Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Microsoft Corp.

微软公司不正当竞争收购动视？联邦贸易委员会提起诉讼

一、案情概述

In December 2022, the FTC initiated an administrative action to block Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision-publisher of the first-person shooter video-game franchise Call of Duty, among other popular video games. The gist of the FTC's complaint is Call of Duty is so popular, and such an important supply for any video game platform, that the combined firm is probably going to foreclose it from its rivals for its own economic benefit to consumers' detriment.

在2022年12月，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）提起行政诉讼，阻止微软公司（Microsoft）收购动视公司（Activision）的计划。动视公司是第一人称射击游戏《使命召唤》（Call of Duty）和其他热门电子游戏的发行商。联邦贸易委员会起诉状的主旨是，《使命召唤》很受欢迎，对任何电子游戏平台来说都非常重要，合并后的公司可能会为了自身经济利益拒绝将其提供给竞争对手，进而损害消费者的利益。

（图片来源于网络）

Four weeks ago, the FTC filed this action to preliminarily enjoin the merger pending completion of the FTC administrative action. Because the merger has a July 18 termination date, expedited proceedings were commenced. After considering the parties' voluminous pre-and-post hearing writing submissions, and having held a five-day evidentiary hearing, the Court DENIES the motion for preliminary injunction. The FTC has not shown it is likely to succeed on its assertion the combined firm will probably pull Call of Duty from Sony PlayStation, or that its ownership of Activision content will substantially lessen competition in the video game library subscription and cloud gaming markets.

四周前，联邦贸易委员会提起动议，要求法院在联邦贸易委员会完成该行政诉讼之前，对该合并实施临时禁令。由于合并定于7月18日前完成，因此法院对该诉讼启动了加速程序。法院在考虑了双方听证会前后提交的大量书面材料意见，并进行了为期五天的证据听证会后，驳回了临时禁令动议。联邦贸易委员会未能证明合并后的公司可能会从索尼游戏平台（Sony PlayStation）中撤下《使命召唤》，也未能证明其对动视内容的所有权将大幅减少视频游戏库订阅和云游戏市场的竞争。

二、主要法律依据

1.    《克莱顿法案》第7条：禁止合并和收购

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions “where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.[1]” 15 U.S.C. § 18. “Because § 7 of the Clayton Act bars mergers whose effect ‘may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly,'[2] 15 U.S.C. § 18, judicial analysis necessarily focuses on ‘probabilities, not certainties. This ‘requires not merely an appraisal of the immediate impact of the merger upon competition, but a prediction of its impact upon competitive conditions in the future; this is what is meant when it is said that the amended § 7 was intended to arrest anticompetitive tendencies in their incipiency.'” Saint Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa Inc. v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd., 778 F.3d at 783[3] (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Thus, “[i]t is well established that a section 7 violation is proven upon a showing of reasonable probability of anticompetitive effect.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1160[4].

《克莱顿法案》第7条规定，禁止“在国家任何地区的任何商业领域或影响商业的任何活动中，可能会在实质上减少竞争或旨在形成垄断”的并购[1]。由于《克莱顿法案》第7条禁止“可能会在实质上减少竞争或旨在形成垄断”的合并[2]，因此法律分析必然侧重于“可能性，而不是确定性”上。这“不仅需要评估合并对竞争的直接影响，还需要预测其对未来竞争状况的影响；这就是修订后的第7条旨在阻止反竞争萌芽的含义。”圣阿尔芬斯医疗中心（Saint Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa Inc.）诉圣路加医疗系统有限责任公司案(St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd.)[3]（美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院，2015年）（省略引文）。因此，“公认的是，只要证明（合并）具有反竞争效果的合理可能性，就能证明（该合并）违反第7条的规定。” 联邦贸易委员会诉华纳兄弟娱乐公司案[4]。

（图片来源于网络）

Section 7 claims challenging horizonal mergers are generally analyzed under a “‘burden-shifting framework.' The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case that a merger is anticompetitive. The burden then shifts to the defendant to rebut the prima facie case.” Saint Alphonsus, 778 F.3d at 783[5] (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not addressed whether this burden shifting framework applies in vertical merger cases such as this. Indeed, “[t]here is a dearth of modern judicial precedent on vertical mergers and a multiplicity of contemporary viewpoints about how they might optimally be adjudicated and enforced. ” United States v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2019)[6]. In AT&T, the only court of appeals decision addressing a vertical merger in decades, the court found the burdenshifting framework applied, but “unlike horizontal mergers, the government cannot use a short cut to establish a presumption of anticompetitive effect through statistics about the change in market concentration, because vertical mergers produce no immediate change in the relevant market share.” Id. at 1032. In vertical merger cases, “the government must make a factspecific showing that the proposed merger is likely to be anticompetitive. Once the prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to present evidence that the prima facie case inaccurately predicts the relevant transaction's probable effect on future competition, or to sufficiently discredit the evidence underlying the prima facie case.” Id. (cleaned up).

根据《克莱顿法案》第7条，对横向合并提出的质疑通常依照“举证责任转移框架”进行分析。原告必须初步证明合并具有反竞争性。然后，反驳初步证明的举证责任就转移到被告身上。” 圣阿尔芬斯医疗中心（Saint Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa Inc.）诉圣路加医疗系统有限责任公司案(St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd.)[5]（美国华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院，2019年）。第九巡回上诉法院尚未讨论这种责任转移框架是否适用于本案这样的纵向合并案件。事实上，“纵向合并的现代司法判例十分匮乏，如何最佳地裁决和执行纵向合并的当代观点也多种多样。” 美国政府诉美国电话电报公司（AT&T, Inc.）的反垄断诉讼（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院，2019年）[6]。美国电话电报公司（AT&T）案是数十年来上诉法院唯一一个纵向合并案件的判决，法院认为应当适用责任转移框架，但“与横向合并不同，政府不能通过有关市场集中度的数据变化，使用捷径来假设反竞争效果，因为纵向合并不会立即改变相关市场份额。”同前注，第1032个脚注。在纵向合并案件中，“政府必须提供具体事实，展示拟实施的合并可能具有反竞争性。一旦初步证明成立，被告有责任提供证据，证明初步证明不准确地预测了相关交易对未来竞争的可能影响，或者充分推翻初步证明所依靠的证据。”同前注（清洁版）。

2.《联邦贸易委员会法案》第13（b）条：临时禁令

Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act provides “upon a proper showing that, weighing the equities and considering the Commission's likelihood of ultimate success, such action would be in the public interest . . . a preliminary injunction[7] may be granted . . . .” 15U.S.C. § 53(b). “In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction under section 13(b), a court must 1) determine the likelihood that the Commission will ultimately succeed on the merits and 2) balance the equities.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1160[8] (citing FTC v. Simeon Management Corp.,[9] 532 F.2d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 1976)).

《联邦贸易委员会法案》第13(b)条规定，“如果有适当证据表明，在权衡各种衡平法因素并考虑委员会最终胜诉的可能性后，此类行动将符合公共利益……则可以准予临时禁令[7]。“在决定是否根据第13(b)条准予临时禁令时，法院必须1）确定委员会最终胜诉的可能性，以及2）权衡各种衡平法因素。”华纳传播股份有限公司，《联邦上诉法院判例汇编》第二辑第742卷第1160页[8]，(引用联邦贸易委员会诉西蒙管理公司（Simeon Management Corp.）案[9](美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院，1976年)。

（图片来源于网络）

To satisfy the first prong, the FTC must “raise questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them fair ground for thorough investigation, study, deliberation and determination by the FTC in the first instance and ultimately by the Court of Appeals.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1162[10] (citations omitted). In evaluating likelihood of success on the merits, the court must exercise its “‘independent judgment' and evaluat[e] the FTC's case and evidence on the merits.” See FTC v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 5:22-CV-04325-EJD, 2022 WL 16637996, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022). Courts require such a rigorous analysis because“the issuance of a preliminary injunction prior to a full trial on the merits is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. This is particularly true in the acquisition and merger context, because, as a result of the short life-span of most tender offers, the issuance of a preliminary injunction blocking an acquisition or merger may prevent the transaction from ever being consummated.” FTC v. Exxon Corp.,[11] 636 F.2d 1336, 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up); see also Warner, 742 F.2d at 1165[12] (9 Cir. 1984)  (ordering expedited proceedings “[b]ecause undue delay could force the parties to abandon the proposed merger.”). However, the Court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence- the question is simply whether the FTC “has met its burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits.” Warner, 742 F.2d at 1164[13].

为满足第一个要求，联邦贸易委员会必须“提出案件相关的严重的、实质性的、困难的和存疑的问题，使联邦贸易委员会在初审中有充分依据进行彻底调查、研究、审议和裁定，并最终由上诉法院裁决。”华纳传播股份有限公司，《联邦上诉法院判例汇编》第二辑第742卷第1162页[10]，（引用省略）。在评估胜诉的可能性时，法院必须行使其‘独立判断’（independent judgement），评估案件以及联邦贸易委员会根据案情提出的证据。”参见联邦贸易委员会起诉Meta公司（Meta Platforns Inc.）案，案卷编号No.5:22-CV-04325-EJD，2022 WL 16637996, 第5处注释(北加州地方法院，2022年11月2日)。法院需要进行如此严格的分析，因为“在对案情进行全面审理之前发布临时禁令是一种特殊而严厉的补救措施，在公司拟实施并购时尤其如此，因为大多数要约收购的有效期较短，发布阻止并购的临时禁令可能会阻止交易的完成。”联邦贸易委员会诉埃克森公司（Exxon Corp.）案[11]，(哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法庭，1980年)（清洁版）；也可参见华纳传播股份有限公司，《联邦上诉法院判例汇编》第二辑第742卷第1165页[12]， (第九巡回法庭，1984年）（该案中法院启动了加速程序，因为诉讼的不当延误可能迫会使双方放弃拟实施的合并。”）。但是，法院并不解决证据中的冲突——问题仅仅在于联邦贸易委员会是否“履行了证明其胜诉可能性的责任”。华纳传播股份有限公司，《联邦上诉法院判例汇编》第二辑第742卷第1164页[13]。

The parties sharply dispute in which forum “the Commission's likelihood of ultimate success[14],” 15U.S.C. § 53(b), should be measured. This question appears not to have been squarely addressed by any court other than in Meta, 2022 WL 16637996, at *4-6[15]. In Meta, the court held “Section 13(b)'s ‘likelihood of ultimate success' inquiry to mean the likelihood of the FTC's success on the merits in the underlying administrative proceedings, as opposed to success following a Commission hearing, the development of an administrative record, and appeal before an unspecified Court of Appeals.” Id. at *6. The Court is persuaded by the Meta court's analysis of this issue and adopts it here-the relevant forum for the question of likelihood of success is before the ALJ in the administrative proceedings.

对于《联邦贸易委员会法案》第13(b)条规定的“委员会最终胜诉的可能性[14]”应在哪个法庭衡量，双方争议激烈。除了联邦贸易委员会诉Meta公司（Meta Platforms Inc.）案，第4至第6个注释[15]，这个问题似乎并没有被任何法庭直接解决，在脸书案中，法院认为“第13(b)条“最终胜诉的可能性”的调查是指在相关行政诉讼中联邦贸易委员会胜诉的可能性，而不是在委员会听证、编制行政记录和上诉之后胜诉的可能性。”同前文，第6个注释。法院采纳了Meta案对这一问题的法律分析——关于胜诉可能性问题的相关讨论，应在行政诉讼中的行政法官（ALJ）之前。

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox. It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements to for the first time bring Activision's content to several cloud gaming services.

微软对动视公司的收购被称为科技史上规模最大的一次收购，值得仔细研究。这种研究已初见成效：微软已书面、公开和在法庭上承诺，会将《使命召唤》在PlayStation平台上保留十年，与Xbox（微软的电子游戏品牌）保持一致。它与任天堂公司（日本电子游戏三巨头之一）达成协议，将《使命召唤》引入Switch。此外，微软还签署了多项协议，首次将动视的内容引入多个云游戏服务中。

（图片来源于网络）

This Court's responsibility in this case is narrow. It is to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted perhaps even terminated-pending resolution of the FTC administrative action. For the reasons explained, the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.

法院在本案中的职责范围有限。法院要决定的是，尽管目前存在这些情况，在联邦贸易委员会的行政诉讼判决之前，是否应当暂停甚至终止合并。基于上述原因，法院认为联邦贸易委员会并未证明如下主张的胜诉可能性：在这一特定行业的纵向合并可能会大幅减少竞争。相反，记录在案的证据表明，消费者可以更容易获得《使命召唤》和其他动视公司的内容。因此，临时禁令动议被驳回。

脚注