Watchdogs or Lapdogs: Rohit Chopra and the Regulatory Fight for Fairness

In recent years, America’s corporate giants have wielded unprecedented influence over the nation’s politics and government. Many argue that Big Tech and Wall Street’s growing dominance threatens competition, erodes consumer protections, and undermines economic fairness. Without strong regulatory guardrails, who will keep these powerful industries in check?

On February 20, Stanford GSB’s Corporations and Society Initiative (CASI) hosted a thought-provoking conversation with former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra. Moderated by CASI student leader Sandhya Jetty, the discussion offered rare insights from Chopra’s decade-long fight in Washington to protect consumers and challenge corporate power.

Reflecting on his unconventional path to public service, Chopra pointed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis as a defining moment in his career. Fresh out of Wharton with an MBA in 2009, he witnessed firsthand how regulators failed to rein in the brazen fraudulent practices and other abuses occurring in the mortgage market. The experience left him questioning why financial watchdogs seemed more focused on shielding major institutions than on protecting consumers or fostering sustainable economic growth.

“What about the new businesses that we want to form?” he asked. “What about harnessing finance so that it is actually funding and investing in the firms of the future, not just making it easier for large institutions to enjoy bailouts and subsidies?”

This perspective, he noted, often clashed with the prevailing regulatory environment, which tended to protect established corporate interests rather than level the playing field.

When the federal government announced plans to consolidate financial oversight agencies and launch a new consumer protection bureau, Chopra joined the founding team that established the CFPB in 2011. He later served in leadership roles at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Education before being appointed by President Joe Biden to lead the CFPB in 2021.

Turning the conversation to issues close to home in Silicon Valley, Jetty asked Chopra whether Big Tech’s huge appetite for acquiring startup ventures is actually killing competition by keeping important markets in the hands of just a few powerful players.

“This is a real issue for me,” Chopra said, pointing to a troubling trend in startup financing. Investors, he explained, often shape their funding decisions based on potential exits, focusing on selling to one of a few dominant companies rather than building a challenger that could stand on its own. The result? A market where innovation is bought out and buried.

During his tenure as an FTC commissioner (May 2018–October 2021), Chopra saw this strategy play out in merger filings, where large firms openly framed acquisitions as a means to eliminate potential competitors—a tactic known as “catch and kill.” He described how major players in tech and pharma use serial acquisitions to cement their dominance, preventing emerging businesses from ever becoming real threats.

“What if one of those companies, with the right financing and access to capital, could unseat the incumbent?” Chopra asked. Instead of structuring markets to reward early exits, he argued for a system that gives startups the means to scale independently.

Jetty then asked whether regulatory frameworks could evolve quickly enough to keep up with corporate tactics, or if enforcement will always be reactive. Chopra stressed the need for clear, bright-line rules rather than complex, loophole-filled regulations that primarily benefit the largest players.

Big corporations, he explained, often prefer convoluted rules because they have the legal resources to navigate them, while smaller businesses struggle to comply. Instead of vague guidelines that require lengthy interpretation, Chopra said he’s been a “strong advocate for very clear and simple bright lines” and in some cases outright bans on harmful practices. 

He cited the difficulty of enforcing convoluted regulations—such as requiring companies to delete certain data without a practical way to verify compliance. Lawmakers often pass broad but ambiguous policies. They then leave regulators to sort out the complex details. Chopra argued that setting firm, simple rules from the outset is the best approach.

He commented on the CFPB’s recent interpretive rule addressing the rapidly growing “Buy Now Pay Later” deferred payment option. He noted that the financing tool is a modern version of the old layaway plan and should have the same consumer protections as other loans. Chopra emphasized that while some startups seek regulatory clarity, others attempt to bypass safeguards, but real economic growth should come from better products and services—not from avoiding oversight.

The discussion  turned to regulatory enforcement, particularly Chopra’s opposition to the FTC’s $5 billion settlement with Facebook in 2019, which he argued shielded executives from accountability. He criticized the agency’s handling of the case, describing it as emblematic of how regulators often let major firms off the hook while aggressively policing smaller businesses.

“Facebook was already subject to a law enforcement order that put some restrictions on how they would share data with third parties, and it required some consumer consent. We found in the investigation, that almost immediately, they violated the order.” 

Chopra pointed out that Facebook profited from its misconduct for years, yet its executives faced no personal consequences. He warned that this selective enforcement creates a troubling double standard.

“Every single time a small company violates a law enforcement order, the regulators are quick to name the CEO and the top officers and ban them from the industry.  But when the biggest firms in the economy do the same exact thing, there is special treatment given to them. And I just think that raises some very serious questions about equal justice under the law. “

Jetty then asked Chopra for his views on antitrust enforcement, noting that historically antitrust was viewed as playing an important role in safeguarding democratic institutions, but more recently it is solely viewed as a tool to promote competition and maintain low prices. Chopra agreed, arguing that the U.S. often thrives by fostering small and mid-sized businesses rather than relying on a few dominant national champions. He pointed to industries like telecommunications, biomedical sciences, and consumer technology as examples where decentralization fueled innovation.

Beyond economic concerns, Chopra warned that unchecked corporate power also poses political risks, allowing the biggest firms to use their influence to secure subsidies, bailouts, and favorable legislation.

“We don't want the biggest companies making the calls about what the rules should be. And I think that is something that is part of our antitrust tradition in America, which is guarding against that kind of abuse of economic power, as well as abuse of political power.”

Chopra was asked about the rise of super apps—platforms that integrate social media, e-commerce, and financial services. The super app model has reshaped banking in China and is now being pursued by Apple, Google, and X in the U.S. Jetty asked whether this trend offers real benefits or presents risks that regulators should address.

Chopra warned that super apps could lead to surveillance-based pricing, where companies leverage vast amounts of personal data—from browsing history to wearable device metrics—to predict consumer behavior and adjust prices accordingly.

“I tend to be very worried about personalized pricing becoming endemic in the economy because it raises some questions. Should a firm have that kind of information asymmetry with the consumer in order to price a good? And where does it end? Can you price medicine that way? Can you price transportation that way?”

“I really think we have to have some public debate about whether this type of pricing is appropriate, but that is clearly where things are going.”

Jetty and Chopra discussed the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which faces a potential shutdown with Donald Trump’s return to office. The President abruptly fired Chopra on February 1st before his five-year term was due to end in 2026.  Federal employees are pushing back on attempts to shrink the independent agency from 1,700 employees to five.

Five high-profile legal cases have been dropped including a major lawsuit against Capital One. The actions mark a sharp reversal for an agency that had pursued aggressive action against financial institutions. Since its founding in 2011, the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion to consumers who were victims of fraud or scams.

Chopra expressed uncertainty about what comes next but found it “totally weird” that Washington is moving to defund the very agency responsible for policing Wall Street and Big Tech.

“I have no idea what will happen, but I certainly hope that if we have rules on the books, that there will be law enforcement to enforce them because the only people who will be disadvantaged other than consumers will be all the law-abiding businesses and the small businesses that do follow these laws. They will be disadvantaged.”

At the end of the discussion, Chopra offered advice to students considering a career in public service, whether immediately after graduation or later in their careers. He stressed that markets are shaped by policy decisions, and understanding this relationship is crucial for any business leader.

“There is a symbiosis between the public and the private and I think the more that people can appreciate that, the more they can see where we need to change some of those policies or where they need to be rethought.”

He encouraged students to be skeptical of any employer—public or private—and to critically assess business models rather than blindly accepting them. For those interested in AI, quantum computing, and data privacy, he emphasized that the rules governing these industries are still being written. The question now is: Who will be making those rules?