Washington AG Tells Court DOJ Shouldn't Get Deference on T-Mobile/Sprint
DOJ's defense of T-Mobile's buy of Sprint “unnecessarily and without legal basis seeks to undermine the states’ important and independent role in enforcing antitrust laws,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) wrote Monday in a letter (in Pacer) to Judge…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Victor Marrero at U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ferguson joined state plaintiffs objecting to the DOJ and the FCC urging deference to their conditional OKs (see 2001090023). Ferguson, from T-Mobile’s home state, isn't one of the states suing. “The Statement’s comments on state merger enforcement bears a far closer resemblance to a defense of DOJ’s settlement with the Defendants than sound competition policy,” the AG wrote. “Co-enforcement is woven into the fabric of the nation’s antitrust laws, and diminishing the role of the states in merger enforcement both overlooks the law and is shortsighted.” Ferguson disagreed with Justice that anticompetitive effects in local markets can’t stop a national transaction. “The Washington state AG misreads the Antitrust Division’s Statement of Interest," a DOJ spokesperson emailed Tuesday. "The Antitrust Division expressly noted that states have an independent role in antitrust enforcement. It explained, however, that the court should not issue a nationwide injunction that would undo the substantial pro-consumer benefits of this merger given the remedies secured by the Antitrust Division and the FCC." T-Mobile and Sprint responded (in Pacer) Monday to state objections to the U.S. statement. “Plaintiffs both misstate their legal burden and mischaracterize the nature of the federal review and the importance of a uniform, national antitrust policy,” the carriers said. The deal “will have unambiguous competitive effects,” said economists who asked (in Pacer) to submit an amici brief. “DOJ proposes to permit this merger subject only to a complex and ultimately unworkable set of conditions on the conduct of the merged company and an entirely new outside party,” wrote seven economists including New York University’s Lawrence White and Nicholas Economides and Northeastern University's John Kwoka. “This is not a substitute for the actions necessary to preserve competition in mobile wireless service.” Closing statements at the SDNY trial start Wednesday at 10 a.m. in lower Manhattan.