OK, with the info that we have so far, this would be the summary (looking forward to the long version of the PF during the day or tomorrow):
Provisional findings from the CMA:
- Short version
- Summary
- Long version not available yet
- Press release
The merger may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition in:
A) console gaming in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure; and
B) cloud gaming services in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure.
Possible remedies:
1) Requiring a partial divestiture of Activision Blizzard:
a) Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty;
b) Divestiture of the Activision segment of Activision Blizzard, which would include the business associated with Call of Duty;
c) Divestiture of the Activision segment and the Blizzard segment (the Blizzard segment) of Activision Blizzard, Inc., which would include the business associated with Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, among other titles.
2) Prohibition of the merger.
3) Access remedies will be considered:
18. Microsoft has, however, informed us of existing and potential contractual arrangements with third-party platforms relating to access to Call of Duty. Accordingly, while none of the circumstances in which the CMA would select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action in a merger investigation (as summarised in paragraph 15 above) appear to be present, the CMA will also consider a behavioural access remedy as a possible remedy.
19. Access remedies are a form of behavioural remedy which seek to maintain or restore competition by enabling competitors to have access on appropriate terms to the products and facilities of a merger entity that they require to remain competitive. Access remedies normally require an access commitment which is set out in significant detail so that both customers and monitoring agencies can enforce compliance effectively. In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc's content that is necessary to remedy the provisional SLCs.
44. As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective.
Next steps
MS/ABK and interested parties have until 17:00 UK time on 22 February to respond to the remedies notice.
---
I still feel this is just a formality and they'll only accept structural remedies, I don't buy that they have any serious intention of considering behavioural remedies, I suppose we'll see. If CMA is serious about accepting a behavioural remedy (again, I doubt it) but if they are, maybe Microsoft just increases it to 20 years or something.
We'll also see how much Microsoft wants Blizzard/King vs CoD/Activision and if Microsoft can even find a buyer for CoD + Activision and not only find one who can afford it but one that won't also run into regulatory scrutiny. If Microsoft can find a buyer for Activision/CoD then there is at least a chance they'd accept a structural remedy (or at least, I hope) but I think there's like 5% chance of Microsoft accepting a structural remedy.
Tbh I'm not sure if it's hopium but a lot seem more positive than I am on the basis that it isn't an outright block and they leave the door open for remedies (structural and behavioural) but again, I feel like the behavioural comment could just be a formality. Either way, it seems like Microsoft isn't backing down since it isn't an outright block so we have a while to go yet, Lol.
