Microsoft has lodged an appeal against Britain’s decision to block its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the creator of the popular game franchise Call of Duty.
The appeal argues that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the country’s anti-trust regulator, made significant mistakes in assessing Microsoft’s cloud gaming services, which formed the basis of their decision.
The CMA vetoed the deal in April, citing concerns about potential negative impacts on competition in the emerging cloud gaming market. The appeal has been filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), and Microsoft’s arguments have been summarized and published.
According to the summary, Microsoft’s appeal argues that the CMA’s conclusion, which stated that the proposed deal would result in a significant reduction in competition within the cloud gaming market in the United Kingdom, is incorrect. Microsoft disputes the CMA’s assessment and aims to demonstrate that its acquisition of Activision Blizzard would not have such detrimental effects on competition in the market.
At the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Microsoft will argue that the CMA committed fundamental errors in calculating and evaluating market share data related to cloud gaming services. This suggests that the CMA’s assessment of Microsoft’s position in the market and the potential impact of the acquisition on competition may have been flawed.
Additionally, Microsoft has presented a total of five grounds for its appeal, indicating multiple areas of contention and disagreement with the CMA’s decision.
The decision by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to block the proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, which would have been the largest deal in gaming history, elicited strong reactions from both companies.
However, Microsoft recently overcame a potential legal hurdle when a US judge rejected a request by gamers involved in a private lawsuit to preliminarily block the acquisition.
The private plaintiffs had filed a lawsuit in a California federal court in December, seeking to halt the deal, arguing that it would harm competition in the gaming industry. However, US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, in a ruling issued late on Friday, stated that the gamers failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if the merger proceeded before she makes a final decision on the merits of their case.
