Microsoft to Appeal Against UK's Block of Activision Blizzard Deal 'in the Coming Days' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 07 May 2023 / 7,756 Views
Microsoft has hired lawyer Daniel Beard KC to try to overturn the UK regulator, Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), decision to block Microsoft’s $67.8 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard. He has been able to defeat the EU regulator on multiple occasions.
Microsoft, along with Beard are preparing to "lodge an appeal at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in the coming days," according to Yahoo! Finance. The appeal with CAT is expected to take several months.
Beard is a "leading competition barrister" and in the past has "overturned multi-billion dollar penalties levied on Apple and Intel by the EU." He already worked with Microsoft in the late stages of hearing with the CMA, before the regulator blocked the deal last month.
Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard is facing issues with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who filed an antitrust lawsuit in December of last year. The deal has been approved in the Ukraine, South Africa, Japan, Chile, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Serbia.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
So, is there any actual way for an appeal to overturn the CMA's decision on this? Or is MS just spinning their wheels on this? Because from what I've read, an appeal will just be sent back to the CMA and they'll just come up with some other line of reasoning to block it again. Which makes me think what's the point of CAT if they just send it right back to the CMA for them to only make the same decision? Regardless, seems like a waste of time if what I've seen on the appeal process is correct.
If the CAT render in MS favor and send it back to CMA for consideration, the CAT decision almost certainly will include specific instruction for the CMA to follow. Giving how narrow to scope of the block is any specific instruction can make things difficult for the CMA to reach the same conclusion without triggering another appeal. MS will also be allowed to submit further remedies to the CMA.
It gets sent back to CMA but the CAT quashed arguments and even theories of harm that the CMA used
For example, the CMA counted GPU subscribers as part of Microsoft cloud market but didn't count Amazon Prime subscribers even though they all have access to Luna, this is a gerrymandered Stat that CAT will throw out, so when it gets sent back to the CMA they can't use this again and it drastically changes the marketshare
The CMA need evidence that can't be thrown out to block a deal, otherwise they have mo choice but to approve since they can't block because they "feel like it"
Your Luna example is very deceptive because of the lack of context. The CAT will see through this very easily and the will not hesitate to side with the CMA.
No actually my comment is 100% accurate and its going to cause the CMA argument to collapse, there is no metric where GPU subscribers would count toward MS cloud market but Amazon Prime wouldn't,
Trust me, I'm far more knowledgeable on this topic than you are
You sound like Michael Pacther. This isn't about trying to be condescending to one another. This is about being able to analyze what's happening in totality. No just from one point of view.
Also you are wrong.
Considering that your comment has -6 it looks like you're on the losing side of the argument
BTW how come you haven't explained the "missing context" yet? You said the Luna example is "deceiving" and "lack context" so explain the context
Oh wait, you cannot
Negative reactions could just be alt accounts. It doesn't bother me because I have faith in what I am saying. It's not just wishful thinking.
As far as the context goes, Prime subscription only get a Luna 'demo' with 4 games to play and they are cycled out every month. The actual full Luna service is a separate $10 a month sub. Which you can bet has close to no subs. So you see if that is supposed to convince the CAT to say that the CMAs findings are all wrong, MSFT will lose again. They need something more than that. If I was able to find that information out in a matter of minutes you HAVE to know that a panel that's been studying this for months knows this too and it is already factored into their marketshare analysis.
Someone who was superiorly knowledgeable about this would have known.
The amount of games that Luna gives is irrelevant, the CMA report does not bring up "Game Pass having X number of games and Luna having Y number of games" it's still a cloud gaming service that's included with your prime sub
Boosteroid, Nvidia and the other services have zero number of games because they're a BYOG service where you buy the game but pay the streaming service to access the game you already bought.
Luna is MGS (multi gaming subscription) service like Game Pass is and you access Luna via cloud
GPU is an MGS service where you can access via xCloud
The Panel has been studying for months? Oh you mean the same panel that had to drop their console argument that they were studying for months too? Because their math was so bad that it would make a 5th grader feel embarrassed for them? Where they tried to compare 5 years of COD exclusivty profit to 1 year of loss, immediately got called out and exposed by Microsoft and had to drop the console argument immediately ?
That panel? Yeah maybe they'd need to study the market for 10 years before actually getting any reasonable understanding given how fast they've had to drop multiple arguments using their terrible math and metrics
'So, is there any actual way for an appeal to overturn the CMA's decision on this? '
No one is really answering your question. The answer is no. They can send it back for re-review but they don't approve or overturn anything as that is not their function.
Yup, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, Tobii vs CMA, CAT threw out the CMA argument on Tobii having incentive to foreclose rivals which is basically the only argument the CMA have regarding cloud gaming
The Tobii merger also had 3 Theories of Harm (ToH) the MS ABK deal only has 1 ToH which is based on cloud gaming and using extremely flawed metrics and numbers
Once CAT throws the CMA argument in the garbage (and they will) the CMA have no further grounds to block
Again you should try to research some of this stuff
He didn't ask if the CMA could rule on individual merits of their findings. He asked if they could overturn THE decision.
Again the answer is no.
That is not the the function of the CAT. Context matters. Stop and really think k what I'm actually saying.
I feel like you want a result so nad you are responding to yourself instead of my comments as they are intended to be received.
CAT doesn't have to overturn the decision, the CMA are the ones who need the have evidence and grounds to block, they cannot block because they want to, they have to actually have something to use
In this case, the only argument they have a flimsy cloud gaming argument full of holes that MS lawyers will tear apart and CAT will throw out
So when it does get sent back to CMA (and 100% will) it'll clear by default as there's no grounds to block anymore
You keep screeching about "Context" but you yourself don't provide or explain the context,
the only thing you need to know is that CAT has a rule that says beyond 5 years anything is unpredictable but every cloud company in the CMA documents is predicting cloud to be big in 10 to 15 years, so the CAT will tell the CMA "gtfo here"
Yup, this is from the Meta/Giphy case and ironically the judge of that case Marcus Smith is the judge of the ABK/MS deal
He's the president of the entire CAT so it makes sense that he'd be overseeing the largest merger the CMA have ever dealt with
The lawyer Microsoft hired has recently clapped the CMA on 2 different cases
The CAT isn't there to re-litigate this case. It's only there to check the findings of the CMA for any errors and to determine if any errors would potentially change the CMAs ruling.
The decision itself is still the CMAs alone to make. Based on their reasoning for blocking the deal it seems highly unlikely that a CTA is going to find that any errors alter the Trajectory of the findings
Also Michael Pacther promises 'The CMA Will Cave' so you can bet that the CMA is both aware that it doesn't have to give in and will not give in.
The CAT has the ability under the Enterprise Act of 2002 to quash Theories of Harm, they'll send it back to the CMA with specific instructions and rulings that the CMA must abide by, very likely that the CMA cannot count GPU subscribers as part of MS cloud marketshare
The CMA argument is one of the weakest arguments they've ever brought up and is full of holes that MS lawyers will tear apart
In fact back in March, the CMA had to drop their console theory of harm because Microsoft lawyers exposed how bad the CMA math was and how it would make an 8th grader feel embarrassed for them, they tried to calculate 1 year of losses vs 5 years of profit if Microsoft made Call of Duty exclusive, it was so embarrassing that the CMA immediately dropped it
The CMA also tried to argue multi-game subscriptions but had to drop that argument as well because it turns out it was just a different business model of accessing games.
This is now the 3rd or 4th time the CMA have come up with horribly flawed logic and skewed metrics that MS lawyers will tear apart and will result in CAT throwing the CMA argument in the trash,
Even if it goes back to the CMA, the CMA will no longer have grounds to block . This idea that CMA can block because they "feel like it" is fabricated nonsense, if they don't have a legitimate theory of harm that can be backed up with actual evidence (and not skewed numbers and gerrymandered math that they used here) they cannot block.
I don't think the CAT will be sending anything back to the CMA. The nearly never do. And the things you are saying the CAT has to do just sound like wishful thinking instead of a careful analysis of the actual marketshare. I'm sure MSFT wants to define the market but they will not be the ones to do so.
They do quite often or in cases like the Apple case last month throw it out completely
Sorry, you're on the losing side of the argumet I'm afraid
After they sell 30 million copies of D4 then it will pass.
We need a name and shame thread when the appeal fails. Too many pussies on this site who like to run their mouths.
You can try a bet thread. You bet X and if you win you get Y. Others bet A and if they win they get B.
Those you have friendly competition and a winner and a loser.
Someone being a loser and whatever the bet entails would be the "shaming" as long as it doesn't go far. The whole "too many pussies" part just isn't needed.
More evidence that it was a totally corrupt decision to block the ABK deal:
Does anyone know that Amazon Luna Cloud streaming started in the UK 1 or 2 moths ago, and Ubisoft already has a deal with Amazon to stream for Ubisoft +
CMA totally lied by omission, ignoring this fact. Sony and others could do the same, ensuring competition. Corruption confirmed.
Let the deal die , pay activision and fire imcompetent phill spencer, put a person in charge that knows wtf is needed to do, built some studios , pay for talent and stop complaining , use the money to built instead of using it to just make competition worse. They cant manage the studios they had let alone another fucking publisher.
Hahaha
For sure, if Microsoft remains persistent they'll be able to close some kind of deal, no question. It's all about the number of concessions, and the legal structure, required. They can carve up ABK into different operating groups, that work under different restrictions, if need be to deal with different local regulators and courts.
The question is whether Microsoft has the appetite to take it that far. And so far, every indication is that they do.
The Nvidia ARM deal was blocked by every regulator and the entire tech industry including Microsoft were lobbying against the deal
