dslreports logo
 story category
DOJ Tries to Blame CNN For Losing AT&T Merger Case

The DOJ says it was outgunned and outspent during the recent trial over AT&T's $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. That blockbuster deal was recently approved after a lengthy lawsuit thanks in large part to US District Court Judge Richard Leon, who based his ruling on a comically-narrow reading of the telecom and media markets. For example, at no point in his 172-page ruling did Leon even address the potential combined anti-competitive problems caused by the combination of merger mania, regulatory capture and the death of net neutrality.

Click for full size
In a blunt statement, DOJ antitrust boss Makan Delrahim indicated he felt that the DOJ was outspent and outgunned by AT&T and Time Warner, with a little help from Time Warner-owned CNN.

"We have some of the best and most dedicated public servants who tried this case, but we don’t have the same resources available to us," Delrahim stated. “We don’t have a 24-hour dedicated news channel to go out and spin your case to the American public and judges and others as some merging parties might."

The implication is that AT&T and CNN manipulated the public and judges into buying into the merger, which tends to ignore the constraints of modern antitrust law and the DOJ's own role in this antitrust enforcement face plant, a failure that is likely to herald an unprecedented wave of new merger mania.

For one thing, a steady erosion of U.S. antitrust have resulted in laws that don't do a very good job protecting the public from the perils of vertical integration. Laws have been so steadily eroded by decades of lobbying influence and legal precedent, that most experts doubt that the government even has the authority to breakup a company like AT&T as they did in 1984. As a result, DOJ lawyers were tightly constrained into very narrow corridors of economic theory as they tried to illustrate the perils and pitfalls of the deal.

Delrahim's comment also ignores the DOJ's own failures in court. Like the fact that at no point in the multi-week trial did the government even mention the concept of net neutrality, despite the obvious impact the death of those rules will likely have on AT&T's ability to use its greater size and leverage (and ownership of HBO) anti-competitively. That's likely, in part, because the government didn't want to highlight how--with its other hand--it was helping ISPs dismantle those popular rules.

Even then, the DOJ focused exclusively on how AT&T will likely raise rates on must-have programming like HBO, making life much harder for companies to license content they need to compete with AT&T. At no point did the DOJ address the potential problems created by letting one company dominate not only media, but the broadband and wireless connections used to deliver that content. There's a universe of ways ISPs can use that power in synergistically-anti-competitive ways that were never even broached at trial.

While the Trump DOJ claimed it was suing to block the AT&T to "protect consumers," the administration's behavior on things like privacy and net neutrality made that argument suspect. Trump's longstanding feud with CNN is seen as a more likely motivator, as Delrahim's comments seem to confirm. Trump-ally Rupert Murdoch had also been urging the President to block the deal for his own competitive reasons for much of the last year (AT&T rejected Murdoch's efforts to buy CNN twice, as well).

Regardless of who's at fault (most experts blame our flimsy antitrust laws, DOJ missteps and a narrow reading of the markets by Leon for the failure), AT&T's now much more powerful. And after having successfully convinced the FCC to neuter itself and net neutrality, it's up to the states and individual consumers to try and hold the Dallas-based giant accountable for the forseeable future.


Most recommended from 17 comments


trekologer
join:2005-10-20
Bridgewater, NJ

23 recommendations

trekologer

Member

What a bunch of snowflakes

Granted I don't watch CNN 24/7 but I've never seen any segment promoting the AT&T - Time Warner merger. But even if they did go wall-to-wall on pro-merger pieces, the case isn't tried in the court of public opinion it was tried in a Federal Court. And the DOJ lost because they didn't have a case. And I say this as someone who thinks the merger shouldn't have been approved.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

15 recommendations

tmc8080

Member

resources?!?

The federal government which runs a multi trillion dollar economy doesn't have enough resources?!
Takes a true idiot to make that kind of comment and that person truly does not deserve a job in the DOJ.

cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL

12 recommendations

cb14

Member

The new normal.

Listening to statements from Trump and his gang you feel like in the former Eastern bloc- no lie, misrepresentation or mean offense is bad enough.
Trumpists get always offended when I compare them to Nazis but Joe Goebbels would be really proud of them.

The idea that CNN was able to sway a conservative judge is simply out of this world. In order to deny this merger ( which is undoubtfully a bad thing) the guy would have to legislate from the bench which he, following his ideology, refused to do.
InternetJeff
I'm your huckleberry.
join:2001-09-25
.

5 recommendations

InternetJeff

Member

Preposterous

quote:
The DOJ says it was outgunned and outspent ...
BS. The government has infinite funding. They can print, borrow, and tax all they need. And they can go into debt to even spend more.

No, the problem is that a government can be allowed to uses its unlimited resources to bankrupt anyone out of existence, regardless of the facts of the case, even before it gets to trial.

This is why a government should not be allowed to "sue" anyone in civil court. If there is behavior that you do not like, pass laws against it and file charges in criminal court and prove your charges beyond a reasonable doubt (not to a preponderance).

Anyhow in this case the DOJ lost not because they were outspent. They lost on the merits, or because they were incompetent.