Ryuu96 said:
Idas Said:
A few days ago, Mlex published a report about how the EC was frustrated with how the whole situation has been resolved.
For starters, the EC doesn’t understand earlier criticism of the EU remedy by the CMA seeing the solution finally accepted with the Ubisoft agreement. They feel that it’s more a license agreement and not a divestment. Therefore, a behavioural remedy like the one approved by the EC.
At the same time, the EC believes that other authorities have been left in an awkward position because many don’t consider the new proposition a “new deal”. But it was reviewed like that by the CMA.
Therefore, many wonder if companies in the future may try to invoke the "new deal" exception to circumvent vetos. And this could open a can of worms as basic but complex as "What is a new deal?"
There is also a lot of talk about “hybrid deals” (the CMA accepting more flexible remedies at later stages) or if the Australian ACCC failing to rule is a sign of weakness.
As you can see, the consequences of this whole story are just starting to develop.
|
Lol the EC playing dumb to remain politically correct I guess, "EC doesn’t understand earlier criticism of the EU..." yeah right you don't "understand" 😂:
Translation without being politically correct: The CMA was too blatant in their position which they held based on pure partisanship along with their FTC buddies, making a joke of due process and criticised the EC for not jumping aboard the anti-big-tech train with them. Once the FTC predictably failed the CMA found themselves alone in a court case they could not sustain with fact and sought any way possible to reverse their position without loosing face, again at the cost of making a joke of due process which now will complicate the task of regulation going forward.
