Last December, Call of Duty gamers sued Microsoft to block its merger with Activision. One reason, he said, is that the merger would allow him to dominate industry rivals, push up prices and limit consumer choice. Yesterday, California Judge Jacqueline Corey granted Microsoft’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, with gamers “plausible allegations” that the merger “creates a reasonable potential for anti-competitive effects in the relevant markets.” said no.
However, the litigating gamers aren’t going to give up this fight so easily. They are given 20 days to amend their complaint to include more evidence that anti-competitive effects are likely to harm them personally.
The gamer’s attorney, Joseph Alioto, told Ars he believed there was enough evidence to satisfy the judge in this case. Rather than being disappointed by the judge’s dismissal, Alioto told Ars that gamers were happy with Corley’s order.
“I think the order is great because it really says exactly what the judge wants,” Alioto told Ars. “We have sufficient evidence to deal with her directly and intend to file an amended complaint as soon as possible.
At her behest, Corey warned gamers that the merger could potentially eliminate access to games, harm certain gaming industry markets, and, perhaps most importantly, gamers like them. Her order is peppered with specific questions that gamers were given a chance to answer. Also, “With regard to the console market or the PC gaming market and Microsoft’s position in those markets, what makes you think it is reasonable for Microsoft to take such action?”
In another example, Cory’s order tells gamers:
Because the original complaint lacked evidence to support most of plaintiffs’ claims, Corley granted Microsoft’s motion to dismiss. When Ars reached out to his Microsoft for comment, a spokesperson told Ars that the motion said the gamer’s claims were “immature” and “unsubstantiated.”
As Corley elaborated, Alioto told Ars that the gamers filing the lawsuit still hope they can block the merger.
“The judge said exactly what he thought she was missing,” said Alioto. We will do so, because that is what the evidence in this case shows.This is a tremendous attempt by Microsoft to continue its efforts to eliminate competition.”
Earlier, Microsoft tried to stay the gamer’s lawsuit pending the outcome of a Federal Trade Commission investigation into the merger, Reuters reported. But the court dismissed that claim, and Alioto told his Ars that the gamer lawsuit became “obviously very important” because the FTC has yet to file a federal lawsuit. He said this means the FTC can’t get an injunction to stop the merger, as it would if Gamer won the lawsuit.
“So we are the only ones they have to get over,” said Alioth. “We are the only ones who really show whether the competition will prevail in this particular case.”
Gamers have until early April to file the missing evidence in the complaint, proving that the merger could give Microsoft ultimate control over game pricing, game production, and game innovation. is needed. The gamers filing the lawsuit strongly feel that the facts support their claims that the merger would harm them personally, and they are the only ones who can act swiftly to stop the merger.
“This is a very serious effort [Microsoft] To eliminate competition entirely,” Alioto told Ars. “And we intend to stop it, and we believe in it.”
