US FTC Revives Microsoft-Activision Deal Challenge

The US Federal Trade Commission is reviving its challenge against Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of video game company Activision, a move which may seek to unwind the deal after it closes. From a report: The agency will move forward with its in-house trial against the acquisition after pausing it over the summer, according to an order the agency issued Wednesday. The move means the FTC will continue challenging the deal even after it has closed this year. "The commission has determined that the public interest warrants that this matter be resolved fully and expeditiously," the agency wrote in a filing. "Therefore, the commission is returning this matter to adjudication." The decision comes months after a US appeals court denied the FTC's bid to pause the Microsoft-Activision acquisition in July. The FTC typically drops challenges to deals when they lose in federal court.

It's in the public interest to waste more money?

[AutoTrix]

I mean Microsoft already beat the FTC three different ways, as well as numerous companies other countries scrutiny, which have strong competition laws an broader authority, such as the EU. The deal is sound and has been proven to increase competition and benefit consumers. All they are proving is the FTC is incompetent and effectively wasting US tax payers money. In fact it seems like the scrutiny resulted in less competitive markets by bolstering another titan (Ubisoft) with more control over the industry. But by all means waste another $50 million on legal fees and degrade US productivity further.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It is in the public interest to challenge consolidation of already large businesses into mega corporations.

Re:

[aldousd666]

No, it isn't unless there are specific violations. Just being big isn't enough.

Re:

[guruevi]

The current administration and FTC is in the pocket of major media companies like Sony, Warner, Disney and Universal, they all have a stake in stopping the Activision deal.

Re:It's in the public interest to waste more money

[UnknownSoldier]

> The deal is sound and has been proven to increase competition and benefit consumers.

Is there a citation for this? How was this "proven"?

Re:

[Lobo42]

To be super clear, the only thing the first case conclusively proved is that the judge felt the FTC was not "likely" to prevail on the merits in a full case. Both sides had to make abbreviated arguments about whether or not to pause the deal until the full hearing could be made.

The FTC lost the "pause" battle, but is still allowed to do a deeper exploration and attempt to make a more comprehensive argument. Will it fare any better? There's only one way to find out...

Re:

[alexgieg]

the judge felt the FTC was not "likely" to prevail on the merits in a full case

It also proved the judge didn't read the case, as she didn't address the points the FTC actually made, and instead invented a law that doesn't exist [thebignewsletter.com] to then "feel" the FTC wouldn't prevail against that one. It was such a bad decision, with so many faults, the FTC is certain better judges will judge better, which is why they're moving forward with it.

Re:

[rsilvergun]

Sure, Microsoft proved it. Who are you to question the Great and Powerful Gates! Pay no attention to that nerd behind the curtain!

Ok I guess it's technically the Great & Powerful Nadella, but you get the idea. Get back in line and don't ask questions. Your better are talking.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Is there a citation for this? How was this "proven"?

Well aside from the fact that there's no such proof, it was proven in the sense that a court couldn't prove the opposite which is the only bar which needs to be passed here.

Microsoft is in the wrong here

[rsilvergun]

and it's silly to pretend otherwise. They're buying one of the tent poles of the gaming industry and it would be naive to think they're not doing that to hurt competition. More than enough came out during discovery to prove that before we talk about the PS5 version of Star Field (or lack thereof).

The FCC isn't wasting money, they're doing their damn jobs. I want the FCC to stand up for me, even if they don't win today. I don't want my elected representatives and the administrators who follow the laws th

Re:

[alexgieg]

The deal is sound and has been proven to increase competition and benefit consumers.

Microsoft's own XBox Game Studios Chief, Matt Booty, disagrees with you. In 2019 he said: [theverge.com]

"... we (Microsoft) are in a very unique position to be able to spend Sony out of business. ... [It] Totally would have been worth it to lose $2B to @3B in 2020 to avoid a situation where ... Sony have become the Disney of games and own most of the valuable content. ... Content is the one moat that we have, in terms of a catalog that runs on current devices and capability to create new. Sony is really the only other pla

Microsoft gaming vs tencent

[olmsfam]

Microsoft gaming: $16.23 billion
Tencent: $368 billion

Something something monopolies bad for competition something something. I'm glad we are letting china own our entertainment mediums vs microsoft. Microsoft is sooo evil snuff snuff mmm good copium.

Follow the money.

Re:

[Xenx]

I'm not against the acquisition, as I think it's better than the status quo. However, It's not as simple as only looking at Microsoft gaming for comparison. While the other business segments aren't directly related, there is some relevance.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

Why are you comparing Tencent's total market cap (if we are being fair then apples to apples it's $368B to $2.31, an almost 10x difference) which includes WeBank, media and other sectors as well as gaming to just Microsoft gaming division and where does that $16.23B come from? I mean MS has made more than $16B in acquisitions alone between with Bethesda and other studios plus the XBox division is estimated to be worth something of $500-600 billion?

I'm not even saying blocking or approving this merger is goo

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

sorry meant to reply to OP not your message

Re:

[sethmeisterg]

Last I checked, Tencent's revenues were $65 billion, not $368 billion.

Re:

[Thantik]

Market Cap:

Microsoft: 2.3 trillion.
Tencent: 2.8 trillion.

Fuck them both. Dissolve Microsoft ala Ma-bell. History has shown time and time again that mergers reduce competition and are ultimately bad for customers.

Re:

[HiThere]

That isn't always true. When networks are broken up, it needs to be done very carefully or a lot of people find their things are much less valuable. (I'm purposely being extremely vague here, because networks come in a wide variety of domains. It's not even mainly electronics.) You've got to ensure that the intercommunication protocols continue to work.

That said, if you do it right, it's almost always better to have decisions that have local effects be made locally.

Those are completely different products & mark

[rsilvergun]

that's like comparing the car industry to the trucking industry. Yes, they're tangentially related but they serve entirely different market sectors and consumers. And just because a company is shooting for a monopoly in a smaller sector doesn't mean we should ignore the harm to consumers.

For the record for all Tencent's revenue they basically don't exist to me. As a gamer they're completely outside the products and software I buy. Their market dominance isn't great, and we should probably do something a

Unredacted Perjury

[locater16]

A tiny bit ago Microsoft accidentally posted a ton of unredacted documents to a public FTC website. These include evidence that Microsoft, may, have committed perjury.

To explain, one of Microsoft's key defenses was that they had "not decided" on whether the upcoming Elderscrolls 6, sequel to one the highest selling games of all time, would appear on Playstation consoles or not. See, Microsoft isn't here to make games exclusive (necessarily)! Of course to anyone familiar at all with the video games indust