Antitrust Scrutiny of Vertical Mergers Under the Trump Administration
March 17, 2018Archives . Authors . Blog News . Certified Review . Feature . Feature Img . Recent Stories . Student Blogs . Uncategorized ArticleThe business world welcomed the Trump administration with open arms, believing it would usher in a new era of unprecedented growth by disposing of many of the barriers implemented during the Obama Administration, such as Net Neutrality. During his first week in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which requires federal agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new regulation they enforce. Since the implementation of the executive order, deregulation has ensued, the market has improved, and growth has been steady. One area where this pro-business approach has not been observed uniformly is that of vertical mergers in the cable industry. Most famously, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued to block the $85 billion merger between AT&T and Time Warner back in November, and the case is headed for an early trial in March. The ruling in this case will be largely influential in the cable industry, as more distributors and programmers of content are merging in order to stay competitive with the relatively new threat of streaming services.
The merger between AT&T and Time Warner is a vertical merger—a merger between two companies that operate at different stages of the production process for a specific finished product. It usually occurs when two or more firms, operating at different levels within an industry’s supply chain, merge operations. Time Warner is a producer of cable content. It owns networks and premium content, including CNN and HBO. AT&T is a distributor of this content, and it owns DirecTV. Historically, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have not blocked these types of mergers. The focus of their scrutiny largely concentrates on horizontal mergers (a merger between direct competitors) because a direct competitor is being eliminated from the market and anticompetitive effects are more readily apparent. Vertical mergers are thought to be generally beneficial to consumers. However, concerns have surfaced. With the advent of new streaming services across multiple platforms, vertical mergers have become more prevalent in the cable industry. In these vertical mergers, the DOJ is concerned with “foreclosure” in the relevant market. Here, the foreclosure concern is that AT&T, with its already substantial distribution capability through DirecTV, can effectively refuse to license or substantially raise prices of Time Warner content to its competitors. With the exclusive “must have” content of Time Warner (such as HBO and exclusive sports broadcasts), as the complaint alleges, AT&T has the potential to substantially lessen competition, raise prices for consumers, and stifle innovation in the industry.
The DOJ faced a similar situation in 2011 when Comcast merged with NBC Universal, a deal that brought together the nation’s largest cable operator with one of the nation’s largest programmers. The deal is very similar to the AT&T-Time Warner deal, with both involving a major distributor and programmer in the cable industry. In contrast to the AT&T-Time Warner transaction, however, the DOJ approved the Comcast-NBC Universal deal. The approval was subject to the parties agreeing to behavioral conditions, such as promising not to use Comcast’s cable infrastructure to give NBC content favorable treatment, as well as an arbitration process to handle disputes over program access with other distributors. In response to the government’s suit, AT&T and Time Warner have stated they would comply with similar conditions. The effectiveness of these behavioral conditions, however, has been debated among antitrust experts (including the DOJ’s top antitrust regulator Makan Delrahim) and may be the reason why the government is now seeking structural remedies instead, which forces a company to sell assets before a merger or acquisition. AT&T and Time Warner have flatly denied any proposed structural conditions to the merger, and the case looks headed for trial.
As the trial approaches, many unknowns remain. Experts are largely unsure who will win as there is little to no precedent on vertical mergers, and the decision to block this merger contradicts the historical approach taken by the government towards vertical mergers. To complicate matters, Time Warner owns CNN, a news network that President Trump has attacked throughout his presidency, with a myriad of tweets as evidence. Some pundits believe that the Trump-CNN feud may be motivating the decision to block the merger. Whatever the outcome, this decision will be largely influential for vertical mergers in the cable industry, as more of these mergers are taking place. Disney and Fox have recently agreed to a proposed merger, and the approach taken by the DOJ in that case may give the public an answer to the real motivations behind the decision to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger.
Suggested citation: Andrew Saba, Antitrust Scrutiny of Vertical Mergers Under the Trump Administration, Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, The Issue Spotter, (Mar. 17, 2018), https://live-journal-of-law-and-public-policy.pantheonsite.io/antitrust-scrutiny-of-vertical-mergers-under-the-trump-administration/.
You may also like
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010