U.S. appeals court clears AT&T’s $81B merger with Time Warner | TribLIVE.com
News

U.S. appeals court clears AT&T’s $81B merger with Time Warner

Associated Press
804315_web1_804315-cce3357f7ce747f6b99949601379c1f7
AP
A federal appeals court has blessed AT&T’s takeover of Time Warner, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019, defeating the Trump administration by affirming that the $81 billion merger won’t harm consumers or competition in the booming pay TV market.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Tuesday cleared AT&T’s takeover of Time Warner, rejecting the Trump administration’s claims that the $81 billion deal will harm consumers and reduce competition in the pay TV market.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington came Tuesday in the high-stakes competition case, approving one of the biggest media marriages ever. It was already completed last spring soon after a federal trial judge approved it, as phone and pay TV giant AT&T absorbed Time Warner, the owner of CNN, HBO, the Warner Bros. movie studio, “Game of Thrones,” coveted sports programming and other “must-see” shows.

Many observers had expected the decision favorable to AT&T from the three-judge appeals court panel, which upheld the trial judge’s June ruling. Opposing the merger forced the Justice Department to argue against standing legal doctrine that favors mergers among companies that don’t compete directly with each other, what’s known as a vertical merger.

The U.S. antitrust lawsuit against Dallas-based AT&T, the biggest pay TV provider in the United States, marked the first time in decades that the government has challenged that doctrine by suing to block a vertical merger.

The appeals judges ruled that U.S. District Judge Richard Leon was correct to dismiss the government’s argument that the merger would hurt competition, limit choices and jack up prices for consumers to stream TV and movies.

The Justice Department antitrust attorneys also had asserted that Leon misunderstood the complexities of the pay TV market and the nature of AT&T’s competitors.

The idea behind the merger was to help AT&T — which claims about 25 million of the 90 million U.S. households that are pay TV customers — compete better with nimble rivals born on the internet like Netflix, YouTube and Hulu.

Soon after the deal closed, AT&T launched WatchTV, a $15-a-month streaming service that offers more than 30 TV channels, including the Time Warner channels TNT and TBS (Turner Broadcasting).

AT&T has asserted the merger will save it money on content from Turner Broadcasting, enabling it to reduce charges to its DirecTV customers by at least $78 million a year.

The case could affect the future course of antitrust regulation.

Already, Leon’s ruling opened the floodgates to deal making in the fast-changing worlds of entertainment production and distribution.

Just a day after his decision, Comcast jumped back into a bidding war with Disney for most of 21st Century Fox’s TV and movie businesses. Disney eventually won, and Comcast bought British broadcaster Sky instead. Wireless carriers Sprint and T-Mobile also are attempting to combine; the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission are still reviewing that deal.

When the AT&T-Time Warner deal was first made public in October 2016, it drew fire from then-candidate Donald Trump, who promised to kill it “because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.” Trump has publicly feuded with Time Warner’s CNN, calling it “failing” and a purveyor of “fake news.” The president’s statements didn’t come up during the trial in district court, though his antipathy loomed in the background.

Categories: Business
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.