State attorneys general sue to block merger between Sprint and T-Mobile |

State attorneys general sue to block merger between Sprint and T-Mobile

The Washington Post
A Sprint logo is displayed on a store in Homestead.

Nine states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Tuesday to block the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, believing that the combination of the country’s third- and fourth-largest wireless carriers would threaten competition and harm consumers.

The lawsuit, led by the attorneys general of New York and California, represents a major legal and political headache that could upend the $26 billion telecom tie-up, which also has divided federal regulators in Washington who must bless the deal in order for it to proceed.

“When it comes to corporate power, bigger isn’t always better,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

In bringing their case, the 10 attorneys general argued that T-Mobile, which is operated by Germany’s Deutsche Telekom, and Sprint, which is owned by the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank, would have incentive to raise prices and reduce service quality if they’re allowed to merge. While the two companies long have said that their combination would help them deploy next-generation wireless services, known as 5G, the states questioned if the two carriers could actually live up to their commitments to deliver better mobile broadband nationwide.

Attorneys general from New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Michgian, Mississippi, Virginia and Wisconsin filed the lawsuit in federal court in New York.

“Direct competition between Sprint and T-Mobile has led to lower prices, higher quality service, and more features for consumers,” they wrote in their complaint.

“The cumulative effect of this merger, therefore, will be to decrease competition in the retail mobile wireless telecommunications services market and increase prices that consumers pay for mobile wireless telecommunications services,” the attorneys general continued.

Spokespeople for Sprint and T-Mobile did not respond to requests for comment. Shares of Sprint were down more than 5% in early afternoon trading, while T-Mobile’s stock was down about 1.5%.

In Washington, regulators at the Federal Communications Commission – which have reviewed the transaction to determine if it’s in the public interest – appear on track to approve the deal. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai offered his early blessings last month, along with the support of the commission’s two other Republican members, setting it up to clear an agency vote as soon as July.

But officials at the Justice Department – who are reviewing the T-Mobile and Sprint deal on antitrust grounds – have expressed hesitation. Staff at the DOJ’s top competition division previously had recommended the agency sue to block the merger, people familiar with the matter told The Post, though the recommendation came in the days before Sprint and T-Mobile offered new concessions to sweeten the deal with regulators. The companies offered to preserve some prices and rate plans and divest Sprint’s prepaid phone business, called Boost Mobile, to a third party.

On Tuesday, the deal’s leading critics called on the Justice Department to join state attorneys general in challenging Sprint and T-Mobile in court.

“The record is clear that it will lead to higher prices and less competition and that the companies’ promises are speculative, not merger-specific and unenforceable,” said Gigi Sohn, a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy, in a statement.

Categories: Business | Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.