3 ms·

Convince who? There is no such thing as antitrust anymore in the USA, it’s merely the size of the bribe required to let the merger go through now

bluedevil2k 3mo ago
States have the ability to sue to block mergers as well as the federal government. See the recent 11 state lawsuit seeking to block the WarnerMount merger.
- xp84 3mo ago
  Just a couple of months ago, someone was still suing[1] to block Alaska Air/Hawaiian. This is a merger that already entirely went through. I would predict equal likelihood of some state lawsuit derailing a merger like this. [1] https://viewfromthewing.com/passengers-demand-court-undo-alaskas-hawaiian-airlines-merger-say-deal-hurts-competition-raises-prices/ https://viewfromthewing.com/passengers-demand-court-undo-ala...
  - delecti 3mo ago
    There's a pretty clear difference between a lawsuit by 8 individuals, vs one filed by attorneys general representing a combined ~100m people.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - xp84 3mo ago
      Nevertheless, I have very little faith in states somehow blocking big mergers. Can you cite an example where this has happened? We've had basically every airline, several supermarket chains, and every major media company go through 1-2 rounds of megamergers. Which, specifically, have been successfully blocked by states?
      - yerich 3mo ago
        In 2017, Valero tried to acquire some energy infrastructure owned by Plains All American. The FTC cleared it but California's AG filed to block the deal, which was ultimately abandoned before the trial could begin. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/10/future-impacts-of-valeros-decision-to-abandon-mart https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/10/futur...
      - ralph84 3mo ago
        Washington state was key to blocking Kroger-Albertsons.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
  - bluedevil2k 3mo ago
    Considering that California is one of the states and it’s Warner Brothers and Paramount, both entertainment companies based in California, the bark has a lot of bite.
- Forgeties79 3mo ago
  If it isn’t red states the current admin won’t care at all. If it’s mostly or entirely blue states, they’ll just default to siding with the merger out of spite.
- lotsofpulp 3mo ago
  Which is funny because regardless of whether or not those states succeed in blocking the merger, those legacy video entertainment businesses will become irrelevant whether they are one business or two, due to the fierce competition from TikTok/Instagram/Reddit/Youtube/Whatsapp/computers/anything on the internet in general. It's probably the most inconsequential merger, from a consumer standpoint.
  - jkestner 3mo ago
    Anything can be a monopoly or not, depending on how you define the market.
    - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
      But not anything is worth litigating. The kids with a lemonade stand on the corner in my neighborhood have a monopoly on that corner. Video media sellers are dime a dozen these days, and the barrier to entry for selling video media is basically none. Warner brothers and paramount are nowhere near the only business to buy and watch media, and it affects almost no buyers negatively if they merge.
- PunchyHamster 3mo ago
  Sure they have ability, they are just not doing it often enough
xp84 3mo ago
Quite true. Or honestly, it's really barely about direct financial bribery anymore[1] - all the recent ones have just hinged on incredibly naïve (and easily manipulable) readings of how a merger might affect culture war / red vs blue partisanship. For instance, CNN really doesn't matter, and was a tiny part of WB/Discovery, but of course Trump cares deeply about (hating) CNN, so all that was needed to win over Trump and guarantee his approval was for the acquirer to whisper to him that they'd do a housecleaning there. This lifehack would work for acquiring any company that happens to control any media property that hasn't established itself as a Trump cheerleader. Note: I'm not even a Democrat today, but the pure and petty corruption on display definitely sickens me. [1] though, back when it was, the bribes were astoundingly high ROI due to how cheap they were!
pc86 3mo ago
Do you have any evidence that you can just bribe your way past antitrust regulations (which are enforced by hundreds or maybe even thousands of attorneys across the political spectrum) or is this just how you feel because you don't like who is in the White House right now?
- snark42 3mo ago
  Not anti-trust, but you can apparently bribe the FCC to get a merger through. This just came out today. https://www.propublica.org/article/paramount-mergers-fcc-kennedy-center-gala https://www.propublica.org/article/paramount-mergers-fcc-ken...
- naet 3mo ago
  I was curious so to get a very rough ballpark figure. So I went to the Wikipedia List of largest mergers and acquisitions article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mergers_and_acquisitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mergers_and_ac...) Added up all the free market enterprise section completed deals where the purchaser was indicated as US based Obama era: 2009: 6, 2010: 1, 2011: 4, 2012: 1, 2013: 4, 2014: 5, 2015: 7, 2016: 6 Trump term 1: 2017: 4, 2018: 8, 2019: 13, 2020: 7 Biden term: 2021: 4, 2022: 4, 2023: 7, 2024: 4 Trump term 2 so far: 2025: 11*, 2026: 9* Obama average: 4.25 / year Biden average: 4.75 / year Trump term 1 average: 8 / year *Most of the last two years are indicated as still pending, so not sure if they will go through or not. Not exactly the most scientific data gathering or study. But it does suggest that large mergers and acquisitions have generally been made more frequently under Trump.
  - whoopdedo 3mo ago
    Do you have data from 2000 to 2004? Not only covering an earlier Republican administration it also captures the last tech bubble.
  - pc86 3mo ago
    "More business happens under comparatively pro-business Administration" is certainly a revelation. I don't mean to be snarky but "I counted things on Wikipedia" is not exactly slam dunk proof when the GP was all but saying Trump is selling antitrust immunity on the open market.
esskay 3mo ago
You think they'd only have to go through antitrust in the US? These are global payment processors, and the EU loves getting involved in this kind of thing. And no they can't just ignore it if they want to keep the majority of their customers.
mlrtime 3mo ago
How is Spirit airlines doing with your witty remark?
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo ago
  Maybe their bribe wasn’t big enough?

bluedevil2k 3mo ago

States have the ability to sue to block mergers as well as the federal government. See the recent 11 state lawsuit seeking to block the WarnerMount merger.

xp84 3mo ago
Just a couple of months ago, someone was still suing[1] to block Alaska Air/Hawaiian. This is a merger that already entirely went through. I would predict equal likelihood of some state lawsuit derailing a merger like this. [1] https://viewfromthewing.com/passengers-demand-court-undo-alaskas-hawaiian-airlines-merger-say-deal-hurts-competition-raises-prices/ https://viewfromthewing.com/passengers-demand-court-undo-ala...
- delecti 3mo ago
  There's a pretty clear difference between a lawsuit by 8 individuals, vs one filed by attorneys general representing a combined ~100m people.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - xp84 3mo ago
    Nevertheless, I have very little faith in states somehow blocking big mergers. Can you cite an example where this has happened? We've had basically every airline, several supermarket chains, and every major media company go through 1-2 rounds of megamergers. Which, specifically, have been successfully blocked by states?
    - yerich 3mo ago
      In 2017, Valero tried to acquire some energy infrastructure owned by Plains All American. The FTC cleared it but California's AG filed to block the deal, which was ultimately abandoned before the trial could begin. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/10/future-impacts-of-valeros-decision-to-abandon-mart https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/10/futur...
    - ralph84 3mo ago
      Washington state was key to blocking Kroger-Albertsons.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
- bluedevil2k 3mo ago
  Considering that California is one of the states and it’s Warner Brothers and Paramount, both entertainment companies based in California, the bark has a lot of bite.
Forgeties79 3mo ago
If it isn’t red states the current admin won’t care at all. If it’s mostly or entirely blue states, they’ll just default to siding with the merger out of spite.
lotsofpulp 3mo ago
Which is funny because regardless of whether or not those states succeed in blocking the merger, those legacy video entertainment businesses will become irrelevant whether they are one business or two, due to the fierce competition from TikTok/Instagram/Reddit/Youtube/Whatsapp/computers/anything on the internet in general. It's probably the most inconsequential merger, from a consumer standpoint.
- jkestner 3mo ago
  Anything can be a monopoly or not, depending on how you define the market.
  - lotsofpulp 3mo ago
    But not anything is worth litigating. The kids with a lemonade stand on the corner in my neighborhood have a monopoly on that corner. Video media sellers are dime a dozen these days, and the barrier to entry for selling video media is basically none. Warner brothers and paramount are nowhere near the only business to buy and watch media, and it affects almost no buyers negatively if they merge.
PunchyHamster 3mo ago
Sure they have ability, they are just not doing it often enough

xp84 3mo ago

Quite true. Or honestly, it's really barely about direct financial bribery anymore[1] - all the recent ones have just hinged on incredibly naïve (and easily manipulable) readings of how a merger might affect culture war / red vs blue partisanship. For instance, CNN really doesn't matter, and was a tiny part of WB/Discovery, but of course Trump cares deeply about (hating) CNN, so all that was needed to win over Trump and guarantee his approval was for the acquirer to whisper to him that they'd do a housecleaning there. This lifehack would work for acquiring any company that happens to control any media property that hasn't established itself as a Trump cheerleader. Note: I'm not even a Democrat today, but the pure and petty corruption on display definitely sickens me. [1] though, back when it was, the bribes were astoundingly high ROI due to how cheap they were!

pc86 3mo ago

Do you have any evidence that you can just bribe your way past antitrust regulations (which are enforced by hundreds or maybe even thousands of attorneys across the political spectrum) or is this just how you feel because you don't like who is in the White House right now?

snark42 3mo ago
Not anti-trust, but you can apparently bribe the FCC to get a merger through. This just came out today. https://www.propublica.org/article/paramount-mergers-fcc-kennedy-center-gala https://www.propublica.org/article/paramount-mergers-fcc-ken...
naet 3mo ago
I was curious so to get a very rough ballpark figure. So I went to the Wikipedia List of largest mergers and acquisitions article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mergers_and_acquisitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mergers_and_ac...) Added up all the free market enterprise section completed deals where the purchaser was indicated as US based Obama era: 2009: 6, 2010: 1, 2011: 4, 2012: 1, 2013: 4, 2014: 5, 2015: 7, 2016: 6 Trump term 1: 2017: 4, 2018: 8, 2019: 13, 2020: 7 Biden term: 2021: 4, 2022: 4, 2023: 7, 2024: 4 Trump term 2 so far: 2025: 11*, 2026: 9* Obama average: 4.25 / year Biden average: 4.75 / year Trump term 1 average: 8 / year *Most of the last two years are indicated as still pending, so not sure if they will go through or not. Not exactly the most scientific data gathering or study. But it does suggest that large mergers and acquisitions have generally been made more frequently under Trump.
- whoopdedo 3mo ago
  Do you have data from 2000 to 2004? Not only covering an earlier Republican administration it also captures the last tech bubble.
- pc86 3mo ago
  "More business happens under comparatively pro-business Administration" is certainly a revelation. I don't mean to be snarky but "I counted things on Wikipedia" is not exactly slam dunk proof when the GP was all but saying Trump is selling antitrust immunity on the open market.

esskay 3mo ago

You think they'd only have to go through antitrust in the US? These are global payment processors, and the EU loves getting involved in this kind of thing. And no they can't just ignore it if they want to keep the majority of their customers.

mlrtime 3mo ago

How is Spirit airlines doing with your witty remark?

SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo ago
Maybe their bribe wasn’t big enough?