> at a minimum, you'd have to show actual harm, like, for example, showing it has caused (or is very very likely to cause) higher prices for folks. I'm sure th

> at a minimum, you'd have to show actual harm, like, for example, showing it has caused (or is very very likely to cause) higher prices for folks. I'm sure that's the legal criteria, but why do I get a feeling of "time to move along" when I use a product of one of the merged companies? Every telecom merger, every food or book publisher merger, every aerospace company merger, has passed the review you state, but very shortly products are no longer made, services are ramped down, quality degrades. As an employee, I've been through mergers as well, the merged company always sucks more than the original. Sometimes for trivial reasons (CXOs chose the worse of the two time card systems), sometimes for a multitude of reasons. As a consumer and worker, I have acquired a reflexive suspicion and dislike of mergers.