United States v. AT&T (2019)

Last updated
U.S. v. AT&T (2019)
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case nameUnited States of America v. AT&T Inc., et al.
ArguedDecember 6, 2018
DecidedFebruary 26, 2019
Citation(s)916 F.3d 1029
Case history
Prior history310 F.Supp.3d 161 (D.D.C., 2018)
Holding
The U.S. government was unable to prove that the takeover of TimeWarner by AT&T was harmful to competition or consumer welfare.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Judith W. Rogers, Robert L. Wilkins, David B. Sentelle
Laws applied
Antitrust law

United States v. AT&T, 916 F.3d 1029 (2019), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, [1] which prevented the U.S. government from blocking a merger between AT&T and Time Warner, thus creating the WarnerMedia conglomerate. The court found that regulators were unable to prove harm to consumers per the requirements of United States antitrust law. [2]

Contents

Background

AT&T first announced plans to acquire Time Warner in October 2016. The acquisition would give AT&T significant holdings in the media content industry for the first time, and would allow the company to compete more fully with its primary telecommunications rival, Comcast, which had recently acquired NBCUniversal under a similar strategy. [3] [4] The proposal attracted criticism because AT&T could potentially use its expanded influence over both media content and delivery networks to prioritize its own content or discriminate against that of its competitors. [5]

In February 2017, Time Warner shareholders voted to approve the takeover by AT&T, [6] and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai refrained from having that agency review the merger, so a full governmental review was conducted by the Department of Justice. [7] President Donald Trump voiced his opposition to the merger, believing that it would grant more influence to news organizations like CNN that had criticized him, though Trump Administration officials vowed to review the deal without prejudice. [8] [9]

In November 2017, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the acquisition. Makan Delrahim, assistant Attorney General of the agency's Antitrust Division, stated that the deal would "greatly harm American consumers". [10] The Department sought an injunction to prevent the merger from being completed. [11]

District court proceedings

The case was first heard at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2018. [12] In June of that year, Judge Richard J. Leon ruled in favor of AT&T, holding that the government had failed to provide evidence that the proposed takeover of Time Warner by AT&T would reduce competition. [11] In a ruling spanning nearly 100 pages, Leon held that recent developments in the media content marketplace required a more precise antitrust analysis, with AT&T's arguments in favor of the merger being more convincing and based upon current marketplace realities. [12]

Leon ruled that the Department of Justice had failed to show that the Time Warner media properties would gain unfair leverage over the marketplace after becoming part of the AT&T conglomerate, or that media consumers would be harmed, or that AT&T would use its control of telecommunications delivery networks to discriminate against other companies' content. [12] Thus, the government's attempt to prevent the takeover was denied. [13] [14] The acquisition of Time Warner by AT&T was finalized two days later, creating the newly-named conglomerate WarnerMedia. [15]

In July 2018, the Department of Justice appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Even though the merger was in progress by that point, the agency appealed in the belief that the newly combined company could easily be separated again if the appeal were to be successful. [16]

Circuit Court opinion

At the D.C. Circuit Court, the Department of Justice argued that the lower District Court ruling to allow the merger was "contrary to fundamental economic logic and the evidence". [17] [18] For this hearing, the government stated that if it won the appeal, it would only require the newly formed company to sell its Turner Networks operations; and if the government lost the appeal it would allow its objection to the merger to expire the following year along with the associated consent decree. [19]

In February 2019, the Circuit Court unanimously upheld the lower court ruling in favor of the takeover of Time Warner by AT&T, agreeing that the merger would not have a negative impact on either consumers or competition. [20] This ruling was based on the requirements of the Clayton Act, which permits a merger of companies that do not directly compete with each other (also known as a vertical merger). [2] The Circuit Court agreed with the lower court's ruling that the combined company would not harm competition in the media marketplace. [1]

The Department of Justice decided against appealing this circuit court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, so the consent decree in which it stated its opposition the merger expired, and the merger went forward. [21]

Impact and subsequent events

The takeover of Time Warner by AT&T, and the decisions in court to allow it to proceed, attracted widespread criticism from opponents of media consolidation. [22] [23] Legal experts found that the effects of the ruling for antitrust law in the media/telecommunications sphere were inconclusive. The government's attempts to prevent the formation of large and abusive companies in that marketplace were based on economic arguments that may have become outdated, [24] [25] while that marketplace had converged in ways that required new arguments and analyses of the economic effects of mergers and takeovers. [26] [27]

The newly combined company only lasted for about three years; in 2022 AT&T spun out WarnerMedia as a short-lived independent company, which then promptly merged with Discovery Inc. [28] That deal was instantly approved by the Department of Justice, [29] and the resulting company is now called Warner Bros. Discovery. Consequently, AT&T ended its formal and direct involvement in the media content sector after just three years. [30] Meanwhile, the new Warner Bros. Discovery immediately faced economic pressures that inspired discussions for yet another media consolidation merger, [31] potentially with Paramount Global, less than two years later. [32]

Related Research Articles

<i>United States v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 2001 American antitrust law case

United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34, was a landmark American antitrust law case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WarnerMedia</span> American media conglomerate owned by AT&T (1990–2022)

Warner Media, LLC was an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate owned by AT&T. It was headquartered at the 30 Hudson Yards complex in New York City.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Commissioner for Competition</span> Member of the EU Commission

The Commissioner for Competition is the member of the European Commission responsible for competition. The current commissioner is Margrethe Vestager (ALDE).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AT&T Communications</span> American telecommunications company

AT&T Communications is a division of AT&T that focuses on mobile phone, broadband, fixed line telephone, home security, network security, and business services. The division houses AT&T Mobility, AT&T Internet, AT&T Phone, AT&T Long Distance, AT&T Labs, AT&T Digital Life, and AT&T Cybersecurity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard J. Leon</span> American judge (born 1949)

Richard J. Leon is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), is the first of two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the must-carry rules imposed on cable television companies. Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (II), 520 U.S. 180 (1997) was the second. Turner I established that cable television companies were indeed First Amendment speakers but didn't decide whether the federal regulation of their speech infringed upon their speech rights. In Turner II the court decided that the must-carry provisions were constitutional.

<i>United States v. AT&T</i> (1982) 1982 case in U.S. antitrust law

United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (1982), was a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, that led to the 1984 Bell System divestiture, and the breakup of the old AT&T natural monopoly into seven regional Bell operating companies and a much smaller new version of AT&T.

Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945), was a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. concerning both antitrust law and freedom of the press. The ruling confirmed that anticompetitive behavior in the news industry should be subjected to a First Amendment analysis on the ability of the public to receive information from multiple sources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Home Box Office, Inc.</span> American mass media company owned by Warner Bros. Discovery

Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO) is an American multinational media and entertainment company operating as a unit of Warner Bros. Discovery.

<i>Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois</i> 1977 United States Supreme Court case

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law.

Daniel M. Petrocelli is a partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP and the Chair of the firm’s Trial Practice Committee. Petrocelli is known in part for his work in a 1997 wrongful death civil suit against O. J. Simpson, for representing Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, and for his leading role in defeating the US Department of Justice’s attempt to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner.

On March 20, 2011, AT&T announced that it would purchase T-Mobile USA. On August 31, 2011, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice formally announced that it would seek to block the takeover, and filed a lawsuit to such effect in federal court. The bid was abandoned by AT&T on December 19, 2011.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

The history of AT&T dates back to the invention of the telephone. The Bell Telephone Company was established in 1877 by Alexander Graham Bell, who obtained the first US patent for the telephone, and his father-in-law, Gardiner Greene Hubbard. Bell and Hubbard also established American Telephone and Telegraph Company in 1885, which acquired the Bell Telephone Company and became the primary telephone company in the United States. This company maintained an effective monopoly on local telephone service in the United States until anti-trust regulators agreed to allow AT&T to retain Western Electric and enter general trades computer manufacture and sales in return for its offer to split the Bell System by divesting itself of ownership of the Bell Operating Companies in 1982.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of United States antitrust law</span>

The history of United States antitrust law is generally taken to begin with the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, although some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy has existed throughout the common law's history. Although "trust" had a technical legal meaning, the word was commonly used to denote big business, especially a large, growing manufacturing conglomerate of the sort that suddenly emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 began a shift towards federal rather than state regulation of big business. It was followed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attempted purchase of Time Warner Cable by Comcast</span>

On February 13, 2014, Comcast Corporation announced its intent to acquire Time Warner Cable. The deal was proposed to take the form of a stock swap, estimated at the time of announcement to be worth about $45.2 billion. The two companies argued that the merger would increase their overall scale, allowing the company to become more competitive, improve customer service quality, and quicken innovation. The companies also argued that the deal would increase competition in the United States' cable television and internet markets, as they planned to divest subscribers to Charter Communications to regulate the market share of their combined operation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Makan Delrahim</span> Iranian-American attorney and lobbyist (born 1969)

Makan Delrahim is an Iranian-American attorney and lobbyist. From 2017 to 2021, Delrahim served under President Donald Trump as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of antitrust law in relationship to two-sided markets. The case specifically involves policies set by some credit card banks that prevented merchants from steering customers to use cards from other issuers with lower transaction fees, forcing merchants to pay higher transaction fees to the banks. While Visa and MasterCard settled with the United States Department of Justice in 2010, American Express defended its practice by arguing that the anti-steering policies benefited its cardholders, the higher transaction fees helping to maintain member services. While the Department of Justice and several states prevailed during a District Court trial in 2015 citing harm to the merchants, the Appeals Court reversed the District Court's ruling in 2016 by ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown harm to both sides of the two-side market, a novel test in antitrust law. This decision led to some of the states to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was heard by the Court in February 2018.

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

References

  1. 1 2 U.S. v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir., 2019).
  2. 1 2 "AT&T Time Warner merger: U.S. appeals court blesses $81 billion media marriage - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 2019-02-27. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  3. ↑ Hammond, Ed; Sherman, Alex; Moritz, Scott (October 20, 2016). "AT&T Discussed Idea of Takeover in Time Warner Meetings". Bloomberg. Retrieved October 20, 2016.
  4. ↑ Yu, Roger (October 20, 2016). "Time Warner shares soar on AT&T's interest". USA Today. Gannett Company. Retrieved October 20, 2016.
  5. ↑ Chandler, Adam. "Why the AT&T-Time Warner Deal Is So Unpopular". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 8, 2017.
  6. ↑ Kludt, Tom (February 15, 2017). "Time Warner shareholders vote to approve AT&T merger". CNNMoney. Time Warner.
  7. ↑ "FCC chief: AT&T-Time Warner deal won't face agency's scrutiny". USA Today.
  8. ↑ "Senator Concerned That Trump-CNN Clash Could Doom AT&T-Time Warner Deal". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
  9. ↑ "White House could use AT&T/Time Warner deal as "leverage" against CNN". Ars Technica. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
  10. ↑ Foden, Sara; McLaughlin, David; Moritz, Scott (November 20, 2017). "AT&T Sued by U.S. Seeking to Block Merger With Time Warner". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  11. 1 2 Winkler, Elizabeth (June 12, 2018). "AT&T-Time Warner Judge Fires Starting Gun in the Battle Against Tech". The Wall Street Journal . ISSN   0099-9660 . Retrieved June 12, 2018.
  12. 1 2 3 U.S. v. AT&T Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C., 2018).
  13. ↑ Kang, Cecilia (June 12, 2018). "Why the AT&T-Time Warner Case Was So Closely Watched". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved March 18, 2019.
  14. ↑ Johnson, Ted (June 12, 2018). "AT&T-Time Warner Merger Approved". Variety. Retrieved June 12, 2018.
  15. ↑ "Time Warner is changing its name to WarnerMedia; Turner CEO to depart". CNBC . June 15, 2018.
  16. ↑ Kang, Cecilia; Lee, Edmund (July 12, 2018). "AT&T-Time Warner Deal Approval Gets Justice Department Challenge". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved March 18, 2019.
  17. ↑ "Justice Department appeal says AT&T-Time Warner merger decision is 'contrary to fundamental economic logic'". The Verge. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
  18. ↑ "Justice Dept. calls judge's approval of AT&T-Time Warner merger 'deeply flawed'". Washington Post. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
  19. ↑ "Full Q&A: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim talks antitrust on Recode Decode". Recode. September 2018. Retrieved September 1, 2018.
  20. ↑ "U.S. appeals court OKs $81 billion merger of AT&T and Time Warner". CBS News . February 27, 2019.
  21. ↑ "U.S. Justice Department will not appeal AT&T, Time Warner merger after court loss". Reuters . February 26, 2019.
  22. ↑ "AT&T-Time Warner merger approved, setting the stage for more consolidation across corporate America". June 12, 2018.
  23. ↑ Dvoskin, Simone A. (2020). "Media in Flux: Does Consolidation Promote the Public Interest?". Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. 38 (1): 219–256 – via HeinOnline.
  24. ↑ Keyte, James A. (Summer 2019). "The AT&T/Time Warner Decision: More than Meets the Eye". Antitrust. 33 (3): 20–26 – via HeinOnline.
  25. ↑ Kuntz, Kendall N. (2022). "United States v. AT&T, Inc.: Mega-Merger or Mega-Monopoly?". Journal of Business and Technology Law. 17 (1): 113–142 – via HeinOnline.
  26. ↑ Frieden, Rob (2020). "Challenges to the Conventional Wisdom about Mergers and Consumer Welfare in a Converging Internet Marketplace". Villanova Law Review. 65 (3): 479–522 – via HeinOnline.
  27. ↑ Neff, Allison (2020). "A Reassessment of Vertical Mergers within the Context of Antitrust Laws: The Time Warner and AT&T Merger". Delaware Journal of Corporate Law. 44 (1): 121–134 – via HeinOnline.
  28. ↑ Spangler, Todd (February 1, 2022). "AT&T Sets Plan to Spin Off WarnerMedia in $43 Billion Deal". Variety. Retrieved February 1, 2022.
  29. ↑ Szalai, Georg (February 9, 2022). "Discovery-WarnerMedia Merger Gets U.S. Antitrust Clearance". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved February 9, 2022.
  30. ↑ "AT&T Announces Details for Completion of WM Spin-Off". AT&T . March 25, 2022. Retrieved March 26, 2022.
  31. ↑ Cranz, Alex (2023-12-22). "A merging of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount would be very bad". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  32. ↑ Palmeri, Christopher (2023-12-21). "Warner Bros. Discovery in Merger Talks With Paramount Global". Time. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.