regulation is forcing these sellers to use eBay.

The other "aggrieved" parties are banks and credit card companies such as the Australian Bankers' Association and American Express, which argue that they'll lose business if eBay shuts them out. EBay responds that other forms of payment -- namely bank-to-bank transfers and credit cards -- aren't as cheap or secure as PayPal. These companies could respond by improving their products. Instead, they're making their case to the antitrust regulator rather than to consumers.

It goes back to the idea that much antitrust regulation might be enacted in the name of choice for consumers (as if that alone is the goal) but is really about businesses that compete trying to make it easier on themselves. (Don Boudreaux has a great podcast about that here.)

The second ("Hairspray on Trial"):

The "trial" here involved a London hair salon owner named Sarah Desrosiers and an aspiring stylist, Bushra Noah, whose interpretation of her Muslim faith requires her to wear a headscarf at all times. Ms. Noah applied for a job. In their one brief meeting last year, Ms. Desrosiers decided that her refusal to show any hair wouldn't fit the trendy, "alternative" image that her Wedge salon in King's Cross seeks to project. Patrons and passersby, by her reasoning, like to see where their stylists' tastes run to – in Ms. Desrosiers's case to a dyed pink and blonde do on full display while she works.

Noah took her to court and won.

[The tribunal] found a novel crime: Ms. Desrosiers was guilty of "indirect discrimination" and causing Ms. Noah "injury to feelings."