I don't think an outright block, or requiring divestment and not leaving the door open for behavioral remedies would qualify as irrational, illegal or the other one.
If I'm wrong, and not giving Microsoft the opportunity to suggest behavioral remedies would be seen as irrational or illegal, then okay. But if the CMA didn't have to leave the door open and they did, it means there is a non-zero chance that they'll accept behavioral remedies.
This is not the point in which the CMA would close the door on behavioral remedies. In fact, them doing so now could be seen as impropriety. They 100% need to leave the door open to behavioral remedies. However, as
Heisenberg007
points out in his review of the preliminary findings, the CMA are essentially saying that the current CoD deal PS has, which MS originally stated they intended to honor should this deal go through (and rumors swirled that MS was leaving the door open to go full exclusive after the current marketing deal expired, at least initially in this whole saga), would not be enough for them, because they feel once the window is up, MS will almost undoubtedly remove CoD from PS.
For the CMA, its not about a length of time; CoD has to remain on PS and all other platforms as far as they are concerned, seemingly. The way they see that happening is divestment. MS needs to provide a solution that gives them that assurance, and the only person who is really gonna say whether or not the remedies do will have to be both the CMA and Sony.
So yeah, its definitely a non-zero chance, but i'm not sure how MS will go forward while also clearing the standard the CMA indicated they want in their structural remedies.
Spencer has been locked by Nadella in a basement awaiting for his punishment
Seriously yes, it's the typical silence that speaks volumes...it's clear that internally they need to understand if it's worth to go on with the deal and are discussing about it.
Activision fears that MS might decide to jump out and has been way more aggressive to send a signal to not give up otherwise they won't get the money they wanted.
I've stated this a few times now, but both MS and ATVI must adhere to the good faith clause of the purchasing agreement they both signed - neither party can be seen as not fully supporting the deal go through, otherwise they'd be in breach of the agreement and could be sued by the other party.
MS' silence is probably one born from them having to basically fight this battle on 3 fronts. They are currently fighting with loads of folks for docs in the FTC case, Sony being only one of the subpoena'd parties. They also now have to design and come up with behavioral remedies that the CMA will find adequate. And the EC for EU likely has some objections but no one really knows whats going on there. So lots on their plate. And since they are the main driver of the acquisition as the buying party, it leaves ATVI to just basically cheerlead for it from the sidelines.
