On April 26, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it was blocking Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard on the grounds that it feared it would have an impact on future competition in the cloud gaming market. In response, Microsoft has made it clear that it will appeal.
According to The Telegraph, Microsoft has hired Daniel Beard, a top expert “in fighting EU antitrust lawsuits,” to try to overturn the CMA’s ruling. He allegedly represented Microsoft at the latter stages of the CMA’s final ruling.
According to publicly available information, Daniel Beard is part of the London-based law firm Monckton Chambers, which specializes in competition law and is widely regarded as one of the lawyers’ top names in competition, EU, regulatory and public law, having overturned several multi-million dollar fines imposed on U.S. companies by the EU in recent years.
In short, this person has represented Apple in its successful appeal against the EU’s €13 billion tax demand, Intel in overturning a €1.1 billion fine imposed more than a decade ago, and Sky and Tesco in overturning government decisions.
The source said they believe that Brussels will pass the deal, which only requires Microsoft to commit to certain commitments to make games such as Call of Duty available on other platforms. He expects the EU to make a decision in the next two weeks.
If Microsoft is successful in its appeal, the case could be sent back to the CMA to reconsider its decision. If CAT refuses, Microsoft can take the case to the High Court of Appeals.
Of course, Microsoft currently has a lawsuit to deal with in the U.S., as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said in December it would sue the company to block the deal. It was previously widely believed that the FTC was using the formality to make its position clear and that if both the U.K. and the EU agreed, the FTC would naturally drop the suit.
Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard, said the company would support Microsoft’s appeal, “We are confident in this case because the facts are on our side: this deal is good for competition.” Kotick said excessive regulation would mean the company would reassess its expansion plans in the U.K.
