FTC resumes case against Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard
Argues it's in the public interest to continue.
The FTC has once again resumed its case against Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, after a pause over the summer.
It means the FTC can still battle the deal even after it closes, reports Bloomberg, though it won't derail its completion by 18th October.
A new order, released yesterday, states the FTC has "determined that the public interest warrants that this matter be resolved fully and expeditiously. Therefore, the Commission is returning this matter to adjudication".
An admin hearing is to be held 21 days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues its opinion regarding the previous appeal. However, as Axios's Stephen Totilo noted on social media, the Court of Appeals isn't hearing arguments until 6th December.
"The FTC continues to believe this deal is a threat to competition and we are placing this matter on the Commission's Part 3 calendar ahead of our ongoing federal court appeal, but our current focus is on the federal appeal process," an FTC spokesperson told Axios.
Activision Blizzard CCO Lulu Cheng Meservey posted on X, formerly Twitter, the company is "focused on working with Microsoft toward closing".
She added: "How the FTC uses limited taxpayer resources is their decision".
FTC head Lina Khan was accused, during the case over the summer, of wasting taxpayer funds, despite claiming the case was in the public interest.
The FTC's attempt to block the deal was denied in mid-July, meaning Microsoft is free to proceed with the takeover in the US.
Then in August, Microsoft agreed to sell the streaming rights for Activision Blizzard games to Ubisoft in order to appease the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which had previously blocked the deal on the basis of competition in cloud gaming.
More recently, a huge leak of internal Microsoft documents occurred earlier this month - documents that were shared as part of the FTC's case against the company. The FTC responded that it was not responsible for the leak.