The Antitrust Week In Review
Here are some of the developments in antitrust news this past week that we found interesting and are following.
U.S. antitrust regulators seek more data from Activision, Microsoft on planned deal. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has sought additional data from Activision Blizzard Inc and Microsoft Corp related to the antitrust review of their deal, the games developer said in a regulatory filing. Microsoft in January agreed to acquire the “Call of Duty” maker for $68.7 billion in the biggest gaming industry deal in history. Microsoft will file for approval of the deal in 17 jurisdictions, the company’s president, Brad Smith, told reporters last month.
E.U. Takes Aim at Big Tech’s Power With Landmark Digital Act. The European Union agreed to one of the world’s most far-reaching laws to address the power of the biggest tech companies, potentially reshaping app stores, online advertising, e-commerce, messaging services and other everyday digital tools. The law, called the Digital Markets Act, is the most sweeping piece of digital policy since the bloc put the world’s toughest rules to protect people’s online data into effect in 2018. The legislation is aimed at stopping the largest tech platforms from using their interlocking services and considerable resources to box in users and squash emerging rivals, creating room for new entrants and fostering more competition.
Apple urges court to reject Epic’s appeal in App Store antitrust case. Apple Inc on Thursday told appellate judges that video game maker Epic Games had failed to show any legal error that would justify them overturning a lower-court ruling that found key App Store policies do not break U.S. antitrust law. Epic, known for its “Fortnite” game, largely lost a trial last year over whether Apple’s payment rules for apps were anticompetitive. That decision found Apple had suitable reasons to force some app makers such as Epic to use its payment system and take commissions of 15% to 30% on their sales. Following the ruling, Epic appealed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Edited by Gary J. Malone