ProMarket - How State AGs Can Appeal the Flawed Decision to Approve T-Mobile’s Purchase of Sprint

Daniel Hanley of Open Markets Institute writes in ProMarket about the many things the judge in the Spring and T-Mobile mega-merger court case got wrong in approving the detrimental merger.

Last week, Judge Victor Marrero of the District Court for the Southern District of New York resoundingly approved a proposed $26 billion mega-merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, further consolidating one of the most critical sectors in the economy from four firms to three.

Nine states and the District of Columbia were seeking to prohibit the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile on the grounds that the merger would substantially decrease competition in the retail wireless industry, would likely increase prices for consumers, and would increase the likelihood of collusion among the remaining behemoths. The states pursued the case despite the merger’s approval by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

A close review of the ruling reveals a number of mistakes in the judge’s reasoning, so state attorneys general could base their appeal on several excellent legal arguments. For example, the judge apparently misunderstood or misinterpreted the “efficiencies” defense and the “weakened competitor” defense, and the decision erroneously takes into account theoretical economic benefits, which cannot justify an otherwise illegal merger.

Read the full article on ProMarket here.