
Microsoft has officially appealed against the block of its Activision Blizzard takeover in the UK, with the formal process taking place earlier this week. The appeal is being handled by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
This was announced by a Microsoft spokesperson in response to Reuters yesterday:
"We can confirm we have filed our appeal."
The UK Competition and Markets Authority blocked the deal in April, claiming that Microsoft "failed to effectively address the concerns in the cloud gaming sector", although the European Commission ended up approving it a few weeks later.
And in a recent speech by European Commission EVP Margrethe Vestager, it was explained in depth why the Commission ended up disagreeing with the CMA about whether to approve the acquisition or not.
Vestager began her speech by stating that she felt the merger — with appropriate remedies - would represent a "positive development" for the industry, while also acknowledging that the deal required a "thorough investigation".
"An important finding was that the overall market share for Microsoft and Activision was generally low in Europe. It's only when you look at specific segments like ‘shooter games' that you get to above 20%. And for consoles, Sony sells about 4 times more PlayStations than Microsoft sells Xboxes.
With this context, we did not think the merger raised a vertical issue. I am told Call of Duty is a very popular shooter franchise. But we found that Microsoft would probably not shoot itself in the foot by stopping sales of Call of Duty games to the much larger PlayStation player base. Our colleagues at the CMA agreed with us and ultimately reached the same conclusion."
As you can see, the European Commission and UK CMA were aligned in many of these views, but the part where they disagreed was in the aforementioned cloud gaming sector, where the EU decided Microsoft's remedies were sufficient:
"Where we did have concerns was in cloud gaming - still a nascent market but one we expect to grow, because it offers many advantages for gamers..."
"We were worried that Microsoft would make Activision games exclusive to its own cloud gaming service. This would have restrained access to games and strengthened Windows' position as an operating system."
"Where we diverged with the CMA was on remedies. We accepted a 10-year free license to consumers to allow them to stream all Activision games for which they have a license via any cloud service. And why did we do this instead of blocking the merger? Well, to us, this solution fully addressed our concerns. And on top of that, it had significant procompetitive effects."
Vestager went on to explain that this remedy "opens the door" for smaller cloud-based services to offer major Activision Blizzard games in the future, ultimately "widening choice for gamers".
Finally, despite the disagreements, it was mentioned that the European Commission enjoyed "excellent" cooperation with the UK, as well as Canada, the U.S. and New Zealand, in coming to a final decision on the Activision Blizzard deal.
Interesting comments from the European Commission, then, and now we'll need to play the waiting game to see if the UK appeal ends up proving successful or not. We'll obviously let you know when we hear more!
What do you make of the European Commission's remarks here? Tell us down in the comments below.
Comments 47
That is quite the burn on CMA lol
This is sound argumentation based on facts and data such as market share in the EU as well as actually considering the current state of the competition and what's good for consumers.
What does the CMA have? Arbitrary fictional arguments clearly based off of things like PlayStation's lobbying.
Interestingly, I've read that it's possible for Microsoft to sue CMA if their isolated and unfounded block results in a financial loss for Microsoft.
Cloud is an 'Open' Platform - not controlled by Microsoft - so MS can't prevent others from 'competing' in the Cloud space. I can see their point that MS would have a 'strong' line-up, but then so does Sony, Nintendo etc - even TenCent or Embracer too, let alone EA and Ubisoft IP's..
10yr Licences certainly 'help' any competing service - it gives them the chance to offer these games too - they are unlikely to get any 'Sony' games to Compete.
I don't see how MS can be seen as 'anti-competitive' in Cloud but not anti-competitive in Hardware with the 'exact same' potential in their IP's. They deemed that CoD wouldn't 'hurt' Sony's dominant position and MS would be 'foolish' to withhold it as Sony has 'numerous' Exclusives to 'compete' and would lose the majority of 'sales' by withholding it - the same is therefore True in Cloud. Hence you can buy games from Epic, Steam etc and still use Boosteroid or GeForce Now to stream.
If Sony had a 'Competing' Cloud service offering 'modern' games inc Spider-Man, R&C, GoW etc, would the CMA back down? The deal doesn't prevent Sony from offering a Competing Cloud service - with or without CoD - they can offer Destiny and Marathon for example...
I don’t see many activison-blizzard games being the best way to play via cloud anyway. It’s just another option….
I honestly believe that the CMA is using Cloud as a smokescreen. I believe that they wanted to stop this deal because they have a bias towards Sony. I also believe that they are in cahoots with the FTC. Of course, the problem with doing the FTCs bidding, is that WHEN the FTC lose in Court (as they undoubtedly will) that will leave the CMA completely at odds with the rest of the World. So, if the FTC Court case is decided before the appeal with the CMA, then I fully expect the CMA to fold. However, if the FTC case has not yet been determined, then the issue becomes a little more, er... cloudy...
@Wheatly I can't find the link. What I remember is that Microsoft would only need to prove that it was a deliberate and unfounded decision and not a mistake, which is obvious because of the untenable reasons given by CMA and the constant feedback and communication coming from Microsoft. I don't think that Microsoft will need to do so, mind you, it would occur in the worst possible scenario which will not happen because the deal will go through. They could sue CMA or just individuals in that scenario.
@Wheatly You can believe whatever you want. Microsoft has appealed already which is the first legal step. Any institution or individual that is not following the law and it's not a mistake can be sued. Obviously, Microsoft would have to prove that and, as I said, it won't be necessary so don't worry. Your point of view is clear so no need to go in circles.
@Wheatly
The EC outright said, right there, that the remedy that's in place, and partially active, is the best way to solve this. The CMA's solution is not just locking the stable door, it's putting it under 24 hour surveillance, protecting three horses that are in need of TLC, while the prize stallion of Cloud Gaming, that they claim is safe...
...We already know has already bolted. Microsoft's 10 year deals without ABK are doing exactly what the CMA claim needs fixing, while ABK are losing money and consumer trust under Kotick.
CMA, admit that you're wrong, or you'll be sending ABK to the glue factory.
This is fair. The EU market is different to the UK market and both have different goals. I’m glad there are competition watchdogs that can say no to big corporations.
@Wheatly I don't want to waste more of my time replying to someone that doesn't make any sense and uses illogical phrases and examples that have nothing to do with what I said, while not providing any decent reasoning at all, especially since this is the first time that you talk with me, making you a total waste of my time.
Wheatly wrote:
This proves that you don't have any idea about legality.
Also, suggesting that there are no other cases of a company suing because of unfair business restrictions is ridiculous.
@Wheatly You are a broken record.
@grumpypotato Better than Microsoft's and giving his wisdom away on the internet. Microsoft are wasting their time on legal appeals, he knows everything that they need to know! 😂
@grumpypotato @Kaloudz Guys, he knows more than the lawyers of a $2344.11B company that has decided to formally appeal the CMA's verdict:
Wheatly wrote:
Looks like those highly educated CMA geniuses don't have common sense
@Wheatly It's funny that a person that uses random lowkey examples that have nothing to do with what people mean says, "I never said that", when his literal words are quoted.
@Wheatly careful criticising or saying anything negative on MS certain posters here are always right.
In short, what they really meant was, "We (and almost the ENTIRE world) disagreed with the CMA because we actually have a little knowledge about tech industries, u like the dinosaurs at the CMA, who are so out of touch, we think they may actually just be an extension of the Tory party".
The EU shouldn't be explaining anything. The question needs to be asked of the CMA.... Why do you think you know better than nearly EVERYWHERE else? Because, well.... They don't.
@Wheatly while you are correct. If CAT "suggests" to the CMA that they "may be wrong" and "should re examine the case", they will more than likely fall in line with what CAT "suggests". It's like when the tory party have an "investigation" and it's "suggested" someone should resign. It's that British politeness thing. CAT will basically tell in the form of asking. It then makes it look like that the CMA fully reconsidered the case, when in reality, they will more than likely do as CAT asks (tells).
Wheatly wrote:
You seem more affected by (and obsessed with) this than the others and the pseudo-neutral user supporting you has supported a lot of Sony t... "fans" before, so that means little. Besides, we don't know if the enlightening knowledge you claim to have is true, especially when you disregard everybody else's.
Wheatly wrote:
Microsoft is not appealing for not losing $3 billion, that is a break fee but the parties ABK and Microsoft will very likely agree to extend the deadline because the current deadline is 18th July and the FTC trial is set to start on the 2nd, August, after the deadline already. So how can you say that the reason for appealing the CMA decision is trying to avoid the penalty fee?
Assuming the CMA does not change its tune, (parliament can still override them, btw) MS can always just spin off all UK operations and proceed with the merger.
This will go through, neither ABK nor MS will allow a global merger of this scale to be halted by a single country.
@Kaloudz as big a market as UK is, (it’s not 2nd or 3rd as far as I know) it does not make either company a billion dollars a year.
Spinning off UK operations does not mean leaving the UK, but even should they leave the UK for 3 years, chances are they [microsoft] loses less money than paying off 3 billion to ABK because they had to break the deal.
@Wheatly I don't buy "I didn't say that" from you anymore, I'm quoting your literal words.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cma-blocks-microsoft-s-acquisition-activision-blizzard-game-over-behavioral-remedies
@Wheatly that’s Microsoft as a whole. No one in their right mind is talking about the entirety of MS leaving the UK over this. We talking exclusively about UK ABK losses if ABK needs to leave the UK until things are sorted out.
Not even xbox would have to leave the UK. The CMA can’t kick them out of the country, that’s outside their power.
@Wheatly the real issue here, is that the UK is corrupt to it's core. Our current government has a new scandal every week. To the point, former primeministers are even in it up to their neck for abusing power. It's the norm not the exception in this country. Get power... Be corrupt. There's no way the CMA are right and everyone else is wrong. If their ruling is overturned, they should be forced to explain to the rest of the entire planet, how they came to a not just different decision to them, but the polar opposite decision to them. It stinks of corruption and bias. This country is so far behind the rest of the world, it's actually embarrassing
@Wheatly tldr:
Option A) ABK can entirely shut down UK operations, Fire everyone, halt UK publishing. CMA can’t do anything about that option because they no longer have jurisdiction. It’s as silly as the UK trying to prevent me from buying a house in Mexico at that point.
Option B) ABK spins off all UK operations into independent entities that won’t be part of the deal. Those entities retain independent publishing rights for the region. Again: CMA can’t do anything to stop the deal at this point, because every asset being acquired by MS is outside their jurisdiction.
These are nuclear options, but it’s very clear they are being considered.
Funny how two of the ppl who decided no used to work for lawyers that worked for Sony
https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/xbox/the-cmas-senior-director-who-blocked-microsofts-xbox-activision-merger-previously-worked-for-a-sony-google-law-firm
@Wheatly plain to see what? You don’t let me sell my house, I just sell that house to the current tenants and sell the rest of my business to someone else. Or hell, I tear down the house and make it a public park.
Keep in mind: an i dependent UK publishing arm would not have any ties to MS. Hell, they could even make a regional platform exclusivity deal with Sony.
Btw in the option of shutting down UK operations, ABK could also sign a deal with some third party publisher to distribute games in the region. Like UBisoft or EA.
@Wheatly I understand that the majority isn't always right. But there are certain cases where I think it probably is. This being one of them. We live in a country, ruled by someone no one voted for. Not for the first time. I mean, had the amount of scandal and, well basically theft occoured before an election, no one would've put the tories in power. As I said, these 'independant"bodies, like the CMA are in bed with the government. When I first heard the decision, I instantly thought, "tories". There's just something not right about it all. It's strange at the very least.
At the end of the day, MS will just circumnavigate the UK should this deal not happen. And, as always, it's the people (in this case gamers) that will lose out. The thing is, most folks either play xbox, or PlayStation. Yeah, some have both. But most are one or the other. Phil Spencer himself recently said, "Starfield isn't going to be an 11 out of 10 and make people sell their PlayStation". He understands that, it's not about converting people, it's about keeping current xbox players, and hoping PlayStation players become a 2 console situation.
I'm not arguing any point, I'm just seeing it how I see it, and you're right, folks will come at it from all angles. I just don't want to end up being in the only country that doesn't get the benefits of this deal.
@Wheatly CMA set some temporary conditions that apply during the appeal, and then tried to block future attempts for up to 10 years, but again that assumes jurisdiction.
ABK has ways to remove itself from under their jurisdiction, if it ends up having to come to that.
Just for a bit of perspective on the CMA, just this week it successfully managed to force Meta to sell Giphy after an appeal had failed so they can be pretty stubborn about changing their mind.
🤔
https://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/xbox/the-cmas-senior-director-who-blocked-microsofts-xbox-activision-merger-previously-worked-for-a-sony-google-law-firm
@theduckofdeath The article is revealing.
@theduckofdeath Not disputing the factuality of the article, but "Windows Central" is hardly likely to portray the details in an unbiased manner.
@Kaloudz The source of the news isn't actually suggesting any sort of conspiracy though, the article on the other hand...
@Kaloudz Admittedly yes it does raise some eyebrows, although what we don't know is if any concerns had already been raised and addressed internally. One thing for sure is it will no doubt be noted in MS's appeal if they have any concerns about it.
@Kaloudz oh man I just saw that article and came here. A conflict of interest within the CMA? I think so. Impartially out the window.
The CMA since the start has been suspected to be 'in bed' with Sony. Their rhetoric was Sony's rhetoric, and Sony explicitly said they want to bury the deal. Not that they didn't like it, they wanted it D-E-A-D.
The CMA are literally going 'Nothing's wrong here, Everything's going as usual', when, and I'll be honest, the behavioural remedies are nothing to do with Activision Blizzard AT ALL.
It's similar to how Big West finally defeated the Macross Monopoly Harmony Gold had. They literally told them 'Yes, you will continue to own the english rights to the original Macross until Hell freezes over, but these rights that are nothing to do with it, we'll take them off your hands entirely.'
The EC knew cloud gaming was nothing to do with the ABK deal, so accepted it and gave Microsoft a minor smack on the hands and encouraged them to allow more than just xCloud to host Microsoft content.
Even the FTC allowed Microsoft to fast track elements of the process and is willing to let them sign, because the primary concerns aren't related to the merger itself.
It's only the CMA that equate Microsoft acquiring the CMA to their xCloud monopoly. If this deal was about Microsoft putting money on the table to acquire Shadow S.A.S or one of the other major cloud producers, yes, that would be a concern related to cloud gaming.
The CAT could easily tell the CMA 'Right, you can make your decision again, but we're taking cloud gaming off the table, there's zero concerns in that market related to this acquisition.'
Now, tell me that the CMA's decision would still be the same 'No'.
I'm no legal expert, but I have learned a few things by really keeping up with the Epic vs Apple case and now this one. There are some great sources of info out there like Hoeg Law on YouTube. That said, it all comes down to the FTC. If by a huge miracle they were to win in court, a HUGE HUGE understatement given how weak their case is, this deal will die. If the court sides with MS on this issue in the US, the CMA becomes irrelevant. Ok, maybe irrelevant is the wrong word, but literally not a chance in hell MS lets just the CMA hold up this deal and incur a 3+ billion dollar penalty. Its just never going to happen and one doesn't need a law degree to see that.
So unless the CMA gets some help stopping this deal by the FTC winning in court, its gonna be lonely and cold in the UK for the CMA. They are gonna find out just how little power they have against a big corporation like MS when the rest of the world is on their side. If the FTC loses...well, a single Sony fanboy has as much chance at stopping this deal as the CMA does at that point. In other words, no chance at all.
@Wheatly What is being claimed is that the CAT will order the merger to be investigated again by the CMA, but with conditions and taking into account any judgement by the CAT, so for instance if the CAT claim the CMA were wrong about the market share we find it to actually be X Y Z, then the CMA has to investigate again taking that judgement as the rule to follow.
So the question is, can the CAT make rulings that will directly impact the CMAs decision, or can they only request the CMA investigate again but cannot make any rulings to impact the decision or investigation? You don’t seem to have cleared that up.
@Kevw2006 I find most of the Windows Central staff enjoy making click bait conspiracy stories around this topic, they get more revenue that way.
@Wheatly So all they can literally do is pass it back for re-investigation, they cannot attach any criteria to that investigation of make any judgment on it to be considered in the new investigation?
@Kaloudz I’d be pretty certain they knew but don’t think it’s as much of an issue as being advised. Lots of people work for other companies and move on, then if you’re in the same industry deal with previous employers later on. You could argue conflict of interest but as they are one person out off I’d imagine a number of people, not sure if that would hold any weight? Plus all parties would be required to advise any conflict of interest to all parties involved prior to working on the case in hand.
@Kaloudz I would agree, MS will be very experienced with the process so will have been pretty thorough in their due diligence.
@Kaloudz
FOSS was on Double Barrel Gaming maybe you've seen it? I wonder if we are going to see a movie in the future
He certainly knows stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUmsqwtJfrk
@Kaloudz Not in the plans right now due to the late timing of it, but we'll keep an eye on the situation - especially next week.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...