On Monday the Justice Department, sued AT&T to block its $85 billion merger with Time Warner, court filings show. DOJ Complaint (PDF)
In a lawsuit filed in US District Court in Washington, federal prosecutors argued that the merger would hurt competitors and consumers.
“AT&T/DirecTV would hinder its rivals by forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more per year for Time Warner’s networks, and it would use its increased power to slow the industry’s transition to new and exciting video distribution models that provide greater choice for consumers,” the filing reads.
David McAtee, AT&T’s general counsel, said in a statement that the company is prepared to fight the regulators.
“Today’s DOJ lawsuit is a radical and inexplicable departure from decades of antitrust precedent,” McAtee said. “Vertical mergers like this one are routinely approved because they benefit consumers without removing any competitor from the market. We see no legitimate reason for our merger to be treated differently.”
Earlier this month it was reported that Justice Department officials had demanded that AT&T sell off CNN’s parent company from Time Warner as a condition for regulatory approval, raising questions about whether President Trump was intervening in the deal to retaliate against CNN for its critical coverage of him.
The Justice Department and the White House have both denied that there’s been any political interference in the merger review.
Makan Delrahim, the top antitrust regulator at the Justice Department, said in a speech last week that he plans to crack down on vertical mergers, such as the AT&T deal, that involve companies that don’t directly compete with each other. Delrahim criticized the Obama administration’s approval of similar mergers, such as Comcast’s purchase of NBC Universal in 2011.
Full Content: Full content: DOJ Complaint (PDF) & DOJ press release
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand