In the lawsuit, Microsoft was accused of building up a dominant position in the gaming industry with the takeover, which will be reflected in higher prices and less choice for users. The plaintiffs therefore do not want to be discouraged by the current setback, but want to exhaust further options.
Microsoft petitioned California Judge Jacqueline Corley to dismiss the lawsuit, which she granted. She justified this, according to a report in the magazine Ars Technica that the plaintiff gamers had not “plausibly demonstrated” that the merger “created a reasonable probability of anti-competitive effects in a relevant market”.
evidence is lacking
If plaintiffs expect a multi-billion-dollar merger to be halted because consumer prices are said to be rising and choices are being curtailed, they must also be able to convincingly explain exactly how that will happen. For example, it would be necessary to explain what advantages Microsoft would have if certain games, which are now available for different platforms, were only made available exclusively on its own hardware.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs are confident that they can still make progress. Because they get the opportunity to submit their statement of claim again in a more concrete form. “The judge spelled out exactly what she felt was missing,” said Joseph Alioto, the plaintiff’s attorney. “And we’re going to make sure she gets absolutely everything she wants, because that’s what the evidence in the case shows.” They want to approach the court again within a maximum of ten days.
See also:
Games, Activision, Activision Blizzard, Video Games, Computer Games, Publishers, Game Publishers, Games Publishers, Publishers
