A strange situation has come about, as we are learning only now that Canada’s own competition regulator had objections to the Microsoft – Activision deal too.
Basically, Canada’s Competition Bureau was objecting to Microsoft’s claim in court that no one else had accepted the console theory of harm but the FTC. As reported by Tom Warren for the Verge, the bureau made this public response:
“Contrary to the foregoing quotations from the Memorandum, in a videoconference on May 5, 2023, the Bureau communicated to Microsoft and Activision’s Canadian counsel that the Bureau has concluded that the proposed merger is likely to result in a substantial prevention and/or lessening of competition with respect to gaming consoles and multigame subscription services (as well as cloud gaming), and that the Bureau is continuing to monitor the transaction.”
So if Canada’s regulator also had objections to the deal, why didn’t they get any news coverage? Microsoft immediately answers these and any other potential questions when they gave their official response to Canada’s Competition Bureau:
“We received notice from the Canada Competition Bureau that it would continue to monitor our acquisition of Activision Blizzard after the formal waiting period preventing the deal to close expired. We continue to work with regulators around the world to address any remaining concerns. – Microsoft spokesperson Rebecca Dougherty”
So, as it turns out, Microsoft covered all their bases when they had talked about the importance of getting favorable rulings from the US, UK, and EU regulators. Canada’s regulator may have also had their own objections to the deal, but they failed to trigger their process the way other regulators did to cause the deal to be blocked or even delayed.
Of course, Microsoft also tacitly admitted they made an false claim that no other regulators had objections to the deal. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley may or may not put that under consideration when making her decision on the injunction that would block the deal.
I do think most people would agree that this doesn’t really substantially make a difference to the case in any real way. This could have been a real lie from Microsoft, or an error from MS’ lawyers who failed to get their information together properly in preparation for this case.
At the end of the day, the core issue here is how Judge Corley decides on the console gaming theory of harm itself, regardless of what other entities and individuals decide in their domains.
