Support NeoGAF

[Thirty7ven]

Damn, Xbox journalists are implying that the injunction is a good thing for Microsoft.

If the deal is blocked they will say it was a good thing.

 

[Banjo64]

Damn, Xbox journalists are implying that the injunction is a good thing for Microsoft.

Coming soon:

‘Why ABK taking the $3b is good for Microsoft’

 

[Varteras]

I get the impression that MS has no problem being sued or fined.

They just don’t want to be blocked.

They're playing a dangerous game. The CMA is expected to be granted more power in the near future (less than a year) to fine companies 10% of their annual revenue. For MS, that would be $20 billion. If they push through and those powers are granted to the CMA while they try to litigate, after the CMA already forbid investment for the next 10 years, Microsoft would be looking at a nasty penalty that would make the deal not even worth it. Best believe the CMA would absolutely have an interest in that battle.

 

[ToadMan]

I get the impression that MS has no problem being sued or fined.

They just don’t want to be blocked.

Well this comes back to the original terms of the acquisition.

The contract required regulatory approval internationally and specifically listed the US, UK, EU and China.

Why was that stipulation present?

I believe its because MS made a valuation of ABK based on continued revenue streams post acquisition in those territories - a block in any of them changes the valuation which may lead MS to prefer to back out of the deal. Bear in mind the fines in the UK are currently limited at 10% of global revenue with calls to increase that number.

And that fine would be levied until MS found a satisfactory accommodation for the UK regulator - it’s not a one off.

That wouldn’t be the extent of the fine day one - the first fine is a wrist slap - but the longer MS persists, the greater the fine would become eroding the value of ABK.

Nice for the exchequer though - they could be getting a big windfall which is about time since MS has evaded so much UK tax…. allegedly.

 

[bitbydeath]

Then why haven't they?

Because they’d get broken up and Sega would buy Xbox on a Wednesday.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Coming soon:

‘Why ABK taking the $3b is good for Microsoft’

 

[Astray]

Coming soon:

‘Why ABK taking the $3b is good for Microsoft’

Jokes aside, if the deal doesn't happen, I can see MS bidding hard to get the COD marketing contract after the Sony one expires.

Relationships must have deepened during their time fighting regulators together, plus Sony would probably think that it's best to start untethering their future somewhat from Activision's, given whatever must have happened behind the scenes.

 

[Varteras]

Bear in mind the fines in the UK are currently limited at 10% of global revenue with calls to increase that number.

I know that the CMA is expected to get even stronger, but is the 10% annual revenue fine already something they can do? I was under the impression that wasn't something they can do yet. Not until their new powers are granted in the coming months.

 

[Bernardougf]

Jokes aside, if the deal doesn't happen, I can see MS bidding hard to get the COD marketing contract after the Sony one expires.

Relationships must have deepened during their time fighting regulators together, plus Sony would probably think that it's best to start untethering their future somewhat from Activision's, given whatever must have happened behind the scenes.

Yeah.. one way or another this deal is going to change some things and move some pieces on the board

 

[Raven77]

Said it before and will say it again this is a completed deal by summer 2024.

MS isn't going to stop and Activision wants it too.

The injunction IS good. As Activision said, this moves the legal process forward quicker than it would have without the injunction.

Personally I only care about this whole thing because I'm cheap and I want free Activision games on Game pass. The console warring over this is ridiculous though.

Remind me: 365 days

 

[Astray]

Best efforts during the duration of the agreement yes, but once that term expires with no extension or new deal in place, then all bets are off.

Ogbert forgot to mention something in my response: We are currently in the final extension of the current merger deal.

MS and ABK had a series of extensions that can be taken, with set break-up fee increases (from 2b to 2.5 to the current 3b iirc). If they want to do any new extensions etc then a new merger agreement must be made, approved by both shareholders and disclosed to SEC.

 

[Astray]

Yeah.. one way or another this deal is going to change some things and move some pieces on the board

Especially now that a big publisher like Embracer is beginning to show signs of weakness.

Either Microsoft or Activision could start buying up studios from there and get some serious bargains in the process. As can Sony etc.

 

[ToadMan]

I know that the CMA is expected to get even stronger, but is the 10% annual revenue fine already something they can do? I was under the impression that wasn't something they can do yet. Not until their new powers are granted in the coming months.

Sorry it’s difficult to quote this document so I have to screenshot it

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../attachment_data/file/1060671/CMA73final_.pdf

That document has a lot of special cases relating to deterrence and the nature of the infringement that grinds up the magnitude of the fine.

We’d have MS completing the acquisition when specifically ordered not to by the CMA, and in contravention of their own acquisition agreement which required CMA and FTC approval to close.

Seems like a slam dunk… but MS must have a different opinion on the extent and likelihood of those fines if they proceed.

 

[Varteras]

Sorry it’s difficult to quote this document so I have to screenshot it

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../attachment_data/file/1060671/CMA73final_.pdf

That document has a lot of special cases relating to deterrence and the nature of the infringement that grinds up the magnitude of the fine.

We’d have MS completing the acquisition when specifically ordered not to by the CMA, and in contravention of their own acquisition agreement which required CMA and FTC approval to close.

Seems like a slam dunk… but MS must have a different opinion on the extent and likelihood of those fines if they proceed.

Yeeeeah. I'm thinking the CMA would be more than willing to slam them with that fine for basically giving them the finger. And that is a yearly fine, correct? Not just a one time penalty.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Duchess]

Said it before and will say it again this is a completed deal by summer 2024.

Mate, the CMA has literally blocked MS and Activision from participating in any such deal for the next 10 years.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

Jokes aside, if the deal doesn't happen, I can see MS bidding hard to get the COD marketing contract after the Sony one expires.

Relationships must have deepened during their time fighting regulators together, plus Sony would probably think that it's best to start untethering their future somewhat from Activision's, given whatever must have happened behind the scenes.

From the NY Post article from last November, things didn't seem to be going all that well behind the scenes between Microsoft and Activision though ...

"Some insiders and analysts have said that Microsoft — which has enjoyed a better relationship with regulators in recent years compared to rivals like Meta and Google — likely did not expect this level of scrutiny from authorities. The increasing pressure has left the companies at odds behind the scenes, sources close to the situation said, even as Activision and Microsoft are publicly putting on brave faces and insisting the deal will go through." (Source)

And sure, we could just dismiss the NY Post article as just tabloid rumor mill, but guess who granted an interview with the NY Post just last month? Kotick interview with NY Post
Makes one wonder then, just who were the sources for the November article with the NY Post that leaked the alleged tensions between Microsoft and Activision?

 

[Kilau]

So this is it. They’ve instructed the judge to make the right ruling or it’s over.

I was wrong, MS will go nuclear option when the injunction is denied.

 

[Banjo64]

From the NY Post article from last November, things didn't seem to be going all that well behind the scenes between Microsoft and Activision though ...

"Some insiders and analysts have said that Microsoft — which has enjoyed a better relationship with regulators in recent years compared to rivals like Meta and Google — likely did not expect this level of scrutiny from authorities. The increasing pressure has left the companies at odds behind the scenes, sources close to the situation said, even as Activision and Microsoft are publicly putting on brave faces and insisting the deal will go through." (Source)

And sure, we could just dismiss the NY Post article as just tabloid rumor mill, but guess who granted an interview with the NY Post just last month? Kotick interview with NY Post
Makes one wonder then, just who were the sources for the November article with the NY Post that leaked the alleged tensions between Microsoft and Activision?

Great observation.

 

[Ronin_7]

So this is it. They’ve instructed the judge to make the right ruling or it’s over.

I was wrong, MS will go nuclear option when the injunction is denied.

You've no idea if will be denied lol

Cut the crap.

 

[solidus12]

Frustration must be killing him, Poor Tom Warren.

Somebody please check on Jez Corden…

 

[SneakersSO]

Jokes aside, if the deal doesn't happen, I can see MS bidding hard to get the COD marketing contract after the Sony one expires.

Relationships must have deepened during their time fighting regulators together, plus Sony would probably think that it's best to start untethering their future somewhat from Activision's, given whatever must have happened behind the scenes.

Highly doubt it. This notion that they'll have some sort of want to do further business with MS just seems like taking locker-room metaphors and applying it to large corporations. Fighting the regulators were largely down by a combination of in-house council and external law firms - the heads of the companies themselves are focusing more on their own businesses on a day to day basis.

ATVI will go with whichever deal they feel is more lucrative for them. The deals they have signed with Sony are incredibly lucrative for everyone involved. Sony is the current marketplace leader in the console space with a widening lead, and unless something drastic changes in the not so distant future, that is still likely to be the case for the entirety of the remaining generation.

I have loads of thoughts I could share on Sony and their view of the console market space and their position in it, but as far as those thoughts relate to this already off-topic matter, I think Sony will still be very, very interested in pursuing 3rd party marketing deals, seeing as how it has really helped their position in the space. Sony does have their own GaaS titles and shooters on the horizon, but I think its silly to believe they wouldn't go after a 3rd party marketing deal with CoD once the dust settles on this merger should it ultimately get blocked.

 

[Kilau]

You've no idea if will be denied lol

Cut the crap.

When/if but the point the MS lawyers are making to the Judge is that this rulling is basically the final judgement in the whole deal.

"Your honor, you wouldn't want to deny my client their right to due process, now would you?" Said with sleezy lawyer grin.

 

[Ronin_7]

When/if but the point the MS lawyers are making to the Judge is that this rulling is basically the final judgement in the whole deal.

"Your honor, you wouldn't want to deny my client their right to due process, now would you?" Said with sleezy lawyer grin.

That's Microsoft problem not FTC.

 

[SneakersSO]

So this is it. They’ve instructed the judge to make the right ruling or it’s over.

I was wrong, MS will go nuclear option when the injunction is denied.

MS has really opened themselves up to counter-arguments here - it is factually incorrect to assert that the merger is dependent on the fate of this injunction decision given that they are still blocked by one of the regulatory agencies they themselves stated needed to be in agreement in order for the deal to go through, and the court case to attempt to appeal it is currently slated for AFTER the current merger agreement date. An injunction at this point doesn't prevent the merger from not being able to be completed any more than the CAT appeal date should, since both would push the respective cases outside of the effective date.

MS would have to tell a federal judge in court that they planned on closing without regulatory approval of two of the regulatory groups they stated in their Merger Agreement were necessary for the merger to go through, in order for this to be true.

 

[Astray]

From the NY Post article from last November, things didn't seem to be going all that well behind the scenes between Microsoft and Activision though ...

"Some insiders and analysts have said that Microsoft — which has enjoyed a better relationship with regulators in recent years compared to rivals like Meta and Google — likely did not expect this level of scrutiny from authorities. The increasing pressure has left the companies at odds behind the scenes, sources close to the situation said, even as Activision and Microsoft are publicly putting on brave faces and insisting the deal will go through." (Source)

And sure, we could just dismiss the NY Post article as just tabloid rumor mill, but guess who granted an interview with the NY Post just last month? Kotick interview with NY Post
Makes one wonder then, just who were the sources for the November article with the NY Post that leaked the alleged tensions between Microsoft and Activision?

Thank you that was quite informative.

Kotick has been briefing the NY Post quite a few times during this saga huh? They also had the story where the CMA was definitely gonna approve and they would close over the FTC.

Highly doubt it. This notion that they'll have some sort of want to do further business with MS just seems like taking locker-room metaphors and applying it to large corporations. Fighting the regulators were largely down by a combination of in-house council and external law firms - the heads of the companies themselves are focusing more on their own businesses on a day to day basis.

ATVI will go with whichever deal they feel is more lucrative for them. The deals they have signed with Sony are incredibly lucrative for everyone involved. Sony is the current marketplace leader in the console space with a widening lead, and unless something drastic changes in the not so distant future, that is still likely to be the case for the entirety of the remaining generation.

I have loads of thoughts I could share on Sony and their view of the console market space and their position in it, but as far as those thoughts relate to this already off-topic matter, I think Sony will still be very, very interested in pursuing 3rd party marketing deals, seeing as how it has really helped their position in the space. Sony does have their own GaaS titles and shooters on the horizon, but I think its silly to believe they wouldn't go after a 3rd party marketing deal with CoD once the dust settles on this merger should it ultimately get blocked.

Makes sense tbh.

 

[SneakersSO]

When/if but the point the MS lawyers are making to the Judge is that this rulling is basically the final judgement in the whole deal.

"Your honor, you wouldn't want to deny my client their right to due process, now would you?" Said with sleezy lawyer grin.

This argument for an Injunction in the corporate world is typically made AFTER an acquisition has already been completed, not before hand. Normally, the FTC is filing an injunction while the big corporations are ringing bells on wall street. Once the damage is done, Federal Judges really don't want to be the ones to reverse a big decision like that.

 

[Kilau]

That's Microsoft problem not FTC.

Of course it is. Their play here is that they are telling the judge that a preliminary injunction ruling would be in effect a ruling to kill the deal so it's wah wah not fair. That's why they want more time, they are going to do this hearing like it was the one that would have come months from now.

 

[Banjo64]

Of course it is. Their play here is that they are telling the judge that a preliminary injunction ruling would be in effect a ruling to kill the deal so it's wah wah not fair. That's why they want more time, they are going to do this hearing like it was the one that would have come months from now.

As S SneakersSO said, they can’t argue this without admitting to CAT or the American Court that they were planning to close without the approval of the other.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

so it was because they want to expedite the process for MS to not pay 3b to the real victim, Bobby?

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

Thank you that was quite informative.

Kotick has been briefing the NY Post quite a few times during this saga huh? They also had the story where the CMA was definitely gonna approve and they would close over the FTC.


Makes sense tbh.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that Kotick would be going over to the NY Post for sharing his comments, interviews, etc. since he probably doesn't have many friends and allies left in the media these days, but the NY Post is undoubtedly not going to freeze out Kotick considering who and what the NY Post is, so they're a great place for Bobby to go to if he did want to leak anything anonymously at this point.

 

[Kilau]

As S SneakersSO said, they can’t argue this without admitting to CAT or the American Court that they were planning to close without the approval of the other.

If they know ABK is going to walk come the deadline, they had no moves left. They will do anything at this point.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Of course it is. Their play here is that they are telling the judge that a preliminary injunction ruling would be in effect a ruling to kill the deal so it's wah wah not fair. That's why they want more time, they are going to do this hearing like it was the one that would have come months from now.

And why should the judge care? If these companies want to be in bed together then renegotiate the date. Case closed. Adjourned. Denied, sustained. Your honor but

 

[jm89]

And why should the judge care?

 

[Kilau]

And why should the judge care? If these companies want to be in bed together then renegotiate the date. Case closed. Adjourned. Denied, sustained. Your honor but

The judge should not care but that's what MS lawyers are going to try and do. I have seen far too many rulings that fly in the face case law, written law, the Constitution and common sense to have any faith in any US court.

 

[Banjo64]

IDAS

Reading the expedite motion from MS/ABK, a few highlights.

In summary:

- They don’t want to delay the process, they want to start sooner and have 5 a day-hearing instead of 2.
- Almost everything was ready for the administrative process, only expert depositions remain.
- MS suggests that the FTC has been stalling the process since December 2022.
- MS didn’t expect a decision from the administrative judge until December 2023 - January 2024, at the earliest.
- It looks like the FTC's motion for a temporary restraining order relies heavily on 350 pages of reports submitted by their expert, Dr. Robin Lee.

For the express purpose of being ready to conduct a fulsome hearing in federal court in the event the FTC sought a preliminary injunction (not two simultaneous proceedings in a federal and an administrative court), the parties agreed to expedite pretrial matters in an FTC administrative proceeding that has been pending since December. The parties have completed fact discovery and exchanged witness lists, exhibit lists, and expert reports. Only one step remains before the case is ready for trial: expert depositions, which are currently set to take place between June 21 and 30. (Page 3)

The case has been moving at this fast pace because time is of the essence. The merger agreement by which Microsoft seeks to acquire Activision has a termination date of July 18, 2023. The agreement also contains a $3 billion termination fee. The FTC filed an administrative complaint in December 2022. But they chose to file this suit—seeking a court order of indeterminate length to prevent the transaction from closing—6 months after filing its administrative complaint and only 6 weeks before the termination date. The FTC knows that a preliminary injunction decision will determine whether the transaction succeeds or fails, yet counsel claims that the preliminary injunction is required only to ensure there is time to complete the administrative process. Let there be no doubt, a preliminary injunction ruling is the only decision that matters under these challenging deadlines
(Page 3)

The FTC hearing is set to start after the termination date. There will be no decision until late December 2023 or early January 2024 at the earliest. That decision will not be final because the FTC recently concluded that such decisions are recommendations subject to the review of the Commissioners who authorized the complaint—a lengthy process that always results in a decision in the FTC's favor. Defendants' only recourse at that point is an appeal to a circuit court. Overall, this process takes several years—a timeframe no merger could survive. (Page 4)

To be clear, Defendants have no interest in delaying the resolution of this matter. But Defendants respectfully submit that a hearing of two days is not enough time to present the issues in this case and that further discussion of the schedule is warranted. The stakes of this case are high, and it involves important legal, factual, and economic issues. At minimum, Defendants believe the Court should allow the hearing to extend into the week of June 26, to permit expert discovery to conclude before the conclusion of the hearing, particularly given that the FTC's motion for a temporary restraining order relies heavily on the reports submitted by their expert, Dr. Robin Lee. (Page 4)

Shortly after the deal was announced, the FTC opened an investigation into the proposed acquisition. During the FTC's nearly yearlong investigation, Defendants produced millions of documents and sat for several investigational hearings. On December 8, 2022, the FTC filed an administrative complaint before the FTC's Office of Administrative Law Judges, seeking to bar the transaction under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Unlike in most other merger challenges where the FTC simultaneously files a case in federal court—because only a federal court has the power to preliminarily enjoin the transaction, the FTC delayed filing a federal action until Monday. Instead, the FTC initially scheduled an administrative hearing before the FTC's Chief ALJ on an eight-month calendar rather than a five-month calendar (the "Part 3 proceeding"). That had the effect of setting the hearing for August 2, 2023—when there was no preliminary-injunction proceeding and when it was clear that the transaction's termination date (July 18, 2023) was weeks before the hearing would even begin. (Page 5)

To be prepared for the possibility that the FTC might eventually file a motion for preliminary injunction in federal court in this matter, the parties have been cooperating to expedite
pretrial matters so that a federal judge can decide the matter in a timely fashion. Fact discovery is complete. And expert discovery will close on June 23 (with one deposition taking place on June 30, by agreement of the parties). The FTC has disclosed one expert who has submitted over 350 pages of reports (currently set to be deposed on June 21), and whom they principally rely upon in seeking emergency relief from this Court. Defendants have disclosed three experts (currently set to be deposed between June 21 and 30).
(Page 6)

Defendants see two issues with the Court's suggested path forward, both of which would benefit from further discussion. First, the hearing date is currently set during expert discovery. While Defendants are prepared to accelerate the pace of expert discovery, Defendants submit that the parties and Court would benefit from having the experts deposed prior to the close of trial. That is particularly so because the FTC's motion for a temporary restraining order relies heavily on the testimony of its expert and the reports he submitted—making it all the more important that the Court have a full and complete expert record when adjudicating the FTC's motion. (Page 7)

Second, while Defendants believe the evidence can be presented expeditiously, Defendants are not aware of situations where a matter of this scope and importance was decided on just two days of testimony. On the contrary, federal court preliminary injunction hearings typically last at least five days, presumably because the hearing is the only one that will ever take place. (Page 7)

Counsel for Microsoft have conferred with all other counsel. Defendant Activision supports this request for an expedited Initial Case Management Conference. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission has declined to join a request for an expedited Initial Case Management Conference. (Page 8)

 

[SneakersSO]

If they know ABK is going to walk come the deadline, they had no moves left. They will do anything at this point.

Yeah this is definitely my read. I cannot see how MS could close on ATVI prior to July 18th without ringfencing the UK and inviting all sorts of legal battles on that front, that could wind up costing them a mint and them losing ATVI regardless. As folks have pointed out, the CMA is set to get even stronger in the coming months, and Meta's attempt at bullying the CMA into compliance wound up costing them Giphy and a tremendous amount of money. This seems purely futile imo.

 

[Banjo64]

Can I just say, for everyone who tries to say that Microsoft are some mastermind company who will bury the CMA and FTC:

It was Microsoft who included/agreed these termination dates in the contract, with these financial penalties.

They didn’t even have the foresight to consider administrative timelines in the event that they came under regulatory scrutiny.

They aren’t some god like being.

It’s actually hilariously amateurish when you think of it. They literally could have had a clause that said ‘the timeline is shifted by X months if X regulator opens a Stage 2 investigation’.

 

[Ansphn]

Highly doubt it. This notion that they'll have some sort of want to do further business with MS just seems like taking locker-room metaphors and applying it to large corporations. Fighting the regulators were largely down by a combination of in-house council and external law firms - the heads of the companies themselves are focusing more on their own businesses on a day to day basis.

ATVI will go with whichever deal they feel is more lucrative for them. The deals they have signed with Sony are incredibly lucrative for everyone involved. Sony is the current marketplace leader in the console space with a widening lead, and unless something drastic changes in the not so distant future, that is still likely to be the case for the entirety of the remaining generation.

I have loads of thoughts I could share on Sony and their view of the console market space and their position in it, but as far as those thoughts relate to this already off-topic matter, I think Sony will still be very, very interested in pursuing 3rd party marketing deals, seeing as how it has really helped their position in the space. Sony does have their own GaaS titles and shooters on the horizon, but I think its silly to believe they wouldn't go after a 3rd party marketing deal with CoD once the dust settles on this merger should it ultimately get blocked.

I don't think Sony will give them a great deal like that ever again. The deal will still be more lucrative than Microsoft's deal but Sony won't trust them anymore. Sony will also prop up other hot FPS just to make sure they have all their ducks in a row.

 

[Varteras]

I was mostly wrong about the FTC case. Sounds like this really is, mostly, the way it succeeds or fails. They may attempt something further, but it sounds like the parties largely agree that this upcoming injunction more or less determines it. Though I was also still of the mindset that a last minute renegotiation might happen. I wasn't fully reading the room though. MS is doing this, in all likelihood, because a renegotiation isn't going to happen.

 

[ToadMan]

Yeeeeah. I'm thinking the CMA would be more than willing to slam them with that fine for basically giving them the finger. And that is a yearly fine, correct? Not just a one time penalty.

Yeah as far as I can tell that fine continues until a settlement is reached - divestment for example.

But I believe the fine is appealable by … CAT again!

 

[Elios83]

Microsoft is basically contradicting and exposing themselves.
They're stating that the deal has no future past July 18th....so what are you going to do with the CMA?
They state that if the preliminary injunction is granted it would kill the deal because they wouldn't be able to wait, counterwise if the injunction is denied they expect FTC to walk away....so they're basically not asking the judge to rule on the opportunity to grant the preliminary injunction but to let them win the case in the US

FTC might be preparing a trap about those reports stating they were considering to bypass laws and regulators like the CMA.
It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

 

[Varteras]

Yeah as far as I can tell that fine continues until a settlement is reached - divestment for example.

But I believe the fine is appealable by … CAT again!

 

[Astray]

Things are getting spicy

 

[PaintTinJr]

Where the internet consensus was that the FTC had no chance with a federal judge, you have to wonder if the Gamer's lawsuit being heard by this same judge stacks the deck more towards the FTC by a balance of probabilities, by citizens litigating against the deal - but failing - and then the US government now litigating against the deal.

Each litigation by themselves has been claimed to be futile as means of blocking in the US, but with the judge having already heard allegations against the deal by gamers and being unconvinced by ruling in Microsoft's favour, I think it would be normal human nature to switch opinions - where there's smoke there's fire maxim - when the FTC have rolled in with the US government's opposition that aligns to the civilian suit, that the judge maybe dismissed by merely giving the balance of judgement in Microsoft's favour as pro business, where she felt the evidence for an argument was too weak by the gamers, but when added to the FTC argument and data starts to multiply the older arguments credibility.

If the judge is experiencing a multiplier effect of the litigation, I could see her giving the FTC the benefit of the doubt in any split decisions or contradictory opinions.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

Things are getting spicy

Looks like the FTC is already citing the CMA case here early on ...

 

[Elios83]

Looks like the FTC is already citing the CMA case here early on ...

Pretty much what I was stating in my previous post.
Bluffs are about to be called out or plans to bypass regulators exposed.

 

[ToadMan]

Things are getting spicy

I’m not convinced the court will be able to provide more time to MS…

This is on their web page

“​

Consenting to a Magistrate Judge​

The Court is currently experiencing a judicial emergency.
Your case may be resolved more quickly if you consent to a magistrate judge.
“


And the magistrate judge was already removed from the hearing.

 

[Varteras]

Where the internet consensus was that the FTC had no chance with a federal judge, you have to wonder if the Gamer's lawsuit being heard by this same judge stacks the deck more towards the FTC by a balance of probabilities, by citizens litigating against the deal - but failing - and then the US government now litigating against the deal.

Each litigation by themselves has been claimed to be futile as means of blocking in the US, but with the judge having already heard allegations against the deal by gamers and being unconvinced by ruling in Microsoft's favour, I think it would be normal human nature to switch opinions - where there's smoke there's fire maxim - when the FTC have rolled in with the US government's opposition that aligns to the civilian suit, that the judge maybe dismissed by merely giving the balance of judgement in Microsoft's favour as pro business, where she felt the evidence for an argument was too weak by the gamers, but when added to the FTC argument and data starts to multiply the older arguments credibility.

If the judge is experiencing a multiplier effect of the litigation, I could see her giving the FTC the benefit of the doubt in any split decisions or contradictory opinions.

The judge is likely to have a more favorable stance towards the FTC as a fellow government authority protesting a company, compared to a random group of civilians lodging a complaint. I do believe someone even pointed out that it's virtually in writing that this would be the likely case. The FTC is also certainly going to bring the judgements and reasoning of the CMA into the matter, as well. The FTC might even attempt to further vilify MS with its supposed push to close the deal regardless of the CMA and FTC. Which apparently just happened as I type this. Even further, the EC openly agreeing with the FTC and CMA over cloud concerns, even though they opted for behavioral remedies.

 

[Kilau]