Fate of AT&T-Time Warner deal lies with US court
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARGUED THAT THE MERGER WILL LIMIT COMPETITION
Lawyers faced off over the future of AT&T’s $85.4 billion (Dh313.67 billion) blockbuster merger with Time Warner for a final time in a courtroom, sparring over what the deal would mean to consumers.
The US Justice Department, which sued to block the deal, argued that the merger would cost people millions of dollars a year by limiting competition. If the judge does approve the deal, the government said, the court should force the companies to sell off certain business lines to protect consumers.
But the companies countered that the government had failed to make its case. They said consumers would benefit from the merger because it would allow Time Warner and AT&T to compete more effectively against Silicon Valley companies like Google and Netflix.
“The only lessening of competition that would occur is if this merger is blocked,” said Daniel Petrocelli, the lead lawyer for AT&T and Time Warner.
The judge, Richard J. Leon of US District Court for the District of Columbia, is expected to rule on the case on June 12. He has given little indication of his thinking throughout the trial, and he gave no sign of his leanings, either.
T-Mobile and Sprint announced a merger to better compete against AT&T, in a deal that is also expected to face close antitrust scrutiny.
The case has centred on the question of harm to consumers and whether the merger would lead to price increases. The Justice Department presented several theories for why prices could go up hundreds of millions of dollars a year overall for cable subscribers.
The core idea is that AT&T could threaten to withhold Time Warner content, like NBA games and CNN, to extract more money from rival cable and satellite operators that wanted to run that “must-have” programming.
The call for selling off business lines showed how little the two sides have changed their strategy throughout the trial. The Justice Department says only the divestitures would solve antitrust concerns because restrictions on business practices are rarely well enforced.