Microsoft, FTC, Sony Legal Battle Over Activision Blizzard Acquisition: A Complex Saga Continues

Following the New Year's hiatus, the legal tussle between Microsoft, the FTC, and the involvement of Sony in the $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard has reignited, prompting a volley of motions and responses in the administrative court.

Sony swiftly reacted to Microsoft's bid to acquire more documents, petitioning the court to dismiss the motion. Arguing that only the FTC's counsel holds the authority to request document production, Sony contested Microsoft's jurisdiction in serving such requests.

Amidst the legal wrangling, Sony refuted Microsoft's claim that their provided documents were selectively chosen. Sony maintained that they had already furnished all pertinent material, barring privileged information, without sifting through for advantageous or disadvantageous content for Microsoft.

Adding to the complexity, Sony deemed Microsoft's demands excessive and the burden outweighing potential benefits. This comes in contrast to Microsoft's previous stance, suggesting that the agreement "speaks for itself."

The situation becomes increasingly convoluted as the FTC's counsel motions to counter Microsoft's purportedly "invalid" attempt to compel Sony for more documentation. Microsoft retaliated, urging the court to dismiss the FTC's opposition, arguing the FTC lacks the standing to contest subpoenas to Sony. Alternatively, if permitted, Microsoft sought the chance to reply to the FTC's opposition.

Consequently, the court faces multiple conflicting requests: Sony’s plea to dismiss Microsoft’s document demand, the FTC’s bid to oppose said demand, and Microsoft's request to quash the opposition or reply to it—a legal entanglement, to say the least.

Meanwhile, the court issued an order addressing the FTC's counsel's pursuit for additional documents and testimonies from Microsoft and Activision concerning their dealings with Ubisoft. Partially granting the request, the court permitted separate depositions for Activision on several subjects but rejected the inquiry into the extension of the termination date.

The FTC's counsel contended that exploring the extension's details was crucial, linking it to the Ubisoft agreement. However, the court dismissed this argument as an attempt to shoehorn unrelated discovery into the merger agreement.

Furthermore, the court greenlit the FTC's demand for testimonies and/or documents regarding proposed terms not included in the Ubisoft deal and exploring alternative purchasers aside from Ubisoft.

While Microsoft progresses with integrating Activision, Blizzard, and King into its structure, the FTC persists in pursuing the matter in the administrative law court. Despite the acquisition's completion, the regulator's pursuit continues, potentially aiming for divestiture if successful—a contentious battle far from resolution.